TECHNICAL NOTE
Issue Date 14/06/2017
Civil
Expiry Date
CCT 17/03
Surface Condition Affected Rail
AUDIENCE






MAIN POINTS
Maintenance Superintendents &
Supervisors.
Project Engineers
Manager Routine Maintenance
Civil Maintenance Engineer
MPM teams.
Ultrasonic testers
1.
30/06/2018



Understanding what is Surface Condition Affected Rail and the
potential risks if not managed appropriately
Assessment of all elements of testing contractor reports
ALL surface condition affected rail initial treated in Maximo as P3
VERSION HISTORY

1st Issue
Introduction
This technical note provides response and action guidelines for routine maintenance teams in the
management of surface condition affected rail when identified by the ultrasonic test car. This technical
note provides additional guidance and clarification to requirements issued in August 2016.
Surface condition affected rail (SCAR) also commonly known as untestable rail, is classified when the
rail surface contains imperfections, flaws, objects, foreign materials (dirt, excess lubricant), high levels
of curve wear etc that has a detrimental effect on the ultrasonic signal during inspection.
Surface conditions may affect ultrasonic testing in a few ways:


The sound will be reflected in such a degree that the system is flooded with spurious information.
The sound is reflected away or attenuated and no information is recorded.
In either case, the surface condition creates disruptions to the signals entering the rail and may prevent
internal rail defects from being detected.
Types of rail surface conditions may include








Contamination – excess grease from lubricators not turned off before inspections
Contamination – dirty rail (i.e. asphalt, dirt or vegetation at take offs or level crossings)
Rolling contact fatigue (RCF)
Squats, engine burns
Curve wear
Head flow
Flaking, shelling
Corrosion, rust
Disclaimer. This document was prepared for use on the CRN Network only. John Holland Rail Pty Ltd makes no warranties, express or implied, that compliance
with the contents of this document shall be sufficient to ensure safe systems or work or operation. It is the document user’s sole responsibility to ensure that the
copy of the document it is viewing is the current version of the document as in use by JHR. JHR accepts no liability whatsoever in relation to the use of this document
by any party, and JHR excludes any liability which arises in any manner by the use of this document.
Copyright. The information in this document is protected by Copyright and no part of this document may be reproduced, altered, stored or transmitted by any person
without the prior consent of JHG.
Page 1 of 4
CCT 17/03
Issue Date 14/06/2017
Testing Contractors Responsibilities
2.
When surface condition affected rail is detected, the testing contractor has several steps to implement
before a surface condition is recorded. Firstly, the operator will establish that the disruption to the signal
is being caused by a surface condition and not from other factors such as loss of coupling or a damaged
testing probe.
The operator will then undertake, at reduced speed, a re‐run of the suspected area and if the condition
persists a ground examination is carried out and the type of condition is noted. The test will then proceed
at the reduced speed and any further affected locations are re‐run and defect responses hand tested.
Having completed the testing of the area, the operator will record the length, type and list the transducers
indicated to be compromised by the surface condition. The operator selects the (Yes/No) field under
each transducer to indicate which probes were impeded.
The testing contractor provides a detailed report at the completion of each run which contains details
on track tested, defects found, surface condition and provides any other relevant comments about
issues that may have impeded or delayed completing planned testing.
Routine Maintenance Team Responsibilities
3.
The following guidelines and responses are for the management of surface condition affected rail and
not internal rail defects which are also recorded when found in the test reports. Response and actions
for internal rail defects are contained in CRN CM 224 Rail Defects and Testing.
3.1
Desktop review of test report(s) - initial response and actions
Ultrasonic test reports are electronically distributed and MUST be reviewed by the routine maintenance
representative within 48hrs of the testing being undertaken. Two reports are typically provided;


a movement and defects report, which shows the track(s) tested, dates, defects and surface
condition information.
a hand testers log which also includes non-sizable defects (NSD) with screen shots.
Assess the movement and defects report for the following;
(i)
MOVEMENT sheet – check for completeness, dates are correct, tracks tested are described
correctly, correct KM’s, any missing test locations and when missed locations will be tested.
Note any operator comments about specific risks.
Page 2 of 4
CCT 17/03
Issue Date 14/06/2017
(ii)
DEFECTS sheet – internal rail defects to be responded to and actioned as per requirements
detailed in CRN CM 224.
(iii)
SURFACE CONDITION sheet – conduct an initial review, identify any spurious data entry errors
such as total KMs or KM sequences out of order, compare locations and total quantities to
previous recordings.
All surface condition locations MUST be recorded in Maximo initially as a Priority 3 (P3) using
the defect category of ‘Surface Condition Affected Rail’.
For locations that have NO indicated against one or more probes further manual hand testing
MUST be undertaken to ensure that no internal rail defects exist. Manual testing MUST be
completed as soon as possible and prior to the original Maximo ‘finish no later than’ date.
Prioritising these locations is detailed in section 3.2 below.
For locations that have YES indicated against all probes, the Maximo inspect and review date
MUST be set prior to the next scheduled ‘finish no later than’ date. These locations have been
recorded by the testing contractor as an indicator of a potential future issue that may require
additional effort to resolve such as cleaning for contamination, rail grinding or rerailing. These
sites should be assessed during routine inspections and programmed for repair.
3.2
Prioritising response and actions
The next step involves a detailed assessment of the list of SCAR locations identified in the initial desktop
review. Prioritise the locations considering the following conditions for follow up manual testing and
restrictions as per the following guidelines.
 If location is suspected to be contamination only, arrange cleaning and manual testing – no
additional restrictions needed.
 If location carries passenger traffic and / or head loss >30% and / or annual MGT >5MGT –
impose 60kph TSR until manual testing complete, elevate to P1 in Maximo.
 If location carries non-passenger traffic with a head loss of 15-30% and / or annual MGT >1
≤5MGT – impose 80kph TSR until manual testing complete, elevate to P2 in Maximo.
 The Civil Maintenance Engineer may alter proposed TSR restrictions via a district waiver only
after a risk assessment has been carried out for each location.
Page 3 of 4
CCT 17/03
Issue Date 14/06/2017
3.3
Detailed Site Inspection and Assessment
Task an examiner and / or tester to visit each SCAR location to examine or assess the following;
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
(viii)
Confirm curve wear, measure the worst wear at a few points.
Identify if testing location is continuous or intermittent (e.g. wheel burns or series of
squats are intermittent, and many can be thoroughly hand tested).
Visually assess rail for indicators of VSH, HSH and similar presenting defects, consider
the wheel wear band on the surface, look for one side of rail head ‘sagging’, corrosion
bleed lines under or on side of head.
Consider skim grinding running surface with trolley grinder.
Consider a large grinder if resources in the area.
Hand test the section (consider the probes that were ineffective on ultrasonic car).
Hand test any non-sizable locations within SCAR location, use all logical hand probes,
use sufficient couplant, try horizontal checks of head and web.
If NSD(s) coincide with welds include a check of the foot with miniature 70 probe.
The examiner and / or hand tester must provide a report to RM Superintendent.
3.4
Follow up review
The RM Superintendent or representative must review the findings of the site inspection;
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
Revise the priority with updated risk factors considering examiners / testers report.
Confirm or remove TSR.
Implement corrective action available at local level.
Confirm existing or add new AWP scopes for larger significant corrections.
Update defect priority as corrective work occurs.
Authorised for issue
David Mackney
Principal Track & Civil Engineer
Page 4 of 4