Railway Crossing Information System Railway Crossing Information - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Railway Crossing Information System Railway Crossing Information System ITS Canada Presentation May 29, 2013

Agenda

Project Scope Problem Statements - Rail Operation & Traffic Impact Concept of Operations Detection Technology Testing Detection Technology Testing Motorist Advisory Sign Design Human Factors Analysis Design Challenges Status

Project Scope

Roberts Bank Rail Corridor Program – $307 Millions that includes: 4 new overpasses being built 4 major at-grade crossings affected 8 train detectors 9 advisory signs 9 advisory signs Central control system Four agencies involved: City of Langley Township of Langley Surrey Ministry of Transportation

Problem Statements - Rail Operation

Average train length = 2,200m (7,200’) Max train speed = 56km/h (35 mph) [16m/s] Corridor length = 4.4 km Average rail transits through corridor = 22/day

Approximately 1 event/hr, 6:00am – 6:00pm Approximately 1 event/hr, 6:00am – 6:00pm

Based on RBRC study, by 2021

Train length predicted to increase approx. 10% Number of transits predicted to increase by 40%

Problem Statement - Traffic Impact

Based on 200th St traffic signal pre-emption data

Crossing occupied between 1-4 minutes

Significant queuing can occur at all crossings, with 200th St. southbound often the worst Can take 10 minutes or more to clear the resultant Can take 10 minutes or more to clear the resultant queues and congestion City of Langley’s rule of thumb – 5:1 ratio

3 minute blockage = 15 minutes of congestion/disruption

Key Plan

Sign Location Analysis

Conceptual design looked at travel times and route diversion options VISSUM macro-simulation model to assess diversion potential

Sign Location Analysis

Sign locations re-evaluated during design phase to assess cost-benefit, develop optional strategy in response to budget constraints

Concept of Operations

Train detected as it approaches crossings & tracked within the corridor Train data transmitted to Central Control System Central System predicts time of arrival Central System predicts time of arrival & blockage at crossing Crossing status information transmitted to Motorist Advisory Signs Motorists’ decision for diversion

Concept of Operations

Train detection

Detectors located along RBRC corridor Detect train speed, direction, and length Positioned in advance of crossings to provide sufficient notification, taking into account train sufficient notification, taking into account train lengths and advance notification to users of pending closures Located off rail ROW

Concept of Operations

Predictive Algorithm

Train movement tracked along corridor Based on train speed, direction, and length data, the following are calculated: Train arrival time at each crossing Train arrival time at each crossing Estimated crossing blockage duration Train position confirmed using: Mid-corridor train detectors Crossing pre-emption signals, where available

Concept of Operations

Sign Activation

Motorist advisory signs activated to provide notification to drivers Temporary turn restriction signs activated as part

• f the applicable rail event (by rail pre-emption)
• f the applicable rail event (by rail pre-emption)

Status of signs set based on data provided by detectors and calculated by algorithm Status of signs updated at regular intervals, based

• n progression of train along corridor

Concept of Operations

Concept of Operations

Driver Diversion

Drivers respond to sign status information and make appropriate route decisions Appropriate messaging content is critical to guiding driver behavior guiding driver behavior 10% diversion required to achieve minimum project cost-benefit ratio threshold of 1.4

Concept of Operations

Central Control System

Key functionality:

control NTCIP signs interface with traffic detectors and field controllers controllers log and export train data integrate with the ATMS robust, mature, and reliable platform predict train arrival & blockage time at crossing

Train Detector Testing

Accurate and reliable train detection information is pivotal for project operation A number of candidate technologies were investigated during the preliminary design phase investigated during the preliminary design phase Pilot test was recommended due to unknown performance of candidate technologies when used for train detection

Train Detector Testing

The primary objectives of the pilot test were:

Confirm the feasibility of implementing a train detection system that will satisfy the RCIS requirements Evaluate the performance of candidate detection technologies and Evaluate the performance of candidate detection technologies and create a short list of recommended options Identify any site characteristics that can be used to better inform the detailed design

Train Detector Testing

Most trains were long intermodal trains but there were also

• ccasionally short trains that were only a few locomotives long

Identifies the need to detect shorter trains and treat them differently in system design

Some trains contained a large number of empty double-stack train cars

Chosen detection technology must be capable of detecting the low profile of Chosen detection technology must be capable of detecting the low profile of these train cars

Trains do not maintain a constant speed during their travel and may accelerate or decelerate significantly

Continuous monitoring of train velocity may be required

Train Detector Testing

Sensors installed as part of the pilot test:

One (1) Axis P1346-E Fixed IP Day/Night Video Camera One (1) Axis Q1921-E Fixed IP Thermal Video Camera Two (2) Seco-Larm E-931-S35RRQ Photoelectric Beam Sensors Two (2) Seco-Larm E-931-S35RRQ Photoelectric Beam Sensors One (1) Banner Engineering R-GAGE QT50RAF-US Radar One (1) Autoscope Solo Terra Video Detection System One (1) Wavetronix SmartSensor HD Radar Sensor

Train Detector Testing

• 1. Worked with detector

manufacturer to refine radar sensor detection area

• 2. Results show
• 2. Results show

improved detection accuracy and reliability

Train Detector Testing

Radar detector configuration has proven to reliably detect trains System will use two pairs of radar units per TD Approximate accuracy is as follows:

Presence: near 100% Presence: near 100% Speed: +/- 3-9% Direction: near 100% Length: +/- 3-9%

Motorist Advisory Sign Design

Message purpose Notify drivers of rail crossing status to inform route choice Trade-offs Increased sign intelligence = larger sign structure Increased sign intelligence = larger sign structure and higher cost Increased message complexity = increase in time to comprehend

Motorist Advisory Sign Design

Sign Options

• Option 1:

Option 2b:

• Option 2a:

Option 3***:

Motorist Advisory Sign Design

Motorist Advisory Signs

Static and dynamic graphical elements All signs will display 3 crossings, except Sign #1 Crossing order is specific to the sign location

Human Factors Analysis Results

Summary of Findings

Minor changes to sign face layout Several sign locations adjusted

Human Factors Analysis Results

Vertically stacked crossing names Crossing names centered above status 26 Vertical dividers between status readings Horizontal divider between status readings and train 50% reduction in the number of chevrons

Comprehension Test Results

High percentage of comprehension (82% to 93%) suggests signs are likely very effective at letting drivers know if the crossing ahead is open or closed. At least 50% of drivers who had never detoured in the past said they are more likely to detour. the past said they are more likely to detour.

Motorist Advisory Sign Design

Sign Design Evolution:

Sign Rendering - MAS03

Sign Rendering - MAS04

Sign Rendering- MAS05

Design Challenges

Detector technology

Unique requirements necessitated extensive research and field testing

Budget constraints

Necessitated prioritization of signs Necessitated prioritization of signs

Construction in an evolving urban environment

Utility conflicts Property constraints Sign impact to adjacent residential dwellings Future road widening

Status

Design substantially complete Working with stakeholders to finalize agreements and permitting RFP process to commence this Summer Project completion date: Q1/Q2 of 2014 Project completion date: Q1/Q2 of 2014