REPORT NO. FRA/ORD -80/13 IMPROVED PASSENGER EQUIPMENT EVALUATION PROGRAM METHODOLOGY USED iN THE TRAIN REViEWS Unified Industries Incorporated 5400 Cherokee Avenue Alexandria, Virginia 22312 MARCH 1979 Document is available to the U.S. public through the National Technical Information Service Springfield, Virginia 22161 Prepared for U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION Office of Research and Development Washington, D.C. 20590 REPRODUCED BY NATIONAL TECHNICAl INFORMATION SERVICE u. S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE SPRINGfiELD, VA. 22161 NOTICE This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the Depart­ ment of Transportation in the interest of information exchange. The United States Government assumes no liability for the contents or use thereof. The United States Government does not endorse products or manu­ facturers. Trade or manufacturers' names appear herein solely because they are considered essential to the object of this report. Technical Report Documentation Page 1. Report No. 2. Government ACCC5sion No. I 3. ReciDient's Cataloo No. I J >' REPORT NO, FRA/ORD - 80 /13 'L,\ ,~ ~' .~ 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Dote March 1979 IMPROVED PASSENGER EQUIPMENT EVALUATION PROGRAM- Methodology used in the Train Reviews 6. Performing Orgoni zotion Code f-- ._-- B• Performing Organization Report No. 7. Author! s) J.A. Bachman, Unified Industries Inc; H.C. Meacham, Battelle Columbus Laboratories; R.A. Uher, Carnegie-Mellon University; R.B. Watson, l. T. Klauder & Associates 9. Performing Organization Nome and Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS) Unified Industries Inc. II. Controct or Gront No. 5400 Cherokee Avenue Alexandria, Va. 22312 DOT-FR-717·4249, Task 2 13. Type of Report and Period Covered 12. Sponsoring Agency Nome and Address I Final- February 1977 to February 1979 U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration Office of Research and Development 14. Sponsoring Agency Code Washington, D.C. 20590 FRA/RRD-21 I 15. Supp lementary Notes Small Business Administration r Contractor: Washington District Office .. _ "... ______________ Washington,1_0_3_0_F_i_ft_e_e_nt_h_S_t_r_ee_t_, D.C. 20590_N_.W_.,_R_o_o_m_2_5_0 __________________________ ----i Ii 16. Abstract A number of new passenger train systems have been developed throughout the world and are now, or soon will be, available. They I represent technology that is available for possible use in the United States. Starting in early 1977. the Improved Passenger Equipment ! Evaluation Program (lPEEP) initiated a detailed systematic review of advanced trains and equipment now in operation or under development. IPEEP methodology allows the performance and curving safety of a given trainset to be reviewed relative to a baseline train on an appropriate domestic rail passenger service corridor. The trains reviewed in IPEEP are divided into two categories: electric trains having potential for NEG application, and fuel-burning trains having potential for application on routes outside the NEC To assess the various trainsets in terms of the United States environment, the features and characteristics of the trains were matched against United States regulations and practices, and computer analyses were conducfed to determine the expected performance of the trains in the corridors of interest. 17. Key Words 18. Oi stribution Statement Passenger Train Review Methodology Document is available to the U.S. public through the Train Review Criteria National Technical Information SerVice, Train Performance Calculation Methodology Springfield; Virginia 22161 Curving Safety Analysis Methodology Ride Quality Analysis Methodology Crashworthiness Analysis Methodology 19. Security Clossil. (01 this report) 20. Security Classif. (of this poge) 21. No. of Pages 22. Price Unclassified Unclassified form' DOT F 1700,7 (B-72) Reproduction of completed page authorized i METRIC CONVERSION FACTORS ., Approximate Conversions to Mllrie Measurn '" ..'"' Approximate Conversions from Metric MlIIsurea S,.hl W~ .. V........ I1hltipl, by fa Fi •• S,.hl SYMbol Whon Vcoo ..n .... Multi,l, by Ta Fiu Sy.hl N GO LENGTH :;l LENGTH mm millimeters 0.04 inches in ~ em centimeters 0.4 inches tn in Inches <2.5 centi!'11eters em meters 3.3 feet It ft feet 30 centimeters em ::!? meters 1.1 yards yd yd yards 0.9 meters kin kilcmeters 0.6 miles mi mi miles 1.6 kilometers kin !: AREA AREA !!: 2 2 em> square centimeters 0.16 square incru:rs in in square inches 6.5 square centimeters em2 2 "'~ m square meters 1.2 square yards yd2' ft' square feet 0.09 square meters m2 2 km square ki lometets 0.4 square mi las ffti2 V~ square yards 0.8 square meters m2 2 2 ha hectares 110.000 m ) 2.5 acres mi square mi les 2.6 square kilometers km2 ! acres 0.4 hectares ha f-'< ::l f-'< MASS (weight) MASS ~.i.ht) ~ oz ounces 28 grams g 9 grams 0.035 ounces 0. kg Ib pounds 0.45 kilograms kg ::: kilograms 2.2· pounds Ib short tons 0.9 tonnes tonne. 11000 kg) 1.1 short tons 12000 Ib) .. ;: VOLUME VOLUME '" top teaspoon. 5 millilitet's ml ml milliliters 0.03 fluid ounces II"" Tbap tablezpoons 16 millilit8" ml I liters 2.1 pints pi fI oz fluid ounces 30 milliliters ml liters 1.06 quarts ql c cups 0.24 liters I I liters 0.26 gallons gal 3 pt pints 0.47 liters m cubic meters 35 cubic feet ft3 3 3 qt qlUlrts 0.95 liters I m cubic meters 1.3 cubic yards yd gal 92111005 3.8 liters I 3 ft cubic feet 0.03 cubic meters m3 3 Yd cubic yards 0.76 cubic metms m3 TEMPERATURE (exlct, TEMPERATURE (exact) °c Celsius 9/5 (then Fahrenheit OF temperature add 32) temperature OF Fahrenheit 5/9 Iafter Celsius °c '" temperature subtracting t~rature OF 32) OF 32 S8.& 212 4 -4f ,~" ,1 ,0 I ' ,8,0 , ~ ,I~O, I ,I~O, , ,2~~ "1 ,n : 2.54 le)(ac1Iyl. FOl other exact converSions and mGte detailed tables, see NBS MISC. Publ. 286. ~. I I iii iii i Units of Weights and Measures, Pnce $2.25, SO Catalog No. C13.10:286. g. -40 -20 0 20 40 60 90 100 Iii g u 0C 37 °c TABLE OF CONTENTS Section 1 INTRODUCTION. 1=1 1.1 BACKGROUND 1-1 1.2 TECHNICAL APPROACH • 1-1 1.3 TRAIN REVIEW. 1-1 2 METHODOLOGY , • • 2-1 2.1 CRITERIA. 2-1 Schedule Time and Patronage 2-1 Cos t. 2-3 Passenger Appeal .•• 2-4 Passenger Comfort • 2-=4 Energy Consumption. • 2-5 Environmental Pollution , 2=5 Operational Safety •••• 2-6 uper'ational Flexibility. 2-7 On-Time Service Capability ••• 2-7 Ability to Maintain •••• 2-7 Development Status •••. 2-8 Availability and Delivery Time. 2-8 Special Features •• 2-8 2.2 REVIEW PROCESS ..•• 2-8 2.3 TRAIN PERFORMANCE PROGRAM 2-9 2.4 DEMAND ANALYSIS • 2-15 2.5 TRAIN SAFETY IN CURVE S. 2-16 Introduction •.• 2-16 Assumptions . • • • • 2-17 Simulation Inputs and Outputs • 2-18 Safety Criteria for Curving . 2-18 2.6 OPERATIONAL FLEXIBILITY ANALYSIS. Turnaround. · . · . Coupling and Uncoupling· · Operations • . 2.7 RIDE QUALITY ANALYSIS · 2=20 Introduction. · · . · , . 2-20 Vehicle Model · · 0 2-21 Comfort Criteria. · . · 2-21 iii TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) Section 2.8 COST ANALYSIS. 2-25 . Capital Cost. 2-26 Maintenance Cost. .' 2-27 Spare Parts . 2-28 2.9 MODIFICATION FOR NORTH AMERICAN OPERATION 2-28 2.10 CRASHWORTHINESS . .. 2-30 Existing Standards for Crashworthiness. 2-30 Definition of Terms Used in Table 2-4 . 2-31 Analytical Methods for Assessing Rail Vehicle Crashworthiness . • . • • . • . 2-32 Appendix A TRAIN PERFORMANCE MODEL. A-I A.1 INTRODUCTION .•... A-I A.1.1 Program Input •• A-I A.1.2 Program Output. A-7 A.2 PROGRAM PHILOSOPHY .. A-9 B SPEED RESTRICTION CALCULATOR FOR CURVES. B-1 B.1 INTRODUCTION. B-1 B.2 CRITERIA ... B-1 B.3 NOMENCLATURE. • ••. B-2 B.4 DERIVATION OF EQUATION. B-3 B.S COMPUTER RESULTS ....• B-8 C TWO-AXLE STEADY-STATE CURVING MODEL. C-1 C.1 INTRODUCTION ... C-1 C.2 NOMENCLATURE ... C-1 C.3 EQUATIONS OF MOTION C-3 C.4 COMPUTER MODEL FLOW CHART C-6 D RIDE QUALITY MODEL . D-1 D.1 INTRODUCTION .... D-1 D.2 RAIL VEHICLE MODEL. D-1 D.3 TRACK GEOMETRY INPUTS D-4 D.4 COMPUTER MODEL FLOW CHART .... D-S D.5 COMPARISON OF PREDICTED AND MEASURED DATA D-S iv LIST OF FIGURES Title REVIEW PROCESS. , , . , , . 2-10 SIMPLIFIED BLOCK DIAGRAM OF TRAIN PERFORMANCE MODEL , . 2-14 COMPARISON OF RIDE QUALITY LIMIT CRITERIA FOR RAIL VEHICLES • 2-24 LIST OF TABLES Table Title TRAIN REVIEW CRITERIA 2-2 CORRIDOR-RELATED DATA REQUIRED FOR TRAIN REVIEW , . 2-11 T~AIN-RELATED DATA REQUIRED FOR REVIEW, , , , , 2-12 MINhlU,'~ REQUIREMENTS FOR RAIL VEHICLE FRONTAL STRENGTH, • 2-31 2-~5 DATA REQUIREMENTS TO ASSESS ACCEPTABILITY OF CANDIDATE TRAINS BASED ON AAR STRUCTURAL STANDARDS, . , . , , . 2-32 v 1. INTRODUCTION A number of new passenger train systems have been developed throughout the world and are now, or will be, available for possible utilization on United States railroads. Such trains include the Canadian LRC, the French TGV-PSE, the British APT and HST, the German ET403, the American SPV-2000; the Japanese Series 961; plus tilt body trains developed in .switzerland, Sweden, and Italy. While the complete trains are of interest, all employ components on subsystems (e.g., carbody banking systems, trucks, traction systems) having potential application in United States trains. Early in 1977 the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) initiated the Improved Passenger Equipment Evaluation Program (IPEEP) to conduct a systematic review of advanced trains and equipment now in operation or under development throughout the world, and to provide the results of the review to rail trans­ portation system operators, planners, and developers. 1. 1 BACKGROUND IPEEP is an outgrowth of the FRA Improved Passenger Train (IPT) program which began in 1973.