Vehicle Dynamics Report

Vehicle Dynamics Models for Derailment Incident
Investigation
DOT/FRA/ORD-23/27 Final Report |September 2023

Form Approved
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE OMB No. 0704-0188
The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data
sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other
aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information
Operations and Reports (0704-0188), 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision
of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB control number.
PLEASE DO NOT RETURN YOUR FORM TO THE ABOVE ADDRESS.
REPORT DATE (DD-MM-YYYY) 2. REPORT TYPE 3. DATES COVERED (From - To)
9/15/23 Technical Report September 15, 2018–March 31, 2021
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5a. CONTRACT NUMBER
Vehicle Dynamics Models for Incident Investigation 693JJ618D000006
5b. GRANT NUMBER
5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER
6. AUTHOR(S) 5d. PROJECT NUMBER

Srini Swamy 0000-0002-2266-5842
Delong Fu 0000-0001-7665-4738 5e. TASK NUMBER
Som P. Singh 0000-0002-6076-6839 693JJ618F000116
5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER
7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION
Sharma & Associates, Inc. REPORT NUMBER
5810 S Grant Street
Hinsdale, IL 60521
9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSOR/MONITOR'S ACRONYM(S)
U.S. Department of Transportation
Federal Railroad Administration
Office of Railroad Policy and Development 11. SPONSOR/MONITOR'S REPORT
Office of Research, Data, and Innovation NUMBER(S)
Washington, DC 20590 DOT/FRA/ORD-23/27
12. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

This document is available to the public through the FRA website.
13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
COR: Tarek Omar
14. ABSTRACT
When investigating a train derailment, vehicle/track interaction (VTI) using vehicle dynamics simulations of the key vehicles in the
derailed train can help identify specific derailment causes. From September 2018 to March 2021, the Federal Railroad Administration
(FRA) contracted Sharma & Associates, Inc. to develop a set of railway freight car models for the most prevalent car types in service
using VAMPIRE®, a vehicle dynamics simulation software used in the railroad industry. The car types modeled in this research include
hopper, covered hopper, lain box, equipped box (including refrigerated), tank, flat, double-stack, gondola and bi-level and tri-level
Autorack. The team also created a library of wheel and rail profiles as well as track layout models for a range of curvatures. The results
of the vehicle dynamics analyses of several freight car types illustrate the effectiveness of the modeling techniques in predicting key
parameters of VTI. The team found that the vehicle dynamics models made from the library of cars, wheel, and rail profile combinations
can be used in future derailment investigations when VTI is considered a possible cause. Based on measured track geometry data
collected during an incident investigation, researchers can include track defects data to simulate a specific derailment.
15. SUBJECT TERMS
Derailment, freight car dynamics, vehicle dynamics, VAMPIRE simulations, vehicle track interaction, wheel rail interaction
16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF: 17. LIMITATION OF 18. NUMBER 19a. NAME OF RESPONSIBLE PERSON
ABSTRACT OF
a. REPORT b. ABSTRACT c. THIS PAGE
PAGES
58 19b. TELEPHONE NUMBER (Include area code)
Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8/98)

Prescribed by ANSI Std. Z39.18
i
METRIC/ENGLISH CONVERSION FACTORS
ENGLISH TO METRIC METRIC TO ENGLISH

LENGTH (APPROXIMATE) LENGTH (APPROXIMATE)
1 inch (in) = 2.5 centimeters (cm) 1 millimeter (mm) = 0.04 inch (in)
1 foot (ft) = 30 centimeters (cm) 1 centimeter (cm) = 0.4 inch (in)
1 yard (yd) = 0.9 meter (m) 1 meter (m) = 3.3 feet (ft)
1 mile (mi) = 1.6 kilometers (km) 1 meter (m) = 1.1 yards (yd)
1 kilometer (km) = 0.6 mile (mi)
AREA (APPROXIMATE) AREA (APPROXIMATE)

1 square inch (sq in, in )2
= 6.5 square centimeters (cm ) 2
1 square centimeter (cm2) = 0.16 square inch (sq in, in2)
1 square foot (sq ft, ft )
2
= 0.09 square meter (m ) 2
1 square meter (m2) = 1.2 square yards (sq yd, yd2)
1 square yard (sq yd, yd2) = 0.8 square meter (m2) 1 square kilometer (km2) = 0.4 square mile (sq mi, mi2)
1 square mile (sq mi, mi ) 2
= 2.6 square kilometers (km ) 2
10,000 square meters (m2) = 1 hectare (ha) = 2.5 acres
1 acre = 0.4 hectare (he) = 4,000 square meters (m ) 2
MASS - WEIGHT (APPROXIMATE) MASS - WEIGHT (APPROXIMATE)

1 ounce (oz) = 28 grams (gm) 1 gram (gm) = 0.036 ounce (oz)
1 pound (lb) = 0.45 kilogram (kg) 1 kilogram (kg) = 2.2 pounds (lb)
1 short ton = 2,000 pounds (lb) = 0.9 tonne (t) 1 tonne (t) = 1,000 kilograms (kg)
= 1.1 short tons
VOLUME (APPROXIMATE) VOLUME (APPROXIMATE)

1 teaspoon (tsp) = 5 milliliters (ml) 1 milliliter (ml) = 0.03 fluid ounce (fl oz)
1 tablespoon (tbsp) = 15 milliliters (ml) 1 liter (l) = 2.1 pints (pt)
1 fluid ounce (fl oz) = 30 milliliters (ml) 1 liter (l) = 1.06 quarts (qt)
1 cup (c) = 0.24 liter (l) 1 liter (l) = 0.26 gallon (gal)
1 pint (pt) = 0.47 liter (l)
1 quart (qt) = 0.96 liter (l)
1 gallon (gal) = 3.8 liters (l)
1 cubic foot (cu ft, ft )
3
= 0.03 cubic meter (m3) 1 cubic meter (m3) = 36 cubic feet (cu ft, ft3)
1 cubic yard (cu yd, yd ) 3
= 0.76 cubic meter (m ) 3
1 cubic meter (m3) = 1.3 cubic yards (cu yd, yd3)
TEMPERATURE (EXACT) TEMPERATURE (EXACT)

[(x-32)(5/9)] °F = y °C [(9/5) y + 32] °C = x °F
QUICK INCH - CENTIMETER LENGTH CONVERSION

0 1 2 3 4 5
Inches
Centimeters 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
QUICK FAHRENHEIT - CELSIUS TEMPERATURE CONVERSIO

°F -40° -22° -4° 14° 32° 50° 68° 86° 104° 122° 140° 158° 176° 194° 212°
°C -40° -30° -20° -10° 0° 10° 20° 30° 40° 50° 60° 70° 80° 90° 100°
For more exact and or other conversion factors, see NIST Miscellaneous Publication 286, Units of Weights and
Measures. Price $2.50 SD Catalog No. C13 10286 Updated 6/17/98
ii
Contents
Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................ 9

1. Introduction ............................................................................................................... 10
1.1 Background ............................................................................................................... 10
1.2 Objectives .................................................................................................................. 10
1.3 Overall Approach ...................................................................................................... 10
1.4 Scope ......................................................................................................................... 12
1.5 Organization of the Report ........................................................................................ 12
2. Freight Car Models .................................................................................................... 13
2.1 Box Car...................................................................................................................... 13
2.2 Equipped Box Car ..................................................................................................... 14
2.3 Covered Hopper Car .................................................................................................. 15
2.3.1 Covered Hopper: 110-ton .......................................................................................... 15
2.3.2 Covered Hopper: 125-ton .......................................................................................... 16
2.4 Open Top Hopper Car ............................................................................................... 16
2.5 Gondola Car .............................................................................................................. 17
2.6 Flat Car ...................................................................................................................... 18
2.7 Three-unit Double Stack Container Car .................................................................... 19
2.8 Five-unit Double Stack Container Car ...................................................................... 20
2.9 Tank Car .................................................................................................................... 21
2.10 Autorack Car ............................................................................................................. 21
2.10.1 Bi-level Autorack Car ............................................................................................... 22
2.10.2 Tri-level Autorack Car .............................................................................................. 23
3. Track Geometry ......................................................................................................... 25
3.1 Constant Curve Design .............................................................................................. 25
3.2 Track Irregularities .................................................................................................... 25
3.3 Typical FRA Class 3 and Class 4 Track Geometry Defects ..................................... 26
3.3.1 Class 3 Vertical Irregularity ...................................................................................... 26
3.3.2 Class 3 Lateral Irregularity ........................................................................................ 27
3.3.3 Class 4 Irregularity .................................................................................................... 27
4. Wheel and Rail Profiles ............................................................................................. 28
4.1 Wheel......................................................................................................................... 28
4.1.1 AAR-1B Wheel Profile ............................................................................................. 28
4.1.2 AAR-2A Wheel Profile ............................................................................................. 29
4.1.3 Worn Wheel .............................................................................................................. 29
4.2 Rail ............................................................................................................................ 29
4.2.1 AREMA 132.............................................................................................................. 30
4.2.2 AREMA 136.............................................................................................................. 30
iii
4.3 Summary ................................................................................................................... 30
5. Vehicle Dynamics Simulation Results ...................................................................... 31
5.1 Criteria for Assessment ............................................................................................. 31
5.1.1 Wheel L/V Ratio ....................................................................................................... 32
5.1.2 Truck Side L/V .......................................................................................................... 32
5.1.3 Minimum Vertical Load (% Wheel Unloading)........................................................ 32
5.2 Covered Hopper Car .................................................................................................. 32
5.2.1 Steady State Curve (No Perturbations) ..................................................................... 32
5.2.2 Curving with Track Perturbations ............................................................................. 35
5.3 Three-Unit Double Stack Container Car ................................................................... 38
5.3.2 Response for Track with Perturbations ..................................................................... 40
5.4 Tank Car .................................................................................................................... 43
5.5 Bi-Level Autorack Car .............................................................................................. 48
5.5.1 Steady State Curve (No Track Perturbations) ........................................................... 48
6. Summary and Conclusions ........................................................................................ 54
References ................................................................................................................................... 55
Abbreviations and Acronyms ....................................................................................................... 56
iv
Illustrations
Figure 1. VAMPIRE Railcar Model ............................................................................................. 11

Figure 2. Box Car Main Dimensions ............................................................................................ 14
Figure 3. Typical Refrigerator Car................................................................................................ 14
Figure 4. Refrigerator Car Main Dimensions ............................................................................... 15
Figure 5. The 110-Ton Covered Hopper Car ................................................................................ 15
Figure 6. Hopper Car Main Dimensions ....................................................................................... 16
Figure 7. Open Top Hopper Car ................................................................................................... 17
Figure 8. Gondola Car................................................................................................................... 17
Figure 9. Flat Car .......................................................................................................................... 18
Figure 10. Three-Unit Double Stack Container Car ..................................................................... 19
Figure 11. VAMPIRE Model of Three-Unit Container Car ......................................................... 20
Figure 12. Five-Unit Double Stack Container Car ....................................................................... 20
Figure 13. Tank Car ...................................................................................................................... 21
Figure 14 Swing Motion Truck – Exploded View (Courtesy: Amsted Rail) ............................... 22
Figure 15. Bi-level Autorack Car.................................................................................................. 23
Figure 16. VAMPIRE Model of a Bi-level Autorack Car ............................................................ 23
Figure 17. Tri-level Autorack Car ................................................................................................ 24
Figure 18. VAMPIRE Plots for Curvature and Superelevation for a 4-Degree Curve................. 25
Figure 19. Class 3 Track Irregularities ......................................................................................... 26
Figure 20. Class 4 Track Irregularities ......................................................................................... 27
Figure 21 AAR-1B Narrow Flange Wheel Profile on AREMA 136-20 Rail Profile ................... 28
Figure 22. AAR-2A Wheel Profile on AREMA 136-20 Rail Profile ........................................... 29
Figure 23. Hollow Worn Wheel Profile on AREMA 136-20 Rail Profile ................................... 29
Figure 24. Wheel L/V Ratio for Loaded Covered Hopper Car on a 6-Degree Curve .................. 32
Figure 25. Wheel L/V Ratios Over a Range of Curves at Balance Speeds (Loaded Covered
Hopper Car) .......................................................................................................................... 33
Figure 26. Wheel L/V Ratio for Empty Covered Hopper Car ...................................................... 33
Figure 27. Wheel L/V Ratios Over a Range of Curvatures at Balance Speeds (Empty Covered
Hopper Car) .......................................................................................................................... 34
Figure 28. Truck Side L/V Ratio for Loaded Covered Hopper Car ............................................. 34
Figure 29. Truck Side L/V Ratio for Empty Covered Hopper Car............................................... 34
Figure 30. Wheel L/V Ratio, Loaded Covered Hopper (6-Degree Curve with Perturbation) ...... 35
v
Figure 31. Wheel L/V Ratio, Empty Covered Hopper Car (6-Degree Curve with Perturbation) 36
Figure 32. Exceedance of Maximum Wheel L/V Ratio – Distance Plot ...................................... 36
Figure 33 Exceedance of Maximum Wheel L/V Ratio – Time Plot............................................. 36
Figure 34. Truck Side L/V Ratio, Empty Covered Hopper Car (6-Degree Curve with
Perturbation) ......................................................................................................................... 37
Figure 35. Exceedance of Maximum Truck Side L/V Ratio (6-Degree Curve with Perturbation)
............................................................................................................................................... 37
Figure 36. Wheel L/V Ratio for Loaded Three-Unit Container Car (6-Degree Curve) ............... 38
Figure 37. Wheel L/V Ratio Over a Range of Curves (Loaded Three-Unit Container Car) ........ 38
Figure 38. Wheel L/V Ratio for an Empty, Three-Unit Container Car (6-Degree Curve) ........... 39
Figure 39. Wheel L/V Ratios Over a Range of Curvatures (Empty Three-Unit Car) .................. 39
Figure 40. Truck Side L/V Ratio for the Loaded Three-Unit Container Car (6-Degree Curve) .. 40
Figure 41. Truck Side L/V Ratio for the Empty Three-Unit Container Car (6-Degree Curve) ... 40
Figure 42. Wheel L/V Ratio, Loaded Three-Unit Container Car ................................................. 41
Figure 43. Wheel L/V Ratio, Empty Three-Unit Container Car................................................... 41
Figure 44. Wheel L/V Ratio, Empty Three-Unit Container Car................................................... 42
Figure 45 Truck Side L/V Ratio, Empty Three-Unit Container Car ............................................ 42
Figure 46. Wheel L/V Ratio for a Loaded Tank Car (Steady State Curve) .................................. 43
Figure 47. Wheel L/V Ratios Over a Range of Curves (Loaded Tank Car) ................................. 43
Figure 48. Wheel L/V Ratio for an Empty Tank Car ................................................................... 44
Figure 49. Wheel L/V Ratios Over a Range of Curvatures (Empty Tank Car) ............................ 44
Figure 50. Truck Side L/V Ratio for Loaded Tank Car................................................................ 44
Figure 51. Truck Side L/V Ratio for an Empty Tank Car ............................................................ 45
Figure 52. Car Model with Lateral Component of Coupler Forces .............................................. 45
Figure 53. Wheel L/V Ratio, Empty Tank Car, 6-Degree Curve (Buff) ...................................... 46
Figure 54. Wheel L/V Ratio, Empty Tank Car, 6-Degree Curve (Draft) ..................................... 46
Figure 55. Wheel L/V Ratio, Loaded Tank Car (6-Degree Curve with Perturbations) ................ 47
Figure 56. Wheel L/V Ratio, Empty Tank Car (6-Degree Curve with Perturbations) ................. 48
Figure 57. Wheel L/V Ratio for a Loaded Autorack Car (Steady State Curve) ........................... 49
Figure 58. Wheel L/V Ratios Over a Range of Curves (Loaded Autorack Car) .......................... 49
Figure 59. Wheel L/V Ratio for an Empty Autorack Car (Steady State Curve) .......................... 49
Figure 60. Wheel L/V Ratios Over a Range of Curves (Empty Autorack Car) ........................... 50
Figure 61. Truck Side L/V Ratio for a Loaded Autorack Car (Steady State Curve) .................... 50
vi
Figure 62. Truck Side L/V Ratio for an Empty Autorack Car (Steady State Curve) ................... 51
Figure 63. Wheel L/V Ratio, Loaded Autorack Car (6-Degree Curve with Perturbations) ......... 52
Figure 64. Wheel L/V Ratio, Empty Autorack Car (6-Degree Curve with Perturbations) .......... 52
Figure 65. Wheel L/V Ratio, Zoomed-in, Distance Scale ............................................................ 52
Figure 66. Wheel L/V Ratio, Zoomed-in Time Scale ................................................................... 53
vii
Tables
Table 1. 2020 Freight Car Data for North American Railroads ................................................... 11
Table 2 Truck Types ..................................................................................................................... 13
Table 3. Box Car Specifications ................................................................................................... 14
Table 4. Refrigerator Car Specifications ...................................................................................... 15
Table 5. The 110-ton Covered Hopper Car Specifications ........................................................... 16
Table 6. The 125-ton Covered Hopper Car Specifications ........................................................... 16
Table 7. Open Top Hopper Car Specifications ............................................................................. 17
Table 8. Gondola Car Specifications ............................................................................................ 18
Table 9. Flat Car Specifications .................................................................................................... 18
Table 10. Three-Unit Container Car Specifications ..................................................................... 19
Table 11. Five-Unit Container Car Specifications ........................................................................ 20
Table 12. Tank Car Specifications ................................................................................................ 21
Table 13. Bi-level Autorack Car Specifications ........................................................................... 23
Table 14. Tri-level Autorack Car Specifications .......................................................................... 24
Table 15. Curves for VAMPIRE .................................................................................................. 25
Table 16. Simulation Matrix ......................................................................................................... 31
Table 17. Predicted Covered Hopper Car Response (Maximum Values from the Three Speeds,
Steady State Curve)............................................................................................................... 35
Table 18. Predicted Covered Hopper Car Response (Track with Perturbations) ......................... 37
Table 19. Predicted Three-Unit Container Car Response (Steady State Curve) .......................... 40
Table 20. Predicted Three-Unit Container Car Response (Track with Perturbations) ................. 42
Table 21. Predicted Tank Car Response (Steady State Curve) ..................................................... 45
Table 22. Predicted Tank Car Response on a 6-Degree Steady State Curve ................................ 47
Table 23. Predicted Tank Car Response ....................................................................................... 48
Table 24. Predicted Autorack Car Response (Steady State Curve) .............................................. 51
Table 25. Predicted Autorack Car Response ................................................................................ 53
viii
Executive Summary
When investigating a train derailment, studying the vehicle/track interaction (VTI) using vehicle
dynamics simulations of the key vehicles in the derailed train can help identify specific
derailment causes. From September 2018 to March 2021, the Federal Railroad Administration
(FRA) contracted Sharma & Associates, Inc. to develop a set of railway freight car models for
the most prevalent car types in service using VAMPIRE®, a vehicle dynamics simulation
software employed by the railroad industry. The car types modeled in this research include
hopper, covered hopper, lain box, equipped box (including refrigerated), tank, flat, double-stack,
gondola and bi-level and tri-level Autorack. The team also created a library of wheel and rail
profiles as well as track layout models for a range of curvatures.
This report describes generic models of these car types that can be readily modified into specific
configurations required for accurate simulations. In this research, the team carried out
simulations for a varying degree of curvature track with no track geometry defects. The team
then developed track models with geometry defects typical of FRA Class 3 and Class 4 tracks to
demonstrate how the dynamic response of a vehicle may differ from a designed-track layout due
to local track geometry defects.
This report examines how the effect of in-train coupler forces derived from the Train Energy and
Dynamics Simulator (TEDS) of a derailment scenario can be modeled in the vehicle dynamics
simulation of a particular train car during an investigation. FRA frequently employs simulations
of train derailments using TEDS to better understand train dynamics and investigate probable
derailment causal factors. While TEDS simulations can identify train action and train handling
effects, the results of these simulations often are not sufficient to completely identify the
derailment mechanisms at the wheel/rail interface level (e.g., wheel-climb or rail rollover). To
make a timely determination of derailment causal factors, it is important to understand the
fundamental wheel/rail interaction mechanisms resulting from vehicle dynamics. Derailment
causes can be more quickly and specifically identified when investigators use TEDS to examine
individual vehicle dynamics simulations of the key vehicles involved.
The results of the vehicle dynamics analyses of several freight car types illustrate the
effectiveness of the modeling techniques in predicting key parameters of VTI. The team found
that the vehicle dynamics models made from the library of car, wheel, and rail profile
combinations can be used in future derailment investigations when VTI is considered a possible
cause. Using the models, researchers will be able to input measured track defect data from a
derailment incident investigation to simulate and study the specific derailment. This can be a
valuable tool in derailment investigation.
9
1. Introduction
The Federal Railroad Administration’s (FRA) Office of Research, Development, and

Technology plays an important role in supporting FRA’s Office of Safety in the enactment and
enforcement of railroad regulations and investigations of derailment incidents. These incidents
can be related to defective equipment, poor track conditions, improper train makeup or handling,
and the resultant train and vehicle dynamics.
When investigating a train derailment, vehicle/track interaction (VTI) using vehicle dynamics
simulations of the key vehicles in the derailed train can help identify specific derailment causes.
From September 2018 to March 2021, FRA contracted Sharma & Associates, Inc. to develop a
set of railway freight car models for the most prevalent car types in service using VAMPIRE®,
an interactive platform that enables modeling and computer simulations of multi-body dynamic
systems that is commonly used in the rail industry. The car types modeled in this research
include hopper, covered hopper, lain box, equipped box (including refrigerated), tank, flat,
double-stack, gondola and bi-level and tri-level Autorack. The team also created a library of
wheel and rail profiles as well as track layout models for a range of curvatures.
1.1 Background
FRA frequently conducts simulations of train derailments using the Train Energy and Dynamics
Simulator (TEDS) to better understand train dynamics and investigate probable causal factors
from train and track interactions that may have contributed to an incident. While TEDS
simulations can identify train action and train handling effects, the results of these simulations
often are not sufficient to completely identify the derailment mechanism at the wheel/rail
interface level if wheel-climb or rail rollover is also a factor.
For a timely resolution of the derailment causal factors, it is important to understand the results
of these fundamental wheel/rail interaction mechanisms. Derailment causes can be more quickly
and specifically identified when TEDS simulations include individual vehicle dynamics
simulations of the key vehicles in the train. A comprehensive set of simulation models based on
representative vehicles and wheel/rail profiles would be beneficial during derailment
investigations.
1.2 Objectives
The objective of this project was to prepare a library of freight car models and representative
track to guide derailment investigations, especially those in which individual vehicle dynamics
and wheel/rail forces may have played a key role in the derailment. The creation of a library of
models and input files reduces the model setup time and expedites running simulations after
derailments.
1.3 Overall Approach

The research team created a library of railway freight car models for 12 different car types in the
railway vehicle dynamics software platform VAMPIRE.
Researchers identified a set of representative railroad cars for modeling in VAMPIRE based on
the actual distribution of the vehicle types in Class I railroads in North America (Table 1). The
10
data is based on Railroad Fact 2020, published by the Association of American Railroads (AAR).
The car models included both empty and loaded conditions for the freight cars listed in the table.
The team also created a library of track models for a range of curvatures. To demonstrate the
effects of measured track geometry on the dynamic response of the freight cars, the team
developed track models with track/defect perturbations typical of FRA Class 3 and Class 4
tracks. Railroads can provide this data for the track segment involved in a derailment incident
when vehicle dynamics simulations are required to investigate the VTI contribution.
In this report, the results of vehicle dynamics analyses of a sub-set of 12 freight car types
illustrated the effectiveness of the modeling techniques in predicting key parameters of the VTI.
Bi-level Autorack cars discussed in Section 2 were included in the “other” category in Table 1.
Table 1. 2020 Freight Car Data for North American Railroads
Car Type Number % of total cars
Covered Hopper 572,600 34.2%
Tank Car 432,600 25.8%
Flat Cars 212,300 12.7%
Gondola 205,800 12.3%
Hoppers 131,200 7.8%
Equipped Box, incl. Refrigerator Cars 100,700 6.0%
Plain Box 16,100 1.0%
Others, include Autorack Cars 4,300 0.2%
The VAMPIRE freight car model library included four additional car models: the 125-ton
covered hopper car in the Covered Hopper category, the three-unit and five-unit double stack
container cars in the Flat Car category, and tri-level Autorack cars in the Other category. Figure
1 shows the multi-body vehicle dynamics model of a railcar as represented in VAMPIRE.
Figure 1. VAMPIRE Railcar Model
11
The team created representative sections of curved track models for a range of curvatures from 2
degrees to 10 degrees in 2-degree increments. The curved track library in VAMPIRE includes
cases with and without track perturbations or irregularities, also known as track geometry
defects. The track perturbations included are typical of FRA Class 3 and Class 4 tracks.
The team conducted simulations to evaluate dynamic responses of the various car types for a
range of operating speeds. The computer simulations included other parameters such as wheel
and rail profiles, longitudinal coupler forces due to train braking or traction, and rail and center
plate lubrication conditions.
1.4 Scope
This research effort included identifying a set of representative freight cars for vehicle dynamics
modeling and defining the curving simulation cases for a subset of these models. The scope also
included identifying representative wheel and rail profiles and track geometry defects for use in
the simulations. The results of these simulations are discussed in view of the existing industry
standards for vehicle safety performance criteria under steady-state and transient responses.
1.5 Organization of the Report

This report details the development of a library of freight car and railroad track models using
VAMPIRE.
Section 2 describes the freight car models developed for this project. Section 3 details the
VAMPIRE track files created. Section 4 includes the wheel and rail profiles models. Section 5
describes the simulation cases and the results of the dynamic simulations of the selected vehicle.
Finally, Section 6 summarizes the report and research conclusions.
12
2. Freight Car Models
This section describes the characteristics of freight cars included in the library of VAMPIRE
vehicle models. The team obtained relevant specifications for these cars, including the main
dimensions and weights, from the Car and Locomotive Cyclopedia of American Practices
(Kratville, 1997). The photographs used in this report were taken from the U.S. International
Trade Commission Report (Andersen, 2011).
The truck modelled for this study was a generic three-piece North American freight car truck
with friction wedges and variable damping (except where noted in the report). Table 2 lists the
types of cars with the corresponding types of trucks modelled to create the library. For a 110-ton
freight car, the axle load is 71,500 lb. The car was equipped with two standard three-piece trucks
with 36-inch diameter wheels and Class K (6.5” x 11”) journal bearings.
Table 2 Truck Types
Car Type Truck Type
Box, Equipped Box, 110-ton Covered Hopper, Open
100-ton Three-Piece Trucks
Top Hopper, Flat, Gondola, Tank
125-ton Covered hopper Car 125-ton Three-Piece Trucks
Two 70-ton Three-Piece Trucks and Two 125-ton
3-Unit Double Stack Container Car
Trucks with Articulated Connectors
Two 70-ton Three-Piece Trucks and Four 125-ton
5-Unit Double Stack Container Car
Trucks with Articulated Connectors
70-ton Swing Motion Trucks with 33” diameter
Bi-level Autorack Car
wheels
70-ton Swing Motion Trucks with 28” diameter
Tri-level Autorack Car
wheels
The model of the 110-ton freight car included two trucks consisting of the standard AAR spring
group with seven D5 outers, seven D5 inners, two D6A second inners, and a variable damped
friction wedge damping system as specified in the AAR Manual of Standards and Practices
(MSRP) Section D. The car and truck interface also included two constant contact side bearings
with a preload of 6,000 lb, one on each side of the truck center bowl.
2.1 Box Car

Box cars carry paper, food products, and other common commodities. Between 1984 and 2008,
the number of plain box cars in North American railroads decreased significantly from 160,000
to around 16,200, falling from 10.8 percent to approximately 1 percent of the total fleet. Most of
the commodities carried in this type of car are now transported more efficiently in intermodal
service. Figure 2 shows a diagram of a typical high cube box car with main dimensions. Table 3
shows the car specifications used in the model.
13
Figure 2. Box Car Main Dimensions
Table 3. Box Car Specifications
Length over coupler pulling faces 58’-5.5”
Length over strikers 53’-9.5”
Distance between truck centers 40’-8.5”
Width, extreme 10’-8”
Height, extreme 16’-10”
Gross Rail Load 286,000 lb
Light Weight (tare) 75,000 lb
Cubic capacity 6,197 cu ft
2.2 Equipped Box Car

The team chose a Refrigerator Car as the type of equipped box car in the VAMPIRE vehicle
model library. Refrigerated rail cars protect perishable food products using both cold and heated
storage. Figure 3 shows a typical refrigerator car. The mechanical refrigeration/heating unit is
housed behind the grill at the lower right, at the car’s “A” end as shown in the figure. Figure 4
notes the main dimensions of the car. Table 4 lists the car specifications.
Figure 3. Typical Refrigerator Car
14
Figure 4. Refrigerator Car Main Dimensions
Table 4. Refrigerator Car Specifications

Length over coupler pulling faces 83’-9”
Length over strikers 78’-7”
Distance between truck centers 52’-10”
Width, extreme 10’-3
Height, extreme 17’
2.3 Covered Hopper Car

The following details the covered hopper cars used in this research.
2.3.1 Covered Hopper: 110-ton

Covered hopper cars are the most common freight car type in North American railroads,
comprising 34 percent of the fleet (see Table 1). Figure 5 shows a 110-ton covered hopper car
and Figure 6 provides a schematic. Table 5 lists the car specifications.
Figure 5. The 110-ton Covered Hopper Car
15
Figure 6. Hopper Car Main Dimensions
Table 5. The 110-ton Covered Hopper Car Specifications
Length over coupler pulling faces 60’- 0.5”
Width, extreme 10’-7 18”
2.3.2 Covered Hopper: 125-ton

The 125-ton covered hopper car has a heavier axle load compared to the 110-ton covered hopper.
The modelled car has two three-piece trucks with 38” diameter wheels and Class G (7” x 12”)
journal bearings. The trucks are equipped with S2-HD spring groups with seven D5 outers, seven
D6 inners, and five D6A second inners. The variable damped system also includes one outer B-
353 and inner B-354 side spring below each split friction wedge, as shown in Table 6.
Table 6. The 125-ton Covered Hopper Car Specifications
Width, extreme
10’-7
2.4 Open Top Hopper Car

Open top hopper cars transport heavy bulk commodities including coal, cokes, metallic ores,
scrap metal, sand, stone, and gravel, where exposure to weather elements is not a concern. Figure
7 shows an example of a 110-ton open top hopper car and Table 7 lists its specifications.
16
Figure 7. Open Top Hopper Car
Table 7. Open Top Hopper Car Specifications
Height, extreme 13’-3 1/4”
2.5 Gondola Car

Gondola cars transport commodities like coal, ores, and wood chips. Figure 8 shows an example
of a mill gondola car. Table 8 lists the specifications of the modelled car.
Figure 8. Gondola Car
17
Table 8. Gondola Car Specifications
Length over coupler pulling faces 70’-11.5”
Width, extreme 9’- 10.5”
Height, extreme
9’-
2.6 Flat Car

The heavy duty flat car fleet consists of depressed center cars, flat deck cars with a capacity of
100 tons or greater, and well cars that include a well in the center so lading can be lowered for
clearance limits. Principal commodities shipped on flat cars include intermodal containers and
road trailers, lumber, pipes, plywood, drywall, and pulpwood. Figure 9 shows an example of a
flat deck car, while Table 9 provides the car data. Table 9 lists the specifications of the modelled
car.
Figure 9. Flat Car
Table 9. Flat Car Specifications

Width, extreme 10’- 8”
Deck height 3’-7”
Stroke length for end of car cushioning 15”
Light Weight (Tare) 72,800 lb
18
2.7 Three-unit Double Stack Container Car
Three-unit double stack container car are joined with articulated connectors. Each car is
equipped with two 70-ton trucks at the ends and two 125-ton trucks with articulated connectors
at the intermediate locations. The 70-ton truck has seven D5 outers and two each B-432 and B-
433 wedge springs in each spring group, while the 125-ton trucks have the same spring groups
previously mentioned in Section 2.3.2. Figure 10 shows an example of the three-unit container
car. A full range of domestic and International Organization for Standardization containers can
be shipped using these cars. The well accommodates one fully loaded 40 or 53 ft container or
two 20 ft containers, while the upper stack typically accommodates one fully loaded 40 to 53 ft
container or two 20 ft containers. Table 10 lists the three-unit container car data. The parameters
in the table (e.g., Gross Rail Load) are consistent with Rakoczy (2019). Figure 11 shows the
VAMPIRE model of the vehicle where the end platforms are connected to the middle platform
using models of articulated connectors.
Figure 10. Three-Unit Double Stack Container Car
Table 10. Three-Unit Container Car Specifications
Length over coupler pulling faces

204’-8
Length over strikers 202’-
Distance between centers of 70-ton and 125-ton trucks 63’- 6

Distance between centers of the two 125-ton trucks 63’- 11 1/4”
Width, extreme (Plate “H-1”) 10’- 8”
Height with two stacked containers, extreme (Plate “H-1”) 20’-3”
19
Figure 11. VAMPIRE Model of Three-Unit Container Car
2.8 Five-unit Double Stack Container Car

The design of this car is like the of the three-unit car with two additional articulated platforms.
The car has two 70-ton trucks at the ends and four 125-ton trucks with articulated connectors at
the intermediate locations (see Figure 12). Table 11 lists the car specifications.
Figure 12. Five-Unit Double Stack Container Car
Table 11. Five-Unit Container Car Specifications

Length over coupler pulling faces 266’-8
Length over strikers
264’-
Distance between centers of 70-ton and 125-ton trucks 50’- 7
Distance between centers of the two 125-ton trucks 50’- 7
Width, extreme (Plate “H-1”) 10’- 8”
Height with two stacked containers, extreme (Plate “H-1”) 20’-3”
20
The well typically accommodates one 40 ft container in the bottom and one 40, 45, or 48 ft
container at the top. The well can also carry two 20 ft containers in the bottom instead of a 40 ft
container. These types of cars improve the efficiency of intermodal transportation and therefore,
use of these cars has become prevalent with railroads shipping containers from ports to
destinations across the country. The parameters in the table are consistent with Rakoczy, (2019).
2.9 Tank Car

Tank cars are the primary means of bulk liquid transportation. The cars are used to transport
chemicals, petroleum products, and pressurized gases. Although tank cars are usually associated
with the movement of hazardous materials, half of these shipments are non-regulated food and
industrial products. Figure 13 shows a typical tank car. Table 12 lists the car specifications used
in the VAMPIRE model. The car was modelled with two 100-ton, three-piece trucks. The spring
group consisted of seven D5 outers and seven D5 inners, and a 5062 outer side spring and a 5063
inner side spring under each friction wedge.
Figure 13. Tank Car
Table 12. Tank Car Specifications

Length over coupler pulling faces 61’-3 1/4”
Length over strikers 58’-7 1/4”
Distance between truck centers 47’-8 1/4”
Width, extreme 10’-7 1/4”
Height, extreme 15’-1/4”
2.10 Autorack Car

Over the years, the design of Autorack cars has evolved to provide damage-free transportation of
automobiles. In addition to bi-level and tri-level Autorack cars, there is also a car with adjustable
deck height that allows for bi-level or tri-level configurations.
21
The Autorack car is equipped with two 70-ton Swing Motion trucks. Figure 14 shows an
exploded view of a Swing Motion truck (Schorr, 2015). The main springs are comprised of five
D5 outers and three D5 inners in each spring group. The Swing Motion truck has additional
elements including a transom that connects the two side frames at the bottom (in addition to the
bolster) and a specially designed interface between the side frames and bearing adapters. Rocker
seats are provided between the side frame and transom as well as between the side frame
pedestal and bearing adapters. These features allow more controlled movement and rotation
about multiple axes, providing better stabilization of the dynamic loads.
Figure 14 Swing Motion Truck – Exploded View (Courtesy: Amsted Rail)

The Swing Motion trucks provide superior ride quality and improved lading protection in the
Autorack cars when compared to conventional three-piece trucks. The performance improvement
of the more advanced Swing Motion truck design is ideal for transportation of automobiles and
other finished goods and allows for improved steering in curves and load transfer between the
truck components. The VAMPIRE model of the Autorack car included the special features of the
Swing Motion truck.
2.10.1 Bi-level Autorack Car

This type of freight car accommodates two decks of vehicles, including pickup trucks, SUVs,
and minivans. The Autorack car can accommodate up to eight vehicles. Figure 15 shows a
schematic of the bi-level Autorack car and Table 13 lists the car specifications. Figure 16 shows
the VAMPIRE model of the car. The automobile mass, suspension and tire stiffness were
modelled to account for displacements due to vertical bumps on the track and ensure the
automobiles do not come off the chocks that secure the automobile wheels. The 70-ton Swing
Motion trucks have 33-inch diameter wheels.
22
Figure 15. Bi-level Autorack Car
Table 13. Bi-level Autorack Car Specifications

Length over strikers 90’
Distance between truck centers 66’
Figure 16. VAMPIRE Model of a Bi-level Autorack Car
2.10.2 Tri-level Autorack Car

This type of freight car accommodates three decks of sedans or smaller cars. A total of 12
automobiles can be carried in 1 tri-level Autorack car. Figure 17 shows a picture of a tri-level car
and Table 14 lists the main specifications. The 70-ton Swing Motion trucks in the tri-level car
have 28-inch diameter wheels to provide for adequate vertical clearance in operation.
23
Figure 17. Tri-level Autorack Car
Table 14. Tri-level Autorack Car Specifications

Length over strikers 90’
Distance between truck centers 66’
24
3. Track Geometry
3.1 Constant Curve Design

As mentioned in Section 1.2,VAMPIRE input files were created for track with 2 to 10 degrees of
curvature. The design curve layout as represented in VAMPIRE for a 4-degree curve with the
cant (i.e., superelevation) is shown in Figure 18. The X (i.e., horizontal) axis in the plot is the
distance along the track. The initial 200 feet of track is a tangent (i.e., straight) section. The entry
spiral is 400 feet long (from 200 to 600 feet along the X axis). The full body of the curve is 500
feet long, and the length of the exit spiral is 400 feet. The exit spiral is followed by 200 feet of
tangent track. The cant is shown in green. The maximum cant is 3 inches in the full body of the
4-degree curve. The balance speed for this curve is 34 mph. Table 15 shows the combination of
curves and cant for the VAMPIRE track models with the corresponding balance speeds. The
lengths of the tangents, spirals, and curves are the same in all cases.
Figure 18. VAMPIRE Plots for Curvature and Superelevation for a 4-Degree Curve
Table 15. Curves for VAMPIRE
Curvature (degree) Cant (inch) Balance Speed (mph)
2 0.75 24
4 3 34
6 3.5 30
8 3.5 26
10 2.75 20
The constant curves in this section have ideal geometry for curvatures and cant without measured
track perturbations. Another set of models created for the track library included measured track
irregularities (see Section 3.2).
3.2 Track Irregularities

To enable more realistic prediction of the dynamic response of the freight cars from the
VAMPIRE simulations, the research team developed an additional set of VAMPIRE track
models in which measured vertical and lateral irregularities were superimposed over the ideal
curve and cant geometry described in Section 3.1. The measured irregularities were typical of
track maintained to Class 3 and Class 4 standards. In all cases, the maximum irregularities did
25
not exceed the allowable safety standards. Researchers performed simulations using the Class 3
track irregularities for this project, and the track model with the Class 4 track irregularities is for
use with any potential derailment investigations in the future.
3.3 Typical FRA Class 3 and Class 4 Track Geometry Defects

Figure 19 shows a sample plot of the cross level, lateral, and vertical space curves for a section
of FRA Class 3 track at which the maximum track speed is 40 mph. VAMPIRE simulations were
run for three speeds on each curve: 1.5 inch under balance, at balance, and 1.5 inch over balance
conditions. When the speed corresponding to 1.5 inch over balance condition exceeded the
allowable track speed of 40 mph on a specific curve, the simulation was run at the maximum
permissible speed of 40 mph.
Figure 19. Class 3 Track Irregularities
3.3.1 Class 3 Vertical Irregularity

Profile: This parameter relates to elevation of either rail along the track. When trains encounter
short dips or humps in the track, it can result in vertical separation of couplers, broken springs,
etc. Humps and dips in the track result from differential settlement of the ballast and
substructure.
The blue colored plot in Figure 19 shows a sample of the measured profile (i.e., vertical
irregularity) from a section of track maintained to FRA Class 3 track standards. This plot was
obtained by averaging the left rail and right rail profile irregularities at each measurement
location.
26
Crosslevel: This parameter is the difference in height between the top surfaces of one rail and
that of the opposite rail at the same location. The red line in Figure 19 shows the cross level
measured from a section of track maintained to FRA Class 3 standards.
3.3.2 Class 3 Lateral Irregularity

Alignment: Alignment is the variation in curvature of each rail of the track. On tangent track,
the intended curvature is zero and the alignment is measured as the variation (i.e., deviation)
from zero. In a curve, the alignment is measured as variation from “uniform” alignment over a
specified distance. The green line in Figure 19 shows the lateral irregularity or alignment for a
sample section of Class 3 track.
Gauge: Gauge is measured between the rail heads at right angles to the longitudinal track axis on
a plane 5/8 inch below the top of the rail head. The nominal gauge is 56.5 inch.
3.3.3 Class 4 Irregularity

Figure 20 shows a sample plot of the cross level, lateral, and vertical space curves for a section
of FRA Class 4 track. The maximum track speed for FRA Class 4 track is 60 mph.
Figure 20. Class 4 Track Irregularities
27
4. Wheel and Rail Profiles
Wheel and rail profiles play an important role in vehicle and track interaction forces, with
pronounced effects on the tendency of a wheel to climb the rail during curve negotiation.
The recommended profile for new wheels over the last two decades has been AAR-1B, which
recently was replaced by AAR-2A. The rail section used in main line track in the North
American network is American Railway Engineering and Maintenance of way Association
(AREMA) 136. Since track is typically laid with a 1 in 20 or 1 in 40 cant, the research team
developed VAMPIRE input files for wheel/rail profile combinations having both 1 in 20 and 1 in
40 cant angles and performed simulations for combinations with 1 in 20 cant angle for this
report. The input file for wheel/rail profiles with 1 in 40 cant angle will be used as needed for
any potential derailment investigation in the future.
4.1 Wheel
The recommended new wheel profiles were developed by AAR based on a worn profile that is
stable for most of its service life. It should be noted that not all railroads have the same route
characteristics and car loading patterns, since the stable profile is governed by the presence and
severity of curves on a railroad. Eastern railroads have more frequent and higher degree curves
than western railroads, so the nominal stable worn profile for the two regions is likely to be
different even when the wheel loads are the same.
4.1.1 AAR-1B Wheel Profile

The AAR-1B profile was developed in the 1980s from measured worn profiles. The wheel has a
1:20 tread taper and 75-degree flange angle. Wheels with this profile exhibited improved curving
performance and rolling resistance but lower hunting threshold in comparison to a standard AAR
1:20 profile. Figure 21 shows a plot of the AAR 1-B wheel profile with a narrow flange.
Figure 21 AAR-1B Narrow Flange Wheel Profile on AREMA 136-20 Rail Profile
Until recently, the AAR-1B profile was the recommended profile for interchange service in
North America. Most of the cars in revenue service most likely are running with wheels having
AAR 1-B profiles. The team developed VAMPIRE input files for wheels having AAR 1-B
profiles with narrow and wide flanges.
28
4.1.2 AAR-2A Wheel Profile
The AAR-2A profile was introduced into revenue service in 2018 and is currently recommended
for freight cars in interchange service. The profile was developed in the 2000s from measured
worn wheel profiles. The wheel has a 1:20 tread taper and 75-degree flange angle. The flange
thickness of the 2A profile is about 1/8 inch less than the 1B profile. The 2A profile has shown
improvement in high speed stability and curving performance when compared to the 1B profile.
It provides more conformal contact during flange contact in curves, achieving lower wheel wear.
Figure 22 shows the contact locations for the AAR-2A wheel profile with AREMA 136 rail
profile having 1 in 20 rail cant.
Figure 22. AAR-2A Wheel Profile on AREMA 136-20 Rail Profile
4.1.3 Worn Wheel

Researchers generated the VAMPIRE input file for a hollow worn wheel profile. Figure 23
shows the plot for the worn profile with 2 mm of hollow tread on an AREMA 136 rail profile.
Figure 23. Hollow Worn Wheel Profile on AREMA 136-20 Rail Profile
4.2 Rail
The rail profiles commonly used in the industry comply with AREMA standards. The research
team developed VAMPIRE input files for two of the profiles as described below. New rail
29
profiles were assumed in both cases. Input files for the wheel/rail profile were created for both
new and worn rail profiles. The AREMA 136 new rail input profile was used for the simulations
discussed in this report. The input files with other rail profiles will be used as needed for any
potential derailment investigation in the future.
4.2.1 AREMA 132

The AREMA 132 rail profile data for generating contact geometry files are available for both 1
in 20 and 1 in 40 rail cant.
4.2.2 AREMA 136

The AREMA 136 rail profile data for generating contact geometry files are available for both 1
in 20 and 1 in 40 rail cant.
4.3 Summary
The AAR-2A profile is now mandatory on new cars and used when replacing repaired axles.
However, most freight cars in service are operating with AAR-1B wheels. Therefore, the team
used the wheel/rail contact geometry file for the combination of AAR-1B (narrow flange) wheel
profile with the new AREMA 136 rail profile (1 in 40 cant) for the example VAMPIRE
simulations discussed in Section 5 and all the example vehicle dynamics simulations in this
report. The team also developed VAMPIRE input files for additional wheel/rail profile
combinations including worn profiles to simulate a specific derailment scenario as needed.
30
5. Vehicle Dynamics Simulation Results
Table 16 provides a list of car types and simulation scenarios for which VAMPIRE models were
developed for this project. The car type and track model combinations the team evaluated are
indicated with an “X” in the table. This section presents the response of four different car types
negotiating curve sections with and without Class 3 track irregularities. A friction coefficient of
0.2 at the interface between the carbody center plate and truck center bowl was used in the
simulations. As mentioned, the contact file using the AAR-1B wheel and AREMA 136 rail
profile combination was used for the simulation results discussed in this report. Contact files for
other wheel/rail profile combinations can be generated as needed, including worn wheel and rail
profiles.
Table 16. Simulation Matrix
5.1 Criteria for Assessment

Car responses were assessed in terms of safety criteria for the wheel L/V ratio of the leading high
rail wheel and the truck side L/V ratio for the high rail of curve sections and wheel unloading
(AAR M-1001 Specification, 2020). The criteria listed below were used to analyze the response
of the various freight cars.
31
5.1.1 Wheel L/V Ratio
Wheel L/V is considered an indicator of a wheel tendency to climb the rail. Wheel L/V ratio
exceeding a value of 1.0 for duration greater than 50 ms and distance greater than 3 feet per
instance indicates a propensity for the wheel to climb the rail.
5.1.2 Truck Side L/V

Truck side L/V is the ratio of the sum of the lateral forces on two wheels on one side of the truck
to the sum of the vertical forces on the same two wheels. Truck side L/V ratio exceeding a value
of 0.6 for a duration equivalent to 6 feet per instance indicates a propensity for rail rollover.
5.1.3 Minimum Vertical Load (% Wheel Unloading)

Another safety criterion used in the assessment of dynamic performance of a railway vehicle is
minimum vertical load on a wheel as a percentage of the static wheel load. A value below 10
percent for a duration greater than 50 ms and distance greater than 3 feet per instance indicates a
propensity for wheel lift.
All simulation results discussed in the following section have been filtered at 15 Hz, as specified
in AAR M-1001 Specification (2020).
5.2 Covered Hopper Car

This section presents the response of the covered hopper car negotiating curve sections with and
without Class 3 track irregularities.
5.2.1 Steady State Curve (No Perturbations)

Figure 24 shows the wheel L/V ratios for the high rail wheel of the leading axle of a loaded
covered hopper car negotiating a 6-degree curve. The L/V ratios for 1.5 inch of under-balance at
23 mph and the balance speed of 30 mph are slightly higher than the ratio at 1.5 inch of over
balance. This is because the higher vertical load on the high rail at 35 mph corresponding to 1.5
inch of over balance causes a lower wheel L/V ratio. For all three speeds, the maximum wheel
L/V ratio is much lower than the AAR limit value of 1.0.
Figure 24. Wheel L/V Ratio for Loaded Covered Hopper Car on a 6-Degree Curve
32
Figure 25 shows the high rail wheel L/V ratios at the balance speeds over a range of curvatures
from 2 to 10 degrees in 2-degree increments. The results follow the expected trend of L/V ratios
to increase with the increase in curvatures (i.e., smaller radii curves). As the radius of curve
decreases, the leading axle angle of attack increases and results in an increase in the L/V ratio.
Figure 25. Wheel L/V Ratios Over a Range of Curves at Balance Speeds (Loaded Covered
Hopper Car)
Figure 26 shows the wheel L/V ratio for an empty covered hopper car negotiating a 6-degree
curve. The wheel L/V ratio of 0.35 for the over balance speed of 35 mph is slightly higher than
the other two cases because of the effect of higher centrifugal force as the empty car negotiates
the curve.
Figure 26. Wheel L/V Ratio for Empty Covered Hopper Car
Figure 27 plots the high rail wheel L/V ratios at balance speeds over a range of curvatures for an
empty covered hopper car. The prediction follows the expected trend of higher wheel L/V ratio
as the degree of curvature increases. The increase in L/V ratio when the curve changes from 2 to
4 degrees is greater than when the curve changes from 6 to 8 and from 8 to 10 degrees. This is
due to the lead axle high rail wheel starting to flange between 2 and 4 degrees.
33
Figure 27. Wheel L/V Ratios Over a Range of Curvatures at Balance Speeds (Empty
Covered Hopper Car)
The truck side L/V ratios on the high rail of the 6-degree curve for three speeds of 1.5 inch under
balance, at balance, and 1.5 inch over balance are shown in Figure 28 for the loaded covered
hopper car and in Figure 29 for the empty covered hopper car.
Figure 28. Truck Side L/V Ratio for Loaded Covered Hopper Car
Figure 29. Truck Side L/V Ratio for Empty Covered Hopper Car
34
Table 17 summarizes the results of simulations with both the empty and loaded covered hopper
car negotiating a range of curves from 2 to 10 degrees without track perturbations. The values
shown are the maximum among 1.5 inch under balance, at balance, and 1.5 inch over balance
speed results for each curvature. The maximum values are all within the limits required by the
AAR M-1001 standard.
Table 17. Predicted Covered Hopper Car Response (Maximum Values from the Three
Speeds, Steady State Curve)
Curvature, degrees
2 4 6 8 10 AAR M-1001
Criterion Loaded Car Limit
Maximum Wheel L/V 0.14 0.26 0.39 0.44 0.45 1
Max Truck Side L/V 0.07 0.15 0.19 0.25 0.28 0.6
Min vert wheel load, % 87 80 78 78 79 10
Empty car
Maximum Wheel L/V 0.20 0.39 0.35 0.41 0.42 1
Max Truck Side L/V 0.10 0.20 0.29 0.34 0.36 0.6
5.2.2 Curving with Track Perturbations

FRA Class 3 track perturbations were added to 4- and 6-degree design curves. The team recorded
the responses of the loaded and empty hopper cars as they negotiated a 6-degree curve with track
perturbations. The maximum wheel L/V ratio was 0.72 for the loaded car negotiating a 6-degree
curve with FRA Class 3 track perturbations at 23 mph (1.5 inch under balance) as shown in
Figure 30. The maximum value is higher than the predicted value for the steady state curve
without perturbations, but less than the AAR allowable L/V ratio of 1.0.
Figure 30. Wheel L/V Ratio, Loaded Covered Hopper (6-Degree Curve with Perturbation)
The wheel L/V ratio plot for the empty car negotiating the 6-degree curve at 35 mph (1.5 inch
over balance) with track perturbations is shown in Figure 31. The maximum wheel L/V ratio was
1.04. As shown in Figure 32, the maximum wheel L/V ratio exceeded the AAR Chapter 11 limit
of 1.0 for a distance less than 3 feet. Figure 33 shows the maximum wheel L/V ratio exceeded
the AAR Chapter 11 limit of 1.0 for a duration of less than 50 ms.
35
Figure 31. Wheel L/V Ratio, Empty Covered Hopper Car (6-Degree Curve with
Perturbation)
Figure 32. Exceedance of Maximum Wheel L/V Ratio – Distance Plot (6-Degree Curve with
Perturbations)
Figure 33 Exceedance of Maximum Wheel L/V Ratio – Time Plot (6-Degree Curve with
Perturbations)
Figure 34 shows the response in terms of truck side L/V ratio. As per Chapter 11 in the AAR M-
1001 standard, the maximum value for a truck side L/V ratio greater than 0.6 is a safety concern
if the exceedance is sustained for a distance greater than 6 feet. The maximum value of 0.72 is
only for a distance of less than a foot (see Figure 35). Table 18 summarizes the response of the
loaded and empty covered hopper cars negotiating curves with track perturbations. The
36
maximum truck side L/V ratio of 0.59 reported in the table is the second highest value from
Figure 34.
Figure 34. Truck Side L/V Ratio, Empty Covered Hopper Car (6-Degree Curve with
Perturbation)
Figure 35. Exceedance of Maximum Truck Side L/V Ratio (6-Degree Curve with
Perturbation)
Table 18. Predicted Covered Hopper Car Response (Track with Perturbations)
Curvature, degrees
4 6
AAR M-
Criterion Loaded Car 1001 Limit
Maximum Wheel L/V 0.71 0.72 1
Max Truck Side L/V 0.39 0.39 0.6
Min vert wheel load, % 51 53 10

Empty car
Max Truck Side L/V 0.51 0.59* 0.6
*Second highest value from Figure 34. Refer to Section 5.2.2 for more details.
37
5.3 Three-Unit Double Stack Container Car
Researchers developed models of three- and five-unit multiple platform cars. The end trucks in
both models were the same (i.e., 70-ton capacity). The middle trucks (two for the three-unit and
four for the five-unit car, respectively) were 125-ton capacity. This section presents the results
for the three-unit cars.

The wheel L/V ratios for the high rail wheel of the leading axle of the end truck for a loaded 3-
unit articulated container car negotiating a 6-degree curve are shown in Figure 36. The plot
shows the wheel L/V ratio for 1.5 inch under balance and 1.5 inch over balance speeds. The
maximum wheel L/V ratio decreases as the speed increases in the steady state portion of the 6-
degree curve because the vertical load on the high rail increases as the speed increases. The
maximum wheel L/V ratio meets the allowable limit of 1.0 as required by AAR Chapter 11 (M-
1001).
Figure 36. Wheel L/V Ratio for Loaded Three-Unit Container Car (6-Degree Curve)
Figure 37 shows the high rail wheel L/V ratios at the balance speeds over a range of curvatures
from 2 to 10 degrees in 2-degree increments. As expected, the magnitude of wheel L/V ratio
increases as the curvature value increases.
Figure 37. Wheel L/V Ratio Over a Range of Curves (Loaded Three-Unit Container Car)
38
Figure 38 shows the wheel L/V ratio for an empty three-unit articulated car negotiating a 6-
degree curve. The trend for the L/V ratio with the increased speed is like that for the empty
hopper car. The highest L/V ratio in the steady state curve occurred at 1.5 inch over balance
speed.
Figure 38. Wheel L/V Ratio for an Empty, Three-Unit Container Car (6-Degree Curve)
Figure 39 shows the predicted high rail wheel L/V ratios at the balance speeds for the three-unit
articulated car in the empty configuration increased with higher curvature or smaller curve
radius.
Figure 39. Wheel L/V Ratios Over a Range of Curvatures (Empty Three-Unit Car)
Figure 40 and Figure 41 plot the truck side L/V ratios for the loaded and empty three-unit
articulated cars. Table 19 summarizes the results for the loaded and empty 3-unit container car
negotiating a range of steady state curves from 2 to 10 degrees in 2-degree increments.
39
Figure 40. Truck Side L/V Ratio for the Loaded Three-Unit Container Car (6-Degree
Curve)
Figure 41. Truck Side L/V Ratio for the Empty Three-Unit Container Car (6-Degree
Curve)
Table 19. Predicted Three-Unit Container Car Response (Steady State Curve)
Curvature, degrees
2 4 6 8 10 AAR M-
Maximum Wheel L/V 0.13 0.26 0.38 0.42 0.45 1

Max Truck Side L/V 0.05 0.14 0.18 0.20 0.23 0.6
Empty car
Maximum Wheel L/V 0.20 0.35 0.35 0.39 0.41 1
Max Truck Side L/V 0.11 0.22 0.20 0.23 0.28 0.6
5.3.2 Response for Track with Perturbations

Section 3.2 explains FRA Class 3 track irregularities or perturbations added to the 4- and 6-
degree design curves. The team recorded the response of the loaded and empty three-unit
articulated cars as they negotiated a 6-degree curve with track perturbations. The maximum
wheel L/V ratio is 0.69 for the loaded car negotiating a 6-degree curve with FRA Class 3 track
40
perturbations at 23 mph (1.5 inch under balance) as shown in Figure 42. The maximum value is
higher than the predicted value for the curve without perturbations but less than the AAR
allowable of 1.0. Figure 43 shows the wheel L/V ratio plot for the empty car going over the 6-
degree curve with track perturbations at 35 mph (1.5 inch over balance).
Figure 42. Wheel L/V Ratio, Loaded Three-Unit Container Car (6-Degree Curve with
Perturbation)
Figure 43. Wheel L/V Ratio, Empty Three-Unit Container Car (6-Degree Curve with
Perturbation)
The response of the empty three-unit container car over a 4-degree curve at the maximum speed
of 40 mph (1.25 inch over balance) for FRA Class 4 track is shown in Figure 44. The peak wheel
L/V ratio is 0.81. Figure 45 shows the truck side L/V ratio is above the AAR threshold of 0.6 for
a distance of less than 6 feet. The second highest value of 0.55 is reported as the maximum truck
side L/V ratio. Following the same methodology, the minimum vertical load as a percentage of
the static wheel load reported for this case is the second lowest value of 23 percent. Table 20 lists
the responses of the loaded and empty three-unit container cars negotiating curves with track
perturbations.
41
Figure 44. Wheel L/V Ratio, Empty Three-Unit Container Car (4-Degree Curve with
Perturbations)
Figure 45 Truck Side L/V Ratio, Empty Three-Unit Container Car (6-Degree Curve with
Perturbations)
Table 20. Predicted Three-Unit Container Car Response (Track with Perturbations)
Curvature, degrees
4 6
AAR M-
Empty car
Max Truck Side L/V 0.55* 0.55 0.6
Min vert wheel load, % 23** 43 10
* Second highest value. Refer to Section 4.2.2.
** Second lowest value. Refer to Section 4.2.2.
42
5.4 Tank Car

Figure 46 shows the wheel L/V ratios for the high rail wheel of the leading axle of a loaded tank
car negotiating a 6-degree curve. The maximum L/V ratios are almost the same for all three
speeds and are much lower than the 1.0 limit value per AAR Standard M-1001 (Chapter 11).
Figure 47 plots the high rail wheel L/V ratios at the balance speeds over a range of curvatures
from 2 to 10 degrees in 2-degree increments. The results follow the expected trend of higher L/V
ratios with the increase in curvatures, i.e., smaller radii curves.
L/V
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
ft
0.0
100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500
Underbalance Axle 1 High Rail

Balance Axle 1 High Rail
Overbalance Axle 1 High Rail
Figure 46. Wheel L/V Ratio for a Loaded Tank Car (Steady State Curve)
Figure 47. Wheel L/V Ratios Over a Range of Curves (Loaded Tank Car)
Figure 48 shows the wheel L/V ratio for an empty tank car negotiating a 6-degree curve. The
trend for the L/V ratio as the speed increases is like that for the empty hopper car. The highest
L/V ratio in the steady state curve occurred at 1.5 inch over balance speed.
43
Figure 48. Wheel L/V Ratio for an Empty Tank Car
Figure 49 shows that the predicted high rail wheel L/V ratios at the balance speeds for the tank
car in the empty configuration increase with higher curvatures.
Figure 49. Wheel L/V Ratios Over a Range of Curvatures (Empty Tank Car)
Figure 50 and Figure 51 plot the truck side L/V ratios for the loaded and empty tank cars.
Figure 50. Truck Side L/V Ratio for Loaded Tank Car
44
Figure 51. Truck Side L/V Ratio for an Empty Tank Car
Section 5.2.1 describes how the maximum truck side L/V ratios for these cases show a trend like
that observed for the covered hopper car. The maximum truck side L/V ratios are well below the
allowable value of 0.6. Table 21 summarizes the response of the loaded and empty tank car
negotiating steady state curves.
Table 21. Predicted Tank Car Response (Steady State Curve)
Curvature, degrees
2 4 6 8 10 AAR M-
Maximum Wheel L/V 0.14 0.26 0.40 0.45 0.46 1
Max Truck Side L/V 0.07 0.15 0.19 0.25 0.28 0.6
Empty car
Maximum Wheel L/V 0.19 0.37 0.37 0.40 0.43 1
Max Truck Side L/V 0.08 0.18 0.30 0.34 0.36 0.6
Figure 52. Car Model with Lateral Component of Coupler Forces

To simulate the effect of buff or draft coupler forces, two dummy masses were modelled at the
coupler pin and cross key locations in the coupler pockets on both ends of the car. Figure 52
shows the lateral component of coupler forces applied at the fore and aft coupler pin locations.
The figure shows the simulation case for buff forces in which the research team directed the
45
lateral components of the coupler forces toward the high rail of the curve. To simulate the draft
forces, the directions of the lateral components were reversed toward the low rail of the curve.
The lateral component of the coupler forces varied from 0 to 15 kips in 5-kips increments.
If the in-train forces are high enough, there is a possibility for an empty car to derail due to wheel
climb on the high rail from excessive buff force. This situation is referred to as the “jack knife”
condition of a car in a curve. The opposite effect of the car potentially derailing on the low rail of
the curve (i.e., “string lining”) occurs due to excessive draft forces. Figure 53 shows the wheel
L/V ratio plot for the tank car with the lateral component of buff forces through the curve. The
wheel L/V ratios on the high rail for a range of lateral coupler forces show that the values are
higher in comparison to the curving results without the effect buff forces (see Figure 48) but less
than the AAR allowable limit of 1.0. Figure 54 shows wheel L/V ratios on the low rail for an
empty tank car negotiating a range of curves with lateral component of draft forces.
Table 22 summarizes the results for a tank car with lateral components of coupler forces going
over a 6-degree steady state curve. As expected, wheel L/V ratios increased with higher lateral
forces at the coupler. The maximum wheel L/V ratio of around 0.57 occurred for the case of 15
kips of lateral coupler force toward the high rail simulating an empty tank car in buff (i.e.,
compression) condition through a 6-degree steady state curve.
Figure 53. Wheel L/V Ratio, Empty Tank Car, 6-Degree Curve (Buff)
Figure 54. Wheel L/V Ratio, Empty Tank Car, 6-Degree Curve (Draft)
46
Table 22. Predicted Tank Car Response on a 6-Degree Steady State Curve (With Coupler
Forces)
Lateral Component of Buff Force, Kips
0 5 10 15 AAR M-1001
Criterion
Loaded Car Limit
Maximum Wheel L/V 0.4 0.43 0.45 0.47 1
Max Truck Side L/V 0.2 0.22 0.25 0.28 0.6
Min vert wheel load, % 77 74 72 70 10
Empty car
Maximum Wheel L/V 0.37 0.49 0.55 0.57 1
Max Truck Side L/V 0.21 0.31 0.41 0.54 0.6
Lateral Component of Draft Force, Kips
0 5 10 15
Loaded Car
Maximum Wheel L/V 0.31 0.32 0.33 0.34 1
Max Truck Side L/V 0.2 0.22 0.24 0.27 0.6
Empty car
Maximum Wheel L/V 0.32 0.35 0.35 0.47 1
Max Truck Side L/V 0.21 0.3 0.35 0.5 0.6

Section 3.2 discussed FRA Class 3 track irregularities or perturbations added to 4- and 6-degree
design curves. This section presents the responses of the loaded and empty tank cars as they
negotiated a 6-degree curve with track perturbations. Figure 55 shows the maximum wheel L/V
ratio is 0.77 for the loaded car negotiating a 6-degree curve with FRA Class 3 track
perturbations. The maximum value is higher than the predicted value for the curve without
perturbations, but less than the AAR allowable of 1.0.
Figure 55. Wheel L/V Ratio, Loaded Tank Car (6-Degree Curve with Perturbations)
Figure 56 shows the wheel L/V ratios for the empty car going over the 6-degree curve with track
perturbations. The maximum wheel L/V ratio of 1.0 for an empty tank car negotiating a 6-degree
curve with track perturbations is at the limit of AAR Chapter 11 criterion. Table 23 lists the
responses of the loaded and empty tank cars negotiating curves with track perturbations.
47
Figure 56. Wheel L/V Ratio, Empty Tank Car (6-Degree Curve with Perturbations)
Table 23. Predicted Tank Car Response (Curve with Perturbations)

Curvature, degrees
4 6
AAR M-
Empty car
5.5 Bi-Level Autorack Car

Figure 16 shows the bi-level Autorack car model, which can carry eight automobiles in two
levels. As mentioned, the automobile suspension and tire stiffness were modelled along with
automobile masses to account for displacements due to vertical bumps on the track. This is done
to ensure the automobiles do not come off the chocks that secure the automobile wheels.
5.5.1 Steady State Curve (No Track Perturbations)

Figure 57 shows the wheel L/V ratios for the high rail wheel of the leading axle of a loaded
Autorack car negotiating a 6-degree curve. The maximum L/V ratio at 22 mph with 1.5 inches of
under balance is slightly higher than the ratios at the balance and over balance speeds. This is
because vertical wheel unloading on the high rail occurs at under balance speeds and the lower
vertical force results in higher L/V ratio. For all three speeds, the maximum wheel L/V ratio is a
much lower limit value of 1.0 as per the requirement in Chapter 11 of AAR Standard M-1001.
Figure 58 plots the high rail wheel L/V ratios at the balance speeds over a range of curvatures
from 2 to 10 degrees in 2-degree increments. The results follow the expected trend of higher L/V
ratios with the increase in curvatures (i.e., smaller radii curves).
48
Figure 57. Wheel L/V Ratio for a Loaded Autorack Car (Steady State Curve)
Figure 58. Wheel L/V Ratios Over a Range of Curves (Loaded Autorack Car)
Figure 59 shows the wheel L/V ratio for an empty Autorack car negotiating a 6-degree curve.
Figure 59. Wheel L/V Ratio for an Empty Autorack Car (Steady State Curve)
The wheel L/V ratios for the empty car are higher than the loaded car because the vertical load is
lower for the empty car. The wheel L/V ratio of 0.36 for the under balance speed is slightly
higher than the other two cases because of the lower wheel vertical force on the high rail at this
49
lower speed as the empty car negotiates the curve. Figure 60 shows the wheel L/V ratios for an
empty Autorack car for a range of curvatures. As expected, higher wheel L/V ratios occur as the
curvature increases. The maximum wheel L/V ratio for a 10-degree curve is well below the
allowable limit of 1.0.
Figure 60. Wheel L/V Ratios Over a Range of Curves (Empty Autorack Car)
Figure 61 and Figure 62 plot the truck side L/V ratios for the loaded and empty Autorack cars.
The maximum truck side L/V ratios for the loaded car shows a trend like that observed for the
covered hopper car. For the empty car, the maximum truck side L/V ratio occurs at under
balance speed. The maximum truck side L/V ratios are well below the allowable value of 0.6.
Table 24 summarizes the response of the loaded and empty tank car negotiating steady state
curves. The predicted wheel and truck side L/V ratios are lower for the Autorack car with the
Swing Motion trucks when compared to other car types with the conventional three-piece trucks
(see the tank car summary in Table 21). As described in Section 2.10, special design features in
the Swing Motion trucks used in the Autorack cars allow for better steering in curves, leading to
lower L/V ratios when compared to other car types with conventional three-piece trucks.
Figure 61. Truck Side L/V Ratio for a Loaded Autorack Car (Steady State Curve)
50
Figure 62. Truck Side L/V Ratio for an Empty Autorack Car (Steady State Curve)
Table 24. Predicted Autorack Car Response (Steady State Curve)
Curvature, degrees
2 4 6 8 10 AAR
Criterion Loaded Car M-1001
Maximum Wheel L/V 0.11 0.11 0.26 0.40 0.43 1

Max Truck Side L/V 0.06 0.06 0.14 0.20 0.23 0.6
Empty car
Maximum Wheel L/V 0.18 0.22 0.36 0.42 0.47 1

Max Truck Side L/V 0.10 0.13 0.18 0.22 0.27 0.6

Section 3.2 discusses FRA Class 3 track irregularities or perturbations added to 4- and 6-degree
design curves. The responses of the loaded and empty Autorack cars as they negotiated a 6-
degree curve with track perturbations are discussed in this section. Figure 63 shows the wheel
L/V ratio for a loaded Autorack car negotiating a 6-degree curve with track perturbations. The
maximum value of 0.62 is well below the AAR limit of 1.0.
Figure 64 shows the peak wheel L/V ratio is 1.15 for an empty car negotiating a 6-degree curve
with FRA Class 3 track perturbations. The peak value is higher than the AAR allowable value of
1.0. Figure 65 shows a zoomed-in view of the peak wheel L/V ratio where the maximum value
above the allowable value of 1.0 is sustained only for a distance of about a foot. Figure 66
provides a zoomed-in view of the peak wheel L/V ratio in time scale where the maximum value
is above the allowable limit only for about 20 ms. As per the AAR M-1001 Chapter 11 Standard,
the peak wheel L/V ratio must not exceed 1.0 for a period greater than 50 ms nor for a distance
greater than 3 feet. The maximum wheel L/V ratio for this scenario is 0.84, the second highest
peak in Figure 64. Table 25 summarizes the results for 4- and 6-degree curves. The maximum
L/V ratios predicted for the Autorack cars going over curves with perturbations are also less than
the predicted values for other car types (see Table 23).
51
Figure 63. Wheel L/V Ratio, Loaded Autorack Car (6-Degree Curve with Perturbations)
Figure 64. Wheel L/V Ratio, Empty Autorack Car (6-Degree Curve with Perturbations)
Figure 65. Wheel L/V Ratio, Zoomed-in, Distance Scale (Empty Car on a 6-Degree Curve
with Perturbations)
52
Figure 66. Wheel L/V Ratio, Zoomed-in Time Scale (Empty Car on a 6-Degree Curve with
Perturbations)
Table 25. Predicted Autorack Car Response (Curve with Perturbations)

Curvature, degrees
4 6
Criterion Loaded Car AAR M-1001 Limit
Max Wheel L/V 0.52 0.62 1
Min Vert Wheel Load, % 38 37 10
Empty Car
Max Wheel L/V 0.89 0.84* 1
Min Vert Wheel Load, % 26 28 10
* Second highest peak value reported. Refer to Section 5.4.2 for details.
53
6. Summary and Conclusions
The research team created a library of railway freight car models for 12 different car types using
VAMPIRE, a vehicle dynamics simulation software. The team also created a library of track
input files for a range of curvatures. To evaluate the effect of measured track geometry on the
dynamic response of freight cars, the team developed track input files with perturbations
corresponding to FRA Class 3 and Class 4 tracks. TEDS simulations can be added to the
VAMPIRE models developed for this project by individual vehicle dynamics simulations of key
derailed cars.
This report discussed the results of vehicle dynamics analyses for this sub-set of car types to
illustrate the effectiveness of the modeling techniques in predicting key parameters of
vehicle/track interaction. The results in terms of wheel L/V ratios and other parameters for each
car type indicate that the predicted values were reasonable and were in the expected range for the
curvatures and speeds considered for the simulations.
The team found that the vehicle dynamics models made from the library of car, wheel, and rail
profile combinations can be used in future derailment investigations when VTI is considered a
possible cause. Using the models, researchers can input measured track defect data from a
derailment incident investigation to simulate and study that specific derailment. This can be a
valuable tool in derailment investigation.
54
References
Association of American Railroads (2020). Service Worthiness Tests and Analysis for New
Freight Cars. AAR M-1001 Specification, Chapter 11 in AAR Manual of Standards and
Recommended Practices, Section C-Part II.
Association of American Railroads (2020). Railroad Facts. Policy and Economics Department,
Washington, DC: Association of American Railroads.
Andersen, P. (2011). Rolling Stock: Locomotives and Rail Cars – Industry & Trade Summary.
Office of Industries Publication ITS-08, US International Trade Commission.
Kratville, W. W. (Editor) (1997). The Car and Locomotive Cyclopedia of American Practices.
Simmons-Boardman Books, Inc, Omaha, NE.
Rakoczy, A. M. et al. (2019). Articulated Double-Stack Car Effects on Bridges. AREMA
Conference.
Schorr, R. (2015). Basics of Vehicle Truck and Suspension Systems and Fundamentals of
Vehicle Steering and Stability. WRI Principles Course.
55
Abbreviations and Acronyms
ACRONYM DEFINITION
AREMA American Railway Engineering and Maintenance-of-way Association
ASF American Steel Foundry
AAR Association of American Railroads
FRA Federal Railroad Administration
GRL Gross Rail Load
L/V Lateral Force to Vertical Force Ratio
MSRP Manual of Standards and Recommended Practices
MCO Mid-Chord Offset
SOW Scope of Work
TOFC Trailer On Flat Car
TEDS Train Energy and Dynamics Simulator
TTCI Transportation Technology Center, Inc.
VTI Vehicle/Track Interaction
WRI Wheel Rail Interaction
56

Vehicle Dynamics Report

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Vehicle Dynamics Report

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Vehicle Dynamics Report

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Vehicle Dynamics Models for Derailment Incident

DOT/FRA/ORD-23/27 Final Report |September 2023

5b. GRANT NUMBER

5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER

6. AUTHOR(S) 5d. PROJECT NUMBER

12. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8/98)

ENGLISH TO METRIC METRIC TO ENGLISH

AREA (APPROXIMATE) AREA (APPROXIMATE)

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

VOLUME (APPROXIMATE) VOLUME (APPROXIMATE)

TEMPERATURE (EXACT) TEMPERATURE (EXACT)

QUICK INCH - CENTIMETER LENGTH CONVERSION

QUICK FAHRENHEIT - CELSIUS TEMPERATURE CONVERSIO

Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................ 9

Figure 1. VAMPIRE Railcar Model ............................................................................................. 11

The Federal Railroad Administration’s (FRA) Office of Research, Development, and

1.3 Overall Approach

Figure 1. VAMPIRE Railcar Model

1.5 Organization of the Report

2.1 Box Car

2.2 Equipped Box Car

Figure 3. Typical Refrigerator Car

Table 4. Refrigerator Car Specifications

2.3 Covered Hopper Car

2.3.1 Covered Hopper: 110-ton

Figure 5. The 110-ton Covered Hopper Car

2.3.2 Covered Hopper: 125-ton

2.4 Open Top Hopper Car

2.5 Gondola Car

Figure 8. Gondola Car

2.6 Flat Car

Figure 9. Flat Car

Table 9. Flat Car Specifications

Figure 10. Three-Unit Double Stack Container Car

Table 10. Three-Unit Container Car Specifications

Length over coupler pulling faces

Length over strikers 202’-

Distance between centers of 70-ton and 125-ton trucks 63’- 6

2.8 Five-unit Double Stack Container Car

Figure 12. Five-Unit Double Stack Container Car

Table 11. Five-Unit Container Car Specifications

2.9 Tank Car

Figure 13. Tank Car

Table 12. Tank Car Specifications

2.10 Autorack Car

Figure 14 Swing Motion Truck – Exploded View (Courtesy: Amsted Rail)

2.10.1 Bi-level Autorack Car

Table 13. Bi-level Autorack Car Specifications

Figure 16. VAMPIRE Model of a Bi-level Autorack Car

2.10.2 Tri-level Autorack Car

Table 14. Tri-level Autorack Car Specifications

3.1 Constant Curve Design

3.2 Track Irregularities

3.3 Typical FRA Class 3 and Class 4 Track Geometry Defects

Figure 19. Class 3 Track Irregularities

3.3.1 Class 3 Vertical Irregularity

3.3.2 Class 3 Lateral Irregularity

3.3.3 Class 4 Irregularity

Figure 20. Class 4 Track Irregularities