Developed Wheel and Axle Assembly Monitoring System to Improve Passenger Train Safety
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To encourage the expansion of safe high-speed passenger rail service nationwide, the FRA sponsored the development and testing of two autonomous systems to monitor passenger trains to help ensure safety and ride quality. This monitoring is essential for high-speed trains where the consequences of derailment are potentially greater than for trains traveling at lower speeds. The first system is a rugged unit that can function reliably in extreme environments. This system was tested on a Talgo train with tilting technology traveling between Portland and Vancouver during the summer and fall of 1998. The unit was installed to monitor Talgo’s compliance with an FRA waiver allowing the train to travel through certain curves at speeds higher than those of a non-tilting train. The second system is a lighter less rugged system designed for passenger cars where the operating environment is typically less harsh than that of locomotives. The system was installed on Amtrak passenger cars traveling from Bakersfield to Sacramento California and from Washington, DC to New York City. This unit was designed to measure and monitor the vibration of wheel and axle assemblies using standard accelerometers. The measurements were then processed using a neural net computer that “learns” in a manner similar to a human. The data can be used to identify track and vehicle maintenance and repair needs and potentially unsafe conditions. The tests successfully demonstrated that the remote monitoring systems could provide a reliable means for detecting potentially unsafe track and vehicle conditions in near-real time. In addition it can be easily modified to meet various users’ monitoring requirements.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".