China
Africa
Explore chapters and articles related to this topic
Compulsion for Cyber Intelligence for Rail Analytics in IoRNT
Published in Vijayalakshmi Saravanan, Alagan Anpalagan, T. Poongodi, Firoz Khan, Securing IoT and Big Data, 2020
Nalli Vinaya Kumari, G.S. Pradeep Ghantasala, M. Arvindhan
India’s Indian Railways (IR) is the Indian Ministry of Railways’ primary railway system. As of March 2017, the company operates the fourth leading railway network in the domain with a road length of 67,368 km. Roughly 50% of roads were operated by electrical 25 kW 50 Hz AC and 33% by double or multitasking [6, 14]. In March 2018, the number of passengers carried by IR was given as 8.26 billion, while freight volume was 1.16 billion tons. IR runs 20,000 commuter trains a day, both on long-distance and regional lines, through 7,349 stations in India [14]. The bulk of the luxury passenger trains, such as Rajdhani, operate Shatabdi Exp at a peak speed of between 140–150 km/h (87–93 mph) and Gatiman Express between New Delhi and Jhansi at a maximum top speed of 160 km/h (99 mph). The average rate is 50.6 km/h (31.4 mph). Express trains are the most frequent. The average freight train speed is around 25 km/h (15.5 mph) [4]. Based on axle load and specific container speed at a top speed of 100 km/h (62 mph), a typical freight train’s speed is between 60 and 75 km/h (37.2 and 46.6 mph). In March 2017, the IR’s rolling stock consisted of 277,987 vehicles, 70,937 kerbside trains, and 11,452 steam engine [14]. In several Indian locations, IR operates locomotive and coach services. In March 2016, it had 1.30 million workers and was the eighth largest employer in the world [3].
Freight train-track-bridge interaction: Derailment impacts and safety limits for track defects
Published in Maksym Spiryagin, Timothy Gordon, Colin Cole, Tim McSweeney, The Dynamics of Vehicles on Roads and Tracks, 2018
L. Ling, M. Dhanasekar, D.P. Thambiratnam, Q. Guan
This paper reported an investigation of the train-track-bridge interaction with a freight train under the conditions of normal travel and derailed state due to track defects using a combined FE-MBS model. The numerical results show that freight train derailments caused by severe track defects can result in serious damage to bridges and affect their structural safety, especially for old rail bridges. The dynamic response of the safety indices of freight trains passing over track defects on bridge is much different from that of trains running on embankment. To reduce the derailment potential of trains travelling on bridges, the current standards for track geometry defect maintenance should be improved to consider the vibration characteristics of bridges.
Railway Security Policy and Administration in the United States: Reacting to the Terrorist Threat after September 11, 2001
Published in Qamar Mahboob, Enrico Zio, Handbook of RAMS in Railway Systems, 2018
Jeremy F. Plant, Gary A. Gordon, Richard R. Young
While many of these vulnerabilities are shared with freight railroads, there are additional vulnerabilities of freight operations. Freight trains can be extremely vulnerable to tampering at intermodal nodes, on unattended sidings and yards, and while traversing remote and largely unmonitored locations, particularly at slower speeds and at traffic control points known as “interlockings.” Terrorists may see freight trains as an ideal means of transporting WMDs or becoming a WMD itself, either in intermodal shipments where a dirty bomb or biological weapon is already in place or by affixing an explosive device at a convenient location. Freight trains also carry the bulk of hazardous materials in the United States, often passing through urban settings, making them vulnerable to attack by derailment or by an explosion releasing toxic materials. Several non-terrorist-induced accidents have shown the catastrophic effects of such accidents. Even in situations where toxic materials are not released, derailments may cause extensive damage to surrounding infrastructure through fire or collision with adjacent buildings as was the case in 2013 at Lac Megantic, Quebec, when a unit train of Bakken crude oil slipped its brakes and rolled into a small wayside village killing 47 persons and injuring scores more. A major portion of the town was destroyed by the ensuing fire; however, much of the remaining structures had to be demolished due to contamination (Canadian Transport Safety Board 2014). As catastrophic as the event was, the new regulations that were imposed in its aftermath (e.g., hazmat train routing regulations and new tank car standards for those carrying flammable materials) easily run into the hundreds of millions of US dollars.
Environmental impact and costs of externalities of using urban consolidation centres: a 24-hour observation study with modelling in four scenarios
Published in International Journal of Logistics Research and Applications, 2022
Konstantina Katsela, Henrik Pålsson, Johan Ivernå
There is also a series of policies that need to be implemented together with the consolidation. For instance, restricting freight deliveries and vehicles movements to off-peak hours to minimise congestion and maximise use of existing infrastructure which is also connected to the vehicle weight or size restrictions and with some financial assistance, fees and taxes, such as congestion charge, license to drive and use specific areas. Also, the use of modern, longer vehicless, particularly in highly dense urban areas or older industrial areas with inadequate intersection width can result in turning movement conflicts between vehicles and other roadway users that can increase congestion, have safety impacts, and damage curbs, sidewalks, traffic signals, and signs. Within urban areas, the length and frequency of freight trains have resulted in growing congestion, noise, air quality, and safety impacts. Local and governmental authorities have formulated many policies in an effort to elliminate the impact of urban freight transport in the urban area and city centre of the city Malmö. Subsequently, policies and solutions have been attempted to decrease the negative effect of transport and are focusing mostly on improving fuel efficiency and use of information technologies or consolidation centres.
Full-scale derailment tests on freight wagons
Published in Vehicle System Dynamics, 2021
G. Diana, E. Sabbioni, C. Somaschini, D. Tarsitano, P. Cavicchi, M. Di Mario, L. Labbadia
Derailment of freight trains may cause serious damages to the railway infrastructure, the rolling stock and the environment, which yield to economic losses, service disruptions, casualties and other undesirable consequences. Therefore, improving running safety of freight trains it has been, and still is, a high priority for railway industries and governments. Being most of derailments due to infrastructure or rolling stock failures [1–4], accurate maintenance standards were defined to reduce the derailment risk. Moreover, a wide range of systems, to detect derailment and/or mitigate the outcome of a derailment, were investigated [5–8], both wayside (hot axle/bearing detectors [9–11], acoustic bearing/wheel defect detectors [12,13], and wheel impact load detectors [6,12]) and on-board vehicle (based on acoustic emissions [14] or, more often, on acceleration measurements [15,16]).
Evolution of load conditions in the Norwegian railway network and imprecision of historic railway load data
Published in Structure and Infrastructure Engineering, 2019
Gunnstein T. Frøseth, Anders Rönnquist
For freight trains, the maximum train length has been approximately 50 wagons, as determined by the passing loop length of the track and the coupling capacity between the wagons in the train. Technically, neither factor can be considered to impose a strict or hard limit on the train length. For instance, the issue of coupling capacity between wagons can be mitigated by introducing an assistance locomotive at the middle or end of the train at the steepest ascents (Norges Statsbaner, 1950–1996). Similarly, the passing loop length only restricts the shorter passing train, i.e. the shorter train is diverted to the passing loop and waits until the longer train passes (Heie, 1941). Practically, however, it is preferable to avoid the use of assistance locomotives due to the added cost of an extra locomotive and driver; additionally, factors other than train length have to be considered when scheduling the use of passing loops, e.g. express passenger trains having a higher priority than freight trains such that the freight train must be diverted to the passing loop.