Using Technology to Protect the Railway Asset Global Rail Freight Conference New Delhi, March 22, 2007 Dr. A. J. Reinschmidt

TTCI and TTC: Two Different Things TTCI: The Company TTC: The Facility

The Transportation Technology Center, Inc. Our Landlord Our Owner

AAR - Association of American Railroads A not-for-profit association, established in 1934 Represent 8 class 1 freight railroads (200,000 mile of trackage, 2.1 trillion ton-kilometers Freight Haulage) Annual Revenues - $36 Billion dollars Public policy advocacy Network efficiency and interchange by electronic information exchange

TTCI: The Company Wholly owned subsidiary of the Association of American Railroads Headquartered at TTC Operated by our own management team Guided by our own Board of Directors Charged with developing TTC to become the worlds leading railway research testing and training facility

U.S. Freight Intercity Modal Market Share Measured in ton-miles (see left hand pie chart), railroads have 28% of all freight ton-miles, but, more importantly, 42% of the U.S. intercity freight market — well ahead of trucks (28%) and more than any other transportation mode. The rail ton-mile share has been trending slightly upward over the past 10 to 15 years, after falling steadily for decades. [2001 is most current data available.]  However, largely because they are so efficient and because of the enormous rate pressure they typically face, in return for hauling 42% of intercity ton-miles railroads receive less than 10% of intercity freight revenue (right hand pie chart).  The rail share of intercity freight revenue has been trending downward — from 14% in 1990 and 21% in 1980 — a reflection of the intense competitive environment in which railroads operate. Pipeline 2% Water 1% Other 7% RRs 10% Pipeline 17% RRs 42% Water 13% Trucks 80% Trucks 28% Ton-Miles Revenue “Other” for ton-miles is less than 0.5%. Source: Eno Transportation Foundation

Class I Railroad Traffic in 2005 (Gross Freight Revenue) RRs transport a huge spectrum of commodities:  Coal (vast majority to electric power plants, but some for export) has historically been the most important single commodity carried by rail. In 2005, coal accounted for 43% of tonnage and 20% of revenue for Class I RRs. Coal accounts for ~50% of all U.S. electricity generation, and railroads handle approximately 67% of all U.S. coal shipments.  Other major commodities carried by rail include chemicals (including massive amounts of industrial chemicals, plastic resins, and fertilizers); grain and other agricultural products; non-metallic minerals such as phosphate rock, sand, and crushed stone and gravel; food and food products; steel and other primary metal products; forest products, including lumber, paper, and pulp; motor vehicles and parts; and waste and scrap materials, including scrap iron and scrap paper. Intermodal* - $10.1 bil Coal - $9.4 bil Chemicals - $5.4 bil Transportation equipment - $4.0 bil Farm products (mainly grain) - $3.6 bil Food - $3.3 bil Lumber & wood - $2.3 bil Pulp & paper - $2.0 bil Primary metal products (e.g., steel) - $1.7 bil Stone, clay & glass products (e.g., cement) - 1.5 bil Nonmetallic minerals (e.g., sand, gravel) - $1.3 bil Source: AAR *Estimated. Some intermodal revenue is also included in individual commodities.

Intermodal is Now the Top Class of U.S. Freight Rail Traffic Rail intermodal transportation — the movement of truck trailers or containers by rail and at least one other mode of transportation, usually trucks or steamships — has been the fastest growing major segment of the U.S. freight railroad industry for many years. 2005 intermodal volume (11.7 million units) was 284% higher than 1980– that’s a unit every less than three seconds. In 2003, for the first time ever, intermodal accounted for more revenue than coal, traditionally the most important rail commodity. In 2005, intermodal = 23.0% of revenue; coal = 21.0%. (=BNSF, CSX, KCS, NS, and UP combined) Intermodal combines the door-to-door convenience of trucks with the long-haul economy of railroads. Intermodal growth driven largely (but by no means entirely) by international trade, especially with China. In fact, ~50% of rail intermodal movements are imports or exports. Intermodal and Coal as a % of Revenue* *Data for BNSF, CSX, KCS, NS, and UP Source: railroad financial reports

Railroads Are Moving More Traffic Today Than Ever Before RRs are not immune from this trend. Demand for rail service right now is very high.  In fact, U.S. freight RRs are moving more freight today than ever before. This chart shows quarterly year-over-year increases in U.S. freight rail traffic since the first quarter of 2001.  Intermodal traffic has been especially strong – 17 straight quarterly increases.  This sharp increase in traffic caught railroads and shippers by surprise and has led to capacity and service issues in some areas and points on the U.S. rail network. U.S. Rail Traffic: % Change From Previous Year – Q1-01 to Q2-06 Carloads Intermodal Source: AAR Weekly Railroad Traffic

U.S. Rail Ton-Mile Growth: 1964-2005 (Index 1981 = 100) This chart shows how the industry has performed since Staggers: Volume (green line, = revenue ton-miles) is up 86%. Staggers Act Passed Oct. 1980 Source: AAR

U.S. Class I Tons Originated (billions)  The bottom line is that it takes an enormous amount of money to run our nation’s freight rail system. It simply cannot be done on the cheap.  And in fact, railroads have long been spending enormous amounts of money on their systems, with the pace of spending trending upward over time.  From 1980 through 2005, Class I RRs invested nearly $360 billion (and short lines spent additional billions) to maintain and improve their infrastructure and equipment. RR investment in itself – that is, capital spending on infrastructure and equipment as well as maintenance spending on infrastructure and equipment – is about $15 billion- $17 billion per year, or about 45% of revenue. As this slide shows, spending on a per-mile basis has been trending upward, a reflection of the diligence with which railroads address capacity and service issues. [Note: chart shows current dollars. When expressed in constant dollars, the trend is flatter, but still rising.] Source: AAR

Railroad Traffic Density is Rising Millions of Class I Ton-Miles  As noted earlier, U.S. freight RRs today are hauling more traffic than ever before. At some points on the rail network and on some rail corridors, in fact, there basically is no more room. As this chart shows, traffic density – defined as ton-miles per mile of railroad – has been moving steadily upward for years. From 1980 through 2005, traffic density on average is up 218%. Since 1990, it’s up 105%. (Story is essentially the same if the measurement used is ton-miles per mile of track.)  Obviously, not every line has had the same traffic density increase as every other line. But this chart does illustrate why freight railroads in some areas already face capacity limitations due to sharp increases in traffic. And it’s probably only going to get worse. The U.S. Department of Transportation is projecting a 55% rise in rail freight traffic demand by 2020 compared with 2000 levels. Making the investments in upkeep of existing infrastructure and equipment and building new capacity to handle increased demand will be critical for our economy moving forward. Millions of Class I Ton-Miles Per Mile of Road Owned Source: AAR

Railroads are Safe and Getting Safer RRs have made tremendous safety gains. According to FRA data, the rail industry reduced its overall train accident rate 65% from 1980 to 2005, and 15% since 1990 (red line on this chart). The rate of railroad employee casualties (lost workday injuries and illnesses per 100 full-time equivalent employees — yellow line) has been reduced 80% since 1980 and 70% since 1990. The employee casualty rate and the grade crossing incident rate for all of 2005 was the lowest in history. Even rail cargo is safer: loss and damage as a % of revenue is down 73% since 1980 (green line). RR Safety Trends: 1980-2005 (1980 = 100) Source: FRA, AAR

RRs Are Safer Than Other Industries Avg. All Private Industry Today, in fact, railroads are one of our nation’s safest industries.  According to U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics data, railroads have lower employee injury rates than other modes of transportation and, indeed, most other major industry groups, including agriculture, construction, and manufacturing, as well as private industry as a whole.  U.S. railroads also have employee injury rates well below those of most major European railroads. Cases With Days Away From Work, Job Transfer, or Restriction Per 100 Full-Time Workers - 2004 Avg. All Private Industry Trucks Constr. Avg. Mfg. Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

Class I Spending* on Infrastructure & Equipment Railroads Have Been Increasing Spending for a Long Time...  The bottom line is that it takes an enormous amount of money to run our nation’s freight rail system. It simply cannot be done on the cheap.  And in fact, railroads have long been spending enormous amounts of money on their systems, with the pace of spending trending upward over time.  From 1980 through 2005, Class I RRs invested nearly $360 billion (and short lines spent additional billions) to maintain and improve their infrastructure and equipment. RR investment in itself – that is, capital spending on infrastructure and equipment as well as maintenance spending on infrastructure and equipment – is about $15 billion- $17 billion per year, or about 45% of revenue. As this slide shows, spending on a per-mile basis has been trending upward, a reflection of the diligence with which railroads address capacity and service issues. [Note: chart shows current dollars. When expressed in constant dollars, the trend is flatter, but still rising.] Class I Spending* on Infrastructure & Equipment Per Mile of Road Owned Trend line *Capital spending + maintenance expenses - depreciation Source: AAR

...And Are Poised to Spend Even More  Railroads have announced plans to increase their spending even more in 2006. Class I RR Capital Expenditures ($ Billions) e – AAR estimate Source: AAR

RRs Have Far Higher Capital Expenditures Than Other Industries Railroads are at or near the top among all industries in terms of capital intensity. For example, in the 10 years from 1995-2004, Class I railroads spent 17.8% of their revenue on capital expenditures each year, on average. The comparable figure for the average U.S. manufacturer was 3.5%.  From 1980 through 2005, Class I RRs invested nearly $360 billion (and short lines spent additional billions) to maintain and improve infrastructure and equipment.  After accounting for depreciation and adding expenses, freight railroads typically spend (capital expenditures and expensing together) $15 billion- $17 billion each year — equal, on average, to around 45% of their operating revenue — to provide the high quality assets they need to operate safely and efficiently. Capital Expenditures as a % of Revenue: Avg. 1995-2004 Class I RRs Petrol. & Coal Prod. Avg. All Mfg. Computers Plastics Transp. Equip. Nonmet. Minerals Paper Chemicals Wood Prod. Food Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, AAR

EFFICIENCY Railroad Spending Trends Total Spending = 37.7 Billion There are four principle spending categories (Capital and Repair & Maintenance) : Transportation = 43 % Cost centers Fuel = $4.4 Billion in 2004 27 % spending increase from 2003 59 % spending increase from 2002 Labor (Train Crews) Equipment = 22 % Freight car and Locomotive (Repair & maintenance) Way & Structures = 23 % Rail & OTM Tie Ballast Bridge Source: Class I railroad (R-1 data) 2004. Spending is independent of depreciation expense.

Railroad Spending Trends Roadway (MOW) Track Related Spending The Rail & Track Material account includes special trackwork. From rail surveys conducted in 1994 and in 2001 rail life has increased as a result of technology based solutions. Premium Rail Lubrication systems Improved grinding practices along with optimal Wheel/Rail profiles Are considered key attributes to this rail productivity Source: Class I railroad (R-1 data) 2004.

Rail and Crossties Laid Year New Rail (tons) Crossties (thousands) 1995 443,084 12,784 1996 491,488 14,269 1997 549,726 13,363 1998 653,612 12,185 1999 698,713 12,147 2000 689,992 11,454 2001 623,866 11,383 2002 584,942 13,416 2003 572,828 13,777 2004 471,426 13,813

Anatomy of Track Strength Typical Curve Spirals Mainline Track Track Transitions Special Trackwork Poor Foundations New Construction Bonded Track on IJs Bridges 3091-Davis-1

Anatomy of Train Loads Steering Trucks Heavy Curves Bad Actor Trucks Tangent Track Track Transitions Special Trackwork 3091-Davis-2

Methods of Reducing the Stress State Strengthen all track (e.g. Rail Steels) Fix weak points Better (Dynamically Designed) track Match track strength to train loads Forces From Train Potential Problems

Methods of Reducing the Stress State Strengthen all track Fix weak points (e.g. Rail Welding) Better (Dynamically Designed) track Match track strength to train loads Forces From Train Potential Problems

Methods of Reducing the Stress State Strengthen all track (Capital Intensive) Fix weak points Better (Dynamically Designed) track (e.g. STW) Match track strength to train loads Forces From Train Potential Problems

Methods of Reducing the Stress State Strengthen all track (Capital Intensive) Fix weak points Better (Dynamically Designed) track Match track strength to train loads (e.g. TOR) Forces From Train Strength of Track Where train is applying high forces, track is strong.

Inspections with Existing Technologies Truck Curving (TPD) High Lateral Loads High L/V Ratio High Angle of Attack Acoustic Bearing Detector (TADS) Smart HBD’s Machine Vision Based Inspection Systems (FactIS)

Truck Performance Detector Site N.A. Freight – 18 TPD Installations

Trackside Acoustic Detector Site N.A. Freight – 8 TADS Installations

Example: Inner Ring or Cone Defect Time history and frequency spectrogram Sound file for cone defect

Example: Outer Ring or Cup Defect Time history and frequency spectrogram Sound file for cup defect

Example: Roller Defect Time history and frequency spectrogram Sound file for roller defect

Wheel Profile Condition Monitoring 3 FactISTM Sites in North America

Cracked Wheel Detection Problems: Annual costs related to cracked railroad wheels is approximately $24 million Thermal cracks and shattered rim cracks account for many derailments Problem continues to grow under HAL Goals: Develop a wayside inspection system Reduce derailments resulting from broken wheels Develop new wheel alloys Accomplishments to date Developed and demonstrated effectiveness of a wayside cracked wheel detection system Hospital and FAST train tests

Cracked Wheel Detection Wayside Tracking System SRI 6A Cracked Wheel Detection Conceptual Operation Cracked Wheel Detection Wayside Tracking System

Cracked Wheel Detection Wayside Tracking System SRI 6A Cracked Wheel Detection Actual Operation Cracked Wheel Detection Wayside Tracking System

Cracked Wheel Detection - Results Pattern Recognition A-Scan Electronic Strip Chart Artificial Flaw Indications Service Flaw Indications Artificial and Service Flaw Indications

HAL Axle Program Problem: Derailments due to broken axles have increased over the past 4 to 5 years Approximately 20 broken axles per year in the 2000’s as compared to 4 in the late 1990’s Problem Size is $15M+ Goals: Determine the ability of currently designed 286,000-lb Class F axles to survive in the railroad environment Reduce/eliminate derailments caused by broken axles Research Approach Multi-faceted program focused on both prevention and detection Prevention – New axle designs? Detection – Laser ultrasonics

Cracked Axle Detection Beam Turning and Shaping Air-Coupled Transducers Wheel Sensors Indexing Mirrors Turning Mirrors Laser Heads

Prototype System No Crack Present Crack Present Direct Wave Amplitude Time (microseconds) Crack Present Reflected Wave Amplitude Direct Wave Time (microseconds)

Cracked Axle Inspection System No Crack Condition Primary wave detected at ~1130 microseconds Calculated primary wave for a 36-inch wheel is ~1145 microseconds No crack reflection present Direct Wave Direct Wave Optic Base Station Beam Expander Axle Inspection Station Direct Wave Direct Wave Reflected Wave Reflected Wave Crack Condition Crack located 89 mm from axle centerline Calculated primary wave for a 38-inch wheel is ~1265 microseconds Crack reflection expected at 1339 microseconds Crack reflection observed at 1340 microseconds

ATSI & EHMS Steering Committee – Mission Provide overall leadership and governance for the industry’s Advanced Technology Safety Initiative and Equipment Health Management Systems (EHMS)

ATSI & EHMS – “Changing Finders into Fixers” Develop shared responsibility for car condition Railroads Private Car Owners Maintenance Responsible Parties Use detector data to identify distressed cars and assess level of distress Issue notifications to maintenance reponsibile party to affect repair

2006 Accomplishments Worked in conjunction with the AAR’s Equipment Engineering Committee & the SRI Program to develop criteria for truck hunting performance Developed consensus on 2007 – 2008 detector focus Bearings – Acoustic detection and temperature trending Vision systems for wheel profile and brake shoes Imbalanced / overloaded car detection

Progress: High Impact Load Wheels – 3-year Trend

Progress: Estimated Truck Hunting Alerts 767 528

2007 Activities and Focus Areas Rule 88 Examination When in the car owners control, are all appropriate conditions identified and repaired? Home Shopping How can the industry work together to efficiently identify and remediate cars that need extensive repair? Interface with Other AAR Activities How can ATSI & EHMS support other related AAR initiatives?

ATSI & EHMS Technology Roadmap Wheel Profile Data in InteRRIS® – late ’06 Remediation recommendation – ’07 Rules not specific to wayside detection systems Truck Performance Data in InteRRIS® – ’02 Remediation recommendation – late ‘07 Overload / Imbalance Base data in InteRRIS® – ‘01 Additional work needed for alarming (SRI Program in ’07) Remediation recommendations – ‘09

ATSI & EHMS Technology Roadmap Hot / Cold Wheel Data in InteRRIS® – Ready to accept data Remediation recommendation – ‘09 Brake Shoe – Visual Data in InteRRIS® – ’08 Remediation recommendations – prior to ’10 Rules not specific to wayside detection systems Vision Systems Data in InteRRIS® (beyond WPMS) – ’08 Remediation recommendation – ’10

ATSI & EHMS Roadmap Technology Driven Train Inspection Data in InteRRIS® – Early ’08 Remediation recommendation – ‘11 Cracked Axle Data in InteRRIS® – ‘10 (est) Remediation recommendation – prior to ’11 Cracked Wheel Data in InteRRIS® – ’09 Remediation recommendations – ‘13

ATSI vs TDTI “Changing Finders to Fixers” Focus on interchange process Develops shared responsibility for car condition Railroads Private Car Owners Maintenance Responsible Parties Uses detector data to identify distressed cars and assess level of distress Issues notifications to maintenance responsible party to affect repairs

ATSI vs TDTI “Changing Finders to Fixers” Focus on regulatory revision Uses detector data to certify car health Vehicle health report in lieu of visual inspection Car health sufficient to make it to destination

InteRRIS® - EHMS Review Functions Contrasts Customers Progress Issues Functions InteRRIS® vs RR vs EHMS/Railinc Systems Contrasts in Responsibilities Customers Non-Railinc: AAR/SRI; International,; Transit Progress InteRRIS® status Expectations Issues Support Level (conflicting priorities)

Functions: Understanding InteRRIS® Industry Objectives for InteRRIS® Centralize railroad detector data for mutual sharing Support preventive and predictive maintenance planning through data availability [provide a commercial service] to private car owners InteRRIS® was designed for and is built to support industry vehicle health monitoring initiatives ATSI adopted InteRRIS® because it readily provided the initially required functionality without modification ATSI was initiated in 6 months by using existing systems KEY Concept: FLEXIBILITY Integrate all detector data Provide knowledge to user/system Designed to be: Flexible Integrated Secure

Functions: How InteRRIS® meets industry requirements (current/future) Receive and house detector detail data Feed directly to RR systems: data and Events (Alerts) Feed data to subscribers (car owners, RRs, fleet mgrs.) Distribute Event Notices: EHMS, subscribers Access to data for analysis: SRI, RRs, subscribers