Guidance: Ballast may consist of crushed slag, crushed stone, screened gravel, pit-run gravel, chat, cinders, scoria, pumice, sand, mine waste, or other native material, and is an integral part of the track structure. Ballast, regardless of the material, must satisfy the requirements stated in the TSS.

Guidance: Inspectors should consider the overall condition of a track when citing fouled ballast. Because ballast conditions can be subjective in nature, inspectors should also look to other indicators, such as a geometry condition. For example, a fouled ballast violation might be appropriate if the track has poor drainage and there is a geometry condition or a series of fouled ballast locations with geometry conditions.

The term "geometry condition" used here and elsewhere in this manual means a track surface, gage, or alinement irregularity that does not exceed the allowable threshold for the designated track class. It exists due to the reduced or non-existent capability of one or more track structural components to hold the track to its preferred geometric position.

Guidance: The TSS determines the adequacy of crosstie support by including its functional requirements to maintain track geometry within the limits specified in Subpart C. The failure of the crossties to meet any of the three above criteria constitutes a deviation from the TSS.

Effective distribution has not been defined, but must not be interpreted by the inspector as synonymous with equally spaced. The language is intended to address situations where all of the nondefective or defective ties exist in a group at a short area of the 39-foot segment of track in question. Evidence that crossties are not effectively distributed includes, primarily, indications of an actual deviation or a geometry condition.

No criterion exists for the maximum distance between nondefective ties, and this measurement should not be used to describe a tie defect. If such a description is appropriate, it should be in terms of the number of consecutive defective ties in a group.

When citing 213 defect code 0109B2 (Crossties not effectively distributed to support a 39-foot segment of track), the inspector must show evidence of one or more of the geometry conditions cited in § 213.109(b)(1). Several factors may be documented if the defect is being cited. These factors include, but are not limited to:

• Geometry conditions.

• Class of track.

• Curvature.

• Traffic density (annual tonnage).

• Rail weight and condition.

• Condition of other components of the track.

When determining compliance with this section, the inspector must determine that crossties meet the requirements of effectiveness as defined above and make geometry measurements to verify that each 39-foot segment of track has:

• A sufficient number of effective ties to maintain geometry.

• The required number of nondefective ties for the track class as described in paragraph 213.109(b)(4).

• The proper placement of nondefective ties as described in paragraph 213.109(b)(4) and positioned as required in paragraph (e) to support joints.

The majority of crossties throughout the nation are made from wood. However, there are varieties of alternate designed crossties made from materials such as composites, steel, and concrete. These types of crossties are becoming more common throughout the industry. Because of the increased use of these alternate design crossties and their associated resilient type rails fasteners, inspectors should more rigorously consider the rail/crosstie interface. Also, see § 213.127, Rail fastenings.

109(d) Concrete crossties counted to satisfy the requirements set forth in paragraph (b)(4) of this section shall not be--

There is a distinction between the phrases "broken through" and "deteriorated to the extent that prestressing material is visible." Concrete crossties are manufactured in two basic designs: twin-block and mono-block. Twin-block crossties are designed with two sections of  concrete connected by exposed metal rods. A mono-block crosstie is similar in dimension to a timber or wood crosstie and contains prestress metal strands embedded into the concrete. The prestressing material in the concrete is observed at the ends of the crosstie for proper tension position. Prestressed reinforced concrete crossties are made by stressing the reinforcing material in a mold, then pouring cement concrete over the reinforcing material in the mold. After the concrete cures, the tension on the reinforcing material is released, and the ends of the reinforcing material are trimmed, if appropriate for the use. The prestressing material remains in tension against the concrete, which is very strong in compression. This allows the prestressed concrete to withstand both compressive and tensile loads. If the concrete spalls, or if the prestressing material is otherwise allowed to come out of contact with the concrete, then the prestressing material is no longer in tension. A concrete crosstie’s flexural strength and stiffness is lost when the prestress force is reduced through corrosion, concrete deterioration, or poor bond with the concrete due to improper manufacturing. The prestressing material may corrode if insufficient concrete cover or concrete cracking allows the intrusion of moisture and oxygen. When this happens, the once prestressed concrete crosstie can no longer withstand tensile loads, and it will fail very rapidly in service.

Breaks or cracks are divided into three general conditions: longitudinal cracks, center cracks, and rail seat cracks. Longitudinal cracks are horizontal through the crosstie and extend parallel to its length. They are initiated by high impacts on one or both sides of the rail bearing inserts. Crosstie center cracks are vertical cracks extending transversely (across) the crosstie. These cracks are unusual and are the result of high negative bending movement (usually center bound), originating at the crosstie top and extend to the bottom. Generally, the condition is progressive, and adjacent crossties may be affected. Rail seat cracks are vertical cracks that are not easily visible. They usually extend from the bottom of the crosstie on one or both sides of the crosstie and are often hard to detect. It is possible for a crosstie to be broken through, but, due to the location of the break, the prestressing material may not be visible. Crosstie strength, generally, does not fail unless the crack extends through the top layer of the prestressing material. Once the crack extends beyond the top layer, there is usually a loss of prestressing material and concrete bond strength.

Paragraph  (d) (2) makes clear that crossties counted to fulfill the requirements of paragraph (b)(4) of this section must not be deteriorated or broken off in the vicinity of the shoulder or insert so that the fastener assembly can either pull out or move laterally more than three-eighths inch relative to the crosstie, as these conditions weaken rail fastener integrity.

Paragraph (d) (3) provides that a crosstie counted to fulfill the requirements of (b)(4) must not be deteriorated such that the base of either rail can move laterally more than three-eighths inch relative to the crosstie on curves of 2 degrees or greater; or can move laterally more than one-half inch relative to the crosstie on tangent track or curves of less than 2 degrees. This section allows for a combination rail movement, inward and outward, up to the dimensions specified, but not separately for each rail. The rail and fastener assembly work as a system capable of providing electrical insulation, adequate resistance to lateral displacement, undesired gage widening, rail canting, rail rollover, and abrasive or excessive compressive stresses. In accordance with policy and procedures, inspectors are encouraged to use the assigned portable track loading fixture (PTLF) in assessing the amount of lateral rail movement, wherever applicable.

Paragraph  (d) (4) requires that crossties counted to fulfill the requirements of paragraph (b)(4) of this section must not be deteriorated or abraded at any point under the rail seat to a depth of one-half inch or more. The measurement of one-half inch includes depth from the loss of rail pad material. The importance of having pad material in place with sufficient hysteresis (i.e., resilience (elasticity) to dampen high impact loading and recover) is paramount to control rail seat cracks caused by rail surface defects, wheel flats, or out of round wheels. Additionally, concrete crossties must be capable of providing adequate rail longitudinal restraint from excessive rail creepage or thermally induced forces or stress. "Rail creepage" is the tractive effort or pulling force exerted by a locomotive or car wheels, and "thermally induced forces or stress" is the longitudinal expansion and contraction of the rail, creating either compressive or tensile forces as the rail temperature increases or decreases, respectively. The loss of pad material causes a loss of toeload force, which may decrease longitudinal restraint. See the following figure. Note: inward or outward rail cant angle conventions are interchangeable among geometry measurement systems. FRA geometry cars record inward cant as positive, and outward cant as negative.

109(e) Class 1 and 2 track shall have one crosstie whose centerline is within 24 inches of each rail joint (end) location. Class 3, 4, and 5 track shall have either one crosstie whose centerline is within 18 inches of each rail joint location or two crossties whose centerlines are within 24 inches either side of each rail joint location. The relative position of these crossties is described in the following three diagrams:

(1) Each rail joint in Class 1 and 2 track shall be supported by at least one crosstie specified in paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section whose centerline is within 48 inches as shown in Figure 1.

(2) Each rail joint in Class 3, 4, and 5 track shall be supported by either at least one crosstie specified in paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section whose centerline is within 36 inches as shown in Figure 2, or:

(3) Two crossties, one on each side of the rail joint, whose centerlines are within 24 inches of the rail joint location as shown in Figure 3.

Guidance: A nondefective joint tie must be found within the prescribed distance of the centerline of the joint measured at the rail end. In Classes 3 through 5, joint tie placement can be satisfied by either a one tie configuration, or by a two-tie configuration.

Guidance: This paragraph addresses track constructed without crossties or bridge timbers, such as concrete-slab track, in which running rails are secured through fixation to another structural member.

In general, discrepancies may arise in evaluation of crosstie conditions, if decisions are based only on an inspector’s maintenance experience, which varies widely among the inspectors. Inspectors should evaluate tie condition solely on the basis of the definitions provided in this section. Each crosstie must be evaluated individually by these criteria. As with all provisions of the TSS, the inspector must use judgment and discretion in the application of the crosstie standards. They should be used to describe conditions that constitute a risk to the safe operation of trains, and should not be applied in doubtful cases.

Gage rods are not an effective substitute for a proper crosstie and rail-fastening system. Gage rods can be subject to sudden failure, they provide no vertical rail support, and they provide no resistance to rail roll-over forces. However, gage rods may be installed when they are used as a secondary means of support for maintaining gage. Where gage rods are used and it is obvious that the condition of the crosstie and fastening system in the immediate vicinity is incapable of maintaining adequate gage, then the inspector should consider citing a crosstie or fastener defect.

Certain crossties may not be able to hold spikes or rail fasteners in their present condition. In these cases, it may be possible to bring the crossties into compliance by either plugging and re-spiking, or adding additional rail-holding or plate-holding spikes, or both.

Where conditions are closer to a rail-fastener issue (e.g., sound ties in track are not fastened to the rail), inspectors should refer to the guidance under § 213.127.

Guidance: This paragraph provides for the implementation of a GRMS, supplemented by the use of a PTLF, to determine compliance with the crosstie and rail fastener requirements specified in §§ 213.109 and 213.127. Track owners electing to implement this technology must provide the appropriate FRA regional office with notification that specifically identifies the line segments where GRMS will be used. The appropriate FRA office is the headquarters location for the FRA region in which the GRMS designated line segment is located.Track and Rail and Infrastructure Integrity Compliance Manual Volume II, Chapter 1 – January 2014 2.1.61

The notification must be provided to FRA at least 30 days prior to the designation of any line segment which will be subject to the requirements of this section. Even though the notification requirement is satisfied, and the GRMS vehicle is determined to meet the minimum design requirements, the actual "triggering event," which places the line segment under the GRMS requirements, is the initial track survey with the GRMS vehicle.

Track owners must also provide FRA with at least 10 days notice prior to the removal of a line segment from GRMS designation. This requirement provides FRA with advance notice of the criteria change for the inspection of crossties and fasteners, and places some control over the random removal of line segments from GRMS designation.

Guidance: This paragraph describes minimum design requirements for GRMS vehicles. Track owners must submit to FRA sufficient technical data so that the agency can establish whether the track owner is in compliance with these design requirements. This paragraph requires that gage must be measured between the heads of the rail at an interval not exceeding 16 inches. The paragraph provides for design flexibility by establishing acceptable ranges for the lateral/vertical load ratio and the resulting lateral load severity, both of which can 

5 GRMS equipment using load combinations developing L/V ratios that exceed 0.8 shall be operated with caution to protect against the risk of wheel climb by the test wheelset.

110(d) Load severity is defined by the formula:

S = L−cV

Where—

S = Load severity, defined as the lateral load applied to the fastener system (kips).

L = Actual lateral load applied (kips).

c = Coefficient of friction between rail/tie, which is assigned a nominal value of 0.4.

V = Actual vertical load applied (kips), or static vertical wheel load if vertical load is not measured.

Guidance: This paragraph prescribes a formula for the calculation of "load severity" required by 110(c)(2) iii. The coefficient of friction at rail/tie interface can change the load severity level when the applied actual lateral and vertical loads are given. However, it is impractical to determine the actual coefficients of friction, which vary from place to place in the GRMS territory. A nominal value of 0.4 can always be used.

110(e) The measured gage values shall be converted to a Projected Loaded Gage 24 (PLG24) as follows—

PLG 24 = UTG + A × (LTG−UTG)

Where—

UTG = Unloaded track gage measured by the GRMS vehicle at a point no less than 10 feet from any lateral or vertical load application.

LTG = Loaded track gage measured by the GRMS vehicle at a point no more than 12 inches from the lateral load application point.

A = The extrapolation factor used to convert the measured loaded gage to expected loaded gage under a 24-kip lateral load and a 33-kip vertical load.

For all track—

Note: The A factor shall not exceed a value of 3.184 under any valid loading configuration.

L = Actual lateral load applied (kips).

V = Actual vertical load applied (kips), or static vertical wheel load if vertical load is not measured.

Guidance: This paragraphs prescribes the formula for the calculation of the projected loaded gage 24 (PLG 24). The formula provides a method to normalize the PLG regardless actual lateral load loads applied by different GRMS systems. Accurate measurements of unloaded gage, GRMS loaded gage, and the lateral load applied are of critical importance because these measurements are used in the calculation of PLG 24 values which constitute a direct measure of track strength.

To minimize the influence from adjacent loads, the unloaded track gage (UTG) must be measured by the GRMS vehicle at a point no less than 10 feet from any lateral or vertical load application and the loaded track gage (LPG) at a point no more than 12 inches from the lateral load application point.

110(f) The measured gage value shall be converted to a Gage Widening Ratio (GWR) as follows

Guidance: This paragraph prescribes the formula for the calculation of the gage widening projection (GWP). The GWP is intended to compensate for the weight of the testing vehicle. Use of the GWP is supported by research results documented in the report titled "Development of Gage Widening Projection Parameter for the Deployable Gage Restraint Measurement System" (DOT/FRA/ORD-06/13, October 2006), which is available on FRA’s Web site.

By making the criteria in this section consistent with those in § 213.333 in subpart G, the rule makes it easier for a track owner or railroad to comply with GRMS requirements regardless of the class of track.

110(g)  The GRMS vehicle shall be capable of producing output reports that provide a trace, on a constant-distance scale, of all parameters specified in paragraph (l) of this section.

Guidance: Paragraphs (g), (h), and (i) require that GRMS vehicles be capable of producing a stripchart of all the parameters specified in paragraph (l) of this section, as well as a printed exception report listing, by magnitude and location, all exceptions from these parameters. The exception report listing must be provided to the appropriate persons designated as fully qualified under § 213.7 prior to the next inspection required under § 213.233 of the TSS.

Since the premise behind GRMS technology is to identify areas of weak gage restraint that either need immediate attention or must be continually monitored until the next GRMS inspection, the exception report listing must be retained and be available for review by the § 213.7 inspection personnel. FRA inspectors will obtain, or have access to, this exception report when conducting regular compliance inspections over GRMS designated line segments.

(1) Maintain and make available to the Federal Railroad Administration documented calibration procedures on each GRMS vehicle which, at a minimum, shall specify a daily instrument verification procedure that will ensure correlation between measurements made on the ground and those recorded by the instrumentation with respect to loaded and unloaded gage parameters; and

(2) Maintain each PTLF used for determining compliance with the requirements of this section such that the 4,000-pound reading is accurate to within five percent of that reading.

 

Guidance: This paragraph requires the track owner to institute procedures that will ensure the integrity of data collected by the GRMS and PTLF systems. Track owners must maintain documented calibration procedures on each GRMS vehicle and make them available upon request from an FRA representative. A daily instrument verification procedure is required to ensure that measurements of loaded and unloaded gage recorded by the instrumentation correlate to actual field measurements. Track owners must also develop and implement the necessary PTLF inspection and maintenance procedures so that the 4,000-pound reading is accurate within plus or minus 5 percent.

Guidance: This paragraph recognizes the need for persons designated as fully qualified under § 213.7, and whose territories are subject to the requirements of this section, to receive training on the implementation of GRMS technology. The track owner therefore is required to develop a formal GRMS training program that must be made available to FRA upon request. The training of affected employees is another "triggering event" that must be satisfied prior to a line segment being designated as GRMS territory under this section.

The training program must provide detailed instruction on the specific areas identified in this paragraph. In particular, the training must address basic GRMS operational procedures, interpretation and handling of exception reports, how to locate and verify GRMS defects in the field, remedial action requirements to be initiated when defects are verified, how to use and calibrate the PTLF, and the recordkeeping requirements associated with the implementation of GRMS technology.

The requirement for GRMS training applies to fully qualified § 213.7 personnel under paragraphs (a) and (b) who are going to be subject to the requirements of this section. This is not to say that all fully qualified § 213.7 personnel need this training (e.g., welder foreman, production gang foreman, etc.). It is also not necessary for all fully qualified § 213.7 personnel who receive the GRMS training to be issued PTLFs. However, if circumstances arise where they need a PTLF, they should have access to one and be trained in how to use it and interpret the results.

The track owner must also take into consideration any relief personnel, newly qualified personnel, or personnel transferred from non-GRMS territory into a GRMS territory, which will be subject to the GRMS requirements. These personnel must be provided with sufficient instructions and training that enable them to demonstrate to the track owner that they know and understand the requirements of this section.

Guidance: The VTI final rule has corrected the table to renumber the remedial action specified for a second level exception. The remedial action has been designated as (1), (2), and (3) in the "Remedial action required" column, to be consistent with the remedial action specified for a first level exception. This paragraph specifies the parameters and threshold levels required to be reported as a record of lateral restraint following an inspection by a GRMS vehicle. The regulation requires that two levels of exceptions be reported during the GRMS inspection. Specific remedial actions are required for each level, as identified in the "Remedial action required" column. First level exceptions are required to be immediately protected by a 10 mph speed restriction until verification and corrective action can be instituted. Second level exceptions are to be monitored and maintained within the PTLF criteria outlined in paragraph (m) of this section.

The prior knowledge criteria is satisfied for those locations that are identified as first or second level exceptions on the record of lateral restraint which is generated following each GRMS inspection. Where field inspections conducted between GRMS inspections reveal an exception location that does not comply with either the track strength requirement or the gage requirement that are identified in paragraph (m) of this section, the inspector should consider recommending civil penalties. For locations that do not comply with the requirements of paragraph (m), and have not been identified on the record of lateral restraint as either a first or second level exception, the inspector shall exercise discretion to determine whether or not civil penalties should be recommended.

Footnote 2 in the table recognizes that typical good track will increase in total gage by as much as one-quarter inch due to outward rail rotation under GRMS loading conditions. Accordingly, for Class 2 and Class 3 track, the GRMS loaded track gage values are also increased by one-quarter inch to a maximum of 58 inches. GRMS loaded track gage values in excess of 58 inches must always be considered first level exceptions. This ¼-inch increase in gage applies only to GRMS loaded gage, and does not apply to PTLF gage measurements or to measurements made by more traditional methods.

Guidance: While the remedial action table in paragraph (l) requires the use of the PTLF to measure compliance with the lateral restraint and gage requirements at identified exception locations in GRMS territory, paragraph (m) also provides for the use of a PTLF as an additional analytical tool by fully qualified § 213.7 individuals at other locations in GRMS territory. Paragraph (m) also describes the manner in which a PTLF must be used in GRMS territory, whether it is being used as an additional analytical tool or being used to meet the remedial action requirements set forth in paragraph (l). Compliance with §§ 213.109 and 213.127 will be demonstrated when a PTLF is applied and (1) the total gage widening at that location does not exceed five-eighths inch when increasing the applied force from 0 to 4,000 pounds; and (2) the gage of the track measured under 4,000 pounds of applied force does not exceed the allowable gage prescribed in § 213.53(b) of this section for the class of track involved. Gage widening in excess of five-eighths inch shall constitute a deviation from Class 1 standards.

At locations where compliance with the crosstie and rail fastener requirements have been demonstrated through the use of a PTLF, a fully qualified § 213.7 individual retains the discretionary authority to prescribe additional remedial actions, such as the placement of speed restrictions, if the individual deems it necessary. FRA inspectors will determine compliance with the crosstie and fastener requirements for gage restraint solely on the basis of the PTLF measurements.

Where crossties are found to be so severely split or plate-cut to the extent that they are incapable of providing adequate vertical support, and conditions have degraded to the point where track surface conditions are approaching the allowable limit for the class of track, inspectors shall continue to consider writing a defect. In such a case use 213 defect code 0109B2, "crossties not effectively distributed to support a 39-foot segment of track." Inspectors should record the track surface geometry condition as well as the contributing condition of the crossties in the description column.

When a functional PTLF is not available to a fully qualified § 213.7 individual during a scheduled inspection under § 213.233 of this part, the track owner must repair or replace the PTLF prior to the next inspection required under § 213.233, or crosstie and rail fastener compliance will be based solely on the requirements specified in §§ 213.109 and 213.127.

At locations where crosstie or rail fastening compliance is questioned and vertical loading of the track structure is necessary to restore contact with the lateral rail restraint components, the crossties must be raised until lateral restraint contact is restored and a PTLF measurement must then be made.

If the track owner fails to immediately restore contact between the rail and the fastening system so that a valid PTLF test can be performed, this non-action will in effect remove this location from the GRMS standard and the inspector will determine compliance based on §§ 213.109 and 213.127.

Likewise, where gage rods have been installed which preclude a valid PTLF test to determine gage restraint of crossties and fasteners, this action will in effect remove the location from the GRMS standard and the inspector will determine compliance based on §§ 213.109 and 213.127.

Guidance: This paragraph requires the track owner to maintain a record of the two most recent GRMS inspections at locations meeting the requirements specified in § 213.241(b). The records must indicate the location and nature of each First Level exception, and the nature and date of initiated remedial action, if any, for each First Level exception. First Level exceptions are described in the Remedial Action Table in paragraph (l).

The record required under paragraph (n) is also the official record of lateral restraint and needs to identify both exception levels; however, the remedial action taken is required to be shown only for First Level exceptions. Records will be maintained at locations that meet the requirements specified in § 213.241(b).

Guidance. Paragraph (o) details the GRMS inspection requirements which is illustrated in the following table:

[1] The maximum interval of 14 months is intended to provide some flexibility for scheduling when it may not be possible to schedule annual inspections within the same calendar month each year.

[2] This extended frequency is an attempt to make the technology more accessible to short line operators who may not have the financial or equipment resources available to larger railroads. For example, a GRMS inspection may be scheduled at up to 24-month intervals if the railroad had 2 million annual tons or less and passenger trains were not authorized to operate at more than 30 mph.

Guidance. This paragraph prescribes a list of definitions of terms essential to the implementation of GRMS technology.

A well-documented pattern of repeated or widespread deviations from the requirements of this section by the track owner will effectively terminate the options afforded by this section. The affected track would then become subject to the requirements of § 213.109 and § 213.127.

(a) When an owner of track to which this part applies learns, through inspection or otherwise, that a rail in that track contains any of the defects listed in the following table, a person designated under §213.7 shall determine whether or not the track may continue in use. If he determines that the track may continue in use, operation over the defective rail is not permitted until -- (1) The rail is replaced; or (2) The remedial action prescribed in the table is initiated.

118(e) FRA, for cause stated, may, subsequent to plan approval or conditional approval, require revisions to the plan to bring the plan into conformity with this subpart. Notice of a revision requirement shall be made in writing and specify the basis of FRA’s requirement. The track owner may, within 30 days of the revision requirement, respond and provide written submissions in support of the original plan. FRA renders a final decision in writing. Not more than 30 days following any final decision requiring revisions to a CWR plan, the track owner shall amend the plan in accordance with FRA’s decision and resubmit the conforming plan. The conforming plan becomes effective upon its submission to FRA.

Guidance: All CWR plans must be submitted to FRA for review by the Track Division and then approval by the Associate Administrator for Railroad Safety/Chief Safety Officer. FRA reviews each plan for compliance with §§ 213.119(a) through (l). Regional track specialists may be requested to provide recommendations concerning the comprehensiveness of those procedures.

Guidance, General: In addition to safety-critical procedures listed in this section, the railroad may decide to include procedures based on administrative or economic considerations. For example, a railroad may choose to include instructions that limit the use of worn secondhand replacement rail because of an economic concern about the length of time that it might take to perform a satisfactory weld. The railroad may also include specific actions in their procedures that are to be taken when installation or maintenance work does not comply with its overall procedures.

Recording an activity that does not conform to the railroad’s CWR procedures does not provide the railroad with indefinite relief from responsibility for compliance when its procedures are not followed. Continued noncompliance may lead to an unsafe condition. The recordkeeping procedure is intended to provide a safety net by flagging those activities of noncompliance, which, if not brought into compliance in a timely manner, could lead to an unsafe condition. For example, CWR installed in the winter months without adequate rail anchors as prescribed by the written procedures and discovered in late summer would clearly be a deficient condition, regardless of if it was recorded. When in doubt as to what activities are considered safety related, the inspector should consult with the regional Track specialist.

Whenever conducting inspections on a railroad and that activity includes observation of CWR, FRA inspectors are to include only one “CWRP” unit on the header of their Railroad Inspection System for Personal Computers (RISPC) inspection report. Record one CWRP unit, regardless of the amount of CWR mileage inspected. Record the actual track mileage units using the activity codes MTH, MTW, etc. When a defect is taken for any aspect of § 213.119, FRA inspectors are to also designate CWRP for the line item “activity” cell. In addition, inspectors are to use CWRP in each line item activity cell when performing records inspections and recording deficiencies concerning CWR joint records.

The definition of a “buckling incident” explains the industry definition for such an event. However, the rule recognizes the importance of conditions that are precursors to buckles.

The two failure modes associated with track constructed with CWR are track buckles and pull-aparts. A track buckle is considered the more serious of the two and is characterized by the formation of a large lateral misalinement caused by:

• High compressive forces in the rail (thermal and mechanical loads).

• Weakened track conditions (weak track resistance, alinement deviations).

• Vehicle loads (a dynamic “wave” uplift and lateral vs. vertical ratios).

Guidance: The track inspector should determine that any joints installed in CWR or connecting to CWR must have at least two bolts in each rail end, a minimum of four bolts installed in the joint bars, if not field welded at the time of installation. § 213.121(e).

This requirement serves as a reminder to track owners that they cannot create their own joint bolt requirements in their CWR plans that are less restrictive than those specified in the TSS.

(2) In the case of a bolted joint installed during CWR installation after October 21, 2009, the track owner shall either, within 60 days—

Guidance: This section applies to major installations of CWR, such as more than 400 feet. It is not intended for plug rails. Note that the applicability date published in the final rule for this section (August 25, 2009) was corrected via the amendment published on October 21, 2009, at 74 FR 53889.

Guidance: This section addresses CWR joints that experience a failure with a rail gap present. The definition for rail gap for this section is that the rail is under tension. An example of a joint failure under tension is a joint where the rail ends could not be pulled back together manually, as with the use of a drift pin, or if mechanical or thermal assistance is needed. A remedial action from § 213.119(c)(3) must be taken. Check for evidence of tension (such as bent and broken bolts) or application of thermal force (heat from repair rope, sawdust, or flammable mix).

Guidance: The rail is welded at the time the joint is repaired.

Guidance: The 30-day time limit is only to allow the railroad adequate time to gather resources to weld the joint. If a CWR joint becomes battered before a repair can be completed and the track owner decides to cut in a plug rail to remove the battered joint, the track must immediately be brought into compliance as specified in § 213.121(e). The 30-day time limit starts from the original joint installation date for both joints. The remedial action 30-day period does not begin again when both CWR rail joints are required to be removed. If the joints have not been welded on the 31st day, a violation may be submitted to the track owner for failure to take the appropriate remedial action. The track owner must have selected the planned remedial action to be taken on the inspection report or other documentation that may be addressed in the CWR plan at the time the defect was discovered, and it must be documented. This written or electronic documentation must be made available upon request by FRA during regular business hours.

Guidance: The track owner should ensure that any rail added during the repair of a CWR pull-apart is properly adjusted back to the required safe neutral temperature in accordance with the railroad’s CWR plan. As the rail temperature rises, the expansion of rail increases. The track owner must have provisions in the CWR plan to slow order the affected track and make repairs and adjustment to bring the track into compliance. For example, in many cases, the addition of 1 inch of rail in a 1,000-foot string of CWR will lower its rail neutral temperature by 13 degrees.

If the remedial actions, described in §§ 213.119(c)(iii), (iv), or (v); are used and the affected joint fails again (with a rail gap present after the initial repair), additional, more restrictive repairs are required. This shows that the rail tension was not adequately addressed during the initial remedial action. CWR joints must be inspected for compliance with additional parts of the TSS, such as tie condition, surface, rail end mismatch, and properly fitting joint bars.

Guidance: Thermal and mechanical loads affecting track structure are decreased by the track owner’s adherence to the track engineering standards. Adherence to the track owner’s standards and the CWR plan promote CWR track stability and safety. Three engineering elements resist mechanical loads and thermal loads: lateral resistance, longitudinal resistance, and rail neutral temperature. Track buckles can be expected to occur predominately in the lateral dimension. Lateral resistance is critical to being dependent upon weight and size of crosstie material, ballast material type, shoulder width, crib content, and its level of consolidation. As degree of curvature increases, the buckling resistance decreases. A crosstie’s base, side (crib) friction, and ballast shoulder resistance contribute to the overall lateral resistance sustained. In general, each contributes (base 50 percent, side 20–30 percent, and shoulder 20–30 percent) to this resistance, but the ratios can vary depending on ballast condition. Lateral resistance varies in location depending on the ballast shoulder geometry, crosstie size and type, and state of ballast consolidation.

Thermal loads, by themselves, can cause a buckle and are often called “static buckling.” However, most buckling occurs under a combination of thermal and vehicle loads, termed “dynamic buckling.” Inspectors should place emphasis on vehicle (dynamic) effects on track lateral stability, where high rail temperatures and vehicle loading could progressively weaken the track due to dynamic uplift (flexural waves) and a buckle mechanism response induced by misalignment “growth.”

Because the majority of buckles occur under dynamic train movements, loading is an important element in the buckling mechanism. Elements of track lateral instability include:

• Formation of initial track misalinement caused by reduced local resistance.

• High impact loads, initial rail surface (weld) imperfections, “soft” spots in ballast, and curve (radial breathing) shifting.

• Misalinement growth caused by high lateral loads, increased longitudinal forces, track uplifts due to vertical loads, and train-induced vibration.

Inspectors may consider the above elements, combined with related evidence of actual defects, geometry conditions, or other defective structural conditions, when evaluating the adequacy of a railroad’s CWR stability procedures under §§ 213.119(b), (c), (d), and (e). Locations where track buckling are more likely to occur include: horizontal and vertical curves, bottom of grades, bridge approaches, highway-rail grade crossings, recently-disturbed track, and areas of heavy train starting or braking.

The signs or precursors of buckles include:

• Newly formed alinement deviations: wavy, kinky, snaky, etc.

• Rails rotating or lifting out of the tie plates and intermittent loose tie plates.

• Excessive “running” rail causing ties to plow or churn the ballast.

• Insufficient anchors and anchors not installed tightly against the tie.

• Insufficient ballast section in the crib and shoulder areas.

• Gaps at crosstie ends, especially on the low (inner) rail.

Curves are more prone to buckling because of the curvature effect, alinement imperfection sensitivity, and train loads. It is important for inspectors to consider when and where a buckle may occur (e.g., on track segments where the CWR installation occurred below the desired rail installation temperature range and there was inadequate control of the laying temperature or inadequate adjustment of the rail afterwards). In addition, inspectors should observe areas of recent maintenance involving either the ballast or rail, where there was inadequate reconsolidating time for a disturbed ballast or inadequate temperature adjustment when replacing a defective rail. As curvature increases, the buckling resistance decreases. Under some conditions, high degree curvature can undergo gradual lateral shift (progressive buckling). Lateral alinement deviations reduce the track buckling strength and can initiate growth to critical levels. Vertical alinement deviations can also influence buckling.

Lateral misalinement is an important consideration because it reduces the ability of the track to resist buckling. An alinement offset or mid-ordinate within allowable limits may “escalate” under the imposed loads. This is called “track shift.” A longitudinal force in curved track will cause CWR rail to move radically. Compressive loads in the rail during the summer tend to move the track outwards, and tensile loads in the winter will pull the track inward, a term known as “radial breathing.” Inspectors should review the allowable limits, under § 213.55, and evaluate the relevant alinement and track strength (§ 213.13, Movement under load) due to repeated thermal and vehicle loadings.

Generally speaking, a decrease in the rail neutral temperature of 30–40 degrees from the installation temperature can be critical and lead directly to buckling. Inspectors should monitor the following factors that may influence shifts in the force-free temperature: improper rail installation, inadequate rail anchors or fastenings, lateral movements in curves through lining operations, “skeletonized” track segments (ballast removed for maintenance purposes), and inadequate ballast section. Lateral and longitudinal restraint is influenced by the factors mentioned above and, if improperly maintained or allowed to exist in a defective state, it increases the opportunity for a track buckle.

Track buckles occur less frequently in tangent track than in curves. However, buckling in tangent track will generally occur suddenly and with more severe consequences.

The second of the two failure modes that can be associated with track constructed with CWR is a pull-apart. A rail’s decrease in temperature in the winter will create tensile forces. The maximum tensile load in the rail is determined by the difference in the installation or force-free temperature and the lowest rail temperatures. Enough tensile force can cause direct fracture at rail cross-sections with prior cracks, weak welds, or sheared joint bolts at CWR string end locations.

Guidance: This requires that the railroad needs to record the new rail neutral temperature when performing rail repair and installation.

Guidance: This paragraph requires each track owner to include in its CWR plan provisions for the scheduling and conducting of joint inspections. A person who is qualified under § 213.7(c) will perform the inspections required by this paragraph on foot at the joint.

Guidance: This paragraph governs on-foot periodic inspections of CWR joints. Track owners are required to establish procedures for conducting these inspections. Upon identifying actual conditions of joint failures (i.e., broken or cracked joints bars) or potential conditions of joint failure, track owners must initiate the appropriate corrective action and keep the appropriate records. See § 213.119(h)(h)(5) and § 213.119(h)(7). In addition, when a track owner discovers CWR joints that are not in compliance with the requirements of the TSS, the track owner must take the appropriate remedial action required by Part 213. Inspectors should note that nothing in this paragraph interferes with the track owners’ continuing obligation to conduct track inspections under § 213.233. In addition, on-foot periodic inspections can be performed concurrently with § 213.233.

Periodic inspections, as referenced herein, are on-foot inspections of CWR joints that track owners must conduct on a regular basis. Track owners are required to conduct on-foot periodic inspections at the minimum intervals specified in paragraph (h)(6). Track owners, of course, are free to conduct these inspections more frequently than required.

Guidance: This paragraph requires track owners to identify joint bars with visible or otherwise detectable cracks and conduct remedial action pursuant to § 213.121. Railroad inspectors must know to distinguish between joint bars that are already cracked and joint bars that have the potential of cracking in the future. When a track owner discovers a cracked joint bar, the owner must take any remedial action specified in § 213.121; however, if the owner discovers a joint bar with actual or potential joint failure, the owner must take the corrective action specified by the CWR plan. Corrective action will be further addressed in paragraph (h)(5).

Guidance: This paragraph identifies those items relating to joint inspections that track owners must address in their CWR plans. Inspectors should note that these items are the minimum that track owners should address. Of course, track owners are free to include additional items in their respective CWR plans. Railroad track inspectors are to identify and record action items listed during their inspection of joints because these items are related to the integrity of the joint, and thus, to the safety of trains that operate over these joints.

Inspectors should note that this list is not all-inclusive. There are other conditions that could indicate failure, and inspectors should urge track owners to consider all conditions, not just these listed examples.

Guidance: This paragraph requires track owners to include procedures in their CWR plans for the inspection of CWR joints that are imbedded in highway-rail grade crossings or in other structures that prevent a complete inspection of the joint (e.g., pans in fueling facilities, scales, passenger walkways at stations that cover the track, etc.). The plans must also include procedures for the removal of loose material or other temporary material from the joint.

With respect to the procedures for “imbedded” joints, inspectors should not expect railroads to disassemble or remove the track structure (e.g., remove pavement or crossing pads) to conduct an inspection of CWR joints. However, FRA expects that railroads will make every effort, to the extent practicable, to inspect the joints in these structures.

Inspectors need to be aware that CWR joints may sometimes be temporarily buried during maintenance (e.g., where ballast is distributed in the middle of the track and along the track) and therefore unavailable for inspection. FRA expects that railroads will take necessary measures to conduct inspections of these CWR joints and expects that railroads will schedule their maintenance to allow for a complete inspection of these joints. Where CWR joints are buried (e.g., by ballast), inspectors should understand that railroad maintenance personnel will wait for the completion of the track surfacing and dressing of the ballast before conducting their joint bar inspections. However, railroad employees may use hand tools or mechanical means to remove ballast from the sides of track joints, so that they can conduct an inspection of those track joints.

Finally, FRA notes that components of the track (such as crossties, fasteners, tie plates, etc.) are also not fully visible in highway-rail grade crossings and similar structures. Inspectors should note that FRA has never specifically exempted these items from the inspections required under Part 213. Inspectors should continue to expect that the railroads will inspect these areas to the maximum extent possible.

Guidance: This paragraph requires track owners to specify in their plans the appropriate corrective actions that must be taken when track inspectors find conditions of actual or potential joint failure. Inspectors should note the difference between the terms “remedial actions” and “corrective action” and apply accordingly. Remedial actions are those actions which track owners are required to take as a result of requirements of Part 213 to address a noncompliant condition. For example, if a track owner discovers a cracked joint bar, the owner must replace it. See § 213.121 or the parallel requirement in the railroad’s CWR plan. Corrective actions, on the other hand, are those actions that track owners specify in their CWR plans to address conditions of potential joint failure, including, as applicable, repair, restrictions on operations, and/or additional on-foot inspection. To ensure clarity, FRA has defined these terms in § 213.119(j).

On-foot followup inspections, as referenced herein, are joint-specific and conducted in response to conditions that a track owner discovers during periodic inspections. Track owners will identify in their CWR plans the conditions that trigger followup inspections. For example, where a track owner identifies “replace bolt or inspect weekly” as a corrective action for a bent bolt, if a track inspector discovers a bent bolt during a periodic inspection and does not immediately replace it, then the track inspector will have to conduct followup inspections at that joint at the specified frequency (in this case, weekly).

Guidance: This paragraph requires railroad owners to specify the timing of on-foot periodic inspections. The minimum number of required joint inspections is addressed in the table in paragraph (h)(6)(i). The timing periods in this paragraph represent the minimum of what is expected. Railroad owners are encouraged to implement additional inspection periods as they determine necessary.

In paragraphs (h)(6)(ii) through (iv), inspectors should be aware that FRA is allowing exceptions to the minimum inspection frequencies for unscheduled detours, certain passenger trains, and items that are already inspected on a monthly basis pursuant to § 213.235. Each of these exceptions will be discussed in more detail below.

[1] Where a track owner operates both freight and passenger trains over a given segment of track, and there are two different possible inspection interval requirements, the more frequent inspection interval applies.

[2] When extreme weather conditions prevent a track owner from conducting an inspection of a particular territory within the required interval, the track owner may extend the interval by up to 30 calendar days from the last day that the extreme weather condition prevented the required inspection

Guidance: The first footnote provides that where a track owner operates both freight and passenger trains over a given segment of track, and there are two different possible inspection interval requirements, the more frequent inspection interval applies. This footnote was developed to address concerns over track shared by freight and passenger trains. It was anticipated that there could be a potential conflict with the inspection frequency required for the track if the track owner were to follow the chart for both types of trains. By requiring the more frequent inspections in situations of conflict, this footnote ensures greater safety and protection to track used for mixed purposes.

The second footnote was added in response to concerns regarding sensitivity of extreme regional weather conditions. Concern was raised with regard to the difficulty of inspecting CWR joints in northern regions when there is a large amount of snow. FRA notes that there could be times when it would be extremely difficult for a track owner to clear snow and ice from the joint in order for it to be seen for inspection. This footnote allows some flexibility for track owners in such a situation.

Guidance: This paragraph allows track owners, for a limited period of time, to operate passenger trains without lowering the track speed and without adhering to the required inspection frequencies for passenger trains pursuant to the table in § 213.119(h)(6)(i). This provision accommodates for unplanned outages, derailments, accidents, and other emergency situations. Track owners are still required to adhere to the applicable freight inspection frequencies. This provision is intended to provide relief to railroads that operate passenger trains and that have a last-minute emergency situation. However, if a track owner operates passenger trains at the normal track speed for more than 14 days, the track must be inspected at the appropriate passenger train levels, as detailed in the chart at § 213.119(h)(6)(i).

Guidance: As defined in § 213.119(l), tourist, scenic, historic, or excursion operations are railroad operations that carry passengers with the conveyance of the passengers to a particular destination not being the principal purpose. These operations run less frequently than intercity or commuter passenger trains, and occur most often on shortline railroads. If a track owner has an operation of this type on the track and does not want to take that operation into account in determining inspection frequency, the owner must drop the track speed one class with regard to that operation. This way, the track owner will be still be in compliance with the inspection frequency mandated by the table in paragraph (h)(6)(i), regardless of the class of freight the owner runs on the track. As the first footnote to the table in paragraph (h)(6)(i) states, where there are two different possible inspection interval requirements, the more frequent inspection interval applies.

The above is a consideration for situations where tourist trains operate on the general system of transportation. For tourist trains on track other than the general system of transportation, such operations are normally not subject to the TSS. See Part 209, Appendix A.

Guidance: This paragraph exempts the following items from the periodic inspection frequency intervals: switches, turnouts, track crossings, lift rail assemblies, or other transition devices on moveable bridges. Track owners already inspect these items on a monthly basis pursuant to § 213.235. Rather than apply the additional periodic inspection requirements (i.e., apply the intervals in the table in § 213.119(h)(6)(i) to switches and turnouts, etc.), FRA believes it is more appropriate to have track owners conduct their inspections of joints at these locations during their monthly § 213.235 inspections.

FRA has historically understood and operated under the assumption that a turnout extends from the point of the switch to the heel of the frog. Inspectors should continue to operate under that assumption, and accordingly, all joints in turnouts, switches, etc. must be inspected monthly, pursuant to § 213.235, and records of these inspections must be kept in accordance with § 213.241. The regulation does not require that the data elements listed in § 213.119(h)(7)(i) appear on the § 213.235 inspection record.

All joints that extend beyond the point of a switch or beyond the heel of the frog must be inspected at the frequency intervals identified in § 213.119(h)(6)(i). However, track owners are free to include, in their monthly § 213.235 inspection, these joints that are located in track structure that is adjacent to turnouts and switches. If track owners choose to do this, they must clearly define the parameters of that arrangement in their CWR plan. In other words, the track owner should clearly identify the physical limits of the adjacent track structure (e.g., insulated joints up until the signal), and they must clearly identify the inspection interval for joints in that adjacent track (e.g., “inspect all insulated joints to the signal during the monthly § 213.235 inspection”).

In addition, as long as track owners clearly define the parameters in the CWR plans, the track owner does not need to keep two sets of records (e.g., a record from the § 213.235 inspection and a record from the § 213.119(h)(6)(i) inspection) for inspections of these “adjacent” joints. For example, if the track owner’s CWR plan indicates that joints in crossovers between turnouts must be inspected during the monthly § 213.235 inspection, and a railroad track inspector inspects the joints in the crossover during the monthly § 213.235 inspection, then it is sufficient for the track owner to create and maintain only the § 213.235 record.

FRA believes this option is useful because it avoids the confusion and duplication that might otherwise result. In addition, FRA notes that it would be burdensome for track inspectors to inspect those “adjacent” joints monthly and make a note of the inspection in the monthly § 213.235 record, and also be required to make an additional § 213.119(h)(6)(i) record every few months.

(i) The track owner shall keep a record of each periodic and follow-up inspection required to be performed by the track owner’s CWR plan, except for those inspections conducted pursuant to § 213.235 for which track owners must maintain records pursuant to § 213.241. The record shall be prepared on the day the inspection is made and signed by the person making the inspection. The record shall include, at a minimum, the following items: the boundaries of the territory inspected; the nature and location of any deviations at the joint from the requirements of this part or of the track owner’s CWR plan, with the location identified with sufficient precision that personnel could return to the joint and identify it without ambiguity; the date of the inspection; the remedial action, corrective action, or both, that has been taken or will be taken; and the name or identification number of the person who made the inspection.

Guidance: This paragraph addresses the inspection reports that have to be created after periodic inspections required by paragraph (h)(6)(i), and followup inspections as required by the track owner’s CWR plan. The inspection reports of the periodic inspections shall be prepared on the day the inspection is made and are to contain the required information. The periodic inspection record can be combined with other records required pursuant to § 213.241.

Guidance: This paragraph permits a track owner to devise an alternate program for the inspection of joints in CWR. A track owner seeking to deviate from the minimum inspection frequencies specified in § 213.119(h)(6) should submit the alternate procedures and a supporting statement of justification to FRA’s Associate Administrator for Railroad Safety/Chief Safety Officer. In the supporting statement, the track owner must include data and analysis that establishes (to the satisfaction of the Associate Administrator for Railroad Safety/Chief Safety Officer) that the alternate procedures provide at least an equivalent level of safety across the railroad.

If the Associate Administrator for Railroad Safety/Chief Safety Officer approves the alternate procedures, the Associate Administrator for Railroad Safety/Chief Safety Officer will notify the track owner of such approval in writing. In that written notification, the Associate Administrator for Railroad Safety/Chief Safety Officer will specify the date that the alternate procedures will become effective. After that date, the track owner shall comply with the approved procedures. If the Associate Administrator for Railroad Safety/Chief Safety Officer determines that the alternate procedures do not provide an equivalent level of safety, the Associate Administrator for Railroad Safety/Chief Safety Officer will disapprove the alternate procedures in writing. While a determination is pending with the Associate Administrator for Railroad Safety/Chief Safety Officer, the track owner shall continue to comply with the requirements contained in § 213.119(h)(6).

Technology (including frequent automated track geometry surveys) and sound CWR management, including prompt removal of "temporary" joints, may provide the additional information required to verify the ongoing integrity of joints in CWR. The alternative procedures provision of this final rule will allow track owners to take advantage of these new approaches as they become available.

Guidance: All railroad employees designated under § 213.7(c) as qualified to supervise the installation, adjustment, and maintenance of CWR track and to perform inspections of CWR track must be trained on the track owner’s CWR plan. The track owner shall maintain a written record of this training in accordance with § 213.7(e). Inspectors should refer any requests for training programs to their regional office. Railroad representatives agree to voluntarily make an initial submission of their CWR training programs to FRA. Track inspectors should not request the training program of a specific track owner unless under the specific direction of FRA management. Rather, FRA headquarters staff will undertake the responsibility of obtaining and disseminating this information, as needed, to both FRA inspectors and State inspectors participating in rail safety enforcement activities under Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 212. However, inspectors can request a copy of the track owner’s qualification list during regular business hours.

Guidance: Paragraph (j) contains the recordkeeping requirements for railroads that have track constructed of CWR. At a minimum, a track owner must keep records of the items listed in paragraphs (j)(1) through (j)(3). Paragraph (j)(1) requires each railroad to keep a record of the rail temperature, location, and date of the CWR installations. Paragraph (j)(2) requires a track owner to keep a record of any CWR installation or maintenance work that does not conform with the written procedures. Also, (f)(2) requires the railroad to determine the difference between the average rail temperature and the average rail neutral temperature. This necessitates the recording of rail neutral temperatures at rail repair locations that do not conform to the procedures. Paragraph (j)(3) requires a track owner to keep records of information on inspection of rail joints as specified in paragraph (h)(7).

Guidance: Since the implementation of the CWR regulations, FRA has noted that a number of rail carriers maintain two different sets of CWR procedures. Additionally, some railroads have been maintaining the set of CWR procedures submitted to FRA as required by this section (§ 213.119), as well as a separate set of CWR procedures that is used by personnel in the field. While it may be acceptable for a railroad to instruct its personnel to maintain more restrictive CWR procedures in the field than what is on file with FRA, it is important to note that railroads must train their personnel on the plan formally submitted and filed with FRA. As FRA enforces the track owner’s CWR plan on file with its Office of Railroad Safety, it is critical to have these procedures at every job site where personnel are assigned to install, inspect, or maintain CWR. Specifically, this will ensure that personnel in the field understand which set of procedures FRA will hold them responsible for compliance with the TSS.

Pull-apart prone condition means a condition when the actual rail temperature is below the rail neutral temperature at or near a joint where longitudinal tensile forces may affect the fastenings at the joint.

Guidance: For proper rail load transfer to occur, rail joints must contact the head and base of the rails when the bolts are tight. Many rail joint designs have been used with varying degrees of success, and the TSS does not attempt to single out any particular design as the only acceptable joint. This could inhibit innovation in modern track design.

The TSS requires structural soundness and bolt condition based on maximum authorized train speed. Inspectors must be attentive to locations where standard joint bars are used to join dissimilar rail sections where it would be proper to have compromise bars.

The TSS recognize these important aspects of rail joints and begin this section with a requirement that rail joints have a structurally sound design and dimension for the rail on which they are applied.

Rail joints are considered to be a necessary discontinuity and require special attention by railroad maintenance personnel, railroad inspectors, and FRA inspectors. As far as possible, a rail joint should provide the same relative strength, stiffness, flexibility, and uniformity as the rail itself. The following figure illustrates the proper application of compromise joint bars

As shown in the following figure, one of the design elements of joint bars to consider is if it’s a head-contact or head-free design:

• The head-contact bar supports the rail ends with a box-type construction, carrying the load between the underside of the head and the base of the rail.

• The head-free joint bar does not contact the underside of the rail heads, but instead contacts the rail in the fillet area. The load distribution is referred to as a triangular load distribution

The use of a standard (noncompromise) joint bar of head-contact design on a rail section other than for designed may constitute a deviation. The differences between the head-contact joint bar and the head-free joint bar are significant.

It is evident the joint bar and the rails do not bend or flex exactly with each other along their length. Tests and measurements show that for positive bending, there exists a downward bearing pressure of the under side of the head of the rail on the top surface of the joint bars for some distance along the bar away from the rail ends, (approximately 2 inches). There is also an upward bearing pressure of the upper surface of the base of the rails at parts of the length of the bar further away from the rail end, (bearing distance approximately 3 inches). The converse is true for negative bending.

The head-free joint bar accepts bearing and shear forces from vertical loads in the rail’s upper fillet. A head-contact bar is not designed to fit into the filet. Specifically, the head-contact joint bar accepts bearing from vertical loads on the flat underside of the rail’s head: generally on a 1 to 4 slope. It is not designed to seat into the rail’s upper filet. Although the vertical fishing dimension for the 112 and 115 RE rail sections is identical (33/16 inches), the head filet radius is different:

• For the 115-pound section, radius equals three-fourths of an inch

• For the 112-pound section, radius equals three-eighths of an inch

As shown in the following figure, the 115 head-free bar fits the 112 rail filet practically at a point, most probably inducing joint bar stresses in excess of design which is a deviation from § 213.121(a). The 112 head-contact bar does properly not fit into the 115 rail fillet as it bears in very small areas beneath the head of the rail, possibly inducing joint bar stresses in excess of design and exerting a wedge action between the rail head and rail web, promoting head and web separation. In addition, the joint bar may experience a twist, or torsional force from the tightening of the track bolts when used as a compromise between 115 and 112 rail. The torsional stress from twist will be the greatest at the head and toe of the bar at the rail ends.

Guidance: For a center cracked or broken bar, the appropriate corrective action would be replacement or reduction to Class 1 speeds under the provisions of § 213.9(b).

Guidance: Track owners must have the number of required bolts in each rail in a joint. This paragraph does not prescribe a tightness (torque) standard for each bolt. A bolt that no longer can support the joint bar against the rail will continue to provide resistance to pull aparts when the rail is in tension. The ability of the bolts to hold bars against the rail to support the abutting rail ends is covered under § 213.121(f).

A bolt does not fulfill the requirements of this paragraph if it is in imminent danger of complete failure (it no longer is holding the bar to the rail and no longer resists pull apart forces). For example, the nut is missing (it will likely fall out under subsequent train movements) or the bolt shaft is fractured.

Guidance: Rail installed as CWR remains as CWR, regardless of whether a joint or plug is installed at a later time. If there is only one bolt in a rail end at a joint, in a CWR string, that one bolt will be subject to all the tensile axial forces and will easily shear (break) resulting in a pull-apart.

Guidance: If the joint bars are loose, the joint is not in compliance with § 213.121(f). In addition, a joint assembly is not in compliance when inadequately tightened bolts prevent it from supporting the abutting rail ends under the expected traffic loads.

Joint bolts can deteriorate sufficiently as to create a condition where the bars may become completely detached from the rail or cause a total lack of support, which can contribute to a broken rail. Such a condition can create a mismatch which exceeds the limits specified in § 213.115 (Rail end mismatch). In such a case, the defect would be rail end mismatch (class specific) and inspectors should also include a notation about the loose joint bars.

This paragraph also recognizes the design characteristic that enables the rail ends in a joint to move longitudinally to handle temperature changes (expansion/contraction) or rail creep (traffic flow). This type of joint bar assembly is standard for jointed rail because that type of track construction has lower axial forces than CWR. In CWR, it is desirable to contain the rail expansion and contraction in the remaining joints (i.e., insulated joints) in order to eliminate the pull-apart action that occurs in regular joints. In CWR, the track structure, by design, dissipates the axial forces. Accordingly, this paragraph allows joint designs that stop the axial rail movement within the assembly.

Except for the axial movement component of this paragraph, joint bars such as glued insulated joints are subject to all of the remaining requirements of this paragraph and all other paragraphs of § 213.121. These types of assemblies are considered to be joints, even in CWR (see § 213.119). However, for the definition as to what constitutes CWR, a glued joint is not a longitudinal discontinuity in a rail string. Glued joints are also considered joints under § 213.109 with respect to the required positioning of nondefective ties at joints.

Guidance. This paragraph prohibits the use of a rail containing a bolt hole that has been torch cut or burned in Classes 2 through 5 track.

Guidance. This paragraph prohibits the reconfiguration of joint bars by torch cutting in Classes 3 through 5 track. By omission of the reference to Classes 1 and 2 track, this practice of reconfiguration is allowed in those classes. However, the joint bars that are reconfigured by torch cutting must meet certain criteria for structural soundness of design and dimension, which is required under (a) of this section.

Guidance. The regulation prohibits the torch cutting of rail ends in Classes 3 through 5 track except as a temporary repair in emergency situations. In such emergency situations, train speed shall not exceed the maximum allowable for Class 2 track.

Existing torch cuts must be removed from track in the following time frames:

• Class 5 track – by September 21, 1999.

• Class 4 track – by September 21, 2000.

• Class 3 track with passenger trains – by September 21, 1999, all torch cuts shall be inventoried by the track owner.

Guidance. Those torch cuts inventoried will be “grandfathered in” and any torch cuts found after the expiration of one year that are not inventoried must be slow ordered to Class 2 speed and removed within 30 days of discovery. If a railroad chooses to upgrade a segment of track to Class 3, and passenger trains are operated, all torch cuts must be removed before speeds can exceed the maximum for Class 2 track. If a railroad chooses to upgrade a segment of track from any lower class to Class 4 or 5, it must remove all torch cuts.

Guidance. Inspectors should consider this section jointly with the requirements for crossties and rail fastenings and report tie plate conditions as defects where safety is impaired by the absence of tie plates.

In Classes 3 through 5 track no metal object that causes a concentrated load by solely supporting a rail shall be allowed between the base of rail and the bearing surface of the tie plate. The specific reference to “metal object” is intended to include only those items of track material that pose the greatest potential for broken base rails such as track spikes, rail anchors, and shoulders of tie plates. The phrase “causes a concentrated load by solely supporting a rail” further clarifies the intent of the regulation to apply only in those instances where there is clear physical evidence that the metal object is placing substantial load on the rail base, as indicated by a lack of loading on adjacent ties.

§ 213.127 Rail fastening systems

• Concrete wear or abrasion resulting in loose rail clips, insulators, and pads.

• Loose components allow more moisture and abrasives to enter rail seat.

• Once the field side of the rail base wears through the tie pad and contacts the concrete tie rail seat, rapid cutting into the concrete (accelerated abrasion) can occur.

• Signs and symptoms of concrete crosstie rail seat abrasion include.

• Tie pad crushed or squeezed out (maintaining integrity of the tie pad is essential).

• Insulators crushed, moving, or missing.

• Clips loose indicating loss of pressure on the rail base (loss of toe load).

• Longitudinal rail movement.

• Indications of cement colored paste in the ballast from the abraded rail seat.

• Metal flaking or grease streaks in the center of the low rail in a curve caused by the outer rim of wheel (or false flange) placing excessive pressure on the head of the rail, a condition generally created by gage-widening.

Based on the above discussion, it is apparent that rail-seat abrasion on concrete ties causes rail rollout. As rail rollout occurs, it decreases the effectiveness of the rail fasteners and will often lead to gage geometry conditions. As a general rule, inspectors should cite this condition as a rail fastener defect (213 defect code 0127A). However, where rail rollout causes the gage to exceed the threshold for the designated class of track, inspectors should cite this condition as a gage defect (see § 213.53).

Rail anchors are not considered to be a rail fastener. In areas where rail anchors are used in combination with resilient fasteners on concrete ties, the resilient rail fasteners that normally perform a dual function to restrain rail laterally and longitudinally should only be evaluated on their ability to provide lateral restraint to prevent gage-widening in regard to this section.

An insufficient fastener defect should be written when an unsafe condition results from missing or defective fasteners (e.g., heads of cut spikes sheared off at throat) on otherwise supportive crossties.

(b) If rail anchors are applied to concrete crossties, the combination of the crossties, fasteners, and rail anchors must provide effective longitudinal restraint.

Guidance: This paragraph requires that if rail anchors are applied to concrete crossties, then the combination of the crossties, fasteners, and rail anchors must provide effective longitudinal restraint. "Effective longitudinal restraint" is a performance-based standard.

Guidance: addresses instances where fastener placement impedes insulated joints from performing as intended by permitting the fastener to be modified or removed, provided that the crosstie supports the rail. "Support" means that the crosstie is in direct contact with the rail or leaves an incidental space between the tie and rail. Certain joint configurations do not permit conventional fasteners to fit properly. As a result, manufacturers offer a modified fastener to fit along the rail so that the fastener provides the longitudinal requirement, or it is removed completely, providing lateral restraint is accomplished by ensuring full contact with the rail or additional placement of anchors on the base of the rail.

Additionally, FRA notes that the requirement of having an effective crosstie within a prescribed distance of a joint contained in § 213.109(e) would apply, without modification for insulated joints. FRA has not mandated what type of equipment or what manufacturer a track owner must use, but instead has determined to regulate the performance of the material to the minimum safety standards promulgated in Part 213.

Guidance. There are several types of fastenings, which include reinforcing straps, connecting rods, rail hold down clips, and braces. (For a more extensive compilation of fastenings, see the fasteners listed in defect codes 213.133. Where fastenings are loose or missing, inspectors should cite the railroad using 213 defect code 0133A15 (Turnout or track crossing fastenings not intact or maintained.) In addition, where fasteners are loose or missing and there is an apparent contributing condition (e.g., a large section of the casting is broken out at an at-grade rail to rail crossing), inspectors should include a description of that contributing condition in their inspection report.

Guidance. A turnout is a track arrangement consisting of a switch and frog extending from the point of the switch to the heel of the frog. This arrangement allows engines and cars to pass from one track to another. Because of the operating or movable parts and lateral thrust, it is essential that fastenings be in place, tight, and in sound condition.

A track crossing (diamond) is an assembly used where two tracks intersect at grade permitting traffic on either track to cross the rails of the other. It may consist of four frogs connected by short rails, or a plant manufactured “diamond.” Because of the impact a crossing is subjected to, it is essential that fastenings be in place, tight, and in sound condition. Each switch, frog, and guardrail must be kept free of obstruction.

Anchors on each side of a turnout or crossing and through a turnout are required on Classes 4 through 5 track. For Class 3 track, this requirement is effective on September 21, 1999. In determining the adequacy of anchors at and on each side of a turnout or crossing and through turnouts, inspectors should determine the capability of these devices to:

• Restrain rail.

• Assure proper fit of switch points.

• Prevent line irregularities.

Ties and timbers at switches and crossings must be of sound condition, well-tamped, and the roadbed must be adequately drained.

Flangeways at turnouts and track crossings must be at least 1½ inches wide.

Turnouts and track crossings must be walked and measurements made before they can be included on the F6180.96 form as a unit inspected.

Guidance. The TSS under § 213.135 specifies the requirements for switch restraint, movement, and fit. Each stock rail must be securely seated in the switch plates. Various conditions, such as loose braces or hanging ties, can cause a stock rail to become unseated. In these situations, inspectors should cite the railroad with 213 defect code 0135A1. Alternatively, a stock rail can become unseated if the braces are overtightened during maintenance. In these situations, inspectors should cite the railroad with 213 defect code 0135A2.

Guidance. This paragraph recognizes the existence of reinforcing bars or straps on switch points where joint bars cannot be applied to certain rail defects, as required under § 213.113(a)(2), because of the physical configuration of the switch. In these instances, remedial action B will govern, and a person designated under § 213.7(a), who has at least 1 year of supervisory experience in track maintenance, will limit train speed to that not exceeding 30 mph or the maximum allowable under § 213.9(a) for the appropriate class of track, whichever is lower. Of course, the person may exercise the options under § 213.5(a) when appropriate.

Section 213.135(b) addresses cracks in the switch rail (point) with reinforcing straps acting as surrogate joint bars. If the switch point rail is not cracked, and only the straps are cracked, then it is not appropriate to cite § 213.135(b); and inspectors should cite the appropriate defects under § 213.133(a). Normally, minor cracks in a strap are not a major concern. However, if a strap is fully broken and causing other problems (e.g., loose switch clip, etc.), then § 213.133 (Turnouts and track crossing generally) would be appropriate. If the straps and switch point rail are both broken, then there is an unprotected rail break and inspectors should cite the appropriate defect under § 213.113.

Most industry standards call for a 4¾-inch opening between the switch point and the stock rail, measured at the No. 1 switch rod. As components wear, “lost motion” will result. When the problem of elongated switch clip and/or rod holes is encountered, the switch rods may be adjusted at the clip (e.g., adjustable side jaw clips, rocker clips, etc.). Adjustment may also be accomplished at the switch stand depending on the design of the assembly. In some cases, lost motion may be compensated by the addition of properly designed shims between the switch clip assembly and the switch rail.

When the opening is substantially less than the standard dimension, wheels can still pass through the switch as intended. However, the backs of wheels may contact the inside rail head of the open switch rail. This interaction can cause undesirable lateral pressure against the switch rail. This pressure can contribute to broken heel block bolts, cause cracked or broken switch clips, and broken switch crank cross pins. In extreme circumstances, the closed point can open under movement because of the transfer of lateral loads through the switch rods. In these circumstances, inspectors should make an extra effort to determine the condition of all affected components. The amount of throw is one of the many factors that must be taken into consideration when determining the railroad’s compliance with § 213.133 and § 213.135.

Based on the above, make sure that switch points fit snugly against the rail when the switch is thrown in either position. As appropriate, request that the railroad representative operate the switch to test for lost motion and/or loose connections.

The Appendix to the American Railway Engineering and Maintenance of Way Association (AREMA) Portfolio of Trackwork Plans contains the following split switch terms:

• “Split Switch with Uniform Risers - A split switch in which the switch rails have a uniform elevation on riser plates for the entire length of the switch, and therefore not having a heel slope, the point rail rise being run off back of the switch in the closure rails.”

• “Split Switch with Graduated Risers - A split switch in which the switch rails are gradually elevated by means of graduated riser plates until they reach the required height above the stock rail, and therefore having a heel slope.”

The heel of the switch point is higher than the stock rail at the heel joint with the uniform riser layout while, on the graduated layout, the switch point is at the same elevation as the stock rail. The mixing of uniform riser and graduated riser plates in the same switch, while not specifically addressed in the TSS, can cause undesired stress in the switch rails and closure rails. Inspectors should make a note of the intermixing of switch plates in turnouts that have a high amount of traffic.

Guidance: : Inspectors are to examine the seating of stock rails in the switch plates to ensure that the outer tread of a wheel cannot engage the gage side of these rails. Grease lines or slight groves running at a slight angle on the tread of a stock rail can provide inspectors with clues about the wheel/rail interface. These marks can be found in the area where wheel treads transition from the switch rail to the stock rail. When found, inspectors should closely examine the gage side of the stock rail to make sure the outer edge of wheel treads are not contacting the gage side of the stock rail. As shown in the following figure, this type of defect can occur when a worn switch rail and switch plates remain in place after a stock rail has been renewed. This causes the switch rail to drop down from the same level as its corresponding stock rail. The danger associated with this condition is the possibility that the outer edge of a wheel can contact the gage side of the stock rail during a trailing movement through a switch, thereby turning over the stock rail.

Other items that can cause outer edge wheel contact include improper surface, poor crosstie condition, loose rail braces, stock rails not securely seated, switches where the majority of the traffic uses one side of the turnout, and insecure jointed heel blocks with improper elevation.

135(d) The heel of each switch rail shall be secure and the bolts in each heel shall be kept tight.

Guidance. At least two tight bolts in each rail are required to ensure that the heel of each switch rail is “secure” for purposes of determining compliance with § 213.135(d). Examine the heel block, its fastenings, and bars; or, in the absence of a heel block, (which is known as a floating heel block) examine that assembly.

If heel joints were considered to be a normal joint, only one bolt per rail end would be required in the heel for Class 1 track. However, the heel joint functions in a different manner than a normal track joint. The heel joint serves as the pivotal point for the rotation of the switch point. It helps maintain the proper horizontal, vertical, and longitudinal fit of the switch point against its stock rail. One bolt per rail end in Class 1 track at the heel joint does not provide redundancy. The loss of the single bolt in the rail end at the heel joint could have serious safety consequences.

Some railroad heel joints have as many as six bolts for the higher track classes. Typically, when railroads plan to field weld, they do not drill the middle two bolt holes in the rail of a six-hole joint bar. This practice, which provides for at least two bolts in each rail end of the heel, satisfactorily secures the assembly.

The switch heel assembly with joint bars also performs the function of a joint. As such, where there is an improper joint bar at a heel block, an inspector should cite § 213.121 (Rail joints). One example of an improper joint bar is the installation of a six-hole joint bar where a five-hole bar, by design, should be used. This would be a deviation of § 213.121, because it is an improperly designed bar for that application, which may make it difficult to throw the switch or may cause gapping.

135(e) Each switch stand and connecting rod shall be securely fastened and operable without excessive lost motion.

Guidance. For hand-operated switch stands of virtually all types, rotary motion imparted to the vertical spindle within the stand by the person operating the hand lever is translated into (practically) linear movement of the connecting rod by the right angle combination of the end of the spindle beneath the stand and its attached crank. Unless cranks are integrated with the spindle by casting during manufacture, they are separate pieces that must be joined. Cranks are attached to spindles in one of two ways: (1) they may be turned into a threaded opening in the side of the spindle or (2) the crank may be fabricated to have a square or rectangular smooth opening at one end, which can be moved from below, up onto a spindle having a similar cross-section to a position where it can be secured in place by a horizontally inserted cross pin that simultaneously engages the crank with the spindle. For ease of reference in this discussion, the first case will be referred to as Type A and the second case as Type B. An undesired decoupling of the connecting rod and the switch stand can occur in Type A if the bolt attaching a connecting rod to a threaded crank comes out and, in Type B, separation of the crank and the spindle can occur in the absence of the cross pin. Either instance could result in the gapping of the closed switch point under train movement, unless some other device is in place to physically restrain the points.

Type B switch stands may at times have a plate-like arrangement of sheet metal suspended from the headblock timbers beneath the assembly. This device, generally a shallow “U” shape, is commonly referred to as a “safety plate.” The function of the plate is twofold: (1) to restrict the downward movement of the crank on the spindle, should the cross pin be absent, so the crank does not completely separate from the spindle, and (2) to keep a vertically unrestrained crank from sliding down the spindle far enough to permit the connecting rod enough space below the bottom of the switch stand to move up off the lug of the crank. There have been cases where cross pins have fractured. The plate itself is deformed so that the downward displacement of the crank was sufficient to enable the connecting rod to clear the crank lug without contacting the base of the stand. This leads to decoupling of the switch stand and the connecting rod.

Inspectors must constantly bear in mind those aspects of switch stand performance that are crucial to functional safety. This discussion concentrates on that region of the mechanical linkage between the switch points and the switch stand that may be difficult to observe in the course of a turnout inspection.

There are several different styles of Type B switch stands that are in use on main tracks and yards in the railroad industry. These models differ in minor ways. Nevertheless, they rely on the cross pin restraint of the spindle/crank subassembly and they all share vulnerability to the uncoupling of the switch stand and connecting rod. A turnout inspection must include examination of these hard to see parts even.

Inspectors should examine the effectiveness of the fastening system of the switch stand to the head block ties and look for signs of movement of the switch stand which can result in loss motion leading to a gapped switch point.

Guidance. Inspectors must examine each switch lock and keeper. Certain types of switch stands “internally toggle” when the handle is thrown all the way in either position to hold the switch point against its stock rail. These types of switch stands are used in other than main track and often are a “semi-automatic” design whereby a train trailing the turnout, with the switch in the incorrect position, will initially force the points over. The final throw is completed by the internal toggling action of the switch stand. By design and application preference, these switch stands might not have a lock or keeper for other than main track applications (see the following figure).

There is a concern associated with this type of switch stand retrofitted with an “S”-shaped strap, bolted and welded to one of the two flanges of the throw lever stop. The bolt has been proven to be ineffective in preventing rotation of the strap, and the bead weld, placed by the manufacturer at the top of the strap, cracks from repeated depression of the keeper. The strap rotates downward, altering the location of the lock shackle or keeper, allowing the throw of the switch lever without removal of the lock or keeper.

If the above types of switch stands are used at switches and derails not requiring securing, the soundness of the strap is not in question. However, if the track owner requires that the stand be secured by lock or keeper, a weld displaying cracks will call into question the soundness of the latch mechanism and 213 defect code 0135F, throw lever (potentially) operable with switch-lock or keeper in place, should be cited without recommending a violation. If the track owner fails to aggressively address and correct the potential defect on the subject types of switch stands, consider recommending a violation to Chief Counsel.

49 CFR 218.105(b) requires that all hand operated main track switches are to be locked. An ineffective or worn latch or hasp can allow the throw lever of the switch to be operated with the lock in place. There are several different types and models of hand operated switches in use; Inspectors should inspect each latching mechanism to for wear and possible operation of the throw lever with the lock in place. The inspection should include stepping on the latch and observation of the clearance between the throw lever and the opening created when the latch is depressed with lock in place. Inspectors should not attempt to raise the operating lever and request the accompanying railroad representative to lift the handle if its operation through the latch appear probable, and it is safe to do so. As shown in figure below, the throw lever is clearly operable with the lock in place.

Many power switches are operable by either power (remotely by control operator or train dispatcher) or by hand, frequently called dual control switches. Inspection of this type of switch machine is similar to the typical hand operated switch stand. Most have two levers, one to remove the switch machine from power operation, and one that acts as the throw lever. The latches should be inspected for the possibility of the power lever or throw lever being operated with the lock in place. (See the following two figures)

Guidance. Examine condition of switch position indicator and note any unnecessary obstruction to its visibility. This requirement does not mandate that every switch have a position indicator but merely requires such devices to be clearly visible when installed on a switch stand.

Guidance. The rule does not provide for specific dimensions for determining when switch points are “unusually chipped or worn.” The accident/incident database indicates that worn or broken switch points are the largest single cause of derailments within the general category of “Frogs, Switches, and Appliances.” However, most of these derailments are related also to other causal factors such as wheel flange condition, truck stiffness, and train-handling characteristics. Therefore, qualified individuals must use their experience to determine when switch points are “unusually chipped or worn.”

Guidance. This paragraph provides an exemption for this item of specialized track work, primarily used in pavement or street railroads, which, by design, does not conform to the maximum gage limits prescribed for Class 1 and excepted track. This type of special work is fabricated from “girder rail,” which includes a tram (flangeway) rolled into the rail section. A “mate” is similar to a frog but located on the side of the switch that is equivalent to a straight stock rail. The switch, when in the open or curved position, guides wheels past the mate on the turnout (curved) side in a manner similar to a frog guardrail.

Guidance, General. In addition to considering the above criteria, inspectors must perform the following when inspecting switches:

• Check alinement, gage, and surface.

• Examine condition as to the wear of switch points and stock rails.

• See that all bolts, nuts, cotter pins, and other fastenings are in place, in good condition, and are properly tightened;

• See that switch points fit snugly against the rail when the switch is thrown in either position. Request that the railroad representative operate switches to test for lost motion and/or loose connections.

• If applicable, examine the rod and fastenings that connect the switch point to the switch circuit controller to ensure they are in place and in good condition.

• Examine the condition and support of spring and power-switch machines and hand-thrown switch stands, including automatic or safety switch stands. Switch stand and machine fastenings to the head block ties must be tight to avoid any movement or play.

• Examine switch-lock and keeper.

• Examine condition of switch position indicator and note any unnecessary obstruction to its visibility.

• Examine the heel block, its fastenings, and bars; or, in the absence of a heel block, examine the floating heel of the switch point.

• Examine the seating of stock rails in the switch plates to ensure that the outer tread of a wheel cannot engage the gage side of these rails and that chairs or braces do not cant these rails in. This defect is particularly a problem for travel in the direction from the frog to the switch (trailing movement). Grease lines or slight groves running at a slight angle on the tread of a stock rail can provide inspectors with clues about the wheel/rail interface. These marks can be found in the area where the wheel tread transitions from the switch rail to the stock rail. When found, inspectors should closely examine the gage side of the stock rail to make sure the outer edge of wheel treads are not contacting the gage side of the stock rail.

• Examine the gage plates and switch rods.

Guidance. The Association of American Railroads (AAR) Field Manual of Interchange Rules states that a wheel is condemnable when the flange height is “1½ inches or more above the approximate center line of the tread.” The AREMA Portfolio of Trackwork Plans, Point and Flangeway Dimensions, provides a designed flangeway depth of at least 1¾ inches. Therefore, the amount of clearance between a worn wheel with a high flange and the bottom of a new frog’s flangeway may be as little as three-eighths inch. At higher speeds, if a worn frog has a flangeway less than 1½ inches, the wheel flange could “bottom out” in the flangeway and result in severe damage to the frog.

Section 213.137(a) permits a flangeway depth of 1⅜ inches in Class 1 track. In such a condition, a wheel that is approaching condemning limits might contact the bottom of the flangeway. As such, it is possible to have evidence of wheel flangeway contact on the bottom of the flangeway caused by noncompliant wheels.