Interface - The Journal of Wheel/Rail Interaction

STRESS REDUCTION

Reducing the Stress State on Canadian Pacific’s Western Corridor (continued)

The objective of TOR friction control is to take friction from a dry level, which can be as high as 0.7 and move it down to the target level of 0.3 to 0.4. The Portec Rail PROTECTOR IV^TM applicator can be either solar or AC powered (there is a mix of the two throughout the territory), and applies a water-based TOR friction modifier (KELTRACK®).

The supplier, Portec Rail, provides the lubricators and friction modifier systems, as well as the friction management consumable. In addition, the project includes an ongoing management package, which includes remote performance monitoring, as well as maintenance and filling.

There are several unique aspects to the TFM project at Canadian Pacific. One of them is the interaction between the supplier and the railroad. In this case, there is an overall service provision in which Portec Rail provides regular inspection of the gauge-face and TOR systems, as well as daily direction to CP maintenance personnel. (CP unionized lubrication maintainers and filling resources take daily direction from Portec Rail.) Portec Rail also provides remote performance monitoring — data review and training — and reports on the overall performance of the system over time. The coefficient of friction and lateral/vertical forces are measured to verify that things are working as they should.

Looking at the economic side of the equation, CP subcontracted the development of a comprehensive business case to the National Research Council of Canada, which included reductions in rail and wheel wear, fuel savings, and reduced maintenance and infrastructure costs.

The net result of the model is a projected savings on the order of $3.2 million across the system annually in rail wear, $0.4 million in wheel wear, $1 million in re-gauging costs, and $5.2 million in fuel savings. One of the most unique aspects of the project is that CP took these results, which were thought to be conservative, and made adjustments to operating budgets including transfers from both the transportation (fuel) and mechanical (wheel) budgets into the engineering budget to support the operating costs of the TFM initiative.

Results

A lateral and vertical force measurement system was deployed on a 6.5-degree curve just west of Revelstoke in the Shuswap subdivision. This location has loaded westbound unit trains traveling under-speed at close to peak adhesion on a sustained ascending 1% grade. Figure 4 shows the distribution of low rail l/v ratios. The traces indicate the different distributed power configurations investigated for unit coal trains (CP is running both steel and aluminum coal cars). A shift can be seen in the lateral loads when comparing the distributed power configurations to the standard 2-0-1 model. A moderate shift can be observed in moving to the 2-2-0 model, and a substantial shift moving to the 2-1-1 model (the optimum model for operation in the corridor).

Table 1 compares average values of peak low rail lateral forces (in kilo-newtons) between the distributed power models that were implemented for aluminum and steel car sets. It can be seen that the low rail lateral loads are initially substantially higher than the high-rail lateral loads in the under-speed conditions. It can also be seen that the forces are reduced when moving from the 2-0-1 to the 2-2-0 and the 2-1-1 configuration. Average values have gone from a 39 kilo-Newton average, leading axle, peak lateral load, down to a 35.4 kilo- Newton average for the aluminum car sets, and from a 39.5 to a 32.7 kilo- Newton average for the steel car sets.

In some cases, increases can be seen in high rail lateral loads in moving to the optimal distributed power model. This is a result of moving toward a more balanced operating condition.

Train Speeds

Table 2 lists the nominal increases in specific power (kilowatts per ton) when moving from 2-0-1 to 2-2-0 and 2-1-1 power models. The influence on speed, going from the 3-locomotive model up to the 4-locomotive models is also shown. The 2-2-0 and 2-1-1 produce similar speeds running through this test area, but there is a distinct difference in the lateral force performance. This indicates that the distributed power configuration isn't only about raising train speed, it's also about the interaction between the various in-train forces.

Results: Friction Management

Table 3 shows lateral force data corresponding to the transition from gauge-face (GF) lubrication (only) to GF + TOR friction control with the implementation of Total Friction Management, and illustrates the effects of friction management on a series of distributed power models.

As can be seen in the table, with a 2-1-0 power configuration, lateral forces on the low rail were reduced from 45.7 to 36.3 kN on aluminum (124) cars, from 48.8 to 34.3 kN on aluminum (129) cars and from 38.6 to 33.1 kN on steel (115) cars.

< PREVIOUS PAGE | PAGE 2 OF 3 | NEXT PAGE >