New Standard Drawings of Composite Girder Road Over

Bridges issued by RDSO and their comparison with

its Old Standard Drawings
By
VB Sood*
Puskar Srivastava**

SYNOPSIS
RDSO took up design of standard composite Road Over Bridges (ROBs) drawing for the first time in 2010
due to growing importance of ROBs in achieving the aim of complete elimination of level crossings.
Drawings were issued for 3, 4, 5 and 6 track-crossings (with span lengths 18m/ 24m/ 30m and 36m). The
drawings were for standard 3-lane configuration issued by MORTH with raised kerbs/railings on both
sides. This arrangement had a deck width of 12.9m. Being first design of this nature done by RDSO, lots of
issues were raised by zonal railways regarding these drawings and it was felt there is need to revisit the
design. This paper describes changes made while issuing the new set of drawings for the same spans
and rationale behind them. The paper also describes care to be exercised while using the new drawings.

1.0 Introduction of drawings and improve certain aspects.

Design is essentially an iterative process. At the design
and drawing tables, lots of things get sorted out and a
drawing is issued for use. But the vision of the designer is
not always found convenient/ implementable in field and
sometimes the design lacks a few issues. These
considerations and the basic human nature of coming up
with better alternatives the moment a solution is achieved
is what enables the human civilization to progress and
prosper. Indian Railways have very vibrant institutions, and
its myriad design and field offices dealing with the similar
problems can quickly come up with the exhaustive list of
problems and possible alternative solutions to the
problems. This is exactly what happened with the drawings
for road over bridges issued by RDSO in 2010/2011. The
designs evoked so many comments from field/ design
engineers on various aspects formally as well as informally
that it necessitated revisiting the designs, a task that
RDSO took up in 2012-2013. The new designs are not
completely new, rather these shall be considered as the
next iteration, which build upon the features of the first set
2.0 Need for revision in Design
Major points of feedback received regarding the old
drawings which caused the drawings to be revised
included:
1. The existing drawing was suitable for only one 3-lane
roadway configuration. In the field, variety of roads
crossing railway alignment meant that there was a
requirement of various roadway configurations from 2
to 6 lane widths and with differing pathway/kerbs
arrangements. No sooner were the old drawings
issued that RDSO was inundated with references for
checking the drawings for different field requirements,
indicating the need for redesign.
2. For inspection/maintenance purposes, there are
many instances wherein staff may be required to go
between the two girders on a pier. This requires space
between girders but the old drawings had slab length
equal to steel girder length which left virtually no
space between the steel girders.

*Director/B&S/SB-II/RDSO IRICEN JOURNAL OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

** XEN/Design/ NC Rly.

37
 Fig 1: Six road width configurations of new ROB drawings

38
 Fig 2: Elevation of the new drawing showing slab
overhang
3. IRC guidelines stipulate that cross-slope in road shall
be 1 in 40. There are many problems in providing this cross
slope in steel girders which are fabricated in workshop as
against concrete girders which are cast-in-place (at least
diaphragms and slabs are cast in-situ). Therefore, while
preparing the old drawings, it was kept as 1 in 100. In field,
construction of RDSO girders became easy with this
decision, but feedback was received that this is true only
for the railway portion and difficulties were envisaged in
matching this with the approaches having 1 in 40 slope.
Therefore, this issue had to be revisited.
4. Bearing arrangement did not have seismic restraints
required in seismic zones IV/V. Since RDSO drawings
are used all over India, it was felt that this may be
provided in the new drawings.
5. Old drawings were with rivets. Problems with riveting
in field was recognized by RDSO and a
supplementary drawing was issued to the old
drawings to substitute the rivets with the High
Strength Friction Grip (HSFG) Bolts. But the
connection design required a complete relook with
the HSFG bolts.
6. IRC specifies camber to be provided for spans above
30m. Providing camber in plate girders is very difficult
and IRS codes do not provided for camber in girders
upto 36 m, so the old drawings were all without
camber. But since Robs are designed as per IRC
codes, this issue kept cropping up and it was felt that
we shall try to comply with the IRC codes.
7. Problems of distortion of the web plate during welding
were reported by a railway workshop. This aspect
was required to be incorporated in the new drawings.
In addition, there were many minor issues which required
attention, such as the drainage arrangement, expansion
arrangement in slab etc.
3.0 Broad features of New Drawings:
In view of above feedback, the new features incorporated
in the revised drawings issued by RDSO include:
A. Multiple Deck width configurations: Based on
guidelines of MORTH, IRC:5 and actual requirement of
zonal railways, 6 deck slab configurations given in table 1
below were considered for new designs. The girders/ slab
were checked for all six configurations simultaneously.

S.N. Width of Use Carriage-way Footpath/ No of steel

Slab (mm) width (mm) Safety kerb girders per span
1 9900 2 lane with no Footpath 7500 Safety Kerb both sides 4
2 10100 2 lane with footpath one side 7500 Safety Kerb both sides 4
3 11800 2 lane with Footpath both side 7500 Footpath both sides 5
4 12900 3 lane with no Footpath 10500 Safety Kerb both sides 5
5 13400 3 lane with no footpath one side 10500 Safety Kerb both sides 6
6 14800 3 lane with Footpath both side 10500 Footpath both sides 6

Table 1

39
B. Multiple Girder Arrangements: Optimization was done
in design such that a single steel girder design suits
the different deck width configurations. The number
of girders for a span has been altered depending on
the deck width configuration as shown in figure 1. The
last column of the Table 1 gives the number of girders
for one span. The new drawings issued, therefore,
give details of 4-girder leaf arrangement, 5-girder leaf
arrangement and 6- girder leaf arrangement. A
uniform girder spacing of 2500 mm c/c was followed
for all configurations to keep the bracing and
diaphragms etc same in all cases.
C. 1 in 40 Cross slope in deck: In the new drawings,
recommended cross slope of 1 in 40 has been
provided in the slab. This requires deck level at inner
girders to be higher by about 125 mm than the outer
edges for a 10 m road width. For achieving this level
difference, girders are required to be raised/lowered
by 62.5mm with respect to the nearby girder(s). This
level difference has been achieved in the new
drawings by changing the depth of pedestal at the
supports.
Fig 3: Layout of bearings in the new ROB drawings
4.0 Comparison of new drawings with existing Drawings:
a) Steel girder: A comparison of old and new steel girder dimensions is shown in table 2 below.
Span Girder Height (mm)
New drawing Old drawing Comparison
18m 1154 1460
24m 1564 1564
30m 1701 1926
36m 2095 2236
Table 2
40
D. Camber: As per the IRC guidelines, camber is
required to be provided for spans 30m and 36m.
Camber has been given achieved by lifting the central
piece of girder with respect to outer pieces.
E. Stiffeners: To reduce the web distortion, welding in the
web was sought to be reduced. Therefore, the web
has been thicker so as to eliminate the need for
providing intermediate stiffeners in the new drawings.
Only at cross girder locations, intermediate stiffeners
have been provided for connection purposes.
F. Improved Bearing Arrangement and Seismic
Restrainer: The bearings have been designed
keeping middle two girders fixed and allowing all
other components to expand/contract under
temperature effects. There are four types of bearings
(Viz. Fixed, Longitudinal guide, transverse guide and
free) in all spans. For seismic zones IV and V, two
additional types of bearings (viz PIN and METALLIC
GUIDE) are provided to cater to excess seismic
forces over seismic zone III forces. These also serve
as seismic restrainers.
Steel Weight (MT)
New drawing Old drawing Comparison
-306 63.35 60.889 + 2.461
0 98.63 83.35 + 15.28
-225 140.12 132.37 + 7.75
-141 212.11 189.54 + 22.57
 The design has been done with an aim at reducing
depth of construction so as to reduce the cost of
approaches. From Table 2, it is seen that depth could
be reduced by 141mm to 306mm except in 24m span
where no reduction could be done. Due to reduced
depth and increased web thickness for eliminating
intermediate stiffeners, the weight of spans as per
new drawings is higher by 6% to 11%.
Reinforcement Old Drawing
Main slab reinforcement 12 @ 120mm C/C
Transverse Slab Reinforcement 10 @ 150mm C/C
Shear Reinforcement at haunch - 12 @ 150mm C/C
Extra Reinforcement for Skew 12 @ 120mm C/C,
(<=200) top and bottom
Table 3
5.0 Innovations done during design
There were several challenges faced while designing the
new structures which called for innovation. For this, lots of
designers in zonal railways/private consultants were
contacted and a final call was taken at RDSO. Important
issues tackled thus included:
A. Design
Innovation: The design was done keeping all six roads
configurations in mind with optimum number of
girders.
The forces and load combinations were same as in old
design except that the wind loads, seismic loads and
temperature stresses have been considered as per
IRC 6-2010. The no of girders was chosen to have
minimum cantilever of slab to have the composite
action as also to keep cantilever overhang to the bare
minimum and such that steel girder depth is less than
or at most equal to the sections in old drawings.
Having already fixed the c/c spacing of girders at
2500 mm, designing multiple road width
configurations was a major challenge. For example,
in the 13.4m deck width for 3-lane traffic with one side
footpath could not be designed in 5 girder
configuration due to live load coming at the very edge
of slab in cantilever. Ultimately the no of girders for
this deck width configuration was increased to 6 with
one girder coming quite near the edge of the slab (It
may be seen that there are only five girders for 12.9m
b) Deck slab: The deck slab design has been checked
for 6 different road configurations, with varying
position of traffic loads and different overhangs. Due
to the same, even though thickness of the slab is the
same in both designs, steel reinforcement
requirement has gone up. The main changes in slab
reinforcement are given in table 3.
New Drawing Remarks
20 @ 135mm C/C Reinforcement changed due to
six different road configurations.
16 @ 150mm C/C
This is
additional reinforcement
provided for better shear
performance of the haunch.
20 @ 135mm C/C, Extra to be provided in end 2.5
top and bottom m length of slab near supports.
deck width).
B. Planning the drawing:
Each ROB drawing is suitable for 6 deck
configurations which had three girder configurations.
Simplest choice was to issue 6 sets of drawings (60
nos !!) for each span and thus 240 drawings (!!!) for
the 4 span lengths. Lots of details in the drawings
were identical and managing so many drawings
without inconsistencies between different drawings
was deemed to be a logistical nightmare. The
planning of works at site also becomes more
cumbersome with so many drawings.
I nnovation: It was decided to issue only one set of
drawings for all possible configurations. The new
drawings issued thus are quite compact and convey
the design philosophy properly.
Of course, this is a compromise and the field
engineers will have to study the drawings a bit more
carefully during execution. To ease the
fabrication/erection work, the drawings incorporate
general plan view showing different components in
smaller scale. This view has been shown in drawing
nos /R, /2R and /7R.
C. Providing Camber:
Camber in steel girder can be provided if web plate
can be cut to a parabolic profile with ordinate at center
equal to the amount of camber. However the quantum
of work for a typical ROB is quite small and it was felt
41
 that this method is not feasible in the facilities
available in most of the workshops where fabrication
of steel work for ROB is generally done. Therefore,
this method was not preferred.
Innovation: As an alternative, an imperfect but
practical method was chosen to provide camber. In
this method, the central piece of the girder is kept
higher than the supports by an amount equal to the
camber in the center. The outer girder pieces towards
support are kept in slant. Thus in this arrangement,
instead of a parabolic profile, we get a trapezoidal
profile, which was considered acceptable due to the
very small value of live load camber.
This obviously is not an ideal situation. Even the
support point of girder is in slight slant but considering
that the camber is of the order of 50 mm in 9.7 m long
piece for 30 m span and 50 mm in 9.16 m long piece in
36 m span (~0.005 rad.), it was considered that this
much slant is acceptable in the interest of easy
fabrication of the proposed arrangement.

B C
A D
50 MM 50 MM
BEARING

Fig 4: Arrangement for giving camber in 36 m girder.

To achieve the camber, following has been specified:
i. Outer Girder Piece:
a) Length of Top flange plate is more than length of bottom flange plates.
b) The top and bottom flange splice plates are required to be bent for proper contact with the slanting pieces and for
this the dimensions have been given in the drawing.

Fig 5: Dimensions for bending top and bottom flange splice plates.

42
c) Web plate is required to be trapezoidal with length of plate at top being more than the bottom length by 9 mm/ 12 mm
for 30m/36 m spans.

9172 MM 18580
9290 9290

2000

2000
9160 MM 18580
DIMENSIONS FOR WEB PLATE DIMENSIONS FOR WEB PLATE
END GIRDERS A & D INNER GIRDERS B & C
(NOT TO SCALE)

Fig 6: Dimensions of Trapezoidal outer plates in 36 m span

d) The holes for web slice are required to accommodate the above slant. To facilitate the fabrication, the web splice cover
plates have been given holes in square. The web of the girders on the slant side, however, at an angle and for this, the
drawings give the coordinates with reference to the edge of the web plate.

Fig 7: Templates for making holes in web splice plates and web of girder

ii. Middle Girder Piece: D. Providing cross slope in girders:

All variation has been done in outer pieces/ splice
plates, leaving the middle pieces as ordinary girder
pieces.
Detailed drawings and dimensions for achieving the
desired camber are given in drawing nos /5R.
In steel girders, providing cross-slope by having
girders at different levels creates lots of
complications, but being a codal requirement, this
could not be avoided. To provide the cross slope,
adjacent girders were placed 62.5mm higher/lower
as required. This means that the pedestal levels are

43
 different for different girders, regarding which care is
to be taken before girders are launched. For girders at
different levels, the cross frames could have been
provided at the same cross-slope, but this would have
necessitated multiple types of cross frames which
would be difficult to identify in field.
Innovation: It was decided to keep the cross frames
horizontal. This made all cross frames identical and
the holes in girders could be made with the same
template at different heights to suit the cross slope
requirement.
Fig 8: Different arrangements of holes in girders required for providing cross slope
E. Bearing configuration:
Innovation: As already stated above and shown in fig
3, there are 6 types of POT/PTFE bearing in this
design against 2 types in earlier design. The
PIN/Metallic Guide bearings are to be provided (only
in seismic Zone IV and V) in diaphragm between the
two girders having fixed POT bearings. Galvanized
holding down bolts have been specified. Anchor
arrangements have not been preferred due to quality
control issue at site making it difficult to precisely
provide the anchors in the substructure. Instead it has
been specified that holes can be drilled for anchor
bolts after placing girders on bearings. Care may be
taken to finish the pedestal tops for PIN/Metallic guide
at proper level in reference to the other pedestals.
F. Cross frames and Diaphragm:
The girders have been provided with cross frames/
diaphragms at every 4m to 5m. At the supports,
diaphragms have been provided which also function
as lifting arrangements. For intermediate locations,
arrangement has been provided such that inspection/
maintenance staff was go through. Accordingly, cross
frames have been provided in 24m/30m/36m span,
but due to small girder depth, the opening between X-
44
Due to the cross slope requirements, the girder pieces
of same length also could not be made identical. The
girders for 4-leaf/ 5-leaf and 6-leaf arrangement are
also not identical. It is important that the girder pieces
be identified properly with shipping marks and then
assembled else the cross bracing might not fit
properly. To avoid confusion and mistakes in this,
general layout showing different girder pieces on plan
and holes in stiffeners in cross section have been
given in the drawing.
frame elements in 18m span were found to be too
small. So a diaphragm with a rectangular opening in
the middle has been provided in 18m span.
Innovation: The cross frames are provided with a pair
of angles on same side of gusset rather than a pair of
channels on either side of gusset in earlier design.
This arrangement is better as the entire surface is
accessible for painting.
G. Bottom Lateral Bracings:
The height difference between adjoining girders made
the task of providing bottom lateral bracing
complicated. An option considered was to provide
62.5mm thick packing between girders and bottom
lateral bracing. However the thick packing reduces
the effectiveness of the bolts; induces bending load
on the connection and adds unnecessary weight.
Innovation: It was decided to provide bent gusset to
attach the inclined bottom lateral bracing with the
girder flanges. The various dimensions including
amount of end in the gusset has been indicated in the
drawings.
H. Improved shipping List:
The standard RDSO drawings had two lists one part
list for fabricator and one shipping list for
 transportation of the parts and their assembly at site.
Quite often, the lists had mistakes due to totaling and
marking.
Innovation: The part list/ shipping list has been
merged into one in the new ROB drawings so that the
fabricator can pick up the exact number of each part
to enable him to fabricate that piece. The shipping list
number on the final produced part is mentioned next
to the list for each item.
This is a much better way of giving the information
required by fabricators and erectors, and minimizes
drawing/ fabrication errors.

Fig 9: Part List/ Shipping List Combined in the new ROB drawings

6.0 Skew Arrangements:

There are followings changes, which have been done in new drawings as compared to old drawings.

Item Old Drawings New Drawings Change/Innovation

End/ Width of the end/Interme-
Intermediate diate stiffeners were kept
stiffeners dependent on the skew
angle.
Cross Frames/ Lengths of members of
End Diaphragm cross frame/End diaphragm
were expressed in terms
of skew angle.
Lateral Bracings Generic dimensions of
Lateral bracing (Long/short)
and gusset were left to be
determined after plotting
layout on floor.
Width has been kept
independent of the skew
angle.Outer edge distances
of HSFG bolts of stiffeners
are in terms of skew angle.
Length of members of Cross
frame and End diaphragm
are independent of change
in skew angle and kept same
as for square ROB
Generic dimensions of Lateral
bracing (Long/short) and gusset
have been expressed in terms
of skew angle.
Fabrication of stiffeners
is easier. Only marking
of first hole will change with
skew angle
No change in fabrication over
square spans. All changes are
in stiffeners. Fabrication
becomes easier.
Due to difference in levels of
girders, fabrication of bracing
for skew spans in new
arrangement is more difficult
and so it is very important that
the layout be plotted to scale

45

Brackets Brackets were provided
to support the inclined
stiffeners. For skew angle
>100, 2 nos brackets
have been provided
Extra Extra reinforcement
Reinforcement (12mm @ 150mm) between
main reinforcement was
provided at top and bottom
of slab, up to 2.5m length
near the ends of the slab
and parallel to the edges
of slab.
on floor to get the exact
dimensions and verify these
with the formulae given in the
drawing.
Brackets have been provided Bracket arrangement slightly
to support the inclined changed.
stiffeners. For all skew angles
3 nos brackets have been
provided at equal spacing
of 0.25h (h=height of web).
Extra reinforcement (20mm This reinforcement is required
@ 135mm) between main to take care of the torsion
reinforcement has been effect at the edges due to the
provided at top and bottom skewness of ROB.
of slab, up to 2.5m length
near the ends of the slab
and parallel to the edges
of slab.

7.0 Care to be exercised at various stages of
fabrication and erection of ROB girders:
Fabrication of Girders:
1. Before starting the fabrication of girders, the drawings
shall be studied carefully including notes. The girders
of same lengths are identical in section but differ in
holes for bracings and cross frames.
2. As the girders are placed on different heights for
providing camber hence accordingly gusset plates for
lateral bracings are need to bent.
3. In the skew arrangement lateral bracings are
dependent on the skew angles. Therefore it is
important that layout of at least one bay shall be
plotted to scale on floor to get dimensions/details of
lateral bracings (long/Short).
4. Automatic submerged arc welding shall be done for
fillet weld connection between web and flange. CO2
welding shall be preferred over manual metal arc
welding
5. All the flame cut, sawn or planed edges of the plated
should be machined. All sheared corners shall be
rounded off with 2mm radius.
Casting of Pedestals:
6. The pedestals are at different height to provide cross
slope of 1 in 40 to deck slab. This must be kept in mind
while casting the piers.
7. The top of pedestal shall be checked after casting of
concrete such that the various tolerances as specified
in Para 930 of IRC: 83 -2002 can be met with during
installation. Chipping of excess concrete, filling up
gaps/depressions by epoxy may be done to rectify the
pedestals. Holes in the piers/pedestals for holding
down bolts can be provided before placing of girders
or drilled afterwards.
Assembly of Girders:
8. Before assembly, all parts shall be inspected foe any
damage during transportation/storage etc. any
bent/badly corroded members shall not be used for
assembly.
9. In no case the bent stud shear connectors (including
those bent as part of bend test) shall be straightened.
10. The girders are not symmetric especially the outer
girder which have no holes on the outside and the end
pieces where the holes for diaphragm are asymmetric
for which the assembly drawing shall be seen. The
fabricator shall mark the part list no of the stiffeners on
the complete girders which shall be referred during
assembly. If these part list nos are not marked/visible,
holes distances shall be measured as per drawing
and part list nos shall be marked before start of
assembly.
11. The individual pieces should be rotated in the proper
direction before the start of assembly.
12. The holes in the web splice and web shall be made
through same template. Since camber shall be
ensured through holes only.
13. Any bending of splice plates, due to camber, should

46
 be done as cold bending by mechanical pressing.
Heating or hammering is not allowed.
14. Part list no of all stiffeners must be marked on
completed girder to help site engineer in correct
orientation of the girder pieces during assembly of the
girder.
15. Shipping list no must be painted on all assembled
parts, at least 100 mm high of as hogh as the part will
permit.
Metalising:
16. The girder parts except top flange and shear
connectors completely ready after fabrication
including all welding, holes drilling and grinding edges
etc shall be metallised at site or in workshop as per
convenience.
17. If the metallising is done in shop, the second coat of
aluminum paint shall be left to be applied in field after
erection is complete.
18. Top flange and shear connectors shall not be
metallised/painted as this can reduce the bond
strength with concrete.
19. Anchor bolts and nuts shall be hot dip galvanized 100
micron thick as per IS 4759.
Fixing HSFG Bolts:
20. Surfaces which are at interface of the HSFG bolt
connection shall be metallised as per clause 39.1 of
IRS B1 but shall not be painted. This will ensure
enough friction on the interface as taken in design.
21. For fixing HSFG bolts, procedure given in BS-111
revision 2 must be followed. This is important to
ensure proper functioning of these connections.
Launching
22. The scheme for launching shall be approved
beforehand by design office and any clearance such
as CRS sanction must be obtained. Launching can be
done by any of the various methods such as using
multiple Cranes, End launching or using Derricks.
23. The girders shall be placed on pedestals properly
finished to proper alignment, level and cross slope
etc. center line of the final bearing location shall be
paint marked in longitudinal as well as transverse
direction. While placing the girder the center line of
the bearing location shall be matched with the making
of the pedestals.
24. Immediately after launching, before the block is
cleared or the launching arrangement is removed, the
girder shall be secured against toppling over by
providing either end diaphragm with the adjoin girder
or additional steel member(s) on either side of the
girder. If the POT-PTFE bearing has been provided
before launching of girder, bolts shall also be provided
in the bottom flange of girder to secure the same
against toppling over.
Provisions of Bearing in skew bridge:
25. All bearing shall be sent by manufacturer duly set
marked with center line of bearing along the girder
and across it, along with the shipping mark if the
bearing and fitted with transportation clamps.
26. It is prohibited to open transportation clamps before
final assembly of the POT-PTFE bearings on the
girder without the presence of bearing manufacturer
representatives.
27. Bearing shall be provided before concreting of deck
slab is taken up.
28. For skew ROBs, the arrangement of bearings remain
the same as provided in the square ROBs.
29. Bearing shall be protected during concreting or
providing holding down bolts operation. Any mortar or
foreign material contaminating the bearing shall e
completely removed.
Casting of slab
30. Casting of slab should be done in one pour from
center to the ends. If it is not possible and construction
joints are required to be provided, the casting shall be
done as per sequence indicated below with prior
approval of SAG officer incharge of work. Special
precaution line use of wet sand blasting surface
retarders etc. shall be taken. The surface of previous
pour shall be thoroughly cleaned, washed & a thin
layer of cement slurry shall be applied before
resumption of concrete work.
III POUR I POUR II POUR
SPAN/3 SPAN/3 SPAN/3
Providing Holding down bolts
31. The holding down bolts shall be epoxy grouted in the
holes already provided in sub structure or drilled after
placing the bearing in the position and after giving
sufficient time for the epoxy to set, the bearing shall
be connected to girder with bolts.
32. Immediately after launching, before the block is
cleared or the launching arrangement is removed, the
girder shall be secured against toppling over by
providing either end diaphragm with the adjoining
girder or additional steel members(s) on either side of
the girder. If the POT-PTFE bearing has been
provided before launching of girder, bolts shall also be
47
 provided in the bottom flange of girder to secure the
same against toppling.
8.0 Afterword:
The new drawings of Road over Bridges have been
prepared to solve most of the problems brought to the
knowledge of RDSO. Some decisions have been
made, which might turn out to be great or these might
require revision later on. A very important feature of
standard drawings is that the feedback comes to the
same place where the drawings were prepared and
each new iteration leads to improvements over the
previous versions. It is quite important that all users in
field/ design offices read the drawings carefully
before using these and they must give their feedback
on any problems faced while use of drawings to
RDSO. For ROBs, the feedback can be sent by e mail
to directorsteel2@gmail.com.

LAC-MEGANTIC AFTER EFFECTS

Fallout from the July 6 Montreal, Maine & Atlantic Railway Ltd., (MMA) derailment in Lac-
Megantic, Quebec, surfaced in many forms throughout August. The aftereffects included
MMA bankruptcy proceedings; the suspension of the railroads operating license in
Canada; legislative actions; and several regulatory moves in Canada and the United
States that sought to prevent accidents similar to the one that caused 47 fatalities and
significant property damage in the small Quebec town.

In addition, a number of politicians last month called on regulators in both nations to do

even more to improve crude-by rail safety and there likely will be other call-outs in the
months ahead, especially after the Transportation Safety Board of Canada (TSB)
determines the accidents causes.

As of Sept,2, railroads now are required to:

No longer leave hazardous material carrying trains unattended on a mainline or side
track outside a yard or terminal, unless specifically authorized;
Have employees who are responsible for securing hazardous material trains and
vehicles communicate to dispatchers the number of hand brakes applied, a trains
tonnage and length, and other relevant information; and
Ensure dispatchers record the information provided and verify that a securement
meets a railroads requirements.
( Ref. : Progressive Railroading, September-2013 pg.6 )

48