LIGHT RAIL 2025
PRESENTED BY RAILWAY AGE AND RT&S
PLANNING, ENGINEERING AND OPERATIONS
Light Rail 2025 delivers a focused, in-depth look at the technical, environmental, and socio-economic challenges of planning and operating light rail transit (LRT) systems in today’s urban environments.
Who Should Attend
Professionals in LRT planning, operations, civil and systems engineering, vehicle technology, and signaling.
Keynote Speaker
ANDY LUKASZEWICZ Deputy Chief Officer
Operations
Program Content Includes
• Major New-Builds and System Expansions
•
•
• Innovations in Rider Experience
• Alternative Propulsion Technologies
• Special Regional Tour
Connect with LRT professionals from around North America— register early and save!
OCTOBER 1 & 2
Fairmont Pittsburgh Pittsburgh, PA
jchalon@sbpub.com
Vol. 121, No. 6
Print ISSN # 0033-9016, Digital ISSN # 2160-2514
EDITORIAL OFFICES 1025 Rose Creek Drive Suite 620-121 Woodstock, GA 30189 Te lephone (470) 865-0933 Website www.rtands.com
DAVID C. LESTER Editor-in-Chief dlester@sbpub.com
JENNIFER M c LAWHORN Managing Editor jmclawhorn@sbpub.com
EDITORIAL BOARD
David Clarke, University of Tennessee
Brad Kerchof, formerly Norfolk Southern Jerry Specht, CPKC/AREMA
Scott Sandoval, Genesee & Wyoming
Robert Tuzik, Talus Associates Gary Wolf, Wolf Railway Consulting
CORPORATE OF FICES 1809 Capitol Avenue Omaha, NE 68102
Telephone (212) 620-7200 Fax (212) 633-1165
ARTHUR J. MCGINNIS, JR. President and Chairman
JONATHAN CHALON Publisher
MARY CONYERS Production Director
NICOLE D’ANTONA Art Director
HILLARY COLEMAN Graphic Designer
JO ANN BINZ Circulation Director
MICHELLE ZOLKOS Conference Director
CUSTOMER SERVICE: 847-559-7372
Reprints: PARS International Corp. 253 West 35th Street 7th Floor New York, NY 10001
212-221-9595; fax 212-221-9195 curt.ciesinski@parsintl.com
Wheel Rail Seminars Celebrates 30 Years
Presenting The Best Wheel-Rail Interaction Research Available
By David C. Lester, Editor-in-Chief
Wheel Rail Seminars is preparing to host its 30th annual Wheel/Rail Interaction conference in Kansas City, Missouri. Throughout its 30-year history, WRI, the first and only conference dedicated specifically to wheel/rail interaction, has focused on the way this interaction affects the entire system, from rail to wheel to vehicle dynamics and beyond. This year, for the first time, the WRI conference will be split into two separate conferences: one dedicated to Heavy Haul (June 10-12, Kansas City, Mo.) and one dedicated to Rail Transit (August 26-28, Seattle, Wash.).
Gary Wolf, a prominent rail engineer and derailment investigator, says “The WRI [conference] provides a unique opportunity to learn from world class experts, many of [whom] have spent their careers out on the track and between the gage. The tiny contact patch between wheel and rail is where fuel is consumed, rail wear occurs, and wheel wear occurs. It is also where derailments can originate. WRI is ideal for both young railroaders new to the industry and seasoned executives who want to increase their understanding of this important topic.”
As in previous years, the opening day of the Heavy Haul conference will cover the “Principles” or fundamentals of core topics like wheel/rail interaction, truck and suspension components, and various track inspection technologies. This one-day seminar, of which the National University Rail Center for Excellence is the presenting sponsor, enables attendees from different fields, as well as those new to the industry, to approach the presentations on days two and three with a common understanding and vocabulary.
Following Principles, the Heavy Haul conference, sponsored by Railway Track and Structures and hosted locally by Canadian Pacific Kansas City, covers a range of projects and studies; some of which are ongoing, some of which have concluded, and some of which are transitioning into a new phase. Many presentations will bring new insights
into subjects familiar to past WRI attendees, such as:
• Analysis of L/V ratios and their effects on wheel/rail and vehicle/track interaction
• Performance and efficacy of total friction management programs
• How CPKC is leveraging track geometry data collected as part of an automated track inspection program (ATIP)
• The efficacy and benefits of automated train inspection technologies
• Mitigating derailment risks on special trackwork like switches and guard rails
There are also presentations covering topics that may be less familiar to past attendees. For example, both CN and CPKC will give presentations on analysis and optimization of train marshalling—practices that can improve operational reliability and reduce risk. The agenda also includes forward-looking presentations, such as one focusing on the interplay between train control, energy, and automation (aka the TEA Nexus), which will examine the cost and efficiency benefits that can result from the use of automatic train control, adoption of electrification/fuel cell power, and the widespread use of selfpropelled autonomous rail cars (SPARCs). Throughout the conference, attendees will also have the opportunity to break into smaller groups to attend WRI’s InfoZones where companies working in the wheel/rail interaction space will showcase some of the state-of-the-art technologies and solutions they’ve brought to market.
For more information, contact Brandon Koenig brandon@wheelrail-seminars.com 847-808-1818
And visit the conference website: https://wri2025hh.wheel-rail-seminars.com/
DAVID C. LESTER Editor-in-Chief
Lateral Track Strength Increase During Maintenance Speed Restrictions
Focusing on ballast compaction
Steve Wilk, Ph.D. Principal Investigator II Engineering Services MxV Rail
Regular track maintenance is important for preserving track geometry and a healthy track structure against the degradation of passing tonnage. Some of these maintenance activities, such as surfacing, ballast cleaning, or tie replacement, require either moving the tie (e.g., surfacing or tie replacement) or removing ballast (e.g., ballast cleaning). This maintenance, however, will disrupt the interlock between the tie and the ballast particles that helps the ballast hold the tie in place and prevent lateral track movements, such as misalignments and buckles.
The temporary reduction in lateral track strength (i.e., the strength provided by the ballast against lateral tie movement) immediately after maintenance is expected.
Based on this reduction in strength, railroads apply restrictions to the maximum allowable train speed with the goal of reducing vehicle forces until the ballast can recompact and regain its strength capability. Each railroad has a different speed restriction policy, but, in general, all railroads release the speed restriction and resume posted speeds by approximately 0.1 million gross tons (MGT) of accumulated traffic. However, the optimal tonnage accumulation before resuming the posted speed may vary depending on the situation. Previous studies have investigated the increase in lateral track strength with tonnage but generally focused on tonnage increments at or greater than 0.1 MGT.1 The goal of this study was to fully characterize the increase in lateral track strength with tonnage after maintenance by filling in the gaps below 0.1 MGT and summarizing the latest study with previous work. The railroads can use this information for data-driven speed restriction policies. This work was supported by the Association of American Railroads (AAR) under its Strategic Research Initiatives (SRI) Program.
Lateral Track Strength
Track ballast has many functions, one of which is to provide restraint against crosstie movement. The lateral track strength, earlier defined as the strength or resistance
provided by the ballast against lateral tie movement, is an example of this ballast function. A comprehensive review of the ballast parameters that influence lateral track strength has been the subject of previous publications 2 and can generally be summarized by the following three components: 1) tie/ballast characteristics, 2) ballast compaction, and 3) amount of ballast surrounding the tie. This article focuses on ballast compaction, often defined as the accumulated tonnage after maintenance, especially where increased ballast density leads to improved tie/ ballast interlocking.
Test Setup
Completed in November 2023, the new Facility for Accelerated Service Testing (FAST®) track is a 2.8-mile loop that supports railroad research and testing. The section of track used in this test consists of wood ties, cut spikes, and new ballast on a newly constructed fill. The cribs were generally full, and the shoulders were approximately 15 inches wide. A short train consisting of three locomotives and 28 cars loaded to 315,000 pounds gross rail load was used to compact the track. The train speed ranged from 15 to 25 mph. A common method of directly measuring the lateral tie resistance, Single Tie Push Tests (STPTs) involve unfastening an individual tie and pushing the
Figure 1. Full trend plotted against available data from multiple sources
tie laterally while measuring the lateral force and displacement. During the initial compaction runs of the new FAST track, MxV Rail performed STPTs at increments of 0 MGT, 0.01 MGT, 0.03 MGT, 0.05 MGT, and 0.11 MGT to define the increase in lateral tie resistance as a function of early tonnage accumulation. More test details
can be found in other publications.3
Test Results
The purpose of this test was to fully characterize the increase in lateral track strength with tonnage, and it enabled MxV Rail staff to combine the new test results with three previous studies, all of which focused on
tonnage increments above 0.1 MGT.3 Additional tests that focused on 0.1 MGT and 10+ MGT are also included to help define the trend. All data has been normalized by shoulder width and crib height (when data is available) and presented as a percentage of increase from the lateral tie resistance at 0 MGT.
The Railway Educational Bureau Track Resources
Table 1. Equations for percent increase in lateral tie resistance with tonnage
Figure 1 plots 1) the results of the current test (black diamonds), 2) the results of the previous three tonnage increment tests, and 3) the presented equations. The data is split between three panels to emphasize different accumulated tonnage ranges. While there is significant scatter between the tests, likely due to other influ ences on lateral tie resistance (e.g., ballast characteristics), the results indicate the proposed relationship (thick black line) generally agrees with the current and past test results. Including the 10+ MGT test results (red Xs) with the results from the previous three tests made the trend more conservative, but the additional data from the other tests should make the trend more
The trend of the proposed equation has three parts: below 0.1 MGT, 0.1 to 10 MGT, and above 10 MGT. Below 0.1 MGT, the increase in lateral track strength with tonnage is linear. At 0.1 MGT, the trend becomes non-linear as the rate of increased lateral track strength decreases with increasing tonnage. At 10 MGT, the ballast is generally compacted and the increase in lateral track strength is very low.
The data also emphasizes the fact that the increase in lateral tie resistance tends to be relative to the 0 MGT lateral tie
resistance value. This relationship implies inherently stronger track will see a greater absolute increase from tonnage that can be attributed to differing ballast interlock abilities. Ballast with more interlocking ability will see greater absolute increase in lateral tie resistance from tonnage.
Equation Calculation
Due to the different trends, the equation is split into three parts: 0 to 0.1 MGT, 0.1 to 10 MGT, and 10+ MGT. There is significant data at 0.1 MGT and near 10 MGT, so those two increments are used as bounds between the three parts. The non-linear portion between 0.1 MGT and 10 MGT is best fit with a logarithmic trend (similar to track settlement). Table 1 presents the equations for the percent increase in lateral track strength relative to the pre-compaction strength.
Table 2 presents the percent of lateral strength increase at different tonnages along with the percent of strength regained from full compaction. Track maintenance does not reduce the lateral track strength to zero. This table emphasizes the fact that speed restrictions are generally lifted when the ballast is partially compacted (~37 percent strength regained from full compaction), as full compaction is not required to safely return to posted speeds.
Interpretation And Conclusions
The purpose of the equations in Table 1 is to provide a tool that 1) estimates the lateral strength after ballast maintenance and 2) guides the appropriate speed restriction tonnage. Because compaction is a gradual process, the data show there is no single “tonnage” at which the ballast compacts. The compaction process is generally non-linear, meaning the benefits to ballast compac tion from additional tonnage diminish after 0.1 MGT. While 0.1 MGT has been considered a general “rule-of-thumb” and the author agrees with this value as a starting point, the appropriate tonnage may vary depending on issues such as track characteristics, vehicle character istics, traffic type, geography, season, type of maintenance, and other risk factors. The results from this test and previous tests are based on traffic with heavy-axle loads (e.g., 36 or 39 tons) and track experiencing ballast recompac tion from trains with lighter axle loads (e.g., passenger) may experience lateral track strength increases differently. The influences of these factors on the rela tionship between accumulated tonnage and lateral track strength have not been defined, but adjustments to the 0.1 MGT rule-of-thumb may be appropriate for specific lines based on the experience of
The author would like to thank the help from MxV Track Maintenance, Instru mentation, and Engineering teams for their support with the testing and interpre tation. The author would also like to thank the “Substructure” and “Track Buckling Prevention” Technical Advisory Groups (TAGs) for test suggestion and direction.
sh, A., and G. Samavedam. 2013. Track Buckling Prevention: Theory, DOT/FRA/ ORD-13/16. Washington D.C. lk, S.T. 2023. “Improving Lateral Track Strength After Ballast Main tenance.” International Heavy Haul Association (IHHA) 2023. Rio de lk, S.T. 2024. “Lateral Track Strength Increase during Maintenance Speed Technology Digest 003. AAR/MxV Rail. Pueblo, CO.
Table 2. Increase in lateral tie resistance at different tonnage intervals
October
W OMEN IN RAIL
PROJECTS TOP
Ten of the Most Impressive Rail Infrastructure Projects We’ve Seen This Year
By David C. Lester, Editor-in-Chief and Jennifer McLawhorn, Managing Editor
Photo Creditr:
CONGRATULATIONS, CSX.
The Cumberland Yard Redesign showcases what’s possible through strong collaboration. Thank you for trusting Zephyr Rail’s design and remote sensing expertise to help deliver this award-winning project.
We opened our look at Top Projects in 2024 with these words: “One of the top rewards of working on Railway Track & Structures is exposure to the myriad of railroad infrastructure projects going on at any one time. One of the top challenges of working on the magazine is choosing ten of the many projects nominated for our annual Top Projects program as honorees.” We experienced these rewards and challenges again this year while selecting ten of the nominations for 2025 Top Project honors. We believe you’ll enjoy reading about all this great work and might even glean some tips for your own projects.
CSX CUMBERLAND YARD REDESIGN
Location: Cumberland, Maryland
Contractor: CSX
De signer: Zephyr/CSX
Owner: CSX
Cumberland Yard is a vital switching hub on the CSX network for processing freight between the Northeast corridor and Midwest markets. Previously a hump yard, its hump operation ceased in 2017. Flat switching continued on the west end of the classification yard, while the east end was dismantled, leaving all tracks except
one stub-ended. Anticipating future increases in switching operations, CSX transportation and engineering teams collaborated to design an APEX kicking lead to process 800+ cars daily. Utilizing a double lead design, a model suited to Cumberland Yard’s geographical characteristics and existing layout was created. In mid-2024, the removal of the hump structure began and materials repurposed for the roadbed of the switching ladder and new switches in H Yard. Following a grading plan, CSX engineering forces installed 48 turnouts, including 33 powered APEX units. The yard was commissioned in December 2024, with switching operations starting immediately. Early in 2025, carloads increased due to the Howard Street Tunnel reroute plan. At present, Cumberland switches on average 300-350 cars per shift, totaling over 900 cars daily. The new yard configuration, achieved through extensive design and engineering work, ensures a safe and effective pin puller location for conductors. Features like a heated walking pad for winter safety, alongside a scoreboard and system monitors that provide continuous real-time operational information, have enhanced the yard’s safety and efficiency.
NORFOLK SOUTHERN EMERGENCY BRIDGE REPLACEMENT
Location: Newport, Tennessee
Contractor: Hail Contracting of Kentucky, Inc.
Designer: HDR, Inc.
Owner: Norfolk Southern
In the Fall of 2024, Hurricane Helene brought historic flooding and unprecedented damage to the Southeast. Thanks to Norfolk Southern crews working around the clock to clear trees and repair damaged rail, NS was able to reopen all core routes affected by the storm within 72 hours of landfall. But the company’s AS Line, which runs from Salisbury, N.C. to Morristown, Tenn., crossing the Eastern Continental Divide through the Blue Ridge Mountains and Asheville, N.C., was severely damaged, and the section of the line that runs from Newport, Tenn. to Old Fort, N.C., including the Newport bridge, a critical piece of infrastructure, had been out of service since the storm.
NS moved quickly following the storm to assess damage and begin planning recovery efforts. Steel fabrication emerged as the critical path for the rebuild, and design work on the Newport bridge began almost immediately. But as engineers assessed the structure, sections of the original bridge that were initially deemed
Photo Credit: Norfolk Southern
Hurricane Helene wrecked havoc in Fall of 2024, prompting Norfolk Southern to address damage from Tennessee to North Carolina.
salvageable continued to deteriorate. By the time NS was ready to move forward, updated designs were needed—restarting the process. Project leaders located a steel fabricator in Minnesota willing to operate around the clock, running three shifts of ironworkers to complete the job. It was a true emergency response, with other projects put on hold to prioritize the bridge. Access to the site was also essential. The City of Newport worked hand in hand with NS teams to ensure consistent, reliable access—playing a crucial role in keeping the project moving.
The existing bridge consisted of two 157’–3” riveted deck truss spans, one 113’–9” riveted deck truss span, and two 43’–0” deck plate girder spans founded on stone piers and masonry abutments. The bridge crosses the Pigeon River near Newport, Tenn. and was constructed by the Southern Railway in 1916. Immediately following Hurricane Helene , damage was observed at Pier location 2, the pier was dislodged from its footer and moved laterally downstream. Pier damage resulted in vertical misalignment of the track surface and supporting two 157’-3” deck truss spans. Design plans were prepared to replace the damaged Pier. An emergency contract was let and awarded to Hall Contracting of Kentucky, Inc. As contractor forces began mobilization, the damaged pier collapsed entirely, leaving the supporting deck truss spans resting at the bottom of the Pigeon River. Design plans were revised to include replacement of the damaged deck truss spans, which also required revision to the piers.
The replacement structure consisted of three 105’-5” welded steel beam spans, founded on three drilled shaft bents socketed into rock with pre-cast concrete caps and modification to existing pier 3. Additional required repairs included structural steel repairs to the remaining 113’-9” deck truss and 43’-0” deck plate girder spans, fabrication of a steel pony bent to support new span 4, and concrete encasement of the existing east abutment. The replacement structure was designed to modern E-80 specifications and is expected to provide 100 years of revenue service life. The restoration of the Newport bridge allowed NS to resume normal service to Asheville, and gave the community hope as residents, accustomed to watching NS trains each day, welcomed a return to normalcy since the hurricane.
SOUTH COAST RAIL
Location: Southeastern Massachusetts
Contractor: MBTA
Designer: VHB and HNTB
Owner: Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA)
The $1.1B South Coast Rail project stands to significantly enhance both mobility and economic vitality in Southeastern Massachusetts. For the first time in 65 years, the project brings rail service to this region, which is experiencing some of the highest unemployment rates and lowest median incomes in Massachusetts. Over 30 years, innovative design approaches, strategic program management, and focused stakeholder engagement facilitated the project moving from an idea to reality with the start of service.
South Coast Rail is one of the state’s most significant transportation projects in recent memory, providing passenger rail service between Boston and the communities of Fall River, New Bedford, Freetown, and Taunton for the first time since the late 1950s. The new direct, one-seat ride enhances access to Boston’s robust job markets, higher education opportunities, and world class hospitals, while also facilitating access to more affordable housing in Southeastern Massachusetts. Project complexities included:
• Co ordination and communication among a wide array of stakeholders comprising seven municipalities, various local, state, and federal agencies, rail freight companies, Native American tribes, and
numerous other interested parties. Successful approaches included developing a partner working group with key regulatory authorities and facilitating a regional task force involving municipalities and business coalitions.
• Fl uctuating funding and political will over the project’s 30-year lifespan required innovative, cost affective approaches to keep the dream of South Coast Rail alive. These approaches included strategically phasing design and construction, advancing early action projects, utilizing existing freight rail lines, and creatively repurposing hazardous/excavated materials to minimize costs and environmental impacts.
• Ev aluating 64 alternatives as part of a thorough NEPA/MEPA environmental review, during which the project team introduced innovative strategies such as evaluations of the economic effects of a new commuter rail connection, ridership, landuse planning, and transit-oriented development opportunities for corridor communities. First conceived in the early 1990s, the South Coast Rail project is being meticulously developed in phases. Phase I was completed in early 2025 and includes 37 miles of track, six stations, two layover facilities, 14 bridges, 86 culverts, 27 grade crossings, a pedestrian bridge, and a new signal and communications system.
Cumberland Yard is a vital switching hub for CSX and underwent a redesign in 2024.
SOUTH SHORE LINE DOUBLE TRACK
Location: Gary to Michigan City, Indiana
Contractor: Herzog/Walsh Joint Venture
Designer: HDR
Owner: Northern Indiana Commuter Transporation District (NICTD)
This project included 22 miles of new double track from Michigan City, Ind. to Gary, Ind. on the existing South Shore Line. The project included 64 new signal and gradecrossing houses, 35 smaller cases, and modifications to 24 existing locations. The project also included two new stations and added a second platform at three existing stations. Modern Railway Systems (MRS) was the managing joint venture partner alongside Herzog Technologies to form Transit Systems Partners (TSP). TSP was a major subcontractor responsible for the design, procurement, installation, testing, and commissioning of the signal, crossing, and communications systems. This project has greatly improved passenger rail service within the region by increasing the frequency of trains and reducing the travel time from 100 minutes to 67 minutes between Michigan City and Chicago’s Millennium Station. The primary challenge was the aggressive schedule. With numerous stakeholders involved and other
trades working in the same areas, maintaining a streamlined timeline was crucial. It adopted an agile construction approach, enabling us to adjust tasks dynamically as challenges arose and pivoted to other areas if something was inaccessible. Regular team and project-wide meetings ensured open communication, allowing team members to share insights and coordinate effectively. This collaborative environment fostered creative problem solving and allowed them to tackle obstacles collectively. During excavation, it encountered high water tables (due to close proximity to Lake Michigan) that posed a significant risk to our project timeline. This issue required immediate attention as excessive water could delay construction and increase costs. To mitigate this, our team employed advanced dewatering techniques, including the installation of sump pumps and vacuum trucks, which effectively managed water levels and allowed excavation to proceed without significant delays. This swift response of the project management team exemplified the commitment to proactive problem solving. Labor availability was another major concern. Ongoing steel mill rehabilitation, solar farm electrical work, and data centers took precedence over the work, which meant local labor was in high demand. To
counter this challenge and achieve project milestones, it utilized local subcontractors and brought in employees from across the country to supplement the crews.
Additionally, the project incorporated new technologies to modernize and enhance the efficiency of the system. One notable innovation was Siemens GCE. The GCE is a versatile integrated system for detecting trains and activating grade crossings which can be used in a variety of complex applications. As with any new product, the procurement process had a longer-than-expected lead time. To successfully integrate this new product, our team engaged with the supplier for on-site demonstrations, ensuring all personnel were familiar with the handling and installation processes. The rail line passed through urban areas and the Indiana Dunes National and State Parks, where existing infrastructure, traffic, and community concerns restricted entry points for the boom trucks and materials. To navigate these limitations, it implemented a detailed logistics plan that included identifying optimal access routes and scheduling lane closures. By engaging with local stakeholders early in the process, communicating its intentions, and addressing community concerns, it fostered a culture of goodwill and cooperation.
Photo Credit: NICTD
The South Shore Line Double Track Project included 22 miles of new double track.
UPRR OMAHA BRIDGE 23.84 OVER THE ELKHORN RIVER REPLACEMENT
Location: Waterloo, Nebraska
Contractor: Lunda
Designer: GFT
Owner: Union Pacific Railroad
Originally constructed in 1906, UPRR Bridge 23.84 on the Omaha Subdivision carries two mainline tracks critical to the railroad’s network. The 812-foot structure included ten through plate girder spans and one pin-connected through truss, both aging and fracture-critical. Following major flooding in 2019, the bridge required emergency reinforcements to remain in service, accelerating the need for full replacement. The site required careful design coordination, river access planning, and comparative evaluation of multiple replacement strategies. GFT was engaged to develop preliminary design options for both in-line and off-line bridge replacements. The study concluded that an off-line replacement was the most economical solution and provided better long-term maintenance by eliminating fracture-critical
span types.
The bridge alignment was offset approximately 55-ft from the existing structure requiring ROW acquisition and significant track embankment on the east approach. To accommodate the larger superstructure depth, the proposed track with 70 mph design speed was approximately 3’ higher than the existing mainlines. A federal levee crosses the project just off the west end of the bridge requiring coordination with USACE during design and construction.
The new bridge span arrangement consists of two precast concrete box girder approach spans on each end and six 130.5ft steel plate girder spans with a composite concrete deck for a total bridge length of 898-ft. The new superstructure — a builtup steel girder with a composite cast-inplace concrete deck — was designed to support 12 inches of ballast under concrete ties, along with a spray-applied elastomeric waterproofing system and integrated ballast protection mat. Girder length and weight were selected to eliminate the need for field splices to minimize erection costs.
These elements required detailed coordination to ensure structural performance and long-term durability under heavy freight loads. Substructure design posed another key decision point. The preferred alternative — a cast-in-place concrete wall pier with pile supported footings — necessitated the use of cofferdams and concrete seals for construction within the active river channel. The footing depths were designed to withstand the 100-yr scour event also requiring additional embedment of the piles into bedrock to resist potential temporary uplift loads due to the cofferdams. Modified precast concrete elements for 15-foot track centers were incorporated into the approach and end bents, enhancing schedule efficiency and installation consistency.
Nearly 1.2 miles of new double track embankment was also constructed requiring 140,000-yd3 of fill. Additionally, river access constraints required the planning of temporary bridges or causeways to facilitate pier construction. These efforts were critical to maintaining environmental
compliance, ensuring worker safety, and enabling efficient delivery within the bounds of an active UPRR corridor. These solutions ensured resilient bridge performance while minimizing disruption to one of UPRR’s most critical corridors.
LINCOLN ENERGY EXPANSION
Location: Birmingham, AL
Contractor: Road & Rail Services
Designer: Design Nine
Owner: Lincoln Energy
For this comprehensive design/build project, the site preparation alone encompassed engineering work, clearing and grubbing 2.5 acres, installing eight culverts, and excavating and preparing 1,600 cubic yards of sub ballast for 3,160 feet of new track construction. The track construction itself involved the relocation of three #11 turnouts and the addition of three new #11 turnouts. Because of the hazardous nature of the commodity being shipped (ethanol), the track was grounded and bonded. This track project dramatically increases the efficiency, throughput and volume of the
Weaver’s Cove Layover Facility, Fall River, Mass. South Coast Rail.
terminal by facilitating the use of longer trains. The capacity of this terminal increased from a maximum of ninety (90) car unit trains to one hundred ten (110) - car unit trains. This new construction required coordination with multiple stakeholders. Lincoln Energy, the customer, required active operations throughout the construction process. Road & Rail Services, LLC collaborated with the BNSF team to move utility poles, move signal relays, and set the mainline switch, all without impeding Lincoln’s daily operations. Additionally, it collaborated with an outside partner for excavation services and Design Nine for engineering services.
BRIGHTLINE WEST HIGH-SPEED RAIL
Location: Las Vegas to Rancho Cucamonga
Contractor: Stacy Witbeck/Herzog Contracting Corp. JV
Designer: HNTB & Jacobs
Owner: Brightline
The Stacy and Witbeck Herzog Contracting Corp. (SWH) Joint Venture is playing a
vital role as the track and systems contractor for the Brightline West high-speed rail project, delivering innovative solutions to ensure the success of this transformative transportation initiative. During
preconstruction, SWH has developed strategies to address logistical considerations and site access for the 218-mile Class 9 track alignment between Las Vegas, Nev. and Rancho Cucamonga, Calif.
NICTD South Shore Double Track
Changing the Way Northwest Indiana Moves—One Mile at a Time.
End-to-end communications and signal systems across 155 locations of electrified railway.
This rendering shows a Brightline train capable of traveling at speeds of up to 218 mph on the Brightline West alignment between Las Vegas and Rancho Cucamonga, CA.
Understanding the complexity of transporting large volumes of construction materials—such as ballast, ties, rail, and turnouts—within the Interstate 15 median, SWH is implementing a short line railroad system. This solution, which includes 500 ballast cars and 80 flat cars, will reduce the risk of traffic congestion and enhance the safety and efficiency of bulk material delivery to the corridor. The project’s terrain, which includes a maximum 5.5% grade—steeper than typically encountered in U.S. rail corridors—offers an opportunity to advance rail technology and operational resilience. SWH is exploring the use of Electronically Controlled Pneumatic (ECP) braking systems to provide greater precision and control on steep grades. Through innovation, collaboration, and a forward-looking mindset, SWH is helping to set a new standard for high-speed rail construction in the United States.
MOODNA VIADUCT BRIDGE TIMBER TIE REPLACEMENT
Location: Salisbury Mills, NY
Photo Credit: RailPros, Inc.
The Moodna Viaduct is an historic steel railroad trestle bridge initially built in 1906 by the Erie Railroad.
Contractor: J-Track, LLC
Designer: RailPros, Inc.
Owner: MTA Metro-North Railroad RailPros and J-Track partnered on the Moodna Viaduct Bridge Timber Tie Replacement contract, a $7.5M design-build project on the Port Jervis Line. The Moodna Viaduct is an historic steel railroad trestle bridge built in 1906 by the Erie Railroad. Today, this iconic structure still carries daily freight and Metro-North Railroad passenger traffic. RailPros coordinated the survey of the structure and created design plans for fully-dapped timber tie replacement on spans 14-53 of the viaduct, covering 2,400 feet of the 3,200-foot structure. Due to the bridge’s dimensions and historic nature, the team was presented with special challenges for survey and design. Not only does the structure stretch 3,200 feet in total, but also its max height is almost 200 feet above the ground. As a result,
Recognition as an RT&S Top Rail Project for 2025 highlights the power of collaboration behind Union Pacific’s Omaha Bridge 23.84 over the Elkhorn River Replacement project. gftinc.com
Congratulations!
Congratulations to MTA Metro-North Railroad, J-Track, LLC, and all others who contributed to the Moodna Viaduct Bridge Timber Tie Replacement. We were honored to serve as design lead on this exciting project!
Join our Team at: Go.RailPros.com/Career
HTI installed RailSentry in March 2025 at Caltrain’s Churchill Avenue crossing in Palo Alto, CA. RailSentry monitors this highly active crossing, which averages over 100 train and 8,800 vehicle passings daily.
issues like thermal expansion and wind loads rendered some modern survey methods to be unusable. Additionally, the bridge has undergone countless modifications since its initial construction, which made establishing the existing conditions (as compared to the as-built plans) a challenge. RailPros teams worked to ensure the designed track profile
approach accommodated the realities of the structure and collaborated closely with the tie manufacturer to make sure they were able to provide the exact dimensions for each tie.
Photo Credit: Jacobs Engineering
The NWEII for Phoenix Valley metro LRT system includes 1.6 miles of new track, two at-grade stations, Valley Metro’s first elevated transit center, and more.
RAILSENTRY
Location: Burlingame, Calif. and Dallas, Texas
Contractor: Herzog Technologies, Inc. (HTI)
Designer: HTI
Owner: DART/Trinity Railway Express/ Caltrain
RailSentry combines advanced technology and railroad operational expertise to improve safety at high-risk grade crossings, station platforms, and bridges. Herzog Technologies, Inc. (Herzog) developed RailSentry as a safety solution that integrates LiDAR sensors, cameras, powerful computers, and AI-driven software to prevent train collisions involving vehicles, pedestrians, or objects. Before deploying RailSentry, Herzog overcame challenges involving the analysis of traffic patterns at high-risk rail crossings. Herzog configured RailSentry to align detection zones with real-world traffic patterns, a critical step to unlocking the technology’s potential to actively detect hazards, analyze threats, and provide instant alerts to train engineers
and rail operations teams. The second challenge involved software configuration and hardware processing specific to the Broadway Grade Crossing in Burlingame, Calif. Herzog needed to ensure safety-critical decisions were made in milliseconds at Broadway - the state’s most dangerous crossing with 100+ daily trains and 25,000 daily vehicles. Since 2024, RailSentry has delivered five alerts preventing potential collisions between trains and vehicles at the Broadway Crossing. Over the last 18 months, RailSentry monitored 400+ daily trains and 40,000 daily vehicles at 11 grade crossing and two bridges in California (Caltrain) and Texas (Trinity Railway Express and Dallas Area Rapid Transit).
NORTHWEST EXTENSION 2
Location: Phoenix, Ariz.
Contractor: Kiewit-McCarthy JV
Designer: Jacobs Engineering
Owner: Phoenix Valley Metro
The Northwest Extension Phase II (NWEII) for the Phoenix Valley Metro LRT system includes 1.6 miles of new track, two at-grade
stations, Valley Metro’s first elevated transit center, a parking garage, a new bridge over I-17, and the widening of two existing canal bridges. Jacobs was the prime consultant and provided project management and engineering for track, roadway, traffic, lighting, duct bank, the I-17 bridge structures, and the elevated station structure. Valley Metro (VM) and the City of Phoenix partnered with Jacobs Engineering Group Inc. (Jacobs) and construction manager at risk (CMAR) Kiewit-McCarthy, a Joint Venture, to deliver design and construction of NWEII.
While Jacobs and ASU spearheaded the design, KMJV played a major role in validating constructability, coordinating full-scale mockups, and executing the work safely and efficiently — reducing track construction time by nearly 30%. When Jacobs took over the project at the 30% design stage, the construction estimates pointed to a project alarmingly over budget and on the brink of financial infeasibility. To preserve the project, the CMAR team, including Valley Metro and the City of Phoenix underwent a value engineering exercise. KMJV helped drive the VE process that resulted in $60 million in savings.
CAPITALIZING ON FRICTION MODIFIERS MANAGEMENT & MAINTENANCE:
by Jeff Tuzik
Steel-on-steel friction is tricky. Frictional forces mediate every interaction between the wheel and rail. Too much friction, and the system wears too quickly; issues like noise, truck-steering, and wheel-climb become more prominent. Too little friction, and traction and braking are negatively affected. Friction Management (FM) is the art and science of finding the balance between these extremes; capturing the benefits of a low-friction operating environment with the fundamental requirements of traction and braking.
The early 2000s was a busy time for friction management. Many Class I railroads ran their own internal economic validation studies on various friction modifiers. These studies provided favorable data, but in many cases didn’t translate well to large scale adoption and
application, Marco Santoro, Global Friction Management Applications Manager at L.B. Foster, told those assembled at the WRI 2024 Heavy Haul Wheel/Rail Interaction conference. And in other cases, where larger FM programs were implemented, the programs weren’t always run and maintained to the requisite level (empty tanks, units not reinstalled after trackwork), leading to sub-optimal performance. “In the industry, this raised a lot of questions about the efficacy of FM, itself, rather than the implementation and maintenance of the programs,” Santoro said.
In 2009, Mike Roney, then with Canadian Pacific, presented CP’s wholistic approach to “total friction management” to the International Heavy Haul Association (IHHA). This program looked at the costs and benefits of FM
through a systemic rather than a departmental or adversarial lens. “This was the start of a better approach to FM on a large scale,” Santoro said.
Since the early days of FM, multiple largescale studies from various railroads around the world have shown the benefits of FM programs (see figures 1 and 2). These include fuel savings (typically in the 2% - 8% range, depending on baseline conditions), rail wear reduction (typically in the 20% - 50% range depending on measurement [top of rail, gauge, or combined wear] and baseline conditions), lateral force reduction (typically in the 24% - 40% range), and a reduction in derailments per MGT.
These are benefits that any railroad would appreciate. But, as Santoro said, friction management is not a set-and-forget solution. To realize the full range of benefits, the program must be
Photo
Credit: Mike Yuhas
Marco Santoro, Global Friction Management Applications Manager at L.B. Foster.
managed, optimized, and maintained. And as many railroads can attest, there are challenges to implementing these large-scale programs, especially over the long-term.
One of the first challenges of implementing an FM program is securing the personnel required to inspect and maintain the applicator units. Some railroads dedicate personnel specifically to the FM program/wayside equipment, but often the task is given to track maintenance or track inspectors, on top of their many other duties, Santoro said. In such cases, it’s easy for FM equipment to be neglected as it’s often considered non-critical, and the benefits it provides are measured in a long time-frame; additionally, benefits such as fuel savings and lower lateral forces are effectively invisible to the maintenance worker. “When it comes to allocating manpower, short-term thinking tends to drive results,” Santoro said. Personnel assigned to the FM program also require training, specialized tools and equipment, and vehicles. This is a significant investment, and if the FM program lacks good management and a champion within the organization, it too is often neglected.
Another challenge is the logistics of maintenance and track access. Often, wayside FM equipment is spread across hundreds of miles of track. It may be in difficult-to-access locations requiring long-distance hi-rail driving.
On the planning side, selecting the right FM product for the right location and environment is critical. Product characteristics like temperature tolerance, carry-down rate (the distance
from the applicator at which the friction-modifying properties remain effective), and the rate at which it’s applied by the applicator are fundamental to the success of the program. “The product properties have much more of an effect on the long-term economics than the price of the product itself,” Santoro said.
Many railroads have now had FM programs in place for 15+ years. This has, relatively recently, brought up the challenges that come with repairing and replacing aging equipment in order to sustain optimal performance. “There are FM units out there that are up to 25 years old; those aren’t performing like they used to, and they’re definitely not performing like we expect a modern unit to perform.” These aging applicators require disproportionately more maintenance to provide comparatively poorer performance than their modern counterparts, effectively stunting the efficacy of the FM program as a whole.
Applicator pump assemblies, in particular, wear out over time. Their diminished output/ application rate isn’t necessarily visible; so, without a plan for updating or replacing units and components, performance can suffer long before the unit fails, Santoro said. As part of a recent study presented at the International Collaborative Research Initiative (ICRI), L.B. Foster monitored top-of-rail (TOR) applicator output rates at the test locations. They found that on average, these units were applying product at roughly one-tenth the target rate due to wornout pump assemblies and applicator bars. “This
isn’t providing a benefit in this state, yet it’s still taking up resources,” he said.
More modern applicator units partially alleviate this issue by monitoring (and remotely reporting) application rates. Remote performance monitoring allows maintenance personnel to know when a weak pump needs to be replaced, but also to adjust performance parameters as pumps wear out to ensure consistent application rates. Figure 3 shows an example of remote monitoring data of applicator reservoir levels over time on a Class I railroad. The shallow slope of the blue line indicates a low application rate due to a worn or failing pump. The vertical purple line indicates maintenance intervention, and the green line indicates the corrected reservoir-depletion/application rate. This coincides with Figure 4, which shows wear rates on the gage face of the high rail at the same site. The correction made to the application rate lines up with a significantly decreased rate of wear on the gage face of the high rail. “Simply fixing the application rate dropped horizontal wear to a fifth of what it was,” Santoro said. “Whether it’s done remotely or in the field, monitoring application rates should be part of routine maintenance.
Program Design
A commonality that the most successful FM programs share is a centralized team (or person) that takes ownership of friction management and can demonstrate and articulate the systemic impact of the program, Santoro
Figure 1. An overview of studies on friction management and fuel savings conducted by multiple railroads throughout the 2000s and 2010s.
Figure 2. An overview of friction management and rail wear studies conducted by or on multiple railroads.
Figure 3. Remote monitoring data showing applicator reservoir levels over time.
said. “[The team] has to account for budgets, labor, equipment, validation—every part of the program—to make sure all the stakeholders are aligned.” Historically, railroads have done all of this, including maintenance of the applicator units, in-house. This approach has had varying degrees of success. “If you have somebody like Mike Roney looking over things, you can get great results. If you’ve got local section personnel who are bidding off the FM jobs, and no oversight, it’s not going to go well.” This variance in the efficacy of different FM programs has historically led some organizations to view friction management as insignificant—a belief that doesn’t benefit railroads or suppliers.
More recently—mostly within the past 10 years—railroads have begun to contract out portions of, or the entire FM program. These contracted programs are typically structured around one of three models.
The first is the use of third-party labor. Here, the contractors/laborers are fully trained in the refilling, maintenance, and installation of the FM equipment, but the program, equipment, and inventory (such as FM consumables and applicator spare parts) is managed entirely by the client railroad. These arrangements lend themselves particularly well to large scale operations like bulk-filling numerous applicators, or working in tandem with railroad track gangs to uninstall and reinstall wayside FM equipment, Santoro said. To achieve the best results, this also requires a dedicated friction management team within the railroad that can manage logistics and monitor the program.
Figure 4. High rail gage wear over time at the same site depicted in figure 3. The vertical purple line in both charts denotes the same point in time.
Figure 5. A breakdown of gage-face lubricator downtime on a de-identified Class I railroad.
Figure 6. A comparison of high rail gage wear rates pre and post “Total Friction Management” implementation.
The Railway Educational Bureau Federal Regulations
Track Safety Standards Subparts A-F
Track Safety Standards, contains the Track Safety Standards, Subparts A-F, for Classes of track 1-5. The standards cover general information, Roadbed, Track Geometry, Track Structure, Track Appliances and Track-Related Devices, and Inspection. Includes Defect Codes. Updated December 28, 2023
BKTSSAF Track Safety Standards, Subparts A-F $13.95
Only $12.50 for orders of 50 or more!
Bridge Safety Standards
FRA Part 237 establishes Federal safety requirements for railroad bridges. This rule requires track owners to implement bridge management programs, which include annual inspections of railroad bridges, and to audit the programs. Part 237 also requires track owners to know the safe load capacity of bridges and to conduct special inspections if the weather or other conditions warrant such inspections. Updated December 28, 2023.
BKBRIDGE Bridge Safety Standards $14.00 Only $12.60 for orders of 50 or more!
Workplace Safety
This reprint includes the FRA's Railroad Workplace Safety Standards addressing roadway workers and their work environments. These laws cover such things as: personal protective equipment, fall protection, and scaffolding for bridgeworkers; and training issues. Also includes safety standards for on-track roadway vehicles. Updated December 28, 2023
BKWRK Railroad Workplace Safety $13.95
Only $12.50 for orders of 50 or more!
Track Calculator
The Track Safety Standards Calculator is a must for anyone who works on track. This slide rule type calculator contains many of the details for Classes of track 1- 5. Deviation from uniform profile and from zero cross level. Difference in cross level. Compliant with part 213. BKTCAL
$12.50
Only $11.25 for orders of 50 or more!
The second is the all-in model. In this case the contractor provides the labor, equipment, consumables, and monitoring of unit performance and up-time. The railroad still manages the program, but the contractor is responsible for applicator performance and up-time.
The third is the outside-management model; The contractor directly manages the FM program, including relevant railway personnel, in order to deliver a contractually stipulated FM unit uptime. The contractor is responsible for scheduling maintenance, inventory control, reporting and validation, training railroad personnel, and coordinating with track work and other activities that affect wayside and trackmounted equipment.
Regardless of which of these models a railroad uses, or if they choose to bring the program fully in-house, they should all involve performance monitoring and reporting, Santoro said. In addition to ensuring that the equipment is working properly, this data can also be used to identify and mitigate the causes of applicator down-time. Figure 5 shows a breakdown of system-wide applicator down-time for a Class I railroad. This chart represents the roughly 15% of the time
Two Speed
during which the units are not functional. Some of the down-time causes are largely immutable (track maintenance [44.0%], equipment damage [5.2%]) but others such as the low lubricant (16.5%) and equipment maintenance (21.0%) sections, for example, can be targeted and optimized, he said.
The benefits of a well-managed FM program versus an under-performing one have been documented in a number of case studies, including at previous WRI conferences. A 2017 study on Canadian Pacific’s Western Corridor (based on data collected from 2008 to 2016) compared wear on the high rail in curves within CP’s “Total Friction Management” (TFM) program to similar curves that were nominally equipped for friction modifier application, but weren’t monitored and maintained to the same level. In one instance, the high rail of a 6-degree curve within the TFM program (with TOR and gage-face FM) showed a 38% decrease in vertical wear and a 50% decrease in gage wear versus the non-TFM 6-degree curve (with only gage-face FM).
Since that study, the previously non-TFM curve was brought within the TFM envelope;
RAIL DRILL
Fast Efficient Holes
the curve now has TOR friction modifier, gage-face lubrication, and is maintained to above 90% up-time. Figure 6 shows wear rates for this curve both pre- and post-TFM implementation. Prior to TFM implementation, gage wear was ≈0.14 inches per 100 million gross tons (MGT). Post-TFM, the wear rate dropped to ≈0.04 inches per 100 MGT.
Friction management programs have a lot of moving parts; they can be difficult to implement and perhaps more difficult to maintain. Nonetheless, data supports the effectiveness of these programs and Class Is are taking advantage of them. The key to maximizing the benefits is to understand friction management as a part of the system, rather than an ancillary component. Like any other part of the railroad, its optimization requires proactive management and maintenance.
Jeff Tuzik is Managing Editor of Interface Journal https://interfacejournal.com/
This article is based on a presentation made at the 2024 Wheel Rail Interaction Heavy Haul conference.
•
The Southern Crescent is four minutes north of Atlanta’s Peachtree Station on its overnight journey to Washington, D.C. in August 1975. When Amtrak was formed in 1971, Graham Claytor, then Chairman, President, and CEO of Southern Railway said “no thanks” to Southern’s passenger service, which was down to two trains, being taken over by Amtrak. The Southern Crescent, running between Washington, D.C. and New Orleans via Atlanta offered passenger service and amenities in the grand style of trains in the 1950s. On this warm evening, many passengers are enjoying a fine meal in the dining car or sipping beverages in the lounge car. The track ahead is smooth and the train will hit nearly 80 mph on some level stretches of track along the way.
GRAHAM CLAYTOR’S GRAND DEFIANCE WET
Photos by David C. Lester
It’s 1977 and Southern Railway GP38-2 5001 has just emerged from Southern’s paint shop in Chattanooga, Tenn. This classic “Tuxedo” paint scheme was understated and all business.
GAP CLOSING THE
Allowing vehicles to cross over tracks unimpeded.
By Jennifer McLawhorn, Managing Editor
Grade crossings are critical points of interaction between trains and other vehicles. Grade crossings must have solid material between the rails to ensure that cars and other vehicles traveling on the road have a smooth ride over the crossing. In addition, proper material between the rails ensures that rail traffic does not encounter unnecessary bumps or bangs as it traverses the crossing. Railway Track & Structures spoke to several suppliers about what they offer in this niche.
HiRail CEO Larry Thompson says, “Rubber is the superior, costeffective choice for grade crossings, offering unmatched durability and minimal maintenance. Class I, short line, and transit customers
across the US, Canada, and Mexico increasingly adopt rubber for its 20+ year lifespan and 50%-200% cost savings over traditional materials. HiRail’s 95% recycled rubber crossings, with over 8,000 installations, meet rising demand for sustainable, high-performance solutions. For rural, low-volume, and low-weight crossings, HiRail’s Rail Seal, combined with other materials, provides a tailored, economical solution, ensuring safety and longevity.”
L.B. Foster told RT&S that, “As part of Metrolinx’s GO Expansion program, the Davenport Diamond Guideway is transforming rail transit in Toronto by separating commuter and freight traffic to improve service reliability. As the North American distributor
of Rosehill Rail’s Grade Crossing Panel Systems and Anti-Trespass Panels, L.B. Foster supplied Rosehill Rail’s Baseplate Crossing System to support this major infrastructure project. This crossing panel system was installed to provide safe, reliable track access for maintenance crews. Manufactured in the UK from 100% recycled rubber tires, the Baseplate system was selected for its quick installation, long-term durability, and strong sustainability credentials. The solid rubber panels are connected using galvanized steel Turret Baseplate Clips, creating a stable surface that can be removed and replaced easily during track work. Designed for flexibility, the system adapts to various track configurations and requires minimal disruption during installation. Its
performance and modularity made it the ideal solution for this hightraffic corridor, helping Metrolinx deliver a more efficient and resilient rail network for the Greater Toronto Area. L.B. Foster’s partnership with Rosehill Rail allows us to offer crossing panel systems to customers across North America that are custom designed to support grade crossing traffic conditions, tie and rail fastening variations, and track layouts.”
Since 1966, Industry-Railway Suppliers (IRS) “has supported railroads and contractors across North America with high-quality track tools, heavy equipment, and mechanical shop supplies. IRS is the exclusive distributor of the FastPatch Railroad Distressed Pavement Repair (RR DPR) Railroad Kit, developed by Willamette Valley Company (WVCO). The FastPatch DPR Railroad Kit offers a fast, easyto-install, and permanent solution for repairing distressed asphalt
and concrete surfaces, including grade crossings, bridges, and roadways. The cold-applied, odorless, and VOC-free compound requires minimal site prep and cures quickly, allowing traffic to resume in just one hour. Highly adhesive and freeze-thaw resistant, DPR lasts as long as the surrounding pavement. Its polymer blend uses recycled and renewable materials, making it environmentally friendly. Designed with public safety in mind, DPR supports ADA compliance at hazardous grade crossings by minimizing repair time and disruption while enhancing safety for workers and traffic alike.”
OMNI Rail told RT&S , “Building on a strong 2024 year-end, we expanded our engineering staff and technical support resources to deliver new rubber and concrete products that include ‘design and build projects’ requiring complex panel structures (concrete, rubber, steel, composite combinations).” OMNI says, “Production and custom
panels are offered in lengths of 8’, 8.125, 9’, 10’ and 12’, including custom fastener design modifications for easy installation. We typically manage multiple project deliveries scaling to greater than 1,000 track feet per month.” OMNI “supports combination concrete gauge installations, coupled with low-cost field side solutions that use our molded virgin rubber products. Its ‘solid cross section molded virgin rubber’ panel flanges are embedded for continuous full-length support or installed as a separate load bearing flangeway filler. Both carry a 6-year, no-tear warranty. OMNI’s core product design rules incorporate rubber as a load bearing component to provide extreme rail head protection, ADA and/or customer specified dimensional control, avoiding tears or separation of the rubber flange for the design life of the panel. Some new product additions for this year include: VRA/2 molded rubber product, spike or
clamp to rail install for asphalt or concrete road interface. A reduced cross section version of OMNI’s VRA product with a 20-year field history; combinations of concrete grade panels with several rubber field panel or flangeway rubber configurations to match customer cost and performance objectives; Molded ‘yellow rubber’ safety tread surfaces on full depth rubber panels or steel reinforced panels; Expanded concrete tub crossing products that include 11’ wide heavy load application tubs (Tra-Cast I). This product expands the capabilities of our Tra-cast I and Tra-cast Il products that have more than a decade of field service (curves to 30 degrees). Special application products include steel reinforced heavy load crossings that are a unique product relying on custom rubber surfaces bonded to steel structures. Steel reinforced panels are available for a wide range of rail sizes and easily extend performance for nonstandard wide or extreme narrow-gauge applications.”
Message From The President
BILL RIEHL
AREMA President 2024-2025
I’m not sure when it happened, but it is almost summer already. For most of this continent, school is out, the morning commute is a little easier and summer trips and activities are about to take off. That means the AREMA 2025 Annual Conference & Expo in Indianapolis is just around the corner. That also means just two more articles that the AREMA and RT&S Staff will have to worry if I will have it in on time for printing. But enough about those worries. The bigger topic I’d like to focus on concerns who is the target audience for AREMA’s Technical Expertise and Knowledge Delivery.
Today, we generally think in terms of the US and Canada being the primary consumers of AREMA’s manuals and education. From where I sit, I tie this directly to member involvement from our US and Canada-based Freight and Passenger Railroads, Suppliers and Consultants. But is that fair? Half of the big six railroads in the US and Canada also operate in Mexico. For those who were around during the AREA (American Railway Engineering Association) days, you may recall that there was definitely a more North American flavor to the activities, and the AREA logo included Mexico as part of the background. Back when AREA had two conferences a year, the fall conference often was held in Mexico. You may also recall that when we played the National Anthems at the opening general session at Conference, that the Mexican anthem was included. This tradition carried over into the early AREMA days. But is that fair? Since I don’t have a current subscription to Encyclopedia Britannica and I don’t trust Wikipedia, I turn to the other knower of all things, Google AI. That trustworthy (I’m sure) body of knowledge
currently defines North America as everything above the Isthmus of Panama and, more specifically, the Darién Gap, that narrow strip of land on the Colombia-Panama border. Google also goes on to include most of the Caribbean and Greenland. While there is not a lot of railroad activity in these outlying regions, the opening question remains: What is AREMA’s target audience? If we stick to the North American focus because of our contiguous freight rail network, that resolves to the US, Canada and Mexico.
I asked our own Google AI, Janice Clements, AREMA’s Senior Director, Database Management Systems, to do a little digging for me and found some interesting tidbits in our membership roster. Of our 5,205 members, the US accounts for 4,636 or 89%. Canada comes in second with 458 members or 9%. Mexico is third with 14 members or just under 0.3%. This is not surprising since (according to Google AI) the US has some 140,000 (75%) freight route miles compared to 31,000 miles (17%) in Canada and almost 15,000 miles (8%) in Mexico.
For those checking my math, the above totals are short some 94 members or just under 2%. Here is where the data gets interesting. These 94 members hail from 37 countries outside of contiguous North American rail network. The 61 members from Europe and Oceania generally make sense given the cross pollination between equipment, technology, and supply chains. The remaining 33 members from 22 countries as far away as Afghanistan are a little different. Some of these countries are not exactly driving innovation in heavy haul freight or high-density passenger operations. If we dive into the AREMA 2024 Annual Conference & Expo participation, we find the US, Canada, and Mexico again accounted for 98% of the conference participants, with Mexico tripling their relative participation percentage. Only this time we have 58 participants from 19 countries, of which 26 participants are from 9 countries outside of Europe and Oceania.
Recently, AREMA Senior Vice President (SVP) Specht attended the U.S. Commercial Service’s Built to Last: U.S. Perspectives on Mexican Rail Development virtual event. As the program title suggests, the presentations centered on how the US can assist in future rail development in Mexico. His big takeaway from the event was how little the organizers understood Mexican participation in the North American freight rail system. Particularly
troubling was a consistent theme by the other presenters of leaning towards European design standards for future rail projects. While we don’t have anything against these standards, Mexico is already part of this continent’s rail network and a party to the AREMA recommended practices. It doesn’t make sense to introduce another set of standards into an existing network.
Circling back to the opening question, when we consider the global diversity of AREMA’s membership roster and Annual Conference & Expo participation, coupled with the lack of understanding of the role of AREMA recommended practices in future rail development projects, perhaps our focus is wrong. I think the better question is “who should our target audience be?” Obviously, as volunteers, we bring our own experience and knowledge to our committee work, etc., for AREMA. As the vast majority of us are from the US and Canada, is that focus too narrow? The AREMA mission statement is “The development and advancement of both technical and practical knowledge and recommended practices pertaining to the design, construction, and maintenance of railway infrastructure.” Nowhere does it state just in North America.
There are obviously other incubators of heavy haul freight, high speed rail, high density passenger, advanced train control, and power system technology elsewhere around the world. I am also sure we already benchmark some of those best practices in our own professional work and ultimately AREMA Recommended Practices. But is that enough? If our mission is the advancement of both technical and practical knowledge of railway infrastructure, is the current 2% participation from those outside of the US and Canada enough for AREMA to remain relevant? I would argue it is not. The US and Canada rail networks are generally built out, and we are in maintenance mode. If we want to continue developing recommended practices for the design and construction of rail infrastructure, we need to grow our participation from where that work is ongoing.
As SVP Specht likes to ask: Who is not in the room? We need to seek out these other rail professionals around the world, invite them into AREMA, and continue to grow our knowledge and expertise so that we can share those best practices with the global rail industry, not just here at home.
FYI
Don’t miss discounted rates for the AREMA 2025 Annual Conference & Expo in Indianapolis, Ind., September 14-17. Register now to save money and your seat for the best education, speakers, networking events, Expo, and more. Visit conference. arema.org today.
Discover the ultimate guide for railway engineering professionals in the 2025 Manual for Railway Engineering. With over 6,100 pages of essential practices and detailed specifications, this comprehensive resource offers everything needed to design and build efficient, safe, and costeffective railway systems. It is available in print or PDF formats for immediate use. Order online now at www.arema.org.
Download the AREMA 365 App for essential rail resources and networking opportunities. Easy access to news, events, and educational materials lets you stay informed and connected to the industry. Download it today by searching for AREMA in your phone’s app store.
Did you know we have a wide variety of On Demand education for learning on your time? Browse our most popular webinars, seminars, and Annual Conferences to earn your PDH credits on the go. Visit www. arema.org to start your On Demand learning today.
If you’re looking for a podcast to binge, listen to AREMA’s Platform Chats. It
features guests from every aspect of the railway industry. Catch up on all five seasons available on all your favorite listening services today.
Leverage the power of your trusted association’s Railway Careers Network to tap into a talent pool of job candidates with the training and education needed for long-term success. Visit www.arema.org/ careers to post your job today.
NOT AN AREMA MEMBER? JOIN TODAY AT WWW.AREMA.ORG
CONNECT WITH AREMA ON SOCIAL MEDIA:
UPCOMING COMMITTEE MEETINGS
2025 MEETINGS
JUNE 19
Committee 12 - Rail Transit Virtual Meeting
JUNE 27-28
Committee 24 - Education & Professional Development West Point, N.Y.
JULY 17
Committee 12 - Rail Transit Virtual Meeting
Join a technical committee
JULY 30-31
Committee 7 - Timber Structures Overland Park, Kan.
AUGUST 21
Committee 12 - Rail Transit Virtual Meeting
SEPTEMBER 14
Committee 14 - Yards & Terminals Indianapolis, Ind.
SEPTEMBER 17-18
Committee 39 - Positive Train Control Indianapolis, Ind.
NOVEMBER 12
Committee 28 - Clearances Virtual Meeting
Joining a technical committee is the starting point for involvement in the Association and an opportunity for lifelong growth in the industry. AREMA has 30 technical committees covering a broad spectrum of railway engineering specialties. Build your network of contacts, sharpen your leadership skills, learn from other members and maximize your membership investment. If you’re interested in joining a technical committee or sitting in on a meeting as a guest, please contact Alayne Bell at abell@arema.org.
For a complete list of all committee meetings, visit www.arema.org.
Announcement of AREMA Board of Governors 2025 Election
The Governance Nominating Committee, Chaired by Past President Raymond G. Verrelle, Jr., PE, has completed its task and the following nominees have been officially elected:
MR. CHAD A. ANDERSON
Board of Governor
MR. BRIAN A. LINDAMOOD
Treasurer (Re-elected)
They will begin their Board of Governors positions at the conclusion of the AREMA 2025 Annual Conference & Expo which is being held in Indianapolis, Indiana, September 14-17.
Name CHAD A. ANDERSON
Elected as Governor (2025 – 2028)
Title Vice President Engineering – MOW, Capital, Bridges, and D&C Organization/Company C SX Transportation, Inc.
“ BOTH CHAD ANDERSON AND BRIAN LINDAMOOD HAVE DECADES OF EXPERIENCE IN RAILROAD ENGINEERING. ANDERSON OVER 30 AND LINDAMOOD OVER 35.
Chad Anderson has over 30 years railroad industry experience. Former positions were held with BNSF and CN. He worked at BNSF from 1994 – 1999 and held Assistant Track Supervisor and Track Supervisor positions. He moved to CN in 1999 and held these positions: Track Supervisor, Senior Manager Engineering, Zone Superintendent, Assistant Chief Engineering Southern Region, Regional Chief Engineer Pacific and Southern Region, Senior Director Engineering Projects & Control, Regional Chief Engineer Southern Region and Assistant Vice
President Engineering West Region. He started working at CSX Transportation, Inc. in 2024 and holds his current position of Vice President Engineering – MOW, Capital, Bridges and D&C.
Chad holds a BSCE from North Dakota State University and an EMBA from the University of Notre Dame.
Chad is a Member of AREMA and is a former NRC Board member and Penn State Altoona Advisory Board Member. Chad has also served as a Board member of a youth hockey club.
Name BRIAN A. LINDAMOOD, PE, SE
Elected as Treasurer (2025 – 2028) (Re-elected)
Title Vice President, Chief Engineer Organization/Company Alaska Railroad
Brian Lindamood has over 35 years of broad railroad industry experience including railroad operations and economics, alignment and track design, traditional and intermodal terminals, the development of track standards, specifications, and design/maintenance practices. He began his career in 1988 as a Research Assistant at the Upper Great Plains Transportation Institute. In 1990, he interned at the Burlington Northern Railroad and in 1991 interned at the Red River Valley and Western Railroad. He also interned at the Dakota, Missouri Valley and Western Railroad in 1992. He worked at HDR as an Engineer from 1995 – 1996 and in 1997 went to work for Hanson Wilson. He was a Project
Engineer from 1997 – 1998 and Vice President from 2002 – 2006. He was an Associate – AVP at TranSystems from 1998 – 2002. He started working at the Alaska Railroad in 2006 and is currently Vice President, Chief Engineer.
Brian holds BS and MS Civil Engineering degrees from North Dakota State University. He has a Professional Engineer Designation.
Brian has previously served in various AREMA Committee and Board Leadership roles. He served as Senior Vice President, President, Past President of AREMA on the Board of Governors and currently serves as Treasurer. He has also served on several local non-profit boards.
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Get PDHs at your Own Pace with AREMA’s On Demand Education
Access to important professional development content is just a few clicks away with AREMA Education. Our On Demand content spans many disciplines of PDH accredited courses that allow you to get your PDHs by learning from experts online without leaving your office.
BENEFITS OF LEARNING ONLINE
1. LEARN MORE
Studies show that participants learn more while taking On Demand courses as you can skim through the material you understand and take more time in the more challenging areas.
2. GET INSTANT ACCESS
With AREMA On Demand courses, you don’t have to wait to learn and get your PDHs as they’re available instantly after purchase.
3. CONVENIENT AND FLEXIBLE
Above all things, On Demand education is meant to take at your own pace and on your time. Study from anywhere in the world, whether from your office or the convenience of your sofa.
4. COURSE VARIETY
AREMA On Demand education offers a wide variety of topics for all studies of the railway engineering community.
Register and Start Learning today at www.arema.org.
BECOME A MEMBER AND SAVE
Not an AREMA member? Join today at www.arema.org and get discounts on all AREMA Educational Offerings, from Virtual Conferences to our Webinars.
2400 Enterprise Dr., Independence, KS 67301 Call 620-485-4277 or visit precisionrwy.com for more details
Let Precision remanufacture your non-functional, outdated 6700 into a fully functional 6700 with the latest technology. If you have an old, worn-out 6700 ta m per, we have your solution.
COMPANY
American Concrete Products
AREMA
CSX corporation
GFT
Herzog
HiRail Corporation
Hougen Manufacturing, Inc.
Jacobs Solutions
Light Rail
Lunda Construction Co.
Modern Railway Systems
OMNI Products, Inc.
RailPros Inc
Railway Educational Bureau Road and Rail
VHB
Women In Rail
Zephyr Rail
Advertising Sales
MAIN OFFICE
JONATHAN CHALON
Publisher (212) 620-7224 jchalon@sbpub.com
AL, KY, TN, CHINA
JONATHAN CHALON (212) 620-7224 jchalon@sbpub.com
CT, DE, DC, FL, GA, ME,MD, MA, NH, NJ, NY, NC, OH, PA,RI, SC, VT, VA, WV, CANADA: QUEBEC AND EAST, ONTARIO
JEROME MARULLO (212) 620-7260
jmarullo@sbpub.com
AR, AK, AZ, CA, CO, IA, ID, IL, IN, KS, LA, MI, MN, MO, MS, MT, NE, NM, ND, NV, OK, OR, SD, TX, UT, WA, WI, WY, CANADA: ALBERTA, BRITISH COLUMBIA, MANITOBA, SASKATCHEWAN HEATHER DISABATO (CHICAGO OFFICE) (312) 683-5026 hdisabato@sbpub.com
PHONE #
402-306-7132
301-459-3200
904-359-3200
402-215-8227
816-901-4038
800-274-7245
866-245-3745
817-222-8511
212-620-7200
720- 542-3325
402-458-594
262-637-9681
402-346-4300
502-495-6688
617-607-2148
212-620-7200 E-MAIL
kdhicks@gftinc.com amcclain@hrsi.com info@hirail.com info@trak-star.com Dava.Kaitala@jacobs.com www.railwayage.com/ DManey@Lundaconstruction.com jtgreen@modrailsystems.com bcigrang@omnirail.com www.railpros.com bbrundige@sb-reb.com
dwilcock@VHB.com www.railwayage.com/wir www.zuirail.com
AMERICAS, EUROPE, ASIA, AFRICA, AUSTRAL ASIA NORTH AMERICA - CT, DE, DC, FL, GA, ME, MD, MA, NH, NJ, NY, NC, OH, PA, RI, SC, VT, VA, WV, AND EASTERN CANADA. EUROPE EXCEPT GERMANY, AUSTRIA, GERMAN SPEAKING SWITZERLAND, EASTERN EUROPE, ITALY, AND ITALIAN-SPEAKING SWITZERLAND. ASIA EXCEPT JAPAN AND CHINA. JEROME MARULLO (212) 620-7260 jmarullo@sbpub.com
GERMANY, AUSTRIA, GERMAN-SPEAKING SWITZERLAND, LATVIA, LITHUANIA, ESTONIA, POLAND, CZECH REPUBLIC, SLOVAKIA, HUNGARY, SLOVENIA, CROATIA AND SERBIA
SIMONE AND SIMON FAHR
Breitenbergstr. 17 Füssen 87629
Germany Tel: +49 8362 5074996 sfahr@railjournal.com
ITALY, ITALIAN-SPEAKING SWITZERLAND
DR. FABIO POTESTA
Media Point & Communications SRL Corte Lambruschini
Corso Buenos Aires 8 V Piano, Genoa, Italy 16129 +39-10-570-4948
Fax: +39-10-553-0088 info@mediapointsrl.it
JAPAN
KATSUHIRO ISHII
Ace Media Service, Inc. 12-6 4-Chome, Nishiiko, Adachi-Ku Tokyo 121-0824
Japan
+81-3-5691-3335
Fax: +81-3-5691-3336 amkatsu@dream.com
IRJ PRO AND CLASSIFIED ADVERTISING SALES
JEROME MARULLO (212) 620-7260 jmarullo@sbpub.com
Reader Referral Service
This section has been created solely for the convenience of our readers to facilitate immediate contact with the RAILWAY TRACK & STRUCTURES advertisers in this issue. The Advertisers Index is an editorial feature maintained for the convenience of readers. It is not part of the advertiser contract and RTS assumes no responsibility for the correctness.
Blueprint for the Future
Transcontinental Mergers Will Likely Occur; It’s Just a Matter of When
By David C. Lester, Editor-in-Chief
Over the past several months, there has been buzz in the railroad industry about the “final set” of Class I railroad mergers to create, essentially, two transcontinental systems that would offer single-line service to many places. There are many issues and questions around this, most importantly the lack of interest of most roads to seriously entertain the subject now. Moreover, there are many industry observers who believe the Class Is need to get their own houses in order before considering any kind of industry consolidation.
These topics have arisen in boardrooms, consulting firms, and within the industry because railroads are losing freight market share to trucks. For example, in Q3 2024, Railway Age published the testimony of Adriene Bailey, who is a partner and leads the North American Rail Practice at consulting firm Oliver Wyman. (https://www. railwayage.com/regulatory/growth-in-thefreight-rail-industry/). In her testimony, Bailey stated “. . . it is concerning that Class I rail volumes have not materially grown over the past decade. Indeed, rail is the only freight transportation mode that has lost overall net tons since 2017. Rail moved eight percent fewer total net tons between 2017 and 2023, while truck increased net tons moved by three percent.” Bailey goes on to point out that “. . . the U.S. Department of Transportation currently projects that rail will have the slowest growth among freight transportation modes through 2050 – which means that railroads are predicted to lose share to other freight modes over that timeframe.”
Most readers understand coal use has been declining for at least the past ten years, and loss of this traffic accounts for some portion of the railroads’ total car loss. This is through no fault of the railroads, but carriers must work aggressively to grow business without coal.
Transcontinental mergers are seen by some as part of the remedy for railroads to regain and grow freight market share. While the thoughts of single-line service between, say, Atlanta and Seattle is appealing, most of the carriers are against it right now and as mentioned earlier, the industry is likely not in good enough shape at the moment to fully leverage the benefit of such mergers.
What’s the problem? Service quality. While CEOs and marketing officers talk continuously about delivering “an excellent service product,” many believe, especially shippers, that this is a goal rather than reality. Some recent examples of service lapse I’ve heard about include instances where a shipper needs two cars delivered to a plant for outbound shipment. Yet, in the recent past, when they’ve ordered two cars, they would either receive one or none, or if they did receive two, they didn’t arrive at the same time. How is a company supposed to effectively run a warehouse if a shipment, which is taking up a lot of room in the staging area, cannot leave all at once? One shipper, when needing two cars, decided to order eight cars to increase the likelihood they would receive the two they needed.
Some shippers say that it’s difficult to do business with Class I railroads. Some say that Class Is don’t want to work with you unless you want to talk about unit trains for a commodity. That’s like McDonald’s not wanting to do business with you unless you order 25 hamburgers.
One plant owner tells of an order he placed for the installation of a rail siding at his plant because his product is better suited for shipment by rail than by truck. His request for a siding, however, was placed two years ago and the siding is not yet installed. Meanwhile, he continues to ship by truck. While the service is good from his trucking partners, the efficiency of his supply chain is challenged because he needs to ship carloads of his product rather than truckloads.
One rail customer placed an inquiry for a rate quote with a Class I carrier and went for weeks without a response. In desperation, he called a friend of his who happened to know the director of service design at the railroad and asked if the friend could help, which he did. When talking to the director of service design, the friend was asked for the name of the customer. A couple of days later, the customer called the friend and said “I don’t know who you talked to, but I’ve had eight people from the railroad call me in the past three days.” The shipper eventually got his rate quote.
Transcontinental mergers will require Herculean efforts to execute. Regulatory hurdles, the 2001 merger rules (which have
never been tested because, as most know the most recent merger, CPKC, was executed under the pre-2001 rules), negotiations between powerful and strong-willed railroads looking after their interests along with the interests of their shareholders (with the exception of BNSF, of course, because it’s privately owned), integration of corporate cultures, computer integration challenges, shipper reaction (i.e., opposition), and more. And, regarding BNSF, the question of how a privately owned railroad would financially merge with one that is publicly owned needs to be answered, unless the owners of BNSF would outright purchase merger partner, and thinking about putting a deal like that together would make my head explode.
In addition to these challenges, to reiterate, railroads and shippers cannot fully leverage the benefits of such mergers without significant improvement around the industry’s ability to execute basic blocking and tackling moves. Indeed, transcontinental mergers at this point would make basic operation even more difficult.
Service quality has certainly improved since the 1970s, when the industry was about to go bankrupt. That was a long time ago, pre-Staggers, and we live in a different world today. Yet I was told by a shipper 50 years ago that they didn’t use rail because carriers simply could not provide the quality of service they needed, so they had to use trucks. With all that has happened since those tumultuous years, why are we still talking about lack of service quality today? I don’t know.
