U.S. Department of 

Transportation

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Investigating Technical Challenges and Research Needs 

Related to Shared Corridors for High-Speed Passenger

and Railroad Freight Operations

Office of Research

and Development

Washington, DC 20590

DOT/FRA/ORD-13/29 Final Report

May 2013
NOTICE

This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the 

Department of Transportation in the interest of information 

exchange. The United States Government assumes no liability for 

its contents or use thereof. Any opinions, findings and 

conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this material do not 

necessarily reflect the views or policies of the United States 

Government, nor does mention of trade names, commercial 

products, or organizations imply endorsement by the United States 

Government. The United States Government assumes no liability 

for the content or use of the material contained in this document.

NOTICE

The United States Government does not endorse products or 

manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers’ names appear herein 

solely because they are considered essential to the objective of this 

report.
i

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Approved

OMB No. 0704-0188

Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, 

gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302, and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (0704-0188), Washington, DC 20503.

1. AGENCY USE ONLY (Leave blank) 2. REPORT DATE

May 2013

3. REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED

Technical Report

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

Investigating Technical Challenges and Research Needs Related to Shared Corridors for HighSpeed Passenger and Railroad Freight Operations

5. FUNDING NUMBERS

6. AUTHOR(S)

M.R. Saat, C.P.L. Barkan

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

Rail Transportation and Engineering Center –RailTEC

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering

205 N. Mathews Ave

Urbana, IL 61801

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION 

REPORT NUMBER

DOT/FRA/BAA-2010-1

9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Federal Railroad Administration

Office of Railroad Policy and Development

Office of Research and Development

Washington, DC 20590

10. SPONSORING/MONITORING

AGENCY REPORT NUMBER

DOT/FRA/ORD-13/29

11. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

12a. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

This document is available to the public through the FRA Web site at http://www.fra.dot.gov.

12b. DISTRIBUTION CODE

13. ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 words)

The development of both incremental and dedicated high-speed rail lines in the United States poses a number of questions. Despite 

nearly 50 years of international experience in planning, designing, building and operating high-speed passenger infrastructure and 

rolling stock, there is a range of problems partially or completely unique to North America. Successful development of expanded 

higher speed, and new, very high-speed rail, will require careful analysis and, in many cases, research to develop satisfactory 

solutions. The questions involve a range of engineering, operational, economic, and institutional aspects. This report introduces 

various technical challenges related to shared high-speed passenger and freight rail corridors, describes an effort to prioritize the 

challenges, and presents an in-depth literature review of the high-priority challenges to identify existing research and future research 

needs.

14. SUBJECT TERMS

Shared corridor, high speed rail, heavy axle load freight

15. NUMBER OF PAGES

133

16. PRICE CODE

17. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION

OF REPORT

Unclassified

18. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION

OF THIS PAGE

Unclassified

19. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION

OF ABSTRACT

Unclassified

20. LIMITATION OF ABSTRACT

NSN 7540-01-280-5500 Standard Form 298 (Rev. 2-89)

Prescribed by ANSI Std. 239-18

298-102
ii

METRIC/ENGLISH CONVERSION FACTORS

ENGLISH TO METRIC METRIC TO ENGLISH

LENGTH (APPROXIMATE) LENGTH (APPROXIMATE)

1 inch (in) = 2.5 centimeters (cm) 1 millimeter (mm) = 0.04 inch (in)

1 foot (ft) = 30 centimeters (cm) 1 centimeter (cm) = 0.4 inch (in)

1 yard (yd) = 0.9 meter (m) 1 meter (m) = 3.3 feet (ft)

1 mile (mi) = 1.6 kilometers (km) 1 meter (m) = 1.1 yards (yd)

1 kilometer (km) = 0.6 mile (mi)

AREA (APPROXIMATE) AREA (APPROXIMATE)

1 square inch (sq in, in2) = 6.5 square centimeters 

(cm2

)

1 square centimeter (cm2) = 0.16 square inch (sq in, in2)

1 square foot (sq ft, ft2) = 0.09 square meter (m2) 1 square meter (m2) = 1.2 square yards (sq yd, yd2)

1 square yard (sq yd, yd2) = 0.8 square meter (m2) 1 square kilometer (km2) = 0.4 square mile (sq mi, mi2)

1 square mile (sq mi, mi2) = 2.6 square kilometers (km2) 10,000 square meters (m2) = 1 hectare (ha) = 2.5 acres

1 acre = 0.4 hectare (he) = 4,000 square meters (m2)

MASS - WEIGHT (APPROXIMATE) MASS - WEIGHT (APPROXIMATE)

1 ounce (oz) = 28 grams (gm) 1 gram (gm) = 0.036 ounce (oz)

1 pound (lb) = 0.45 kilogram (kg) 1 kilogram (kg) = 2.2 pounds (lb)

1 short ton = 2,000 pounds 

(lb)

= 0.9 tonne (t) 1 tonne (t) =

=

1,000 kilograms (kg)

1.1 short tons

VOLUME (APPROXIMATE) VOLUME (APPROXIMATE)

1 teaspoon (tsp) = 5 milliliters (ml) 1 milliliter (ml) = 0.03 fluid ounce (fl oz)

1 tablespoon (tbsp) = 15 milliliters (ml) 1 liter (l) = 2.1 pints (pt)

1 fluid ounce (fl oz) = 30 milliliters (ml) 1 liter (l) = 1.06 quarts (qt)

1 cup (c) = 0.24 liter (l) 1 liter (l) = 0.26 gallon (gal)

1 pint (pt) = 0.47 liter (l)

1 quart (qt) = 0.96 liter (l)

1 gallon (gal) = 3.8 liters (l)

1 cubic foot (cu ft, ft3) = 0.03 cubic meter (m3) 1 cubic meter (m3) = 36 cubic feet (cu ft, ft3)

1 cubic yard (cu yd, yd3) = 0.76 cubic meter (m3) 1 cubic meter (m3) = 1.3 cubic yards (cu yd, yd3)

TEMPERATURE (EXACT) TEMPERATURE (EXACT)

[(x-32)(5/9)] °F = y °C [(9/5) y + 32] °C = x °F

QUICK INCH - CENTIMETER LENGTH CONVERSION

0 1 2 3 4 5

Inches

Centimeters 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

QUICK FAHRENHEIT - CELSIUS TEMPERATURE CONVERSIO

 -40° -22° -4° 14° 32° 50° 68° 86° 104° 122° 140° 158° 176° 194° 212°

 

°F

 °C -40° -30° -20° -10° 0° 10° 20° 30° 40° 50° 60° 70° 80° 90° 100°

For more exact and or other conversion factors, see NIST Miscellaneous Publication 286, Units of Weights and 

Measures. Price $2.50 SD Catalog No. C13 10286 Updated 6/17/98
iii

Contents

Executive Summary..................................................................................................................... 1

1. INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................... 2

1.1 Introduction.........................................................................................................................................................2

1.2 Description of Technical Challenges.................................................................................................................3

1.2.1 Safety .............................................................................................................................................................3

1.2.2 Infrastructure and Equipment.........................................................................................................................4

1.2.3 Planning and Operations................................................................................................................................6

1.2.4 Economic Challenges.....................................................................................................................................7

1.2.5 Institutional Challenges .................................................................................................................................8

1.3 Research Methodology .......................................................................................................................................9

1.4 Results10

1.5 Discussions and Conclusions............................................................................................................................11

1.6 References..........................................................................................................................................................12

2. EVALUATING AND MITIGATING THE RISK POSED TO HIGHER SPEED 

PASSENGER TRAINS BY ADJACENT TRACK DERAILMENTS ................ 13

2.1 Introduction.......................................................................................................................................................13

2.2 Relevant Accidents............................................................................................................................................13

2.3 Example of Shared Rail Corridors With Non-FRA Compliant Vehicles....................................................16

2.4 Adjacent Track Derailment Risk ....................................................................................................................19

2.4.1 Railroad Accident Models .................................................................................................................19

2.4.2 Adjacent Track Derailment Risk Models.....................................................................................................22

2.5 Risk Mitigation Strategies................................................................................................................................25

2.5.1 Accident Prevention.....................................................................................................................................25

2.5.2 Survivability.................................................................................................................................................26

2.6 Discussion and Conclusions .............................................................................................................................26

2.7 References..........................................................................................................................................................28

3. HIGHWAY-RAIL GRADE CROSSING SAFETY CHALLENGES FOR SHARED 

HIGH-SPEED RAIL PASSENGER AND HEAVY AXLE LOAD FREIGHT 

OPERATIONS IN THE UNITED STATES.......................................................... 30

3.1 Introduction.......................................................................................................................................................30

3.2 Methodology......................................................................................................................................................31

3.3 Regulations, Guidelines, and Standards.........................................................................................................31

3.3.1 Consolidation and Closures .........................................................................................................................31

3.3.2 Sealed Corridors...........................................................................................................................................32

3.3.3 Warning/Barrier Systems.............................................................................................................................32

3.3.4 Train Control Integration .............................................................................................................................32

3.3.5 Grade Crossing Inspection...........................................................................................................................33

3.4 Crashworthiness of Passenger Train Cars.....................................................................................................33

3.5 Grade-Crossing Accident Prediction ..............................................................................................................34

3.6 Alternative Grade Crossing Warning Strategies...........................................................................................37

3.6.1 Sealed Corridors...........................................................................................................................................37

3.6.2 Obstacle Detection.......................................................................................................................................38

3.6.3 Traffic Channelization .................................................................................................................................39

3.6.4 Low-Cost Level Crossing Warning Devices ...............................................................................................40

3.6.5 Emergency Response Management .............................................................................................................41
iv

3.6.6. Human Factors and Driver Behavior..........................................................................................................42

3.7 Discussion and Conclusions .............................................................................................................................44

3.8 References..........................................................................................................................................................48

4. SPECIAL TRACKWORK FOR SHARED HIGH-SPEED RAIL PASSENGER AND 

HEAVY AXLE LOAD FREIGHT OPERATIONS .............................................. 52

4.1 Introduction.......................................................................................................................................................52

4.2 Divergent Design Considerations for HSR and HAL....................................................................................52

4.3 Flange bearing Technology ..............................................................................................................................53

4.4 Turnout Geometry............................................................................................................................................56

4.5 Other Innovative Component Designs............................................................................................................60

4.6 Field Instrumentation and Modeling ..............................................................................................................61

4.7 Discussion and Conclusions .............................................................................................................................62

4.8 References..........................................................................................................................................................65

5. BALLASTED TRACK FOR SHARED-USED RAIL CORRIDORS .............................. 67

5.1 Introduction.......................................................................................................................................................67

5.2 Life-Cycle Cost Considerations.......................................................................................................................68

5.3 Ballast Quality and Modeling ..........................................................................................................................69

5.4 Ballast Flight .....................................................................................................................................................72

5.5 Discussion and Conclusions .............................................................................................................................75

5.6 References..........................................................................................................................................................76

6. VEHICLE TRACK INTERACTION (VTI) CHARACTERISTICS OF TRACK 

TRANSITION SECTIONS AND IMPLICATIONS TO SHARED PASSENGER 

AND FREIGHT RAIL CORRIDOR OPERATIONS .......................................... 78

6.1 Introduction.......................................................................................................................................................78

6.2 Track Transition Maintenance Costs..............................................................................................................79

6.3 Causes of Differential Track Movement.........................................................................................................79

6.4 Vehicle-Track Interaction (VTI) .....................................................................................................................80

6.5 Potential Track Transition Solutions..............................................................................................................84

6.5.1 Construction of Transition Zones ................................................................................................................86

6.5.2 Increase Track Stiffness with Longer Crossties...........................................................................................86

6.5.3 Hot-Mix Asphalt (HMA) Underlayment .....................................................................................................86

6.5.4 Increasing Approach Stiffness at Grade Crossing .......................................................................................87

6.5.5 Approach Slab..............................................................................................................................................88

6.5.6 Geotechnical Considerations .......................................................................................................................88

6.5.7 Rail Seat Pads on Open Deck Bridges and Direct-Fixation Structures........................................................89

6.5.8 Reducing Track Stiffness on Ballast Deck Bridges.....................................................................................89

6.6 Discussion and Conclusions .............................................................................................................................90

6.7 References..........................................................................................................................................................92

7. CAPACITY AND OPERATING CHALLENGES OF SHARED PASSENGER AND 

FREIGHT RAIL CORRIDORS ............................................................................. 94

7.1 Introduction.......................................................................................................................................................94

7.2 Capacity Planning.............................................................................................................................................94

7.2.1 Modeling......................................................................................................................................................94

7.2.2 Optimization ................................................................................................................................................95

7.3 Scheduling..........................................................................................................................................................96

7.3.1 Passenger Train Schedules...........................................................................................................................96

7.3.2 Freight Train Schedules...............................................................................................................................96

7.3.3 Temporal Separation of Traffic Types on Shared Corridors .......................................................................96

7.4 Train Delay........................................................................................................................................................97
v

7.4.1 Sources of Delay..........................................................................................................................................97

7.4.2 Delays Due to Heterogeneity.....................................................................................................................102

7.4.3 Delay Mitigation ........................................................................................................................................103

7.5 Maintenance Planning....................................................................................................................................109

7.5.1 Integrated Maintenance and Rail Traffic Scheduling ................................................................................109

7.5.2 Strategic Maintenance Scheduling.............................................................................................................110

7.5.3 Tactical Maintenance Scheduling..............................................................................................................111

7.6 Discussion and Conclusions ...........................................................................................................................112

7.7 References........................................................................................................................................................114

8. SUMMARY OF IDENTIFIED RESEARCH NEEDS RELATED TO SHARED HIGHSPEED RAIL PASSENGER AND FREIGHT TRAIN OPERATIONS........... 117

Appendix A: Prioritized List of Challenges based on Survey Results (sorted by category)

.................................................................................................................................. 118

Appendix B: Prioritized List of Challenges based on Survey Results (sorted by descending 

rank)......................................................................................................................... 120

Abbreviations and Acronyms ................................................................................................. 121
vi

Illustrations

Figure 1.1 Distribution of participant affiliations.......................................................................... 9

Figure 2.1 Shared corridor in Denver. ......................................................................................... 16

Figure 2.2 Cleveland light rail sharing ROW with Norfolk Southern......................................... 17

Figure 2.3 CTA and CN trains sharing a corridor with 13 ft track center distance. .................... 18

Figure 2.4 Proposed Caltrain non-FRA compliant EMU equipment. ......................................... 18

Figure 2.5 Relationship between accident speed and average number of cars derailed in mainline 

freight derailments with at least one hazardous materials car derailed (Barkan et al. 

2003).......................................................................................................................... 21

Figure 2.6 Frequency and severity graph of Class I mainline freight-train derailments, 2001-

2010 (Liu et al. 2012). ............................................................................................... 22

Figure 2.7 Lateral dispersion of accidents by dataset (English et al. 2007). ............................... 23

Figure 2.8 Lateral dispersion probability and speed (English et al. 2007). ................................. 24

Figure 2.9 Percent of accidents exceeding a lateral distance as a function of speed (English et al. 

2007).......................................................................................................................... 24

Figure 2.10 Derailed railcar lateral displacement due to embankment. ...................................... 25

Figure 2.11 Separation by earth berm and ditch.......................................................................... 26

Figure 3.1 An upgraded crossing in Charlotte, NC (Bien-Aime 2009). ...................................... 38

Figure 3.2 Four-quadrant gate configuration for a double-track segment (Hellman and 

Ngamdung 2009). ...................................................................................................... 39

Figure 3.3 Traffic channelization device in North Carolina (FRA 2010).................................... 40

Figure 3.4 Highway-rail grade crossing accident contributors (Caird et al. 2002)...................... 42

Figure 4.1 Example of full flange bearing frog diamond (Clark et al. 2008).............................. 54

Figure 4.2 Example of one-way low speed partial flange bearing (Clark et al. 2008). ............... 55

Figure 4.3 Maximum vertical wheel force versus train speed for lift frog (Davis et al. 2009). . 56

Figure 4.4 Concept of optimum lateral force for turnout design (Prasad 2011).......................... 57

Figure 4.5 Comparison of switch geometries (Ossberger and Bishop 2010). ............................. 59

Figure 4.6 Gauge-widening switch structure (Wang et al. 2009)................................................ 60

Figure 4.7 Hydrulically linked distributed system (Abbot et al. 2010)..............................61

Figure 5.1 Schematic representation of the savings in ballast material due to the use of a lower 

lateral slope for the bituminous sub-ballast solution (Teixeira 2008)..................68

Figure 5.2 The life-cycle assessment inventory stages (Kiani et al. 2007).................................. 69

Figure 5.3 Life-cycle energy consumption analysis of track beds (Kiani et al. 2007). ............... 69

Figure 5.4 Simple (top) and discrete (bottom) FEM models (Kuo and Hang 2009). .................. 71

Figure 5.5 Pressure coefficient vs. normalized time (Quinn 2008). ............................................ 73

Figure 5.6 Plot of the normalized wind velocity and normalized pressure values vs. the position 

of the train wheels over time (Lazaro 2011).............................................................. 74

Figure 5.7 Turbulence (circled) is noted right before the arrival of the train (Powrie 2011). ..... 74

Figure 6.1 Vehicle element model with 26 degrees of freedom (Lei and Zhang 2010). ............. 82

Figure 6.2 Methodology for simulation of wheel-rail contact and damage in S&C: (a) 

simulation of dynamic contact force; (b) calculation of contact stress and contact 

patch size; (c) simulation of plastic deformation and wear; (d) Summation and 

smoothing of total profile change (Nicklisch et al. 2009). ........................................ 83

Figure 6.3 Mesh geometry of numerical model (Smith et al. 2006)............................................ 84

Figure 6.4 Example of HMA bridge approach design (Kerr and Moroney 1993)..................85
vii

Figure 6.5 Transition design implemented at Bates Mill Road crossing (Zarembski and Palese 

2005)..................................................................................................... ................87

Figure 6.6 Slab track transition at TTC (Li and Read 2006)..........................................89

Figure 6.7 Comparison of track modulus values of different ballast deck bridge tie types 

(Sasaoka et al. 2005).................................................................................................. 90

Figure 7.1 Example delay-volume curve (number of trains on the x-axis). ................................ 97

Figure 7.2 Average delay versus the ratio of bulk to intermodal trains by (a) conflict and 

(b) source........................................................................................99

Figure 7.3 Transportation Department Delays (Martland et al. 1994). ..................................... 100

Figure 7.4 Causes of delays to trains, 1999–2000 (based on minutes of train delay compared 

with timetabled journey time).................................................................................. 101

Figure 7.5 Analysis of delay minute, 2006-2007 (FOC = freight operated company) (Source: 

Network Rail). ......................................................................................................... 101

Figure 7.6 Commuter rail delays (Nelson and O’Neil 2000)..................................................... 102

Figure 7.7 Freight train delays when adding freight (left) and 110 mph passenger trains (right) to 

a base case of 24 freight trains per day (Sogin et al. 2011)..................................... 103

Figure 7.8 Impact of slack on system response (Petersen and Taylor 1987)......................107

Figure 7.9 NPV when additional sidings are added to a single-track line (Dingler et al. 2011)

................................................................................................................................. 106

Figure 7.10 NPV when a 2nd mainline track is added to a single-track line (Dingler et al. 2011)

................................................................................................................................. 106

Figure 7.11 Best allocation of maintenance activities to time window (Higgins 1998)............ 112
viii

Tables

Table 1.1 Types of Mixed-Use Rail Corridors ............................................................................. 2

Table 2.1 Estimated Accident Rate by FRA Track Class (Anderson and Barkan 2004) ........... 20

Table 2.2 Sensitivity Analysis of the Effect of Train Length on Accident Rate (Schafer and 

Barkan 2008) .............................................................................................................. 20

Table 3.1 Track Class and Related Maximum Speed................................................................. 31

Table 3.2 Summary of Federal Regulation Related to Grade-crossing Protection and 

Closure........................................................................................................................ 32

Table 3.3 FRA Grade Crossing Signal System Safety Regulations (Hellman and 

Ngamdung 2010)........................................................................................................ 41

Table 3.4 Caird et al. (2002) Summary of Effectiveness and Cost of Countermeasures ........... 43

Table 5.1 Typical Axle Loads (Not Including Locomotives) in Tons........................................ 67

Table 7.1 Categories of Delays................................................................................................... 98

Table 7.2 Hypothetical Annual Payment for “Good” vs. “Poor” Performance (Corridor 

Traffic, Penn Central Railroad) Baumol 1975)........................................................ 108
1

Executive Summary

The development of both incremental and dedicated high-speed rail lines in the United States

poses a number of questions. Despite nearly 50 years of international experience in planning, 

designing, building, and operating high-speed passenger infrastructure and rolling stock, there 

remains a range of problems partially or completely unique to North America. Successful 

development of expanded higher speed and new very high-speed rail will require careful analysis

and, in many cases, research to develop satisfactory solutions to the many challenges faced. 

These challenges involve a range of engineering, operational, economic, and institutional factors. 

The following report (1) discusses the technical challenges associated with shared high-speed 

passenger and freight rail corridors, (2) describes an effort to prioritize the challenges, and (3) 

presents an in-depth literature review of specific high-priority challenges to identify existing 

research and future research needs.

This work was undertaken by the Rail Transportation and Engineering Center (RailTEC) in the 

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering at the University of Illinois at UrbanaChampaign (Illinois) and sponsored by the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) under the 

Broad Agency Announcement (BAA) Program: Research and Demonstration Projects 

Supporting the Development of High-Speed and Intercity Passenger Rail Service. The research 

was led by Rapik Saat, PhD, supported by RailTEC’s Director, Professor Christopher Barkan, 

PhD, and other RailTEC faculty and staff, and involved two graduate research assistants, 

Brennan Caughron and Sam Sogin, as well as the students enrolled in CEE 598SRC – Shared 

Rail Corridor in the Spring semester of 2012 at the university. Below is a list of the report’s key 

sections, along with the names of the students who assisted in preparing the initial drafts.

Section 1: Introduction—Brennan Caughron

Section 2: Evaluating and Mitigating the Risk Posed to Higher Speed Passenger Trains by 

Adjacent Track Derailments—Brennan Caughron and Samuel Sogin

Section 3: Highway-Rail Grade Crossing Safety Challenges for Shared High-Speed Rail 

Passenger and Heavy Axle Load Freight Operations in the United States—Samantha 

Chadwick and Nanyan Zhou

Section 4: Special Trackwork for Shared High-Speed Rail Passenger and Heavy Axle Load 

Freight Operations—Ryan Kernes and Chris Rapp

Section 5: Ballasted Track for Shared-Use Rail Corridors—Francesco Bedini and Tanvi Damani

Section 6: Vehicle Track Interaction (VTI) Characteristics of Track Transition Sections and 

Implications to Shared Passenger and Freight Rail Corridor Operations—Riley 

Edwards and Zhe Chen

Section 7: Capacity and Operating Challenges of Shared Passenger and 

Freight Rail Corridors—Samuel Sogin, Brennan Caughron, Greg Munden, and Craig 

Jakobsen
2

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Introduction

The U.S. Department of Transportation (U.S. DOT) is supporting the development of 

substantially expanded and improved passenger rail service on a number of intercity corridors 

connecting communities across the country. These corridor development projects will range from 

incremental improvement of existing trackage to new, dedicated high-speed rail (HSR) lines. 

There will be a corresponding range—from extensive sharing of track to partially parallel—in 

the extent and nature of sharing corridor usage with existing freight and passenger rail lines.

Although such mixed-use corridor development and operation is not new, numerous changes in 

U.S. freight railroad infrastructure, rolling stock, and operating practices have resulted in a 

variety of new questions about how to safely and effectively accommodate new passenger 

service while sustaining ongoing rail freight transportation efficiency and growth. Furthermore, 

regulatory requirements continue to evolve to ensure both the safety and efficiency of freight and 

passenger rail development. 

The U.S. DOT Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) defines three types of mixed-use corridor: 

shared trackage, shared right-of-way (ROW), and shared corridor (Table 1.1) (Federal Railway 

Administration, 2003). Each of these has a different, although in some cases related, set of issues 

that needs to be resolved. The objective of this research is to develop a technology or strategic 

plan for HSR mixed-use corridors in the United States by doing the following:

1. Identifying and describing shared rail corridor technical challenges

2. Analyzing and prioritizing their importance

3. Identifying previous and ongoing research related to the major technical challenges

4. Identifying knowledge gaps and research needs for the major technical challenges

Table 1.1. Types of Mixed-Use Rail Corridors

Type of Operation Dedicated Tracks 

for Different 

Traffic Types

Concurrent Operation 

of Freight and 

Passenger Traffic

Track Center Spacing 

(ft)

Shared track No Varies n/a

Shared right of way 

(ROW)

Yes Yes < 25 ft 

Shared corridor Yes Yes 25–200 ft

The nature of the mixed-use corridor issues that need to be addressed varies; it includes, but is 

not limited to, the following categories:

• Safety – operational practices, safety technologies, infrastructure, and rolling stock 

designs that support very low operational risk of passenger and freight trains on the same 

corridors

• Infrastructure and Rolling Stock – safe, reliable, and effective design of trackage and 

equipment, and their maintenance
3

• Planning and Operations – capacity and service quality impacts, upgrades to track, train 

control, and scheduling 

• Economic – equitable approaches to sharing capital and operating costs for construction 

and maintenance, maximizing passenger operation profitability without interfering with 

current and future capacity and quality of freight services

• Institutional – regulatory compliance and possible changes, incentive compensation and 

penalties, liability and accommodation for growth in either passenger or freight

This section reviews the technical issues presented in the safety, infrastructure and rolling stock, 

planning and operational challenge categories, and identifies the high-priority challenges to be 

addressed in the remaining sections of this report.

1.2 Description of Technical Challenges

The technical challenges presented here were identified as potential key issues through a 

preliminary high-level literature review and through discussion and interviews with 

representatives from both the passenger and freight sides of the industry.

1.2.1 Safety

Loss of shunt problems

Reducing the weight of passenger rail equipment offers a number of benefits, including greater 

energy efficiency and improved train performance. There is some concern and anecdotal 

evidence of short, light passenger consists exhibiting shunt reliability problems, particularly with 

grade crossing circuits. This problem may be related to the buildup of corrosion on wheel treads 

that would interfere with reliable electrical contact. The relationship between wheel load and 

wheel tread condition could be investigated as it relates to track circuit shunt reliability. 

Barriers

Barriers have several applications to shared corridors. Barriers may be useful to prevent the 

intrusion of foreign vehicles onto the railway ROW. In areas of high security risk, barriers 

should be designed to withstand large trucks or other vehicles that would pose a significant risk 

to train operations. Barriers may also be useful in mitigating the effects of a derailment. By 

separating tracks with barriers, the paths of derailed equipment may be channeled or controlled 

in a way that prevents impact with adjacent rail operations. 

Highway grade crossings

Implementing higher speed passenger service on existing freight corridors may increase the risk 

to rail traffic as well as automotive traffic at highway grade crossings. The cost effectiveness of 

enhanced grade crossing equipment such as median barriers and four quadrant gates should be 

weighed against the ultimate but often cost prohibitive solution of grade separation. 

Pedestrian risk

Trespasser-train accidents may occur with higher frequency on mixed-use corridors because of

the inherently higher speed of passenger trains. Fencing off an entire ROW might serve to 

mitigate some of this risk, but would not guarantee against intrusion. Additional signage, 

selective use of landscaping features, and dedicated pedestrian paths may help channel potential 
4

trespassers away from tracks. Radar, infrared, and video motion systems also may help detect 

trespassers on the railroad ROW.

Adjacent track derailments

The consequences of a collision between a passenger train and derailed equipment are greater at 

higher passenger train speeds. In all three operating scenarios of mixed-use corridors (Table 1.1),

there remains a risk of equipment derailing and interfering with passenger rail traffic. A 

comprehensive analysis of derailment probability could be carried out to understand the effect of 

track center spacing, equipment standards, and train speeds in mitigating this risk. 

Wayside defect detection

For many years, the use of wayside defect detectors has helped reduce the frequency of 

derailments caused by mechanical component failures. To further mitigate this risk in a mixeduse environment, an intensified deployment of wayside defect detectors could be investigated. 

Risk to maintenance of way and train operating employees

Representatives from several freight railroads have expressed concern about the increased risk to 

railroad personnel working on and around an HSR mixed-use corridor. Faster passenger 

operations would make it difficult for workers to visually detect and clear out of the way of a 

train in a timely manner. The additional risk to these personnel could be studied, especially in 

areas in the United States where high-speed shared track configurations already exist. Track 

center spacing and train warning technologies could be investigated as possible methods for

mitigating this risk. 

1.2.2 Infrastructure and Equipment

Slab track

Slab tracks are not widely used on freight lines because the geometry is not adjustable, and the 

track superstructure is less resilient in the event of a derailment. In addition, the first cost of slab 

track systems is generally higher than ballasted track. However, in a shared corridor environment 

where capacity is constrained, slab track may offer the benefit of extra capacity due to lower 

track occupancy for maintenance purposes. The tradeoff between ballasted and slab track could 

be investigated for different traffic scenario. In addition, a slab track designed to accommodate 

both Heavy Axle Load (HAL) and HSR traffic could be developed.

Ballasted track

On a ballasted track system, the track superstructure must be optimized for the combination of 

freight and passenger traffic. Ties, fastening systems, and ballast must be selected by taking into 

account the loading characteristics of both train types. On ballasted track with higher track 

classes, track-surfacing activities may be more frequent to maintain track geometry. Engineering 

a ballasted track that performs well for HAL and HSR traffic is one potential research area. 

Special trackwork

Turnouts with higher diverging speeds may be utilized in order to minimize train delay when 

entering shared track or when passing from one main track to another. Innovations in turnout 

geometry and components must be made to accommodate heavy axle as well as high-speed 

wheel loads. In addition, optimizing the diverging route configuration of mainline turnouts may 
5

better accommodate certain traffic patterns. Rail crossings with asymmetrical traffic may also 

benefit from premium frog designs with uninterrupted running rails for the predominant route. 

Curve superelevation

Curve superelevation is typically set for the predominant traffic speed on a rail line. On freight 

lines, curves are typically elevated for the balancing speed or slight unbalance of a freight train. 

Conventional passenger trains may operate at a higher unbalance than freight traffic, but on 

especially sinuous lines this may lead to numerous speed restrictions that would negatively 

impact the average speed of a passenger train. With heavy-axle freight operation, changing curve 

elevation to accommodate passenger trains could potentially impact rail life and increase risk of 

low rail rollover on curves. 

Track stiffness transition zones

Highway grade crossings, bridges, tunnels, and areas featuring special trackwork are locations 

where the vertical stiffness of the track structure typically increases compared with conventional 

ballasted track. These stiffness transition zones may be problematic when considering track 

vehicle interaction and track component lifespan. Engineering transition zones to perform well 

for both HAL and HSR traffic could be one area of future research.

Track surfacing cycles

Increasing the service speed of passenger traffic requires the track geometry to conform to a 

higher class of Federal standards. An increase in track class requires tighter geometric tolerances 

for alignment, cross-level, warp, and gauge, among other criteria. Because geometry degradation 

is typically driven by the amount of cumulative tonnage over a line, higher track classes will 

likely require more frequent surfacing operations to maintain track geometry. Any technologies 

that would reduce the amount of time needed to occupy the track for surfacing could be 

investigated for application on shared corridors. 

Rail wear and defect rate

By increasing superelevation on curves, a railway line can accommodate higher speed traffic for 

the same degree of curve. Freight traffic traveling at speeds below the balancing speed of the 

curve will impart higher loads on low curve rails. Increased rail stress can lead to an increased 

rate of rail defect formation. Rail corrugation and other short wave irregularities can increase 

dynamic loads on the track structure. In particular, weld geometry can have an impact on higher 

speed dynamic loads. At higher speeds, these types of defects may have a detrimental effect on 

passenger ride quality. The impact of weld geometry could be investigated as it relates to ride 

quality and dynamic track loads.

Wheel and rail profiles

Wheel and rail profiles are typically optimized for a specific traffic type on dedicated freight and 

passenger lines. Given the different wheel profiles used by freight and passenger rolling stock, 

there may be need for an optimal rail grinding profile that minimizes rail wear and the rate of rail 

defect occurrence. In addition, changes to wheel profiles could be made to maximize the lifespan 

of wheel sets in a shared track-operating environment. An optimization process combined with 

physical testing could be pursued to develop an ideal wheel rail interaction strategy for shared 

track operations.
6

Electrification

North American clearance profiles are dimensionally larger than many others from shared 

corridors around the world. Electrification of existing freight lines to introduce higher speed 

passenger trains may be technically possible but would require extensive clearance modifications 

to existing bridges and tunnels. Additional clearance around messenger wires would likely also 

be necessary. In electrified territory, track geometry is subject to the additional constraint of 

contact wire position. The position of a contact wire raised for double stack clearance may 

dictate new pantograph designs and a general optimization of the current collection system in 

shared corridor environments. 

Tilting equipment

On rail lines where curves restrict the speed of passenger trains, tilting equipment may be used to 

increase speeds without increasing curve elevation. Active or passive tilting equipment may be 

used to operate passenger trains at higher, unbalanced elevations. In spite of the enhanced 

passenger comfort, utilizing tilting equipment does not mitigate the increased rail stresses by 

operating equipment at higher unbalance speeds through curves. Overall, increases in passenger 

train speeds may increase stresses on the high rails of curves. Different levels of curve unbalance 

could be investigated in terms of vehicle dynamics and relation to rail wear. 

Level boarding of rolling stock

Station and equipment configurations that allow level boarding are inherently more time efficient 

than standard low-level boarding equipment. This feature allows for shorter dwell time at 

stations, thereby improving overall average speed of a schedule and allowing for increased line 

capacity. High-level platforms are generally not utilized on existing freight lines due to clearance 

conflicts with freight equipment. Retractable platforms, gauntlet tracks, or rolling stock with 

retractable walkways are possible methods to allow for level boarding on existing freight lines.

1.2.3 Planning and Operations

Infrastructure upgrade prioritization

In many recent proposals for improved passenger rail service, emphasis has been placed on 

achieving a higher maximum operating speed rather than higher average speeds. Improvements 

to lower speed terminal areas, among others, can often yield a greater marginal trip time 

reduction than an increase in maximum operating speed. Developing a model that prioritizes 

infrastructure upgrades could help enhance the efficiency of proposed passenger rail projects.

Rail capacity planning

Rail capacity is a function of the level of service expected for all different train types operating 

on a line. Planning for increases in rail traffic should take into account present, as well as future 

desired levels of service. Present methods of determining adequate rail capacity include 

parametric and simulation modeling. More research could be undertaken to more accurately 

quantify the impact of adding higher speed passenger traffic on existing freight lines. The effects 

of train performance, speed, and priority could be analyzed with the goal of determining the 

equivalent capacity consumption for different types of rail traffic. 
7

Maintenance of way scheduling

With the addition of passenger service on a shared track line, the time required for infrastructure 

maintenance is further constrained. On lines with especially high density and little excess 

capacity, maintenance activities may take place during night hours when passenger traffic does 

not typically operate. For areas where this technique is not economical, new maintenance 

window scheduling strategies could be developed to minimize delay to both passenger and 

freight traffic while at the same time preserving maintenance productivity. 

Train scheduling patterns

Different scheduling scenarios can have a tremendous impact on both the ridership and capital 

costs of a proposed service. Regional intercity passenger trains typically operate during the day, 

disproportionately adding more demand for infrastructure during certain time periods. 

Accommodating this traffic may require extra infrastructure that would otherwise not be needed 

if the service were scheduled more uniformly throughout the day. Different scheduling patterns

could be assessed for their efficiency in utilizing new infrastructure, as well as their impact on

delay for both freight and passenger traffic. In addition, grouping train types with more similar 

performance characteristics—for an example, intermodal and passenger trains—may hold some 

opportunity for reducing delay. The impact of speed and priority differentials between train types 

could be investigated as they relate to traffic levels and infrastructure characteristics.

Train schedule reliability

Many contemporary intercity passenger rail services use a fixed percentage of minimum run time 

applied as slack time to the end terminal to help enhance reliability of train services. Slack time 

is not typically adjusted for expected rail traffic or even infrastructure characteristics. In addition, 

distributing slack time to different points in the schedule-based delay statistics could help make 

for a more robust schedule. Investigating these different methods and developing a model that 

could be applied to existing and future service would serve to increase the reliability of 

passenger services.

1.2.4 Economic Challenges 

Capacity cost allocation

Some freight railroads are concerned with scenarios where, by accepting passenger rail traffic 

onto their lines, they forfeit lower cost capacity upgrades and relegate themselves to investing in 

more expensive capacity upgrades in the future as freight traffic increases. An example of this 

would be adding a second main track on two sides of a single track tunnel for passenger service, 

but then adding a second tunnel years later to accommodate additional freight traffic. New 

frameworks for more equitable allocation of the cost of these capacity upgrades could be 

developed. 

New shared line construction

In some cases around the world, new high-speed lines that otherwise would be dedicated to 

passenger traffic are being built to accommodate temporally separated freight traffic. The 

economics of this arrangement could be studied in the context of North America with the end 

result being a model that considers revenue from passenger and freight operations, capital and 

maintenance costs, operating concession periods, and operating costs of both freight and 

passenger services.
8

Homogenous freight operations

To reduce heterogeneous traffic delay on shared track lines, freight operators could run shorter, 

higher performance, and more frequent freight trains. However, doing this would be less efficient 

and would result in increased operating costs for the freight company. In this scenario, the 

passenger service operator would pay the difference in operating costs to the freight company to 

allow for more homogenous but inefficient freight trains with passenger traffic during the day 

while allowing longer, more efficiently powered trains to operate at night. The economics of this 

type of arrangement could be studied on lines where there is sufficient capacity. 

Impact of reduced industry access

Some shared ROW or shared corridor high-speed rail systems would construct new dedicated 

high-speed service tracks adjacent to existing freight rail lines. Freight railroad representatives

have expressed concerns that these types of proposals would isolate half of their available area 

on either side of the existing lines that could be used for future rail freight traffic development.

1.2.5 Institutional Challenges

Track safety standards

Current FRA track safety standards do not exist for lines where traffic exceeds 200 miles per 

hour (mph). Although there are no examples of this type of operation in the United States, some

proposed HSR services have envisioned speeds as high as 220 mph. Because shared corridors 

and even shared tracks are likely to be utilized for portions of high-speed routes, the stretches of 

dedicated new high-speed lines would likely be subject to FRA regulation. The current 

framework of FRA track safety standards could be expanded to accommodate the higher speeds 

being proposed by some services. 

Passenger equipment safety standards

FRA currently has two categories for passenger car safety standards: Tier I equipment can 

operate up to 125 mph, while Tier II equipment can operate up to 150 mph. There is currently no 

provision for equipment with maximum speeds in excess of 150 mph. The maximum speed of 

trains in many other countries is in excess of 186 mph. Tier III standards under development may 

allow for passenger trains up to 220 mph on dedicated lines and speeds of up to 125 mph in 

mixed traffic environments. 

Liability and indemnification

When implementing new passenger services onto existing freight lines, the freight company will 

typically require indemnification from any liability in the new passenger service. In some cases, 

States have enacted laws that grant the freight carrier the same liability immunity as a State 

DOT.

Grant agreement structure

Recent government grants aimed at improving passenger rail service have required an agreement 

with the passenger service provider, freight infrastructure company, and FRA. There has been 

concern from freight railroads that these types of grant agreements will, in the future, require 

performance guarantees that would hold the freight railroad liable for further upgrades to meet 

the performance goals outlined for the new passenger service. If this were the case, the freight 
9

companies would likely not be amenable to allowing new passenger traffic on their networks. 

New grant frameworks could be developed to ensure that proposed rail passenger services will 

meet their performance goals in a manner that is agreeable to the freight railroads. Possible 

solutions might include more lucrative performance incentives for passenger trains that are given 

proper priority over freight trains and that arrive on time to key stations. 

Track usage charges

When designing a new shared track rail corridor, a proper usage fee structure must be developed 

for both freight and passenger traffic. When operating on freight railroads, Amtrak pays only a 

fraction of the marginal costs of maintaining the rail infrastructure to passenger train speeds. 

Compensating freight railroad companies for the full cost of maintaining their infrastructure for 

passenger traffic may better allow the freight companies to make investments that would 

improve the quality of service for passenger traffic. 

1.3 Research Methodology

There were two main activities undertaken under this project to identify and prioritize shared 

passenger and freight rail corridor technical challenges. On November 10–11, 2011, a research 

symposium was held at the University of Illinois involving over 14 industry representatives from 

the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak), the Class I freight railroad CSX, FRA, 

Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT), the University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign 

(UIUC), and the Swedish Royal Institute of Technology (KTH). The symposium facilitated the 

sharing of research challenges and objectives between industry and government representatives. 

Academics from KTH also interested in mixed-use corridor technical challenges were able to 

learn more about developing solutions that would allow for more efficient freight trains on the 

European rail network. Discussion over the course of the 2-day symposium served as a 

framework for further discussion with industry experts.

In addition to the symposium, the University of Illinois Rail Transportation and Engineering 

Center (RailTEC) conducted an industry survey between September 21, 2011, and January 31, 

2012. The main objective of the survey was to determine which mixed-use corridor challenges to

pursue for in-depth literature reviews. Participation in the survey was solicited from RailTEC’s 

railway industry contacts via email and at conference events such as the 2011 AREMA 

Conference and Exposition in Minneapolis, MN. At the end of the survey, there were 24 total 

participants from the industry sectors illustrated in Figure 1.1. 

 Figure 1.1. Distribution of participant affiliations
10

Survey participants were permitted to respond to whichever technical challenge categories they 

felt sufficiently qualified. For each challenge, participants were asked to rate several criteria on a 

scale of one to five, with one reflecting high importance or potential for improvement and five 

being the lowest importance or potential for improvement. The following criteria were included 

in the survey:

• Potential to increase safety

• Potential to increase corridor effectiveness

• Potential to reduce costs

• Research priority

• Overall importance 

The overall importance category was included so that participants could boost the rating of a 

challenge that was not adequately rated by the other criteria. Some criteria were omitted from 

certain categories as they were deemed irrelevant to some challenges. For example, the potential 

to increase safety criteria was omitted from the economic challenge category. Final challenge 

scores were computed by summing the weighted averages of the criteria scores for each 

challenge. In the final results, a weight factor of 0.5 (twice as important) was selected for the 

overall importance criteria. In this ranking system, a lower number corresponds with a higher 

ranked challenge. The challenge list was eventually sorted by increasing scores; it served as a 

guide for selecting the prioritized list of technical challenges.

In addition to rankings from the survey, each challenge was assessed for its relevance to each of 

the mixed-use corridor operating scenarios. In discussions with industry participants, it was 

pointed out that some categories are more relevant to specific mixed-use corridor operating 

scenarios. For each challenge, the operating configuration relevance was rated as very relevant 

(high), somewhat relevant (medium), or irrelevant (low). For example, maintenance of way 

window planning is very relevant to shared track HSR, slightly relevant to shared ROW HSR, 

and irrelevant to shared corridor HSR. 

1.4 Results

After closing the survey, the weighted scores from various participants were used to calculate an 

average score for each challenge. The top priority challenges were selected primarily from the 

survey results (Appendices A and B). In each category, challenges with lower scores indicated 

greater importance. The RailTEC team then used its own domain knowledge as well as 

information gathered from interviews with industry experts to identify the following top 

challenges for further analysis in the next phase of the project:

• Adjacent track derailments

• Highway grade crossings

• Special track work

• Optimized ballasted track

• Track stiffness transitions
11

• Operating challenges and maintenance window scheduling 

• Capacity planning methodologies

1.5 Discussions and Conclusions

In summary, top technical challenges requiring further research were identified through a 

research symposium, industry interviews, and an industry survey. In the safety category, 

assessing the risk of adjacent track derailments and understanding highway grade crossing risk 

mitigation were identified as top challenges. In infrastructure, special track work, ballasted track, 

and track transition optimization were identified as top challenges. In planning and operations, 

train scheduling, maintenance window scheduling, and capacity planning methodology were 

identified as top challenges.

The next step of the project was to conduct an extensive literature review for the identified top, 

high-priority challenges. In this review process, the relevance of the challenges to different types 

of mixed-use corridors was assessed. In addition, existing research, knowledge gaps, and future 

research needs in each of the top challenges were identified. The following sections present the 

literature review of the identified high-priority technical challenges.
12

1.6 References

Federal Railway Administration. (2003). Catalog of “Common Use” Rail Corridors. U.S. 

Department of Transportation, Washington, DC. 
13

2. EVALUATING AND MITIGATING THE RISK POSED TO HIGHER SPEED 

PASSENGER TRAINS BY ADJACENT TRACK DERAILMENTS

2.1 Introduction

There are limited options for developing new transportation corridors in many areas of the 

United States. Environmental and political opposition to new corridors can potentially erode 

support for projects and cause them to be cancelled. New transit, intercity, and commuter rail 

projects are looking to construct infrastructure within existing freight rail corridors to reduce 

costs and environmental impact. Conventional passenger and freight trains have a long history of 

sharing tracks. Meanwhile, the design of passenger equipment has evolved over time to 

minimize the risk of injuries and fatalities in a collision with a heavy freight train. Urban rail 

transit lines have long used non-FRA compliant vehicles. These vehicles do not adhere to the 

same FRA passenger equipment safety standards that may affect their performance in a collision 

with a heavy freight consist. These transit lines are mostly built as separate systems without any 

shared infrastructure with freight trains. However, there are many instances in which a transit 

line shares a ROW or corridor with a freight line. As with transit, high-speed rail may use non 

FRA-compliant vehicles and still share a ROW or corridor with a freight route.

With shared light rail and high-speed corridors, passengers are being exposed to risks inherent in

freight railroading. There is a higher likelihood of people being near dangerous goods and being 

in the wreckage area of a derailed train. In the event of an accident, freight railroads insist on 

being protected from the liability added by passenger trains on the corridor. Current 

recommended practice is to have 25 feet (ft) between dedicated freight and passenger tracks 

(FRA, 2009). There are numerous examples in the United States where a freight railroad has sold 

a portion of its ROW, with track center spacing less than 25 ft, to a transit agency. Intercity 

passenger trains travel much faster than a typical urban transit train and have a significantly 

longer stopping distance. Consequently, freight railroads have adopted a more cautious attitude 

towards trains traveling faster than 90 mph within close proximity of freight tracks (Doss and 

Caruso, 2011). While having track centers less than 25 ft may have been acceptable for past 

transit lines, operating high-speed trains on adjacent tracks may be unacceptable. There may not 

be enough time for a high-speed passenger train to slow to a stop in the event of a fouled track. 

To mitigate the risk of these types of accidents, strategies to address both the frequency and 

severity of accidents should be investigated. Track and rolling stock standards, effective 

inspection strategies, and signaling systems that enforce stop indications and prevent over-speed 

conditions can help reduce the likelihood of an adjacent track derailment. In addition, rolling 

stock safety standards, intrusion detection systems, track spacing, and crash walls can reduce the 

severity of any incident that may occur. 

2.2 Relevant Accidents

This section provides a summary of some adjacent track derailments. National Transportation 

Safety Board (NTSB) recommendations and accident reports were the primary sources used to 

identify and describe these incidents. In recent years, there have been a number of incidents that 

could be classified as adjacent track derailments. It is a derailment of rail vehicles fouling one or 

more adjacent tracks and potentially threatening the safe operation of rail traffic on those tracks. 

Three of the adjacent track derailments outlined here involved three trains on multiple main track 

territory and were the direct result of rear-end collisions involving trains on the same track. The 
14

implementation of a PTC system that enforces stop signals could reduce the likelihood of this 

type of adjacent track derailment. 

1981 – Crewe, VA

On November 28, 1981, a Norfolk and Western freight train, after receiving a clear signal, 

passed through a misaligned crossover leading into a yard track, sideswiping loaded coal cars, 

and then striking another freight train on an adjacent main track. Two locomotives and seven 

cars of the first train were derailed; thirteen cars in the yard were derailed, and nine cars of the 

train on the adjacent mainline track were derailed. Two crew members received minor injuries

(National Transportation Safety Board, 1982). 

1987 – Washington, DC

On June 19, 1987, 21 cars of a 135-car, eastbound CSX freight train derailed near the Takoma 

Park Station and fouled the tracks of the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority

(WMATA). An automatic warning of the intrusion was detected after the derailed cars broke 

through the intrusion detection warning (IDW) chain link fence separating the adjacent freight 

and metro tracks. This warning was received by the Metro operation control center. On 

September 5, 1987, 12 cars of a 90-car, eastbound CSX freight train derailed near the Fort Totten 

Station and fouled the tracks of the WMATA. Two WMATA trains were stopped short of the 

wreckage by damage to track circuits and an IDW alarm triggered by the severed chain link 

fence. On September 17, 1987, a CSX freight train struck a piece of heavy construction 

equipment and deposited debris on adjacent WMATA tracks. The IDW fence was severed,

triggering an alarm to the operational control center. In all of these incidents, the NTSB 

expressed concern about the delay introduced by having the IDW system send an alarm to the 

control center rather than linking directly to the signal system. By reducing this transmission 

delay, the probability of a non-FRA compliant metro train striking debris from a freight 

derailment would be decreased (National Transportation Safety Board, 1987). 

1991 – Lugoff, SC

On July 31, 1991, a National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) train derailed at milepost 

S329.6. The derailed passenger cars struck nine hopper cars on an adjacent industry siding. 

Twelve crewmembers and 53 passengers sustained minor injuries. Twelve passengers suffered

serious injuries. Eight passengers were fatally wounded (National Transportation Safety Board, 

1993). 

1994 – Thedford, NE

On June 8, 1994, an eastbound train passed a restricting-proceed signal near Thedford, NE, and

struck a second eastbound train on the same track. The lead locomotive of the striking train 

derailed and fouled an adjacent track where it was struck by a passing westbound freight train. 

Two crew members of the striking train were killed and two crew members of the westbound 

train sustained injuries (National Transportation Safety Board, 1995). 

1999 – Bryan, OH

On January 17, 1999, a westbound Consolidated Rail Corporation (Conrail) freight train struck 

the rear of a preceding westbound train near Bryan, OH. Three locomotives and the first thirteen 

cars of the striking westbound train derailed. The rear three cars of the struck train also derailed. 
15

The derailed equipment fouled an adjacent main track and was struck by an eastbound train, 

derailing 16 cars on that train. Two crew members on the striking westbound train were killed

(National Transportation Safety Board, 2001). 

1999 – Bourbonnais, IL

On March 15, 1999, a southbound National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) train 

struck a loaded semitrailer at a highway grade crossing in Bourbonnais, IL. Two locomotives and 

11 of 14 passenger cars were derailed. The derailed equipment collided with two freight cars on 

an adjacent siding. Eleven people were killed and 122 were injured (National Transportation 

Safety Board, 2002). 

2001 – Pacific, MO

On December 13, 2001, an eastbound train struck the rear of a second stopped eastbound train 

near Pacific, MO. The rear distributed power unit (DPU) and six cars of the first train fouled an 

adjacent main line track and were struck by a westbound train. The striking eastbound train 

derailed 2 lead locomotives and 54 cars. The westbound train derailed three locomotives and five 

cars. Nine stationary cars on an adjacent siding were also derailed. Four crew members were 

injured in the incident (National Transportation Safety Board, 2001). 

2007 – Littleton, CO

On December 11, 2007, on a curved section of track near Littleton, CO, a string of 25 coal cars 

derailed from a 106-car Union Pacific (UP) train. The track in this location is owned and 

maintained by BNSF Railway. The derailed cars spilled coal and wreckage onto the adjacent 

tracks of a Denver Regional Transit District (RTD) light rail line. The operator of the next RTD 

train saw the derailment and applied the emergency brake. The light rail train collided into the 

wreckage at reduced speed and derailed. The train remained upright with no injuries or fatalities.

A separate category of derailment incidents is somewhat related to adjacent track derailments.

There have been a number of incidents wherein derailed equipment left the railroad ROW and 

struck adjacent structures. The risk of this type of scenario might be analyzed and compared with

the risk of an adjacent track derailment involving a freight and high-speed passenger train. 

1989 – San Bernardino, CA

On May 12, 1989, a Southern Pacific freight train of four leading locomotives and 69 loaded 

hopper cars derailed at milepost 486.8 in San Bernardino, CA. Seven homes in the area of the 

derailment were completely destroyed and four were extensively damaged. Two crew members 

in the front of the train were killed and one received serious injuries. Two crew members in the 

rear of the train received minor injuries. Two residents in the affected homes were killed and one 

was seriously injured (National Transportation Safety Board 1990).

1991 – Palatka, FL

On December 17, 1991, a National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) train derailed at 

milepost A697.6 and struck two homes adjacent to the track. Eleven passengers sustained serious 

injuries and forty-one received minor injuries. Five operating crew members and four on-board 

service personnel received minor injuries (National Transportation Safety Board 1993).
16

2003 – Commerce, CA

On June 20, 2003, a string of 31 freight cars were cut off from a train on a siding in Montclair, 

CA. The air brakes on the cars had been released in preparation for switching moves, causing the 

cars to roll. The runaway cars proceeded for 28 miles, reaching a calculated maximum speed of 

greater than 95 mph before derailing in Commerce, CA. Some derailed cars struck nearby 

residences. Thirteen people sustained minor injuries (National Transportation Safety Board 

2003). 

2.3 Example of Shared Rail Corridors with Non-FRA Compliant Vehicles

The Denver Regional Transportation District (RTD) Orange line is located adjacent to 11.8 miles 

of a joint BNSF Railway and UP track. Engineering documents indicate that most of the track is 

separated by more than 25 ft. In a few locations, freight and light rail tracks are closer than 20 ft. 

Figure shows a satellite photograph of a bridge embankment near Littleton, CO, where the light 

rail and freight tracks are separated by 17 ft (Ressor 2003). 

Figure 2.1. Shared corridor in Denver

Similar to the Denver RTD, the Cleveland light rail trains operate alongside CSX and Norfolk 

Southern at a minimum track center spacing of 20 ft, as seen in Figure 2.2. The Red Line in 

Cleveland has operated adjacent to this freight line for more than 60 years without any major 

incident reported (Ressor 2003).
17

Figure 2.2. Cleveland light rail sharing ROW with Norfolk Southern

The Chicago Transit Authority (CTA) operates four of its lines in a shared corridor configuration 

and two have significant route miles that are categorized as shared ROW. The CTA Green Line 

operates alongside Metra and UP freight trains. The freight line has 30 Million Gross Tons 

(MGT) of traffic and 58 commuter trains that travel up to 70 mph. The Orange Line travels 

alongside Norfolk Southern, CSX, Canadian National, and the Belt Railway of Chicago. These 

lines vary from 5 to 20 MGT and speeds of 10–60 mph. The CTA separates all of its shared 

corridors by chain link fences. If track spacing is within 6 ft of the clearance envelope, the CTA 

constructs a concrete wall to separate the tracks. The only reported freight rail intrusion onto the 

transit ROW was a door that fell off a boxcar. The CTA operator of the next affected train was 

able to stop before striking the debris (Ressor 2003). 
18

Figure 2.3. CTA and CN trains sharing a corridor with 13-foot track center distance

By 2025, Caltrain will phase in partially FRA-compliant vehicles on its commuter rail route 

between San Francisco and San Jose. These vehicles have received a conditional waiver from 49 

CFR 238.203 (static end strength), 238.205 (anti-climbing mechanism), and 238.207 (link 

between coupling mechanism and car body) after Caltrain studied and demonstrated the benefits 

of crash energy management (CEM) utilized by the proposed vehicles (Federal Railway 

Administration, 2010; DiBrito et al. 2011). These trains will share track with conventional Tier I 

commuter rail equipment, limited freight traffic not temporally separated, and potentially Tier III 

high-speed rail equipment.

Figure 2.4. Proposed Caltrain non-FRA compliant EMU equipment
19

The proposed California Rail system from Los Angeles to San Francisco will likely use FRA 

Tier III equipment on dedicated tracks for most of the route. On several segments, these 

dedicated tracks will share a corridor or ROW with BNSF Railway or UP. At the extreme ends 

of the route, where environmental concerns have ruled out a new dedicated line, high-speed 

trains will instead share track with conventional freight and commuter equipment. The California 

High-Speed Rail Authority has investigated different methods of protecting against rolling stock 

and vehicle intrusion, including increasing track center spacing where possible, designing highspeed viaduct piers to withstand derailment impact loads, placing check rails on freight track in 

high risk areas, and installing physical features such as berms or walls to arrest derailed rolling 

stock (Parsons Brinckerhoff 2008). 

2.4 Adjacent Track Derailment Risk

2.4.1 Railroad Accident Models

When considering the risk posed to high-speed passenger trains by derailments of freight trains 

on adjacent tracks, accurately understanding the likelihood of a freight train derailment is 

important. Derailments can usually be traced to any combination of track, rolling stock, and 

operations issues. In the following section, research in those areas is outlined as it pertains to 

derailment risk reduction. Anderson and Barkan (2004) investigated train accident rates using 

data from the FRA Office of Railroad Safety. In this analysis, shown in Table 2.1, derailment 

rates for different track classes were estimated from data collected between 1992 and 2001.
20

Table 2.1. Estimated Accident Rate by FRA Track Class (Anderson and Barkan 2004)

FRA Track Class X & 1 2 3 4 5 & 6 Total

Number of Derailments 670 921 1,136 1,522 332 4,600

Number of Derailed Cars 3,708 7,218 10,809 15,045 2,869 39,747

Average Number of Derailed Cars 5.5 7.8 9.5 9.9 8.6 8.6

Average Speed 8.7 17.7 26.3 33.6 37 25.2

Train Mile Percentage 0.3 3.3 12.1 61.8 22.6 100

Freight Train Miles (millions) 13.8 152.0 557.5 2,847.5 1,041.3 4,612.0

Derailments per Million Freight Train 

Miles (95% confidence interval)

48.54

(±3.67)

6.06

(±0.39)

2.04

(±0.12)

0.53

(±0.03)

0.32

(±0.03)

1.00

(±0.03)

The analysis of this data suggests that upgrading the FRA class of tracks adjacent to passenger 

operations could potentially reduce the risk of an adjacent track derailment. 

Improved train operating practices may also help in reducing the risk of adjacent track 

derailments. Schafer and Barkan (2008) investigated the effect of train length on derailment rate. 

Accident causes can be separated into groups that vary relative to rail car miles or train miles. By 

increasing the average train length, the probability of an accident occurring for each individual 

train increases due to the increased exposure to car-mile related causes, but total expected 

number of accidents decreases due to fewer trains being operated. The authors point out that 

while the total likelihood of accidents may decrease by operating longer trains, the severity of 

accidents that do occur might increase due to having more cars per train. A summary of these 

findings is shown in Table 2.2. 

Table 2.2. Sensitivity Analysis of the Effect of Train Length on Accident Rate

(Schafer and Barkan 2008)

Average Train 

Length (Cars) Number of Trains

Probability of 

Accident for Each 

Individual Train

Total Expected 

Number of Accidents

20 1,250 0.00214 2.68

40 625 0.00256 1.60

60 417 0.00298 1.24

80 313 0.00340 1.06

100 250 0.00382 0.96

120 208 0.00424 0.88

25,000 carloads shipped; 2,000 miles

In addition to train length, the operating speed of freight trains affects the severity of a 

derailment in terms of number of cars derailed. Barkan et al. (2003) showed that the average 

number of cars derailed in an accident increased linearly with speed. Decreasing freight train 

speeds may be one way of reducing the severity of any adjacent track derailments.
21

Figure 2.5. Relationship between accident speed and average number of cars derailed in 

mainline freight derailments with at least one hazardous materials car derailed (Barkan et 

al. 2003)

Analysis of the FRA train accident database by Liu et al. (2012) shows broken rails as a high 

frequency and high severity freight train derailment cause in North America (Figure 2.6). 

Reducing the likelihood of a broken rail derailment could be achieved by increasing the 

frequency of rail flaw inspection. Jeong et al. (2009) presented a model that predicts the number 

of rail service defects with different inspection frequencies. Zhou et al. (2007) presents a model 

for broken rails that takes into account weld defect rate, fatigue rate, the effects of grinding, and 

the effectiveness of inspection techniques. Zarembski (2008) showed that with increased rail 

flaw inspection frequency, the likelihood of a broken rail derailment decreases.
22

Figure 2.6. Frequency and severity graph of Class I mainline freight-train derailments, 

2001–2010 (Liu et al. 2012)

Wayside rolling stock defect detectors have proven successful in reducing the likelihood of 

derailments. Wayside overheated bearing, dragging equipment, shifted load, and wheel impact 

detectors are just some examples of technologies that have reduced derailments and other types 

of accidents. Ouyang et al. (2009) outlined a model that determined optimal locations for 

deploying different types of detectors on a railway network. The model formulation presented in 

the paper seeks to maximize the benefit of inspections across a railcar fleet, but the authors point 

out that the model objective function could be modified to minimize the risk of accidents or 

derailments. By comparing a baseline detector deployment strategy with an ideal strategy 

determined by the model, the enhanced benefit of more heavily deployed wayside detectors 

could be weighed against the cost of other risk reduction strategies. 

2.4.2 Adjacent Track Derailment Risk Models

Very little research has been undertaken to quantify the risk of a high-speed passenger train 

operating next to a freight train in a shared track or shared corridor setting. The primary reason is

likely the lack of data on how far railcars and lading travel in the event of a derailment. The 

NTSB collected data on this between 1978 and 1985 then stopped the practice. Transport Canada 

estimated lateral displacement of rolling stock from derailment photographs in NTSB reports. 

The NTSB chooses which accidents they investigate and will usually study only the most severe 

accidents. To further complicate matters, maximum lateral displacement may refer to maximum 

displacement of the car-body or the displacement of railcar components such as trucks. A truck 

spring may travel further in a derailment than an entire car-body. However, a truck spring is not 

likely to derail a high-speed passenger train. The actual data presented in Figure 2.7 is more 

0

5

10

15

20

25

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700

Average Number of Cars Derailed 

Number of Derailments

Broken Rails or Welds Buckled Track

Obstructions

Wide Gauge

Track Geometry 

(excl. Wide Gauge)

Bearing Failure (Car)

Broken Wheels 

(Car)

Train Handling (excl. Brakes)

Average frequency = 89

Average severity = 8.6

Other Rail and Joint Defects

Rail Defects at 

Bolted Joints

Joint Bar 

Defects

Mainline Brake Operation
23

conservative because the underlying data comes from a sample of more severe derailments. 

Approximately 10 percent of the accidents had a maximum lateral travel of more than 80 to 90 ft. 

Figure 2.7. Lateral dispersion of accidents by dataset (English et al. 2007)

English et al. (2007) attempted to determine an underlying probability distribution between the 

speed of the train and the lateral displacement of derailed equipment. Higher derailment speeds 

have inherently higher kinetic energy and, therefore, may have greater lateral displacement of 

cars from the track. The authors found that the frequency in the dataset best followed a Gamma 

Distribution with an R2 value of 0.5, as shown in Figure 2.8. The peak of the distribution is more 

pronounced at lower speeds and occurs at a smaller lateral travel distance than would be the case 

at higher speeds. All resulting distributions are skewed to the right. The authors explained that 

there are factors other than speed that affect lateral displacement—grade and curvature, for 

example. In addition, trains that derail on an embankment can roll down the sides.
24

Figure 2.8. Lateral dispersion probability and speed (English et al. 2007)

Lateral travel as a function of speed is plotted in Figure 2.9. The authors reported an R-squared 

value of 0.175 for the relationship. There is a 50 percent probability of exceeding a 49-foot 

threshold regardless of the speed of the adjacent track. At 10 mph, 18 percent of the accidents 

will exceed 49 ft and at 70 mph, 32 percent of the accidents will exceed 49 ft. At speeds up to 48 

mph, less than 10 percent of the accidents exceed 82 ft. 

Figure 2.9. Percent of accidents exceeding a lateral distance as a function of speed 

(English et al. 2007)

D > 26 ft.

D > 49 ft.

D > 82 ft.
25

2.5 Risk Mitigation Strategies

2.5.1 Accident Prevention

There are numerous methods to reduce the likelihood of a derailment on a freight railroad. One 

mitigation technique might be to increase the number of wayside defect detectors. Overheated 

wheel bearings were the third leading cause of derailments in the United States from 2001 to 

2010 (Liu et al. 2012). This particular derailment typically derails only 1–3 railcars. Wheel 

impact load detectors can reduce the frequency of flat wheels and decrease the likelihood of 

broken wheels. Shifted load detectors can prevent freight lading from fouling catenary and 

striking rail vehicles on an adjacent passenger line. 

In low speed derailments, the installation of checkrails can help keep a derailed train from 

intruding on adjacent tracks. Improving track quality can prevent many of the track-related 

derailments such as wide gauge, broken rail, and broken joints. Positive train control can prevent 

collisions by reducing human factor errors, authority encroachment, speeding, and switch 

alignment-related causes.

Some design ideas can be implemented to limit derailed railcar displacement. If the corridor is on 

an embankment or parallel to a slope, placing passenger tracks above the freight tracks will be 

beneficial. If a freight train derails, railcars are pulled away from the passenger track by gravity,

as shown in Figure 2.10. On a tight curve, if the freight line is on the outside of a curve, then an 

over-speed derailment will result in the cars falling to the outside of the curve and staying clear 

of the passenger tracks. 

Figure 2.10. Derailed railcar lateral displacement due to embankment
26

2.5.2 Survivability

The most typical method of separating freight and high-speed trains on adjacent but dedicated 

tracks is using a concrete crash wall, as was planned in the preliminary design of the California 

High-Speed Rail Project. In the event of a freight or passenger derailment, the concrete wall 

serves to absorb energy and limit the impact to an adjacent high-speed rail line. If there is enough 

room, building an earth wall and ditch is an alternative to a concrete barrier, as shown in Figure 

2.11. Another proposed solution is to have an intrusion detection warning (IDW) system. If a 

derailed freight train crossed into the passenger ROW, the derailed rolling stock would break a 

fence that would in turn change signals on either side of the affected area to a stop indication. In 

this scenario, passenger trains beyond the next block in either direction would have sufficient 

time to stop before striking the derailment wreckage. Even with an IDW system, there is still the

possibility of a passenger train not being a sufficient distance away to prevent a collision. 

 Figure 2.11. Separation by earth berm and ditch

Finally, there might be design improvements to the crashworthiness of the passenger rail 

vehicles. Innovations in CEM would serve to further mitigate the severity of adjacent track 

derailments at slow speeds. A high-speed train-set weighing 380 tons and traveling at 300 km/h 

has 1,319 MJ of kinetic energy. The FRA Tier II rolling stock standards require 8 MJ of kinetic 

energy absorption in any power car and 3 MJ of absorption at the end of the first trailer car 

adjacent to the power car. Very high-speed collisions between passenger and freight equipment 

will likely have catastrophic consequences regardless of CEM improvements. 

2.6 Discussion and Conclusions

The United States has a long practice of operating passenger trains and freight trains on the same 

tracks. As a consequence, the design of the passenger train vehicles has been improved over 

time. Adjacent track derailments are, however, still an area of concern. UP has agreed to allow 

the operation of 110 mph passenger trains between Chicago and St. Louis. CSX meanwhile has 

only agreed to 90 mph passenger trains on the Empire Corridor from New York to Buffalo (Doss 

and Caruso 2011). All of the mitigation techniques previously discussed apply to this operating 

scenario. One technique not addressed in Section 2.5 is to temporally separate the traffic types as 

is practiced in San Diego (Ressor 2003) and in the operating plan of the Caltrain (DiBrito et al. 
27

2011). Passenger train speed in this shared track operating environment cannot exceed 125 mph 

for FRA Tier I equipment and 150 mph for FRA Tier II equipment. Track class, signal system, 

and the presence and condition of highway grade crossings could further restrict the maximum 

passenger train speed in this operating configuration.

The shared corridor and shared ROW configurations between freight and very high-speed 

passenger trains have a higher risk of adjacent track derailment damage. Shared corridors have

less risk than shared ROW because of the greater track center spacing, but the challenges are 

similar. As is shown by English et al. (2007), derailed rolling stock regularly displaces hundreds 

of feet laterally from the center line of track. Risk mitigation strategies are the same as in the 

shared track scenario and are outlined in Section 2.5.

There is significant uncertainty in predicting how far a rail vehicle will travel from its original 

track in the event of a derailment (English et al. 2007). One of the most popular risk mitigation 

techniques is to place reinforced concrete walls between the passenger and freight lines. This is 

currently being suggested at distances less than 25 ft on the California High-Speed Rail plan. 

There has been little research to correlate the necessary strength of the concrete barrier to the 

speed of the freight train. An easily severed IDW fence integrated with the signal system has 

been used to mitigate adjacent track derailment risk with transit operations at lower speeds. A

holistic model that assesses derailment risk reduction strategies is needed. This model should be

able to calculate the relative risk exposure of different infrastructure and operating configurations 

for shared track, shared ROW, and shared corridor. Each of the different risk mitigation 

strategies should be analyzed for cost effectiveness. As an example, increasing the detector 

density, improving track quality, including a derailment IDW system, and implementing positive 

train control might prove more cost effective overall than building miles of reinforced concrete 

crash wall.
28

2.7 References

Alexandre J. M. and C. T. Eyquem. (2011). “Shared Use of Railway Corridors by Public Transit 

Vehicles.” Proceedings of the ASME/ASCE/IEEE 2011 Joint Rail Conference.

Pueblo, CO.

Anderson, R. T. and C. P. Barkan. (2004). “Railroad Accident Rates for Use in Transportation 

Risk Analysis.” Transportation Research Record, 88–98.

Barkan, C. P., C. T. Dick, and R. Anderson. (2003). “Railroad Derailment Factors Affecting 

Hazardous Materials Transportation Risk.” Transportation Research Record, 64–74.

DiBrito, D. A., R. A. Mayville, R. Doty, and C. Tsao. (2011). “Moving Toward Unrestricted 

Shared Use: How Caltrain Took the Next Step and What Recent Developments Mean to 

U.S. Commuter Railroads.” Transportation Research Record: Journal of the 

Transportation Research Board, 2219, 78–87.

Doss, N. and L. Caruso. (2011, July 27). “CSX CEO Fighting High-Speed Rail.” 

Bloomberg News.

English, G., G. Higham, M. Bagheri, T. Moynihan, and F. Saccomanno. (2007). Evaluation of 

Risk Associated with Stationary Dangerous Goods Railway Cars. Kingston: 

Transport Canada.

Federal Railroad Administration. (2009). Railroad Workplace Safety; Adjacent-ControlledTracks On-Track Safety for Roadway Workers. Washington, DC. Federal Register.

Federal Railway Administration. (2010, May 27). Letter to Pinensula Corridor Joint Powers 

Board. Washington, DC.

Federal Railway Administration Office of Safety Analysis. (n.d.). Download Data on Demand. 

http://safetydata.fra.dot.gov/OfficeofSafety/publicsite/on_the_fly_download.aspx?itemno

=3.03.

Joeng, D. and J. Gordon. (2009). “Evaluation of Rail Test Frequencies Using Risk Analysis.” 

Proceedings of the 2009 ASME Joint Rail Conference. Pueblo, CO.

Liu, X., M.R. Saat, and C.P.L. Barkan. (2012). “Analysis of Major Train Derailment Causes and 

Their Effect on Accident Rates.” Transportation Research Record, in-press.

National Transportation Safety Board. (1982). Safety Recommendation R-82-47.

Washington, DC.

National Transportation Safety Board. (1987). Safety Recommendation R-87-57.

Washington, DC.

National Transportation Safety Board. (1990). Safety Recommendation R-90-18.

Washington, DC.

National Transportation Safety Board. (1993). Safety Recommendation R-93-16.

Washington, DC.

National Transportation Safety Board. (1993). Safety Recommendation R-93-23.

Washington, DC.

National Transportation Safety Board. (1995). Safety Recommendation R-95-35.

Washington, DC.
29

National Transportation Safety Board. (2001). Railroad Accident Brief DCA-02-FR-002.

Washington, DC.

National Transportation Safety Board. (2001). Railroad Accident Report Collision Involving 

Three Consolidated Rail Corporation Freight Trains Operating in Fog on a Double 

Track Main Line Near Byron, OH January 17, 1999. Washington, DC.

National Transportation Safety Board. (2002). Railroad Accident Report Collision of National 

Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) Train 59 with a Loaded Truck-Semitrailer 

Combination at a Highway/Grade Crossing in Bourbonnais, Illinois March 15, 1999.

Washington, DC.

National Transportation Safety Board. (2003). Railroad Accident Brief DCA-03-FR-005.

Washington, DC.

Ouyang, Y., X. Li, C. P. Barkan, A. Kawprasert, and Y. C. Lai. (2009). Optimal Locations of 

Railroad Wayside Defect Detection Installations. Computer-Aided Civil and 

Infrastructure Engineering, 309–319.

Parsons Brinckerhoff. (2008). Rolling Stock and Vehicle Intrusion Protection for High-Speed 

Rail and Adjacent Transportation Systems. California High-Speed Train Project.

Ressor, R. R. (2003). Catalog of “Common Use ” Rail Corridors. Washington, DC. 

Federal Railroad Admistration.

Schafer, D. H. and C. P. Barkan. (2008). “Relationship between Train Length and Accident 

Causes and Rates.” Transportation Research Record, 73–82.

Steets, P. and Y. Tse. (1998). “Conrail's Integrated Automated Wayside Inspection.” 

Proceedings of the 1998 ASME/IEEE Joint Rail Conference, 113–125.

Zarembski, A. M. and J. W. Palese. (2005). “Characterization of Broken Rail Risk for Freight 

and Passenger Railway Operations.” Proceedings of the 2005 AREMA Conference.

Zhao, J., A. Chan, and M. Burrow. (2007). “Probabilistic Model for Predicting Rail Breaks and 

Controlling Risk of Derailment.” Transportation Research Record, 76–83.
30

3. HIGHWAY-RAIL GRADE CROSSING SAFETY CHALLENGES FOR SHARED 

HIGH-SPEED RAIL PASSENGER AND HEAVY AXLE LOAD FREIGHT

OPERATIONS IN THE UNITED STATES

3.1 Introduction

In 2010, there were approximately 255,000 highway-rail grade crossings in the United States, of 

which 52 percent were publicly accessible (FRA, 2012a). All grade crossings are at risk for a 

collision between a highway vehicle and a train, which can result in casualties, extensive 

property damage, and even the release of hazardous materials. Though the safety record of rail in 

the United States compares favorably with other modes of transportation, in the past 20 years, 

186 rail passenger fatalities and nearly 15,000 injuries have occurred in passenger train accidents 

(RITA, 2011). Approximately 25 percent of these passenger rail fatalities involved collisions at 

highway-rail grade crossings (FRA, 2011b). Additionally, highway grade crossing users 

currently represent about 30 percent of all rail-related fatalities in the U.S. Grade-crossing 

collision rates have declined by 80 percent in the past 20 years, but more than 15,000 highway 

users have been killed over that time period at grade crossings (FRA, 2012b).

The U.S. Department of Transportation is supporting the development of substantially expanded 

and improved passenger rail service on a number of intercity corridors across the country (FRA, 

2012c). These corridor development projects will range from incremental improvement of 

existing tracks to construction of new, dedicated high-speed rail (HSR) lines. Existing lines 

could already have freight or passenger rail services, necessitating shared operations. As the 

interest in shared corridors grows, the risk of interoperating heavy axle load freight and lighter, 

higher speed passenger trains needs to be understood. One of the most important aspects of this 

risk involves highway-rail grade crossings.

Many proposed HSR corridors are expected to pass through densely populated areas. This will 

pose significant challenges since these areas are likely to have many grade crossings. FRA has 

issued regulations requiring complete grade separation for HSR operations in excess of 125 mph. 

For higher speed rail (HrSR) operations between 110 and 125 mph, crossings may still be used 

with extra protections, but this is not recommended.

The most economical approach to eliminating a crossing is arguably to close it; however, 

communities are often opposed to closing existing grade crossings in their area because of a 

perceived loss of convenience, as well as concerns about increased emergency service response 

time and reduced access to schools and other key places. If a crossing cannot be closed, other 

approaches must be considered. These include grade separation and upgraded warning and 

protection devices.

The topic of highway-rail grade crossing risk has been extensively researched throughout the 

years, especially with a view to improving highway safety. Research has also examined the 

crashworthiness of passenger trains. This paper presents an overview of grade crossing 

challenges to shared HSR and HAL operations in the United States and offers an in-depth 

analysis of the relevant research to date. Results from this study are expected to identify principal 
31

technical challenges related to grade crossings in developing HSR systems. This will facilitate 

the planning, development, construction, and operation of new HSR shared corridors.

3.2 Methodology

Papers published through 2011 relevant to this literature review were found using Google 

Scholar and a multidatabase search engine at the UIUC Library. Keywords used in the search 

include highway-rail grade crossings, level crossings, high-speed rail, shared corridors, 

passenger train crashworthiness, grade crossing human factors, driver human factors, low-cost 

crossing design, and grade crossing technology. The reference section of each paper was 

reviewed and other potentially relevant papers were identified. Those contributing to a better 

understanding of grade crossings, especially as pertains to shared corridor operations, were 

selected for more detailed analysis. 

In the following section, a review of current regulations, guidelines, and standards is provided. 

This is followed by a review of studies related to HrSR or shared corridor operations addressing 

crashworthiness of passenger train cars, grade-crossing accident prediction, alternative gradecrossing warning strategies, emergency response management, and human factors. In the 

discussion section, the relevance of different shared operation types and research needs are 

presented.

3.3 Regulations, Guidelines, and Standards

Passenger train operations and maximum speeds are regulated by FRA (CFR, 2012). FRA track 

classes and their related maximum speed greater than 90 mph (145 kph) are shown in Table 3.1.

Table 3.1. Track Class and Related Maximum Speed

Track Class Maximum Passenger 

Train Speed

Class 6 110 mph (177 kph)

Class 7 125 mph (201 kph)

Class 8 160 mph (257 kph)

Class 9 200 mph (322 kph)

Grade crossing regulations and guidelines for high-speed corridors can be separated into several 

parts including consolidation and closures, sealed corridors, warning and barrier systems, train 

control integration, and grade crossing inspection. Jennings (2009) summarized the State laws 

for each aspect. FRA also regulates passenger train crashworthiness requirements and emergency 

management (FRA, 2009c).

3.3.1 Consolidation and Closures

FRA safety regulations require crossings to be grade separated or closed where trains operate at 

speeds above 125 mph (201 kph) (CFR, 2012). Table 3.2 summarizes the regulation related to 

grade-crossing protection and closure.
32

Table 3.2. Summary of Federal Regulation Related to Grade-Crossing 

Protection and Closure

Maximum Passenger 

Train Speed

> 79 mph 

(127 kph)

111–125 mph 

(179–201 kph)

> 125 mph 

(201 kph)

Grade Crossing 

Protection Type

Active Warning/Barrier with 

FRA Approval

Grade Separate 

or Close

3.3.2 Sealed Corridors

A sealed corridor, as defined by the North Carolina DOT, is “an extended rail corridor or 

segment thereof on which all public at grade crossing are evaluated through an engineering 

diagnostic process to determine the appropriate level of safety improvement needed to decrease 

or eliminate violations.” The ideal situation would be to provide complete grade separation. 

However, for trains operating in the 110–125 mph (177–201 kph) range, grade separation is 

suggested but not required. Where the line is not grade separated, FRA requires crossings to have 

approved barrier systems that can prevent highway vehicle incursion on the ROW; obstacle 

detection systems to alert the train if a vehicle does become stuck on the tracks are 

recommended. These requirements and appropriate technologies for use in achieving these goals 

are summarized in FRA’s “Highway-Rail Grade Crossing Guidelines for High-Speed Passenger 

Rail” (2009a). 

3.3.3 Warning/Barrier Systems

Trains can only operate at Class 7 speeds with highway-rail grade crossings under the condition 

that (1) an FRA-approved warning/barrier system exists, and (2) all elements of that 

warning/barrier system are functioning (CFR, 2012). The barrier system must be designed to 

physically prevent the incursion of a motor vehicle into the ROW.

Automatic, active warning devices at crossings (such as flashing lights and gates) provide 

valuable information to motorists approaching a crossing by indicating the presence or absence 

of a train. Interconnection and supplementary traffic control, obstacle detection, and remote 

health monitoring systems can be introduced to enhance the effectiveness of the warning system 

(FRA 2009a).

Since June of 2005, FRA has provided nationwide regulations on the use of locomotive horns at 

highway-rail grade crossings (CFR 2012). These regulations require trains to sound the 

locomotive horn at public highway-rail grade crossings and establish minimum and maximum 

sound levels for the locomotive horn (Jennings 2009).

3.3.4 Train Control Integration

Positive Train Control (PTC) system implementation is required by FRA (74 FR 35950, 2009). 

PTC will be required by law on all intercity and commuter passenger lines by December 31, 
33

2015. The industry is required to address highway-rail grade crossing safety in PTC 

implementation. 

3.3.5 Grade Crossing Inspection

A proactive inspection and maintenance cycle for grade crossings is recommended by the 

American Railway Engineering and Maintenance-of-Way Association (AREMA 2010). The 

Railroad Safety Improvement Act of 2008 requires updated crossing data to be provided to FRA 

by October 16, 2010, and then thereafter by September 30 each subsequent year. However, a 

survey by Liu et al. (2011) found several challenges to implementation of this act. Many States 

do not have a standard inspection procedure or checklist; additionally, the annual or biannual 

inspection of all grade crossings cannot be accomplished in some States due to a lack of 

inspectors.

3.4 Crashworthiness of Passenger Train Cars

A vast body of research has examined the issue of passenger train car crashworthiness. Primarily, 

this research has focused on American commuter and intercity rail cars traveling at speeds below 

100 mph (161 kph). Crashworthiness studies on high-speed rail cars are few and far between, 

possibly because HSR operators tend to focus on accident prevention rather than 

crashworthiness.

Simons and Kirkpatrick (1998) developed a Finite Element Model (FEM) of a theoretical generic 

U.S. high-speed train and then used it to understand the safety risks posed to passengers. The 

train consist was tested in seven different crash scenarios. For each scenario, the expected 

number of casualties was predicted based on primary and secondary impact data. This model 

could be adapted to study the crashworthiness of proposed HrSR and HSR train designs.

A 1998 collision in Portage, IN, between a commuter train and a tractor-trailer carrying steel 

coils, led to new regulation addressing passenger train structural design. Full-scale collision 

testing of the new passenger cars was conducted to compare their performance to the pre-1999 

car design. Jacobsen et al. (2003) tested the crash performance of the two car designs by 

colliding them with a steel coil truck to imitate the Portage incident. They found that the 1990’s 

cab car end structure deformed more than 20 inches (50.8 cm) longitudinally, resulting in loss of 

operator survival space, whereas the new design deformed only 8 inches (20.3 cm), which 

preserved survival space. Additionally, Martinez et al. (2003) developed a computer model to 

predict crushing behavior in the cab car. They validated the computer model with the full-scale 

collision test and found that the model accurately predicted crush patterns. Samavedam and 

Kasturi (2011) performed the same full-scale test at higher speeds in order to validate their FEM 

of train collisions. The model closely predicted the overall damage to the locomotive, as well as 

the intrusion into operator survival space.

In the wake of the 2005 Glendale, CA, collision between a Metrolink commuter train and an 

SUV in which 11 people were killed, FRA released a report on the safety of push-pull and 

multiple unit locomotive passenger rail operations (FRA 2006). This report sought to understand 

the relative crashworthiness of cab-car leading trains (push mode) and conventional locomotiveled trains (pull mode). Analysis of 20 years of data showed that, although locomotive-powered 
34

trains operated in the push mode had a slightly greater number of fatalities and tendency to derail 

than those operated in pull mode, the differences were not statistically significant. 

Also in response to the Glendale collision, Metrolink worked with FRA, the Federal Transit 

Administration (FTA), and the American Public Transportation Association (APTA) to develop 

a performance-based technical specification for passenger rail car crashworthiness focused on 

CEM. This work produced performance specifications for the overall train consist; for its cab 

and passenger-carrying cars; and for mechanical components such as couplers (Tyrell et al. 

2006). 

Research resulting from the Glendale and Portage incidents led to the development of CEM 

trains. These trains are designed to deform in a controlled way during a collision, collapsing 

unoccupied areas to absorb energy and preserving survival space in the occupied areas. Tyrell 

and Perlman (2003) compared the crashworthy (or survivable) speeds of CEM and conventional 

trains in both train-to-train collisions and highway-rail grade crossing collisions. They found that 

passengers in CEM trains could experience a much higher primary collision speed and survive, 

even though their secondary impact velocity would be slightly greater than in a conventional 

train.

3.5 Grade-Crossing Accident Prediction

Many methods of modeling collision likelihood at grade crossings have been developed, mainly 

with the goal of understanding the risk posed to highway users by freight trains. These models 

have traditionally been used to decide how funds for highway-rail grade crossing improvements 

should be allocated. However, these models are equally applicable to passenger train risk.

Faghri and Demetsky (1986) categorized collision likelihood models into two groups: relative 

formulas and absolute formulas. Relative formulas use crossing data to rank the relative hazards 

at each crossing, so that improvements can be prioritized from most dangerous to least dangerous 

crossings. Absolute formulas predict the number of collisions expected to occur at each crossing 

over a certain time period, allowing for estimation of the number of lives saved by upgrading a 

crossing. Faghri and Demetsky compared the predictive performance of four absolute formulas 

and one relative formula. Of these, the New Hampshire, the Peabody-Dimmick, the NCHRP 

Report 50, and the U.S. DOT models have been most commonly used for grade crossing accident 

prediction.

The New Hampshire model is a relative formula that can be used to rank the importance of 

crossing upgrades (Austin and Carson 2002; Faghri and Demetsky 1986). It has been widely 

used across the country, either in its original form or in various modified forms. Its popularity is 

due to its ease of use. Analysis has shown that the hazard index ranks crossings similarly to more 

complex formulas, but it is limited in that it does not predict the expected number of collisions. 

The hazard index formula is as follows:
35

 HHHHHH II II = V T Pf (3.1)

where:

V = average 24-hour (highway) traffic volume

T = average 24-hour train volume

Pf = protection factor (0.1 for gates; 0.6 for flashing lights; 1.0 for signs only)

The Peabody-Dimmick formula (also called the Bureau of Public Roads formula), developed in 

1941, is an absolute formula that predicts the number of accidents at a crossing over a period of 5

years (Austin and Carson 2002; Faghri and Demetsky 1986). The 5-year accident prediction 

formula is as follows:

 A5 = 1.28 (V0.170)(T0.151)

P0.171 + K (3.2)

where:

A5 = expected number of accidents in five years

V = annual average daily traffic (AADT)

T = average daily train traffic

P = protection coefficient

K = additional parameter (smoothing factor)

The NCHRP Report 50 Hazard Index is an absolute formula developed in 1968 by Andrew 

Voorhees and Associates (Austin and Carson 2002; Faghri and Demetsky 1986). It can be 

expressed as a formula, but is more commonly determined from a series of charts and tables that 

allow the user to calculate the expected yearly accident rate. It is dependent on factors such as 

annual average daily traffic (AADT), number of trains per day, the type of warning device in use, 

the location of the crossing, and geometric aspects of the crossing.

Today, the most commonly used model is the U.S. DOT Accident Prediction Model (Austin and 

Carson 2002; Faghri and Demetsky 1986; Ogden and Korve Engineering 2007). First developed 

in the early 1980s, the formula uses a wide variety of factors, including highway type and train 

traffic, to predict the expected yearly number of collisions at a crossing. The general expression 

of the formula is as follows:

 = K × E × M × D × H × MM × H × HH (3.3)

 B = T0

T0+T ( ) + TT0+T �

N

T� (3.4)

A = �

0.7159B

0.5292B

0.4921B

For passive devices

For flashing lights

For gates

(3.5)

where:
36

= initial collision prediction, collisions per year at the crossing

K = formula constant

E = factor for exposure index based on product of highway and train traffic

M = factor for number of main tracks

D = factor for number of through trains per day during daylight

H = factor for highway paved (yes or no)

MM = factor for maximum timetable speed

H = factor for highway type

HH = factor for number of highway lanes

B = adjusted accident frequency value

T0= formula weighting factor; = 1.0/(0.05 + )

N = number of observed accidents in T years at a crossing

A = normalized accident frequency value

A set of tables in Ogden and Korve Engineering (2007) provides each of the factors for crossings 

with passive controls, flashing lights, and gates. U.S. DOT provided a procedure for using this 

formula to determine grade crossing upgrade resource allocation (FRA 1987).

Faghri and Demetsky (1986) tested four absolute formulas and found that the U.S. DOT formula 

most accurately predicted the number of collisions occurring at grade crossings in Virginia for 

the 5-year period of study. They recommended that the Virginia DOT use the U.S. DOT formula 

in combination with site visits to evaluate the importance of grade crossing upgrades.

However, there are some concerns about the U.S. DOT model’s accuracy. Since it is based on 

data from the whole country, it may not account for regional differences. As a result, some States 

have developed specialized formulas using more detailed State-specific data. For example, 

Benekohal and Elzohairy (2001) examined 10 years of highway-rail grade crossing collisions in 

Illinois. They found that the U.S. DOT formula only selected 89 of the top 200 grade crossings 

with collisions for upgrade and did not reliably identify the most dangerous crossings. They 

developed a regression model, the Illinois Hazard Index, which suggested a higher percentage of 

crossings with collisions for improvement; unlike other equations, it selected locations with 

higher crash rates.

Another concern about the accuracy of the U.S. DOT formula is that crossing conditions and 

warning/protection technologies may have changed since its development. Austin and Carson 

(2002) showed that the normalizing coefficients used in Equation 3.5, which account for the 

difference between the model’s predicted values and actual observed values, have been steadily 

reducing in value over time; that is to say, the model’s prediction accuracy has declined over 

time and the normalizing coefficients have been adjusted to compensate. Austin and Carson 

propose that the formula’s accuracy could be improved if it were re-evaluated using present-day 

data. However, they also consider the complexity of the U.S. DOT’s three-part formula to be 

problematic, since it is difficult to interpret and prioritize the effects of changing various 

parameters. To address this concern, Austin and Carson developed an alternate model using 

negative binomial regression. This model identified many of the same significant variables as the 

U.S. DOT formula, but as it was developed using only collision data at public grade crossings in 

six States; further testing would have to be conducted to see if the model would be applicable to 
37

all U.S. grade crossings.

Chaudhary et al. (2011) compared the performance of the U.S. DOT Accident Prediction 

Formula to that of the Transport Canada Accident Model to see which would more effectively 

identify “hot spots” (high-risk areas) on a network in California. They found that, overall, the 

U.S. DOT model more closely predicted the yearly number of accidents occurring at a crossing. 

However, in cases where the crossing had an accident history, the Transport Canada model was 

more accurate. They suggested adapting the Transport Canada model to U.S. crossing data and 

using it to rank the most dangerous crossings.

Other models have been developed abroad. South Korea evaluated the effectiveness of the U.S. 

DOT Accident Prediction Formula for predicting accidents at Korean grade crossings (Oh et al., 

2006). After finding that it did not accurately predict collision rates in Korea—because all grade 

crossings in Korea are equipped with gates, unlike in the United States—they developed a 

gamma probability model using Korean accident data. Collisions were observed to increase with 

highway traffic volume, train volume, proximity to commercial areas, distance of train detector 

from crossing, and time between activation of warning signals and gates.

Mok and Savage (2005) took a different approach to analyzing collision rates at grade crossings. 

They observed that the number of collisions and fatalities at grade crossings has decreased 

significantly over the past 30 years, despite an increase in both train and highway traffic. Their 

analysis showed that approximately 70 percent of the decrease could be attributed to human 

factors related aspects (such as educational programs like Operation Lifesaver and the 

requirement of ditch/crossing lights on locomotives), and 30 percent could be attributed to the 

installation of gates and flashing lights, as well as the closing of some crossings. This result 

suggests that collision prediction models rightly attribute high importance to the type of crossing 

warning device in use, but should also consider human factors aspects.

3.6 Alternative Grade Crossing Warning Strategies

Ideally, any rail line operating high-speed or higher speed passenger trains would be completely 

grade separated. However, due to cost considerations, it is often infeasible to grade separate an 

entire line. Nelson (2010) summarizes the many strategies currently in use around the world for 

reducing risk at grade crossings. These include closures and consolidation, upgraded lights and 

gates, and alternative technologies such as in-pavement flashers. The goal in the United States is 

to develop a strategy that balances cost with risk reduction.

3.6.1 Sealed Corridors

The sealed corridor was developed as a way to upgrade conventional rail lines to carry higher

speed passenger trains. The State of North Carolina was the first to make aggressive use of the 

sealed corridor concept (Bien-Aime 2009; FRA 2009a, 2009b). The NCDOT Sealed Corridor is 

part of the Southeast High-Speed Rail (SEHSR) Corridor and initially included 216 grade 

crossings, 44 of which were private crossings. Between 1987 and 2004, this section experienced 

282 collisions that resulted in 74 injuries and 55 fatalities. NCDOT eventually closed and 

consolidated a number of those grade crossings and upgraded the rest to include self-monitoring 

four-quadrant gates, long-arm gates, and traffic channelization devices (Figure 3.1).
38

Figure 3.1. An upgraded crossing in Charlotte, NC (Bien-Aime 2009)

Based on a sharp decrease in the number of grade crossing collisions, NCDOT estimated that 19 

lives were saved between 2004 and 2009 as a result of implementing the sealed corridor concept 

(Bien-Aime 2009; FRA 2009c).

Illinois DOT (IDOT) has been upgrading certain sections of track between Chicago and St. Louis 

using a sealed corridor approach (Hellman and Ngamdung 2009). The route between Chicago 

and Springfield, IL, had 311 grade crossings, of which 68 were proposed for closure. However, 

only 10 crossings were ultimately closed due to strong opposition from impacted communities. 

Of the remaining crossings, 69 were equipped with 4-quadrant gates and vehicle detection 

systems. These improvements are required by the Illinois Commerce Commission for trains 

operating in excess of 79 mph (127 kph).

3.6.2 Obstacle Detection

Glover (2009) summarizes the goal of obstacle detection as “identifying the presence of a vehicle 

or person on the crossing as the train approaches and communicating this to the train driver in 

time for him or her to stop before reaching it.” This technology should provide a reliable and 

cost-effective way of mitigating grade crossing risk. However, the main challenge is that these 

systems have a short amount of time to react to an intrusion and bring the train to a stop. Glover 

suggests that there may be only limited reduction in the severity of a collision because the train 

may still collide with the obstructing highway vehicle. Additionally, there are concerns that these 

systems could be less reliable than traditional gated crossings; since the devices are fail-safe, an 

error in the detection system would result in a “false-alarm” closing of the crossing gates. If 

highway users become accustomed to higher error rates, they may erroneously assume the 

crossing is out of service when in fact the gates have been activated by the presence of a train. If 

they attempt to circumvent the gates, a collision could occur.
39

Hall (2007) suggests that there are benefits to obstacle detection even if the system is not capable 

of entirely preventing collisions. Advance warning of a track obstruction, especially when 

combined with crashworthy passenger train designs, could allow the train to decelerate 

sufficiently to prevent passenger deaths. Additionally, Hall states that obstacle detection systems 

will have the greatest benefit when information can be communicated directly between the grade 

crossing and an approaching locomotive (as in PTC or ERTMS).

IDOT and UP use a detection system that consists of an inductive loop embedded in the 

pavement on either side of a railway track, as shown in Figure 3.2 (A1, A2, B1, B2, C1 and D1 

represent the detection circuits). It is capable of detecting the presence of a vehicle within the 

crossing gates (Hellman and Ngamdung 2009). This system could be integrated with a PTCequipped train consist.

Figure 3.2. Four-quadrant gate configuration for a double-track segment

(Hellman and Ngamdung 2009)

The system usually operates in “dynamic” mode, meaning the exit gates function based on the 

presence of highway vehicles within the grade crossing. However, in the fail-safe condition, it 

operates in a “timed” mode that closes the exit gates after a specified amount of time. FRA and 

the Volpe Center conducted tests of this equipment to verify its reliability. They found that the 

average total delay to five scheduled high-speed passenger roundtrips was approximately 38.5

minutes. They also found that this equipment had a “minimal impact on the frequency and 

duration of grade crossing malfunctions” (Hellman and Ngamdung 2009).

3.6.3 Traffic Channelization

Traffic channelization devices direct or separate traffic flow. In the context of highway-rail grade 
40

crossings, these devices are intended to prevent drivers from using a grade crossing in an unsafe 

manner by confining them to controlled lanes (FRA 2010). An example is a raised median, as 

shown in Figure 3.3.

 

Figure 3.3. Traffic channelization device in North Carolina (FRA 2010)

Research has suggested that channelization discourages risky driving behavior (e.g., “zigzagging” past closed gates) around grade crossings (FRA 2010). Several States have already 

begun to employ channelization in an effort to improve grade crossing safety.

3.6.4 Low-Cost Level Crossing Warning Devices

An emerging trend in grade crossing warning devices is the development of low-cost devices that 

provide a level of safety comparable to conventional devices. These systems generally cost 

between 5 and 30 percent the price of conventional technologies and often rely on wireless 

communications and solar power (FRA 2011a). Wullems (2011) summarizes this state-of-the-art 

technology and considers its potential for large rural networks such as the Australian railway. 

Hellman and Ngamdung (2010) presented several low-cost warning devices that satisfy FRA’s 

minimum performance requirements for grade crossing warning devices (summarized in Table 

3.3). They emphasized the importance of reducing annual maintenance costs, not just installation 

costs.
41

Table 3.3. FRA Grade Crossing Signal System Safety Regulations 

(Hellman and Ngamdung 2010)

Section Description

234.203 All control circuits that affect the safe operation of a highway-rail grade crossing 

warning system shall operate on the fail-safe principle.

234.205 Operating characteristics of electromagnetic, electronic, or electrical apparatus of 

each highway-rail crossing warning system shall be maintained in accordance with 

the limits within which the system is designed to operate.

234.215 A standby source of power shall be provided with sufficient capacity to operate the 

warning system for a reasonable length of time during a period of primary power 

interruption.

234.225 A highway-rail grade crossing warning system shall be maintained to activate in 

accordance with the design of the warning system, but in no event shall it provide 

less than 20 seconds warning time for the normal operation of through trains 

before the grade crossing is occupied by rail traffic.

234.227 (a) Train detection apparatus shall be maintained to detect a train or rail car in any part 

of a train detection circuit, in accordance with the design of the warning system.

234.275 This requires that grade crossing warning systems, subsystems, or components that 

are processor based and contain new or novel technology, are required to comply 

with the safety and risk analysis requirements defined in 236, Subpart H. In this 

context, new or novel technology specifically refers to designs that do not use 

conventional track-circuit technology.

Although low-cost level crossing warning devices may be interesting from a cost-efficiency 

point of view, it is unlikely that any of the devices currently on the market will be used in the 

United States for high-speed shared corridor applications since none of the devices incorporate 

gates but instead rely on augmented passive systems (adding lights or advance warnings to areas 

around crossings). Additionally, there are significant legal concerns stemming from public 

perception of the devices, fail-safe requirements, and liability to both the public and private 

sector (Hellman and Ngamdung 2010; Wullems 2011). However, the concept will likely continue 

to develop and may expand to include gate technology.

3.6.5 Emergency Response Management

Wahle and Beatty (1993) define emergency response management as “the process of preparing 

for, mitigating, responding to, and recovering from an emergency.” The process of developing an 

emergency plan is “dynamic,” in that the plan can and should change over time. A 

comprehensive emergency response management system includes training, conducting drills, 

testing equipment, and coordinating activities with the community. 

The Standard for Rail Transit System Emergency Management (APTA 2004) was developed to 

establish minimum emergency response management requirements for rail transit systems; these 

requirements address emergency mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery. In the 

mitigation phase, potential risks are identified and minimized. Recommended methods for 
42

accomplishing this are given. The preparedness phase involves developing and documenting 

emergency procedures, as well as training transit staff and emergency responders. The response 

phase is when an emergency occurs and the transit agency uses the emergency plan. In the 

recovery phase, normal service resumes. The agency then evaluates and documents the 

performance of their emergency response.

3.6.6. Human Factors and Driver Behavior

Understanding driver behavior and identifying human factor causes for accidents at highway 

grade crossings can help us develop better accident-prevention strategies. Caird et al. (2002) 

developed a taxonomy of human factor accident contributors to highway-rail grade crossing 

accidents (Figure 3.4).

Figure 3.4. Highway-rail grade crossing accident contributors (Caird et al. 2002)

Different people react differently to warning signs at grade crossings. Several studies have been 

conducted with the goal of identifying the source of this variation (Lenné et al. 2011; Jeng 2005; 

Tey et al. 2011a, 2011b; Caird et al. 2002). The age group of 26 to 64 accounted for the most 

fatalities (Caird et al. 2002); however, this age group proportionally drives the most and thus has 

the greatest exposure (Evans 1991). Different age ranges within this group might have different 

results. Taylor (2008) stated that 16- to 25-year-old drivers were identified as the group most at 

risk at grade crossings because they were the most likely to knowingly engage in risky crossing 

behavior.

In response to warning signs at grade crossings, drivers showed lower compliance rates at 

passive crossings than at active crossings (Lenné et al. 2011; Tey et al. 2011a, 2011b). Additional 

warnings, especially the addition of active warning devices, should result in increased crossing 

compliance. But due to limited budgets, it is impossible to update all passive signs to active 
43

warning systems. Alternative ways of augmenting passive crossings are being studied (Cairney 

2003; Tey et al. 2011b; Wullems 2011). Caird et al. (2002) summarized the effectiveness and cost 

of different countermeasures at grade crossings (Table 3.4).

Table 3.4. Caird et al. (2002) Summary of Effectiveness and 

Cost of Countermeasures

Countermeasure Effectiveness Cost References

Stop signs at passive 

crossings

Unknown $1.2 to $2 K 

(US)

NTSB (1998)

Intersection lighting 52% reduction in nighttime 

accidents over no lighting

Unknown Walker and 

Roberts (1975)

Flashing lights 64% reduction in accidents over 

crossbucks alone; 84% reduction 

in injuries over crossbucks; 83%

reduction in deaths over 

crossbucks

$20 to $30 K 

(US) in 1988

Schulte (1975)

Morrissey 

(1980)

Lights and gates (2) + 

Flashing lights

88% reduction in accidents over 

crossbucks alone; 93% reduction 

in injuries over crossbucks; 100%

reduction in deaths over 

crossbucks

44% reduction in accidents over 

flashing lights alone

$150 K (US) NTSB (1998)

Schulte (1975)

Morrissey 

(1980)

Hauer and 

Persaud (1986)

Median barriers 80% reduction in violations over 

2-gate system

$10 K (US) Carroll and 

Haines (2002a)

Long-arm gates (3/4

of roadway covered)

67 to 84% reduction in violations 

over 2-gate system

Unknown Carroll and 

Haines (2002a)

4-quadrant gate 

systems

82% reduction in violations over 

2-gate system

$125 K (US) 

more expensive 

than standard 

gates; $250 K 

(US) more 

expensive than 

passive crossing

Carroll and 

Haines (2002a), 

Hellman and 

Carroll (2002)

4-quadrant gate 

system + median

barriers

92% reduction in violations over 

2-gate system

$135 K (US) Carroll and 

Haines (2002a)

Crossing closure 100% reduction in violations, 

accidents, injuries, and deaths 

$15 K (US) Carroll and 

Haines (2002a); 

NTSB (1998)

Photo/video 

enforcement

34 to 94% reduction in violations $40 to $70 K per 

installation (US)

Carroll and 

Haines (2002b)

In-Vehicle Crossing 

Safety Advisory 

Warning Systems 

(ICSAWS)

Unknown $5 to $10 K 

(US) per 

crossing + $50

to $250 per 

receiver

NTSB (1998)
44

Caird et al. (2002) and Sussman and Raslear (2007) also identified the primary reasons for 

accidents at grade crossings. In general, the reasons can be classified as intentional, distraction, 

or other (visibility issues or driver confusion) for both passive and active grade crossings.

Accidents at passive crossings may occur because (1) the driver is unaware of the train’s arrival 

due to visibility problems (bad weather), distractions (talking on a cellular phone, talking with 

passengers), or late detection; (2) the driver does not know the required response to a crossbuck; 

or (3) the driver incorrectly decides that sufficient time was available to cross after detecting the 

train, or makes a purposeful attempt to “beat the train.”

Reasons for accidents at active crossings might be (1) a lack of sufficient sight distance; (2) the 

driver willfully violating the traffic control device, as in driving around the gates or attempting to 

beat the train; (3) driver confusion at railroad crossings that are close to highway intersections; or 

(4) visibility problems in bad weather.

Three main approaches are commonly used to address these problems. They are referred to as the 

“Three Es”: engineering, education, and enforcement (Sussman and Raslear 2007; Jeng 2005). 

“Engineering” involves using better devices to alert people to and impede vehicles from 

wandering onto the grade crossing. “Education” aims at building public awareness of the hazards 

of train movements. “Enforcement” seeks to enforce compliance with laws at grade crossings. 

The most prominent educational and outreach effort for grade crossing safety in the United 

States is Operation Lifesaver (OL). OL’s network includes certified volunteer speakers and 

trained instructors offering free rail safety education programs to school groups, driver education 

classes, community audiences, commercial drivers, law enforcement officers, and emergency 

responders (Savage 2006). Proving the program’s effectiveness, Mok and Savage (2005) found 

that the introduction of OL programs in a State results in a 15 percent decrease in the number of 

grade crossing incidents and a 19 percent decrease in the number of fatalities.

Jeng (2005) drafted an additional section in the New Jersey driver’s manual about railroad safety, 

and then performed an experimental driver’s test on the draft section. The drivers who studied 

the manual with the additional section performed significantly better on the test. The result 

suggested that an accurate, easy-to-read, and comprehensible driver’s manual could improve 

drivers’ response at grade crossings.

In Australia, some educational methods being applied by the National Railway Level Crossing 

Behavioral Coordination Group include organizing a national workshop, publishing safety Web 

pages containing relevant information, and producing a communications package consisting of 

radio and press advertisements (Taylor 2008). 

3.7 Discussion and Conclusions

FRA classifies passenger and freight train shared operations into (1) shared track, where 

passenger and freight trains use the same trackage on single or multiple tracks for all or part of 

their operation; (2) shared ROW, where passenger and freight trains use separate tracks but with 

adjacent track centers of 25 ft (7.6 m) or less; and (3) shared corridor, which is similar to shared 

ROW, but with adjacent track centers of more than 25 ft (7.6 m) but less than 200 ft (61 m) apart 
45

(Resor 2003). In addition, “hybrid” systems exist in which HSR trains operate on dedicated highspeed infrastructure on some sections and conventional infrastructure on others.

In a shared track scenario, adding new HSR passenger services will increase the total rail traffic. 

Increased rail traffic at a crossing has been linked to an increased number of grade crossing 

collisions (Austin and Carson 2002; Faghri and Demetsky 1986; Ogden and Korve Engineering 

2007). Also, highway users may overestimate the amount of time they have to cross in front of a 

higher speed train since they are used to interacting with slower conventional rail. It is important 

to consider upgrading any crossing with an increased number of through trains per day. Highway 

users must be informed that trains at crossings may have higher closing speeds than expected.

Shared ROW and shared corridor operations have similar challenges. A correlation has been 

demonstrated between multiple-track territory and higher collision rates (Austin and Carson 

2002; Faghri and Demetsky 1986; Ogden and Korve Engineering 2007). At grade crossings with 

multiple tracks, drivers may check for trains on one track but forget there is another track to 

check and could be struck by an unexpected train on the second track.

Additionally, shared corridor operations could have very long grade crossings, or multiple grade 

crossings very close together. Both of these are undesirable from a highway driver’s point of 

view as they could limit visibility and reduce the driver’s ability to perceive approaching trains.

Shared operations using multiple tracks face the additional risk of experiencing secondary 

collisions with freight trains on adjacent tracks. An example of this is the Glendale, CA, collision 

in 2005. In this incident, a passenger train struck an SUV that had been abandoned on the 

tracks1

. The SUV subsequently became lodged on switch equipment, resulting in the train 

derailing and jackknifing. The passenger train struck a freight train on an adjacent track as well 

as the tail end of another passenger train. Thus the shared operating scenario increased the 

severity of the grade crossing collision.

In a hybrid system, the dedicated and conventional sections would require different 

considerations. For the dedicated section, cost would be the primary obstacle since all grade 

crossings would need to be grade separated. For the conventional infrastructure section, grade 

crossings would not necessarily need to be eliminated provided trains were not operating at more 

than 125 mph (201 kph). However, they would likely need to be upgraded to quad-gate systems 

or other advanced grade crossing warning devices.

In addition, hybrid operations could require passenger trains to meet different crashworthiness 

standards. On a dedicated HSR line, lightweight train sets would be highly desirable, whereas 

they could pose an unacceptable safety risk when operated on conventional track.

The field of research related to grade crossing safety is vast, as can be seen from this literature 

review. However, there is room to expand on the existing knowledge base and to explore new 

techniques for improving safety, especially in the context of shared rail corridor operations.

 1 The Glendale, CA, collision was not technically a grade crossing collision, as the driver of the SUV 

drove some distance up the track before parking his vehicle. However, the same collision could occur at a 

grade crossing.
46

There are several challenges to implementing the Railroad Safety Improvement Act of 2008, as 

illustrated by the Liu et al. (2011) survey. One important challenge is the timely completion of 

grade crossing inspections. It may be difficult to reduce the number of operating crossings, 

which indicates that the workload cannot be reduced. Given that it may also be difficult to 

increase the number of crossing inspectors due to current economic conditions, one approach to 

solving this problem may be to improve the efficiency of inspection procedures and techniques. 

More in-depth research is needed to understand the feasibility of this approach.

In the area of crashworthiness, new research may be conducted to understand the ideal tradeoff 

between lightweight passenger car design and crashworthiness. Using principles of CEM design 

should allow engineers to build trains that could work either in hybrid operations or on shared 

ROWs or shared corridors. In the case of hybrid operations, it would be valuable to study the car 

designs used abroad—in France, for example. Design of the TGV has been informed by 

collisions at grade crossings on conventional track, and the TGV’s designers’ understanding of 

crashworthiness has developed over time (Cleon et al. 1993, 1996; Jacobsen 2008). In the case of 

shared ROW and shared corridor operations, it is especially important to determine if it is 

possible to design trains to withstand collisions such as the Glendale, CA, accident, where 

jackknifing of the train resulted in side-swiping of a freight train. It may be that improved 

crashworthiness is insufficient to address this type of accident and that risk reduction strategies 

should instead focus on accident prevention.

Collision likelihood modeling should continue to develop and evolve. New research may be 

conducted to understand if the U.S. DOT Accident Prediction Formula needs to be updated to 

reflect the current state of technology, or if an entirely new formula needs to be developed. Since 

the formula currently does not account for a sealed corridor differently than it accounts for 

traditional gated crossings, this would be a critical area to consider as shared corridor usage 

grows.

Several experiments have been performed on driver response to grade crossing devices, and 

statistical models have been developed based on analyses of existing crash data, but there is still 

an absence of a theoretical or behavior-based model of the grade crossing system. Development 

of such a model could help designers evaluate the effectiveness of new grade crossing systems.

Several current studies and previous research indicate that active systems at crossings provide 

better performance than passive systems. However, upgrading all passive crossings to active 

crossings would involve a huge investment. Moreover, collisions at grade crossings with active 

systems are mainly attributed to driver behavior. Also, collisions occur randomly with significant 

variations in time and space. Therefore, there is no guarantee that upgrading a grade crossing 

from passive to active is the best solution for improving safety at crossings. Further in-depth 

research on the cost-effectiveness of this approach is needed. More aggressive driver education 

could be a more effective tool for improving safety.

Highway-rail grade crossing risk is a topic that has been researched extensively. The results of 

these studies have led to significant safety advancements, especially in the areas of 

crashworthiness, grade crossing design, and driver education. These advancements, combined 

with increased government oversight, have led to a sharp decrease in the number of grade 
47

crossing-related casualties in the United States. Implementation of high-speed rail passenger 

services on existing freight rail corridors will likely pose new grade crossing safety concerns or 

amplify existing ones. This section identified the potential technical challenges, relevant existing 

research, and future research needed to facilitate the planning, development, construction, and 

operation of future HSR shared corridors in the United States.
48

3.8 References

74 FR 35950. (2009). Positive Train Control Systems. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. Federal 

Register 74 (138) 35950-36028.

American Public Transportation Association (2004). Standard for Rail Transit System 

Emergency Management. Manual of Rail Transit Standards and Recommended Practices 

Volume 4 – Operating Practices. The American Public Transportation Association. 

Washington, DC. 

American Railway Engineering and Maintenance-of-Way Association. (2010). Chapter 17 High 

Speed Rail Systems. AREMA Manual for Railway Engineering. 

Austin, R. D. and J. L. Carson. (2002). “An alternative accident prediction model for highwayrail interfaces.” Accident Analysis & Prevention 34, 31–42. 

Benekohal, R. F. and Y. M. Elzohairy. (2001). “A New Formula for Prioritizing Railroad 

Crossings for Safety Improvement.” Proceedings of the Institution of Transportation 

Engineers Annual Meeting. Chicago, IL. 

Bien-Aime, P. (2009). North Carolina “Sealed Corridor” Phase I, II, and III Assessment. 

Federal Railroad Administration Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC. 

Caird, J. K. (2002). A Human Factors Analysis of Highway-Railway Grade Crossing Accidents 

in Canada. Transportation Development Centre, Montreal. 

Cairney, P. (2003). Prospects of improving the conspicuity of trains at passive railway crossings, 

CR 217. Australian Transport Safety Bureau, Canberra.

Carroll, A. A. and M. Haines. (2002a). “North Carolina “sealed corridor” Phase I safety 

assessment.” Transportation Safety Board [CD-ROM]. Transportation Research Board, 

Washington, DC.

Carroll, A. A. and M. Haines. (2002b). “The use of photo enforcement at highway-rail grade 

crossings.” Transportation Safety Board [CD-ROM]. Transportation Research Board, 

Washington, DC.

Chaudhary, M., A. Hellman, and T. Ngamdung. (2011). Railroad right of way incident analysis 

research. Federal Railroad Administration Office of Railroad Policy and Development, 

Washington, DC.

Cleon, L. M., M. Piosson, P. Pastor, V. Tha IV, and P. H. Guardiola. (1993). Résistance passive 

application au TGV 2N; Tolérances à la collision des matériels ferroviaires (French). 

Revue générale des chemins de fer, HC Editions. Paris, France.

Cleon, L. M., J. Legait, and M. Villemin (1996). SNCF Structural Crashworthiness Design 

Strategy: Design Examples of Duplex TGV and XTER Diesel Multiple Unit. Symposium 

on Rail Vehicle Crashworthiness, Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC.

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) (2012). “Transportation.” Title 49 Code of Federal 

Regulations, Part 213-222. 

Evans, L. (1991). Traffic Safety and the Driver. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York. 

Faghri, A. and M. J. Demetsky. (1986). Evaluation of Methods for Predicting Rail-Highway 
49

Crossing Hazards. Virginia Highway & Transportation Research Council, Charlottesville, 

VA. 

Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) (1987). Rail-Highway Crossing Resource Allocation 

Procedure: User's Guide, 3rd Edition. Office of Safety Analysis, Washington, DC.

Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) (2006). Report to the House and Senate Appropriations 

Committees: The Safety of Push-Pull and Multiple-Unit Locomotive Passenger Rail 

Operations. Office of Railroad Development, Washington, DC.

Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) (2009a). Highway-Rail Grade Crossing Guidelines for 

High-Speed Passenger Rail. Office of Railroad Development, Washington, DC.

Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) (2009b). North Carolina Department of Transportation’s 

“Sealed Corridor” Assessment – Phase IV. In: Research Results, Washington, DC.

Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) (2009c). High-Speed Passenger Rail Safety Strategy. 

Office of Railroad Development, Washington, DC.

Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) (2010). Use of Traffic Channelization Devices at 

Highway-Rail Grade Crossings. In: Research Results, Washington, DC.

Federal Railway Administration (FRA) (2011a). Low-Cost Warning Device Industry Assessment. 

In: Research Results, Washington, DC.

Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) (2011b). Download Accident Data On Demand. 

http://safetydata.fra.dot.gov/OfficeofSafety/publicsite/on_the_fly_download.aspx. 

Accessed March 2011.

Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) (2012a). Crossing Inventory by State. 

http://safetydata.fra.dot.gov/OfficeofSafety/publicsite/Query/invtab.aspx. 

Accessed Jan 2012.

Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) (2012b). Highway/Rail Incidents Summary Tables: Jan 

2011–Dec 2011. 

http://safetydata.fra.dot.gov/OfficeofSafety/publicsite/Query/gxrtab.aspx. 

Accessed May 2012.

Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) (2012c). Chronology of High-Speed Rail Corridors: 

Designations and Extensions. Office of Railroad Development, Washington, DC. 

http://www.fra.dot.gov/Page/P0140. Accessed May 2012.

Glover, J. (2009). “The Level Crossing Conundrum.” Rail Professional (November), pp. 30–31.

Hall, S. (2007). “Reducing Risk at Automatically-Operated Level Crossings on Public Roads.” 

In: IET Seminar on Reducing Risk at the Road Rail Interface, pp. 1–5, 17.

Hauer, E. and B. N. Persaud. (1986). “Rail-highway grade crossings: Their safety and the effect 

of warning devices.” In: Proceedings of the 30th Annual American Association for 

Automotive Medicine, Montreal, QC, pp. 247–262.

Hellman, A. D. and A. A. Carroll. (2002). “Preliminary evaluation of the school street fourquadrant gate highway-railroad grade crossing.” Transportation Research Board, [CDROM], Washington, DC.

Hellman, A. D. and T. Ngamdung. (2009). Illinois High-Speed Rail Four-Quadrant Gate 
50

Reliability Assessment. Federal Railroad Administration Office of Research and 

Development, Washington, DC.

Hellman, A. D. and T. Ngamdung. (2010). Low-Cost Warning Device Industry Assessment. 

Federal Railroad Administration Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC.

Jacobsen, K., D. Tyrell, and B. Perlman. (2003). “Rail Car Impact Tests with Steel Coil: 

Collision Dynamics.” In: Proceedings of ASME/IEEE Joint Railroad Conference.

Jacobsen, K. M. (2008). “Collision Dynamics Modeling of Crash Energy Management Passenger 

Rail Equipment.” M.S. Thesis. Tufts University, Boston, MA.

Jeng, O.-J. (2005). Survey of Driver Perceptions of Railroad and Light Rail Warning 

Devices/Grade Crossings. Federal Transit Administration, Washington, DC. 

Jennings, L. S. (2009). Compilation of State Laws and Regulations Affecting Rail-Highway 

Grade Crossings, 5th ed. Jennings Consulting Group, Woodstock, VA. 

Lenné, M. G., C. M. Rudin-Brown, J. Navarro, J. Edquist, M. Trotter, and N. Tomasevic. (2011). 

“Driver Behaviour at Rail Level Crossings: Responses to Flashing Lights, Traffic Signals 

and Stop Signs in Simulated Rural Driving.” Appl Ergon 42 (4), 548–554. 

Liu R., Z. Huang, and W. Hao. (2011). Potential Issues and Challenges in Implementing the 

Railroad Safety Improvement Act of 2008 Based on a National Survey, 

J.Transp.Saf.Secur. 3 (4), 252–271. 

Martinez, E., D. Tyrell, and J. Zolock. (2003). “Rail Car Impact Tests with Steel Coil: Car 

Crush.” In: Proceedings of ASME/IEEE Joint Railroad Conference.

Mok, S. C. and I. Savage. (2005). “Why has safety improved at rail-highway grade crossings?” 

Risk Analysis 25 (4), 867–881. 

Morrissey, J. (1980). The Effectiveness of Flashing Lights and Flashing Lights with Gates in 

Reducing Accident Frequency at Public Rail-Highway Crossings 1975–1978: Final 

Report. Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, DC.

National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) (1998). Safety study: Safety at passive grade 

crossings, Volume 1: Analysis (PB98-917004, NTSB/SS-98/02). NTSB, Washington, DC.

Nelson, A. (2010). “Breaking down the barriers to safer crossings.” International Railway 

Journal 50 (5), 45–47.

Ogden, B. D., Korve Engineering (2007). Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook –

Revised 2nd Edition. Office of Safety Design, Federal Highway Administration, 

Washington, DC.

Oh, J., S. P. Washington, and D. Nam. (2006). “Accident prediction model for railway-highway 

interfaces.” Accident Analysis & Prevention 38 (2) 346–356.

Raub, R. (2007). “Examination of Vehicle Crashes Nationally at Highway-Rail Grade 

Crossings.” ITE Journal.

Research and Innovative Technology Administration (2011). Table 2–42: Railroad Passenger 

Safety Data. U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, DC.

Resor, R. R. (2003). Catalog of “Common Use” Rail Corridors. Federal Railroad Administration 
51

Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC.

Samavedam, G. and K. Kasturi. (2011). Full-Scale Locomotive Dynamic Crash Testing and 

Correlations: Locomotive Consist Colliding with Steel Coil Truck at Grade Crossing 

(Test 3). Federal Railroad Administration Office of Railroad Policy and Development, 

Washington, DC.

Savage, I. (2006). “Does public education improve rail-highway crossing safety?” Accident 

Analysis and Prevention 38 (2), 310–316. 

Schulte, W. R. (1975). “Effectiveness of automatic warning devices in reducing accidents at 

grade crossings.” Transportation Research Record 611, 49–57.

Simons, J. W. and S. W. Kirkpatrick. (1998). “High-Speed Passenger Train Crashworthiness and 

Occupant Survivability.” In: Proceedings of the International Crashworthiness 

Conference.

Sussman, E. D. and T. G. Raslear. (2007). Railroad Human Factors. Reviews of Human Factors 

and Ergonomics 3 (1) 148–189.

Taylor, K. (2008). “Addressing road user behavioural changes at railway level crossings.” In: 

Proceedings of Joint ACRS-Travelsafe National Conference, pp. 368–375.

Tey L. S., L. Ferreira, and A. Wallace. (2011a). “Measuring driver responses at railway level 

crossings.” Accident Analysis & Prevention, 43 (6) 2134–2141.

Tey, L. S., G. Wallis, and L. Ferreira. (2011b). “Using a driving simulator to assess driver 

compliance at railway level crossings.” In: Proceedings of the 34th Australasian 

Transport Research Forum, Adelaide, Australia.

Tyrell, D. and A. B. Perlman. (2003). “Evaluation of rail passenger equipment crashworthiness 

strategies.” Transportation Research Record 1825, 8–14. 

Tyrell, D., E. Martinez, K. Severson, K. Jacobsen, D. Parent, M. Priante, A.B. Perlman. (2006). 

“Overview of a Crash Energy Management Specification for Passenger Rail Equipment.” 

In: Proceedings of JRC 2006.

Wahle, T. and G. C. Beatty. (1993). Emergency Management Guide for Business & Industry: A 

Step-by-Step Approach to Emergency Planning, Response and Recovery for Companies 

of all Sizes. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC. 

Walker, F.W. and S. E. Roberts. (1975). “Influence of lighting on accident frequency at highway 

intersections.” Transportation Research Record 562, 73–78. 

Wullems, C. (2011). “Towards the adoption of low-cost rail level crossing warning devices in 

regional areas of Australia: A review of current technologies and reliability issues.” 

Saf.Sci. 49 (8–9), 1059–1073.
52

4. SPECIAL TRACKWORK FOR SHARED HIGH-SPEED RAIL PASSENGER AND 

HEAVY AXLE LOAD FREIGHT OPERATIONS

4.1 Introduction

The railroad track structure poses a unique challenge at the location where two tracks intersect. 

Special trackwork (i.e., turnouts, crossing diamonds and their components) plays a vital role in 

railway infrastructure by providing route flexibility to trains as they travel across a network. 

Discontinuities in wheel-rail contact at the running surface and increased stiffness of special 

trackwork result in high impact loads and dynamic interactions between train wheels and the 

specialty components that make up turnouts and crossing diamonds (Kassa 2008). 

Discontinuities in the track are critical because they alter the vertical and lateral stiffness of the 

track and affect the velocity of the vehicle (Licciardello 2008). As a result of these interactions, a 

significant amount of damage to the track ensues in the form of plastic deformation, component 

wear, and rolling contact fatigue (Kassa 2008). Although special trackwork typically consists of 

only a small portion of route miles on a railway network, problems with turnout and crossing 

components represent a relatively large percentage of maintenance costs, train delays, and trackrelated incidents (Ossberger 2010; Weart 2012).

The U.S. DOT is supporting development of a substantially expanded and improved passenger 

rail service on a number of intercity corridors across the United States (FRA 2012). These 

corridor development projects will range from incremental improvement of existing tracks to 

construction of new, dedicated HSR lines. Existing lines could already have freight or passenger 

rail services, necessitating shared operations. As the interest in shared corridors grows, special 

trackwork represents a significant challenge due to diverging loading characteristics and design 

priorities of HAL freight traffic and HSR passenger traffic (Nash 2003).

4.2 Divergent Design Considerations for HSR and HAL

Special trackwork design in North America has progressed with a focus on increased axle loads;

the operating speeds have not seen similar growth. Consequently, designs of track components 

have become stronger, albeit larger, yet the actual geometry of turnouts and other special track 

work has not varied greatly (Abbot et al. 2010). This highlights the unique challenge in North 

American railway infrastructure of introducing higher speed passenger service, which requires a 

higher standard for track quality, onto existing track typically experiencing heavy axle freight 

loads. To meet the track design conditions required for the growth of HSR in North America, the 

design of the turnout must be reanalyzed. Many other countries, specifically in Europe and Asia, 

could provide valuable insight into track design for high-speed operation (Rohlmann and Hess 

2007; Cao et al. 2011; Haifeng et al. 2011). However, there is still much to be learned about

operating on shared track, and the combination of North American freight axle loads and more 

robust passenger car designs than those generally seen globally on existing high-speed lines 

contributes to this challenge (Abbot et al. 2010).

Both HAL and HSR types of traffic require special trackwork components that minimize impact 

loads (Davis et al. 2010). However, notable differences between HAL and HSR in the design 

requirements and loading conditions have created a variety of challenges related to special 

trackwork. The primary difference is the priority given to considerations for passenger comfort 
53

and diverging speed. HSR lines require that turnouts and crossings minimize or eliminate the 

need to slow the train while maintaining passenger safety and comfort (Davis et al. 2010). 

Increases in diverging speed and rider comfort can be achieved through optimal turnout 

geometries and the use of movable point frogs (Davis et al. 2010). Another alternative is to orient 

turnouts so that the direction of high-speed traffic corresponds with the straight movement 

through the turnout. On the other hand, special trackwork on HAL freight lines are designed to 

withstand the high tonnage on a specific route while minimizing maintenance (Davis et al. 2010). 

Because the diverging speed is typically not important on HAL lines, the goal of innovative frog 

designs for HAL is to eliminate the gap in the running rails on the mainline. This may be 

achieved through flange bearing frogs or spring frogs.

In addition to design considerations, HSR and HAL operations impose different loading 

conditions on special trackwork. Impact loads vary significantly with train speed and are the 

primary cause of track degradation (Remennikov and Kaewunruen 2007). Both HAL and HSR 

traffic impose impact loads due to irregularities in the track and in the wheels, but the 

combination of axle load and train speed makes the differences in load magnitude and track 

damage extremely complex. By definition, loads from HAL freight trains are higher in 

magnitude and longer in duration than loads from HSR trains. When irregularities incite dynamic 

interaction between rails and HAL wheels, a dynamic amplification of the load magnitude can 

occur at higher frequencies. HSR loads have a lower magnitude, but the faster speeds result in a 

greater amplification of the forces. For example, one study has shown that the wheel-rail contact 

force in a turnout is approximately 100 percent greater than the static load for trains traveling at 

43.5 mph and 200 percent greater at 93.2 mph (Andersson and Dahlberg 2009).

For incremental upgrades to result in a successful HSR system, special trackwork must meet the 

design requirements necessary to run passenger trains at high speeds while withstanding heavy 

impact loads from HAL freight cars. This section presents an overview of the issues related to 

special trackwork for shared corridors and provides an in-depth analysis of the relevant research 

to date. In the following section, a review of studies related to flange bearing technology, 

turnout geometry, other innovative component designs, and field instrumentation and modeling 

is presented. In the discussion section, the relevance of different shared operation types and 

research needs is addressed.

4.3 Flange bearing Technology

As the demands on the track become more significant due to increasing axle loads and faster 

train speeds, railroad crossing diamonds will require improvement. The traditional approach to 

designing crossing diamonds is to create small gaps in the intersecting rails to allow a train to 

pass through another track without having to separate the grade of the two lines. High impact 

loads from train wheels are often imparted on the edges of the frog where these gaps occur, 

which greatly increases wear and reduces the life cycle of these components. High impact forces 

cause damage to the rail, and the supporting earthwork below a crossing diamond is also 

negatively affected. In an attempt to mitigate these impacts under increasing axle loads and 

increase the life cycle of crossing diamond components, Class I railroads have been investigating 

the use of flange bearing technologies (Clark et al. 2008). The gap in the running surface of the 

rail is eliminated because the flange of a wheel is used to support the car as it is essentially lifted 

over the intersecting track.
54

One type of flange bearing technology is a full flange bearing frog diamond (FBF) as shown in 

Figure 4.1. In this type, wheels on trains traveling on both tracks at a crossing are ramped up to 

be supported by the flanges so that intersection occurs at the same level surface for either route 

(Clark et al. 2008). The elimination of flangeway gaps for both routes mitigates the issue of high 

impact forces on the crossing diamond components. FRA does, however, have a regulation 

governing flangeway depth of railroad track components, necessitating the request of a special 

waiver to make use of this technology. A field installation of an FBF diamond was performed in 

Shelby, OH, by CSX in 2006. Within the first 22 months of service—after supporting 

approximately 60 MGT per year since installation—practically no maintenance related to this 

diamond was required (Clark et al. 2008). Although the speed on both routes had to be reduced 

to 40 mph, the advantage of this technology is that the relative speed of each route can be the 

same. Further evaluation of the longer life cycle of this turnout is still being performed. This type 

of diamond may be beneficial at crossings where the freight and passenger line traffic volumes 

are similar. Because of the lower speeds required on FBF diamonds, this technology would not 

be ideal where higher speed operation is desired. Further research may lead to increased speed 

operation through geometric and material improvements.

Another popular type of flange bearing technology is the one-way low speed (OWLS) partial 

flange bearing crossing diamond (Fig. 4.2). This technology was developed in response to the 

requirement to obtain a waiver from the FRA Track Safety Standards to make use of FBF 

crossings. In this application, the rail on a line with a large volume of traffic can be left 

continuous, while an intersecting line with less traffic becomes flange bearing to cross over the 

mainline. The geometry of an OWLS diamond still requires a gap on the flange bearing track to 

go over the continuous rail. The lower frequency of impact loadings on this track results in less 

damage to the frog. An example where this type of crossing could benefit train operation would 

Figure 4.1. Example of full flange bearing frog diamond (Clark et al. 2008)
55

be where a lesser-used branch line intersects a busy, high-density mainline. It should be noted 

that research of flange bearing technology has shown that it does not have a negative effect on 

freight car or locomotive wheels (Clark et al. 2008). This type of diamond would be ideal in a 

shared corridor where a given line is predominant in traffic volume over an intersecting line that 

is operated at lower speeds. The lesser used line would be flange bearing through the diamond, 

allowing the other to be continuous, benefiting from unrestricted speeds and providing a smooth 

running surface for passenger comfort. 

Figure 4.2. Example of one-way low speed partial flange bearing (Clark et al. 2008)

 

Flange bearing technology has also been adapted for turnouts through use of a partial flange 

bearing turnout frog. In this application the rail of a mainline route can remain continuous, while 

the lesser-used diverging track lifts the train wheels over the mainline rail and is lowered down 

to continue on the diverging route (Davis et al. 2009). This type of turnout is said to be more 

effective than a commonly used spring frog because there is no need for the moving parts and 

additional inspection and lubrication necessary for that type of trackwork (Clark et al. 2008). 

Because a frog is generally used in an area experiencing high impact loads in more typical 

designs, elimination of this area can increase the life cycle of the expensive track component.

A test installation on the Facility for Accelerated Service Testing (FAST) at the Transportation 

Technology Center (TTC) included two different prototypes of partial flange bearing turnout 

frogs. One of these is called the Lift Frog and is similar to turnouts that the railroad companies 

are currently purchasing. The Lift Frog is unique because of an increased ramp length in the frog 

and the presence of a parallel ramp on the guardrail side of the turnout opposite the frog (Davis 

et al. 2008; Davis et al. 2009). At FAST, this frog has been installed on a turnout on the High 

Tonnage Loop (HTL), which sees 39-ton axle loads operating at 40 mph. When comparing the 

results of vertical wheel forces for the Lift Frog with a rail bound manganese (RBM) frog that 
56

was previously installed at this location, the vertical wheel forces experienced by the frog from 

the mainline traffic have been reduced significantly. Fig. 4.3 shows these forces plotted versus 

train speed for both frog types, with an approximately 38 percent decrease in force at 40 mph.

 Figure 4.3. Maximum vertical wheel force versus train speed for lift frog 

(Davis et al. 2009)

A diverging move made over this turnout is limited to 15 mph. Since it is generally the higher 

operating speeds that produce the increased dynamic impact loads, a reduction of the force from 

the faster, mainline traffic results in a very positive result. The benefit of reduced forces at this 

speed is that, unlike with the more commonly used RBM frog, a longer service life is expected

for the Lift Frog. In a shared track operation, partial flange bearing turnout frogs such as the Lift 

Frog could be used where a track diverges into respective freight and passenger routes. It should 

be noted that in a shared track scenario, the ramps in partial flange bearing turnout frogs must be 

designed to accommodate a greater variety of wheel flanges. Different types of freight and 

passenger rolling stock have wheel profiles optimized for their given performance requirements. 

Accordingly, special trackwork on shared corridors must be designed so that both types of wheel 

profiles can navigate the gaps in the frog.

4.4 Turnout Geometry

Another aspect of the challenge of operating higher speed passenger trains on existing freight 

lines is the geometry of the turnouts. The primary influence on the design of the frog angle on a 

turnout that governs the rate at which two tracks diverge is the desired operating speed through 

the turnout. Inversely, existing turnouts restrict the increase in speed of train operation through 

certain sections of track. Turnouts designed for higher speed operation are generally longer in 

length so as to reduce lateral accelerations and provide a more gradual change of direction. Too

rapid of a change in lateral acceleration can cause a phenomenon known as entry “jerk,” which 

causes passenger discomfort (Abbot et al. 2010). Passenger comfort is a critical factor that has 
57

resulted in adherence to high maintenance standards for high-speed rail. A primary constraint 

that requires the installation of turnouts capable of high-speed operation into existing track 

infrastructure is turnout geometry. New turnout designs for existing track must safely carry the 

dynamic forces resulting from increased speeds (Abbot et al. 2010).

Research is being performed on increasing the operating speed of trains through the diverging 

route of a turnout while maintaining the same turnout footprint, that is, without changing the 

basic track infrastructure (Prasad 2011). The goal of the research is to maintain the same 

locations of the Point of Switch (PS) and Point of Frog (PF) and keep the frog angle as fixed 

parameters. Redesign of the turnout would occur in the area within the PS and PF. The issue is 

that a train diverging through a turnout causes high lateral forces as a result of centrifugal action 

on the car body, and these forces can vary with the geometry of a given turnout. The forces 

imparted on turnout components are often greater than the designed strengths. To mitigate this, 

the proposed changes in turnout design should be made to ensure the forces remain within the 

optimum level (Prasad 2011). Figure 4.4 illustrates various components of a turnout where 

lateral forces can exceed the optimum force level and thus should be targets for analysis and 

potential redesign. The ultimate goal of increasing diverging speed through a turnout within the 

same footprint with reduced lateral forces and accelerations is to improve ride quality and to 

decrease component wear. Higher diverging speeds can also increase the capacity of a railroad 

system (Prasad 2011).

Figure 4.4. Concept of optimum lateral force for turnout design (Prasad 2011)

It is likely that upgrading a single turnout will have no major effect on increasing the capacity of 

a line. Rather, a greater amount of improvement can come by performing low cost modifications
58

to several turnouts over a given section of rail line, which would increase the average speed of 

the trains over that section (Prasad 2011). Increasing average train speed in a shared corridor can 

mean more operating revenue for freight companies and shorter travel time for passenger trains. 

Part of the research was to identify the following components and locations in a standard turnout 

that cause the restriction of speed through special trackwork: the toe of the switch which causes 

both a kink in the alignment and a change in curvature; the heel of the switch which causes a 

change in curvature; the toe and heel of the frog which both cause a change in curvature; the gap 

at the “V” of the crossing where high vertical impacts can occur; and the lack of superelevation 

in the lead curve on which high centrifugal forces act (Prasad 2011).

The geometry of a turnout has several constraints that can be addressed to satisfy the theoretical 

desired results of this research. These constraints are the lead distance between the PS and PF, 

the interlocking footprint of the turnout, the frog angle, and the location of the PS and PF (Prasad 

2011). These constraints are considered in this research in order to avoid an extreme case of 

turnout rehabilitation and because changing any of these geometric values will induce the high 

cost of changing basic track infrastructure. Modifying existing turnouts for higher diverging 

speeds will ideally result in higher line capacity, better ride quality and comfort, reduced lateral 

wheel forces and acceleration, lower rail wear rates, longer service life, and minimum life-cycle 

cost (LCC) with less interruption of traffic for repair or reconditioning of turnout (Prasad 2011).

Research on optimizing turnout design was furthered through field testing performed by VAE 

Aketiengesellschaft on turnout responses of a standard AREMA #20 turnout and an optimized 

#20 turnout for the wheel-rail forces from the leading axle of a train. The optimized turnout is 

comprised of back-to-back spirals with larger radii entering and leaving the turnout and a smaller 

radius in the body of the turnout. Use of a larger radius for switch entry for the diverging rail 

through means of a spiral will allow for a smaller entry angle of a turnout, which can lower 

lateral forces and acceleration and allow a higher diverging speed (Ossberger and Bishop 2010; 

Abbot et al. 2010). The result of this optimized design was that while maintaining the same lead 

length and turnout angle as the standard #20, the optimized turnout saw lateral forces reduced by 

approximately 40 percent (Prasad, 2011). Operating speeds for this test were 40 mph, which is 

more representative of freight train operation. Fig. 4.5 shows results from a test of lateral forces 

produced by a 110-ton coal hopper car traveling at 40 mph through three different turnout types 

(Ossberger and Bishop 2010). One of the tested turnouts has a larger entry and exit radii, 

meaning it has been created with spiral transitions into and out of the turnout. From these results 

it can be seen that this design for the geometry of a turnout can significantly reduce lateral loads 

from freight train operations.

 
59

 Figure 4.5. Comparison of switch geometries (Ossberger and Bishop 2010)

A similar test was conducted by Butzbacher Weichenbau Gesmmbh (BWG) comparing wheelrail forces from the leading axle in two high-speed turnouts: one with Kinematic Gauge 

Optimization (KGO) and one without. KGO is an innovative turnout design where the track 

gauge is widened at the switch entry area, reducing lateral impact loads (Abbot et al. 2010). It 

does so by causing the wheels to ride outwards on the taper of the tread, thus steering a train car 

away from a closed switch point (Abbot et al. 2010). This also allows for the switch rail to be 

thickened, reducing wear on this component and increasing its life cycle (Wang et al. 2009). This 

gauge-widening concept is demonstrated in Fig. 4.6. Immediately behind the wheels, an 

exaggeration of the widened gauge is depicted. It can be seen that the lines of contact between 

the rail and the wheel tapers have been moved outward relative to the track centerline. This can 

be compared with where this contact would occur in a normal design where the gauge remains 

constant through the turnout.
60

Figure 4.6. Gauge-widening switch structure (Wang et al. 2009)

Operating speeds for this test were 190 mph for the mainline and 140 mph for the diverging 

route, thus this test was beneficial for understanding the effects of changing internal turnout 

geometry for high-speed operation. The results from this study also showed a 40 percent

decrease in maximum forces for the turnout with KGO, which increases the life of the turnout 

components (Prasad 2011).

Several design proposals for turnouts have been identified in order to increase the diverging 

speed within the same interlocking footprint of existing turnouts (Abbot et al., 2010; Prasad, 

2011). The first proposal is to reduce the angle for switch entry, reducing the angle of attack and 

lateral forces and minimizing “jerk” forces that cause passenger discomfort. Designing turnouts 

with transition curves in components such as the switch rail, lead rail, closure rails, or at points 

between the P.S. and P.F. can mitigate unbalance forces on the wheelset of a passing train. 

Increasing the superelevation and reducing cant deficiency in the design for the diverging track 

of a turnout can allow for higher speed train operation. Making use of KGO technology and 

creating back-to-back spirals within an optimized turnout design reduces wheel flange contact on 

the gauge side, minimizing wear. Use of clips and special clamps on the gauge side of the 

running rail or guard rail can allow for more simplified removal of those significantly worn

components, thus decreasing track maintenance time. Future research could focus on designing 

rolling stock suspension systems that better absorb lateral forces, thereby allowing for greater 

diverging speeds and increasing passenger comfort.

4.5 Other Innovative Component Designs

Another important aspect of special trackwork is the design of the supporting crossties. For the 

purposes of heavy freight loads and high-speed operation, concrete crossties are considered to be 

the most effective material choice. Oftentimes, specially produced long crossties are used in the 

transition area of a turnout before the two diverging tracks become far enough apart that separate 

series of crossties can be used. There have been concrete crossties produced with 25 ft or more in 

length; however, the ability to transport and install these can prove difficult (Abbot et al. 2010). 

A solution to this is the use of long tie connections that can connect two typical crossties. An 

advantage to using this type of connection between two smaller crossties is the minimization of 
61

fouling adjacent track through use of the large machinery necessary for installing very long 

crossties (Abbot et al. 2010).

A design factor in many turnouts is the presence of a switch machine to move the points 

necessary to maintain operation on the mainline or to make a diverging move. For smaller sized 

turnouts, a single switch machine is often adequate to provide the power needed to move the 

necessary components. With the implementation of larger turnouts necessary for high-speed 

operation, more power is needed to move the longer rail components. To provide a smoother ride 

for passengers and for safety reasons, it is necessary that the whole point is being moved evenly 

(Abbot et al. 2010). Currently in some larger turnouts more support locations along the moving 

point are necessary to successfully “throw” the switch. 

High-speed turnouts not only require an adequate number of these supporting locations for 

proper alignment, but in some cases multiple switch machines are necessary to provide adequate 

power to do so. For example, for a #45 high-speed turnout, six switch machines are currently 

necessary to move the switch point, and three more are required if the turnout contains a 

moveable point frog (Abbot et al. 2010). As a solution, a type of turnout has been successfully 

used in Europe where multiple slave drive units are connected by hydraulic lines to a primary 

active unit. This design allows the forces necessary to move the switch point to be applied 

simultaneously (Abbot et al. 2010). This type of turnout, shown in Fig. 4.7, can make for 

smoother and safer operation at high speeds.

Figure 4.7. Hydraulically linked distributed system (Abbot et al. 2010)

4.6 Field Instrumentation and Modeling

Several research projects are being conducted with the objective of understanding the dynamic 

interactions of special trackwork through field measurements and finite element modeling. Kassa 

et al. (2008) instrumented wheelsets to measure vertical and lateral contact forces on the wheels 

on a test train as it traversed a standard UIC60-760-1:15 turnout. The field data was used to 

validate two models that predict the vertical and lateral forces with “acceptable” agreement 

(Kassa et al., 2008). The influence of train speed, train orientation (facing or trailing move), and 

train route (main or diverging route) was analyzed with data from the field and the results of the 

model. The train route had the most significant impact on the maximum vertical and lateral 

contact forces, with the highest forces occurring when a train made a facing move on the 

diverging route. Contact forces increase with increasing train speed, and the forces increase at a 

greater rate for the diverging route (Kassa et al., 2008).
62

Licciardello et al. (2008) measured the vertical and lateral deflections of switch points of a 60 

km/h turnout in Italy with displacement transducers. After gathering data from a variety of 

passing trains that included both freight and high-speed passenger trains, the study concluded 

that switch point movement does not depend on train type and is more closely linked to the angle 

of attack of the wheels. It should be noted that the axle loads of the freight traffic in this study 

were likely not as heavy as those in the United States, resulting in a more homogeneous loading 

situation. Little influence of the frequency of dynamic interactions on the switch points was 

detectable in this study.

Wiest et al. (2008) developed a three-dimensional FEM that accounts for elastic-plastic 

deformation of the frog nose and incorporates shear forces caused by the rolling wheel. Using a 

quasi-static model, more deformation occurred in a manganese steel frog nose than in a 

composite steel frog nose. The deformation of the manganese frog led to the reduction of contact 

forces by 20 percent. Additionally, damage to the frog nose was estimated by locating tensile 

principal stresses that could result in voids or cracks.

Another model focused on the impact of irregularities and gaps of a #38 turnout with a moveable 

point frog designed for HSR applications (Cao et al. 2009). Multiple gaps create greater vehicle 

accelerations than single gaps on the same turnout. Although the conclusions from this paper 

may seem obvious, the authors highlighted the need to minimize and eliminate gaps on turnouts 

for high-speed operations with quantitative results to support their argument.

Unfortunately, none of the research studies examined the contrasting traffic, HSR and HAL, 

which is pertinent to shared corridors in the United States. One study is currently underway at 

the UIUC to compare impact loads measured on Amtrak’s Northeast Corridor (NEC), an 

example of shared track operation. Initial results from this data show that greater variability 

exists for HAL freight impact loads than HSR impact loads. The data has not yet been analyzed 

with respect to train speed. Quantifying the load impacts from both traffic types on special 

trackwork would significantly contribute to the advancement of the field.

4.7 Discussion and Conclusions

Effective design of special trackwork is necessary to make shared railway systems as efficient as 

possible. To satisfy the design requirements for special trackwork, railway engineers must 

understand the various types of shared rail corridors and identify the constraints that are present 

with each type. 

FRA classifies passenger and freight train shared operations into (1) shared track, where 

passenger and freight trains use the same trackage on single or multiple tracks for all or part of 

their operation; (2) shared ROW, where passenger and freight trains use separate tracks but with 

adjacent track centers of 25 ft (7.6 m) or less; and (3) shared corridor, which is similar to shared 

ROW, but with adjacent track centers of more than 25 ft (7.6 m) but less than 200 ft (61 m) apart 

(FRA 2003). In addition, “hybrid” systems exist in which HSR trains operate on dedicated, highspeed infrastructure on some sections and conventional infrastructure on others.

Shared track systems pose the most unique challenges for infrastructure design. High-speed 

operations will require more stringent track geometry and maintenance standards, as the effect of 
63

typical geometry and track component problems can be amplified at such high speeds, causing 

passenger discomfort and posing a safety concern. For freight traffic, a much more resilient 

system is desired to mitigate the impact of HALs. For a shared track system, these challenges 

must be met simultaneously because both types of traffic must be supported by the shared track 

structure.

For a shared ROW system, it is possible that special trackwork will be required to support both 

track types when dedicated freight tracks must cross dedicated passenger tracks at grade or vice 

versa. Since the tracks are spaced so close together, it is unlikely that a diverging move for either 

track will be grade separated. Consequently, crossings may be required to handle HAL and HSR 

loading conditions.

In a shared corridor system, the issue of special trackwork is typically not applicable, as track 

centers for adjacent tracks can be up to 200 ft apart. Dedicated passenger lines should be grade 

separated when crossing a conventional line.

For a “hybrid” track system, dedicated high-speed rail equipment may operate on conventional 

rail networks near city centers, but for a majority of the route will operate on a dedicated track. 

This system creates similar challenges to shared track systems because the special trackwork 

must be designed to support both HAL and HSR loading conditions. However, on the shared 

portion of the track, the operating speed of a high-speed train will likely be reduced as it 

approaches a station. Consequently, there may be little incentive to design special trackwork to 

accommodate higher speeds.

Many gaps in the current understanding of special trackwork as it relates to shared HAL and 

HSR operations have resulted in a variety of research needs. After a vigorous review of current 

research, the primary needs in this field appear to be load-damage correlation, life-cycle cost of 

upgrades, and material behavior of track components.

The effects of various types of impact and dynamic loads on shared corridors are not fully 

understood. The damage caused by the different loading characteristics need to be analyzed in 

order to guide turnout geometry and materials selection. The tradeoffs between running more 

HAL freight traffic and the desire to increase speed through turnouts should be investigated with 

regard to the possible accelerated wear they cause (Liu et al. 2011). Current field observations 

and models can be used to create a damage index that can relate axle load, train speed, and 

tonnage to deterioration of special trackwork components. This tool could allow track designers 

to select the appropriate special trackwork in a more complex loading environment than 

conventional railways and would allow track maintainers to strategically plan maintenance. 

Many of the proposed designs and modifications to special trackwork for use in shared corridors 

are very theoretical in nature, or have seen only a small amount of field testing. A research need 

in this area is continued field experimentation and implementation of proposed component 

designs to test track segments. A better understanding of component effectiveness under realistic 

loading scenarios is necessary to ensure the feasibility of use in mainline service. The 

development of innovative and modified track components to allow shared corridors to operate 

efficiently will result in improved track durability, necessitating the reexamination of many of 
64

the regulations for layout and maintenance (Abbot et al. 2010; Xu et al. 2011). 

Due to the relatively new concept of running HAL and HSR on shared track, only limited 

amounts of actual life-cycle data of special trackwork under this type of train operation are

available. While new components for shared corridors are designed and installed, close analysis 

and monitoring of wear and material behavior should be noted to produce detailed life-cycle data 

for future designs. Little data exists on material research for specific shared corridor applications; 

however, it would seem that the advancement of materials in the general field of railway 

engineering could contribute to increased durability of special trackwork components. Research 

on head hardened crossing materials and heat-treated switch tips could result in turnout 

components that can achieve higher fatigue strength and receive higher lateral forces (Prasad 

2010). 

Finally, applications for premium special trackwork such as moveable point frogs and flange 

bearing frogs should be investigated based on traffic and route characteristics. For some shared 

rail corridors in the United States, capacity and speed requirements may necessitate the use of 

moveable point frogs. However, many of the proposed shared corridors are being planned on 

lower capacity freight routes that could operate efficiently with a more conventional frog. A 

model based on data from Amtrak’s NEC or European countries that operate shared corridors 

should be developed to help railway engineers understand the optimal thresholds for special 

trackwork selection.

In conclusion, special trackwork research and design has progressed with a focus on increased 

axle loads in North America or higher speed in Europe. A review of existing research shows the 

need for a more pronounced focus on understanding the loading characteristics and design 

tradeoffs required for shared HAL and HSR operations. Regardless of the strategy to improve its 

design, special trackwork must provide safety and durability for successful shared rail corridors.
65

4.8 References

Abbot, B. C., G. Click, T. Lee, S. Mattson, and K. Ouelette. (2010). “Design Considerations in 

the Development of a North American High Speed Turnout.” Proceedings of the 2010 

Joint Rail Conference, Urbana, IL, April.

Andersson, C. and T. Dahlberg. (1999). “Load Impacts at Railway Turnout Crossing.” 

Proceedings of the 16th IAVSD Symposium, Pretoria, South Africa, August–September.

Cao, Y., P. Wang, and W. Zhao. (2011). “Dynamic Responses Due to Irregularity of the No. 38 

Turnout for High-Speed Railway.” Proceedings of the International Conference on 

Transportation Engineering 2011, Chengdu, China, July.

Clark, D. C., T. O’Connor, and D. Davis. (2008). “Update on the Use of Flange Bearing 

Technology in Special Trackwork.” AREMA Conference Proceedings. American 

Railway Engineering and Maintenance-of-way Association (AREMA), Landover, 

Maryland, September.

Davis, D. D., X. Shu, R.Jimenez, and T. O’Connor. (2008). “Evaluation of Flange Bearing Frogs 

for Turnouts.” Technology Digest TD-08-044. Association of American Railroads, 

Transportation Technology Center, Inc., Pueblo, CO.

Davis, D. D., X. Shu, and R. Jimenez. (2009). “Initial Performance Evaluation of Partial Flange 

Bearing Frogs for Turnouts in Heavy Axle Load Service.” Technology Digest TD-09-

031, Association of American Railroads, Transportation Technology Center, Inc., Pueblo, 

CO.

Davis, D. D., J. LoPresti, and S. Kalay. (2010). “Improved Performance Track Components for 

Heavy Axle Loads and High Speed Rail.” Proceedings of the 2010 Joint Rail Conference, 

Urbana, IL, April.

Federal Railway Administration. (2003). Catalog of "Common Use" Rail Corridors. U.S. 

Department of Transportation, Washington, DC. 

Federal Railroad Administration (FRA). (2012). Chronology of high-speed rail corridors: 

Designations and extensions. http://www.fra.dot.gov/Page/P0140.

Accessed May 2012.

Haifeng, L., Y. Zhou, and Y. Xu. (2011). “Inspection and analysis of wheelset lateral 

displacement in high-speed turnout on passenger-dedicated railway line.” Proceedings of 

the 3rd International Conference on Transportation Engineering, Chengdu, China, July.

Kassa, E. and C. O. Nielsen. (2008). “Dynamic interaction between train and railway turnout: 

full-scale field test and validation of simulation models” Vehicle System Dynamics: 

International Journal of Vehicle Mechanics and Mobility, 46:S1, pp. 521–534.

Licciardello, R. V., M. Bruner, G. R. Corazza, E. Cosciotti, Ga. Malavasi, Gi. Malavasi, R. 

Troisi, and S. Musella. (2008). “Some experience on the dynamics of turnouts due to 

passing trains,” Proceedings of the 8th World Congress on Railway Research, Seoul, 

South Korea, May.
66

Liu, L., Y. Xuan, L. Wang, and J. Lin Sun. (2011). “Theoretical Analysis and Simulation Study 

on Track Rigidity of Turnout.” Applied Mechanics and Materials, Vol. 97-98, pp. 235–

240.

Nash, A. (2003). Best Practices in Shared-Use High-Speed Rail Systems. MTI Report 02-02, 

Mineta Transportation Institute, College of Business, San Jose, California, June.

Ossberger, H. and G. Bishop. (2010). “Life cycle cost-driven innovations for heavy haul 

turnouts.” Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part F: Journal of 

Rail and Rapid Transit, September.

Prasad, A. (2011). Turnout Design: Higher Diverging Speed in The Same Footprint. AREMA 

Conference Proceedings, American Railway Engineering and Maintenance-of-way 

Association (AREMA), Landover, Maryland, September.

Remennikov, A. M. and S. Kaewunruen. (2007). “A review of loading conditions for railway 

track structures due to train and track vertical interaction.” Structural Control and Health 

Monitoring, Vol. 15, pp. 207–234.

Resor, R. R. (2003). Catalog of “common use” rail corridors. Federal Railroad Administration 

Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC.

Rohlmann, J. and J. Hess. (2007). “Advanced turnouts for Taiwan’s high speed trains.” Railway 

Gazette International. April 2007. http://www.railwaygazette.com/nc/news/singleview/view/advanced-turnouts-for-taiwans-high-speed-trains.html.

Accessed April 2012.

Wang P., R. Chen, and X. Chen. (2009). “Wheel/rail relationship optimization of switch zone in 

high-speed railway turnout.” Proceedings of the International Conference on 

Transportation Engineering, Chengdu, China, July.

Weart, W. (2012). Product update: Special trackwork 2012. Progressive Railroading. March 

2012. http://www.progressiverailroading.com/mow/article/Product-update-Specialtrackwork-2012--30185. 

Accessed April 2012.

Wiest, M., W. Daves, F. D. Fischer, and H. Ossberger (2008). Deformation and damage of a 

crossing nose due to wheel passages. Wear, Vol. 265, pp. 1431–1438.

Xu, H., P.Wang, D. Lui, J. Hui Xu, and R. Chen. (2011). Maintenance Technologies Research of 

High speed Turnout. Applied Mechanics and Materials, Vol. 97-98, pp. 114–120.
67

5. BALLASTED TRACK FOR SHARED-USED RAIL CORRIDORS

5.1 Introduction

Ballast is the layer found between the subgrade and the track superstructure of a typical railroad. 

One of the main functions of the ballast is to dissipate the high pressures from the railroad ties 

and to distribute them evenly to the underlying subgrade. Typical values of upper pressure are 

200–300 psi (Hay 1982). The subgrade usually receives a pressure ranging from 10 to 20 psi 

(Hay 1982). In spite of the development of new track support systems such as slab track, 

ballasted track still plays a vital role in the railroad industry because of the availability of the 

material, the ease of installation, and the relatively low purchase price. Since the development of 

railways in the 19th century, the principle of ballasted track structure has not substantially 

changed (Esveld 2001). A typical railroad built today would not present significant differences in 

construction layout if compared with a railway built 100 years ago. The best material to provide 

good durability and resistance to crushing and degradation is crushed stone (Hay 1982), even 

though it might present signs of exposure to weathering, thus producing the possibility of mud 

formation (Esveld 2001).

 

In North America, nearly all railroads in operation are owned and maintained by private freight 

operators, and the Class I railroads are the main players. Amtrak, although it is considered a 

Class I railroad, only owns track on the North East Corridor, in Michigan (Porter Kalamazoo), 

and some track in main stations across the United States. The freight railroad system in the 

United States is regarded as a very efficient system for transporting goods from one location to 

another. The freight trains that run across the American continent are trains with typical wheel 

loads ranging from 33,000 lb to 40,000 lb. Such high wheel loads greatly affect the long-term 

performance of the track infrastructure. Table 5.1 summarizes the axle loads from different types 

of rolling stock in North America and Europe.

Table 5.1. Typical Axle Loads (Not Including Locomotives) in Tons

North American European

Passenger Freight Passenger Freight

17.5 32–40 13.25–17 12–23.5

To maintain an acceptable track profile, not only does the track superstructure have to be 

evaluated, but the underlying subgrade has to be assessed for durability and resistance to 

permanent deformation. In Illinois, for example, the surficial soils present a low bearing capacity 

and a moderate to high susceptibility to heave and frosting actions. A detailed taxonomy 

classification should be taken into account from the early planning stages (Johnson 1977). 

In a shared ROW scenario, where the ROW of the host railroad has enough room to build an 

additional track that will be dedicated to passenger operations and is within 25 ft of the existing 

railroad track, the design loads may be more flexible since no freight would make use of the new 

track for passenger service. Since passenger trains would be the only type of rolling stock 

planned, and the top speed is limited by the FRA safety standards because of level crossings and 

proximity to the freight operated line, the construction cost would still be restricted to levels 

acceptable for this type of upgrade (Nash 2003).
68

When the track to be constructed is adjacent to the freight line but more than 25 ft away and less 

than 200 ft, the passenger track is considered a shared corridor line. The same considerations 

outlined in the previous case would apply here as well, but the construction cost could be higher 

since there might be cases where a grade crossing can continue as either an overpass or 

underpass when crossing the passenger track.

In all shared-used rail corridor scenarios discussed above, the use of ballasted track is still 

considered to be the most efficient, especially when the supporting formation is natural soil. 

There are challenges related to the nature of ballast itself as well as its behavior at high speeds. 

The different load actions from either freight or passenger rolling stock can significantly affect 

the overall performance of the track structure. In the following sections, literature related to 

lifecycle cost analysis, the quality and degradation of ballast, and future research needs will be 

discussed.

5.2 Life-Cycle Cost Considerations

Europe has used conventional high-speed ballasted track structures with an all-granular track bed 

for a few decades, and this has been successful even though there is a higher maintenance cost 

associated with it. To reduce this maintenance cost, slab track was adopted. However, the high 

capital cost for slab track makes it difficult to be cost-beneficial. To reduce the maintenance 

needs and the cost of installation, Teixeira et al. (2008) discuss the limitations of granular subballast and suggest the use of a bituminous sub-ballast layer (Figure 5.1). This is an ‘intermediate 

solution’ that enhances the track substructure’s long-term bearing capacity by incorporating 

stiffer and more durable materials between the subgrade and the ballast layer. However, to avoid 

excessive ballast deterioration, an increase in the elasticity of the rail-pads might be required to 

keep track within an optimum overall vertical stiffness (Teixeira 2008).

Figure 5.1. Schematic representation of the savings in ballast material due to the use of 

a lower lateral slope for the bituminous sub-ballast solution (Teixeira 2008)
69

Kiani et al. (2007) assess the life-cycle environmental impact of different types of track beds 

(Figure 5.2). Ballasted track is a commonly constructed track structure because of its relatively 

low initial cost. Although concrete slab track is more expensive, it can have lower LCC. This 

paper looks at the manufacturing, construction, maintenance, dismantling, and recycling of the 

track bed components to describe the results of the environmental life-cycle analyses. In 

addition, this paper compares the life-cycle analyses of energy consumption and carbon dioxide 

emissions. The limitations of the data available in this paper are also discussed, and some of 

these include, but are not limited to, insufficient data associated with water pollution and waste 

generation. The results of this paper (Figure 5.3) show that concrete slab track has no higher 

environmental burdens than ballast track bed.

Figure 5.2. The life-cycle assessment inventory stages (Kiani et al. 2007)

Figure 5.3. Life-cycle energy consumption analysis of track beds (Kiani et al. 2007)
70

5.3 Ballast Quality and Modeling

Tutumluer et al. (2011) investigated validations in the field for Discrete Element Modeling 

(DEM) used to characterize the ballast conditions. Maintenance and renewal of track ballast are a 

significant part of the annual budget allocated to sustaining a railway track system. Ballast layers 

with large air voids also produced higher permanent deformations under repeated train loading. 

Therefore, to provide a better evaluation of ballast, it is important to characterize the existing 

ballast layer, strength, and modulus and deformation behavior. This paper tries to provide some 

insight into the design of ballasted track so as to improve safety and reliability. Tutumluer et al. 

(2011) presents field validation results of a realistic DEM railroad ballast model developed at 

UIUC. Ballast settlement data was collected from FAST for HAL applications at TTC in Pueblo, 

CO. The DEM model was used to conduct field applications and investigate railroad ballast 

design and behavior by simulating the quantitative track performance. To do this, it analyzed the 

particulate nature of aggregate particles and their interaction based on their size and shape. Four 

100-foot test sections were constructed in 2010 for the field validation tests. Four different 

aggregate materials were installed as the new ballast layers on a curve at the TTC FAST test 

track. To measure the ballast deformation, settlement plates were installed on top of the subgrade 

in the middle and outside rail locations. The ballast settlement predictions showed sensitivity to 

aggregate shape and gradation. According to the paper, “the DEM model can be used as a 

validated tool for engineering ballasted track designs and addressing critical substructure 

concerns such as those related to variable track stiffness and track transition zones” (Tutumluer 

2011).

Burrow et al. (2007) presents research which used falling weight deflectometer (FWD) devices 

for the dynamic testing of ballasted railway track and the data obtained from these tests were 

used along with “inverse-analysis” to determine the elastic modulus of the track substructure that 

is required to build a numeric model of the track. The authors’ findings conclude that the 

approach outlined in their work would contribute to making the FWD a useful piece of 

equipment for railway track evaluation.

Anderson et al. (2008) investigated a new technique to assess the rate of ballast damage during 

triaxial testing under both monotonic and cyclic loading. The paper describes the method of 

stoneblowing, which is essentially a procedure in which the ties are lifted in pairs and a new 

layer of gravel is placed under the tie’s bottom surface. The paper found that the ballast density 

was not altered when maintained by ordinary means of tamper. It appears that this new technique 

significantly extends the period between maintenance cycles. 

Rujikiatkamjorn et al. (2011) reviews the methods that are common in the industry for evaluating 

degree of ballast fouling. A new parameter was proposed to overcome the limitations of the 

current practices. This parameter is referred to as the ‘‘relative ballast fouling ratio,’’ which is 

the ratio between the solid volumes of fouling particles and ballast particles. This method uses a 

number of categories that are derived from gradation curves from past literature. Comparison of 

this model with other methods shows that it would better represent the influence of the gradation 

of fouling materials. It is believed that the described technique could be applied to track 

evaluation on shared-use corridors in North America.
71

Kuo and Hang (2009) provide a description with relative results of a FEM using two different 

approaches in modeling the behavior of ballasted track. The first model treats the ballast as a 

continuum medium while the second model uses a discrete element approach. Several scenarios 

have been tested in an attempt to understand the behavior of ballast at increasing speeds. The 

simplified model shown in Figure 5.4 (top) treats the ballast as a continuum layer connected with 

springs to the ties. A simplified ballast model that would connect discrete finite elements with 

contact springs was proposed. The intended goal was to encourage the appropriate selection of 

analysis model, as well as to shed light on characteristics of a ballasted track. The other model 

considered was a DEM, as shown in Figure 5.4 (bottom). Here the ballast is treated by discrete 

elements interacting with one another by means of springs. However, neither of the two models 

is able to completely characterize the behavior of the ballast. While deflections of the rail are 

lower than predicted by FEM models, actual deflections observed at the ballast level were found 

to be greater. Possible explanations for the inconsistencies of the two results are that in one case, 

the ballast is assumed to behave like a continuum elastic solid so that the classic assumptions of 

either Bernoulli-Euler beam theory or Timoshenko beam theory can be applied. 

Figure 5.4. Simple (top) and discrete (bottom) FEM models (Kuo and Hang 2009)

Yang et al. (2009) analyzed dynamic stress of a ballasted rail track during the passage of a train. 

They found a linear relationship between vertical and shear stresses with the speed of the train 

between 10 percent and 100 percent of the critical speed. When the train reaches the critical 

speed, the shear stress is about 80 percent greater than “static” shear stress. 
72

Lam et al. (2010) investigated the dynamic behavior of ballast. The authors discussed in detail 

the mathematical model of the rail-sleeper-ballast system as a Multiple Degree of Freedom 

(MDOF) system. Many assumptions have to be made to simplify the mathematics involved. The 

final objective is to derive the differential equation of equilibrium based on the Winkler model 

combined with the differential equation of motion. The analysis covers several scenarios starting 

from the case of clean ballast and continuing to scenarios where 90 percent of the ballast material 

is damaged (i.e., fouled). It is interesting to note that a reduction in the ballast stiffness does not 

really alter the overall displacement of the ballast itself.

5.4 Ballast Flight

Another issue with the reliability of a ballasted track is related to the flying ballast phenomenon. 

Quinn (2008) conducted a study to investigate the causes of movement of ballast particles from 

their position in the roadbed. Damage to the railhead is becoming an increasingly critical issue,

especially when the track is used by high-speed trains traveling in excess of 160 km/h. A

phenomenon observed in this study was the so-called ballast pitting. It was observed that the 

railheads had erratic spots likely due to the movement of ballast rocks from the roadbed. 

Apparently, the rocks would be displaced from their initial position due to the high energy 

released by the passage of a high-speed train; the energy released would be high enough to cause 

the moving object to cause permanent damage to the rail. Moreover, voids within the ballast 

would be created due to the displacement of these particles. The purpose of this study was to 

determine the pressures under the train at high speeds that would cause the ballast particles to 

move. A series of observations and measurements were performed on the High-Speed 1 line 

connecting London to Folkestone. The objective was to determine if the airflow generated by the 

passing train was sufficiently intense to displace ballast thus initiating the ballast flight. The 

location selected was a section of the line where trains were known to travel at nearly full speed 

(300 km/h). Figure 5.5 shows the pressure coefficient variation with respect to a normalized 

time. The data was corrected for noise interference while taking measurements. It is interesting 

to note the trailing peak pressure that was not reported in full-scale measurements.
73

Figure 5.5. Pressure coefficient vs. normalized time (Quinn 2008)

Benigno et al. (2011) analyzed the phenomenon on the Madrid Barcelona high-speed line. A 

series of Pitot devices were installed on a portion of the high-speed line with the purpose of

measuring the pressures induced by the passage of a high-speed train. The results are 

summarized in Figure 5.6 where the measured values of wind velocity and pressures are 

normalized. The most important aspect of this plot are the initial and final peaks measured right 

before the arrival of the train through the point of interest and right after the passage of the 

trailing locomotive. A similar behavior was noted by Chris Baker of the University of 

Southampton who conducted a comparable experiment on the HS1 line (Figure 5.7). Baker noted 

turbulence of the air right before the arrival of the nose of the train. It would be interesting to 

investigate whether these measured turbulences counteract the gravity force of the ballast 

particle. 
74

Figure 5.6. Plot of the normalized wind velocity and normalized pressure values vs. the 

position of the train wheels over time (Lazaro 2011)

Figure 5.7. Turbulence (circled) is noted right before the arrival of the train (Powrie 2011)
75

Other studies of the ballast flight phenomenon have been carried out in China and in some 

European countries. Solutions to the issue include lowering the ballast profile to leave a gap 

between the rail and the ballast crib. Other solutions include “gluing” the ballast particles 

immediately surrounding the ties, as well as “bagging” them, as done in Japan. The purpose of 

lowering the ballast profile is to allow the air that is compressed under the train during its transit 

to escape through the enlarged gaps between the rail and the ballast, thus reducing the pressure 

applied at the surface of the ballast. These techniques may lower the probability of the particles 

being displaced. Kwon et al. (2006) investigated the probability of ballast flight using 

experimental data collected on a South Korean high-speed line. The results of this research 

showed that particles located on top of the tie have a 50 percent chance of being picked up by the 

wind pressures generated by a train traveling at 300 km/h. Bombardier carried out field 

measurements while certifying the ICE 3 train in Belgium. A computational fluid dynamics 

simulation was also conducted during the same series of measurements aimed to certify the ICE 

3. Sima et al. (2008) used wind tunnel testing of a car-body undercarriage to validate several 

commercial computation approaches to modeling wind turbulence. By understanding wind flow 

characteristics, the risks of ballast flight might be more accurately understood. The results of the 

testing were varied, with some elements of the flow not accurately predicted by any of the 

models analyzed. 

5.5 Discussion and Conclusions

Knowing the costs of construction, operation, and maintenance of the track is important for

choosing a certain type of track, and the lifecycle cost takes into account those variables. 

However, the lifecycle cost analysis for ballasted track is outdated and lacking. This is an area 

that needs to be expanded on. Further research is needed to fully understand the phenomenon of 

ballast flight. Although in some instances the issue has been resolved by compacting and 

lowering the ballast profile, there are still unexplained processes that cause the ballast to be 

displaced at a sufficiently high speed to make contact with the moving train. The applicability of 

this phenomenon to North American shared-use corridors is evident. Although the highest 

allowed speed of a train is 240 km/h (150 mph) on limited portions of the North East Corridor, 

such speed is considered the minimum speed required to initiate the displacement of resting 

ballast particles. The scenario could have very serious consequences for future higher speed train 

operations.
76

5.6 References

Anderson, W. F. and P. Fair. (2008). “Behavior of Railroad Ballast under Monotonic and Cyclic 

Loading.” Journal of Geotechnical & Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 134, Issue 3, 

316–327.

Baker, C. and H. Hemida. (2011). The Calculation of Train Slipstreams Using Large Eddy 

Simulation Techniques. World Congress of Railway Research. Lille 2011.

Burrow, M., A. Chan, and A. Shein. (2007). “Deflectometer based analysis of ballasted railway 

tracks.” Geotechnical Engineering 160, July 2007, Issue GE3, 169–177.

Dahlberg, T. (2006). Handbook of Railway Vehicle Dynamics Chapter 6: Track Issues, Taylor 

and Francis Group LLC.

Esvled, C., (2001). Modern Railway Track.

Hay, W. W. (1982). Railway Engineering, J. Wiley & Sons.

Indraratna, B., L. Su, and C. Rujikiatkamjorn. (2011). “A New Parameter for Classification and 

Evaluation of Railway Ballast Fouling.” Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 48 Issue 

2, 322–326.

Johnson, W. M. and J. E. McClelland. (1977). Soil Taxonomy: an Overview. Transportation 

Research Record, Issue n. 642, 2-6.

Kiani, M., T. Parry, and H. Ceney. (2008). “Environmental life-cycle assessment of railway track 

beds.” Engineering Sustainability, Vol. 161 Issue 2, 135–142.

Kuo, C. M. and C. H. Huang. (2009). “Two Approaches of Finite-Element Modeling of 

Ballasted Railway Track.” Journal of Geotechnical & Geoenvironmental Engineering, 

Vol. 135 Issue 3, 455–458.

Kwon, H. B. and C. S. Park. (2006). “An experimental study on the relationship between ballast 

flying phenomenon and strong wind under high speed train.” Proceedings of the World 

Congress on Rail Research, Montreal, Canada.

Lam, H. F., M. T. Wong, and R. M. Keefe. (2010). “Detection of ballast damage by in situ 

vibration measurement of sleepers.” AIP Conference Proceedings, Vol. 1233 Issue 1, 

1648–1653.

Lazaro, B. J., E. Gonzalez, M. Rodriguez, S. Osma, and I. Jorge. (2011). Characterization and 

Modeling of Flying Ballast Phenomena in High-speed Train Lines. World Congress of 

Railway Research. Lille 2011.

Nash, A. (2003). Best Practices in Shared-Use High Speed Rail Systems. Mineta Transport 

Institute, San Jose State University.

Powrie, W. and J. Priest. (2011) “Behavior of Ballasted Track During High Speed Train 

Passage.” PowerPoint presentation. University of Southampton. 

http://web.sbe.hw.ac.uk/railday/William_Powrie_U_Southampton_Presentation_150211.

pdf.
77

Quinn, A. and M. Hayward. (2008). Full Scale Aerodynamic Measurements Underneath a HST.

BBAA VI International Colloquium on: Bluff Bodies & Aerodynamics & Applications, 

Milan.

Sima, M., A. Gurr, and A. Orellano. (2008). Validation of CFD for the flow under a train with 

1:7 scale wind tunnel measurements. BBAA VI International Colloquium on: Bluff 

Bodies & Aerodynamics & Applications, Milan.

Teixeira, P. F., A. Lopez Pita, and P. A. Ferreira. (2010). “New possibilities to reduce track costs 

on high speed lines using a bituminous sub-ballast material.” International Journal of 

Pavement Engineering, Vol. 11, n. 4, August 2010, pp 301–307.

Tutumluer, E., Y. Qian, Y. Hashash, J. Ghaboussi. (2011). Field Validated Discrete Element 

Model for Railroad Ballast, AREMA Conference Proceedings.

Yang, L. A., W. Powrie, and J. A. Priest. (2009). “Dynamic Stress Analysis of a Ballasted 

Railway Track Bed during Train Passage.” Journal of Geotechnical & Geoenvironmental 

Engineering, Vol. 135 Issue 5, 680–689.
78

6. VEHICLE TRACK INTERACTION (VTI) CHARACTERISTICS OF TRACK 

TRANSITION SECTIONS AND IMPLICATIONS TO SHARED PASSENGER AND 

FREIGHT RAIL CORRIDOR OPERATIONS

6.1 Introduction

Track transitions are an unavoidable part of the railway infrastructure due to the need to 

construct railway structures, at-grade crossings, and other structural elements on or beneath the

track superstructure. Track transitions occur at locations where there are abrupt changes in the 

track modulus. Common track transitions are highway-rail grade crossings, tunnel portals, bridge 

approaches, and special trackwork elements such as crossing diamonds and turnouts. As the 

track modulus transitions from the comparatively soft natural subgrade to the comparatively stiff 

turnout, loads imparted into the track structure increase sharply due to increased stiffness, which 

creates degradation of track geometry. Track modulus values of 10,000 lb/in/in are not 

uncommon for bridges (Li and Davis 2005). This is compared with track modulus values of 

3,000–6,000 lb/in/in on other track (Hay 1982).

Because of these deviations in track geometry, which frequently manifest themselves as profile 

or cross-level deviations, frequent track maintenance is required in terms of surfacing or other 

work that mitigates the effect of poor geometry. Track transitions represent one of the highest 

sources of operating cost expenditures for the entire railway infrastructure because of the 

frequent surfacing and other remedial actions that are required to maintain track in the operating 

class for which it was designed. Additionally, track transitions are the cause of frequent “slow 

orders,” which require railroads to downgrade track classes, resulting in lower operating speeds 

and reduced capacity.

There are two general approaches to increasing the life cycle of track transitions. One involves a 

complete overhaul and redesign of the transition, which is typically best for new construction or 

lines that have redundant tracks that allow one or more lines to be removed from service. The 

other approach involves in situ improvement of the track transitions—while the track is still in

service, but temporarily void of traffic due to a maintenance window. A recent project funded by 

FRA at UIUC is addressing both of these solutions. Given that many shared corridor projects 

will be upgrades of existing lines, remedial in situ track transition solutions are the most relevant. 

One of the primary research questions that must be answered is whether the in situ approaches 

are equal to the new construction techniques in terms of their effectiveness. Track transitions at 

bridges may be the most pronounced, compared with other track transition locations that were 

discussed earlier. This is due to the fact that bridges are typically constructed on piling 

foundations that are driven to refusal (or near refusal).

This section will review previous and ongoing research efforts aimed at increasing the life cycle 

of track transitions. These efforts are aimed at mitigating the costs of maintaining track 

transitions by reducing settlement between the track on the structure and the adjacent track. 

While many of these efforts were not conducted specifically for the purpose of investigating 

shared corridor track transitions, the results will be reviewed through the lens of shared-corridor 

operations. Additionally, existing knowledge gaps and research needs pertaining to sharedcorridor track transitions will be identified.
79

6.2 Track Transition Maintenance Costs

Approximately $200 million is spent annually on track transition maintenance in the United 

States (Sasaoka et al. 2005). Based on the Association of American Railroads’ (AAR) 2008 

Strategic Research Initiatives (SRI) plan (R. Jimenez, personal communication, June 2008), the 

cost of railway bridge transition repairs is estimated to be $26 million per year ($16 million for 

steel bridges and $10 million for concrete bridges). One reason the estimate seems very low is 

that this figure does not take into account the significant cost resulting from slow orders that 

railroads must impose in problem locations.

One of the primary questions to be addressed through research is how track transition 

maintenance costs will be affected by HSR and HAL shared-corridor operations. These costs 

may increase because of mixed traffic for two primary reasons. First, the differing loads from 

HSR and HAL provide different loading and failure modes that result in diverging life cycles. 

Track components in the railway superstructure that are sub-optimized for highway and rail 

loading could result in insufficient attenuation of loads to the track substructure. Second, HSR 

and HAL require more stringent geometry requirements than HAL alone, thus it is more 

challenging to keep transitions within safe operating conditions without additional maintenance 

expenditures.

To address specific research needs and knowledge gaps associated with track transitions for 

shared corridors, higher-level research is needed. One possible high-level shared-corridor 

research need involves developing a complete understanding of the loading distributions for 

varying traffic types on shared corridors. This loading distribution should include both peak and 

nominal loads and should provide infrastructure designers with a clear understanding of the loads 

that are being imparted on the railway superstructure. In addition to loading magnitude, the 

impulse of loads and the amount of load that is attenuated at each interface needs to be 

understood. This could best be understood through a complete parametric analysis of 

substructure and superstructure materials and geometry. This analysis will provide a sensitivity

analysis of various infrastructure components and will provide methods for lowering the 

allowable ballast pressure on the base of concrete crossties.

6.3 Causes of Differential Track Movement

It is important to determine the causes of differential movement of the railway track in order to 

evaluate and propose design and mitigation techniques. According to Stark and Tutumluer 

(2011), the primary causes of differential movement at the railroad bridge-embankment 

transition can be divided into the following categories: (1) approach and subgrade materials, (2) 

ballast condition and thickness, (3) approach geometry, (4) approach structure, (5) approach 

environment, and (6) bridge properties. Stark and Tutumluer (2011) list some of the factors 

affecting these categories: ballast thickness, condition, stiffness, crosstie type, type of approach,

embankment and foundation soil, degree of compaction, compaction water content of the 

approach soil, fill height and side slopes, type of approach slab (if any), bridge foundation 

system, type of abutment, type of bridge support (e.g., concrete versus timber), railroad loading 

and speed, drainage, weather, and time.
80

6.4 Vehicle-Track Interaction (VTI)

The interaction between a moving vehicle and the track structure is critical because it impacts the 

character of the dynamic loading that is applied on the track as well as the ride quality of the 

vehicle. At railroad transitions, the problem is more complicated because of the possible 

discontinuity of support condition and potential rail profile irregularity. Based on research done 

at TTC (Sasaoka 2006), problems at track transition can be categorized into three types: 

1. Differential settlement: For example, railroad bridges are often built on a deep 

foundation (e.g., driven piles or auger cast piles) and therefore would not be affected by 

subgrade settlement. However, bridge approaches consist of different layers of support 

and typically need to go through a large amount of settlement, depending on the amount 

of traffic that a given route handles. 

2. Track stiffness: At railroad transitions, stiffness would abruptly change from one 

segment to another. On a precast concrete bridge, the track modulus could be as much as 

two times higher than surrounding track (Li and Davis 2005).

3. Damping: Damping qualities in the track structure help to dissipate the energy due to 

high dynamic loading. Track damping characteristics vary at track transitions. It is 

important to understand how the change in damping affects track performance by 

reducing potential damage. 

According to Li and Davis (2005), track transition problems, specifically problems at bridge 

approaches, can be attributed to the following factors:

1. An abrupt change in vertical stiffness of track causes the wheel to experience an equally

abrupt change in elevation because of uneven track profile (elevation). Due to the sudden 

vertical displacement, vertical acceleration increases simultaneously and generates a high 

dynamic load. After some loading cycles, the elevation change will increase and lead to a 

higher dynamic loading. The effect of increased loading depends on the direction of the 

train. When the train is moving from a high stiffness segment to a low stiffness segment, 

the dynamic loading is applied to the lower stiffness segment and will increase the 

settlement rate of the track. When the train is moving in reverse direction, the increased 

dynamic loading is applied on the high-stiffness side. In this case, it will contribute to the 

problem of rail surface fatigue, tie deterioration, and rail seat pad deterioration. One 

research need that stems from this issue is identifying which type of traffic (passenger or 

freight) result in higher damage when transitioning between high and low stiffness track 

sections and vice versa.

2. At-grade ballasted track may settle more than ballasted track on structures or directfixation track. This may introduce an abrupt change in elevation and cause the effect 

described above. This is especially true when the structure abutment is built in deep pile 

foundation where settlement is negligible.

3. Settlement of at-grade track can be highly variable and geotechnical issues such as lowstrength soil, deficient soil placement and compaction, poor drainage, and erosion can 

affect subgrade performance. Environmental factors such as wet-dry and freeze-thaw 

cycle also affect subgrade settlement behavior. 
81

Researchers have been using computational models to simulate vehicle-track interaction and to 

analyze the effect of vehicle and track parameters on the dynamic behavior of the system. Some 

models are built for general railroad transition with abrupt stiffness change, and others are built 

to look specifically into a certain type of transition such as bridge approach or turnout. Frohling 

et al. (1996) presented a simplified model to qualitatively determine the effect of some vehicle 

and track conditions on the dynamic loads in the system. This model is representative of one 

modeling approach that uses generalized springs and dampers to simplify the complicated 

vehicle-track system and to deduce the equations of motion based on the simplified model. A 

continuous one-layer support model is used, since it offers a reasonable approximation of the 

practical discrete support system under low frequency loading. The track structure is also 

simplified into a linear system with fixed stiffness. The research includes several sets of 

comparison related to rail geometric irregularity, spatially varying track stiffness, and vehicle 

damping. Researchers reached the conclusion that the spatial variation of track stiffness itself 

would not cause any significant changes in vertical vehicle acceleration. The lack of spatial 

variation would not considerably affect the ride quality of the vehicle, but the dynamic loading 

on the track would be affected by varying track stiffness.

Plotkin and Davis (2008) came to a similar conclusion. Five different methods were used to 

evaluate the role of variable track stiffness in causing bridge approach track settlement and 

adversely affecting ride quality. All of these methods proved that track stiffness changes at 

bridge ends have no measurable effect on track settlement and ride quality at a bridge 

approach. Using the model presented in the paper and stress analysis based on GEOTRACK, 

Plotkin and Davis concluded that track stiffness variation was a major factor contributing to the 

deterioration of track. 

Lei and Zhang (2010) presented their model of the dynamic behavior of track transition in a 

similar way. Using a finite element method, they established a model for the dynamic analysis of 

vehicle-track coupling system and deduced the associated stiffness, mass, and damping matrix 

(Figure 6.1). The model is used to evaluate the influence of train speed, subgrade stiffness, and 

irregularity angle of track transition. The parameter for the model is based on the Chinese HSR 

train. The paper, published by Lei and Mao (2004), gives a more detailed description of the 

algorithm of the model and the deduction of various matrices. The results of the modeling show 

that both abrupt change in subgrade stiffness and the irregularity angle of track transition have 

significant influence on the wheel-rail contact force. In addition, they both essentially have no 

influence on the vertical acceleration of the vehicle, as the suspension system will reduce 

vibration, which is in agreement with the results of Frohling et al. (1996). The study also

concluded that the moving direction of the vehicle has little effect on the dynamic behavior of 

it. 
82

Figure 6.1. Vehicle element model with 26 degrees of freedom (Lei and Zhang 2010)

The models described above are primarily focused on the general case of track transition that 

includes abrupt stiffness change. However, various differences are observed between types of 

track transitions including bridge approaches, turnout, and grade crossings. The models need to 

consider the actual design and geometry of the type of track transition to simulate the 

performance characteristics of it.

 

Researchers have conducted extensive work related to the analysis and optimization of railway 

turnout. Full-scale tests were conducted by Kassa and Nielsen (2008) to validate their models 

about the dynamic interaction between train and railway turnout. The two models they validated 

were built with the commercial multibody system software GENSYS and CHARMEC’s in house 

software DIFF3D. Traditionally, turnouts were designed to study the quasi-static motion of 

wheelset, assuming nominal turnout geometry. Unlike the models developed for general track 

transition with generalized spring and damper, the two models are 3D detailed finite element 

models that consider the geometry of turnout and dynamic interaction. They are designed to 

consider low frequency (0–20 Hz) and high frequency (up to 1500 Hz) dynamic interaction 

respectively. A more detailed description is included in a paper by Kassa et al. (2006). In the 

field test, the test train passed through the turnout at different speeds in the main and diverging 

routes and in the facing and trailing move. In comparing the results, good agreement was 

observed between measured and calculated contact force. Both of them showed increased contact 

force with higher train speed.

In Nicklisch et al. (2009), a methodology for simulating material degradation at switch and 

crossing under mixed traffic was presented. In switch and crossing components, common 

damage mechanisms include wear, accumulated plastic deformation, and rolling contact fatigue. 

To predict material degradation in these components, all three mechanisms need to be 

considered. As shown in Figure 6.2, the methodology includes the collaboration of several 

numerical tools that would be respectively responsible for the simulation of vehicle-track 

dynamics, wheel-rail interaction, and wear and plasticity calculation. The results will then be 

summarized and updated into the new model and iterated again. The optimization of switch 

panel and cross panel designs are discussed, and it is concluded that when the optimized crossing 

design is combined with reduced track stiffness, the impact loads would be significantly reduced 

and could potentially reduce the LCC. 
83

Figure 6.2. Methodology for simulation of wheel-rail contact and damage in S&C: (a) 

simulation of dynamic contact force; (b) calculation of contact stress and contact patch 

size; (c) simulation of plastic deformation and wear; (d) Summation and smoothing of 

total profile change (Nicklisch et al. 2009)

A finite element model specialized for transition zone in railway bridges is presented by Smith et 

al. (2006). In the model, a bridge geometry representative of a concrete bridge in Europe is 

considered, as shown in Figure 6.3. Train loading is directly applied on ballast, and a stiff 

bearing layer is provided under embankment fill. In addition, the absence of crosstie and rail is 

part of the limitation in this model. While modeling the behavior of a bridge system under the 

passing of trains, a parametric study is done on the speed of train, the stiffness of ballast and subballast material, and the stiffness of embankment fill. Based on the modeling results, it is 

observed that (1) with higher train speed, the net horizontal stress in ballast and sub-ballast 

increases, and (2) the stiffness and ballast have little effect on the calculated vertical deflection in 

transition zone, but the stiffness of sub-ballast and embankment fill have a more substantial 

influence.
84

Figure 6.3. Mesh geometry of numerical model (Smith et al. 2006)

 

6.5 Potential Track Transition Solutions

Kerr and Moroney (1993) concluded that the main principle that should be followed when 

searching for track transition remedies is as follows: (a) ensure the tracks are designed in such a 

way that the wheels of the moving train will cause the same vertical rail deflections, or (b) if this 

is not possible, at least ensure that the vertical deflection does not go through rapid change, to 

avoid large vertical accelerations of the wheels, which cause large dynamic loading. Point (a) 

suggests that the track stiffness at different segments of a track transition should be designed to 

remain the same, which would involve some techniques that apply different types of crosstie 

(wood or concrete) and rail pad of different stiffness to compensate for the difference in stiffness 

of other track components. 

Track transition remedies can basically be categorized into three groups:

1. Use smooth track stiffness transition to replace the original sections that have abrupt 

stiffness change.

2. Increase the stiffness of rail-tie structure on the “soft” side in close vicinity of the 

transition section.

3. Reduce the track stiffness on the “hard” side of track transition.

The importance of a smooth stiffness transition zone has been validated in numerical 

simulation. Zakeri and Ghorbani (2011) presented their numerical model in Matlab and

addressed the dynamic performance of railway track transition zone. The 2D model is built to 

simulate the dynamic effect when a train passes through the transition zone between ballasted 

track and slab track. The dynamic effects with and without a smooth transition zone of varying 

ballast depth are compared. It is concluded that in the absence of a transition zone, the 

displacement reaches its peak, causing the sudden change of acceleration in a short time and the 

oscillation of the track; but when smooth transition zone is considered, variations will be 

distributed along the transition zone and the shock is moderated.
85

A 2006 survey of track transitions (Li and Read 2006) found many experiments pertaining to 

improved track transitions. These experiments included the following:

• Use of longer ties and a concrete approach slab by the Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit 

Authority (MARTA) to transition from ballasted at-grade track to direct-fixation 

structures.

• Transition from at-grade ballasted track to a direct-fixation structure on a commuter/ 

intercity passenger service railway in the United Kingdom using an approach slab along 

with vertically adjustable direct-fixation fasteners to allow design tamping of the 

ballasted approach track.

• Installation of stone columns to strengthen and improve the drainage of a weak bridge 

approach subgrade on a UP main line. 

• Use of a transition grade crossing system designed to smooth the track modulus across 

the approach to a highway crossing and reduce impact loads at the crossing on New 

Jersey Transit’s Atlantic City line.

• Installation of tie pads on open wood-tie bridge decks having stiffness characteristics 

designed to match the track modulus of the approach track on Amtrak’s NEC and on a 

Norfolk Southern mainline with freight and intercity passenger service.

• Reducing the track modulus on a UP ballast deck bridge by replacing the existing 

concrete deck ties with composite (plastic) ties or with concrete ties with a rubber pad 

cast into the tie bottom.

Following the literature review, a number of representative track transition designs were 

simulated with the GEOTRACK computer model. GEOTRACK is a well-established and 

validated model that predicts a quasi-static response of the track to an applied vertical wheel 

loading. Based on the analysis, some of the most informative results are summarized as follows:

• Matching the rail deflection on direct-fixation track to the deflection of the at-grade 

ballasted track—through careful design and specification of the direct-fixation fastener 

vertical stiffness—provides the best possibility for an effective and seamless transition 

between the two track configurations. However, ballasted track on low-stiffness 

subgrades also requires strengthening with either a concrete approach slab or hot-mix

asphalt (HMA) underlayment to match the direct-fixation track. Otherwise, the pad 

stiffness of the direct-fixation track would need to be unreasonably low.

• A concrete approach slab placed between the ballast and sub-ballast layers was the most 

effective technique for increasing ballasted track stiffness. HMA underlayment installed 

between the ballast and subgrade also produced benefits to low-strength track, but it was 

not as effective as concrete in increasing the stiffness of track on very low-stiffness 

subgrades.

• Increasing the subgrade stiffness reduced the differences between concrete slab and 

HMA layer thicknesses.

• Placing additional rails on the ties of the ballasted track to increase the stiffness of the 

track panel had modest benefits for low-stiffness subgrades. This condition often exists 

when bridge guardrails extend past the abutment onto the approach track.
86

• Other changes to the track superstructure, such as reduced tie spacing, installation of 

longer ties, or installation of ties with larger cross sections, had an insignificant effect on 

track modulus or rail deflections and would not be especially effective transition designs.

6.5.1 Construction of Transition Zones

One approach to managing track transition is through the development of transition zones. There 

are many types of track transition zones. The purpose of a transition zone is to bring a gradual 

adjustment between the subgrade modulus of the slab track and the ballasted track (Zakeri and 

Ghorbani 2011). Track reaction to wheel force is related to track stiffness and other 

factors (Zakeri and Ghorbani 2011). During train movement onto two tracks with different 

stiffness, there will be an abrupt change in response to existing track in the connection area (Kerr 

2003). Based on modeling work by Zakeri and Ghorbani (2011), it was found that loads will be 

distributed along the transition zone and will moderate the shock. Additionally, they found that 

in the transition from ballasted track to slab track, the acceleration changes noticeably.

6.5.2 Increase Track Stiffness with Longer Crossties

One of the conventional designs for track transition involves installation of a series of ties of 

increasing length on the ballasted track side. This method assumes that by increasing the bearing 

area of a crosstie, the compression is averaged over a larger area and can in turn increase track 

stiffness. However, Kerr and Moroney (1993) pointed out that the effectiveness of this method 

depends on whether the ballast under the tie at the two ends is of uniform density. Based on 

GEOTRACK analysis results, Sussman and Selig (1998) indicate that the use of a longer tie does 

little to increase the track stiffness, and it would, in fact, be more effective to reduce tie spacing 

or increase tie cross section. 

This method has been implemented by MARTA. In a transition between ballasted at-grade, 

concrete-tie track and direct-fixation structure, four 10-foot timber ties followed by four 11-foot 

and four 12-foot timber ties are installed in a 24-inch spacing pattern. A 20-foot long concrete 

transitional slab is also installed on the ballasted track approach. Simulation results indicate that 

the variable length design reduced maintenance costs by a factor of three compared with designs 

that only included the approach slab.

6.5.3 Hot-Mix Asphalt (HMA) Underlayment

A layer of asphalt pavement could be installed in ballasted track as a structural element in the 

substructure to increase the bearing capacity of subgrade (Figure 6.4). Hot-mix asphalt is the 

mixture of aggregate and bitumen, and the material property of it could be different according to 

different component ratio and aggregate size. Typical thickness range of the HMA layer is 

between 8 and 12 inches, and it can be placed between ballast and sub-ballast or installed 

directly on subgrade. Field experimentation (Li et al. 2001) has proven that HMA works well 

when used to strengthen weak subgrade. It should be noted that after the installment of HMA 

underlayment, the loading capacity is still limited by the strength of nearby layers. Tests on UP

Railroad (Li and Davis 2005) concluded that HMA provides little improvement on a subgrade of 

high bearing capacity, and the settlement observed on bridge approaches are mainly due to 

settlement in the ballast rather than subgrade. 
87

Figure 6.4. Example of HMA bridge approach design (Kerr and Moroney 1993)

6.5.4 Increasing Approach Stiffness at Grade Crossing

To reduce the impact loading at grade crossing, the idea of “smoothing” the transition from 

normal track to stiffer track and back again was applied by Zarembski and Palese (2005). Based 

on the idea, a prototype dynamically stable grade-crossing system was designed and tested 

(Figure 6.5). The resulting transition zone between the standard track and crossing was 

developed using the following discrete stiffness steps:

1. The parent track with wood ties and cut spikes.

2. The parent track with wood ties and elastic Pandrol system fasteners.

3. A single Premier Concrete Railroad Crossing field panel installed in the center of the 

track.

4. Full Premier Concrete Railroad Crossing (full set of panels) with maximum stiffness. 

Figure 6.5. Transition design implemented at Bates Mill Road crossing 

(Zarembski and Palese 2005)
88

Ride quality data and degradation measures were obtained on the grade crossing, and test results 

proved the car experienced less vertical acceleration after installation. Minimal degradation was

observed after 31⁄2 years. Track modulus tests also revealed a much smoother transition than the 

preinstallation results. The test results are basically in agreement with the results of modeling 

analysis based on beam-on-elastic-foundation theory.

6.5.5 Approach Slab

Reinforced concrete slab can be installed as a structural element in the track substructure to 

increase the stiffness of the track. Approach slabs are often used at transitions to direct-fixation 

aerial structures and tunnel inverts, and it is also a common highway transition practice. Most 

slabs are reinforced concrete and are designed either with a taper to gradually increase the 

stiffness over an approach distance of about 20 feet, or are uniform in thickness but placed at an 

angle with tapering of the ballast depth to achieve the same ramping effect (Li and Read 

2006). Concrete approach slabs have been tested at TTC to provide transition from at-grade 

concrete-tie track to concrete-slab track (Figure 6.6). Track modulus data showed that the 

approach slab was over-designed and provided an unnecessary high track modulus at the 

interface. 

Figure 6.6. Slab track transition at TTC (Li and Read 2006)

6.5.6 Geotechnical Considerations

While different measures can be taken to strengthen weak subgrade and reduce differential 

settlement, it is crucial to optimize subgrade performance. Some geotechnical best practices

proposed by Li and Read (2006) are as follows:

• Determining the soil characteristics prior to construction by performing in situ testing.

• Using selected noncohesive soils or applying admixtures to existing soils, if needed, to 

improve subgrade strength. 
89

• Maintaining optimum moisture content and using correct compaction techniques for the 

soil type being placed, as well as ensuring adequate compaction when placing soil next to 

structures such as abutment backwalls.

• Ensuring maximum and uniform soil density by performing adequate soil density testing 

during construction.

• Removing ruts, crowning or sloping the subgrade surface, and using edge drains at the 

toe of the ballast section to prevent pocketing of free water in the track granular layer.

• Lowering groundwater levels or installing cut-off layers, if needed, to prevent capillary 

movement of ground water upward into cohesive soil embankment.

• Allowing for adequate embankment width to accommodate the ballast and sub-ballast 

depth. 

• Allowing for adequate embankment slope angles or the use of benches, retaining walls, 

or sheet piles for slope stability and control of erosion.

6.5.7 Rail Seat Pads on Open Deck Bridges and Direct-Fixation Structures

As discussed above, one type of track transition remedy involves reducing the track stiffness on 

the “hard” side of track transition. Elastomeric pads can be used on open deck bridges and directfixation structures to reach this goal. The stiffness of these pads should be designed to match the 

track modulus of the at-grade approach to provide a smooth transition. Kerr and Moroney (1993) 

have proposed that the spring constant of discrete support pads should be equal to the track 

modulus on continuous support, modified by the tie spacing. There are two main limitations to 

this approach. On the direct-fixation structures, other track components are assumed to have 

infinite stiffness, and, therefore, only pad stiffness affects elastic modulus. Apparently, it is not 

the case when composite or timber crossties are used on the bridge. In addition, the KerrMoroney relationship is derived under static loading and does not consider the effects of 

dynamic and impact loading. When train speed is relatively low and the dynamic effect between 

train and track structure is not significant, this relationship may apply. But when high-speed 

trains are considered, correct bridge pad stiffness should be calculated with more realistic 

assumptions.

6.5.8 Reducing Track Stiffness on Ballast Deck Bridges

Besides using rail seat pad, other techniques such as replacing concrete tie with composite tie 

and installing tie pad have also been considered and tested. Different tie materials are used on 

ballasted deck bridge to compare their performance in reducing track stiffness (Sasaoka et al. 

2005). Two methods were tested: (1) replacing concrete ties with composite (i.e., plastic) 

crossties on bridge deck and (2) installing concrete crossties on the bridge deck with 1-inch-thick 

rubber pads on the bottom of the ties. Figure 6.7 shows track modulus measured on the bridge 

and the approach with three types of ties (concrete tie, composite tie, and concrete tie with rubber 

pads). 
90

Figure 6.7. Comparison of track modulus values of different ballast deck bridge tie types 

(Sasaoka et al. 2005)

When compared, both composite tie and concrete tie with rubber pads can successfully reduce 

the stiffness difference between bridge and approach. The rubber pads reduced the modulus of 

the bridge by a factor of 2.8. Tests results (Sasaoka 2006) also indicated that rubber pads cast 

into concrete tie bottom can provide additional damping for the bridge structure, which will be 

able to dissipate the energy due to impact loading. In addition, the long-term performance of 

both concrete tie with rubber pad and composite tie are proven as they performed well after 270 

MGT. 

6.6 Discussion and Conclusions

Different loading demands for both HAL and HSR create divergent design and performance 

requirements for track transitions. For passenger routes, the importance is placed on rideability 

and criticality to ensure that trains can operate at maximum authorized track speed. For freight 

corridors, it is imperative that track transitions be robust to sustain large tonnages and be able to 

go for long periods of time between track surfacing, given the limitations to obtaining track 

windows for surfacing operations. According to Tutumluer (2012), surfacing of some track 

transitions can occur as often as every two weeks. Shared corridors see the worst of both 

situations—the need to maintain a high ride quality over track transitions and the critical need to 

avoid surfacing operations due to high levels of track utilization. Many of the track transition 

settlement mitigation methods mentioned previously have direct applicability to shared corridors 

due to their ease of implementation and extension of surfacing life cycles.

Research needs related to shared corridors include understanding how differing loading 

magnitudes and frequencies relate to settlement. There is both a modeling and experimental 

element to this research question that should be addressed using numerical models and field 

experimentation. Beyond relating settlement to specific loading types (magnitude and 

frequency), it is important to understand where settlement occurs within the track structure (i.e.,

in which layer it occurs). Current research projects are aimed at understanding the location of 
91

settlement—whether it is the ballast, sub-ballast, or the subgrade. It is important to understand 

the location of settlement to ensure the appropriate remedial action is taken. Additionally, 

research should be undertaken to develop remedial actions to mitigate differential movement in 

track, given that most shared corridors will be upgraded lines as opposed to new infrastructure. 

The cost effectiveness of each solution or method of mitigation should be evaluated using a LCC 

approach.

Through modeling and experimentation, a significant amount of insight has been gained into the 

performance of track transitions under dynamic loading conditions. Additionally, modeling and 

experimentation have allowed for critical analysis of track transition designs, leading to track 

settlement mitigation approaches. There are many approaches that have been taken to increase 

the life cycles of track transitions. Some of these include constructing stiffness transition zones, 

placing elastomeric pads on concrete crossties, and using hot-mix asphalt underlayments.
92

6.7 References

Briaud, J., R. W. James, and S. B. Hoffman. (1997). NCHRP Synthesis 234: Settlement of Bridge 

Approaches (the Bump at the End of the Bridge). Transportation Research Board, 

National Research Council, Washington, DC.

Davis, D., D. Otter, D. Li, and S. Singh. (2003). “Bridge Approach Performance in Revenue 

Service.” Railway Track and Structures, 99(12), 18–20. 

Frohling, R. D., H. Sheffel, and W. Ebersohn. (1995). “The Vertical Dynamic Response of a Rail 

Vehicle Caused by Track Stiffness Variations along the Track.” The Dynamics of 

Vehicles on Roads and on Tracks: Proceedings of 14th IAVSD Symposium (August 21–

25, 1995, Ann Arbor, MI). International Association for Vehicle Systems Dynamics.

Frohling, R. D., H. Scheffel, and W. Ebersohn. (1996). “The Vertical Dynamic Response of a 

Rail Vehicle caused by Track Stiffness Variations along the Track.” Vehicle System 

Dynamics, 25(Supplement), 175–187.

Hay, W. W. (1982). Railroad Engineering. John Wiley and Sons.

Jimenez, R. (1998), Engineer, Transportation Technology Center, Inc. Personal communication,

June 2008.

Kassa, E. and J. C. O. Nielsen. (2008). “Dynamic interaction between train and railway turnout 

full-scale field test and validation of simulation models.” Vehicle System Dynamics, 

46(Supplement), 521–534.

Kassa, E., C. Andersson, and J. C. O. Nielsen. (2006). “Simulation of dynamic interaction 

between train and railway turnout.” Vehicle System Dynamics, 44(3), 247–258.

Kerr, A. D. and B. E. Moroney. (1993). “Track transition problems and remedies.” American 

Railway Engineering Association. 94(739), 167–298.

Kerr, A. D. (2003). Fundamentals of Railway Track Engineering, Simmons-Boardman Books, 

Inc.

Lei, X. Y. and L. J. Mao. (2004). “Dynamic response analyses of vehicle and track coupled 

system on track transition of conventional high speed railway.” Journal of Sound and 

Vibration, 271, 1133–1146.

Lei, X. and B. Zhang. (2010). “Analyses of dynamic behavior of track transition with finite 

elements.” Journal of Vibration and Control, 17(11), 1733–1747.

Lei, X. and B. Zhang. (2010). “Influence of track stiffness distribution on vehicle and track 

interactions in track transition.” Proc. ImechE Vol. 224, Part F: J. Rail and Rapid Transit, 

592–604.

Li, D. and D. Read, (2006). Design of Track Transitions. Transit Cooperative Research Program, 

Research Results 79, TCRP Project D-7/Task 15.

Li, D. and D. Davis. (2005). “Transition of Railroad Bridge Approaches.” Journal of 

Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 131(11), 1392–1398.
93

Li, D., L. Smith, B. Doe, D. Otter, and S. Uppal. (2003). Study of Bridge Approach and Track 

Transition Degradation – Factors and Mitigation. Federal Railroad Administration 

Contract DTFR53-01-H-00305.

Nicklisch, D., E. Kassa, J. Nielsen, M. Ekh, and S. Iwnicki. (2010). “Geometry and stiffness 

optimization for switches and crossings, and simulation of material degradation.” Proc. 

ImechE Vol. 224, Part F: J. Rail and Rapid Transit, 279–292.

Plotkin, D. and D. Davis, (2008). Bridge Approaches and Track Stiffness. Final Report, 

DOT/FRA/ORD-08-01, Federal Railroad Administration. 

Sasaoka, C. D., D. D. Davis, K. Koch, R. P. Reiff, and W. GeMeiner. (2005). Implementing 

Track Transition Solutions. Technology Digest TD-05-01. Association of American 

Railroads, Transportation Technology Center, Inc.

Sasaoka, C. D. (2006). “Track transition designs for heavy-axle-load service.” Railway Track & 

Structure, 102(4), 15–18.

Smith, M. E., P. E. Bengtsson, and G. Holm. (2006). Three-dimensional analyses of transition 

zones at railway bridges. Numerical Methods in Geotechnical Engineering-schweiger 

(ed.), Taylor & Francis Group, London, UK.

Sussman, T. R. and E. T. Selig. (1998). Track Component Contributions to Track Stiffness. E. T. 

Selig, Inc. Amherst, MA.

Tutumluer, E. (2011). Professor in Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Illinois at 

Urbana-Champaign. Unpublished Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) proposal 

document.

Tutumluer, E. (2012). Professor in Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Illinois at 

Urbana-Champaign. Personal email communication.

Zakeri, J. and V. Ghorbani, (2011). “Investigation on dynamic behavior of railway track in 

transition zone.” Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology, 25(2), 287–292. 

Zarembski, A. M. and J. Palese. (2003). “Transitions eliminate impact at crossings.” Railway 

Track & Structure, 99(8), 28–30.
94

7. CAPACITY AND OPERATING CHALLENGES OF SHARED PASSENGER AND 

FREIGHT RAIL CORRIDORS

7.1 Introduction

North American freight railroads are expected to experience increasing capacity constraints 

across their networks. Long-term freight demand is projected to increase and new passenger 

services are being proposed to operate over portions of the freight infrastructure. Existing freight 

corridors can provide ROW for new construction and potentially provide tracks to share with 

new passenger services. Sharing existing tracks will have the immediate consequence of 

consuming the available capacity of that corridor. This increase in capacity utilization can lead to 

scheduling issues, increased train delay, and smaller time windows to maintain infrastructure. 

Different rail traffic types can have different characteristics in terms of acceleration and braking 

performance, top speed, priority, and on-time performance sensitivity. These unique 

characteristics place different demands on the freight infrastructure. 

This section includes a literature review and discussion of capacity planning, train scheduling, 

train delay, and infrastructure maintenance planning as these topics relate to shared rail corridors. 

The capacity-planning segment includes a discussion of theoretical, parametric, and simulation 

models and systems optimization. The section on train scheduling outlines the differences 

between passenger and freight train scheduling and offers examples of temporal mitigation 

strategies. The section on train delay examines sources of delay and the effects of heterogeneity. 

In addition, this section discusses delay mitigation techniques on single and double track rail 

lines. The overall goal of this work is to provide a comprehensive background of shared-corridor 

capacity and operating challenges from which further research and analysis can be identified.

7.2 Capacity Planning

7.2.1 Modeling

Numerous approaches and tools have been developed to determine rail line capacity. Each of 

them has its strengths and weaknesses and has been generally designed for a specific application. 

Railway capacity tools can be categorized into three groups: (1) theoretical, (2) parametric, and 

(3) simulation. Modeling is a challenge for developing shared corridors because more accurate 

models require more data. In the context of sharing track with a freight railroad, the freight 

railroad might be the only party with the knowledge, expertise, and data for modeling the 

corridor. This asymmetry in knowledge can be a challenge in negotiations over the amount of 

additional infrastructure required to accommodate the added traffic.

Theoretical

Most theoretical models are based on determining the maximum amount of trains that can pass a 

bottleneck per unit time. The constraint of this “bottleneck” could be the signal spacing where a 

blocking-time model could be adapted. The blocking-time model analyzes the route setup time 

and signal block occupation time to determine the minimum train spacing (Pachl and White, 

2004). If the bottleneck is due to a single track section, then it would be more appropriate to use 

the Poole formula which considers the time for trains to share the single track section (Poole, 

1962). Theoretical models are useful for (1) analyzing passenger operations where most train 
95

movements are rigorously planned by a timetable and not by a dispatcher; (2) analyzing a 

shared-corridor situation where a high or higher speed passenger train shares track with 

commuter rail traffic; and (3) determining initial estimates of railway line capacity in the 

beginning stages of the planning process.

Parametric

Parametric models use field or simulated data to generate a model that can predict rail line 

capacity more quickly than full simulation. Generally, the parametric models handle more inputs 

than the theoretical models. Krueger (1999) used simulations to develop a parametric model that 

calculated the delay-volume curve for single-track routes. The model accounted for 

heterogeneity by using parameters for average speed, speed ratio, and priority. Lai et al. (2012) 

developed a parametric model based on simulated data of hypothetical single- and double-track 

lines. Parametric models require less data than simulation models and can provide early 

estimates of capacity and train delays for corridors that are considering sharing track. 

Simulation

Vromans et al. (2006) used simulation to study heterogeneous passenger services and developed 

measures of heterogeneity. By giving local and long distance trains the same number of station 

stops, the authors were able to homogenize the train schedule and improve operations. Abril et 

al. (2008) used simulation to investigate different factors influencing capacity on Spanish rail 

lines. One of the factors considered was trains operating at two speeds: “normal” and 50 percent

of normal on single- and double-track lines. Results showed that on single-track lines, capacity is 

more affected by the average train speed than the heterogeneity of train speeds. Bronzini and 

Clarke (1985) investigated North American operations using simulation to develop delay-volume 

curves for traffic with varying amounts of intermodal and unit trains on a hypothetical singletrack line. They found that heterogeneity had caused a measurable increase in train delay. 

Simulation modeling should be used in the advanced planning stages of a shared track corridor to 

analyze impacts to the existing and future traffic. The simulation model can then be used to 

evaluate delay mitigation alternatives.

7.2.2 Optimization

Optimization can be a useful tool when analyzing a corridor. Once the cost and benefits of a set 

of projects are known, a selection model can choose projects to undertake based on a series of 

constraints. These models can help develop plans with higher benefit-to-cost ratios. A model by 

Lai and Barkan (2011) optimized a Class I railroad network and selected links for capacity 

improvement for a given planning horizon. This model was then adopted to analyze a single 

passenger rail line (Lai and Shih 2010) and select station locations for additional tracks. This 

model has been modified to select engineering projects to improve travel times between 

Nangang and Toucheng in Taiwan (Lai and Huang 2012).
96

7.3 Scheduling

Freight railroads in the United States are a 24-hour operation. Infrastructure is built to be used 

every hour of the week. In contrast, passenger railroads generally have traffic concentrated in 

daylight hours with an increase in intensity during the morning and evening rush hours.

7.3.1 Passenger Train Schedules

The current practice in the United States is to schedule passenger trains very close to their 

minimum run time. This has the benefit of encouraging the host railroad to preserve the average 

service speed. Additionally, this incentivizes passengers to arrive at stations before the train 

shows up. As a consequence of strict schedules, the on-time performance of passenger trains 

generally deteriorates due to various deviations from the original schedule. Martland et al. (2008) 

suggest “experienced-based scheduling,” where schedules are created to reflect the current 

operating performance of the inner-city trains. This will improve the on-time arrival percentage 

and give the public more realistic expectations about the travel time and punctuality of the 

passenger trains. The actual travel times under the experienced-based schedule and the original 

schedule need to be maintained by the host railroad. Additionally, a policy should be in place to 

specify what happens when a train arrives at a station earlier than suggested by the experienced 

based schedule (Martland 2008).

7.3.2 Freight Train Schedules

Hallowell and Harker (1998) identify two scheduling strategies that railroads can use: master 

scheduling and real-time scheduling. Master scheduling is commonly used by European 

railroads. This involves developing a detailed timetable for scheduled trains and slots for 

unscheduled trains, and then operating with strict adherence to these schedules. With real-time 

scheduling, railroads use schedules more as guidelines in making decisions as to how trains 

should operate. Although North American railroads are becoming more scheduled, most traffic, 

other than passenger trains, does not conform to a precise schedule. Consequently, to improve 

operations in North America, research should focus on improving dispatching efficiency.

7.3.3 Temporal Separation of Traffic Types on Shared Corridors

In some cases, the passenger and freight traffic can be separated by time of day. Often, the 

passenger trains would run in the day and the freight trains would run at night. This strategy has 

been implemented on some commuter rail corridors such as the West Express in Portland, OR

(Leeson 2002). This solution is most effective when freight traffic is light and the passenger 

trains are not on the corridor for a long period of time. One challenge to implementing this 

solution is that, often, the existing infrastructure is built for a 24-hour period. There may not be 

enough capacity to compress the freight service to only nighttime operation. By only allowing 

freight trains at night, more than 50 percent of the capacity of the line is taken away from the 

freight railroad. Additionally, the freight railroad may have business obligations requiring it to 

serve its customers during daylight hours (Bing et al. 2010).
97

7.4 Train Delay

Train delay can be defined in the following two ways: (1) the difference between the minimum 

or unopposed travel time and the actual travel time, or (2) the difference between the scheduled 

and actual travel time (Dingler et al. 2010). Delay can also be categorized by scheduled and 

unscheduled delays. Scheduled delays are incorporated into the rail line timetable, allowing for a 

buffer of time to deal with traffic conflicts and station stops. Unscheduled delays are random 

events that are beyond the railroad’s control, such as extreme weather and accidents.

The delay-volume curve is important for analyzing the capacity of a rail line (Figure 7.1). As the 

number of trains per unit time or traffic volume increases, the delays to the trains will show little 

change in performance where a line with low capacity utilization is concerned (Normal). Trains 

will show a moderate increase in delay when the line is well utilized (Saturation). Finally, the 

delay-volume curve increases exponentially (Congestion) as the traffic on the line approaches its 

capacity (Abril et al., 2008). An important aspect of the delay-volume curve is that it does not 

relate a distinct value for the capacity of the rail line. The delay-volume curve will indicate the 

performance of the trains for certain traffic heterogeneity. There could exist a level of delay 

where the delay is no longer acceptable for the rail traffic (Sogin et al., 2012a). Passenger 

railroads may not be comfortable with the reliability of their trains in a saturated or congested 

network, whereas a freight railroad may be more tolerant of delays. Accordingly, passenger 

railroads might need to invest more in infrastructure to avoid a saturated or congested network.

Figure 7.1. Example delay-volume curve (number of trains on the x-axis)

7.4.1 Sources of Delay

Gorman (2009) created a train run-time model from empirical data of eight BNSF subdivisions. 

He identified meets, passes, and overtakes as the principal causes of delay. Dingler et al. (2010) 

expanded Gorman’s work and used simulation analysis to evaluate delays between intermodal 

and bulk trains by categorizing delays by the conflict types and the sources, as shown in

Table 7.. Identifying the operational sources allowed the authors to determine which delay 

conflict produces more delay and why that delay is occurring. Meet delays are caused when one 
98

train is delayed due to a conflict with one or more trains in the opposing directions. Delays 

caused when a train is traveling at a reduced speed were minor and remained relatively constant. 

Table 7.1. Categories of Delays

Conflicts Sources

Meets Accelerating

Passes Braking

Line Reduced Speed

Stopped

Passes are found not to be a major source of delay on a single track, indicating that speed 

difference alone is not a significant factor affecting train delay. Delays caused when a train is 

stopped in a siding for a meet were found to be the leading cause of delay, as shown in Figure 

7.2a. Delays when a train is braking and accelerating increase as the percentage of bulk trains in 

the traffic mix increases, making these delays more dependent on the type of train than on the 

heterogeneity of the traffic. Delays when a train is stopped are the only source of delay that 

increases with heterogeneity (Figure 7.2b). Therefore, heterogeneity increases delay by 

increasing the time trains are stopped waiting on a siding. Dingler et al. (2010) provided two 

possible explanations for this result. First, at the higher levels of heterogeneity there is greater 

likelihood that two trains of different priorities will meet, resulting in less efficient meets with 

more time stopped. Second, higher levels of heterogeneity result in more complex conflicts in 

which a train is met or passed by more than one train, again resulting in more time stopped. 

Through the results from their work, Dingler et al. (2010) affirmed that the amount of delay due 

to heterogeneity is related to the volume and type of traffic on a route. While delay can generally 

be said to increase exponentially with traffic volume, the specific delay-volume relationship is 

dependent on the traffic mix on a route. Further, each source of delay has a different trend with 

regard to traffic mix. This work could be developed to gain insight into a shared track scenario 

between freight and higher speed passenger trains. Passenger trains can expect to cause more 

“stop delay” in meets. Mitigation strategies should address this delay type in a single-track line.
99

 (a)

 

 (b)

Figure 7.2. Average delay versus the ratio of bulk to intermodal trains 

by (a) conflict and (b) source
100

Martland et al. (1994) analyzed freight railroad transportation department-related delays. The 

distribution of these delays is shown in Figure 7.3. In this work, train meets were found to be the 

greatest source of delays at 20 percent. Other categories of delays could be attributed directly to 

the management of the railroad assets such as yards, crews, and locomotives. Martland et al. 

(1994) proposed that better management of these assets could lead to better railroad

performance. 

Figure 7.3. Transportation Department Delays (Martland et al. 1994)

Preston et al. (2009) investigated railway practices in the UK. They reported that delays to trains 

could be attributed to three sources: operator causes, network infrastructure causes, and external 

causes. Operator causes include train faults, train crews, train operations, station delays, and 

depot and freight operations. Network infrastructure causes include track faults, power and signal 

faults, and network operations. External factors include suicides, vandalism, and extreme 

weather and affect both operator and infrastructure owners. Figure 7.4 shows a breakdown of the 

causes of train delays from 1999 to 2000. Approximately 50 percent of delays could be attributed 

to the train operator, 35 percent to the infrastructure owner, and 15 percent to external causes. As 

shown in Figure 7.5, more recent figures for 2006–2007 indicate that around 40 percent of delay, 

referred to as primary delay, is directly attributable to the initial impact of the train operator, the 

infrastructure authority, or external causes. Congestion and other resulting delays, referred to as 

reactionary or secondary delay, account for the remaining 60 percent. In their study, the biggest 

single cause of delay from 1999 to 2000 was train faults (23 percent) caused by breakdowns or 

slow orders due to poor rolling stock. They also found that there was a decrease in the overall 

average age of rolling stock: 21 years for 2000–2001, 15 years for 2004–2005, and 13 years for

2005–2006. These figures from the UK offer some comparison for, but may not accurately 

reflect, a North American operating environment. 

Series1, Other, 5%, 4% Series1, Motive Power, 

5%, 5% Series1, 

Additional Work, 6%, 

6%

Series1, Inspections, 

6%, 6%

Series1, Excess Work 

Times, 7%, 7%

Series1, Crew 

Shortage, 10%, 10%

Series1, Ahead Sched, 

12%, 12%

Series1, 

Crew 

Rest, 

15%, 15%

Series1, Yard 

Congestion, 15%, 15%

Series1, Train Meets, 

20%, 20%
101

Figure 7.4. Causes of delays to trains, 1999–2000 (based on minutes of train delay 

compared with timetabled journey time)

Figure 7.5. Analysis of delay minute, 2006-2007 (FOC = freight operated company) 

(Source: Network Rail)

Nelson and O’Neil (2000) investigated on-time performance of U.S. commuter railroads. The 

on-time performance of commuter railroads is expected to be even higher than the on-time 

performance of intercity trains. Figure 7.6 shows a delay pie chart. Unlike the pie charts 

presented by Martland and Preston, commuter rail trains are delayed most by construction and 

maintenance (engineering) activities at a combined 34 percent. Transportation issues only 

account for 11 percent of the delays. This stark contrast to the freight pie chart from Martland is 

indicative of the fact that commuter rail is optimized for stricter operations. O’Neil and Nelson 

(2000) explained that “Cascades Delays” are delays to a train caused by another train and caution 

that the various commuter agencies classify this delay type differently. 
102

Figure 7.6. Commuter rail delays (Nelson and O’Neil 2000)

On a single-track line, transportation-related delays should be more numerous than other sources. 

On a double-track line, the railway system components (vehicle, track, and signal reliability) 

may start to cause a greater proportion of the delays. Proper maintenance activities can help 

mitigate these types of delays. 

7.4.2 Delays Due to Heterogeneity

Railway traffic is considered to be homogeneous if all trains have similar characteristics. A good 

indicator of homogeneity is when the trains have the same average speed per track segment. 

Urban metro systems are homogenous systems where all trains have equal running times and 

stopping patterns. In a shared corridor, one could expect different train types including freight, 

high-priority freight, commuter, and high-speed passenger trains. Vromans et al. (2006) studied 

the Dutch rail network and the heterogeneity of its various passenger services. By homogenizing 

the stopping pattern to have a similar number of stops, they were able to decrease the headway 

between trains and help mitigate delay propagation (cascading delay).

Abbott (1975) analyzed the interaction of 50 mph freight trains sharing alongside passenger 

trains traveling at 80 mph, 125 mph, and 150 mph. Abbot only considered one direction of a 

double-track line—where the passenger trains have absolute priority over freight trains. Abbott 

reports that freight paths decline from the base (no passenger) scenario by 28 percent, 57 percent, 

and 71 percent, respectively, and that freight train trip times increase by 33 percent, 58 percent, 

and 88 percent. However, because the trains all travel in a single direction, no meets between 

opposing trains occur, only passes (Harrod, 2009).

Harrod (2009) modeled traffic using mathematical integer programming. This paper considered 

the impact of mixing faster and slower nonconforming trains. The author found that introducing 

a higher priority faster train would not reduce the total amount of feasible train paths through a 

single-track network. However, adding a fast high-priority train comes at the cost of higher 

delays to the slower, lower priority train type. This work assumed that all sidings were long 

enough for meets to occur without stopping. Trains stopped at sidings when they arrived at the 

siding earlier than scheduled for a meet. In addition, slower trains stopped at sidings to allow
103

overtaking by faster trains. Harrod (2009) suggests that all trains stopping for meets would lower 

the average speeds of his scenarios but not change capacity. Harrod (2009) suggests that 

incorporating stochastic schedules and stochastic delays are an area for future research.

Sogin et al. (2011) created a hypothetical single-track line and simulated shared-track scenarios 

with 50 mph freight trains and passenger trains with different maximum speeds of 50 mph, 79 

mph, 90 mph, and 110 mph. The base case was a homogenous traffic composition of only freight 

trains. Passenger trains were then added in pairs to each base case. This procedure was repeated 

for different numbers of freight trains in the starting base case. In all cases, the marginal delay to 

the freight trains increased more when adding a high-priority passenger train as opposed to a 

freight train. In addition, the results showed greater variation in freight train performance when 

adding passenger trains as opposed to freight trains (Figure 7.7). The authors found little 

connection between the delay of the freight train and the maximum speed of the passenger train. 

The authors suggested that the increased passenger train speed had two counteracting effects on 

freight train delays. The positive factor was that because of their higher speed, passenger trains 

spent less time on a given network than freight trains, leading to fewer opportunities to conflict 

with freight traffic. The negative factor was that higher speeds disturbed homogenous freight 

operations and introduced more complex dispatching resolutions. These complex resolutions 

caused more delays than simple meets between two trains (Sogin et al. 2011). 

Figure 7.7. Freight train delays when adding freight (left) and 110 mph passenger trains 

(right) to a base case of 24 freight trains per day (Sogin et al. 2011)
104

7.4.3 Delay Mitigation

To add traffic to an existing corridor, a host railroad would likely require additional delays 

caused by passenger traffic to be mitigated through capacity expansion solutions. Two common 

techniques for delay mitigation are adding additional tracks to the railroad line or changing 

operations to be more efficient.

Infrastructure Solutions – Single Track Base Case

Preston et al. (2009) point out that delays attributed to infrastructure issues in Europe have risen. 

They suggest more investment in infrastructure as a possible mitigation strategy. They also point 

out that railway capacity has been widely assumed to be a key factor in delays—particularly the 

number and extent of secondary delays. They refer to a study indicating that infrastructure 

capacity utilizations above 75 percent have a significant effect on delay, with utilizations above 

60 percent not recommended outside peak periods. 

Petersen and Taylor (1987) state that an effective way to mitigate the delay due to meets is to 

optimize the locations of the passing sidings. They describe an optimization method for locating 

passing sidings such that opposing trains are able to pass each other without coming to a full 

stop, a so-called “flying meet.” They begin by assuming a homogenous traffic mix with known 

cruising speed and acceleration characteristics. From these train characteristics and information 

about headways and travel times, they determine the number and location of meets and the 

length required for each siding. This scenario is solved for the various speeds allowed on the 

siding and the various cruising speeds. Next, the authors determine the ability of the designed 

track to resist delay or, when delay occurs, avoid compounding that delay. They refer to this as 

the “robustness” of the track design. They found that increased length of sidings, as well as 

“schedule padding,” both contribute to the robustness of track designs. They show that “extra 

siding length has a strong impact on the ability of the line to recover from unexpected delay (as 

measured by the system response ratio) for delays in the range of 2 to 8 minutes to a train,” as is 

shown in

Figure 7.8.
105

Figure 7.8. Impact of slack on system response (Petersen and Taylor 1987)

Petersen and Taylor (1987) performed a delay analysis by mixing three train types and 

optimizing siding locations. The three train types were (1) high-speed passenger, (2) express 

freight, and (3) work trains. Each train type had different frequencies, speeds, and priorities, with 

passenger trains having the highest priority. Petersen and Taylor (1987) found that with a 

relatively small amount of double track (13 percent), the passenger trains could achieve levels of 

delay similar to those of a double-track line. However, according to the authors, “because the 

freight and work trains must keep clear of the passenger service on the single line, we observe 

that their performance is relatively poor on this line. Given the enormous capital cost-saving, 

however, this poor performance for the low priority traffic would appear to be acceptable.” With 

the shared corridor approach in America, and with freight railroads owning most of the 

infrastructure, this approach may not be acceptable.

Dingler et al. (2010) determined that stopped delay in meets was the leading cause of delays due 

to heterogeneity. Dingler et al. suggested that these delays could potentially be eliminated by 

extending the sidings to prevent the train from having to stop. Building additional sidings allows 

trains to stop closer to the point of conflict, thereby reducing waiting time. Like intermodal 

trains, passenger trains operate at higher speed and priorities than other traffic types. Passenger 

trains could benefit even more from extended sidings by not having to stop for a meet. Extending 

sidings for freight trains would allow for increased train lengths and give passenger trains more 

room to have meets without stopping.

Siding construction may not always be economically feasible. Dingler et al. (2011) analyzed the 

interaction of intermodal and bulk trains with regard to siding construction mitigation strategy. 

The analysis included the net present value (NPV) of adding sidings (Figure 7.9) and adding a 

second mainline track (Figure 7.10). Adding sidings was shown to be most beneficial when the 

line was congested and near capacity. In this case, the delay reductions were the greatest. 

Additionally, there was greater benefit for the cases with greater heterogeneity. The addition of a 

second mainline track did not show a positive NPV for the combinations of heterogeneity and 
106

traffic volumes studied. The trend showed an increasing NPV, so it can be assumed that at higher 

traffic volumes outside the scope of the study, one might begin to see a positive NPV. Passenger 

trains may be expected to increase delays to freight trains more so than to intermodal trains such 

that in shared track operations, this type of NPV analysis might show positive results at lower 

traffic. Additionally, a high cost of delay to passengers may shift the results.

Figure 7.9. NPV when additional sidings are added to a single-track line 

(Dingler et al. 2011)

Figure 7.10. NPV when a 2nd mainline track is added to a single-track line 

(Dingler et al. 2011)

Infrastructure Solutions – Double Track

Two bidirectional mainline tracks should eliminate meet delays from occurring. Sogin et al. 

(2012) identified large speed differentials as a cause of significant delays in double-track 

configurations. Most infrastructure solutions for double track are based on allowing the faster 

high priority train to overtake slower rail traffic on a separate track. At low traffic levels this may 

be feasible with only two mainline tracks. At higher traffic levels, sidings or additional mainline 

tracks may be required. In Europe, many shared track lines have passing sidings that enable 

freight trains to clear off the mainline and allow overtaking by passenger trains. FRA considered 
107

two mainline tracks with passing sidings as a potential track configuration to accommodate both 

125 mph passenger trains on freight lines (Abbott 1975). The BNSF line between Chicago and 

Aurora uses three main tracks to separate intercity, commuter, and freight trains. At higher traffic 

levels, meet delays might occur on third track such that a fourth track is required to maintain a 

certain level of service. Most of the NEC between Washington D.C. and New York has four 

mainline tracks. This allows high-speed intercity trains to pass local commuter trains without 

delay. 

Operating Solutions

Baumol (1975) explains that passenger traffic constituted a very minor source of revenue for 

most railroads, which resulted in poor service being provided to Amtrak by the operating 

railroads. Amtrak purchased transportation along a given route from a monopoly supplier, and 

under the law, did not have the choice to forego operations, even when receiving poor service. In 

response to the problem, Congress adopted an amendment in 1973 requiring that performance in 

the following areas be the basis for Amtrak’s payments to railroads providing it services: (1) 

schedule adherence, (2) excessive delay, (3) recovered time, (4) schedule improvement, (5) car 

cleanliness, (6) equipment operability, and (7) equipment availability. To quantify how the 

incentives program could affect the passenger revenues of a railroad, Baumol (1975) provided 

data to show how Penn Central’s earnings on its NEC could vary if its performance in a given 

year was “reasonably good” or “rather poor.” Baumol’s data represents values valid in 1975 and 

appears in Table 7.2.
108

Table 7.2. Hypothetical Annual Payment for “Good” vs. “Poor” Performance

(Corridor Traffic, Penn Central Railroad) (Baumol 1975)

Baumol’s study of the 1973 amendment provides the historical background for why passenger 

trains are given highest priority. Passenger trains have the highest priority because Amtrak and 

other passenger companies pay railroads based on how well passenger trains perform on their 

lines. When considering the elimination of train priorities as a method for reducing delay, the 

likely reduction that would follow in the quality of performance provided to passenger service 

should also be considered. Providing poor performance would reduce payments made to 

railroads. This cost should be compared with the anticipated benefits of decreased delay.

Another mitigation technique suggested by Dingler et al. (2011) is to improve the acceleration 

performance and top speed of freight trains by adding a locomotive. This may be feasible to 

implement when there is both traffic congestion and a high percentage of low horsepower to 

trailing ton trains. In addition, equalizing the priorities between bulk and intermodal may 

decrease total delays of all trains. Removing the priority constraint from dispatchers can allow 

dispatchers to achieve an optimal conflict resolution strategy rather than sacrificing the 

performance of one train type to preserve the other. In the context of a shared track scenario with 

passenger and freight trains, this may not be compatible with the operating goals of the passenger 

agency.

 

Often there are practices across North America to stage trains or change crews on mainline 

tracks. There are many projects on the BNSF planned to remove trains blocking the mainline to 

passenger train flow. These projects do not improve theoretical capacity but can allow for greater 

use of the existing mainline. In Blaine, WA, freight trains queue up on the mainline and block 
109

passenger train flow as they wait for customs inspections. In Everett, WA, departure and 

receiving tracks are being extended to accept longer freight trains without the tail of the train 

blocking the mainline. In Galesburg, IL, three additional yard tracks were constructed to 

accommodate BNSF’s longest trains and have these trains refuel and change crews off the 

adjacent siding and mainline, thereby maintaining the flow of the through traffic. Shared track 

shared corridors can see immediate benefit by identifying those locations where freight 

operations block the mainline. Such sidings and yard projects can be cheaper than adding 

multiple mainline tracks.

7.5 Maintenance Planning

Scheduling railway infrastructure maintenance activities is an important aspect of railway 

operations planning. The challenge of planning maintenance windows to minimize impact to 

train delay and maintenance costs is not unique to shared rail corridors. Given passenger rail 

traffic’s sensitivity to delay, complex interactions between different traffic types, and the 

increased number of stakeholders involved, the problem has potentially greater consequences on 

shared corridors than on dedicated freight or passenger lines. Preventive renewal maintenance, 

reactive maintenance, and routine inspection of track, signaling, and structures can consume rail 

capacity through windows of time where personnel and machinery occupy segments of a rail 

line. These maintenance windows can cause delay to train operations both on tracks where the 

activity is occurring and, depending on applicable safety regulations, on tracks adjacent to the 

activity. For this reason, infrastructure maintenance planning is most relevant to mixed-use 

corridors with shared track operations, as well as dedicated tracks with shared ROW. These 

impacts, including delays to rail traffic, can lead to financial penalties to the rail service operator 

depending on the type of traffic, e.g., bulk, intermodal, manifest, passenger. In addition, 

maintenance windows that are interrupted by rail traffic can suffer from productivity losses and 

consequent increases in cost. Finally, determining the optimal schedule for maintenance 

activities on a rail line can be challenging because maintenance and train delay costs may be 

realized by different stakeholders and service operators.

7.5.1 Integrated Maintenance and Rail Traffic Scheduling

The amount of coordination between maintenance planning and rail service planning varies in 

the industry. It is not uncommon for maintenance windows to be scheduled after rail service has 

already been scheduled on a line. For lower traffic volumes, this planning process may be 

acceptable as maintenance windows can be shifted to minimize train delay with little 

disadvantage. For higher traffic volumes, the lack of coordination between railway maintenance 

and train scheduling is likely to result in an increased number of delays as well as higher 

maintenance costs. This type of coordinated scheduling may have limited success on lines where 

many freight trains operate without a schedule. On lines with high volumes of passenger traffic, 

it is sometimes impossible to schedule maintenance during the hours when trains operate. One 

solution, such as is practiced on Amtrak’s NEC, is to perform maintenance activities during

nighttime hours when most traffic does not operate. This greatly reduces the potential for train 

delay and loss of productivity due to train interference, but may also introduce higher labor costs 

and safety concerns. In addition, temporally separating both freight traffic and line maintenance 

from passenger traffic could lead to high levels of freight service delay.
110

In lines where the temporal separation strategy is not feasible, an integrated train and 

maintenance schedule planning methodology may be adopted. Albrecht et al. (2010) presented a 

Problem Space Search (PSS) meta-heuristic for simultaneous scheduling of both maintenance 

activities and rail traffic. In this formulation, the total amount of delay to rail traffic and 

maintenance activities was minimized. In addition, the delay experienced by the worst 

performing train was considered. A case study line, 480 km long, with 50 trains per day, was 

evaluated over a 24-hour period. When applied to the case study line, the timetables generated by 

the PSS were found to reduce total delay by 17 percent and maximum train delay by 34 percent. 

These improvements were relative to a simulated manual schedule, which reflected the 

sometimes week-long practice of creating timetables on paper or basic software. One limitation 

of this analysis was that a unit of train delay was considered the same as a unit of maintenance 

delay. In addition, delays to all trains were evaluated equally. One way of strengthening the 

results of this work would be to reformulate the objective function of the model to minimize total 

cost. In this way, the cost of train delay for different traffic types, and the different “delay cost” 

of maintenance activities, could be accurately considered. In addition, the interaction of 

maintenance activities and rail traffic on adjacent tracks was not considered in this analysis. The 

applicability of this work to shared corridors is complicated by the limited ability of rail 

operations managers to reschedule passenger traffic, as well as the difficulties encountered in 

scheduling freight traffic at all.

7.5.2 Strategic Maintenance Scheduling

Strategic maintenance planning involves long-term scheduling over months or years to determine 

the activities of production gangs and inspection systems. In this section, the work outlined 

mostly considers the maintenance scheduling process as separate and secondary to train 

scheduling.

Grimes (1995) outlined genetic algorithm and genetic programming techniques for planning 

track surfacing. Using track surface quality data, segments of track were selected for 

improvement based on the costs of surfacing, track quality degradation rate, ballast degradation 

costs, and performance incentives for adhering to track geometry standards. For each time 

interval, the track surface quality was predicted for both surfaced and nonsurfaced segments, as 

selected by the decision variables. This approach is limited to surfacing operation scheduling, but 

the methodology could be part of a higher-level optimization model that both selects and 

schedules maintenance activities. 

Gorman et al. (2010) formulated a model for scheduling maintenance production gangs on a 

network. The authors’ model minimizes gang labor, equipment, repositioning, and travel costs. 

Model constraints include number of workdays related to labor agreements, activity precedence 

relationships, and early start and late finish activity constraints. The authors present both a timespace network model formulation, as well as a job scheduling problem formulation. For both 

models, the solution methodologies applied exceeded what the authors considered to be an 

acceptable amount of time. Future work in this area could consider variable gang characteristics,

as well as the rescheduling of activities given mechanical, labor, or weather interruptions.

Budai et al. (2006) presented a preventative maintenance scheduling problem (PMSP). In this 

problem, a set of preventative maintenance activities is scheduled with the objective of 
111

minimizing total maintenance and track possession cost for one network segment. The authors 

presented a mathematical model for scheduling activities on a 2-year planning horizon with 1-

week time intervals. The model takes into account the different activity durations, as well as the 

ability of activities to be combined. The possession cost of the network segment was dependent 

on the time period in which an activity could be scheduled. Since the model only considers one 

network segment, the constraints of limited machinery and personnel must be considered for a 

case study application of the model. For shared corridor scenarios with high levels of traffic, the 

bundling of activities, as presented in this analysis, could reduce train delay and maintenance 

costs. Several Class 1 railroads have already implemented these types of maintenance “blitz” 

scheduling techniques.

Pouryousef et al. (2010) further developed the PMSP model outlined by Budai to include 

simultaneous planning of several network segments. The advantage of the modified model is that 

it allows planners to consider the characteristic maintenance requirements and costs of different 

segments. The objective function minimizes the sum of track possession costs, maintenance 

costs, and a penalty cost related to performing work earlier than required. The authors applied 

the model over a case study HSR line in Iran, comparing the objective function costs of both 

shared track HSR with conventional traffic and a dedicated HSR. The outcome of this model is 

largely dependent on the assumed possession cost, which in reality varies depending on train 

delay.

Peng et al. (2011) presented a strategic maintenance-scheduling model that determines the 

optimal assignments of production gangs for a set of activities on an entire railroad network. In 

this analysis, a time-space network was considered with a 1-year planning horizon divided into 

weeklong time periods. Constraints included time-related (weather) constraints, mutually 

exclusive (network disruption) constraints, and precedence constraints between activities. The 

objective function of the model was to minimize travel costs of production gangs moving from 

project to project. On a strategic level, these travel costs were more variable than the 

comparatively fixed cost of actually performing maintenance work. The methodology of this 

work was implemented into the maintenance planning process of a Class 1 railroad. In the 

context of shared corridors, additional time and network constraints could be added to better 

manage passenger train delays caused by maintenance activity. 

7.5.3 Tactical Maintenance Scheduling

Tactical maintenance planning involves a short-term several day or week planning horizon for 

scheduling routine inspection and smaller scale reactive maintenance activities. In this section, 

the work outlined mostly considers the maintenance scheduling process as separate and 

secondary to train scheduling. Higgins (1998) put forward a model to schedule maintenance 

activities and crews in an existing rail traffic pattern. The model was intended as a decision 

support tool for rail operations and maintenance managers. The types of activities included were 

visual inspection, replacing crossties, replacing rail, rail grinding, ballast cleaning, and track 

surfacing. The model was formulated as a time-dependent integer programming problem and 

considered maintenance costs, crew and track availability, work discontinuity, and activity 

precedence constraints. In this model, the objective function minimizes the weighted sum of 

expected train and maintenance delays, as well as prioritized activity finishing time. Because the 

model is time dependent, there are a large number of decision variables. A local search heuristic 
112

technique is used in this case to find a solution. The model was applied to an Australian case 

study line 302 km long with 45 sidings, comparing a four-day maintenance schedule with one 

constructed manually by railway planners. The manually constructed schedule had a 7.4 percent

worse performance in prioritized maintenance activity finishing time and an 18 percent higher 

train and maintenance activity delay. Figure 7.11 shows an example of the time-space diagram of 

the case study line. This maintenance-scheduling model appears to be useful to shared corridors.

Higgins included different train types and priorities in the model formulation. In addition, the 

model optimizes the maintenance schedule for a given rail traffic pattern rather than scheduling

both rail traffic and maintenance activities. Higgins’s assumptions follow operating practices in 

the United States more closely than other work pursued on maintenance scheduling. 

Figure 7.11. Best allocation of maintenance activities to time window (Higgins 1998)

7.6 Discussion and Conclusions

In Europe, heterogeneous operations of freight and passenger trains can be achieved by strict 

scheduling of the freight trains. In the United States, the flexibility and variability of the freight 

railroad operation may make this strategy seem unrealistic. A thorough cost-benefit analysis of 

the business case for a scheduled railroad should be conducted. More simulation work is needed 

for shared track scenarios as far as temporal separation of the passenger and freight trains is 

concerned. The work should consider the amount of “buffer time” necessary for a line to 

transition between types of operations. Additionally, this work should identify which train type 

must have its headways compressed to achieve this buffer.

The work of Dingler et al. (2010) on delay source was limited by sample size and only 

considered the average delay of all train types. This work can be expanded by analyzing the 

delays of the different train types and assigning the type of train causing the delay, in addition to 

the conflict and source. Finally, this work can be expanded to include bulk, intermodal, and 
113

passenger trains. The traditional solution to mitigating train delay is adding infrastructure. The 

funding to extend sidings or fully double track a route may not be available all at once. An 

optimization model could help develop an implementation plan of feasible intermediate 

infrastructure solutions. These intermediate phases can be built over time as funding becomes 

available.

A completely integrated methodology for scheduling rail traffic and maintenance activities may 

not be feasible for some shared rail corridors in the United States. The unscheduled nature of 

U.S. freight traffic would make it difficult to optimize a combined maintenance and rail traffic 

schedule for longer time horizons. Ideally, strategic scheduling of maintenance activities should 

take into account additional time and network constraints to minimize delays to passenger traffic. 

Optimizing the scheduling of maintenance activities to best fit into an existing traffic pattern on a 

short-term planning horizon may be the best solution considering the current state of practice.

 

Future work should address costs of train delay, as well as loss of maintenance productivity. The 

differing delay costs of various train types should be applied to any scheduling problem. In 

addition, the delay and productivity effects introduced by safety regulations on adjacent but 

dedicated HSR track should be considered in scheduling models.
114

7.7 References

Abbott, R. K. (1975). Operation of High-Speed Passenger Trains in Rail Freight Corridors. 

Washington, D.C.

Abril, M., F. Barber, L. Ingolotti, and M. Salido. (2008). An Assessment of Railway Capacity. 

Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 44(5), 774–806.

Albrecht, A. R., D. M. Panton, and D. H. Lee. (2010). Rescheduling rail networks with 

maintenance disruptions using Problem Space Search. Computers and Operations 

Research, 1–10. doi:10.1016/j.cor.2010.09.001.

Baumol, W. J. (1975). “Payment an Transportation: Passenger in Amtrak’s Innovation 

Operations.” The Bell Journal of Economics, 6(1), 281–298.

Bing, A. J., E. W. Beshers, M. Chzvez, and D. P. Simpson. (2010). Guidebook for Implementing 

Passenger Rail Service on Shared Passenger and Freight Corridors. Washington, D.C.

Budai, G., D. Huisman, and R. Dekker. (2005). “Scheduling preventive railway maintenance 

activities.” Journal of the Operational Research Society, 57(9), 1035–1044. 

doi:10.1057/palgrave.jors.2602085.

Dingler, M., A. Koenig, S. L. Sogin, and C. P. L. Barkan. (2010). Determining the Causes of 

Train Delay. AREMA Annual Conference Proceedings. Orlando.

Dingler, M., Y.-C.Lai, and C. P. L. Barkan. (2011). Economics of Expanding Capacity on a 

Single Track Heavy Haul Railway Line. Proceedings of the 2011 International Heavy 

Haul Association (pp. 1–8). Calgary.

Gorman, M. F. (2009). Statistical estimation of railroad congestion delay. Transportation 

Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 45(3), 446–456. 

doi:10.1016/j.tre.2008.08.004.

Gorman, M. F. and J. J. Kanet. (2010). “Formulation and solution approaches to the rail 

maintenance production gang scheduling problem.” Journal of Transportation 

Engineering, (August), 701–708.

Grimes, C. (1995). Application of genetic techniques to the planning of railway track 

maintenance work. Genetic Algorithms in Engineering Systems: Innovations and 

Applications, 1995. GALESIA. First International Conference, (414), 467–472. 

doi:10.1049/cp:19951093.

Hallowell, S. F. and P. T. Harker. (1998). Predicting on-time performance in scheduled railroad 

operations: methodology and application to train scheduling. Transportation Research 

Part A: Policy and Practice, 32(4), 279–295. doi:10.1016/S0965-8564(97)00009-8.

Harrod, S. (2009). Capacity factors of a mixed speed railway network. Transportation Research 

Part E, 45(5), 830–841. doi:10.1016/j.tre.2009.03.004.

Higgins, A. (1998). “Scheduling of railway track maintenance activities and crews.” Journal of 

the Operational Research Society, 49(10), 1026–1033.

Higgins, A. and E. Kozan. (1998). Modeling Train Delays in Urban Networks. Transportation 

Science, 32(4), 346–357. doi:10.1287/trsc.32.4.346.
115

Ireland, P., R. Case, J. Fallis, and J. Kuehn. (2003). Perfecting the Scheduled Railway : ModelDriven Operating Plan Development. System (pp. 1–28). Phoenix.

Krueger, H. (1999). Parametric Modeling in Rail Capacity Planning. Proceedings of the 1999 

Winter Simulation Conference (pp. 1194–1200). Phoenix.

Lai, Y.-C. and C. P. L. Barkan. (2011). “Comprehensive Decision Support Framework for 

Strategic Railway Capacity Planning.” Journal of Transportation Engineering, 137(10), 

738–749. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)TE.1943-5436.0000248.

Lai, Y.-C. and P. Huang. (2012). High Speed Route Improvement Optimizer. Transportation 

Research Board: 91st Annual Meeting (pp. 1–14). Washington, DC.

Lai, Y.-C. and M.-C. Shih, (2010). Strategic Capacity Planning Process for Intercity Passenger 

Rail. Proceedings of the 2010 Joint Rail Conference (pp. 1–7). Urbana.

Leeson, F. (2002, September 25). “Old Rails Could Carry Commuters in Future.” The 

Oregonian, p. C01. Portland.

Martland, C. D. (2008). “Improving on-time performance for long-distance passenger trains 

operating on freight routes.” Journal of the Transportation Research Forum, 47(4), 

63–80.

Martland, C. D., P. Little, and J. M. Sussman. (1994). Service Management in the Railroad 

Industry. Transportation Research Board.

Mattesson, L. (2007). Railway Capacity and Train Delay Relationships. Critical Infrastructure.

Nelson, D. and K. O’Neil. (2000). Commuter Rail Service Reliability: On-Time Performance 

and Causes for Delays. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation 

Research Board, 1704(00), 42–50. doi:10.3141/1704-07.

Pachl, J. and T. White. (2004). Analytical Capacity Management with Blocking Times. 

Transportation Research Board: 83rd Annual Meeting.

Peng, F., S. Kang, X. Li, Y. Ouyang, K. Somani, and D. Acharya. (2011). A Heuristic Approach 

to the Railroad Track Maintenance Scheduling Problem. Computer-Aided Civil and 

Infrastructure Engineering, 26(2), 129–145. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8667.2010.00670.x.

Petersen, E. and A.J. Taylor. (1987). Design of single-track rail line for high-speed trains. 

Transportation Research Part A: General, 21(1).

Poole, E. (1962). Costs – A Tool for Railroad Management.

Pouryousef, H., P. Teixeira, and J. Sussman, (2010). Track maintenance scheduling and its 

interactions with operations: Dedicated and mixed high-speed rail (HSR) scenarios.

Preston, J., G. Wall, R. Batley, J. N. Ibáñez, and J. Shires. (2009). Impact of Delays on Passenger 

Train Services. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Re-search 

Board, (2117), 14–23. doi:10.3141/2117-03.

Sogin, S. L., C. P. L. Barkan, Y.-C. Lai, and M. R. Saat. (2012a). Measuring the Impact of 

Additional Rail Traffic Using Highway and Railroad Metrics. Proceedings of the 2012 

Joint Rail Conference. Philadelphia.
116

Sogin, S. L., C. P. L. Barkan, Y.-C. Lai, and M. R. Saat. (2012b). Impact of Passenger Trains in 

Double Track Networks. Proceedings of the 2012 Joint Rail Conference. Philadelphia.

Sogin, S. L., Barkan, C. P. L., and Saat, M. R. (2011). Simulating the Effects of Higher Speed 

Passenger Trains in Single Track Freight Networks. Proceedings of the 2011 Winter 

Simulation Conference (pp. 3679–3687). Phoenix: IEEE. 

doi:10.1109/WSC.2011.6148061.

Vromans, M. J. C. M., Dekker, R., and Kroon, L. G. (2006). Reliability and heterogeneity of 

railway services. European Journal of Operational Research, 172, 647–665. 

doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2004.10.010.
117

8. SUMMARY OF IDENTIFIED RESEARCH NEEDS RELATED TO SHARED HIGHSPEED RAIL PASSENGER AND FREIGHT TRAIN OPERATIONS

The following is a list of identified research needs from the literature review presented in 

Sections 2 to 7:

• Develop a holistic model to assess adjacent derailment risk. 

• Evaluate potential adjacent derailment risk reduction strategies (e.g., concrete barrier 

versus intrusion detection warning).

• Evaluate if the U.S. DOT Grade-Crossing Accident Prediction Formula needs to be 

updated to reflect the current state of technology and its relevance to shared rail corridor 

operations.

• Develop a theoretical or behavior-based model to account for driver response to evaluate 

the effectiveness of grade crossing protection systems.

• Evaluate the cost-effectiveness of different grade crossing protection systems.

• Develop a model to analyze the consequences of various types of impact and dynamic 

loads on shared corridors, accounting for axle load, train speed, and tonnage, to evaluate 

deterioration rates of special trackwork and other track structure and sub-structure

components.

• Conduct field experimentation of proposed special trackwork component designs for use 

in shared operations.

• Evaluate premium special trackwork applications such as moveable-point frogs and 

flange bearing frogs, based on traffic and route characteristics for shared operations.

• Develop understanding of relevance of potential ballast flight risk for high- and higher 

speed rail services in North America.

• Identify remedial actions to mitigate differential movement in track at transition sections.

• Develop understanding of how differing loading magnitudes and frequencies relate to 

settlement of specific track structure on shared corridors.

• Conduct a thorough cost-benefit analysis of the business case for a scheduled freight 

railroad in shared-corridor operations.

• Conduct simulation work to evaluate shared track scenarios with temporal separation of 

the passenger and freight trains.

• Develop an optimization model to evaluate infrastructure improvement solutions to 

reduce train delays.

• Develop an optimization model to schedule maintenance activities to best fit into an 

existing traffic pattern on a short-term planning horizon.

• Evaluate the costs of train delay as well as loss of maintenance productivity.
118

Appendix A. Prioritized List of Challenges based on Survey Results 

(sorted by category)

HSR Configuration Relevance

Challenge Description Rank

Shared 

Track

Shared 

ROW 

Shared 

Corridor

IE Engineering special trackwork, such as turnouts and crossings, that perform well for both 

HAL and HSR traffic

 

1 High Low Low

IE Evaluating rail performance under higher speed passenger and heavy axle freight traffic 

and correlating wear and defect rate with different loading characteristics

 

2 High Low Low

IE

Evaluating the performance of stiffness transition areas such as bridges, highway grade 

crossings, tunnels, and special trackwork in the context of mixed passenger and freight 

traffic

 

3 High Low Low

IE Evaluating the effectiveness of conventional ballasted track for accommodating both HAL 

and HSR traffic

 

4 High Low Low

PO Analyzing the effectiveness of different scheduling patterns in reducing heterogeneous 

traffic delay, including bunching passenger trains with higher priority freight trains 

 

5 High Low Low

IE

Developing a better understanding of wheel load characteristics to be expected on shared 

corridors, including both static and dynamic magnitude, as well as frequency for different 

types of traffic

 

6 High Low Low

IE

Investigating different techniques for increasing the amount of time between track 

surfacing operations given the more stringent geometry requirements inherent to higher 

speed passenger traffic

 

7 High Low Low

IE Engineering new slab track designs that would accommodate both heavy axle load (HAL) 

as well as high speed rail (HSR) traffic 

 

8 High Low Low

PO Analyzing different scheduling patterns of maintenance of way (MOW) windows with the 

goal of reducing train delay in mixed traffic environments

 

9 High Medium Low

IE Engineering fastening systems that perform well given heterogeneous rail seat load 

magnitudes and frequencies in a shared track environment

 

10 High Low Low

PO Developing capacity planning methodologies that factor in present and future traffic, as 

well as desired level of service

 

11 High Low Low

S Evaluating an expanded use of wayside defect detection equipment as a method of 

reducing derailment risk on shared corridors

 

12 High High Medium

IE

Investigating the risk posed to signaling and communications systems by rolling stock 

electrical interference, characterized by low impedance and extraneous currents in certain 

frequency ranges

 

13 High High Low

S Evaluating the use of upgrades such as median barriers, four quadrant or long arm gates, 

and incursion detection as a way of mitigating risk at highway grade crossings

 

14 High Low Low

S Developing barrier systems and other strategies to prevent motor vehicle incursion onto 

shared corridor rights of way (ROW)

 

15 High High Medium

E Investigating different methods of indemnifying freight railroads from the accident 

liability added by passenger traffic on existing freight lines

 

16 High High Medium

IE Evaluating the impact to rail wear and rail defects by operating tilting equipment through 

curves at higher cant deficiencies than conventional passenger equipment

 

17 High Low Low

IE Determining the feasibility of electrifying existing freight lines with clearance 

requirements for double stack intermodal freight equipment

 

18 High Low Low

S Investigating the causes of loss of track circuit shunt sometimes associated with lighter 

passenger equipment traveling at faster speeds

 

19 High Low Low

S Evaluating the effectiveness of the current track safety standards to prevent derailments 

in adjacent or shared track high speed passenger operating environments

 

20 High High Medium

IE Developing technologies such as rolling stock or platform extensions that would allow for 

the use of level boarding equipment on existing freight corridors

 

21 High Low Low

S Evaluating the increased risk posed by higher speed passenger trains to train operating and 

maintenance of way (MOW) employees working on or near a shared corridor ROW

 

22 High High Low

PO Developing computer models that help passenger rail planning agencies determine the 

most cost effective infrastructure upgrades to achieve a certain trip time improvement

 

23 High Low Low

I Determining equitable frameworks for allocating the cost of capacity between different 

track users when the marginal cost of capacity upgrades increases with capacity

 

24 High Low Low

I Evaluating the economics of constructing new shared lines capable of accommodating 

temporally separated heavy axle load (HAL) and high speed rail (HSR) traffic

 

25 High Low Low

S Evaluating the risk posed to higher speed passenger operations by derailments on 

adjacent or shared freight tracks

 

26 High High Low
119

PO

Developing new methods of enhancing passenger train schedule reliability, including 

distributing slack time based on infrastructure configurations and conflicts with other 

trains rather than a flat percentage of train schedules

 

27 High Low Low

E

Development of passenger equipment safety standards beyond the current maximum 

Tier II level, allowing for the operation of passenger trains at speeds exceeding 150MPH 

on dedicated lines while enabling intermixed operation with freight traffic at slower 

speeds

 

28 High Low Low

I Evaluating the economic impact of imposing temporal separation of freight and 

passenger traffic on existing shared lines

 

29 High Low Low

I Evaluating the life cycle cost of slab track while taking into account the cost of capacity 

used by maintenance activity

 

30 High Low Low

E Developing a new track usage fee structure that takes into account the amount of 

capacity used by a particular train type and priority

 

31 High Low Low

I Evaluating the economic impact caused by the severing of freight rail industry access by 

adjacent dedicated passenger tracks

 

32 High High High

E

Finding new frameworks for federal grant agreements that help ensure the quality of the 

passenger service while protecting freight railroads from investing their own capital for 

future delay mitigation

 

33 High Low Low

S Developing fencing systems and other strategies to prevent trespasser incursion onto 

shared corridor rights of way (ROW)

 

34 High High Medium

S Developing barrier systems to prevent derailed equipment from fouling adjacent tracks

 

35 High High Medium
120

Appendix B. Prioritized List of Challenges based on Survey Results 

(sorted by descending rank)

HSR Configuration Relevance

Challenge Description Rank

Shared 

Track

Shared 

ROW 

Shared 

Corridor

Safety

Evaluating an expanded use of wayside defect detection equipment as a method of 

reducing derailment risk on shared corridors

 

12 High High Medium

Evaluating the use of upgrades such as median barriers, four quadrant or long arm gates, 

and incursion detection as a way of mitigating risk at highway grade crossings

 

14 High Low Low

Developing barrier systems and other strategies to prevent motor vehicle incursion onto 

shared corridor rights of way (ROW)

 

15 High High Medium

Investigating the causes of loss of track circuit shunt sometimes associated with lighter 

passenger equipment traveling at faster speeds

 

19 High Low Low

Evaluating the effectiveness of the current track safety standards to prevent derailments in 

adjacent or shared track high speed passenger operating environments

 

20 High High Medium

Evaluating the increased risk posed by higher speed passenger trains to train yard and 

engine (TY&E) and maintenance of way (MOW) employees working on or near a shared 

corridor ROW

 

22 High High Low

Evaluating the risk posed to higher speed passenger operations by derailments on adjacent 

or shared freight tracks

 

26 High High Low

Developing fencing systems and other strategies to prevent trespasser incursion onto 

shared corridor rights of way (ROW)

 

34 High High Medium

Developing barrier systems to prevent derailed equipment from fouling adjacent tracks 35 High High Medium

Infrastructure and Equipment

Engineering special trackwork, such as turnouts and crossings, that perform well for both 

HAL and HSR traffic

 

1 High Low Low

Evaluating rail performance under higher speed passenger and heavy axle freight traffic 

and correlating wear and defect rate with different loading characteristics

 

2 High Low Low

Evaluating the performance of stiffness transition areas such as bridges, highway grade 

crossings, tunnels, and special trackwork in the context of mixed passenger and freight 

traffic

 

3 High Low Low

Evaluating the effectiveness of conventional ballasted track for accommodating both HAL 

and HSR traffic

 

4 High Low Low

Developing a better understanding of wheel load characteristics to be expected on shared 

corridors, including both static and dynamic magnitude, as well as frequency for different 

types of traffic

 

6 High Low Low

Investigating different techniques for increasing the amount of time between track 

surfacing operations given the more stringent geometry requirements inherent to higher 

speed passenger traffic

 

7 High Low Low

Engineering new slab track designs that would accommodate both heavy axle load (HAL) as 

well as high speed rail (HSR) traffic 

 

8 High Low Low

Engineering fastening systems that perform well given heterogeneous rail seat load 

magnitudes and frequencies in a shared track environment

 

10 High Low Low

Investigating the risk posed to signaling and communications systems by rolling stock 

electrical interference, characterized by low impedance and extraneous currents in certain 

frequency ranges

 

13 High High Low

Evaluating the impact to rail wear and rail defects by operating tilting equipment through 

curves at higher cant deficiencies than conventional passenger equipment

 

17 High Low Low

Determining the feasibility of electrifying existing freight lines with clearance requirements 

for double stack intermodal freight equipment

 

18 High Low Low

Developing technologies such as rolling stock or platform extensions that would allow for 

the use of level boarding equipment on existing freight corridors

 

21 High Low Low

Planning and Ops.

Analyzing the effectiveness of different scheduling patterns in reducing heterogeneous 

traffic delay, including bunching passenger trains with higher priority freight trains 

 

5 High Low Low

Analyzing different scheduling patterns of maintenance of way (MOW) windows with the 

goal of reducing train delay in mixed traffic environments

 

9 High Medium Low

Developing capacity planning methodologies that factor in present and future traffic, as 

well as desired level of service

 

11 High Low Low

Developing computer models that help passenger rail planning agencies determine the 

most cost effective infrastructure upgrades to achieve a certain trip time improvement

 

23 High Low Low

Developing new methods of enhancing passenger train schedule reliability, including 

distributing slack time based on infrastructure configurations and conflicts with other 

trains rather than a flat percentage of train schedules

 

27 High Low Low
121

Institutional Challenges

Investigating different methods of indemnifying freight railroads from the accident liability 

added by passenger traffic on existing freight lines

 

16 High High Medium

Development of passenger equipment safety standards beyond the current maximum Tier 

II level, allowing for the operation of passenger trains at speeds exceeding 150MPH on 

dedicated lines while enabling intermixed operation with freight traffic at slower speeds

 

28 High Low Low

Developing a new track usage fee structure that takes into account the amount of capacity 

used by a particular train type and priority

 

31 High Low Low

Finding new frameworks for federal grant agreements that help ensure the quality of the

passenger service while protecting freight railroads from investing their own capital for 

future delay mitigation

 

33 High Low Low

Economic Challenges

Determining equitable frameworks for allocating the cost of capacity between different 

track users when the marginal cost of capacity upgrades increases with capacity

 

24 High Low Low

Evaluating the economics of constructing new shared lines capable of accommodating 

temporally separated heavy axle load (HAL) and high speed rail (HSR) traffic

 

25 High Low Low

Evaluating the economic impact of imposing temporal separation of freight and passenger 

traffic on existing shared lines

 

29 High Low Low

Evaluating the life cycle cost of slab track while taking into account the cost of capacity 

used by maintenance activity

 

30 High Low Low

Evaluating the economic impact caused by the severing of freight rail industry access by 

adjacent dedicated passenger tracks

 

32 High High High
122

Abbreviations and Acronyms

RailTEC Rail Transportation and Engineering Center

FRA Federal Railroad Administration

BAA Broad Agency Announcement

HSR High-Speed Rail

ROW Right-of-Way

HAL Heavy Axle Load

IDOT Illinois Department of Transportation

UIUC University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

KTH Swedish Royal Institute of Technology

NTSB National Transportation Safety Board

PTC Positive Train Control

IDW Intrusion Detection Warning

DPU Distributed Power Unit

RTD Regional Transit District

CTA Chicago Transit Authority

HrSR Higher Speed Rail

FTA Federal Transit Authority

APTA American Public Transportation Association

CEM Crash Energy Management

AADT Annual Average Daily Traffic

UP Union Pacific

FBF Flange bearing Frog Diamond

OWLS One-Way Low Speed

FAST Facility for Accelerated Service Testing

TTC Transportation Technology Center

HTL High Tonnage Loop

RBM Rail Bound Manganese

PS Point of Switch

PF Point of Frog
123

KGO Kinematic Gauge Optimization

DEM Discrete Element Modeling

FWD Falling Weight Deflectometer

FEM Finite Element Model

MDOF Multiple Degree of Freedom

HSL High-Speed Line

AAR Association of American Railroads

SRI Strategic Research Initiatives

VTI Vehicle-Track Interaction

LCC Life-Cycle Cost

MARTA Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority

HMA Hot-Mix Asphalt

FOC Freight-Operated Company

NPV Net Present Value

PSS Problem Space Search

PMSP Preventative Maintenance Scheduling Problem

U.S. DOT United States Department of Transportation