Description: Safety News - 02/25/2000 - AAR Waiver Petition

FRARWS
Docket Clerk
DOT Central Docket Management System
U.S. Dept. Of Transportation, Room PL-401
400 Seventh Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C., 20590-0001

Re: Waiver Petition Docket Number FRA-1999-5104

Dear Sir or Madam:

The Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes (BMWE) submits the following comments regarding the Association of American Railroads' petition for a waiver of compliance from 49 CFR §213.137(d) in the above-reference docket. Specifically, AAR requests a waiver from the requirements of §213.137(d) "to allow revenue service use of flange-bearing frogs (FBFs) at track class 2 through 5 speeds in crossing diamonds.

AAR proposes that "up to five FBF crossing diamond installations be permitted during the first six-month period, with one installation subject to wheel inspection." AAR further proposes "that the first FBF crossing diamond for use above class 1 speeds be installed by the industry, after FRA's approval of the waiver petition, in a location where speeds of 40 mph or greater are allowed in at least one direction over the diamond."

AAR's petition states that "extensive full-scale testing of the FBF concept has been performed by them at speeds up to 80 mph to prove the safety of the FBF concept." Based upon those tests, AAR has concluded that "crossing diamonds using FBFs have been shown to be suitable for revenue service."

BMWE recognizes the amount of research and testing AAR has conducted on FBF crossing diamonds both in the laboratory and in test beds of the Facility for Accelerated Service Testing (FAST) and the Transportation Technology Center (TTC). However, it remains uncertain whether the results derived through testing and research conducted under closely controlled conditions at FAST and TTC will be duplicated in "revenue service" under uncontrolled and variable field conditions. While we are impressed with AAR's research and testing, we remain unconvinced that the test results alone provide sufficient and conclusive evidence that FBF diamond crossings improve safety and are suitable for high-speed revenue service. BMWE remains confident that FRA will first conduct a thorough analysis of testing methodologies and data developed by AAR to determine whether a limited test waiver for FBFs in "revenue service" is warranted.

We believe it is both premature and presumptuous for AAR to submit a waiver request which would automatically allow installation of additional FBF crossing diamonds, beyond the first five in revenue service testing, prior to the FBF concept being proven safe and reliable in revenue service under variable field conditions over a sufficient period of time. FRA should therefore reject AAR's request that "six months after the first FBF crossing diamond enters service, additional FBF diamonds beyond the first five could be installed." We believe that, if conditionally approved, the waiver should prohibit additional installations beyond the first five until all revenue service testing is completed and evaluated by FRA. Such a limitation would allow FRA to determine whether the results and conclusions reached by AAR in a controlled testing environment are actually replicated under "revenue service" conditions.

If FRA concludes that AAR's testing results provide sufficient grounds to warrant field testing in revenue service, we believe the following should be considered and incorporated into any conditional approval of FBF revenue service field testing:

• Each of the five FBF crossing diamond installations, if approved, shall be subject to two years of field testing in revenue service.
• The first FBF installation, if approved, shall be installed in Track Class 3 territory, subject to Class 3 speeds, and closely scrutinized for a minimum of six months. If, after 6 months, FRA is satisfied with the performance of the first FBF in Class 3 revenue service, the second through fifth FBF may be installed during the following six months. The railroad shall be required to notify FRA at least thirty days in advance of each installation. The notification shall include location, train MGT, Track Class, speed and train types (intermodal, mixed freight, unit coal, passenger, etc.) for each of the crossing tracks, as well as plans and specifications for the crossing diamond itself.
• All five proposed installations, if approved, shall be located in areas where "unit trains" cycle on a regular recurrent route over the FBF. The purpose of this requirement would be to facilitate the collection of wheel inspection data for a period of two years. Wheel inspection reports shall be submitted to FRA every 3 months for a period of two years.
• All derailments, including single wheel derailments, which occur within 500 feet of the FBF shall be reported to FRA regardless of monetary damage estimates and reportability thresholds stipulated under Part 225.
• Each of the five proposed FBF installations, if approved, shall be subject to daily inspection on foot for the first 6 months by an individual fully qualified under 213.7 and weekly thereafter for the remainder of the two year test period. Each inspection shall be recorded on the day of the inspection and submitted to FRA monthly during the two year test period.
• All personnel responsible for inspecting and repairing FBFs shall be properly trained. All maintenance and repair work performed on FBFs shall be documented in detail and provided to FRA on a monthly basis.
• Each of the five installations, if approved, shall be installed in areas subject to similar million gross ton (MGT) service (to the extent practicable) subject to the following:
• One installation in Class 2 track, subject to Class 2 speed.
• One installation in Class 3 track (first installation), subject to Class 3 speed.
• One installation in Class 4 track, subject to Class 4 speed.
• One installation in Class 5 track, subject to Class 5 speed.
• One installation in any Class 1-5 track, subject to assigned Class speed.

FRA must also reserve its right to suspend or place limiting conditions on FBFs in service during the two year test period, if warranted. Further installations beyond the 5 test installations should be prohibited until the two year "revenue service" tests are completed and the safety and suitability of FBFs in revenue service above Class 1 speeds is confirmed by FRA analysis. FRA should not grant AAR's request for a blanket waiver of 213.137(d) unless and until warranted by analysis of the full two year revenue testing period in various Track Classes, subject to any limitations deemed appropriate by FRA. Furthermore, FRA should clearly affirm that any conditional approval of the waiver request, if granted, would be applicable to FBF crossing diamonds only and not applicable to switch frogs.

While it is not BMWE's intent to delay the introduction of technological innovations in track engineering, we believe that the safety and suitability of technological innovation must be confirmed under a wide variety of operational variables prior to full scale implementation. Although FBFs may hold some promise for the industry, BMWE cautions that the evidence is not conclusive and that the safety of FBFs in revenue service must be confirmed prior to full scale implementation through tightly controlled and monitored installations conducted under a full range of operational and environmental conditions. We believe that the foregoing recommendations constitute a reasonable approach to facilitating the incremental introduction of FBF crossing diamond technology in revenue service while simultaneously providing FRA and the industry with a reasonable window for conducting a thorough analysis of FBF performance in revenue service under variable field conditions.

Respectfully,
President