DOCSLIB.ORG

Assessment of Rail Flaw Inspection Data (MPC-99-106)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Assessment of Rail Flaw Inspection Data (MPC-99-106) Assessment of Rail Flaw Inspection Data Brandon D. Jeffrey M. L. Peterson Department of Civil Engineering Colorado State University Fort Collins, Colorado August 1999 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS It is an honor to thank the following individuals for their support, help, and guidance. A first thanks is given to Alex Trindade, Ph.D. candidate at Colorado State University in statistics, for his expertise in statistical analysis. Also, in the statistics department at Colorado State University, a Master’s candidate Jill Smith, proved to be a tremendous help. Special thanks is given to Dr. Michael Peterson, professor of mechanical engineering at Colorado State University, for his guidance throughout this project. Finally, for the real world experience, Greg Garcia of the Transportation Technology Center Inc., for his time and efforts in providing a unique educational experience that will carry forward to a career. DISCLAIMER The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors, who are responsible for the facts and the accuracy of the information presented. This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the Department of Transportation, University Transportation Centers Program, in the interest of information exchange. The U.S. Government assumes no liability for the contents or us thereof. ABSTRACT This project is an analysis of the rail flaw data for the Transportation Technology Center Inc. (TTCI). Six major railroads provided TTCI with defective rail, that had been removed from service. The rail, which contained a variety of defects, was placed into a gauntlet track at the Transportation Technology Center (TTC). The gauntlet track is known as the Railflaw Detection Test Facility (RDTF) and is a railroad industry tool, in cooperation with the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), to evaluate rail flaw detection technology. TTCI inspected the rail, catalogued the defects, and installed the rail in the RDTF. There are 49 defects for each inspection vehicle evaluation. To date, there have been six evaluations performed at the RDTF. This paper is the assessment of those six evaluations. TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Introduction 1 2. Current and Past Technologies 2 History 2 Ultrasonic Technology 4 Research Overview 8 3. Gauntlet Test Course 10 Gauntlet Description 10 Rail Defect Documentation 12 Types of Rail Defects 14 Railflaw Evaluations on the RDTF 17 Gauntlet Defect Study 19 4. Analysis of Results 20 Results 20 Detection Ratios 21 CHI-SQUARE Test Statistic 21 Logistic Regression Test 22 Probability of Detection Plots 24 5. Conclusions 27 References 29 LIST OF TABLES Table 2.1: Rail Derailments 1992-1995 3 Table 2.2: Ultrasonic Wave Angles 6 Table 3.1: Gauntlet Course Defect List 12 Table 3.2: Railflaw Evaluation Results 18 Table 3.3: Frequently Missed Defects during Benchmarking Evaluations at TTC 19 Table 4.1: Detection Ratios for RDTF Evaluations 21 Table 4.2: Hosmer and Lemeshow Good of Fit Table for Overall Evaluations 23 Table 4.3: Odds Ratios and 95 Percent Confidence Interval for Overall Evaluations 23 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 2.1: Road / Rail Ultrasonic Car 4 Figure 2.2: Railbound Induction / Ultrasonic Car 5 Figure 2.3: Ultrasonic Probe Wheel Transducer Arrangements 7 Figure 2.4: Typical Rail Defects 9 Figure 3.1: Railflaw Detection Test Facility (RDTF) 10 Figure 3.2: Industry Donated Rail 13 Figure 3.3: Ultrasonic Testing of Rail Samples 13 Figure 3.4: Radiography of Donated Rail Samples 14 Figure 3.5: Detail Fracture (DF) 15 Figure 3.6: Transverse Defect (TD) 16 Figure 3.7: Vertical Split Head (VSH) 16 Figure 3.8: Horizontal Split Head (HSP) 17 Figure 3.9: Detail Fracture under Shelling 17 LIST OF GRAPHS Graph 3.1: Service Failures From 1986-1988 15 Graph 2: Evaluation 1 24 Graph 3: Evaluation 2 24 Graph 4: Evaluation 3 25 Graph 5: Evaluation 4 25 Graph 6: Evaluation 5 25 Graph 7: Evaluation 6 26 Graph 8: Overall Evaluation 26 Graph 5.1: Inspection Reliability and Probability of Detection Comparison 27 1. INTRODUCTION The detection of defects in steel rail is perhaps the first widespread application of non-destructive testing. Failure to detect defects is significant for the development of non-destructive testing and, more importantly, the safety of the railroads. However, in the decades that have passed since the initial development of the rail defect detecting technology, the basic inspection processes have not changed. Significant developments have been made in signal processing and automated rail flaw evaluation. This project is a small part of an assessment of the rail inspection industry and the many factors that contribute to the ability to detect defects in steel rail. The Transportation Technology Center Inc. (TTCI), a wholly owned subsidiary of the Association of American Railroads (AAR), and the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) have cooperated to explore current technologies for rail inspection with an emphasis on reducing risk, while maintaining cost control on the maintenance of the railroads. TTCI is partially funded by the six major railroads whose rail lines represent a significant portion of the track mileage and the total tonnage, which is transported by rail. The primary technical efforts will focus on detection of typical defects that occur in rails. As an experimental base, examples of true defects actually have been removed from revenue service lines and placed in track section in a test loop. The test loop is located on the 52-square-mile test center at the Transportation Technology Center (TTC), east of Pueblo, Colo. The defects are hosted in conventional curved and tangent track segments. In addition, fabricated defects were placed in the track sections for determining the limitations to the testing technologies. Support for this research paper has been provided in part by the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) via the Mountain Plains Consortium, which is sponsored through the University Transportation Centers Program. The efforts of Colorado State University (CSU) have concentrated on providing an assessment of evaluations of the rail inspection vehicles. Through the spring of 1998, TTCI has tested six rail inspection vehicles to provide detection results for the 49 catalogued defects on the gauntlet course. The results presented in this paper consist only of results from the first six trials , the 1 statistics are expected to change as additional cars are tested. This paper provides an overview of the ultrasonic inspection technology, the gauntlet course, plus its defects, and the statistical results from six evaluations of the rail inspection vehicles. 2. CURRENT AND PAST TECHNOLOGIES History Non-destructive testing had its beginning in rail application in 1923 when Dr. Elmer Sperry noticed an increase in the number of disastrous train derailments. Sperry developed the first rail inspection car (Car SRS #101) to detect transverse fissures in railroad rails. By November 1928, Sperry had an inspection car testing rail on the Wabash Railway in Montpelier, Ohio, and Clarke Junction, Ind., for its first commercial use. Car SRS 102 detected a large transverse fissure in the head of a rail. Much to the annoyance of the railroad, the rail was taken out of service and the following day was tested by Sperry’s chief research engineer. The rail was tested and broken where the transverse fissure was found. After the convincing test of the SRS 102, Sperry expanded his services and increased his fleet to 10 cars by the end of 1930 (Clarke, 1997). The first inspection car employed an induction method. A heavy current was induced through the rail to be tested. Search coils were moved through the resulting magnetic field to find perturbations in this field caused by defects. By 1959, Sperry developed the first ultrasonic test car for the New York City Transit Authority (NYCTA). Today, Sperry has a fleet of more than 40 test cars, both, magnetic induction cars and ultrasonic detection cars that employ both methods. By the 1950’s track conditions significantly improved when continuous welds of each rail replaced joint bars. This resulted in a shift of defect types found in the rails, away from joint defects. Over the next 10 to 20 years the average age of the rail naturally increased as did the average load of the rail cars. Then, in the 1980’s, with increased use of inspection cars throughout North America the general trend in detection was lower defect rates (Davis, 1997). 2 Today, interest in repair and maintenance, and the characteristics of the railroad industry have changed. There is great pressure on operations to gain efficiencies for greater financial returns with increased traffic. This pressure has resulted in heavier axle loads and higher train speeds. Due to higher train speeds, shorter work windows exist for the conducting of ultrasonic inspection. Fifteen to 20 years ago, a typical rail life was 800 million gross tons. Today, 1.5 billion gross tons is not unusual for a 136-lb. rail (136-lb. is the force at which the rail undergoes yield deformation and is the standard rail rating). Federal regulations require immediate remediation of detected defects, regardless of the type size or the amount of traffic the rail has seen. It has been the industry standard to replace rail when six to eight defects are detected per mile per year. In the past, it was four defects per mile per year (Franke, 1997). A fleet of 30 detector cars can cover about 110,000 miles per year. On the average, every mile of track is inspected by a rail detector car at least three times a year. Table 2.1 is a list of
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 2.2 Pointwork Configurations in the Following Paragraphs Some of the More Maintenance Is Straightforward
    Part 2 Section 2 POINTWORK Issued February 2001 2.2 Pointwork configurations In the following paragraphs some of the more maintenance is straightforward. However, in a common pointwork configurations are shown restricted space it may be necessary to together with the accepted terminology used to superimpose one turnout upon another, which describe them. When planning track layouts the introduces additional crossings and timbering and preference is to use a combination of single may, in bullhead track, involve the use of special turnouts as these require the minimum of special chairs. chairs and timbers to construct them and 2.2.1 Single turnouts These follow the pattern described in 2.1 and are illustrated in Figure 2-9. RH Turnout LH Turnout RH Crossover LH Crossover Split or Equilateral Turnout Figure 2-9 Single turnouts 2.2.2 Tandem or double turnout This uses one set of switches immediately after form part of a continuous curve but this would another and before the crossing, which introduces require movements to be carried out at low speed. a third crossing and crowded timbering. Where (Figure 2-10 and Photo 2.2) space is particularly crowded the crossing may Figure 2-10 Tandem turnout 2-2-9 2.2.3 Three-throw turnout Photo 2.2 A double tandem turnout leading off from a double There is a nomenclature problem here slip at Stowmarket Goods Yard. as the 3-throw yields the same outcome (NRM Windwood Collection GE1005) as the double turnout. It uses a left hand and a right hand set of switches that are superimposed to divide three ways together in symmetrical form.
    [Show full text]
  • Metro Rail Design Criteria Section 10 Operations
    METRO RAIL DESIGN CRITERIA SECTION 10 OPERATIONS METRO RAIL DESIGN CRITERIA SECTION 10 / OPERATIONS TABLE OF CONTENTS 10.1 INTRODUCTION 1 10.2 DEFINITIONS 1 10.3 OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE PLAN 5 Metro Baseline 10- i Re-baseline: 06/15/10 METRO RAIL DESIGN CRITERIA SECTION 10 / OPERATIONS OPERATIONS 10.1 INTRODUCTION Transit Operations include such activities as scheduling, crew rostering, running and supervision of revenue trains and vehicles, fare collection, system security and system maintenance. This section describes the basic system wide operating and maintenance philosophies and methodologies set forth for the Metro Rail Projects, which shall be used by designer in preparation of an Operations and Maintenance Plan. An initial Operations and Maintenance Plan (OMP) is developed during the environmental phase and is based on ridership forecasts produced during this early planning phase of a project. From this initial Operations and Maintenance plan, headways are established that are to be evaluated by a rail operations simulation upon which design and operating headways can be established to confirm operational goals for light and heavy rail systems. The Operations and Maintenance Plan shall be developed in order to design effective, efficient and responsive transit system. The operations criteria and requirements established herein represent Metro’s Rail Operating Requirements / Criteria applicable to all rail projects and form the basis for the project-specific operational design decisions. They shall be utilized by designer during preparation of Operations and Maintenance Plan. Any proposed deviation to Design Criteria cited herein shall be approved by Metro, as represented by the Change Control Board, consisting of management responsible for project construction, engineering and management, as well as daily rail operations, planning, systems and vehicle maintenance with appropriate technical expertise and understanding.
    [Show full text]
  • Derailment and Collision Between Coal Trains Ravenan (25Km from Muswellbrook), New South Wales, on 26 September 2018
    Derailment and collision between coal trains Ravenan (25km from Muswellbrook), New South Wales, on 26 September 2018 ATSB Transport Safety Report Rail Occurrence Investigation (Defined) RO-2018-017 Final – 18 December 2020 Cover photo: Source ARTC This investigation was conducted under the Transport Safety Investigation Act 2003 (Commonwealth) by the Office of Transport Safety Investigations (NSW) on behalf of the Australian Transport Safety Bureau in accordance with the Collaboration Agreement Released in accordance with section 26 of the Transport Safety Investigation Act 2003 Publishing information Published by: Australian Transport Safety Bureau Postal address: PO Box 967, Civic Square ACT 2608 Office: 62 Northbourne Avenue Canberra, ACT 2601 Telephone: 1800 020 616, from overseas +61 2 6257 2463 Accident and incident notification: 1800 011 034 (24 hours) Email: [email protected] Website: www.atsb.gov.au © Commonwealth of Australia 2020 Ownership of intellectual property rights in this publication Unless otherwise noted, copyright (and any other intellectual property rights, if any) in this publication is owned by the Commonwealth of Australia. Creative Commons licence With the exception of the Coat of Arms, ATSB logo, and photos and graphics in which a third party holds copyright, this publication is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Australia licence. Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Australia Licence is a standard form licence agreement that allows you to copy, distribute, transmit and adapt this publication provided that you attribute the work. The ATSB’s preference is that you attribute this publication (and any material sourced from it) using the following wording: Source: Australian Transport Safety Bureau Copyright in material obtained from other agencies, private individuals or organisations, belongs to those agencies, individuals or organisations.
    [Show full text]
  • Muswellbrook to Ulan Balloon Loop
    Division / Business Unit: Enterprise Services Function: Operations Interface Document Type: Route Access Standard Route Access Standard HHN Section Pages H4 - Muswellbrook to Ulan Balloon Loop Applicability ARTC Network Wide SMS Publication Requirement External Only Primary Source Document Status Version # Date Reviewed Prepared by Reviewed by Endorsed Approved 1.7 Nov 2017 Manager Stakeholders Manager GM Technical Standards Procedures Standards Development Amendment Record Amendments to the RAS are published at the following link https://www.artc.com.au/uploads/RAS_Amendments_Register.xlsx © Australian Rail Track Corporation Limited (ARTC) Disclaimer This document has been prepared by ARTC for internal use and may not be relied on by any other party without ARTC’s prior written consent. Use of this document shall be subject to the terms of the relevant contract with ARTC. ARTC and its employees shall have no liability to unauthorised users of the information for any loss, damage, cost or expense incurred or arising by reason of an unauthorised user using or relying upon the information in this document, whether caused by error, negligence, omission or misrepresentation in this document. This document is uncontrolled when printed. Authorised users of this document should visit ARTC’s intranet or extranet (www.artc.com.au) to access the latest version of this document. CONFIDENTIAL Page 1 of 10 Route Access Standard HHN Section Pages H4 - Muswellbrook to Ulan Balloon Loop Muswellbrook to Ulan Balloon Loop 1 Muswellbrook to Ulan Balloon Loop NB: These line maps are indicative only and should be reviewed in conjunction with the legend on page 3. For more detailed map information refer to the ARTC website.
    [Show full text]
  • Status of TTC 2015 06 Final.Pdf
    Status of the Transportation U.S. Department of Transportation Technology Center - 2015 Federal Railroad Administration Office of Research, Development, and Technology Washington, DC 20590 DOT/FRA/ORD-16/05 Final Report March 2016 NOTICE This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the Department of Transportation in the interest of information exchange. The United States Government assumes no liability for its contents or use thereof. Any opinions, findings and conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this material do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the United States Government, nor does mention of trade names, commercial products, or organizations imply endorsement by the United States Government. The United States Government assumes no liability for the content or use of the material contained in this document. NOTICE The United States Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers’ names appear herein solely because they are considered essential to the objective of this report. REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Approved OMB No. 0704-0188 Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302, and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (0704-0188), Washington, DC 20503.
    [Show full text]
  • Northeast Corridor Chase, Maryland January 4, 1987
    PB88-916301 NATIONAL TRANSPORT SAFETY BOARD WASHINGTON, D.C. 20594 RAILROAD ACCIDENT REPORT REAR-END COLLISION OF AMTRAK PASSENGER TRAIN 94, THE COLONIAL AND CONSOLIDATED RAIL CORPORATION FREIGHT TRAIN ENS-121, ON THE NORTHEAST CORRIDOR CHASE, MARYLAND JANUARY 4, 1987 NTSB/RAR-88/01 UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT TECHNICAL REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE 1. Report No. 2.Government Accession No. 3.Recipient's Catalog No. NTSB/RAR-88/01 . PB88-916301 Title and Subtitle Railroad Accident Report^ 5-Report Date Rear-end Collision of'*Amtrak Passenger Train 949 the January 25, 1988 Colonial and Consolidated Rail Corporation Freight -Performing Organization Train ENS-121, on the Northeast Corridor, Code Chase, Maryland, January 4, 1987 -Performing Organization 7. "Author(s) ~~ Report No. Performing Organization Name and Address 10.Work Unit No. National Transportation Safety Board Bureau of Accident Investigation .Contract or Grant No. Washington, D.C. 20594 k3-Type of Report and Period Covered 12.Sponsoring Agency Name and Address Iroad Accident Report lanuary 4, 1987 NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD Washington, D. C. 20594 1*+.Sponsoring Agency Code 15-Supplementary Notes 16 Abstract About 1:16 p.m., eastern standard time, on January 4, 1987, northbound Conrail train ENS -121 departed Bay View yard at Baltimore, Mary1 and, on track 1. The train consisted of three diesel-electric freight locomotive units, all under power and manned by an engineer and a brakeman. Almost simultaneously, northbound Amtrak train 94 departed Pennsylvania Station in Baltimore. Train 94 consisted of two electric locomotive units, nine coaches, and three food service cars. In addition to an engineer, conductor, and three assistant conductors, there were seven Amtrak service employees and about 660 passengers on the train.
    [Show full text]
  • Electric Railway Engineering
    UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS LIBRARY Volume Class Book i^LL fTir^fa '"-^alljf' Return this book on or before the Latest Date stamped below. A charge is made on all overdue ^°°^^S- U. of I. Library ^tMK xb iS'- ^^^, i€ i^l; .^!^ 1762S-S ELECTRK^ RAILA\ AY ENGINEERING ELECTEIC KAILWAY ENGINEERING BY C. FRANCIS HARDING, E. E. professor, electrical engineering; director, electrical laboratories, purdue universitt; associate American institute electrical engineers; asso- ciate AMERICAN electric RAILWAY ASSOCIATION ; MEMBER SOCIETY FOR promotion OF ENGINEERING EDUCATION McGRAW-HILL BOOK COMPANY 239 WEST 39TH STREET. NEW YORK 6 BOUVERIE STREET, LONDON, E. C. 1911 Copyright, 1911 BY McGraw-Hill Book Company Prhited and Eleclrolyped by The Maple Press York. Fa. PREFACE. To students in technical universities who wish to specialize in the subject of electrical railway engineering and to those who understand the fundamental principles of electrical engineering and are interested in their application to electric railway practice it is hoped that this book may be of value. While it is planned primarily for a senior elective course in a technical university, it does not involve higher mathematics and should therefore be easily understood by the undergraduate reader. The volume does not purport to present any great amount of new material nor principles, but it does gather in convenient form present day theory and practice in all important branches of electric railway engineering. No apology is deemed necessary for the frequent quotations from technical papers and publications in engineering periodicals, for it is only from the authorities and specialists in particular phases of the profession that the most valuable information can be obtained, and it is believed that a thorough and unprejudiced summary of the best that has been written upon the various aspects of the subject will be most welcome when thus combined into a single volume.
    [Show full text]
  • Overview of Wheel/Rail Load Environment Caused by Freight Car Suspension Dynamics
    34 TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH RECORD 1241 Overview of Wheel/Rail Load Environment Caused by Freight Car Suspension Dynamics SEMIH KALAY AND ALBERT REINSCHMIDT It has been a well-established fact that excessive wheel/rail loads dynamic load factors that represent only the effects of max­ cause accelerated wheel/rail wear, truck component deterioration, imum dynamic load conditions (7). The most serious problem track damage, and increased potential for derailment. The eco­ with these types of assumptions is that they neither make any nomic and safety impact of the increased wheel rail loads can only distinction for the effects of suspension design used in differ­ be ascertained by a total characterization of the wheel/rail loads. In this paper, a comprehensive set of experimental results obtained ent types of freight cars nor describe the variety of track from on-track testing of conventional North American freight cars conditions found in revenue service. Ideally, for design of using both wayside and on-board measurement systems are pre­ track and fretgh:t car structures, a total description of the load sented. The particular emphasis is given to the wheel/rail loads spectra including low-frequency high-dynamic loads should resulting from suspension dynamics. The dynamic wheel/rail envi­ be used (8). ronment addressed in this paper is limited to dynamic performance Our purpose in this paper is to provide an overall under­ regimes such as rock-and-roll and pitch-and-bounce, hunting, and standing of the dynamic load environment encountered under curving. The strong dependence of the dynamic response of a railway vehicle on a truck suspension system has been illustrated typical North American freight cars.
    [Show full text]
  • Repurposed Rolling Stock
    Create a Gauntlet Track using FastTracks Tools Fred Soward 20190504-FRS What this clinic will cover • A method of creating a Gauntlet Track (not a Gauntlet Turnout) for your layout that will meet one of the requirements for the “scratchbuilt” requirement for the “Model Railroad Engineer – Civil” certificate in the NMRA Achievement Program • A standard gauge HO scale solution using Code 83 Micro Engineering rail in a #6 Fast Tracks turnout fixture • It is not the only solution for meeting the requirement • It is not the only solution for creating a Gauntlet Track • Just the handlaid track construction • Use the provided references for the details and finishing 20190504-FRS What this clinic will NOT cover • A how to guide for detailing & finishing the scale track & structures • The Meaning of Life • It’s 42 – see Arthur Dent for additional details 20190504-FRS A bit of background info • Santa Cruz & Felton Railway switching layout 1978-1981 • Handlaid HO scale standard & HOn3 code 70 • NMRA National Convention 2016 • Modeling with the Masters • Pennsylvania Southern Railroad 2016-present • Santa Cruz & Felton Railway (second edition) 2018-present 20190504-FRS Outline • Intro • Tools & Materials • Gauntlet Track Build Overview • Gauntlet Track Build “By the Numbers” • Gauntlet Track Build Next Steps • A few Fast Tracks Tips & References 20190504-FRS What’s a Gauntlet Track • A different route for rail equipment along the same pathway • May share a piece of rail, but frequently does not • Always share the same track bed (ties & ballast) •
    [Show full text]
  • FOR PUBLICATION UT4 Maintenance Submission
    FOR PUBLICATION 30 April 2013 UT4 Maintenance Submission THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK UT4 Maintenance Submission 30th April 2013 TABLE OF CONTENTS Definitions and Abbreviations vii Executive Summary 10 1. Background 16 1.1 Submission Document Structure .................................................................................................... 16 1.2 Submission Development Process ................................................................................................ 17 1.2.1 Key Assumptions ...................................................................................................................... 19 1.2.2 Efficiency Gains ........................................................................................................................ 20 1.2.3 Use of External Expertise ...................................................................................................... 20 1.2.4 Maintenance Cost Index......................................................................................................... 20 1.2.5 Internal Experts ......................................................................................................................... 21 1.3 Aurizon Network’s Business Structure .......................................................................................... 23 1.3.1 Business Structure History .................................................................................................... 23 1.3.2 Aurizon Network’s Operational Structure .........................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Wiggins Island Rail Project Balloon Loop
    Wiggins Island Rail Project Balloon Loop The Wiggins Island Rail Project (WIRP) is the staged development of new rail lines and upgrading of existing lines to service the new Wiggins Island Coal Export Terminal (WICET) at the Port of Gladstone. About the Project WIRP Stage One includes constructing a new 13km Balloon Loop Fast Facts Balloon Loop from the North Coast Line near Yarwun to enable unloading of coal for the new port facility. Construction of 13km rail loop Works at the Balloon Loop project site include earthworks and drainage, track infrastructure, Location: Near Yarwun, Gladstone overhead electrical equipment, power systems, signals and telecommunications. Approximate project value: $200 million Once operational, coal trains will travel from mines Construction start: Mid 2012 in the southern Bowen Basin along Aurizon’s rail network to the Balloon Loop where it will be unloaded onto Est. construction completion: End 2013 WICET’s conveyor and carried to the port for export. Up to five trains can be held on the Balloon Loop Workers at peak construction: Approximately 180 at one time - three on the arrival side waiting to be unloaded, one at the unloader unloading coal, and one on the departure side heading back to the mines. Environment Beaks Creek Diversion Aurizon aims to continuously improve our Beaks Creek flows from the southern slope of Mount environmental performance. Martin in the Calliope Conservation Park, prior to meeting the Calliope River about one kilometre A comprehensive Environmental Management Plan upstream of the Calliope River rail bridges. will be implemented on site. As a result of the Balloon Loop works, a new drainage Aurizon will work to offset environmental rehabilitation channel is needed to manage flows from Beaks Creek.
    [Show full text]
  • Tng 71 Spring 1976
    .•. ' NARROW GAUGE RAILWAY SOCIETY NARROW GAUGE RAILWAY SOCIETY (FOUNDED 1951) HON. MEMBERSHIP SECRETARY: Ralph Martin, 27 Oakenbank Crescent, Huddersfield, Yorks. HD5 8LQ. EDITOR: Andrew Neale, 7 Vinery Road, Leeds LS4 2LB, Yorkshire. LAYOUT & ASSISTANT EDITOR: Ron Redman. EDITORIAL Judging from the large numbers of letters from members, issue number 70 seems to have been well received, and I am most grateful to all those of you who took the trouble to write, particularly those who either sent or offered articles and photographs. We are gradually building up a stock of articles, but as mentioned before, the provision of suitable illustrations for these articles is still something of a problem and I will be most pleased to hear from anyone who can offer any good, sharp, black and white pictures of any aspect of the narrow gauge. It is a great pleasure to be able to include in this issue an article from one of our Australian members while two other illustrations in this issue have come from contributors in America and East Germany. I very much hope this will be the start of a trend and I will be receiving many more contributions from those of you living overseas who have access to much material denied to us in Britain. · From the next issue I hope to use this page to comment on various aspects of the narrow gauge scene (but NOT internal Society affairs) and will always be pleased to receive your views for possible inclusion in our correspondence pages. Cover: E. P. C. Co. No. 2 Back home in Port Elizabeth in 1971 (Ron Redman) WELL, WE'RE ALMOST ON TIME ...
    [Show full text]