The rail fastening system plays a critical role in maintaining proper railroad track geometry by transferring vertical, lateral, and longitudinal forces from the rails to crossties. Broken spikes in elastic fastening systems have been linked to inadequate transfer of longitudinal loads, posing a safety risk for timber crosstie ballasted track. Longitudinal track demand caused by passing trains has been investigated in previous research, but the magnitude and distribution of longitudinal fastener loads is not well understood or documented. To address these track component failures and improve fastener design, this paper presents a validated analytical model that estimates longitudinal rail seat loads, advancing current formulations to focus specifically on the rail seat. The validated method was used to quantify the distribution and magnitude of longitudinal loads in both the rail and fastening system caused by passing trains. Further, this paper quantifies the effect of track stiffness, number of powered locomotives, and wheel spacing on these distributions and magnitudes. This information provides valuable insight into the specific type of spike failures that have led to at least ten derailments and the requirement of manual walking inspections on multiple North American heavy axle load railroads as detailed in this paper. Further, this method can be used to quantify the longitudinal fastener loads for different track conditions to advance the mechanistic-empirical track design philosophy for elastic fastening systems.

Longitudinal track resistance is one of the most critical parameters required to accurately analyze longitudinal load propagation and refine rail neutral temperature (i.e., stress-free temperature) maintenance practices. However, longitudinal track resistance has not been consistently defined and has been quantified using multiple methods that should not be conflated. This paper documents common definitions of longitudinal track resistance and the two methods regularly used for its quantification: track panel pull test (TPPT) and single rail break (SRB). Further, this paper documents the differences in mechanics between these methods, summarizes and discusses the critical factors influencing the longitudinal track resistance values found in the literature, and adds novel TPPT longitudinal track resistance values for timber sleeper track to address the current scarcity of data found in the literature. In summary, TPPT values provide insight into the mechanics of load propagation and pre-buckle analysis while the SRB values aid in the maintenance and restoration of rail neutral temperature after a rail break or destress. Additionally, the TPPT longitudinal track resistance values reported in the literature were independent of panel length, were influenced most by the presence of a vertical load, and were reduced by 25% when the ballast was disturbed. Finally, novel TPPT results indicated the longitudinal resistance of timber sleeper track was 19% lower than concrete sleeper track and that unfastened sleepers still transferred longitudinal load when the cribs were full and ballast was compacted.

No abstract

Comparatively little attention has been given to the quantification of fastener demands, especially in the longitudinal direction. Research quantifying fastener demands is justified by the more than 250 FRA reportable derailments on mainlines and sidings in the United States caused by “defective or missing spikes or rail fasteners” over the last 20 years. Failed fasteners are rarely caused by loads acting from a single direction (vertical, lateral, or longitudinal); they occur from a combination of these loads. A literature review identified that though multiple models have been developed for analyzing track, they were not designed to quantify fastener demands, especially those in the longitudinal direction, and some make assumptions that could be improved on based on more recent research into the mechanics of fastening system behavior. This paper advances the mechanistic–empirical (M-E) track analysis and design approach through the development, validation, and application of a 3D nonlinear parametric track model that quantifies longitudinal fastener demands. Key research findings include: bilinear approximations, in combination with considering the interaction between vertical loads and slip, were necessary to accurately quantify fastener forces; ballast and fastener stiffness had a direct logarithmic relationship on fastener load; and for well-supported sleepers, changes in component resistance to slip produced minimal changes in fastener demands because the vertical applied load increased the required load to produce slip. Going forward, this validated model could be used to quantify fastener and track demands for additional loading and operational scenarios to further optimize component design for improved track safety and reliability.

There are, on average, 12.5 Federal Railroad Administration reportable derailments per year on U.S. mainlines and sidings caused by “defective or missing spikes or rail fasteners.” Because fastener failures are most commonly caused by a combination of vertical, lateral, and longitudinal loads, it is important to quantify all loads placed on the fasteners to reduce the number of failed fasteners and increase rail safety. Multiple researchers have developed analytical models that leverage longitudinal track resistance and stiffness to quantify the fastener demands. Therefore, to support the refinement of these analytical models that leverage longitudinal track resistance and stiffness, track panel pull tests (TPPTs) were executed in the laboratory to expand on the values within the available literature. These TPPTs quantified the effect of sleeper type (i.e., timber versus concrete), given that 88% of previous studies have focused on concrete. Further, these novel tests quantified the effect of the fastening system, crib ballast height, shoulder width, and ballast condition on the panel’s longitudinal resistance and stiffness. From these experiments and the resulting analysis of data, multiple conclusions were drawn. For example, concrete sleeper panels exhibit 20% higher resistance than timber sleeper panels, disturbing ballast reduced the longitudinal resistance by 13% and stiffness by approximately 80%, and the crib, shoulder, and bottom ballast provide approximately 65%, 5%, and 30% of the total longitudinal resistance, respectively.