REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Approved

OMB No. 0704-0188

Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering
and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information,
including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington,
VA 22202-4302, and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (0704-0188), Washington, DC 20503.

1. AGENCY USE ONLY (Leave blank) 2. REPORT DATE 3. REPORT TYPE & DATES COVERED
January 1999 Final Report
Nov. 1990 - Jan. 1996
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5. FUNDING NUMBERS
Freight Car Reflectorization R9026/RR997
6. AUTHOR(S) R9068/RR997
Anya A. Carroll, Jordan Multer, Debra Williams, Melvin A. Yaffee R9007/RR997
7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION
U.S. Department of Transportation REPORT NUMBER
Research and Special Programs Administration
Volpe National Transportation Systems Center DOT-VNTSC-FRA-97-2
Cambridge, MA 02142-1093
9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSORING OR MONITORING
U.S. Department of Transportation AGENCY REPORT NUMBER
Federal Railroad Administration
Office of Research and Development DOT/FRA/ORD-98/11
Washington, DC 20590
11. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
Safety of Highway-Railroad Grade Crossings Series
12a. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY 12b. DISTRIBUTION CODE
This document is available to the public through the National Technical Information
Service, Springfield, VA 22161

13. ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 words)

Collisions at highway-railroad grade crossings have posed a significant safety problem. To reduce the number of these collisions at highway-railroad grade
crossings where train visibility is a contributing factor, the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) is investigating measures to enhance the visibility of trains
with the use of retroreflectors on freight cars.

A four-phase research program was conducted to determine the feasibility of reflectorization as a train conspicuity device. A literature review provided past
and current transportation experiences on the use of retroreflectors. A demonstration test was conducted to establish the durability of a newly developed
(microprismatic) material, and to create a retroreflective pattern to test for the next phase of research. A nationwide in-service test was conducted to measure
the microprismatic retroreflectors' performance, accident reduction potential, and costs. A human factors test was conducted to evaluate the detectability and
recognition of several retroreflective designs.

Results from this research indicate that a uniform, recognizable pattern of reflectorized material can facilitate recognition of a freight car. The durability of
the microprismatic material tested indicates that adequate intensity levels can be sustained up to 10 years with maintenance.

14. SUBJECT TERMS 15. NUMBER OF PAGES

190
Highway-railroad crossing safety; Railroad safety research; Conspicuity; Visibility; Retroreflective
material; Freight car; Reflectorization 16. PRICE CODE

17. SECURITY 18. SECURITY 19. SECURITY 20. LIMITATION OF

CLASSIFICATION OF CLASSIFICATION OF CLASSIFICATION OF ABSTRACT
REPORT THIS PAGE ABSTRACT
Unclassified Unclassified Unclassified Unlimited

NSN 7540-01-280-5500 Standard Form 298 (Rev. 2-89)

Prescribed by ANSI Std. 239-18
298-102
 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This report was sponsored by the U.S. Department of Transportation (US DOT), Federal
Railroad Administration (FRA), Office of Research and Development. The authors wish to
thank Claire Orth, Garold R. Thomas, and Thomas G. Raslear, of the FRA Office of Research
and Development, for their direction and helpful guidance during the study of freight car
reflectorization documented in this report.

The report was prepared by staff of the US DOT Research and Special Programs Administration
(RSPA), John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center (Volpe Center). Volpe Center
organizational units participating in this research included — within the Office of Safety and
Security — the Accident Prevention Division, and the Operator Performance and Safety Analysis
Division.

Anya A. Carroll, Principal Investigator for the Volpe Center Highway-Railroad Grade Crossing
Safety Research Program, provided overall direction. Melvin A. Yaffee, Volpe Center, provided
technical support in the demonstration tests conducted at the US DOT/Association of American
Railroads (AAR) Transportation Technology Center (TTC), the nationwide field tests, and
targeted railroad field investigations. Irv Golini, Volpe Center retiree, and Robert W. McGuire
Jr., Volpe Center, provided technical support in the nationwide field tests conducted with the
Norfolk Southern Corporation and the Alaska Railroad. From the Co-Operative Student
Program at the Volpe Center, David Hutton, Richard Ow, Robert May, and Janelle Helser
provided data collection support. Erica Rhude, Volpe Center, provided insight and realism to
this research by producing a Memorandum on Freight Car Reflectorization found in the report’s
appendix section. Jordan Multer, Volpe Center, directed the controlled laboratory tests
conducted at the University of Tennessee. The Report Team Leader was Debra M. Williams
Chappell, Volpe Center.

Special acknowledgment is given to the Alaska Railroad Corporation and Norfolk Southern
Corporation for their participation in the conduct of the nationwide field tests. The specific
individuals listed below are gratefully thanked for their help in the conduct of our research:

• Joshua D. Coran, Alaska Railroad Corporation, Anchorage, Alaska

• C. Scott Muir, Director of Research and Tests, Norfolk Southern Corporation

Research Facility, Alexandria, Virginia

• Clarence Eanes, Norfolk Southern’s Dillard Yard, Gordon, Georgia

• J. M. Sellers, G. L. Jones, G. L. King, J. M. Masterson, J. W. Gargis,

D. L. McCollum, R. K. Linville, and T. L. Rhodes, Norfolk Southern’s
Sheffield Yard and Pride Refueling Facility, Muscle Shoals, Alabama

• D. H. Staub, J. S. Brown, E. E. Mickens, V. L. Whitesell, Norfolk Southern

Intermodal Facility at Portlock Yard, Norfolk, Virginia

iii
A special thanks is given to the US DOT/AAR Transportation Technology Center for the
assistance of their staff and use of their facilities to conduct the demonstration test.

The authors would also like to thank Stephen Richards and Robert “Corky” Ford of the
University of Tennessee Transportation Research Center for their valuable assistance in
conducting the controlled laboratory studies related to human behavior of freight car
reflectorization.

The authors would also like to thank John S. Hitz, Chief, Accident Prevention Division, Volpe
Center, for his guidance and assistance.

Finally, Ann Walker, Paul Blanchard, and James Lannon, EG&G Services, provided valuable
suggestions in the editorial process to prepare this final publication. Mary Carmen Knox and
Trevor May, Camber Corporation, prepared the cover graphic illustration.

The Volpe Center study team

wishes to dedicate this report
to the memory of

MELVIN A. YAFFEE

iv
 PREFACE

Historically, highway-railroad grade crossings have represented a major hazard to motor vehicle
drivers and have resulted in numerous motor vehicle-train collisions. The Federal Railroad
Administration (FRA) of the U.S. Department of Transportation (US DOT) has initiated
a comprehensive research program to develop means of reducing the number of
motor vehicle-train collisions. In support of this overall research effort, the John A. Volpe
National Transportation Systems Center (Volpe Center) is conducting an investigation of
collisions that occur when train visibility is a contributing factor. This study investigates the use
of microprismatic retroreflectors to enhance the visibility of freight cars as a means of reducing
such collisions. Results of the study are documented in this report, which is one in a series of
reports on FRA/Volpe Center highway-railroad grade crossing safety research.

In support of the FRA, the Volpe Center evaluated the feasibility of the latest generation of
microprismatic retroreflective materials as a conspicuity device in a four-phase research program.
A literature review provided past and current transportation experiences with the use
of retroreflectors. A demonstration test was conducted with the assistance of the
US DOT/Association of American Railroad’s Transportation Technology Center (TTC) to
establish the performance of microprismatic material against previously tested materials.
The Volpe Center conducted a nationwide test in collaboration with the Norfolk Southern
Corporation and the Alaska Railroad Corporation that allowed data collection of retroreflectors’
durability, performance, accident reduction potential, and costs under in-service conditions.
The Volpe Center also sponsored human factors tests performed by the University of Tennessee
to measure the detectability of various patterns and colors of retroreflective materials on freight
cars.

Results from this research program indicate that a uniform, recognizable pattern of reflectorized
material applied to a freight car can facilitate motor vehicle driver recognition in time to avoid
a collision. The results of durability testing of the microprismatic material in a railroad
environment indicate that adequate intensity levels can be sustained up to 10 years with routine
maintenance.

v/vi
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section Page

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................ ES-1

1. INTRODUCTION.....................................................................................................................1-1

1.1 PURPOSE ..........................................................................................................................1-1

1.2 ACCIDENT BACKGROUND..........................................................................................1-1
1.3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY......................................................................................1-5
1.4 REPORT LAYOUT...........................................................................................................1-6

2. RETROREFLECTION............................................................................................................2-1

2.1 FUNDAMENTAL RETROREFLECTING PROPERTIES.............................................2-1

2.2 FUNDAMENTALS OF VISION......................................................................................2-3
2.3 MINIMUM THRESHOLD FOR REFLECTOR BRIGHTNESS....................................2-4

2.3.1 Point Source Method...............................................................................................2-4

2.3.2 Determination of Threshold Intensity for Tested Reflectors..................................2-6

3. REVIEW OF REFLECTORIZATION EXPERIENCE IN TRANSPORTATION ........3-1

3.1 REVIEW OF PREVIOUS STUDIES ...............................................................................3-1

3.2 PREVIOUS EXPERIENCES WITH FREIGHT CAR REFLECTORIZATION............3-3

3.2.1 Australia ..................................................................................................................3-3

3.2.2 Canada.....................................................................................................................3-4
3.2.3 Southern Company..................................................................................................3-4
3.2.4 Burlington Northern................................................................................................3-4
3.2.5 Other Railroad Organizations .................................................................................3-5

3.3 TRUCK REFLECTORIZATION......................................................................................3-5

3.4 OTHER MODES OF TRANSPORTATION ...................................................................3-7
3.5 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS.............................................................................................3-8

4. DEMONSTRATION TEST.....................................................................................................4-1

4.1 DEMONSTRATION TEST METHODOLOGY .............................................................4-1

4.1.1 Description of Reflectors Tested ............................................................................4-1

4.1.2 Reflector Color and Pattern ....................................................................................4-2
4.1.3 Demonstration Test Site Conditions..................................................................... 4-12

vii
 TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)

Section Page

4.2 DEMONSTRATION TEST RESULTS ......................................................................... 4-12

4.2.1 Reflectivity Measurements ................................................................................... 4-12

4.2.2 Washing Effects on Prismatic Materials .............................................................. 4-16
4.2.3 Accumulated Mileage ........................................................................................... 4-21
4.2.4 Environmental Effects........................................................................................... 4-21

4.3 ANALYSIS OF DEMONSTRATION TEST RESULTS .............................................. 4-21

4.4 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS........................................................................................... 4-25

4.4.1 Reflector Performance .......................................................................................... 4-25

4.4.2 Optimum Configuration........................................................................................ 4-25

5. IN-SERVICE REVENUE REFLECTORIZATION TEST ................................................5-1

5.1 IN-SERVICE TEST METHODOLOGY ..........................................................................5-1

5.1.1 In-Service Test Cars................................................................................................5-1

5.2 IN-SERVICE TEST RESULTS ........................................................................................5-5

5.2.1 Tank Cars ................................................................................................................5-5

5.2.2 Double Stack Cars...................................................................................................5-9
5.2.3 Hopper Cars........................................................................................................... 5-12
5.2.4 Box Cars................................................................................................................ 5-15

5.3 ANALYSIS OF IN-SERVICE FIELD TEST RESULTS .............................................. 5-18

5.3.1 Reflector Performance .......................................................................................... 5-18

5.3.2 Environmental and Other Effects on Performance of Prismatic Material ........... 5-21
5.3.3 Accident Analysis ................................................................................................. 5-21
5.3.4 Installation Costs and Maintenance Requirements .............................................. 5-24

5.4 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS........................................................................................... 5-25

5.4.1 Reflectivity and Maintenance ............................................................................... 5-25

5.4.2 Natural and Operational Environmental Effects on Reflector Performance .......5-26
5.4.3 Accident Reduction Potential ............................................................................... 5-26
5.4.4 Material and Maintenance Costs .......................................................................... 5-26

viii
 TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
Section Page

6. HUMAN FACTORS EVALUATION OF

RETROREFLECTIVE MARKING DESIGNS....................................................................6-1

6.1 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................6-1

6.1.1 Literature Review....................................................................................................6-1

6.1.2 Development of Candidate Designs .......................................................................6-2

6.2 SUBJECTIVE EVALUATION OF CANDIDATE DESIGNS .......................................6-4

6.2.1 Method ....................................................................................................................6-4

6.2.2 Results and Discussion ...........................................................................................6-5

6.3 OBJECTIVE EVALUATION OF CANDIDATE DESIGNS..........................................6-8

6.3.1 Method ....................................................................................................................6-9

6.3.2 Results and Discussion ......................................................................................... 6-13

6.4 CONCLUSIONS.............................................................................................................. 6-18

6.5 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS........................................................................................... 6-20

7. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS.........................................................................................7-1

7.1 FINDINGS .........................................................................................................................7-1

7.1.1 Review of Reflectorization Experiences in Transportation ...................................7-1

7.1.2 Demonstration Test.................................................................................................7-1
7.1.3 In-Service Test ........................................................................................................7-2
7.1.4 Human Factor Test..................................................................................................7-3

7.2 CONCLUSIONS...........................................................................................................7-3

APPENDIX A. Canadian Requirements

APPENDIX B. Reflector Instrumentation and Measurement Procedure
APPENDIX C. Tank Car Reflector Initial Measurements
APPENDIX D. Double Stack Car Reflector Initial Measurements
APPENDIX E. Hopper Car Reflector Initial Measurements
APPENDIX F. Box Car Reflector Initial Measurements
APPENDIX G. All Car Type Reflector Aggregate Initial Measurements
APPENDIX H. Freight Car Reflectorization Memorandum

GLOSSARY
REFERENCES
ix
 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

ES-1. Suggested Improved Reflector Patterns on a Typical Freight Car................................ES-7

1-1. Trend in Total Accidents versus Total RIT Accidents (1975–1996)...............................1-2

1-2. Total RIT Accidents versus Total Accidents (1975–1996)..............................................1-2

1-3. Trend in Total Category 1 Accidents versus Total RIT Accidents (1975–1996) ............1-3

1-4. Trend in Nighttime Category 1 RIT Accidents

versus Total Category 1 RIT Accidents (1975–1996) .....................................................1-4

2-1. Types of Reflectors ..........................................................................................................2-1

2-2. Graphical Representation of Incidence and Divergence Angles

with Respect to a Railroad Freight Car (Not to Scale) ....................................................2-2

3-1. Relationship between “Critical Point” on

Train and Perception/Reaction and Stopping...................................................................3-2

4-1. Full and Close-Up Views of Reference Car

with Bonded, Prismatic, and Enclosed Materials ............................................................4-3

4-2. Full and Close-Up Views of Prismatic and Enclosed Lens Materials .............................4-4

4-3. Full and Close-Up Views of Red-and-White Vertical Reflector .....................................4-5

4-4. Full and Close-Up Views of Solid Red Decal .................................................................4-6

4-5. Full and Close-Up Views of Half-Red/Half-White Decal ...............................................4-7

4-6. Full and Close-Up Views of Alternating Red and White Stripes ....................................4-8

4-7. Full and Close-Up Views of Red-on-White Diamonds ...................................................4-9

4-8. Full and Close-Up Views of White-Red-White Diamonds ........................................... 4-10

4-9. Full and Close-Up Views of White Wheel Plate Decals at 120-Degree Spacing.......... 4-11

4-10. Comparison of All Reflective Materials Tested (Unwashed Reference)....................... 4-13

4-11. Unwashed Prismatic vs. Unwashed Enclosed Lens

(Mean and One Standard Deviation) ............................................................................. 4-14

x
 LIST OF FIGURES (continued)

Figure Page

4-12. Unwashed Prismatic vs. Unwashed Enclosed Lens (Percentiles).................................. 4-15

4-13. Unwashed Red Prismatic (Mean and One Standard Deviation and Percentiles)........... 4-17

4-14. Unwashed Red-and-White Prismatic Delineating Stripe

(Monthly Averages and Percentiles).............................................................................. 4-18

4-15. SIA of Prismatic Decals with One- and Two-Month Washing Cycles.......................... 4-19

4-16. SIA of Decals with Four- and Six-Month Washing Cycles........................................... 4-20

4-17. Cumulative Mileage....................................................................................................... 4-22

4-18. Precipitation ................................................................................................................... 4-22

4-19. SIA vs. Rainfall and Snowfall........................................................................................ 4-23

4-20. Arrangement of Decals on a Typical Freight Car .......................................................... 4-26

5-1. Alaska Tank Cars – Degradation of Positions 2, 3, and 4 ...............................................5-6

5-2. Alaska Tank Cars – Degradation of Positions 1 and 5 ....................................................5-6

5-3. Alaska Tank Cars – Mean Degradation Trend for Positions 2, 3, and 4..........................5-7

5-4. Alaska Tank Cars – Mean Degradation Trend for Positions 1 and 5...............................5-7

5-5. Seven-Month SIA Readings for Tank Cars .....................................................................5-8

5-6. Effects on Tank Car Reflectors from Internal Steam Cleaning .......................................5-8

5-7. NS Double Stack Cars – Degradation of Positions 2, 3, and 4 ...................................... 5-10

5-8. NS Double Stack Cars – Degradation of Positions 1 and 5 ........................................... 5-10

5-9. NS Double Stack Cars – Mean Degradation Trend for Positions 2, 3, and 4 ................ 5-11

5-10. NS Double Stack Cars – Mean Degradation Trend for Positions 1 and 5 ..................... 5-11

5-11. NS Hopper Cars – Degradation of Positions 2, 3, and 4................................................ 5-13

5-12. NS Hopper Cars – Degradation of Positions 1 and 5..................................................... 5-13

xi
 LIST OF FIGURES (continued)

Figure Page

5-13. NS Hopper Cars – Mean Degradation Trend for Positions 2, 3, and 4.......................... 5-14

5-14. NS Hopper Cars – Mean Degradation Trend for Positions 1 and 5............................... 5-14

5-15. NS Box Cars – Degradation of Positions 2, 3, and 4..................................................... 5-16

5-16. NS Box Cars – Degradation of Positions 1 and 5.......................................................... 5-16

5-17. NS Box Cars – Mean Degradation Trend for Positions 2, 3, and 4 ............................... 5-17

5-18. NS Box Cars – Mean Degradation Trend for Positions 1 and 5 .................................... 5-17

5-19. Comparative Degradation Rates for All Freight Car Types in Positions 1 and 5 .......... 5-19

5-20. Comparative Degradation Rates for All Freight Car Types in Position 2 ..................... 5-19

5-21. Comparative Degradation Rates for All Freight Car Types in Position 3 ..................... 5-20

5-22. Comparative Degradation Rates for All Freight Car Types in Position 4 ..................... 5-20

5-23. Tank Car – Upper and Lower White Reflector Degradation Rates ............................... 5-22

5-24. Double Stack Car – Upper and Lower White Reflector Degradation Rates.................. 5-22

5-25. Hopper Car – Upper and Lower White Reflector Degradation Rates............................ 5-23

5-26. Box Car – Upper and Lower White Reflector Degradation Rates................................. 5-23

6-1. Illustration of Marking Designs Generated from Brainstorming Session........................6-3

6-2. Expert Preferences for Individual Marking Designs by

Type of Method: Simple Ranking and Paired Comparison ............................................6-6

6-3. Driver Preferences for Individual Marking Designs by

Type of Method: Simple Ranking and Paired Comparison ............................................6-7

6-4. Layout of Experiment .................................................................................................... 6-10

6-5. Keyboard Arrangement.................................................................................................. 6-10

xii
 LIST OF FIGURES (continued)

Figure Page

6-6. Nine Experimental Marking Designs............................................................................. 6-12

6-7. Effect of Color and Pattern on Detection Distance........................................................ 6-16

7-1. Suggested Improved Reflector Patterns on a Typical Freight Car...................................7-5

xiii
 LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

ES-1. In-Service Revenue Test Summary...............................................................................ES-3

1-1. Total Category 1 RIT Accidents by Warning Device (1975-1996) .................................1-4

1-2. Summary of Accidents Potentially Reducible by Reflectorization.................................1-5

2-1. The Effects of Source Diameter and Viewing Distance to Size Factor Implications ......2-6

5-1. In-Service Revenue Test Summary..................................................................................5-1

5-2. Initial Tank Car Reflector Characteristics........................................................................5-2

5-3. Initial Double Stack Reflector Characteristics.................................................................5-3

5-4. Initial Hopper Reflector Characteristics...........................................................................5-4

5-5. Initial Box Reflector Characteristics................................................................................5-4

5-6. Total Number of Alaska Cars Tested by Months.............................................................5-5

5-7. Total Number of NS Double Stack Cars Tested ..............................................................5-9

5-8. Total Number of NS Hopper Cars Tested...................................................................... 5-12

5-9. Total Number of NS Box Cars Tested........................................................................... 5-15

5-10. Height Above TOR for White Portion of

Delineator Strip for Three Freight Types....................................................................... 5-18

5-11. Plan C Accident Data (Before-Test and After-Test)...................................................... 5-24

6-1. Pattern by Class................................................................................................................6-4

6-2. Effect of Retroreflective Marking on Detection Distance ............................................. 6-14

6-3. Significant Effects for Detection Distance..................................................................... 6-14

6-4. Effect of Color on Detection Distance........................................................................... 6-15

6-5. Effect of Pattern on Detection Distance......................................................................... 6-15

6-6. Confusion Matrix Showing Recognition Errors by Marking System ............................ 6-17

xiv
 LIST OF TABLES (continued)

Table Page

6-7. Confusion Matrix of Recognition Errors by Pattern...................................................... 6-18

6-8. Confusion Matrix of Recognition Errors by Color ........................................................ 6-18

xv
 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Accidents at the approximately 168,000 public highway-railroad grade crossings in the United
States have been documented as a significant safety problem. For example, in 1996 there were
4,257 accidents, which resulted in 1,508 injuries and 487 deaths. One factor that contributes to
these figures is the difficulty motorists have in seeing a train consist at a crossing, particularly
during dawn, dusk, and darkness (i.e., nighttime conditions), thereby causing an accident in
which the motorist’s vehicle runs into the train (or RIT accident). Of the 4,257 accidents in
1996, 967 (22.72% of the total accidents) were RIT accidents; 473 of these 967 (or 11.11% of the
total accidents) occurred in nighttime conditions. The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) is
therefore investigating measures to enhance the visibility of trains in order to reduce the number
of accidents/incidents at highway-railroad grade crossings where train visibility is a contributing
factor. One such countermeasure involves the use of retroreflectors on freight cars. This report
documents the Volpe National Transportation Systems Center’s (Volpe Center’s) research into
the use of reflectorization as a conspicuity device. The results of this research effort will be used
to provide technical support for any rulemaking that may be performed by the FRA.

In 1981, the FRA supported a study on the potential use of freight car reflectorization to reduce
nighttime accidents/incidents at highway-railroad grade crossings. The study concluded that the
use of reflective material had its merits, but the degradation of the materials due to the harsh
railroad environment required frequent maintenance and/or replacement to deliver long-term,
effective performance. The FRA therefore concluded that rulemaking action was not warranted
at that time. Since then, improvements in the brightness, durability, and adhesive properties of
reflective materials have been achieved, and a new material, microprismatic corner cube, has
been introduced to the market. Additionally, since the initiation of FRA’s current studies (1990)
on the use of reflectorization, Congress approved the Swift Rail Development Act of 1994,
which includes a section on improving freight car visibility through use of reflective material.

The Volpe Center conducted a four-phased research program to investigate the feasibility of
freight car reflectorization. These phases consisted of a review of reflectorization experiences in
transportation, a demonstration test, an in-service test, and a human factors test.

The first phase, a review of reflectorization experiences in transportation, was conducted to:
(1) determine the effectiveness of reflective material used in the past, (2) establish a baseline of
reflector performance for comparison in this study, (3) use lessons learned in previous research to
help guide this study, and (4) determine the minimum intensity threshold required to attract a
motorist’s attention. The first phase effort determined that international and domestic experience
indicates currently available reflective material used on freight cars in the railroad environment
may be successful in reducing nighttime RIT collisions. Specific findings include:

• Reflective materials can enhance motorists’ ability to detect the presence of a train
in a highway-railroad grade crossing.
• A material with the maximum intensity available should be used (prismatic) to
provide the highest level of illuminance to the observer and to reduce maintenance
requirements.

ES-1
 • A uniform pattern will enhance the motorist’s recognition of a train in time to
avoid a collision.
• A favorable placement location for reflectors is 42 inches above top of rail.
• Using visibility assumptions established by previous reflectorization studies,
a reflector measuring 4 inches by 8 inches would require a minimum specific
intensity per unit area (SIA) of 200 cd/fc/ft2 to attract a motorist’s attention.
A reflector measuring 4 inches by 36 inches and using the same conditions would
require a minimum threshold of 45 cd/fc/ft2.
• Several railroads have voluntarily reflectorized their rolling stock.
• The use of reflectors has been successful in other modes of transportation as
a means to enhance conspicuity.

The second phase of research, the demonstration test, was conducted at FRA’s Transportation
Technology Center (TTC) in Pueblo, Colorado. The objectives of the demonstration test were to
establish: (1) the performance characteristics of newly developed materials compared to the
materials tested in 1982, (2) preliminary costs for material and maintenance, and (3) a
preliminary marking design for a nationwide freight car reflectorization test. Various colors and
patterns of three materials (bonded, enclosed, and prismatic) were designed and tested over
a 1-year period on a train consist that ran 12,941 miles.

The demonstration test resulted in the following conclusions:

• The preferred configuration consisted of three white 4 inches by 8 inches

horizontal reflectors spaced 9 ft apart at a height of 42 inches from the top of rail
(TOR). Additionally, two alternating red-and-white reflectors measuring 4 inches
by 36 inches were placed vertically at the ends of the car for delineation, such that
a typical freight car would resemble the following:

A end B end
#5 #4 #3 #2 #1

The installation and material costs for this phase totaled $31.24 per car.

• This configuration would be the “typical” pattern used for the next phase of testing.

The objectives of the third phase of research, the in-service test, were to determine: (1) the
performance characteristics of the new material in comparison to an established threshold as well
as to the 1982 materials, (2) the reflectors’ accident reduction potential, and (3) preliminary costs
for reflector material and maintenance. This test provided a real-time study of the reflective
material’s ability to perform under a variety of harsh railroad environmental conditions.
Table ES-1 describes the type and location of the freight cars tested.

ES-2
 Table ES-1. In-Service Revenue Test Summary

Test Participating Operating Reflector

Plan Railroads Characteristics Configuration
A Alaska Railroad Series DOT-111 Tank Cars
(ARR) carrying various petroleum
products from Anchorage to
Fairbanks, AK. A end B end

Reflector Height: 72 in TOR.

B Norfolk Southern Intermodal Double Stack

(NS) Cars carrying containers
from Norfolk, VA, to
Chicago, IL.
Reflector Height: Positions
1 and 5: 30 in TOR; all
others: 42 in TOR
C Norfolk Southern Steel Open Top Hopper Cars
carrying eastern coal from
Sheffield, AL, to Wansley,
GA.
Reflector Height: 42 in
TOR, except for Position #3
(under sill, 36 in TOR)
D Norfolk Southern Box Cars carrying clay
products from Savannah to
Gordon, GA.
Reflector Height: 42 in
TOR

The in-service test resulted in the following conclusions:

• Reflectors in Positions 1 and 5 performed, on average, above the minimum

threshold levels for the entire test period, but the reflectors in Positions 2, 3, and 4
varied from 7 months to the entire testing period.
• The performance of the reflectors was not observed to be significantly affected by
natural environmental factors. Mechanical washing of the reflectors resulted in
their performance rebounding significantly to levels near original SIA values.
Periodic washing of reflectors mounted on freight cars can extend their
performance to the limits of their life expectancy.

ES-3
 • Railroad operations had a severe effect on the performance of the reflectors; especially
the reflectors that were located where loading and unloading of commodities took place.
Placement of the reflector under the sill of the freight car has been found to be
detrimental to the performance of the reflector. Mid-car locations on many freight car
types provide severe operational conditions; therefore, this location should not be
considered in any freight car reflectorization rulemaking process.
• For the average freight car involved in this study, it can be estimated that a 12- to
18-month cycle of maintenance would be sufficient to sustain the threshold levels
necessary to attract the attention of a motorist. A minimum cleaning time of 15 minutes
per car is considered reasonable for these reflectors with no additional cleaning solvents
necessary in the process. Periodic washing of the reflectors can extend their acceptable
performance to the limits of their life expectancy.
• The hopper car consists, the only fully reflectorized fleet of the in-service test, recorded a
reduction of Category 1 RIT accidents along its dedicated route from 6 (occurring in a 33-
month period prior to the reflector’s installation), to 0 (occurring in a 33-month period
after the reflector’s installation). This accident reduction potential should reflect the
reduction of this type of RIT accident, which occurs when the vehicle strikes the train
after the lead unit. This finding, while positive for reflectorization, should be viewed
with caution since it is based on very limited accident experience.
• The demonstration test pattern’s original cost of $31.24 has now been reduced by 40%
(based on information stated by the manufacturer) for a cost of material per car of
approximately $18.75. Additionally, the 1996 AAR labor rate is approximately $20.05
per hour. Using the estimates for reflectorizing an older car during the normal
maintenance program that may need heavy cleaning (at the 1996 AAR labor rate), and
reduced material costs, the resultant maximum material cost per car using the tested
pattern would be approximately $38.80. Heavy cleaning of the reflectors would require 2
persons for 30 minutes to complete the process approximately every 12-18 months,
resulting in a cost of approximately $20.05 per event. The manufacturer specifies this
prismatic material’s useful life to be 10 years. Therefore, maximum projected total costs
of the material and maintenance for a 10-year period would be $219.25 per car (based on
lower material costs, heavy cleaning, two-person annual maintenance, at the 1996 AAR
labor rate).

Based on the above observations, a suggested change in design was developed for the in-service
test pattern to improve its performance.

The fourth phase, a human factors study conducted at the University of Tennessee (Knoxville),
evaluated several proposed retroreflective configurations. The purpose of the study was to
determine the perception characteristics of the new material and its accident reduction potential.
This study consisted of two parts. In the first part, transportation experts reviewed reflector
patterns, then ranked these designs based on the alerting effectiveness of the design. The top
eight designs, plus three other designs, which included the design created in the second phase,
were used in the second part of the study. The second part used drivers in the Knoxville area and

ES-4
transportation experts to evaluate and rank the designs based on the individual’s interpretation of
the best “detectable” configuration.

The fourth phase of testing obtained the following findings:

• A reflectorized freight car is significantly more detectable than an unreflectorized

freight car.
• A standardized pattern should be used for all types of rail cars to facilitate
recognition.
• A pattern of red-and-white will facilitate recognition of the train and convey
a sense of warning.
• The design should be sufficiently distinctive so that it is not confused with the
retroreflective markings used on trucks and warnings for other roadway hazards.
• The spatial configuration should give some indication of the shape of the rail car
to facilitate recognition. This might include some type of outline or modified
outline or spatial arrangement in which the material is evenly distributed across
the rail car.

The significant findings resulting from this freight car reflectorization research program are
summarized as follows:

1. A uniform recognizable pattern of reflective markings can be applied to most

freight car types, with a few exceptions.

2. Based on human factors studies, a reflectorized freight car is significantly more

detectable than a non-reflectorized freight car.

3. Also, based on the human factors studies, a uniform pattern of reflectorized

material can facilitate recognition of the hazard as a freight car. The pattern
should indicate the shape of the car, should employ the colors red and white, and
be sufficiently distinctive so as not to be confused with large truck markings.

4. A minimum favorable placement location of reflectors is 42 inches above TOR.

5. The large reflectors, measuring 4 inches by 36 inches, maintained, on average,

acceptable reflective performance over the entire testing period (2 years) on all
freight car types. Placement of the reflector under the sill of the freight car has
been found to be detrimental to the performance of the reflector. Due to their
smaller size, position below sill level, and location near loading points, the
smaller white reflectors did not perform as well under the harsh railroad
operating conditions. Mid-car locations on many freight car types provide severe
operational conditions; therefore, this location should not be considered in any
freight car reflectorization rulemaking process.

ES-5
6. The performance of the reflectors was not observed to be significantly affected
by natural environmental factors. Mechanical washing of the reflectors resulted
in their performance rebounding significantly to levels near original SIA values.
Periodic washing of the reflectors mounted on freight cars can extend their
performance to the limits of life expectancy. Recently developed prismatic
materials’ durability and adhesiveness possess the likelihood to perform above
threshold levels for up to 10 years with routine maintenance.

7. Based on very limited accident experience, freight car reflectorization was

observed to be potentially effective in reducing accidents.

8. The demonstration test pattern’s original cost of $31.24 has now been reduced by
40% (based on information stated by the manufacturer) for a cost of material per
car of approximately $18.75. Additionally, the 1996 AAR labor rate is
approximately $20.05 per hour. Using the estimates for reflectorizing an older
car during the normal maintenance program that may need heavy cleaning (at the
1996 AAR labor rate), and reduced material costs, the resultant maximum
material cost per car using the tested pattern would be approximately $38.80.
Heavy cleaning of the reflectors would require 2 persons for 30 minutes to
complete the process approximately every 12-18 months, resulting in a cost of
approximately $20.05 per event. The manufacturer specifies this prismatic
material’s useful life to be 10 years. Therefore, maximum projected total costs of
the material and maintenance for a 10-year period would be $219.25 per car
(based on lower material costs, heavy cleaning, two-person annual maintenance,
at the 1996 AAR labor rate).

9. Based on the results of the in-service and human factors tests, improvements to
the second phase pattern are suggested. Two suggested reflector designs are
shown in Figure ES-1.

Both designs use red and white reflectors in combination, as suggested by the
human factors recommendations, and are mounted vertically to permit an
increase in their size. Figure ES-1(a) depicts a more conservative design than
Figure ES-1(b) in terms of the amount of material required. Based on the
suggested configuration, the cost of material and maintenance will not be
significantly increased.

ES-6
 (a)

(b)

Figure ES-1. Suggested Improved Reflector Patterns on a Typical Freight Car

Although these findings are representative of all reflectors tested within this current
research study, other operational findings lend themselves to suggest an alternative
pattern from the original Volpe Center configuration (used in the in-service test). The
human factors studies provide guidance as to the color and pattern necessary to most
effectively use freight car reflectorization.

ES-7
 1. INTRODUCTION

Between 1975 and 1996, approximately 176,000 accidents, 16,000 deaths, and 61,500 injuries
have occurred at approximately 168,000 public highway-rail grade crossings in the United States.
A significant number of these accidents involved the vehicle running into the train (RIT).
A contributing factor to this type of accident is the difficulty motorists have in recognizing the
train consist in the roadway, especially during dawn, dusk, and darkness.

In 1982, a study was conducted by the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), with support
from the Volpe National Transportation Systems Center (Volpe Center), to determine if
retroreflective materials were a feasible option to enhance freight car visibility, and thereby
reduce the number of accidents. The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB)
simultaneously published a report and made recommendations on improving train conspicuity in
nighttime conditions (i.e., dawn, dusk, and darkness). The FRA study determined that although
the use of reflectors enhanced conspicuity, the durability of the reflective material would not
withstand the harsh railroad environment. During the 1980s and 1990s, technical advancements
were achieved in the brightness, durability, and adhesive properties of retroreflective material, in
particular, the creation of prismatic corner cube material.

Due to the continuing number of accidents, as well as improvements in reflective materials, the
FRA initiated a second study of freight car reflectorization. After the initiation of this research,
Congress enacted the Swift Rail Development Act of 1994 (Swift Rail Act), which includes
a section on improving freight car visibility through use of reflective material, if it is deemed
cost-beneficial. This report documents the results of the second study, which will be used to
provide technical support for FRA rulemaking to improve train visibility in response to
Section 212 of the Swift Rail Act.

1.1 PURPOSE

The purpose of this study is to determine if the use of current generation retroreflective materials
on freight cars can effectively enhance freight car visibility (in comparison to materials tested
in 1982).

1.2 ACCIDENT BACKGROUND

One of the objectives of this research effort was to analyze accident/incident data from the FRA
Highway-Rail Accident/Incident Reporting System (RAIRS) database to identify and
characterize those accidents that are most likely to be reduced by improvements in freight car
visibility. The RAIRS contains accident data for the 22-year period that extends from the
inception of the RAIRS database in 1975 to 1996. As will be discussed in Chapter 3, for
reflectorization to be effective in reducing RIT accidents, the motorist must be able to see light
reflected from the retroreflectors at a distance of 500 feet at night from the grade crossing to
allow sufficient distance to stop. For the motorist to see the light reflected off the train, the train
must be in the crossing or sufficiently close to it that the headlights will illuminate the train.
Under these conditions the train will be in the crossing by the time that the motorist reaches the
crossing. It is very unlikely that a motorist, 500 feet prior to the crossing, could see light

1-1
reflected from an unreflectorized rail car at night in the crossing and pass safely through the
crossing before the train arrives (the kinematic relationships between highway vehicles and trains
at crossings is described in more detail in Section 3.1). Therefore, only accidents where the
highway vehicle runs into the train (RIT accidents) are assumed for purposes of this study to be
preventable by the use of reflectors. Figure 1-1 shows the 22-year trend in RIT accidents in
relation to total crossing accidents. The 22-year average of RIT accidents as a percentage of total
crossing accidents is 26.1%. The aggregate 22-year total of RIT accidents in relation to all
crossing accidents as well as RIT accidents by day and night are shown in Figure 1-2.

14

12

10
Thousands

8 Total Accidents
6 Total RIT Accidents

0
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996

Year

Figure 1-1. Trend in Total Accidents versus Total RIT Accidents (1975–1996)

Night
52.8%
Other RIT
74.0% 26.0%
Day
47.2%

Figure 1-2. Total RIT Accidents versus Total Accidents (1975–1996)

1-2
While all RIT accidents are potentially affected by reflectorization, those RIT accidents that
result from the highway vehicle striking the train after the lead unit has entered the crossing are
more likely preventable by reflectorization. Accidents involving the highway vehicle striking the
train after the lead unit are referred to as Category 1 RIT accidents. Figure 1-3 shows the trend of
Category 1 RIT accidents in relation to total RIT accidents. Category 1 RIT accidents represent
an average of 35.4% of total RIT accidents and 9.2% of total crossing accidents.

4
Accidents (Thousands)

Total Category 1 RIT

2
Total RIT

0
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996

Year

Figure 1-3. Trend in Total Category 1 Accidents versus Total RIT Accidents (1975–1996)

Reflectorization is assumed to be most effective in reducing nighttime Category 1 RIT accidents.

Figure 1-4 shows the trend in nighttime versus total Category 1 RIT accidents. Nighttime
Category 1 accidents represent an average of 69.7% of Category 1 RIT accidents and 6.4% of
total crossing accidents. As can be noted from these statistics, the frequency of nighttime
Category 1 RIT accidents is significantly greater than the daytime frequency, in spite of a
generally lower volume of highway traffic at night. This strongly supports the assumption that
nighttime driving and the resulting diminished visibility of trains is a contributing factor to RIT
accidents.

Some daytime RIT accidents may also be reduced by reflectorization. Under conditions of
reduced daytime visibility (e.g., inclement weather), reflectors enhance the visibility of freight
cars by providing an increased visible contrast with the freight car side wall, especially when the
highway vehicle headlights are turned on. During the day, other light sources, particularly the
sun, may be at an appropriate orientation to cause reflected light to be seen by the motorist.

1-3
 1400

1200

1000
Accidents

800 Nighttime Category 1

600 Total Category 1

400

200

0
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
Year

Figure 1-4. Trend in Nighttime Category 1 RIT Accidents versus Total Category 1 RIT
Accidents (1975–1996)

The type of warning device at the crossing can also influence the effectiveness of reflectorization.
Table 1-1 shows the proportion of Category 1 RIT accidents by warning device. Clearly, the
crossings with only passive devices, where 47.1% of all Category 1 RIT accidents occur, will
benefit the most from reflectorization. Crossings with flashing lights may also receive some
limited benefit from reflectorization. Under conditions of limited visibility, such as darkness and
inclement weather, the added, unique visual signal offered by reflectors will augment the visual
warning of flashing lights. As Figure 1-5 shows, a significant proportion of Category 1 RIT
accidents, 31.8%, occur at crossings with flashing lights. This percentage suggests that these
lights are not always sufficient by themselves to provide adequate warning to motorists. This
same reasoning applies to crossings with gates, but to a lesser extent. However, it is notable that
a significant 13.1% of Category 1 RIT accidents occurred at crossings with gates. Other active
warning devices (e.g., wig-wags) account for 8.0% of Category 1 RIT accidents. Table 1-2
details the statistics for various categories of crossing accidents discussed above.

Table 1-1. Total Category 1 RIT Accidents by Warning Device (1975–1996)

Warning Device Percentage of Category 1

Accidents
Passive 47.1
Flashing Lights 31.8
Gates and Lights 13.1
Other 8.0
Table 1-2. Summary of Accidents Potentially Reducible by Reflectorization

1-4
 CATEGORY BY ACCIDENT PERCENTAGE OF
TOTAL ACCIDENTS
RIT 24.9
Behind Lead Unit 9.0
Nighttime 6.3
Passive Warning Devices 3.0
Flashing Lights Warning Devices 2.0
Gates and Other Warning Devices 1.3
Daytime 2.7
Passive Warning Devices 1.2
Flashing Lights Warning Devices 1.0
Gates and Other Warning Devices 0.5
Lead Unit 15.9
Nighttime 7.4
Passive Warning Devices 3.3
Flashing Lights Warning Devices 2.4
Gates and Other Warning Devices 1.7
Daytime
All Warning Devices 8.5
Note: The percentages given are based on specific warning devices. They do not include other/unknown warning
device/visibility accidents. Thus, these percentages may differ slightly from the total RIT accidents based on
annual counts.

1.3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Results of the 1983 Volpe Center report (Poage, Pomfret, and Hopkins 1983), the continuing
significant number of RIT accidents, and technological advancements in reflective material,
provided the incentive for developing this four-phased research program to determine the
effectiveness of reflectorization. These phases consisted of a review of reflectorization
experiences in transportation, a demonstration test, an in-service test, and a human factors
evaluation.

The first phase, a review of reflectorization experiences in transportation, was conducted to:
(1) determine the effectiveness of reflective material used in the past, (2) establish a baseline of
reflector performance for comparison in this study, (3) use lessons learned in previous research to
help guide this study, and (4) determine the minimum intensity threshold (the minimum value to
attract the attention of a motorist).

The second phase of research, the demonstration test, was conducted at the FRA’s Transportation
Technology Center (TTC) in Pueblo, Colorado. The objectives of the demonstration test were to
establish: (1) the performance characteristics of newly developed materials compared to the
materials tested in 1982, (2) the preliminary costs for material and maintenance, and (3) the
preliminary marking design for a nationwide freight car reflectorization test.

1-5
The objectives of the third phase of research, the in-service test, were to determine: (1) the
performance characteristics of the new material in comparison to an established threshold as well
as to the 1982 materials, (2) the reflectors’ accident reduction potential, and (3) preliminary costs
for reflector material and maintenance to the railroad industry. This test provided a real-time
study of the reflective materials’ ability to perform under a variety of harsh railroad
environmental conditions.

The fourth phase, a human factors laboratory evaluation conducted at the University of
Tennessee (Knoxville), evaluated several proposed retroreflective configurations. This
evaluation consisted of two parts. In the first part, transportation experts reviewed reflector
patterns, then ranked these designs based on their effectiveness. The top eight designs, plus three
other designs (including the design created in the second phase), were used in the second part of
the study. The second part used drivers in the Knoxville area and transportation experts to
evaluate and rank the designs based on their detectability.

1.4 REPORT LAYOUT

Chapter 2 reviews the fundamental theories and properties of reflective materials and visibility,
and establishes the minimum or threshold reflector brightness (or intensity) necessary for freight
car reflectorization.

Chapter 3 presents a review of previous studies related to the use of reflectorization within the
transportation industry. National and international case studies are presented. Additionally,
a section discusses the current use of reflectorization by railroad organizations.

Chapter 4 discusses a controlled demonstration test. The findings of this test provided the basis
for the shape, size, color, configuration, and location of the reflector markings to be used in the
railroad in-service revenue field test.

Chapter 5 discusses the nationwide in-service revenue field test. The results of this test include
degradation of prismatic retroreflectors under varying environmental conditions and provide
preliminary results of the potential for accident reductions at highway-railroad grade crossings.

Chapter 6 discusses the human factors laboratory evaluation. This evaluation provides subjective
and objective evaluations by experts and laypersons, respectively, of the conspicuity of various
marking patterns and colors on the side of a typical open top hopper freight car.

Chapter 7 reports the findings of the study and corresponding recommendations.

1-6
 2. RETROREFLECTION

2.1 FUNDAMENTAL RETROREFLECTING PROPERTIES

The first condition that affects the amount of illuminance reflected back to an observer of
a reflector is the reflective material design characteristics. Materials that have reflective
properties can be classified in three general categories: direct reflectors, diffused reflectors, and
retroreflectors (see Figure 2-1). Direct reflectors bounce light off the reflector material at an
angle equal and opposite to the direction of the light source. An example of a material that has
direct reflector properties is a mirror. Diffuse reflectors reflect light off the reflected material at
an angular spread of up to 180 degrees. An example of a diffuse reflector is a license plate.
License plates use embedded glass beads as diffuse reflectors. Further examples of diffuse
reflectors can be found in Chapter 3.

Retroreflectors, as the name implies, direct the reflected light in the general direction of the light
source. Retroreflectors are used on items such as trucks, automobiles, bicycles, and roadway
signs. The American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) defines retroreflection as
“reflection in which radiation is returned in directions close to the direction from which it came,
this property being maintained over wide variations of the direction of the incident (source)
radiation” (ASTM 1981).

Direct Diffused Retroreflector

Figure 2-1. Types of Reflectors

The amount of illuminance received by an observer from a retroreflector can be affected by

six factors:

1. Reflective intensity of the reflector;

2. Size of the reflector;
3. Intensity of the light source;
4. Atmospheric transmissivity;
5. Windshield transmittance; and
6. Distance of the observer from the retroreflector.

2-1
The relationship between these factors and the illuminance received by the observer can be given
by the following equation, which is based on Allard’s Law:

Is A B t2d W H
Ee = - Eq. 2-1
4
d
in which

Ee = Illuminance received by the observer –footcandles, fc

Is = Intensity of the light beamed toward the reflector – candela, cd
A = Area of the reflector –square feet
B = Reflective intensity of reflector in units of Specific Intensity
per unit Area (SIA) – candela/footcandle/ft2
t = Transmissivity of the atmosphere per foot
d = distance between the observer and the reflector – feet
W = Windshield transmittance – percentage
H = Headlight efficiency – percentage

The above relationship assumes that the incident light from the light source is normal to the
surface of the retroreflector. In most typical applications, the incident light will strike the
retroreflector at an angle as shown in Figure 2-2. In such cases, the reflected light received by
the observer will be reduced. This reduction is a function of three factors: the incidence (or
entrance) angle, the divergence (or observation) angle, and the properties of the retroreflecting
material. The incidence angle, in terms of retroreflection, is defined as the angle between the
light source and a line perpendicular to the surface of the reflector.

CL

Vertical Height of
Railroad car at crossing Motorist’s Eye (varies)
Reflector Divergence (or Observation) Angle
(depth is exaggerated) (varies with height of motorist’s eye)

Incidence (or Entrance) Angle

Light Source

Figure 2-2. Graphical Representation of Incidence and Divergence Angles with Respect to
a Railroad Freight Car (Not to Scale)

2-2
The divergence angle is the angle formed between the light source and the observer. The
reflector will produce maximum reflectivity for the motorist when both the incidence and
divergence angles equal zero. This maximum reflectivity will not be achieved for
highway-railroad grade crossings, however, due to the fact that the divergence angle increases as
the vehicle approaches the reflective material on the train. The reduction in reflectivity can be
partly compensated for by using reflective materials with the highest level of performance.

2.2 FUNDAMENTALS OF VISION

For human beings to see in darkness, some light must enter their eyes. Two types of light
sources affect the human’s ability to see. The primary light source is one that is self-luminous,
i.e., a lamp, a campfire, a vehicle’s headlights, or a firefly. Secondary light sources are not
self-luminous and can be detected in darkness only if light is reflected from their surface.
Non-luminous and non-reflecting objects are also visible under low light conditions based on
available contrast with a lighter background against which they stand out.

The light that enters the human eye is interpreted by two types of receptor cells that permit
vision: (1) the cones, which are predominantly located at the center of the retina (fovea); and
(2) the rods, which are more numerous than the cones and are distributed outside the fovea in the
retina.

The cones are mainly activated under normal daylight conditions (photopic vision) and are
sensitive to color and achieve a high visual acuity by day. The rods do not have the ability to
discern color, but they are activated by small amounts of light. The rods are very sensitive and
perform under conditions of low illuminance (scopotic vision). At dusk and dawn both types of
receptors are activated (mesopic vision); the cones respond to bright lights and bright
retroreflective materials. Cones and rods work to supplement each other, and they play an
important role in the determination of retroreflector brightness within this study.

Our visual system has its highest performance characteristics under normal daylight conditions.
In low light, the conditions are quite different and the performance of the human eye is greatly
reduced. At a low level of ambient illumination, the contrast sensitivity and color discrimination
of the eye are drastically lowered, with the result that colors merge into the background. The
entire visual field becomes indistinct and details are no longer perceptible. This is a major
disadvantage in any human activity during darkness. In addition to basic visual deficiencies
during hours of darkness, the eyes of many people are also affected by a great sensitivity to glare
(e.g., sudden illumination, oncoming vehicles’ headlights) accompanied by a slow re-adaptation
process during which vision is impaired. Night myopia (night blindness) is another weakness
that can affect people and reduce their vision under low light conditions.

As the discussion above indicates, the human eye has a reduced visual ability during hours of
dawn, dusk, and darkness. Under these conditions of low-level illumination, the use of bright
retroreflectors mounted on the sides of freight cars may enhance the driver’s ability to detect and
possibly recognize the presence of a train at a highway-railroad grade crossing, and thus avoid an
accident.

2-3
2.3 MINIMUM THRESHOLD FOR REFLECTOR BRIGHTNESS

As a basis for evaluating reflector performance resulting from laboratory and field tests
conducted under this research program, a minimum threshold for reflector brightness was
established. This threshold of intensity (luminous intensity) should be bright enough to attract
the attention of a motorist approaching a highway-railroad grade crossing. An assumption of the
following analysis is that the motorist may not be actively looking for the presence of a train.
This could increase the detectability threshold level by 100 to 1,000 times the necessary
luminance if the motorist is actively looking for an object (CIE 1987). An additional assumption
is that not only should the driver be able to detect the reflector but also to recognize it as
describing the existence of a hazard. The requirement of recognition of a luminous object by an
observer can increase the detectability threshold 5 to 10 times (IES 1984). There are several
theoretical methods that may be used to establish this threshold. The specific method for this
study is the “point source method.” Discussion of the point source method provides a basis for
development of the minimum thresholds used in the following chapters of this report to evaluate
the performance of the reflectors involved in this study.

2.3.1 Point Source Method

There are many organizations worldwide involved in providing guidelines for the use of lighting
devices. Some of these organizations also provide guidelines for the use of retroreflective
material, which are given in Chapter 3. Three specific organizations are discussed below,
namely, the International Commission on Illumination (Commission Internationale de
L’Éclairage [CIE]), the Illuminating Engineering Society (IES), and the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA).1

Many guidelines for reflector visibility are based on the fact that astronomical observations have
determined that a star producing an illuminance of 2.3 × 10-9 footcandles at the eye of the
observer against an overcast moon sky luminance, equal to 9.9 × 10-4 footlamberts, can be
detected with a 98% probability. This finding results in a threshold illuminance level of 2.3 ×
10-9 footcandles, and is required for a point source of light to be detected by an observer who
knows precisely where to look for it. All point source methods discussed build upon this basic
threshold.

The CIE Guide defines the visual threshold or threshold illuminance as the smallest illuminance
(point brilliance) produced at the eye of an observer by a light source seen as a point which
renders the source perceptible against a given background luminance (CIE 1987). The CIE
Guide also indicates that for visual signaling the light source must be rendered recognizable and,
hence, a higher threshold of illuminance is expected. An example is given for retroreflective sea
markers. A visual threshold of 1.9 × 10-8 footcandles has been found appropriate for a dark night
at sea without background lighting. A ten-fold increase in this threshold to an illuminance of
1.9 × 10-7 footcandles is considered appropriate to ensure recognition of retroreflecting sea
markers against a minor background lighting comparable to a populated shore environment. The
CIE Guide recommends that the minimum threshold be increased further to 4.6 × 10-7

1
The FAA discussion within this report is contained within the IES Lighting Handbook.

2-4
footcandles for visibility distances less than 3,281 feet to compensate for back-scattering of the
light source.

The IES Lighting Handbook uses the minimum threshold illumination of 2.3 × 10-9 footcandles.
This value represents a 98% probability of detection when an observer is looking for the source
of light. This minimum must be increased by 5 to 10 times for the light or source to be easily
found, resulting in a threshold of 2.3 × 10-8 footcandles. The IES handbook further specifies that
these increases in illuminance are applicable only when the observer is looking for the light
signal. Much greater increases are required if the light signal is to attract the attention of the
observer. Factors of 100 to 1,000 are used instead with a resultant luminance level of 2.3 × 10-6
footcandles (Breckinridge and Douglas 1945). This illuminance level is about five times that of
the CIE sea marker example given above. The IES handbook further states that this value is
applicable to sources of light which are, in effect, point sources. Most signal lights are
considered to behave as point sources.

The FAA uses a threshold level of 7.8 times the basic illumination level of 2.3 × 10-9 footcandles
for pilots in approach to airport runways. This level is also increased by a factor of 100 to 1,000
— which is equivalent to 2.3 × 10-6 footcandles — if the source is to attract the attention of the
pilot. Of the three organizations discussed, two (FAA and IES) suggest a more conservative
value of 2.3 × 10-6 footcandles for a minimum threshold illuminance level. For purposes of this
study, therefore, this more conservative value was used. Studies by Poage, et al. (1983), and
McGinnis (1979 [Ref. 21]) on freight car reflectorization have also used this threshold level in
determining the necessary brightness of reflectors mounted on railroad freight cars to attract the
attention of motorists.

In an extension of the point source method, the IES Lighting Handbook discusses and references
a report de Boer completed in 1951 entitled Visibility of Approach and Runway Lights. Based on
de Boer’s work on runway lights, approximate thresholds have been established for sources that
are too large to be considered point sources. Thresholds for the larger sources are determined by
multiplying the point source threshold by a size factor that is related to the ratio of the source
diameter to viewing distance. Table 2-1 shows the relationship of the ratio to the size factor
multiplier for sources considered other than point sources.

This table is used as a multiplier for the use of the threshold level determined by the point source
method. Based on the two diameters of reflectors used in the in-service revenue field study,
4-inch and 8-inch as will be discussed in detail in Chapter 5, and a motorist detection distance of
500 feet, the resultant ratios are determined to be 0.00067 and 0.0013, respectively. Based on
de Boer’s work, the point source method with no adjustments would be applicable for night
conditions, which is the primary focus of this study. Only for larger reflectors under daytime
conditions would a minor 20% increase in threshold be suggested.

Further support for use of the point source method is provided by McGinnis’s research, which
states that if the visual angle subtended is less than a critical angle, the point source method
should be used. The critical angle stated by McGinnis, based on the background luminance of an
overcast moon, as mentioned above, is 6.8 minutes of arc. A typical reflector of 12-inch
diameter would have a visual angle of approximately 6.8 minutes of arc when viewed at

2-5
a distance of 500 feet. Consistent with this finding, studies in Australia (Fisher and Cole 1974)
have determined that the intensity of red traffic signals required to produce optimum recognition
in bright daylight conditions are independent of source size subtending a solid angle of up to
16.5 minutes of arc.

Table 2-1. The Effects of Source Diameter and Viewing

Distance to Size Factor Implications

Ratio of Source Diameter Size Factor

to Viewing Distance Multiplier
Night Day
0.0005 1 1
0.001 1 1.2
0.003 1.1 2.5
0.005 1.4 4.9
0.01 2.5 20

2.3.2 Determination of Threshold Intensity for Tested Reflectors

Based on the previous discussions, the threshold luminance and resultant SIAs used in the
following chapters of this report are based on the point source method. Accordingly, an
illumination level of 2.3 × 10-6 footcandles is assumed to be sufficient for detectability and
recognition. If a level approach grade, a 2.5-second driver reaction time, wet pavement, and
a vehicle speed of 50 mph are assumed, the motorist must be aware of a train’s presence when
the vehicle is 500 feet from the crossing so that the vehicle can be brought to a safe stop. The
required reflector intensity is the reflector area, A, multiplied by the specific intensity per unit
area (commonly referred to as SIA or the reflective brightness), B, and can be determined from
Equation 2-1, using the following assumed values:

Ee = Required Level of Illuminance 2.3 × 10-6 footcandles

d = Required Detection Distance 500 feet
W = Windshield Transmittance 0.70
H = Headlight Efficiency 0.85
Is = Headlight Intensity 3000 cd (per headlight)
t2d = Atmospheric Transmittance 0.945

The results indicate that the reflector brightness must have an overall reflective intensity of
approximately 45 cd/footcandles.

2-6
Two sizes of reflectors are used in the in-service revenue field test. Their minimum SIA values
are shown below:

• A reflector measuring 4 inches by 8 inches requires a minimum SIA of

approximately 200 cd/fc/ft2
• A reflector measuring 4 inches by 36 inches requires a minimum SIA of
approximately 45 cd/fc/ft2

This SIA value represents the minimum detection levels used in the third phase of this study, the
nationwide in-service demonstration test, which is discussed in Chapter 5.

2-7
 3. REVIEW OF REFLECTORIZATION EXPERIENCE IN TRANSPORTATION

3.1 REVIEW OF PREVIOUS STUDIES

Research has been conducted on railcar conspicuity materials such as luminous sources (lights on
the cars), self-luminous sources (phosphorescent), and reflective sources (mirrors). It was the
general consensus of this historical research that reflectorization is the most cost-effective means
to alert motorists of an approaching train and/or highway-railroad crossing (Russell, et al. 1994).

Stalder and Lauer (1954) studied the human response to reflectorized railroad cars in a controlled
laboratory study. This research measured detectability in a controlled laboratory setting. The
subjects observed miniature railroad box cars painted on a thin belt. These miniatures consisted
of three designs: (1) unreflectorized box car images; (2) box car images with eleven .09-inch
square reflectors, spaced 1 inch at sill level; and (3) box car images with the railroad logos and
car numbers reflectorized. The laboratory study used two types of lighting: a Ferree-Rand acuity
meter with an adjustable diaphragm, and a Viewmaster Model S-1 projector with a Variac
control. The research results indicated three findings pertaining to the use of bright-contrasting
reflective material on freight cars at night:

1. The use of materials giving the greatest brightness contrast at night significantly
decreases: (a) the amount of luminance needed; and (b) the difficulty of
discriminating movement of the box cars crossing the line of vision at night.

2. The larger the patches of material, the lower the level of luminance needed.

3. The extent of the visual angle reflectorized determines effectiveness up to

a certain size.

Stalder and Lauer’s analysis also converted their resulting visibility distances (of the
unreflectorized, small reflector, and fully reflectorized lettering and numbering) for high beam
headlight intensities. This comparison demonstrated that for high beam conditions, box car
conspicuity could be obtained for rail cars with “small” reflectors or reflective lettering and
numbering. It was also concluded that the results for low beam headlights and/or poor weather
conditions at night would be “proportionally lower.”

Lepkowski and Mullis (1973) analyzed rail car reflectorization in detail. Because the number of
daytime RIT accidents was significantly fewer than nighttime, this report concentrated on the
conspicuity of trains at night. Lepkowski and Mullis studied the use of reflecting fluorescent
(paints), luminous (electric power), self-luminous (irradiated), and reflective sources on trains.
The results indicated that luminous and reflective sources proved to be effective, however,
reflective sources were found to be the most cost-effective. Reflectors also provided conspicuity
at a greater distance and field of vision than the other sources studied. In conclusion, it was
determined that conspicuity is essential to give an indication of a train’s presence and permit an
effective vehicular maneuver to avoid a collision. The study strongly encouraged a voluntary
reflectorization program by the railroad industry.

3-1
McGinnis (1979) conducted a study that determined the type of railroad crossing accident that
would benefit from reflectorization. McGinnis obtained his data from the 1975 FRA Grade
Crossing Accident file (now called the RAIRS database). These 12,000 reports were categorized
relative to a “critical point.” McGinnis provided a relationship between vehicle stopping
distance and a critical point on the train. The determination of the “critical point” is based on
variables such as the speed of the train, the speed of the vehicle, and the pavement conditions
(see Figure 3-1). In summary, the critical point is the location on the train where a vehicle strikes
it, and indicates the accident could have been avoided had its presence been detected. The
McGinnis research assigned the accidents to four categories. Category 1 accidents occur when
the motor vehicle runs into the side of the train after a “critical point” beyond the lead unit.
Category 2 accidents occur when the motor vehicle hits the side of the lead unit of the train.
Category 3 accidents occur when the motor vehicle hits the side of the train before the critical
point of the train is reached. Category 4 accidents occur when the motor vehicle is hit by the
train. Many accidents classified as Category 1 were those that could have been avoided if the
driver could have stopped safely, having visually detected the train’s presence.

V (t1 + t2)
N = 15t m/car*

Vt
t2

brakes applied
t1 = 2.5V c

Vc N = number of cars to “critical point”

Vt = velocity of train (ft/sec)
driver detects train
Vc = velocity of the motor vehicle (ft/sec)
t1 = perception and reaction time (sec)
t2 = stopping time (sec)
* English: 50 ft/car

Figure 3-1. Relationship between “Critical Point” on Train and

Perception/Reaction and Stopping

In the early 1980s, Poage, et al. (1983), conducted tests in the United States and Canada that
examined eight factors affecting the safety impact and costs associated with the application of
reflective material on railroad freight cars: (1) material, (2) location and number, (3) color,
(4) brightness, (5) shape, (6) size, (7) washing cycle, and (8) degradation. The factor that Poage,
et al., studied which pertains to the current research program is degradation of the reflectors in
the railroad environment. It was discovered that this environment causes dirt to accumulate on
the reflector to an extent that it loses its effectiveness. Washing the reflector will cause
a significant rebound towards its original intensity, however, the intensity will continue to
decrease with aging. Poage, et al., determined that reflectors should: (1) have an area of 2.75 ft2,

3-2
with dimensions of 12 inches by 33 inches; (2) be washed every 20 months; and (3) be replaced
every 10 years to achieve “the required visibility under the expected conditions of dirt
accumulation.”

One of the studies in Poage, et al., involved 33 Boston and Maine Railroad sand and gravel cars
in 1981. High intensity grade sheeting was applied to these cars. These reflectors measured
4 inches by 12 inches, were placed above the sill, and were orange and white in color. After
6 months, the average reflective intensity of 19 of the cars declined to 8% of its initial intensity.
It should be noted that there were no long-term studies on these cars.

The second study measured the reflective intensity of 208 freight cars belonging to the Canadian
National and Canadian Pacific Railways. This study investigated the use of the 3M Scotchbrand
Silver Reflective Sheeting (Engineer Grade). The material is categorized as diffuse and consists
of embedded glass beads. The Canadian National Railways used 4-inch discs, while the
Canadian Pacific Railways used 4-inch squares. The results indicated that after 2 years of
service, the average reflective intensity was reduced to 5% of its initial value. Additionally, night
observations (human response) indicated that 61% of these cars were judged to be in poor
condition. Poage, et al., concluded that the use of reflective material available at the time was
not cost-effective in the railroad environment.

3.2 PREVIOUS EXPERIENCES WITH FREIGHT CAR REFLECTORIZATION

3.2.1 Australia

Uber (1994) discussed three retroreflective degradation studies in Australia. One of the studies
was conducted (via in-service field tests) in Victoria and began in 1991. The field test in
Victoria tested three types of reflective material sheeting (high intensity, prismatic, and glass
beads) provided by five manufacturers. These reflectors consisted of different colors, and two
types of coatings (plain and anti-graffiti). Three reflector sizes, which measured 10 inches by
40 inches, 10 inches by 20 inches, and 10 inches by 10 inches, were placed on a captive fleet of
quarry hoppers (hopper cars that carry stone products), approximately 55 inches above the TOR.
The results of this test indicated that after 2 years of service: (1) the reflectors achieved
a maximum performance of 14.5% of their initial reflective intensity; (2) after washing, the
diamond prismatic grade rebounded to only 40.2% of its original reflective intensity; and (3) the
high intensity grade was inferior to the diamond prismatic grade. The report recommended
a “Fix and Forget” approach where the reflectors are replaced when the freight car is maintained.
According to Uber, the usage of two Class 1A (diamond grade) sheetings should “provide
a minimum retroreflectivity of 45 cd-fc-1 ft-2 for a period of 4.4 years without washing.”

Ford (1998) and Uber (1994) cited two reports that presented results of a field test on the
Queensland Railways’ rolling stock in 1984, and New South Wales Railways’ bulk grain wagons
(U.S. hopper cars) in 1989. High intensity white sheeting measuring 5 inches by 15 inches and
30 inches by 48 inches, respectively, was placed on freight cars. The Queensland Railways used
four reflectors per side, while New South Wales Railways used only one per side. An empirical
investigation was conducted, and both railways reported the reflectors “are very effective” based
solely on visual inspection.

3-3
3.2.2 Canada

Since May 1959, the Canadian Transport Commission (CTC) and the Board of Transport
Commissioners (BTC) have issued Order Number 097788, which required all Canadian freight
cars to be reflectorized. Transport Canada Order No. 123336, dated 1/26/67, required that all
freight cars measuring 50 feet or less in length have four reflectors per side, and that cars
measuring greater than 50 feet have six reflectors per side (see Appendix A). Eighty percent of
the cost for this program was funded by the CTC via an amended Railway Act for a number of
years. This program was discontinued a number of years ago.

An article in the April 1995 issue of Traffic Safety News, stated that new Canadian National
Railroad freight cars, built at either the Trenton works or at National Steel Car in Toronto, use
the microprismatic material attached for night visibility.

3.2.3 Southern Company

The Georgia Power Company’s Plant Bowen was visited by Volpe Center employees in
July 1991 to measure the reflectivity of retroreflective decals used on the open top coal hopper
cars. These cars belong to the Southern Company and are maintained annually, including the
washing of the decals. These decals consisted of yellow high-intensity sheeting measuring
3 inches by 36 inches and 3 inches by 12 inches. Twelve coal hopper cars having a revenue
service ranging from 1 to 10 years were tested. Three decals were placed on each side of the
hopper car at a height of 42 inches above TOR.

The investigation revealed that: (1) after 5 to 10 years of service, the reflectors maintained
63 to 74% of the estimated original coefficient of retroreflectorization (260 cd/fc/ft2); (2) after
washing with water, the intensity coefficient rebounded to as much as 87% of the estimated
original intensity; and (3) improper washing (the use of chemical solvents) can degrade the
performance of the material drastically below suitable values in less than 1 year. This report
concludes that proper maintenance of decals can create a useful life beyond 10 years.

3.2.4 Burlington Northern

In 1990, Burlington Northern1 (BN) acquired new covered grain hoppers and aluminum coal
hoppers and equipped them with prismatic reflectors. BN coal-carrying open top hopper cars
were reflectorized and have been operating along the northern coal corridor for several years.

In a separate investigation during July 1992, Volpe Center employees traveled to Mandan, North
Dakota, to locate reflectorized coal hopper cars and measure their reflectivity after several years
of service. Most of these cars were between 16 and 17 years old, and were reflectorized by paint
and decals as markings. A total of 104 cars were tested in a 3-day period, and included over 600
decals made from white high-intensity material. An analysis determined that the majority of the
decals were “unreadable,” and the decals that could be measured had average SIA values that
ranged between 1.6 to 199.67. One decal had an exceptionally high SIA of 294.67.
1
Burlington Northern and Santa Fe merged in 1995 to form the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway.

3-4
3.2.5 Other Railroad Organizations

Wisconsin Central Railroad applies orange and white micro-prismatic reflectors 42 inches above
TOR. These decals measure approximately 2 inches by 16 inches, and are applied at the ends of
the cars, in a pattern resembling that used on the rear of large trucks, such that locomotive
engineers can see the cars in the yards. Freight car reflectorization is limited to box cars,
hoppers, gondolas, and intermodal double stack cars. This program is in response to Wisconsin’s
legislative Statute §192.267, which states:

“Luminous markings on engines and cars. Every railroad engine and railroad box
car, flat car, gondola, and tank car, which is built or rebuilt in this state, shall have
luminous tape or reflectors affixed to each side. The tape shall be at least 2 inches
wide and shall form a continuous horizontal strip. The reflectors shall be not less
than 2 inches in diameter and shall be placed not more than 6 inches apart in a
horizontal line.”

The Santa Fe Railway2 has applied 6-inch by 6-inch reflective panels every 8 feet on new and
rebuilt equipment. The number of Santa Fe units with retroreflective material was estimated at
20,000. Also, the Soo Line has applied reflective material to its equipment for advertisement
purposes, improvement of nighttime yard operations, and safety.

3.3 TRUCK REFLECTORIZATION

In 1979, Sivak published a report entitled A Review of Literature on Nighttime Conspicuity and
Effects of Reflectorization. Sivak’s report was concerned with the results of Minahan and
O’Day (1977) that found fatal truck-car accidents frequently occur at night and with frequent car
underride. The report dealt primarily with the theoretical analysis of the nighttime conspicuity
problem and with empirical data on the effect of retroreflectorization. The findings concluded
the following:

1. A treatment resulting in an increased visible size or increased contrast

(luminance) is likely to be conspicuity enhancing and therefore,

2. Retroreflectorization of parts of vehicles would likely be beneficial for

highway safety.

In the late 1970s and early 1980s, Burger, et al. (1985), conducted a study of vehicle-into-
large-truck accidents that produced a disproportionately large number of fatalities. The study
used approximately 2,000 trailer trucks over a 2-year field study. Red-and-white 2-inch
retroreflective material was used during this study. The back of the trailer trucks was fully
outlined whereas the sides only had a red-and-white strip along the side rail. The results of the
23-month long study indicated an 18% overall reduction of collisions in which other vehicles
struck reflectorized tractor-trailer units. The daylight and dawn, dusk and darkness reductions
were found to be 16.3% and 21.2%, respectively. These reductions were found to be statistically
2
See note 1 on preceding page.

3-5
significant. This study indicated the need to determine whether: (1) the perimeter outline of
trailer sides or the use of 4-inch versus 2-inch material would result in an even greater collision
reduction; (2) other colors would result in equivalent effectiveness; (3) other reflective angular
light dispersion characteristics are more or less effective; and (4) whether logos can be integrated
into reflectorization requirements to provide similar effectiveness (Burger, et al.).

In the early 1990s, NHTSA was tasked to develop a set of specific recommendations for setting
minimum performance specifications for reflectorizing large tractor truck trailers. A 1992 report
entitled Performance Requirements for Large Truck Conspicuity Enhancements indicated that
collisions of motor vehicles with trucks are caused by the motorist’s inability to detect the truck
in time. The report’s purpose was to indicate an effective way to increase truck conspicuity. The
report determines the desirability and feasibility of improving nighttime detection and
recognition of large trucks at night.

Reflector placement during the NHTSA study conducted by the University of Michigan
Transportation Research Institute (UMTRI) resulted in reduced collisions among vehicles of the
Greyhound Corporation, the U.S. Postal Service, and the Toronto Transit Commission. The
study data suggested that trucks with reduced conspicuity are a particular hazard for
alcohol-involved drivers.

The report suggested that material should be as uniform as possible within the constraints
imposed by the variety of truck types. The use of a distinctive marking should be a significant
aid in recognition of an object such as a truck at night. This would reduce the motorist’s
confusion and reduce the response time needed to avoid a collision.

The report recommends an alternating red-and-white bar as the best conspicuity pattern over
a solid white bar, which gave the best recognition (detection) performance, for three reasons:
(1) the solid white bar might be too bright a stimulus under some operating conditions (provides
undue glare to the motorist); (2) a conspicuity marking should have a distinctive pattern
(enhances recognition capabilities); and (3) a color contrast effect is required for daytime
conspicuity. The final recommendation was for a minimum pattern in which 8 inches of white
prismatic material alternates with 12 inches of red prismatic material. The white prismatic
material can be as long as 12 inches. It was also recommended that the vehicles should use
reflectorized tape (either continuous or broken strips) on the truck trailer sides along the bottom,
continuous tape on the rear along the bottom, and white tape at the top corners (on units that will
allow an upper configuration). A minimum SIA value of 127 and 32 for the white and red,
respectively, along the sides of the trailer, and a minimum SIA value of 254 and 64 for the white
and red, respectively, at the rear of the trailer, were calculated. This recommendation was
established based on controlled field and subject tests, and will aid in estimates of distance and
closing speed, as well as marking a potential hazard.

This report led to the subsequent development of rulemaking by NHTSA for large truck
conspicuity that was mandated in January 1995. This rulemaking is located in 49 CFR §571.108.

3-6
3.4 OTHER MODES OF TRANSPORTATION

Since transportation of people and goods is not restricted to daytime hours and pristine weather
conditions, reflectorization has become a necessary tool for enhancing visibility for certain
modes. Reflective material is used in airports and highways, on maritime equipment, and by
pedestrians. The everyday use of reflectors indicates its acceptance to delineate potential hazards
and obstructions to a vehicle’s path of travel.

Historically, air and ground transportation operators have used reflectorization. Microprismatic
corner cube retroreflectors are typically used on roadway signs that warn of construction,
obstructions, or hazardous conditions. High intensity reflective sheeting is used on informational
and directional roadway signs for easy long-distance viewing at night. Diffuse reflectors are used
on airport taxiways, tarmacs, and runways. Various types of diffuse reflectors are used on other
roadway appurtenances, such as delineators, striping, and pavement markings.

Vehicles are required to display reflective features on their exterior. Airplanes and motor
vehicles (e.g., buses, cars, trucks, and vans) are equipped with high brightness retroreflective
material, microprismatic corner cube retroreflectors, at key locations on the exterior surfaces to
increase their conspicuity. Bicycle safety is a mode of transportation that has specific regulations
on the use (16 CFR §1512.16) and testing (16 CFR §1512.18) of diffuse reflectors.

Lifesaving marine equipment, such as life vests, rings, and rafts, requires reflectorization. This
type of reflective material is called “Safety Of Life At Sea” (SOLAS) (CIE 1987). This material
is a wide-angle enclosed lens reflector that has a wide observation (incidence) angle, and
performs well under wet or fully immersed conditions. Signs, buoys, bridge pillars, and sluices
typically use high brightness retroreflective material, non-SOLAS sheeting, and microprismatic
corner cube retroreflectors.

The safety of the pedestrian is incorporated within various state laws. To enhance the
conspicuity of pedestrians, especially at night, high brightness retroreflective material,
microprismatic corner cube retroreflectors, have been incorporated into clothing and items such
as vests, Halloween costumes, shoes, and skating equipment.

3-7
3.5 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

International and domestic historical literature and experience indicates that the use of currently
available reflective material on freight cars in a railroad environment may be successful in
reducing nighttime motor vehicle run-into-train (RIT) collisions. Specific findings include:

• Reflective materials can enhance motorists’ ability to detect the presence of a train
in a highway-railroad grade crossing.
• A material with the maximum intensity available should be used (prismatic) to
provide the highest level of illuminance to the observer and to reduce maintenance
requirements.
• A uniform pattern will enhance the motorist’s recognition of a train in time to
avoid a collision.
• A favorable placement location for reflectors is 42 inches above top of rail.
• Using visibility assumptions established by previous reflectorization studies, a
reflector measuring 4 inches by 8 inches would require a minimum specific
intensity per unit area (SIA) of 200 cd/fc/ft2 to attract a motorist’s attention. A
reflector measuring 4 inches by 36 inches and using the same conditions would
require a minimum threshold of 45 cd/fc/ft2.
• Several railroads have voluntarily reflectorized their rolling stock.
• The use of reflectors has been successful in other modes of transportation as a
means to enhance conspicuity.

3-8
 4. DEMONSTRATION TEST

4.1 DEMONSTRATION TEST METHODOLOGY

The purpose of the demonstration test was to evaluate the degradation of different reflective
materials applied to freight cars under controlled conditions. During the test, 3 types of reflective
materials were applied to 14 open top hopper cars. Based on the results of the demonstration
test, the most suitable material, color, design, placement location, and configuration were defined
for further testing in the third phase of this research. The initial phase of testing was designed to
demonstrate advances made in materials related to reflectorization of freight cars, over the last
10 years. The test was conducted at the FRA’s Transportation Technology Center (TTC) in
Pueblo, Colorado, between March 1991 and March 1992. The following objectives were
established for the demonstration test:

1. Establish the performance characteristics of newly developed materials compared

to the materials tested in 1982.
2. Establish a preliminary marking design for the in-service freight car
reflectorization test.
3. Determine preliminary costs for material and maintenance.

4.1.1 Description of Reflectors Tested

The Volpe Center placed an advertisement in the Commerce Business Daily in November 1990,
asking for companies to participate in a study on reflective materials. Two companies responded
and provided three types of retroreflective materials for the demonstration test. One company
provided both the enclosed lens (engineering grade) and a prismatic retroreflective material
(diamond grade) while the other provided the bonded reflective material (diffuse reflector).

Types of Materials Tested. The bonded reflector consists of small reflective exposed beads
attached to the backing material of the reflector. Light entering these beads is focused at or near
the rear of the bead and is reflected back to the observer in a diffuse beam pattern. This material
is normally used for pavement marking applications and is categorized as a diffuse material.

The enclosed lens reflector consists of microscopic beads that are encapsulated and bonded
within the material. Light striking these beads is reflected back toward the observer in
a narrower beam pattern than the bonded type but still in a diffuse beam pattern. This material is
generally called “engineering grade” and was tested in 1982 by the Volpe Center.

The prismatic (corner cube) type retroreflector is made up of microscopic prisms or corner cubes.
Each of these corner cubes contains 3 surfaces oriented at 90 degrees of each other. The entering
rays of light are reflected from each of the surfaces and are returned to the observer in a more
concentrated and focused beam than either of the other two materials tested. This material is
generally called “diamond grade” and is the newest material available within the industry.

4-1
Size and Location of Reflectors. The train consist used for the demonstration test comprised 80
open top hopper cars with reflective decals applied to 14 cars. Eight freight cars had 4-inch by
4-inch decals placed on the side sill; five cars had 4-inch by 2-inch decals placed on the wheel
plates, and one car had a 4-inch by 96.5-inch decal placed vertically along the corner brace of the
car.

4.1.2 Reflector Color and Pattern

Various colors and patterns of the three materials were used during the demonstration test. The
4-inch by 4-inch and the 4-inch by 2-inch decals were either all red, all white, or a combination
of both colors (which consisted of half red/half white, red-and-white stripes, or diamonds).

Figure 4-1 shows one of the two reference freight cars that have four groupings of three decals.
Each group of three decals included one each of the three materials acquired. These four groups
are placed 108 inches apart, 54 inches above the top of rail (TOR), along both side sills. These
two freight cars represent the washed and unwashed reference cars.

With the exception of the cars with wheel plate decals and the delineator strip, all cars mentioned
in this section had decals located 42 inches above the TOR.

The second reference freight car shown in Figure 4-2 has four groupings, each with two decals,
placed 108 inches apart, comparing the enclosed lens material with the prismatic material. The
remaining decals tested in this phase were made of prismatic material.

4-2
Figure 4-1. Full and Close-Up Views of Reference Car with Bonded, Prismatic, and
Enclosed Materials

4-3
 Pr
ism

ed
at

os
ic

cl
En

Figure 4-2. Full and Close-Up Views of Prismatic and Enclosed Lens Materials

4-4
Figure 4-3 shows the freight car that has a 4-inch by 96.5-in vertical alternating red-and-white
prismatic material decal located on the corner bracing of the hopper car.

Figure 4-3. Full and Close-Up Views of Red-and-White Vertical Reflector

4-5
Five of the freight cars had prismatic material decals, either red or red-and-white, with various
patterns. Figures 4-4 through 4-8 show the various patterns and colors for each design.

Figure 4-4. Full and Close-Up Views of Solid Red Decal

4-6
Figure 4-5. Full and Close-Up Views of Half-Red/Half-White Decal

4-7
Figure 4-6. Full and Close-Up Views of Alternating Red and White Stripes

4-8
Figure 4-7. Full and Close-Up Views of Red-on-White Diamonds

4-9
Figure 4-8. Full and Close-Up Views of White-Red-White Diamonds

4-10
Five of the freight cars had 2 or 3 prismatic type decals, each 4 inches by 2 inches, located on
each wheel plate at either a 90-, 120- (see Figure 4-9), or 180-degree separation. The decals were
white, red, or a combination of both.

Figure 4-9. Full and Close-Up Views of White Wheel Plate Decals at 120-Degree Spacing

4-11
4.1.3 Demonstration Test Site Conditions

The TTC is situated 4,663 feet above sea level and has a relatively flat terrain. The climate is
semi-arid and marked by large daily temperature variations. Temperatures in excess of 90° are
not uncommon during the summer months while dropping to 0° during the winter. Summer
precipitation is usually in the form of afternoon thunderstorms. Blowing dust frequently
develops during the spring months, especially in an abnormally dry year.

The TTC demonstration test was initiated during the week of March 18, 1991. The consist was
marked with the reflective decals described in Section 4.1.2. Initial car documentation as well as
initial brightness and other parameters were logged. (See Appendix B for information on the
instrumentation and measurement procedure.) A nighttime video was taken at a simulated grade
crossing at several distances and angles to evaluate shape recognition, color definition, and sight
distances. The specific characteristics of the demonstration test can be found on a video
produced by the Volpe Center and available from the National Audiovisual Center Library in
Capital Heights, Maryland, entitled, Freight Car Reflectorization – Demonstration Test
(Volpe Center 1992).

Nine monthly sets of measurements were taken through December 1991. In March 1992, the
final measurements of the one-year test were completed. Environmental conditions and
accumulated mileage were logged. Both natural and scheduled washing effects were noted. The
test results are shown in Section 4.2. An analysis of those results and the subsequent findings
can be found in Section 4.3 of this chapter.

4.2 DEMONSTRATION TEST RESULTS

4.2.1 Reflectivity Measurements

The data and findings presented encompass a 1-year test span in which the test consist
accumulated 12,941 miles in a climate offering a full mix of weather conditions and seasons.
The data in Figure 4-10 shows the comparison of the three types of white material used —
prismatic, enclosed lens, and bonded — after 1 year of testing.

The data presented in Figure 4-10 was obtained from the unwashed reference car that comprised
four groups of the three types of decals on each side of the train. Each monthly measurement
was the average of 24 individual measurements taken on each type of material (each reflector
was measured three times).

It is evident from the data that the prismatic material has a much higher initial SIA value than the
other two materials tested. The prismatic material, after 1 year of service, maintained an SIA
value that is 87% of the original measurement.

4-12
 1200

Average SIA Readings (cd/fc/ft 2 or cd/lux/m 2 )

1000

800

Prismatic
600
Enclosed
Bonded
400

200

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Months in Service

Figure 4-10. Comparison of All Reflective Materials Tested (Unwashed Reference)

The following comparative sets of data are presented using the mean and one standard deviation
for each set of monthly measurements. In Figure 4-11, the unwashed white prismatic material
and unwashed white enclosed lens material results are shown. The enclosed lens material is the
same material used in the 1982 Freight Car Reflection report. The sample population for these
graphs includes the unwashed reference car data and the old (materials investigated in the 1982
study) versus new (materials developed since the 1982 study) car data. Each monthly data point
is the average of 3 readings on each of the 16 decals, or 48 individual data points.

Since these decals are 4 inches by 4 inches, the minimum SIA value of 405 is needed to attract
the attention of a motorist (see Section 2.3). It is evident from the data in these graphs that the
prismatic material lies far above the minimum value, while the enclosed lens falls far below it.

It should be noted that the bonded lens material SIA values were initially so low that the data was
omitted for the rest of this report.

For the purpose of choosing the material for the nationwide in-service field test, a more practical
method of viewing data is expressed in the form of percentile distributions using the 85th
percentile as a reference. The choice of percentile is somewhat arbitrary. In highway design it
has been traditional to set standards to exclude no more than 15% of the relevant population.
Hence, the 85th percentile was used as a performance criterion.

This method was used in Figure 4-12 in comparing the percentile distributions for the white
prismatic and white enclosed lens material. The white prismatic SIA value at the 85th percentile
was 861 compared to 59.5 for the enclosed lens type. The sample population for these graphs
includes the unwashed reference car data and the old versus new car data. The percentile
distribution graph comprises 480 individual data points.

4-13
From the data presented in Figures 4-11 and 4-12, it is obvious that the white prismatic material
has a much higher SIA value or coefficient of retroreflection than the older encapsulated lens
type, which was used in the 1982 tests.

UNWASHED WHITE PRISMATIC

1400
Average SIA Readings (cd/fc/ft or cd/lux/m )
2

1200

1000
2

800

600

MINIMUM VALUE TO ATTRACT ATTENTION

400

200

0
APR

JUL

SEP
MAR

FEB

MAR
MAY

JUN

AUG

NOV

JAN
OCT

DEC
Mean and ± One Standard Deviation

UNWASHED WHITE ENCLOSED LENS

500
Average SIA Reading (cd/lux/m or cd/fc/ft )
2

MINIMUM VALUE TO ATTRACT ATTENTION

400
2

300

200

100

0
OCT

DEC
APR

JUL

SEP
MAR

FEB

MAR
MAY

JUN

AUG

NOV

JAN

Mean and ± One Standard Deviation

Figure 4-11. Unwashed Prismatic vs. Unwashed Enclosed Lens (Mean and One Standard
Deviation)

4-14
 UNWASHED WHITE PRISMATIC
1400

85th Percentile = 861

Average SIA Readings (cd/lux/m 2 or cd/fc/ft2) 1200

1000

800

600

MINIMUM VALUE TO ATTRACT ATTENTION

400

200

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Percentile

UNWASHED WHITE ENCLOSED LENS

500

MINIMUM VALUE TO ATTRACT ATTENTION

Average SIA Readings (cd/lux/m2 or cd/fc/ft2)

400

300
85th Percentile = 59.5

200

100

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Percentile

Figure 4-12. Unwashed Prismatic vs. Unwashed Enclosed Lens (Percentiles)

4-15
Red Prismatic Material. The mean and percentile data shown in Figure 4-13 are for the solid
red prismatic material. These decals are 4 inches by 4 inches and again the minimum SIA value
needed to attract the attention of a motorist is 405. The sample population for these graphs
consisted of eight decals mounted on one car. Each monthly mean was the average of 24
individual measurements. The percentile distribution comprises 240 individual data points.

Although the values are below the minimum value needed to attract attention, the additional
implication of red being associated with danger might warrant further investigation of using red
or a combination of red and white material. In a 1988 report, P. L. Olson states that “the
apparent brightness of a color depends to some extent on its saturation. The reds employed in
retroreflective materials are highly saturated, appear brighter, and are detected at greater
distances than would be suggested by their SIA. This effect was noted more for reds than for any
other color in a field test of sign conspicuity.”

Red-and-White Delineating Stripe. It is important for motorists when approaching a darkened

highway-rail grade crossing to be aware of a train’s presence within the crossing. The improved
visibility of trains offered by decals placed on the train sill can be further enhanced by placing
long vertical decals that delineate the ends of freight cars. The data presented in Figure 4-14 is
for a 4-inch by 96.5-inch prismatic material, alternating red and white pattern decal that was
placed vertically at the end of the car. The SIA values presented are an average of the red and
white readings. The large area of these decals lowers the minimum SIA value to 17. The
population sample was limited to one car with one delineating strip on each side. Each month’s
average consisted of 10 individual measurements. The averages and percentile distributions of
the alternating red and white are far above the minimum detection level.

Wheel Plate Decals. For decals located on the wheel plate, the motion of the wheels improved
their visibility and increased the conspicuity of the freight car. However, the decals accumulated
dirt and grease very quickly, due to their low placement and proximity to the track and roadbed.
These decals became ineffective after only a few months. No results are shown.

4.2.2 Washing Effects on Prismatic Materials

One of the test parameters was to monitor the results of washing various decals at specific
intervals. Only the prismatic material results are shown in the next series of figures. One freight
car of the consist was equipped on each side with four sets of the three types of materials. Each
of these sets was washed at intervals of 1, 2, 4, and 6 months, respectively. The data shown in
Figure 4-15 depicts the results of the 1- and 2-month washing cycles of the prismatic material. In
both instances, the SIA value returns to or very close to its initial value. This seems to indicate
that the degradation process is only due to the accumulation of dirt on the surface, and does not
destroy the retroreflective properties of the material itself. The 4- and 6-month cycle charts are
shown in Figure 4-16 and again demonstrate that the SIA value returns close to the original value
even after a 6-month period.

4-16
 UNWASHED RED PRISMATIC MATERIAL
500
Average SIA Readings (cd/lux/m 2 or cd/fc/ft2)
MINIMUM VALUE TO ATTRACT ATTENTION
400

300

200

100

0
JUL

SEP
JUN

JAN

FEB
OCT

DEC
APR

AUG

NOV
MAY
MAR

MAR
Mean and ± One Standard Deviation

UNWASHED RED PRISMATIC MATERIAL

500
Average SIA Readings (cd/lux/m 2 or cd/fc/ft2)

MINIMUM VALUE TO ATTRACT ATTENTION

400

300
85th Percentile = 169.5

200

100

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Percentile

Figure 4-13. Unwashed Red Prismatic (Mean and One Standard Deviation
and Percentiles)

4-17
 UNWASHED RED-AND-WHITE PRISMATIC MATERIAL

700
Average SIA Readings (cd/lux/m 2 or cd/fc/ft2)
600

500

400

300

200

100
MINIMUM VALUE TO ATTRACT ATTENTION
0
AUG

NOV
JUL

SEP
APR

JUN

JAN

FEB
OCT

DEC
MAR

MAR
MAY

Averages of Each Month's Readings

UNWASHED RED-AND-WHITE PRISMATIC MATERIAL

700
Average SIA Readings (cd/lux/m 2 or cd/fc/ft2)

600

500
85th Percentile = 392

400

300

200

100
MINIMUM VALUE TO ATTRACT ATTENTION

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Percentile

Figure 4-14. Unwashed Red-and-White Prismatic Delineating Stripe (Monthly Averages

and Percentiles)

4-18
 ONE-MONTH CYCLE
1200

Average SIA Readings (cd/lux/m 2 or cd/fc/ft2)

1000

800

BEFORE
600
WASHING

AFTER
400 WASHING

200

0
NEW 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Months in Service

TWO-MONTH CYCLE
1400
Average SIA Readings (cd/lux/m 2 or cd/fc/ft2)

1200

1000

800
BEFORE
WASHING
600
AFTER
WASHING
400

200

0
NEW 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Months in Service

Figure 4-15. SIA of Prismatic Decals with One- and Two-Month Washing Cycles

4-19
 FOUR-MONTH CYCLE
1400

Average SIA Readings (cd/lux/m 2 or cd/fc/ft2)

1200

1000

800
BEFORE
WASHING
600
AFTER
WASHING
400

200

0
NEW 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Months in Service

SIX-MONTH CYCLE
1200
Average SIA Reading (cd/lux/m 2 or cd/fc/ft2)

1000

800
BEFORE
WASHING
600 AFTER
WASHING

400

200

0
NEW 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Months in Service

Figure 4-16. SIA of Decals with Four- and Six-Month Washing Cycles

4-20
4.2.3 Accumulated Mileage

The accumulated mileage and climatic conditions were closely monitored over the 1-year test
period. As shown in Figure 4-17 the test consist was idle most of August through November due
to a major rebuild and modification on part of the track structure. The total accumulated mileage
for the 1-year period was slightly less than 13,000 miles. A comparison of the cumulative
mileage data with the average SIA values by month (Figure 4-11) through November is
consistent with the hypothesis that movement of the cars contributes to degradation of the
reflectors. However, the last data point, in March 1992, appears inconsistent with this
hypothesis.

4.2.4 Environmental Effects

The overall climatic conditions for the 1-year test period are shown in Figure 4-18, which
presents both the rainfall and snowfall during the testing period along with the 30-year monthly
averages. The total rainfall for the first 3 months of the test was below normal, while for the
summer months it was above normal. The snowfall for the test period was twice the 30-year
average with abnormally high amounts during October and November.

The graphs in Figure 4-19 show the monthly rainfall and snowfall along with their associated
SIA values. The initial drop in the SIA values was due to normal dirt accumulation, however, it
might have been accelerated by the less than normal rainfall and blowing dust conditions during
the first few months of testing. The slight rise in the SIA values might also be due to the above
average rainfall during July, August, and September. During the months of October and
November, the total precipitation in the form of rain and snow remained relatively high and the
SIA values also continued to remain at stable values. These results are consistent with the
hypothesis that precipitation contributed to a natural washing of the reflectors. However, the last
SIA reading, in March 1992, is relatively high, after 3 months of little precipitation, and seems to
contradict this hypothesis.

4.3 ANALYSIS OF DEMONSTRATION TEST RESULTS

Using the methodology used in Section 2.3.2 of this report, the following minimum threshold
levels for reflector brightness were established:

• The 4-inch by 2-inch reflector’s SIA should at a minimum be 810.

• The 4-inch by 4-inch reflector’s SIA should at a minimum be 405.
• The 4-inch by 108-inch reflector’s SIA should at a minimum be 15.

The first objective of the demonstration test was to determine the durability of new materials in
comparison to the 1982 materials tested. The 4-inch by 4-inch reflector size allowed a direct
comparison of SIA with the 1982 material tested. The three demonstration test materials were
measured in the laboratory before placement on the freight cars. The bonded lens material had
initial SIA readings that were often lower than 10. The enclosed lens material had initial SIA
readings of about 100, similar to the 1982 study. The prismatic material had initial SIA readings
of about 1,000.

4-21
 25000
CUM. MILES
CUM. KILOMETERS

20000
Miles/Kilometers

15000

10000

5000

0
APR

AUG

NOV
MAY

JUN

JAN

FEB
MAR

MAR
DEC
JUL

SEP

OCT

Months in Service

Figure 4-17. Cumulative Mileage

30 YEAR 30 YEAR
DATE RAIN (in) SNOW (in) MONTHLY MONTHLY
AVG. RAIN (in) AVG. SNOW (in)
MARCH 1991 0.74 10.5 0.7 7.4
APRIL 0.83 2 1.25 3.2
MAY 0.72 0 1.59 0.5
JUNE 1.97 0 1.24 0
JULY 2.79 0 1.93 0
AUGUST 2.14 0 1.8 0
SEPTEMBER 1.36 0 0.79 0.6
OCTOBER 0.62 16.3 0.74 1.1
NOVEMBER 2.48 25.6 0.43 4.3
DECEMBER 0.52 4 0.42 4.9
JANUARY 1992 0.04 1.1 0.32 5.4
FEBRUARY 0.19 0.5 0.41 4.1
TOTAL 14.4 60 11.62 31.5

Figure 4-18. Precipitation

4-22
 AVERAGE MONTHLY SIA - PRISMATIC MATERIAL
WITH ASSOCIATED MONTHLY RAINFALL
1200 12
Avg. SIA

Average SIA Reading (cd/lux/m or cd/fc/ft )

Rainfall, in.
2 1000 10

800 8
2

Rainfall, in
600 6

400 4

200 2

0 0

OCT

DEC
APR

AUG

NOV
MAY

JUN

JAN

FEB
MAR

MAR
JUL

SEP

Months in Service

AVERAGE MONTHLY SIA - PRISMATIC MATERIAL

WITH ASSOCIATED MONTHLY SNOWFALL
1200 8

7
1000
Average SIA Readings (cd/lux/m 2 or cd/fc/ft2)

800
5
Rainfall, cm
Rainfall, cm

Avg. SIA
600 4

3
400

200
1

0 0
MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR
Months in Service

Figure 4-19. SIA vs. Rainfall and Snowfall1

1
Based on ASTM E810-81, the metric and foot-pound units for SIA values are numerically equal.

4-23
All three materials were placed on the freight cars to determine degradation rates. The bonded
material did not degrade significantly but initial intensities did not meet the minimum SIA
requirement. As a result, this material was not investigated further. The enclosed lens material’s
(engineering grade) initial intensities also did not meet the minimum SIA requirement. This
material’s degradation rate was found to be lower than the 1982 study; the enclosed lens material
retained approximately 73% of its original intensity over the 1-year test. However, this result
may be due in part to the demonstration test being less severe than true railroad operations and
was a major factor in deciding not to investigate this material beyond the demonstration test. The
prismatic material’s initial intensities far exceeded the minimum SIA requirements established.
The material was found to be 10 times brighter than the material tested in 1982. This material
sustained 87% of its original intensity after 1 year of testing. Also, after two 6-month washing
cycles, the prismatic material rebounded to approximately its original intensity.

The laboratory tests showed a significant increase in brightness of the prismatic material over the
enclosed lens material used in the 1982 study. The prismatic material was placed in many color
combinations, designs, and placement locations for the conduct of the demonstration test. As the
results discussed earlier show, the prismatic material placed below the sill level (<42 in TOR) on
the wheel plates degraded significantly within the first few months of testing. Even in the
relatively pristine environment of the TTC, these results indicate that placement of any material
for the second phase of testing should be at or above sill level (>42 inches TOR). A 6.0%
difference in brightness was found between the placement of the material at 42 inches TOR and
54 inches TOR during this phase of testing. The population tested was very small (16 reflectors)
and, therefore, this result should be used only as an indication that there may be a sensitivity of
the reflector performance based on placement location above TOR. This result correlates with
previous studies mentioned.

The initial measurements and the results of the degradation of the red prismatic material indicate
that a sole red placard does not meet the SIA requirements established with the use of a 4-inch by
4-inch) reflector. The observer’s association of “red means danger” might warrant further
investigation of this color in combination with the white prismatic material. This condition was
tested during this phase. The use of the red-and-white delineating strip, due to its size, met and
remained over the threshold level established during the 1-year test. This favorable result
indicates the possibility of the use of a red-and-white delineating strip.

The third objective met was to establish a preliminary marking design for the nationwide freight
car reflectorization test. The preliminary results from the NHTSA tractor trailer truck study
indicated the delineation of a large transportation vehicle was favorable in an attempt to reduce
collisions. Secondly, the red-and-white combination was found to be appropriate to warn
a motorist of an approaching hazard. Using these results, as well as the results from the
demonstration test, a single configuration was developed for the in-service phase of testing.

Results indicated that decals larger than 4 inches by 4 inches should be used in the in-service test
and that a combination of a large strip of red-and-white material would delineate each individual
freight car and would offer the driver some indication of the presence and nature of the hazard.
With these results in mind, the Volpe Center developed a configuration using three 4-inch by
8-inch white prismatic decals mounted horizontally along the sill level and two 4-inch by 36-inch

4-24
red-and-white strips mounted vertically at each end of the freight car. This configuration was
selected to optimize the amount of material used but also to allow reflectorization of a variety of
freight car types.

The analysis provided the following results:

1. Initial laboratory tests and the controlled demonstration test of all materials
determined that the prismatic (corner cube) material was the best off-the-shelf
material for the in-service revenue field test.

2. Cyclical washing can recover the intensity of the prismatic material to nearly its
original intensity.

3. Environmental effects show a minor correlation on the performance of the

materials tested.

4. Degradation rates indicate a sensitivity to vertical placement above top of rail

(i.e., lower placement results in higher degradation rates).

5. Selection of the color and pattern configuration was based on current freight car
and tractor trailer truck reflectorization research.

4.4 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

4.4.1 Reflector Performance

The prismatic material used throughout this phase performed consistently better than the
materials tested in 1982. The unwashed prismatic reflectors maintained the highest SIA values
of the materials tested throughout the test period. The prismatic materials also showed an
after-wash SIA rebound close to original values. The red prismatic reflectors did not attain the
minimum threshold.

4.4.2 Optimum Configuration

Three 4-inch by 8-inch decals were chosen to be applied horizontally, spaced approximately
9 feet apart, along with two 4-inch by 36-inch red-and-white delineators applied vertically at the
ends of the car. Figure 4-20 shows the arrangement of the decals on a “typical” freight car for
use in the in-service field test.

4-25
A end B end
#5 #4 #3 #2 #1

Figure 4-20. Arrangement of Decals on a Typical Freight Car

4-26
 5. IN-SERVICE REVENUE REFLECTORIZATION TEST

5.1 IN-SERVICE TEST METHODOLOGY

The Volpe Center conducted a survey in 1991 to determine which railroads would participate in
an in-service revenue test of freight car reflectorization. The Alaska Railroad Corporation
(ARR) and Norfolk Southern Corporation (NS) agreed to participate in the evaluation with the
Center.

Although only two railroads agreed to participate, four captive fleets were selected for testing.
Each fleet had a different type of freight car carrying specific commodities associated with it and
also had differing environmental conditions associated with the test. Once fleet selection was
completed, retroreflective material was purchased to equip all the freight cars available for
testing. The configuration established by the demonstration test determined the amount of white
prismatic and red-and-white prismatic material needed for the entire test. Laboratory
measurements of the purchased material, recording of initial measurements and assignment of
reflector set numbers were performed (as field measurement availability permitted) to accurately
document the environmental effects. Volpe Center employees applied the initial material to
a large number of freight cars nationwide. Support from Norfolk Southern Corporation was
established to complete the remaining application requirements on two of their test fleets.
Accident data were obtained via the RAIRS database to analyze potential accident reductions,
which is discussed later in the chapter.

5.1.1 In-Service Test Cars

Table 5-1 is a general description of the captive fleets and freight car types utilized in the
in-service revenue test:

Table 5-1. In-Service Revenue Test Summary

Test Participating Operating Reflector

Plan Railroad Characteristics Configuration
A Alaska Railroad Series DOT-111 Tank Cars
(ARR) carrying various petroleum A end B end

products from Anchorage to

Fairbanks, AK
Reflector Height: 72 in TOR
B Norfolk Southern Intermodal Double Stack
(NS) Cars carrying containers
from Norfolk, VA, to
Chicago, IL.
Reflector Height: Positions
1 and 5: 30 in TOR; all
others: 42 in TOR

5-1
 Table 5-1. In-Service Revenue Test Summary (continued)

Test Participating Operating Reflector Configuration

Plan Railroad Characteristics
C Norfolk Southern Steel Open Top Hopper Cars
carrying eastern coal from
Sheffield, AL, to Wansley,
GA
Reflector Height: 42 in
TOR, except for Position #3,
(under sill, 36 in TOR)

D Norfolk Southern Box Cars carrying clay

products from Savannah to
Gordon, GA
Reflector Height: 42 in TOR

ARR Tank Cars (Test Plan A). This in-service tank car field test was initiated in
November 1991. The reflector configuration shown in Table 5-1 was applied to both sides of
29 tank cars. Inclusion of tank cars in the test provided an opportunity to study the effects of
(1) spillage of petroleum products, (2) steam cleaning of the inside of the tank, and (3) extreme
environmental conditions.

Measurements were made on the reflective material prior to its installation. Table 5-2 lists the
color, dimension and placement, and initial SIA mean and standard deviation for each position
(which is the same used in the demonstration test). Distribution of initial SIA measurements for
the reflective materials at Positions 2, 3, and 4 (white) and Positions 1 and 5 (red-and-white
delineators), respectively, on the tank cars are shown in Appendix C. These figures indicate the
variability within each position as well as distribution of SIA values found on the original
29 tank cars in the population.

Table 5-2. Initial Tank Car Reflector Characteristics

Position Reflector Characteristics SIA Measurements

Color Dimensions/TOR Placement Mean Standard Deviation
1 red 4 in by 36 in total; 72 in TOR 241 12
white Pattern: red/white/red/white 1076 47
2 white 4 in by 8 in; 72 in TOR 1189 51
3 white 4 in by 8 in; 72 in TOR 1187 47
4 white 4 in by 8 in; 72 in TOR 1184 45
5 red 4 in by 36 in; 72 in TOR 240 10
white Pattern: red/white/red/white 1069 46

5-2
NS Corporation. The Norfolk Southern Corporation (NS) provided three types of freight cars
on three separate captive fleets for inclusion in the test. These test cars were to be operated on
the same routes as other trains that have either (1) non-reflectorized cars, or (2) other cars that
have reflective material applied that is different in physical properties from that which was used
in this test. The NS participation was as follows.

NS Double Stack Cars (Test Plan B) – The double stack car in-service field test was initiated in
January 1992. The reflector configuration shown in Table 5-1 was applied to both sides of
149 double stack intermodal cars. The NS double stack cars provided the lowest placement of
the material above top of rail within this testing program, and provided an opportunity to study
the effect of low placement of the retroreflective materials on a freight car.

Initial SIA measurements were made on the reflective material prior to its installation. Table 5-3
provides information regarding color, placement, SIA mean and standard deviation for each
reflector position. The initial SIA measurements for the reflective materials at Positions 2, 3,
and 4 (white) and Positions 1 and 5 (red-and-white delineators), respectively, on the double stack
cars are given in Appendix D.

Table 5-3. Initial Double Stack Reflector Characteristics

Position Reflector Characteristics SIA Measurements

Color Dimensions/TOR Placement Mean Standard Deviation
1 red 4 in by 36 in total; 30 in TOR 220 14
white Pattern: red/white/red/white 1031 56
2 white 4 in by 8 in; 30 in TOR 1015 117
3 white 4 in by 8 in; 30 in TOR 1015 118
4 white 4 in by 8 in; 30 in TOR 1013 118
5 red 4 in by 36 in total; 30 in TOR 220 16
white Pattern: red/white/red/white 1035 56

NS Hopper Cars (Test Plan C) – The hopper car in-service field test was initiated in
March 1992. The reflector configuration shown in Table 5-1 was applied to both sides of
336 hopper cars. These cars provided the opportunity to test the effect of a harsh chemical,
eastern high-sulfur coal, on the retroreflective material.

Initial SIA measurements were made on the reflective material prior to its installation. Table 5-4
provides information regarding color, placement, SIA means and standard deviations for each
reflector position. The initial mean and standard deviations for the SIA values for the reflective
materials at Positions 2, 3, and 4 (white) and Positions 1 and 5 (red-and-white delineators),
respectively, on the hopper cars are shown in Appendix E.

5-3
 Table 5-4. Initial Hopper Reflector Characteristics

Position Reflector Characteristics SIA Measurements

Color Dimensions/TOR Placement Mean Standard Deviation
1 red 4 in by 36 in total; 42 in TOR 226 26
white Pattern: red/white/red/white 1032 66
2 white 4 in by 8 in; 42 in TOR 960 89
3 white 4 in by 8 in;36 in TOR 963 87
4 white 4 in by 8 in; 42 in TOR 960 86
5 red 4 in by 36 in total; 42 in TOR 226 25
white Pattern: red/white/red/white 1034 68

NS Box Car (Test Plan D) – The box car in-service field test was initiated in April 1992. The
reflector configuration shown in Table 5-1 was applied to both sides of 74 box cars. The
transported cargo, clay products, is covered in large cloth sacks that could prevent some of the
clay dust from reaching the decals; however, the cars are subjected to frequent forklift damage
during commodity loading and unloading. Damage to the decals could also occur during
car repairs.

Initial SIA measurements were made on the reflective material prior to its installation. Table 5-5
provides information regarding color, placement, SIA means and standard deviations for each
reflector position. The initial mean and standard deviations for the SIA values for the reflective
materials at Positions 2, 3, and 4 (white) and Positions 1 and 5 (red-and-white delineators),
respectively, on the box cars are given in Appendix F.

Table 5-5. Initial Box Reflector Characteristics

Position Reflector Characteristics SIA Measurements

Color Dimensions/TOR Placement Mean Standard Deviation
1 red 4 in by 36 in total; 42 in TOR 233 37
white Pattern: red/white/red/white 1099 131
2 white 4 in by 8 in ; 42 in TOR 1009 71
3 white 4 in by 8 in; 42 in TOR 1012 72
4 white 4 in by 8 in; 42 in TOR 1012 71
5 red 4 in by 36 in total; 42 in TOR 233 39
white Pattern: red/white/red/white 1101 133

All reflectors used during this test were grouped to determine the mean initial SIA values for all
cars tested. The mean SIA values and standard deviations found for Positions 2, 3, and 4 and
Positions 1 and 5, are given in Appendix G.

5-4
5.2 IN-SERVICE TEST RESULTS

5.2.1 Tank Cars

Degradation of Reflectors. The tank car test period lasted from November 1991 to
August 1993. Three sets of measurements were taken over the course of the testing period: 0, 7,
and 21 months. Table 5-6 illustrates the number of cars measured during each measurement
cycle.

Table 5-6. Total Number of Alaska Cars Tested by Months

Months In-Service Cars Tested

0 29
7 26
21 25

The reflectorized tank cars were placed with consists that were non-reflectorized, thereby making
it difficult to locate cars for follow-up measurements. Subsequent measurements could only
capture a maximum of 26 of these cars during the entire test period. The total number of
measurements taken for each car was 18 for the white horizontal reflectors and 16 for the
red-and-white delineator strips located at the ends of each car. Figure 5-1 shows the individual
degradation trends in Positions 2, 3, and 4. Figure 5-2 shows the individual degradation trends
for Positions 1 and 5. Figures 5-3 and 5-4 show the mean degradation rates for all white
prismatic horizontal markings and all red-and-white delineator strips, 1 and 5, respectively.
These graphs indicate that the reflective material remained far above the threshold levels
established during the course of this research effort. The relative position of the reflective
markings placed on the tank car at 72 inches TOR, may be a significant factor contributing to
these results. An analysis of the effects of placement locations can be found in Section 5.3,
Analysis of In-Service Field Test Results.

5-5
 1400

1200

Average SIA Readings (cd/lx/m2 and cd/fc/ft2)

1000

800
Mean-Position 2
Mean-Position 3
600 Mean-Position 4
Min. Threshold-Pos. 2&3&4

400

200

0
-2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
Time (months)

Figure 5-1. Alaska Tank Cars – Degradation of Positions 2, 3, and 4

1400

1200
Average SIA Readings (cd/lx/m2 and cd/fc/ft2)

1000

800

Mean-Position 1
600
Mean-Position 5

Min. Threshold--Pos. 1&5

400

200

0
-2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
Time (months)

Figure 5-2. Alaska Tank Cars – Degradation of Positions 1 and 5

5-6
 1200
Average SIA Readings (cd/lx/m2 and cd/fc/ft2)

1000

800

Mean-Position 2&3&4
600
Min. Threshold-Pos. 2&3&4

400

200

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
Time (months)

Figure 5-3. Alaska Tank Cars – Mean Degradation Trend for Positions 2, 3, and 4

700

600
Mean SIA (cd/lx/m2 and cd/fc/ft2)

500

400
Mean-Position 1&5

Min. Threshold--Pos.
300
1&5

200

100

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
Time (months)

Figure 5-4. Alaska Tank Cars – Mean Degradation Trend for Positions 1 and 5

5-7
Natural Environmental and Operational Effects. The natural environmental conditions in the
State of Alaska can be severe, but no effects on the reflectors’ brightness have been indicated.
As noted by the degradation rate figures, the reflectors placed in a position where they may
encounter gasoline products (i.e., under the filler cap, which is located at Position 3 in
Figure 5-1) degraded more rapidly than the others did. Another effect that has been noted for the
Alaska tank cars is the response of the reflectors to internal steam cleaning of the tank cars.
Figure 5-5 shows the SIA values for tank cars (initially and after 7 months) that have been
steamed cleaned. Figure 5-6 indicates an 8% increase in the reflector intensities after 21 months
between tank cars not steamed and tank cars steamed 5 times.
Average SIA Readings (cd/lx/m and cd/fc/ft )

1200
2

1000
Number of
S team ings
2

800
NONE
600 ONE
TWO
THREE
400
FOUR
FIV E
200

0
Initial A v g . 7 M o n th A v g .

Figure 5-5. Seven-Month SIA Readings for Tank Cars

100.00
90.00
Percent of Original SIA

75.06 77.13
80.00 69.79 72.68 72.04 72.77
70.00
60.00
50.00
40.00
30.00
20.00
10.00
0.00
NONE ONE TWO THREE FOUR FIVE
Number of Times Car Steamed After 21 Months

Figure 5-6. Effects on Tank Car Reflectors from Internal Steam Cleaning
5-8
This phenomenon should be further investigated by manufacturers of retroreflective materials.
The manufacturer rates this material to withstand temperatures up to 190°F, but the outside
temperatures reached 220°F after the internal steam cleaning was completed.

One tank was washed with water to determine washing effects on this fleet. After 7 months, the
reflector intensity was down to 63% of its original value. After washing, this percentage
increased to 88% of the original value.

Accident Reduction Potential. Individual reflectorized tank cars were randomly placed in
consists with and without reflectorized cars. Due to this car placement, it was not possible to
obtain meaningful statistics on the accident reduction potential of reflectorization for the Alaska
Railroad tests.

5.2.2 Double Stack Cars

Degradation of Reflectors. The double stack test was conducted from January 1992 through
June 1994. Five sets of measurements were taken over the course of the testing period. These
measurements were taken at 0, 3, 7, 20, and 29 months. Table 5-7 illustrates the number of cars
measured during each measurement cycle.

Table 5-7. Total Number of NS Double Stack Cars Tested

Months In-Service Double Stack Car Count

0 149
3 81
7 60
20 23
29 9

The reflectorized double stack cars were placed in one of four unit train consists that were
non-reflectorized, thereby making follow-up measurements difficult. Subsequent measurements
captured a maximum of 81 cars during the entire test period as shown above. The total number
of measurements was 18 for the white horizontal reflectors and 16 for the red-and-white
delineator strips located at the ends of each car. Figure 5-7, depicts individual degradation rates
on Positions 2, 3, and 4. Figure 5-8 displays individual degradation results in Positions 1 and 5
of the double stack cars. The double stack car’s reflectors remained above the threshold levels
established during the course of this research effort for Positions 1 and 5, but fell below the
threshold level after 18 months for Positions 2, 3, and 4. Figures 5-9 and 5-10 show the mean
degradation rates for all white prismatic horizontal markings and all red-and-white delineator
strips, 1 and 5, respectively. An analysis of various placement locations can be found in
Section 5.3, Analysis of In-Service Field Test Results.

5-9
 1200

1000
Average SIA Readings (cd/lx/m2 and cd/fc/ft2)

800

600 Mean-Position 2
Mean-Position 3
Mean-Position 4
400 Min.Threshold-Pos. 2&3&4

200

-200
-2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30
Time (months)

Figure 5-7. NS Double Stack Cars – Degradation of Positions 2, 3, and 4

1200

1000
Average SIA Readings (cd/lx/m2 and cd/fc/ft2)

800

600

Mean-Position 1
Mean-Position 5
400
Min. Threshold-Pos. 1&5

200

-200
-2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30
Time (months)

Figure 5-8. NS Double Stack Cars – Degradation of Positions 1 and 5

5-10
 1200

1000

Average SIA Readings (cd/lx/m2 and cd/fc/ft2)

800

600
Mean-Position 2&3&4
Min. Threshold-Pos. 2&3&4

400

200

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30
Time (months)

Figure 5-9. NS Double Stack Cars – Mean Degradation Trend for Positions 2, 3, and 4

700

600
Average SIA Readings (cd/lx/m2 and cd/fc/ft2)

500

400
Mean-Position 1&5
Min. Threshold-Positions 1&5
300

200

100

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30
Time (months)

Figure 5-10. NS Double Stack Cars – Mean Degradation Trend for Positions 1 and 5

5-11
Natural Environmental and Operational Effects. The natural environmental conditions had
no significant effect on the reflectors’ brightness. Although the harsh railroad environment
contributed to the reflectors’ degradation over time, and the reflectors in Positions 1 and 5 were
lower to the TOR, the SIA values remained above the threshold over time.

Accident Reduction Potential. Individual reflectorized double stack cars, and not an entire unit
train, were randomly placed in consists with and without reflectorized cars. Therefore, very little
information could be gathered on accident reduction potential within this captive route.

5.2.3 Hopper Cars

Degradation of Reflectors. This phase of the in-service test was conducted from March 1992
through December 1993. Four sets of measurements were taken over the course of the testing
period. These measurements were taken at 0, 3, 7, and 21 months. Table 5-8 illustrates the
number of cars measured during each measurement cycle.

Table 5-8. Total Number of NS Hopper Cars Tested

Months In-Service Hopper Car Count

0 336
3 110
7 99
21 12

The hopper car captive route consisted of four fully reflectorized consists. Measurements were
made when the cars were at NS’s Refueling Yards in Muscle Shoals, Alabama. Subsequent
measurements captured a maximum of 110 cars during the test period. The total number of
measurements taken (per car) was 18 for the white horizontal reflectors and 16 for the
red-and-white delineator strips located at the ends of each car. As can be found in Figures 5-11,
5-12, 5-13, and 5-14, the hopper cars remained above the threshold levels established during the
course of this research effort for Positions 1 and 5, but fell below the threshold level after
7 months for Positions 2, 3, and 4. One finding to be noted in Figure 5-11 is that Position 3 has
a slightly higher degradation rate than Positions 2 and 4. An analysis of various placement
locations can be found in Section 5.3, Analysis of In-Service Field Test Results. Figure 5-12
displays individual degradation results in Positions 1 and 5 of the hopper cars. As can be seen,
the delineator strip still lies above the threshold level after 21 months. Figures 5-13 and 5-14
show general degradation rates for all white prismatic horizontal markings and all red-and-white
delineator strips, 1 and 5, respectively.

Natural Environmental and Operational Effects. The natural environmental conditions

encountered by this captive fleet within Alabama had no effect on the reflectors’ brightness. The
harsh operational environment of eastern coal dust from the hopper cars resulted in the most

5-12
severe degradation rate of all the fleets tested. Based on the sharp decline of Positions 2, 3, and 4
in less than 6 months, it is suggested a reflector should not be placed under the sill level.

1200

1000
Average SIA Readings (cd/lux/m2 and cd/fc/ft2)

800

Mean-Position 2
Mean-Position 3
600
Mean-Position 4
Threshold 2&3&4

400

200

0
-2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
Time (months)

Figure 5-11. NS Hopper Cars – Degradation of Positions 2, 3, and 4

1200
Average SIA Readings (cd/lux/m2 and cd/fc/ft2)

1000

800

600
Mean-Position 1
Mean-Position 5
Threshold 1&5
400

200

0
-2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
Time (months)

Figure 5-12. NS Hopper Cars – Degradation of Positions 1 and 5

5-13
 1000

900

800
Average SIA Readings (cd/lux/m2 and cd/fc/ft2)

700

600

500 Mean-Position 2&3&4

Min. Threshold-Pos. 2&3&4

400

300

200

100

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
Time (months)

Figure 5-13. NS Hopper Cars – Mean Degradation Trend for Positions 2, 3, and 4

700

600
Average SIA Readings (cd/lux/m2 and cd/fc/ft2)

500

400

Min. Threshold-Pos. 1&5

Mean-Position 1&5
300

200

100

0
-2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
Time (months)

Figure 5-14. NS Hopper Cars – Mean Degradation Trend for Positions 1 and 5

5-14
Accident Reduction Potential. For the 3-year period before reflectorization of this fleet,
6 highway-railroad grade crossing accidents occurred in which the motorist hit the side of the
train after the first unit had passed during hours of dawn, dusk, and darkness. During the 3-year
period after these 336 open top hopper cars were reflectorized, zero accidents occurred under the
same conditions. These limited results indicate reflectors can be effective in reducing accidents.

5.2.4 Box Cars

Degradation of Reflectors. This phase of the in-service test was conducted from April 1992
through June 1994. Three sets of measurements were taken over the course of the testing period.
These measurements were taken at 0, 12, and 26 months. Table 5-9 illustrates the number of cars
measured during each measurement cycle.

Table 5-9. Total Number of NS Box Cars Tested

Months In-Service Box Car Count

0 74
12 9
26 3

The reflectorized box cars were placed with consists that were non-reflectorized, thereby making
follow-up measurements difficult. Subsequent measurements captured a maximum of nine cars
at any one time during the entire test period. The total number of measurements taken per car
was 18 for the white horizontal reflectors and 16 for the red-and-white delineator strips located at
the ends of each car. Due to the limited number of subsequent measurements, results and
conclusions on the box car test should be considered with some caution. As can be found in
Figures 5-15, 5-16, 5-17, and 5-18, the box car reflectors remained far above the threshold levels
established during the course of this research effort for all positions except for Position 3.
Figure 5-15, which depicts individual degradation rates based on Positions 2, 3, and 4, indicates
that Position 3 has a much higher degradation rate than Positions 2 and 4. This position was
located mid-car, below the sill, under the doorway of the box car. This degradation was likely
caused by the proximity of this reflector to the doorway of this freight car type, which resulted in
damage to the reflector during loading operations. Figure 5-16 displays individual degradation
results in Positions 1 and 5 of the hopper cars. As can be seen, the delineator strip still lies above
the threshold level after 25 months. Figures 5-17 and 5-18 show general degradation rates for all
white horizontal markings, Positions 2, 3, and 4, and all red-and-white delineator strips,
Positions 1 and 5, respectively. An analysis of various placement locations can be found in
Section 5.3, Analysis of In-Service Field Test Results.

5-15
 1200

1000

Average SIA Readings (cd/lx/m2 and cd/fc/ft2)

800

Mean-Position 2
Mean-Position 3
600
Mean-Position 4
Min. Threshold-Pos. 2&3&4

400

200

0
-2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28
Time (months)

Figure 5-15. NS Box Cars – Degradation of Positions 2, 3, and 4

1200

1000
Average SIA Readings (cd/lx/m2 and cd/fc/ft2)

800

Mean-Position 1
600 Mean-Position 5
Min. Threshold-Pos. 1&5

400

200

0
-2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28
Time (months)

Figure 5-16. NS Box Cars – Degradation of Positions 1 and 5

5-16
 1200

1000

Average SIA Readings (cd/lx/m2 and cd/fc/ft2)

800

600
Mean-Positions 2&3&4
Min. Threshold-Pos. 2&3&4

400

200

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Time (months)

Figure 5-17. NS Box Cars – Mean Degradation Trend for Positions 2, 3, and 4

1000

900

800
Average SIA Readings (cd/lx/m2 and cd/fc/ft2)

700

600

500
Mean-Positions 1&5
Min. Threshold-Pos. 1&5
400

300

200

100

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Time (months)

Figure 5-18. NS Box Cars – Mean Degradation Trend for Positions 1 and 5

5-17
NS Box – Natural Environmental and Operational Effects. The natural environmental
conditions along the captive route within Georgia had no significant effect on the reflectors’
brightness. The harsh operational environment of clay dust contributed to a severe degradation
rate on Position 3 of this fleet. It is likely that forklift damage may have contributed to
degradation of this reflector as well.

NS Box – Accident Reduction Potential. This fleet of captive box cars was intermingled with
other non-reflectorized freight cars along this route in Georgia. Also, clay shipments were
intermittent at best. Therefore, it was not possible to acquire meaningful accident data for this
test condition.

5.3 ANALYSIS OF IN-SERVICE FIELD TEST RESULTS

5.3.1 Reflector Performance

A further review of the 4-inch by 36-inch delineator strip to determine any sensitivities to
location above TOR is necessary. The average performance of the reflectors for each position
and all car types is summarized in Figures 5-19 through 5-22. Table 5-10 shows placement
locations of each white portion of the delineator strip on reflectors in Positions 1 and 5.

Table 5-10. Height Above TOR for White Portion of Delineator Strip for
Three Freight Types

Freight Car Type Upper White Portion Lower White Portion

Height Above TOR Height Above TOR
Tank Car 90 in 72 in
Double Stack Car 48 in 30 in
Hopper Car 60 in 42 in

5-18
 100

90

80
Percentage of Original SIA Readings
70

60
Box
Double Stack
50
Hopper
Tank
40

30

20

10

0
0 3 7 12 20 21 26 29
Time (months)

Figure 5-19. Comparative Degradation Rates for All Freight Car Types in
Positions 1 and 5

100

90

80
Percentage of Original SIA Readings

70

60
Box
Double Stack
50
Hopper
Tank
40

30

20

10

0
0 3 7 12 20 21 26 29
Time (months)

Figure 5-20. Comparative Degradation Rates for All Freight Car Types in Position 2

5-19
 100

90

80

Percentage of Original SIA Readings

70

60
Box
Double Stack
50
Hopper
Tank
40

30

20

10

0
0 3 7 12 20 21 26 29
Time (months)

Figure 5-21. Comparative Degradation Rates for All Freight Car Types in Position 3

100

90

80
Percentage of Original SIA Readings

70

60
Box
Double Stack
50
Hopper
Tank
40

30

20

10

0
0 3 7 12 20 21 26 29
Time (months)

Figure 5-22. Comparative Degradation Rates for All Freight Car Types in Position 4

5-20
The results presented above indicated a general correlation of a reflector’s performance to its
height above TOR. The reflectors mounted highest on the tank cars performed the best, while
the reflectors on the other cars, which were mounted lower, did not perform as well. This trend,
however, could have been attributable to differences in the operating environment. To control
for the effect of operating environment, a more detailed analysis of the reflectors located at
different heights above TOR was performed within each car type. The delineator reflector strips
located at Positions 1 and 5 were composed of two white (4 in by 7 in each) and two red decals
(4 in by 11 in each) applied vertically, end-to-end, in an alternating pattern. Analysis of the
performance of the white material will indicate if the upper patches perform better due to their
higher location above TOR. Figures 5-23 through 5-26 show the degradation rates of the
reflectors in Positions 1 and 5 by location of the white reflective material.

As these figures illustrate, height above TOR appears to have little general influence on reflector
performance. The primary explanation for the differences in performance is, therefore,
differences in the natural and operating environments. While this generally seems to be the case,
the results of the hopper and box cars strongly suggest that reflectors should not be located under
the sill or at loading points, since they are exposed to more extreme conditions.

5.3.2 Environmental and Other Effects on Performance of Prismatic Material

There have been no significant findings concerning natural environmental effects on the
performance of these reflectors in railroad revenue service. Other effects, mainly railroad
operational effects, have surfaced through the results obtained. Placement of the reflector under
the sill of the freight car has been found to be detrimental to the performance of the reflector.
Mid-car locations on many freight car types provide severe operational conditions; therefore, this
location should not be considered in any freight car reflectorization rulemaking process. The
reflectors on the petroleum tank cars seemed to benefit slightly by internal steam cleaning
operations. Periodic washing of the reflectors mounted on freight cars can extend their
performance to the limits of life expectancy.

5.3.3 Accident Analysis

Test Plans A (tank cars), B (double stack cars), and D (box cars) were operated in mixed freight
consists, and typically made up a small proportion of the train consist. Because of the small
proportion of reflectorized cars (often less than 5% of the total) in the train, their presence was
unlikely to influence the accident rate for those trains. Also, there were many other trains
operating on the same routes. The RAIRS database does not provide a means for identifying
whether a train involved in an accident included reflectorized cars. Therefore, it is not possible
to determine whether the operation of reflectorized cars on the route affected the frequency of
grade crossing accidents. Test Plan C (hopper cars), however, had four full consists traversing
a captive route, and was the only test plan within this research activity to do so. Plan C should
provide the best information in terms of accident reduction potential. Therefore, in terms of
accident reduction potential, this specific route should be targeted.

5-21
 1200

1000

Mean SIA (cd/lx/m2 or cd/fc/ft2)

800

Pos 1&5 Avg./Upper White

Reflector
600 Pos 1&5 Avg./Lower White
Reflector

400

200

0
-2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
Time (months)

Figure 5-23. Tank Car – Upper and Lower White Reflector Degradation Rates

1200

1000
Average SIA Readings (cd/lx/m2 or cd/fc/ft2)

800

600 Pos 1&5 Avg./Upper White

Reflector
Pos 1&5 Avg./Lower White
Reflector
400

200

0
-2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30
Time (months)

Figure 5-24. Double Stack Car – Upper and Lower White Reflector Degradation Rates

5-22
 1200

1000

Average SIA Readings (cd/lux/m2 and cd/fc/ft2)

800

600
Pos 1&5 Avg./Upper White
Reflector
Pos 1&5 Avg./Lower White
Reflector
400

200

0
-2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
Time (months)

Figure 5-25. Hopper Car – Upper and Lower White Reflector Degradation Rates

1400

1200
Average SIA Readings (cd/lx/m2 and cd/fc/ft2)

1000

800

Pos 1&5 Avg./Upper White

600 Reflector

Pos 1&5 Avg./Lower White

Reflector

400

200

0
-2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26
Time (months)

Figure 5-26. Box Car – Upper and Lower White Reflector Degradation Rates

5-23
The accident reduction potential should be concerned with only the reduction of Category 1
accidents. Therefore, Table 5-11 illustrates Category 1 accident rates for Plan C. As Table 5-11
indicates, the number of Category 1 accidents for the Plan C fleet declined from six for the
period prior to reflectorization to zero for the period after reflectorization.

Table 5-11. Plan C Accident Data (Before-Test and After-Test)

Accidents Before Test* Accidents After Test*

Total Category 1 along captive route 6 0
Nationwide Total RIT Accidents 4213 3318
Nationwide Total Accidents 16330 13411
* The before-test period was from 5/89 to 2/92; the after-test period was from 3/92 to 12/94.

The results above indicate that freight car reflectorization has potential for reducing Category 1
accidents. This finding, while positive for reflectorization, should be viewed with caution since
it is based on very limited accident experience.

5.3.4 Installation Costs and Maintenance Requirements

Material Costs. Reflectorization material and labor costs for the in-service field test:

A end B end
#5 #4 #3 #2 #1

White Material $272 per 150-foot roll = $1.81/foot

Red/White Material $300 150-foot roll = $2.00/foot
1990 Labor Rate1 $68.25 per hour

Material per Car (both sides)

White 4 feet @ $1.81/ft = $7.24
Red/White 12 feet @ $2.00/ft = $24.00
Total Material Cost per Car = $31.24

Labor per Car2

Newer Cars (minimum cleaning) – 2 people @ 15 minutes/car = $34.12
Older Cars (heavy cleaning) –2 people @ 30 minutes/car = $68.25

1
Labor rate shown within this section is based on installation cost charged by Norfolk Southern to the Volpe Center.
2
Labor includes surface preparation and material installation.

5-24
Total Cost per Car (Material and Labor)
Newer Cars (minimum cleaning) = $65.36
Older Cars (heavy cleaning) = $99.49

The manufacturer that provided the retroreflective material for this research was contacted
recently to determine if increases in demand resulting from large tractor trailer truck
reflectorization rulemaking had any affect on the cost of prismatic retroreflective material. The
in-service pattern’s original cost of $31.24 has now been reduced by 40% (as of December 1996)
for a cost of material per car of to approximately $18.75. Using the estimates for the labor of
reflectorizing an older car that may need heavy cleaning and the reduced material cost, the
resultant maximum cost per car using the in-service pattern would be $87.00.

Based on the assumption that the installation of the retroreflective material would be a task of the
railcar’s maintenance program, the labor cost, in 1990 dollars, would have been significantly less
than the amount shown above. The 1996 AAR Labor rate is approximately $20.05 per hour
(Browder, 1998), which is approximately 30 percent of the labor rate of the 1990 installation.
Using the estimates for the labor of reflectorizing an older car that may need heavy cleaning
(using the 1996 AAR labor rate) and the reduced material cost, the resultant maximum cost per
car using the in-service pattern would be approximately $38.80.

5.4 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

5.4.1 Reflectivity and Maintenance

To allow maximum efficiency of reflector performance, a minimum height above TOR has been
defined at 42 inches. A maximum placement height of 72 inches above TOR is suggested to
limit the divergence angle formed between the light source and observer. There was very little
change in reflector performance above this height due to dirt and grime accumulation. The
average performance of all delineator strips, red and white decals measuring 4 inches by
36 inches, mounted at Positions 1 and 5 remained above the established threshold level for all
freight car types for the entire testing period. The average performance of all white 4-inch by
8-inch reflectors degraded more quickly, however, especially for some car types. This finding
indicates an adjustment is necessary to the reflectorization pattern to minimize their location
under the sill and at loading points, and to increase their size, which will lower the acceptable
threshold level.

For the average freight car involved in this study, it can be estimated that a 12- to 18-month cycle
of maintenance would be sufficient to sustain the threshold levels necessary to attract the
attention of a motorist. A minimum cleaning time of 15 minutes per car is considered reasonable
for these reflectors with no additional cleaning solvents necessary in the process. Periodic
washing of the reflectors can extend their acceptable performance to the limits of their life
expectancy.

5-25
5.4.2 Natural and Operational Environmental Effects on Reflector Performance

No natural environmental factors were found to have a significant effect on reflector performance
of the four freight car types studied nationwide. The severe railroad operational environment did
degrade the performance of the reflectors, especially in mid-car placement locations, on two
types of freight cars. Mid-car locations, specifically on tank cars and box cars, resulted in
severely degraded reflector performance due to loading operations. Therefore, mid-car
placement of reflectors is not recommended.

The 4-inch by 8-inch white reflectors placed under the sill level of hopper cars did not perform
well due to their proximity to the effects of dirt and grime accumulation from the rail and wheel
interaction. Therefore, it is recommended that a minimum height above top of rail be established
at 42 in and that reflectors not be placed under the sill. This finding should be implementable for
most freight car types; however, some minor exceptions to a uniform pattern will most likely
have to be made to accommodate special car configurations.

5.4.3 Accident Reduction Potential

The in-service field test included one captive route, which consisted of four fully reflectorized
open top hopper cars. These consists had approximately a 3-day turnaround time for a round trip.
Comparing the accident rate (for the highway-railroad grade crossings involved in this study) for
the 3 years before reflectorization to the accident rate for the 3 years after reflectorization
revealed a significant decrease. The “before” test conditions found six Category 1 accidents
occurred on this set of crossings. The “after” test conditions revealed no Category 1 accidents
occurred. Although this data is very limited, it strongly supports the use of freight car
reflectorization to aid in reduction of Category 1 accidents. The other three fleets investigated
included reflectorized cars that were intermingled with other non-reflectorized freight cars and,
therefore, could not be used as a basis for potential accident rate reductions. Two other captive
fleet routes, the tank and double stack cars, had Category 1 accident rates increase after the
in-service tests. These two fleets were once again intermingled with other non-reflectorized cars
and should not be used to measure potential for accident reductions.

5.4.4 Material and Maintenance Costs

The demonstration test pattern’s original cost of $31.24 has now been reduced by 40% (based on
information stated by the manufacturer) for a cost of material per car of approximately $18.75.
Additionally, the 1996 AAR labor rate is approximately $20.05 per hour. Using the estimates for
reflectorizing an older car during the normal maintenance program that may need heavy cleaning
(at the 1996 AAR labor rate), and reduced material costs, the resultant maximum material cost
per car using the tested pattern would be approximately $38.80. Heavy cleaning of the reflectors
would require 2 person for 30 minutes to complete the process approximately every 12-18
months, resulting in a cost of approximately $20.05 per event. The manufacturer specifies this
prismatic material’s useful life to be 10 years. Therefore, maximum projected total costs of the
material and maintenance for a 10-year period would be $219.25 per car (based on lower material
costs, heavy cleaning, two-person annual maintenance, at the 1996 AAR labor rate).

5-26
 6. HUMAN FACTORS EVALUATION OF RETROREFLECTIVE
MARKING DESIGNS

6.1 INTRODUCTION

This chapter describes the results of a study (Ford et al. 1998) to develop and evaluate several
proposed designs for placing retroreflective markings on rail cars. The purpose of these
retroreflective markings is to increase the conspicuity of the rail car to the approaching motorist.
Conspicuity is defined as the properties of an object that result in its detection with a high
probability and at a sufficient distance to allow an approaching driver to avoid a potential hazard
(Olson, et al. 1992).

6.1.1 Literature Review

The typical rail car presents a poor target at night and is difficult to detect. The painted surface
of the rail car is frequently painted in a dark color and is dirty. Generally, the dirt accumulation
is greatest near the ground and decreases the higher the surface is above the ground. Because
much of the surface of the rail car is above the mounting height of automobile headlamps, the
likelihood of detection with low beam illumination is decreased. Other cars, like the flat car or
double stack car, present a smaller total surface area facing the driver. Currently, there are no
requirements for lighting or retroreflective markings on rail cars.

A body of research (Lauer and Suhr 1956; McGinnis 1979; Stalder and Lauer 1952; Olson 1987;
Olson, et al. 1992; Ziedman, et al. 1981) suggests that retroreflective materials can increase the
conspicuity of objects to which they are attached. However, previous generations of
retroreflective markings reflected less light and lacked the durability to survive the harsh
environment to which rail cars are regularly exposed (Poage, et al. 1983; Poage and
Hopkins 1983). The prismatic (cube corner) retroreflective markings currently available
overcome these problems.

There is little research that suggests how retroreflective materials should be displayed on the rail
cars to maximize the conspicuity of the rail car for the approaching motorist. Studies devoted
exclusively to the problem of displaying retroreflective markings on rail cars (Lauer and
Suhr 1956; McGinnis 1979; and Stalder and Lauer 1952) were performed with the previous
generation of retroreflective materials (enclosed lens or encapsulated lens). Lauer and
Suhr (1956) tested four different configurations using the same amount of material for each
pattern. They discovered that the massed applications (concentrating the material in one or two
locations) were more effective than those applications that were distributed over a wider area.
By contrast, studies assessing the effectiveness of retroreflective markings on trucks (Olson,
et al 1992) used the prismatic materials available today. Both of these more recent studies
concluded that providing a design that outlined the shape of the vehicle increases conspicuity.

While much of the research investigating the effectiveness of retroreflective markings for trucks
is relevant to rail cars, there is a lack of knowledge about the optimal design of retroreflective
markings for rail cars. The primary concern here is with developing a retroreflective marking

6-1
design that is detectable in time for the motorist to recognize a train in the grade crossing and
respond in time to avoid an accident.

The remainder of this chapter describes the methodology by which several retroreflective
marking designs were developed and evaluated. The development of a set of prototype marking
designs is described, followed by a subjective and objective evaluation of a subset of these
designs. For readers interested in a more detailed description of this study, please refer to the full
report by Ford, et al. (1998).

6.1.2 Development of Candidate Designs

To develop a set of retroreflective marking designs for evaluation, the Nominal Group Technique
(NGT) was chosen. The NGT consists of a focus group moderated by a facilitator. The group
follows a systematic procedure in which the facilitator moderates the actions and interactions of
the group to achieve the goals set by the moderator. The four steps in the NGT procedure are:
(1) silent generation, (2) round robin discussion, (3) clarification of design alternatives, and
(4) ranking of alternative designs. For this study, the group consisted of six individuals with
experience in traffic engineering, railroad operations, and/or human factors.

In the silent generation step, members of the group worked alone to generate as many designs as
they could. During this brainstorming period, members were given a set of materials with which
to generate their designs. These materials consisted of the following:

• a silhouette of an open hopper freight car;

• samples of prismatic retroreflective materials in white, red, yellow, orange, green,
blue, fluorescent yellow, and fluorescent orange;
• marking pens that matched the different colored materials; and
• blank graph paper on which to sketch their designs.

The participants created 25 designs from the brainstorming process. During the round robin and
clarification processes, each participant presented his or her designs to other group members.
The facilitator assigned each design a number and the members discussed the ideas underlying
each of the designs. Duplicate designs were discarded.

In the final step, each participant selected the 8 most “detectable” designs from the original
25 designs and ranked them from 1 to 8, with 1 being least detectable and 8 being most
detectable. The individual scores for each of the designs were combined and tabulated to identify
the top eight designs. The top eight designs served as the basis for further evaluation and are
shown in Figure 6-1. In addition to the eight designs shown in Figure 6-1, three additional
designs were added for evaluation. These markings include: a design being evaluated as part of
the in-service test to evaluate the durability of the current generation of microprismatic materials;
the design required by federal regulations for enhancing truck conspicuity; and an unreflectorized
car to serve as a baseline condition against which the other designs are compared. These designs
are also shown in Figure 6-1.

6-2
Figure 6-1. Illustration of Marking Designs Generated from Brainstorming Session

6-3
The designs selected for further study can be characterized by their color and pattern. All of the
designs used the following colors: fluorescent yellow, fluorescent orange, red, or some
combination of red and white. The red-and-white combination and yellow alone were the most
frequently selected colors. For pattern, the eight designs consisted of rectangular strips of
material. Their arrangement can be differentiated on the basis of the categories shown in
Table 6-1. Table 6-1 also summarizes how the eight designs fit into the three classes of patterns.

6.2 SUBJECTIVE EVALUATION OF CANDIDATE DESIGNS

6.2.1 Method

A subjective evaluation was conducted to measure the preferences of transportation experts and
potential drivers for the eleven candidate marking systems described earlier. The primary
concern was with the detectability of the proposed marking systems. The expert group
represented those people who might install, maintain, and monitor the safety of the proposed
marking designs. The expert group was composed of people with job experience in grade
crossing safety, human factors, and traffic engineering. Completed surveys were received from
44 of the 150 people invited to participate in this group. The driver group represented those
people who would use and depend upon the marking systems to avoid collisions at highway-rail
grade crossings. The driver group was drawn from licensed drivers with at least 2 years of
experience, living near the University of Tennessee. Serving as participants in this group were
51 drivers living in or near Knoxville, Tennessee.

Table 6-1. Pattern by Class

Class Definition Pattern

I A fixed amount of material Red-White Chevron

concentrated in a relatively small area. Red Crossbucks

II A fixed amount of material outlining Yellow Outline

the shape of the rail car.

III A fixed amount of material spaced Red and White Crossing Gate
uniformly over a relatively large area. Red-White Sawtooth
Orange Diamonds in Bars
Yellow Dash
Yellow Fence

6-4
Three scaling methods were implemented to measure the preferences of the two groups:
(1) paired comparisons, (2) ranking, and (3) semantic differential ratings of selected markings’
attributes. In making paired comparisons, participants viewed the pairs of markings and decided
which design better enhanced the visibility of the rail car. The participants viewed all possible
combinations of the marking pairs. In the simple ranking procedure, participants ranked the
11 marking designs from 1 to 11, on the basis of how well they enhanced the visibility of the rail
car (1 being least effective and 11 being most effective). For the semantic differential method,
participants rated each of the 11 markings on several attributes. These attributes or dimensions
included: (1) detectability, (2) recognition, (3) understanding, (4) confusability, (5) conspicuity,
(6) uniqueness, (7) contrast, (8) placement, (9) color, and (10) pattern. For each attribute, the
participant selected an adjective (ranging from extremely good or extremely easy to extremely
poor or extremely bad) that best described how they felt about the marking design in question.

Each of the 11 marking systems was fabricated from diamond grade (microprismatic)
retroreflective materials. The markings were attached to both sides of a 1:23.5 scale model of an
open hopper car. Each marking design used 1.4 square inches of retroreflective material. This
amount of retroreflective material was scaled to match the quantity of material, 382 square inches,
used in the in-service field test.

Presentation of the marking patterns differed in the two groups. For each of the methods, the driver
group viewed the actual scale models in a dark room illuminated by simulated headlights. The
transportation experts viewed color photographs of the scale models. The color photographs of the
individual model cars were set against a plain dark background. The method by which the
transportation experts evaluated the marking designs consisted of a survey administered by mail.
This method was necessary due to the wide geographical dispersion of the group.

6.2.2 Results and Discussion

Expert Group. Figure 6-2 shows the expert group preferences for the different marking designs,
using the paired comparisons and the ranking method. Color appears to be the primary attribute
affecting the preferences of this group. The experts preferred designs with fluorescent yellow
followed by the red-and-white combinations and red-only for both the paired comparisons and
ranking method. The results of the semantic differential scaling also support these preferences.
As expected, the rail car without any retroreflective material was ranked worst. Within color,
there was no clear preference for pattern. However, because there were unequal numbers of each
pattern distribution by type of class within colors, it is difficult to draw meaningful conclusions
regarding pattern preferences.

6-5
 Figure 6-2. Expert Preferences for Individual Marking Designs by Type of Method:
Simple Ranking and Paired Comparison

Driver Group. Figure 6-3 shows the driver group preferences for the different marking designs,
using the paired comparison and the ranking methods. The data from semantic differential scale
were consistent with the results of the paired comparison and the ranking methods. The driver
group showed no clear preference for a marking design by color or pattern. As expected, the rail
car without any retroreflective material was ranked worst. Two of the yellow marking designs
that were ranked high by the experts were also ranked high by the driver group, while one yellow
design (the yellow dash) was ranked considerably lower. For pattern, the Class 1 patterns that
massed a fixed amount of material within a small area tended to be in the middle range of driver
preferences, while the Class 3 pattern was ranked highly. The Class 2 designs were both the most
preferred and among the least preferred. For example the yellow dash and orange diamonds in
bars pattern were among the least preferred, while the red and white sawtooth and yellow fence
patterns were among the most preferred. This data suggests that the driver group was responding
to some combination of color and pattern or some other aspect of the design that is not readily
apparent. Unlike the expert group, the driver group did not appear to focus on either color or
pattern alone. The driver group also showed greater variability in its preferences by method used
than the experts. The preferences of several marking designs changed somewhat between
methods. However, this change was not dramatic. A marking design that was ranked best with
one method, e.g., the yellow fence, tended to do well in another method. On a scale from 1 to 11,
marking designs may have varied 1 to 3 units between methods.

6-6
Figure 6-3. Driver Preferences for Individual Marking Designs by Type of Method:
Simple Ranking and Paired Comparison

Comparison between Groups. In comparing the preferences of the two groups, it is clear that
they responded differently to the marking systems. A number of factors may explain the
observed differences. The greater variability between different methods for drivers compared to
the experts may be due to differences in the homogeneity of the two groups. The experts may be
a more homogenous group than the driver group, given their interest in the transportation field
and knowledge of transportation operations. The experts, for example, may have responded
primarily to color because they were aware of the relationship between color and the amount of
light returned by the material. In these designs, fluorescent yellow returns the most light,
followed by red and white combined and red alone.

Another factor that may have influenced the outcome of the subjective evaluations was the means
by which the participants viewed the retroreflective markings. The experts responded to a mail
survey and viewed color photographs of the retroreflective markings. The photographs displayed
how the retroreflective markings might appear on a rail car in daylight. The different lighting
condition displayed in the photographs may have contributed to the experts perceiving color as
a more salient or attention-getting cue than pattern alone or the combination of color and pattern.
The driver group saw scale models of the retroreflective markings in a dark room illuminated by
a set of headlights. This view corresponds more closely with the conditions under which drivers
may view retroreflective markings at night. Thus, each group viewed the retroreflective
markings under different viewing conditions. To the extent that the nighttime conditions are

6-7
more representative of conditions likely to be found in an actual driving environment, the results
of the driver group may be more representative of how detectable a given design may be.

The results of the driver group suggest that it may be the combination of color and pattern that
significantly influences preference, rather than either factor alone. For example, the driver group
exhibited a similar preference to the expert group for two of the yellow patterns, the fence and
the outline. However, the third yellow dash design scored much lower. The low score received
by the yellow dash suggests that something about the pattern makes it less detectable.

The process by which the retroreflective marking designs were generated for evaluation resulted
in a set of designs that differed in one or more attributes (color or pattern). Since not all
combinations of color and pattern were evaluated, it is not possible to draw definitive
conclusions regarding driver preference for one design over another. Additionally, preference for
one design over another may not be indicative of objective performance. An objective test is
necessary to establish the detectability of potential marking designs by drivers. This objective
test is the subject of the next section.

Nevertheless, both groups’ preferences for fluorescent yellow designs over the red-and-white
combination and red-only designs are supported by previous research. Olson, et al. (1992), and
Ziedman, et al. (1981), documented the relationship between detectability and Specific Intensity
of Area (SIA), showing that the higher the SIA, the greater distance at which a retroreflective
marking could be detected. Fluorescent yellow has a higher SIA than red-and-white together or
red alone.

With regard to pattern, the greater preference of both groups for the outline pattern is consistent
with Olson, et al.’s (1992) evaluation of retroreflective markings for trucks, which demonstrated
that patterns that outline the shape of the vehicle improve recognition performance. However,
the poor preference for patterns that concentrated material in a relatively small area (crossbuck
and chevron) was surprising in light of the Lauer and Suhr (1956) research suggesting that
concentrating retroreflective material improves detection performance compared to spreading it
out over a larger area. This change may be attributable to the greater retroreflective properties of
the current generation of retroreflective materials, as well as to differences in the designs
between the two studies.

6.3 OBJECTIVE EVALUATION OF CANDIDATE DESIGNS

To avoid a collision with a train in the grade crossing, a driver must detect its presence in time to
stop. The design preferences described in the previous section suggest which potential marking
designs drivers would like. However, these preferences are not necessarily indicative of the best
performance. The features that may influence preference are not necessarily the same ones that
result in effective performance (Andre and Wickens 1995). The purpose of the following
experiment was to determine how color and pattern affect detection performance for potential
drivers.

6-8
6.3.1 Method

Overview. An absolute detection task was used to determine the distance at which subjects
would detect nine retroreflective markings and an unreflectorized rail car. For each trial, subjects
viewed a series of color slides showing a single retroreflective marking design mounted on an
open hopper car under nighttime conditions. The projected image of the rail car increased in size
to simulate the movement of a motor vehicle toward the grade crossing. The subject responded
by indicating when he or she detected the rail car and indicating which of the marking designs or
the unreflectorized car was displayed.

Experimental Design. Color and pattern were the two independent variables used. From the
previous evaluation of driver preferences, three patterns (the fence, the partial outline [Volpe
field test], and the dash) were selected for evaluation. In the evaluation of the driver group, these
three patterns scored in the top, middle, and bottom ranking of preferences, respectively. The
dash was selected because it was ranked last except for the unmarked car. The partial outline
pattern (also referred to as the Red and White Field Test) which was among the moderately
preferred patterns was selected because it was evaluated in the field for durability. Among the
most preferred designs, the fence was selected because its vertical spatial orientation varied from
the horizontally oriented dash pattern. These three patterns were selected to determine whether
the differences in user preferences were reflected in detection performance. Each of the three
patterns was evaluated using three color sets (fluorescent yellow, red and white adjacent to each
other, and red alone), generating a total of nine retroreflective marking designs. In addition, an
unreflectorized car was added as a baseline condition against which to compare the other nine
designs.

The two independent variables, color and pattern, were combined in a repeated measures design
in which all subjects received all treatment combinations. There were four observations by each
subject for each of the 10 marking designs. Thus, each subject received 40 trials. To minimize
learning effects, the presentation order of each marking design was randomized.

The dependent variables were detection distance, detection time, recognition distance,
recognition time, and recognition errors. Detection time represents the time at which the subject
first detects the unreflectorized hopper car or marking design. Directly related to detection time
is the detection distance measure. Detection distance is the distance from the hopper car at which
the hopper car or marking design was first detected. Recognition time represents the time at
which the subject identified the hopper car or marking design. Directly related to recognition
time is the recognition distance measure. Recognition distance is the distance from the hopper
car at which the unreflectorized hopper car or marking design was identified.

Apparatus. The experiment was conducted in a windowless room, where the ambient light level
could be controlled. The presentation of the slides and the recording of the subject’s responses
was accomplished using an IBM Personal System/2, Model 50 microcomputer coupled to
a Kodak model 4600 autofocus slide projector with an f/3.5 102 to 152 mm zoom lens. A special
backlighted 12-key control panel was used to input the subjects’ responses, and a standard
keyboard was used by the laboratory assistant to control the experiment. A diagram of the
system setup is shown in Figure 6-4, and the special keyboard is shown in Figure 6-5.

6-9
 Screen Master Keyboard

Voltage Sensing Switch

Starts, Stops Projector

Computer

Backlighted Photos of Treatments

Subject Response Keyboard

Det
CRT

Projector
Operator

Subject

Treatment Slide Trays

Figure 6-4. Layout of Experiment

Backlighted Photographs
of Marked Freight Cars

8 8B 9A 6 6B

Yellow Red Yellow Yellow Red Detect

Fence Fence Field Test Dash Dash

8A 9 9B 6A 11

R/W R/W Red R/W Standard

Fence Field Test Field Test Dash Car
Start

Figure 6-5. Keyboard Arrangement

6-10
Construction of Retroreflective Markings. To construct the marking designs for this
experiment, 10 scale model rail cars were used. Prismatic retroreflective material was attached
to each of nine open hopper cars. The same amount of material, 1.4 square inches, was attached
to each car using the 9 designs previously described. A 10th open hopper car contained no
retroreflective markings, and displayed only the standard AAR markings for an open hopper rail
car. Figure 6-6 shows the 10 retroreflective marking designs.

For each retroreflective marking design 20 slides were created that varied the distance of the
camera to the scale model. Starting at a scale equivalent of 2,500 feet from the open hopper car,
each successive slide was photographed in 100-foot increments closer to the open hopper car.
The last slide was photographed at the scale equivalent of 100 feet from the hopper car. The
slides were photographed in a windowless room and illuminated only by two 4.5-watt halogen
headlamps. The headlamps were mounted on the tripod just below the camera lens. For each
marking design, 25 slides were created — a total of 250 slides for the 10 designs.

Within a single retroreflective marking design, the order in which the slides were created was
preserved during presentation to the subjects. However, the presentation order of the different
retroreflective marking designs was randomized.

Subjects. Participating in the experiment were 36 licensed drivers from the surrounding
Knoxville, Tennessee, area; 22 participants were male and 14 were female. They ranged in age
from 20 to 40. Each participant had a visual acuity of 20/40 or better. Participants who normally
wore corrective lenses while they drove were asked to wear them during the experiment. None
of the participants reported any color vision deficits.

Procedures. When the subject reported to the testing room, the experimenter had the subject
complete a biographical data form and explained the purpose of the experiment, namely, to learn
the distance at which the subject could detect and recognize several retroreflective marking designs.
The main room lights were turned off and the subject was shown a set of 10 slides that displayed
each of the 10 marking systems. The subject viewed the slides until he or she could recognize and
name each system.

The experimenter instructed the subject to view a series of slides of hopper cars with the various
marking systems attached. Each set of slides depicted one marking system, and each subsequent
slide in the set showed the hopper car and attached markings at a closer distance. The experimenter
indicated that the hopper car image would be located near the center of the screen and that there
would be a rail car in all slides shown. The experimenter instructed the subject in the use of the
12-key control panel shown in Figure 6-5 and gave several practice trials. The experimenter
coached the subject until he or she could perform satisfactorily and clearly understood the task.

A trial began when the subject struck the key with a green backlight. Each slide was displayed for
5 seconds. When the subject detected one of the marking systems, he or she responded by pressing
the yellow backlighted key. The subject continued watching the progression of slides until he or
she could identify which of the 10 marking systems was displayed. When the subject recognized
the marking system, the subject pressed the backlighted key that corresponded to that particular

6-11
marking system. Pressing this key ended the trial. The slide tray was replaced and another trial was
initiated by instructing the subject to strike the green key again.

Figure 6-6. Nine Experimental Marking Designs

6-12
6.3.2 Results and Discussion

Data from two subjects was dropped due to errors or missing data in files containing their data.
This action reduced the number of subjects’ data from 36 to 34.

Detection of Retroreflective Marking Designs. Detectability will be discussed in terms of

detection distance rather than detection time. The results are the same for both detection distance
and detection time. However, detection distance from the rail car or grade crossing is a more
meaningful concept since it relates the distance of a potential driver to the grade crossing.

A one-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was performed to compare each of the nine marking
designs to the unreflectorized hopper car. Table 6-2 shows the mean detection distance for
each of the marking designs. There was a significant effect for retroreflective marking
(F (9,297) = 2921.76, p < 0.0001)1. All of the retroreflective markings were more detectable than
the unreflectorized car. Clearly, the use of all of the proposed marking designs improved the
detectability of the rail car compared to an unreflectorized rail car. The differences between any
of the marking designs and the unreflectorized car were much greater than the differences
between the individual marking designs by several orders of magnitude. Nevertheless, there
were statistically significant and meaningful differences among the individual marking designs
as well.

A two-way ANOVA was performed to evaluate the differences between the individual marking
designs. This analysis showed significant effects for color and pattern, and a significant
interaction between color and pattern as shown in Table 6-3. Of the variance accounted for by
the independent variables, color accounted for 5%, pattern accounted for 23%, and the
interaction between color and pattern accounted for 51%. Each of these effects will be discussed
in turn.

1
F stands for the F ratio. This value, like other test statistics such as the T-statistic and the post-hoc comparison tests
(i.e., Tukey test), represents the ratio of systematic errors plus unsystematic errors to unsystematic errors.
The numerator includes the effects of the experimental treatment (e.g., alerting lights) plus the individual differences
and measurement errors. The denominator includes everything found in the numerator except the effects of the
experimental treatment. More specifically, the F ratio equals the mean square between subjects divided by the mean
square within subjects. The more the F ratio rises above 1, the greater likelihood the observed results were due to
the result of the experimental effects being evaluated.

P stands for probability. The accompanying number represents the probability that the F ratio is due to chance.
For example, p = 0.01 means that there is one chance in one hundred that the observed result was due to chance.
CRT stands for the Tukey Studentized Range statistic. The critical range (CR) represents the difference that two
means must exceed to be considered statistically significant. t stands for the t-ratio. Like the F ratio, the t-ratio
represents a ratio of systematic errors to unsystematic errors. It measures the difference between two sample means
divided by the standard deviation for the sample.

6-13
 Table 6-2. Effect of Retroreflective Marking on Detection Distance

Marking Detection Distance Significant Differences

(feet) (p < 0.05)*
Yellow Partial Outline 2049 A
Red and White Fence 1854 B
Red Partial Outline 1595 C
Red Fence 1585 C
Yellow Fence 1496 D
Red Dash 1440 E
Yellow Dash 1401 E
Red and White Dash 1337 F
Red and White Partial Outline 1245 F
Unreflectorized Hopper Car 160 G
* Statistical evaluations were made between all possible pairs of markings. Differences
between markings with the same letter are not statistically significant. For example, the red
partial outline and the red fence do not differ from each other, statistically. However, these
two patterns differ statistically from all the other patterns.

Table 6-3. Significant Effects for Detection Distance

Degrees of F value P value

Freedom
Color 2, 66 217.11 p < 0.0001
Pattern 2, 66 912.69 p < 0.0001
Color × 4, 132 1034.90 p < 0.0001
Pattern

Table 6-4 shows the relationship between detection distance and color. The fluorescent yellow
designs were detected farthest away, followed by the red, and the combined red-and-white
designs, respectively. The difference between each of the colors is statistically significant using
Tukey’s studentized range test (CRt (3, 66) = 16.61, p < 0.05). Previous research reported by
Olson, et al. (1992), and Ziedman, et al. (1981), indicate that detection distance is directly related
to SIA; the greater the SIA, the farther away an observer may detect the material. Of the color
combinations used in this study, fluorescent yellow has the highest SIA followed by
red-and-white, and red alone, respectively, as shown in Table 6-4.

While performance with the yellow markings was consistent with this relationship, the poorer
performance of the combined red-and-white compared to the red-only markings was a surprise.
Based upon the SIA, observers would be expected to detect the combined red-and-white designs
sooner than the red-only designs. The opposite results, however, occurred. One possible
explanation for this outcome is described in the section discussing the interaction between color
and pattern.
6-14
 Table 6-4. Effect of Color on Detection Distance

Color Detection Distance (feet) SIA (candela/fc/ft2)

Yellow 1648 900
Red 1540 170
Red-and-White 1512 535

Table 6-5 shows the relationship between detection distance and pattern. The mean detection
distance was greatest for the fence, followed by the partial outline and the dash. The differences
between all three patterns were statistically significant using Tukey’s studentized range test
(CRt (3,66) = 16.95, p < 0.05). However, the differences between the fence and the partial
outline were much smaller than those between the fence and dash, as well as between the partial
outline and the dash. That is, the fence and partial outline were detected at much greater
distances than the dash.

Table 6-5. Effect of Pattern on Detection Distance

Pattern Detection Distance (feet)

Fence 1663
Partial Outline 1644
Dash 1393

The poorer performance of subjects when viewing the dash was surprising given that it
maximizes the amount of material in the area where headlamp illumination is greatest under
actual driving conditions. As height above the sill level where the retroreflective material is
placed increases, the light falling on the retroreflective material should decrease, resulting in less
light reflected back toward the driver. It is possible that when the slides were photographed, the
light source was positioned so that the material in the dash design was not in the optimal
position. Conversely, the fence and partial outline share one attribute that may have contributed
to their better detectability. Both designs have some of their material oriented in the vertical
axis. The rectangular strips were placed so that the longer dimension was in the vertical plane.
This orientation may have increased the likelihood that some portion of the retroreflective
material received the maximum headlamp illumination and thus returned the brightest possible
signal to the subject.

Figure 6-7 shows the interaction between color and pattern for detection distance. A statistically
significant interaction was found between color and pattern, as shown in Table 6-3. It is evident
in this case that the subjects exhibit the poorest detection performance across the three colors for
the dash pattern, supporting the pattern effect described above. For both fluorescent yellow and
red, the dash shows the lowest detectability. The differences between the dash and the other two
patterns for both yellow and red were statistically significant. For the combined red-and-white

6-15
 2500

2000
Mean Detection Distance (feet)

1500

Fence
Partial Outline
Dash

1000

500

0
Yellow Red Red & White
Color

Figure 6-7. Effect of Color and Pattern on Detection Distance

condition, the dash is less detectable than the fence. The difference between the dash and the
partial outline was not statistically significant in the combined red-and-white condition.

The detection performance for the fence and partial outline varies with the color of the marking
design. The fence scores best when it is red-and-white and worst when it is yellow. These
differences are statistically significant (CRt (9, 297) = 41.69, p < 0.05). Given the higher SIA
associated with fluorescent yellow, this was unexpected. The partial outline shows the opposite
trend. Subjects detected the partial outline farthest away when it was yellow and closest when it
was red-and-white. These differences were also statistically significant. Performance with the
fence and partial outline is comparable when red-only is used. For the fence and partial outline,
subjects detected the red-only design at greater distances than the combined red-and-white
designs. Again, this was surprising since the SIA for the combined red-and-white design should
be higher than the red-only designs. In the context of this experiment, it appears that SIA serves
as only a rough guide to determining the detectability of different markings.

Recognition of Retroreflective Marking Designs. As their final task, subjects identified which
individual marking design they saw on the projection screen. Overall, subjects excelled at this
task. Subjects correctly identified the individual marking designs between 94.8% and 99.6% of
the time. Subjects identified the unreflectorized car 100% of the time. However, a confusion
matrix displayed in Table 6-6, illustrating which marking designs were confused with each other,

6-16
shows that recognition errors were unevenly distributed. This distribution is statistically
significant using a chi square test of independence (χ2 (9) = 64.9, p < 0.05). The uneven
distribution of recognition errors by pattern and color is captured more clearly in Tables 6-7
and 6-8. Table 6-7 summarizes the recognition errors by pattern and Table 6-8 summarizes the
recognition errors by color.

Table 6-6. Confusion Matrix Showing Recognition Errors by Marking System

Response
Yellow R/W Red Yellow R/W Red Yellow R/W Red Row
Stimulus Fence Fence Fence Outline Outline Outline Dash Dash Dash Total
Yellow Fence 8 3 1 6 18
R/W Fence 18 3 1 8 1 31
Red Fence 6 6
Yellow 1 3 1 5
Outline*
R/W Outline 2 14 16
Red Outline 1 7 8
Yellow Dash 3 1 3 7
R/W Dash 3 12 2 17
Red Dash 4 2 6
Column Total 19 14 11 2 10 15 14 20 9 114
* Outline refers to partial outline markings

Within a pattern, subjects tended to confuse marking designs that varied by color. This is
illustrated by the gray shaded cells in Table 6-7. Table 6-6 shows which colors are most likely to
be confused within a pattern. For example, a red-and-white fence design might be confused with
a yellow fence or a red fence. This type of error occurred across all three patterns as shown in
Table 6-8. Looking more closely at the recognition errors by color, the majority of the errors
(88%) involved the combined red-and-white designs. These cells are shaded in Table 6-8.
The red-and-white designs were confused with both yellow and red designs. The subjects also
tended to confuse the yellow designs with the red-and-white designs. That the red-and-white
designs might be confused is consistent with a review of the literature by Aurelius and
Korobow (1971), showing that identifying color hue becomes more difficult as the visual angle
subtending an object decreases. At sufficiently long distances, contrasting colors tend to blend
together. The farther away an object of contrasting color is detected, the larger it must be to be
recognized unambiguously.

The recognition errors observed in this experiment resulted from misidentification of similar
multiple-marking designs for rail cars. However, the misidentification of one rail car design for
another may not represent a safety hazard for the driver, since the driver would still receive the
message that a train was in the grade crossing. The situation in which the driver confuses
a retroreflective marking that represents a rail car with one that does not, is more likely to present

6-17
a safety hazard. However, this situation was not evaluated in the current experiment.
Development of a standard marking that becomes associated with a rail car and that is difficult to
confuse with other objects, such as pedestrians, motor vehicles, and traffic signs, will minimize
this type of error. A future study could examine the likelihood that a given retroreflective
marking design will be confused with other objects found in the driving environment.

Table 6-7. Confusion Matrix of Recognition Errors by Pattern

Response
Partial
Stimulus Fence Outline Dash
Fence 32 0 23
Partial Outline 2 26 1
Dash 10 1 19

Table 6-8. Confusion Matrix of Recognition Errors by Color

Response
Stimulus Yellow Red R/W
Yellow 2 4 24
Red 0 11 9
R/W 33 20 11

6.4 CONCLUSIONS

All of the retroreflective marking designs evaluated in this experiment were more effective than
an unreflectorized car. All of the retroreflective marking designs were detected considerably
farther from the train than the unreflectorized car.

The relationship between color and detection distance was an unexpected finding, given the
previous research finding a linear relationship between the amount of light returned to the
observer (SIA) and detection distance. While subjects were expected to detect fluorescent yellow
at the greatest detection distances, it was surprising to observe better performance with red-only
than the red-and-white design. In addition, no interaction was expected between color and
pattern, yet performance, particularly for the fence and the partial outline, changed as a function
of color. While the spatial arrangement of these colors may have contributed partly to these
results, some artifact resulting from how the marking designs were presented may also have
contributed to this outcome.

Although the current study focused on detection performance, the fact that even the poorest
design was several orders of magnitude better than an unreflectorized car, suggests that detection
of a prismatic retroreflective material has improved considerably the distance at which a rail car

6-18
could be detected. While field testing will be necessary to establish the actual distances at which
a retroreflective marking is likely to be detected, the current generation of retroreflective
materials appears to improve the detectability of materials to which they are attached, to the point
where detectability is no longer a major concern.

A more important concern becomes associating the marking design with a train (recognition).
Olson, et al. (1992), indicated that a driver can observe a truck with marker lights at 1,000 feet or
more under good lighting conditions. They indicate that 740 feet is the minimum acceptable
detection distance to stop in time. Mace and Gabel (1993) suggest that 900 feet is a reasonable
value for detection distance. However, these isolated point sources were not always associated
with a truck trailer. Hence, there is a need for an additional visual aid to help the driver
recognize the object as a truck. The problem of recognition becomes more difficult in complex
visual environments. To facilitate recognition of rail cars, a standard marking design that could
fit on all types of rail cars from flat cars to tank cars should be developed that is unlikely to be
confused with other roadway hazards.

In this regard, the work performed by Olson, et al. (1992), in developing a standard
retroreflective marking for trucks bears consideration. Olson and his colleagues found that
a design that outlines the vehicle improves the driver’s recognition of the object. In this study,
both the partial outline and the fence designs fit this criterion. The regulations covering the use
of retroreflective markings for trucks stated in the Code of Federal Regulations 49 CFR 571.108,
(1994) incorporate the use of an outline on the rear of the truck trailer.

Olson also recommended the use of an alternating pattern of red-and-white as the design colors.
Excluding the fluorescent pigments, which are not as durable, white returns the greatest amount
of light to the driver. Red is recommended because of its long association with danger and
warnings. The combination of red and white is frequently used in the driving environment
(e.g., stop signs, gates at highway-rail grade crossings) and is now part of the regulations for
truck retroreflective markings. The use of two contrasting colors, like red and white, also
contributes to better conspicuity during the daytime. The logic behind the use of red-and-white
retroreflective markings for trucks applies equally well to the development of a retroreflective
marking for rail cars. However, if some combination of red and white is selected, the pattern
should be sufficiently different from the pattern selected for trucks so that the two patterns are
not confused with one another. Avoiding this potential confusion is particularly important, as
truck trailers are transported on rail cars and thus the opportunity for confusion is quite real.

In this regard, a vertically oriented pattern similar to the fence would contrast with the
horizontally oriented pattern of the retroreflective pattern required for trucks. A vertically
oriented pattern on rail cars would have one advantage over a horizontally oriented pattern. Not
all approaches to the grade crossing are level. To the extent that the motor vehicle’s headlights
are aimed away from the retroreflective material, less light will reach the retroreflective material.
As a result, less light is returned to the driver and the detection task becomes more difficult.
Detection difficulty due to variation in the grade of the roadway is compounded by the fact that
headlights have a narrower beam width in the vertical axis. Orienting the retroreflective material
in the vertical axis increases the likelihood that the maximum available light from the headlight

6-19
will enter the retroreflective material and be returned to the motorist when the road grade is
not level.

Another concern that will need to be addressed is the driver’s ability to estimate the motor
vehicle’s closing rate to the train. Drivers have difficulty estimating their closing rate at night as
they approach the train, or estimating how far they are from the train. Estimating closing rate or
distance to the rail car would enable the driver to determine when and at what rate braking must
take place. Accurately estimating the rate of approach and distance to the train would help avoid
rear-end accidents resulting from braking too quickly, as well as avoiding a collision with
the train.

6.5 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

Considering the review of the literature and the results of the University of Tennessee’s effort,
the following findings are offered for the design of retroreflective markings for rail cars.

• A reflectorized freight car is significantly more detectable than an unreflectorized

freight car.
• A standardized pattern should be used for all types of rail cars to facilitate
recognition.
• A pattern of red-and-white will facilitate recognition of the train and convey
a sense of warning.
• The design should be sufficiently distinctive so that it is not confused with the
retroreflective markings used on trucks and warnings for other roadway hazards.
• The spatial configuration should give some indication of the shape of the rail car
to facilitate recognition. This might include some type of outline or modified
outline or spatial arrangement in which the material is evenly distributed across
the rail car.

6-20
 7. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

Accidents at the approximately 168,000 highway-railroad grade crossings in the United States
have been documented as a significant safety problem. One factor that contributes to these
figures is the difficulty motorists have in seeing a train consist at a crossing, particularly during
dawn, dusk, and darkness (i.e., nighttime conditions), thereby causing an accident in which the
motorist’s vehicle runs into the train (or RIT accident). Of the 4,257 accidents in 1996, 967
(22.72% of the total accidents) were RIT accidents; 473 of these 967 (or 11.11% of the total
accidents) occurred in nighttime conditions. The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) is
therefore investigating measures to enhance the visibility of trains in order to reduce the number
of accidents/incidents at highway-railroad grade crossings where train visibility is a contributing
factor. One such countermeasure involves the use of retroreflectors on freight cars. The Volpe
Center conducted research into the use of reflectorization as a conspicuity device, in support of
the FRA’s program to improve highway-railroad grade crossing safety. The findings and
conclusions of this research effort are summarized below, according to its four phases.

7.1 FINDINGS

7.1.1 Review of Reflectorization Experiences in Transportation

Specific findings include:

• Reflective materials can enhance motorists’ ability to detect the presence of a train
in a highway-railroad grade crossing.
• A material with the maximum intensity available should be used (prismatic) to
provide the highest level of illuminance to the observer and to reduce maintenance
requirements.
• A uniform pattern will enhance the motorist’s recognition of a train in time to
avoid a collision.
• A favorable placement location for reflectors is 42 inches above top of rail.
• Using visibility assumptions established by previous reflectorization studies,
a reflector measuring 4 inches by 8 inches would require a minimum specific
intensity per unit area (SIA) of 200 cd/fc/ft2 to attract a motorist’s attention.
A reflector measuring 4 inches by 36 inches and using the same conditions would
require a minimum threshold of 45 cd/fc/ft2.
• Several railroads have voluntarily reflectorized their rolling stock.
• The use of reflectors has been successful in other modes of transportation as
a means to enhance conspicuity.

7.1.2 Demonstration Test

The demonstration test resulted in the following findings:

• The preferred configuration consisted of three white 4 in by 8 in horizontal

reflectors spaced 9 ft apart at a height of 42 in from the top of rail (TOR).
Additionally, 2 alternating red-and-white reflectors measuring 4 in by 36 in were

7-1
 placed vertically at the ends of the car for delineation, such that a typical freight
car would resemble the following:

A end B end
#5 #4 #3 #2 #1

The installation and material costs for this phase totaled $31.24 per car.

• This configuration would be the “typical” pattern used for the next phase of testing.

7.1.3 In-Service Test

The in-service test resulted in the following findings:

• Reflectors in Positions 1 and 5 performed, on average, above the minimum

threshold levels for the entire test period, but the reflectors in Positions 2, 3, and 4
varied from 7 months to the entire testing period.
• The performance of the reflectors was not observed to be significantly affected by
natural environmental factors. Mechanical washing of the reflectors resulted in
their performance rebounding significantly to levels near original SIA values.
Periodic washing of the reflectors mounted on freight cars can extend their
performance to the limits of life expectancy.
• Railroad operations had a severe effect on the performance of the reflectors;
especially the reflectors that were located where loading and unloading of
commodities took place. Placement of the reflector under the sill of the freight
car has been found to be detrimental to the performance of the reflector. Mid-car
locations on many freight car types provide severe operational conditions;
therefore, this location should not be considered in any freight car reflectorization
rulemaking process.
• For the average freight car involved in this study, it can be estimated that a 12- to
18-month cycle of maintenance would be sufficient to sustain the threshold levels
necessary to attract the attention of a motorist. A minimum cleaning time of
15 minutes per car is considered reasonable for these reflectors with no additional
cleaning solvents necessary in the process. Periodic washing of the reflectors can
extend their acceptable performance to the limits of their life expectancy.

7-2
 • The hopper car consists, the only fully reflectorized fleet of the in-service test,
recorded a reduction of Category 1 RIT accidents along its dedicated route from
6 (occurring in a 33-month period prior to the reflector’s installation), to 0
(occurring in a 33-month period after the reflector’s installation). This accident
reduction potential may reflect the reduction of this type of RIT accident, which
occurs when the vehicle strikes the train after the lead unit. This finding, while
positive for reflectorization, should be viewed with caution since it is based on
very limited accident experience.
• The demonstration test pattern’s original cost of $31.24 has now been reduced by
40% (based on information stated by the manufacturer) for a cost of material per
car of approximately $18.75. Additionally, the 1996 AAR labor rate is
approximately $20.05 per hour. Using the estimates for reflectorizing an older car
during the normal maintenance program that may need heavy cleaning (at the
1996 AAR labor rate), and reduced material costs, the resultant maximum
material cost per car using the tested pattern would be approximately $38.80.
Heavy cleaning of the reflectors would require 2 persons for 30 minutes to
complete the process approximately every 12-18 months, resulting in a cost of
approximately $20.05 per event. The manufacturer specifies this prismatic
material’s useful life to be 10 years. Therefore, maximum projected total costs of
the material and maintenance for a 10-year period would be $219.25 per car
(based on lower material costs, heavy cleaning, two-person annual maintenance,
at the 1996 AAR labor rate).

7.1.4 Human Factor Test

The fourth phase of testing and literature review obtained the following findings:

• A reflectorized freight car is significantly more detectable than an unreflectorized

freight car.
• A standardized pattern should be used for all types of rail cars to facilitate
recognition.
• A pattern of red-and-white will facilitate recognition of the train and convey
a sense of warning.
• The design should be sufficiently distinctive so that it is not confused with the
retroreflective markings used on trucks and warnings for other roadway hazards.
• The spatial configuration should give some indication of the shape of the rail car
to facilitate recognition. This might include some type of outline or modified
outline or spatial arrangement in which the material is evenly distributed across
the rail car.

7.2 CONCLUSIONS

The significant conclusions resulting from this freight car reflectorization research program are
summarized as follows:

7-3
1. A uniform recognizable pattern of reflective markings can be applied to most
freight car types, with a few exceptions.

2. Based on human factors studies, a reflectorized freight car is significantly more

detectable than a non-reflectorized freight car.

3. Also, based on the human factors studies, a uniform pattern of reflectorized

material can facilitate recognition of the hazard as a freight car. The pattern
should indicate the shape of the car, should employ the colors red and white, and
be sufficiently distinctive so as not to be confused with large truck markings.

4. A minimum favorable placement location of reflectors is 42 inches above TOR.

5. The large reflectors, measuring 4 inches by 36 inches, maintained, on average,

acceptable reflective performance over the entire testing period (2 years) on all
freight car types. Placement of the reflector under the sill of the freight car has
been found to be detrimental to the performance of the reflector. Due to their
smaller size, position below sill level, and location near loading points, the
smaller white reflectors did not perform as well under the harsh railroad
operating conditions. Mid-car locations on many freight car types provide severe
operational conditions; therefore, this location should not be considered in any
freight car reflectorization rulemaking process.

6. The performance of the reflectors was not observed to be significantly affected

by natural environmental factors. Mechanical washing of the reflectors resulted
in their performance rebounding significantly to levels near original SIA values.
Periodic washing of the reflectors mounted on freight cars can extend their
performance to the limits of life expectancy. Recently developed prismatic
materials’ durability and adhesiveness possess the likelihood to perform above
threshold levels for up to 10 years with routine maintenance.

7. Based on very limited accident experience, freight car reflectorization was

observed to be potentially effective in reducing accidents.

8. The demonstration test pattern’s original cost of $31.24 has now been reduced by
40% (based on information stated by the manufacturer) for a cost of material per
car of approximately $18.75. Additionally, the 1996 AAR labor rate is
approximately $20.05 per hour. Using the estimates for reflectorizing an older
car during the normal maintenance program that may need heavy cleaning (at the
1996 AAR labor rate), and reduced material costs, the resultant maximum
material cost per car using the tested pattern would be approximately $38.80.
Heavy cleaning of the reflectors would require 2 persons for 30 minutes to
complete the process approximately every 12-18 months, resulting in a cost of
approximately $20.05 per event. The manufacturer specifies this prismatic
material’s useful life to be 10 years. Therefore, maximum projected total costs of
the material and maintenance for a 10-year period would be $219.25 per car

7-4
 (based on lower material costs, heavy cleaning, two-person annual maintenance,
at the 1996 AAR labor rate).

9. Based on the results of the in-service and human factors tests, improvements to
the second phase pattern are suggested. Two suggested reflector designs are
shown in Figure 7-1.

Both designs use red and white reflectors in combination, as suggested by the
human factors recommendations, and are mounted vertically to permit an
increase in their size. Figure 7-1(a) depicts a more conservative design than
Figure 7-1(b) in terms of the amount of material required. Based on the
suggested configuration, the cost of material and maintenance will not be
significantly increased.

(a)

(b)

Figure 7-1. Suggested Improved Reflector Patterns on a Typical Freight Car

7-5
Although these findings are representative of all reflectors tested within this current research
study, other operational findings lend themselves to suggest an alternative pattern from the
original Volpe Center configuration (used in the in-service test). The human factors studies
provide guidance as to the color and pattern necessary to most effectively use freight car
reflectorization.

7-6
 APPENDIX A

CANADIAN REQUIREMENTS
 THE BOARD OF TRANSPORT COMMISSIONERS FOR CANADA
(Reprint)
ORDER NO. 123336

THURSDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF IN THE MATTER OF the placing of

JANUARY, A.D. 1967. reflective markings on the sides of railway
cars; and the apportionment of the cost
H. H. GRIFFIN, thereof:
Assistant Chief Commissioner. File No. 45463
A. S. KIRK,
Commissioner..

WHEREAS by Order 114295 the Board prescribed that each railway company subject to
the jurisdiction of the Board shall cause reflective markings to be placed on the sides of each of
its new box cars delivered during the calendar years 1964, 1965 and 1966;

AND WHEREAS it is required that the program of placing reflective markings be carried
on for a further period of time

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AS FOLLOWS:

1. The Canadian National Railways and the Canadian Pacific Railway Company
shall each place reflective markings on each side of at least four thousand of its
railway cars in the year 1967, and each year thereafter pending further direction
from the Board; and all other railway companies subject to the jurisdiction of the
Board shall, effective with the year 1967, each inaugurate an annual programme
which will be designed to place reflective markings on each side of their
Canadian built freight cars within a period of four year. Exemption may be
granted to this requirement with respect to equipment of unusual design or
equipment specifically assigned to a service which makes it impractical to
maintain reflective markings on such cars.

2. The said reflective markings shall be placed and spaced along the sides of the
cars and be of such shape, size and material as may be approved by the Board.
Each railway company shall file with the Board fill particulars of the reflective
markings which will be used, if not already approved, together with an estimate
of the cost of placing them on the cars. Excepting cars on which reflective
markings have been applied in accordance with previous Board Orders prior to
the date of this Order, four reflective markings, complying with the requirements
of this section shall be applied to each side of cars having a length of fifty feet or
less and six such markings shall be applied to each side or cars of greater length
than fifty feet.

3. Eighty per cent of the cost of placing the said reflective markings shall be paid
out of Railway Grade Crossing Fund, which contribution shall not exceed $8.00
per car, and the remainder of such cost shall be borne by the Applicant Company.

A-3
4. Each such company shall, at the end of June, and at the end of calendar year,
make a return to the Board showing the number of its cars marked as prescribed
in this Order.

Assistant Chief Commissioner,

The Board of Transport Commissioners for Canada.

A-4
 APPENDIX B

REFLECTOR INSTRUMENTATION AND MEASUREMENT PROCEDURE

 APPENDIX B

REFLECTOR INSTRUMENTATION AND MEASUREMENT PROCEDURE

B-1 Reflector Instrumentation

Measurement of retroreflector efficiency entails a precise measurement of the light reflected

from the surface as a function of the illumination reaching it. For this demonstration test a
Advanced Retro Technology Model 920 Field Retroreflectometer was used to measure the
Coefficient of Retroreflection. The Coefficient of Retroreflection or SIA (specific intensity
per unit area) is measured in metric units of candelas per lux per square meter (cd/lux/m2) as
defined in ASTM E-809 and CIE publication 54.

The measurement of the reflective intensity is highly dependent on the angle the light source
strikes the surface (Entrance Angle) and the angle at which it observed (Observation Angle).
For this demonstration test the industry standard entrance angle of -4 degrees and the
observation angle 0.2 degrees was used. The Model 920 consists of the following
components:

1. Optical head with an optical system, detector, and light source.

2. Control unit with digital readout display and operating controls.

3. Rechargeable battery pack with power supply.

4. Calibration reference standards.

Before measuring the instument is calibrated against a secondary standard. The Model 920 is
operated by pressing the optical head against the surface to be measured which activates the
device's light source. The design permits measurements to be made during either day or
night.

The equipment was maintained through the following procedure:

1. Calibrated the reflectometer for each type of retroreflective material and also
after every 15 minutes of measurement time.

2. Checked the battery level every two hours of real time.

3. Recharged the battery every night.

B-2 Measurement Procedeure

 The following data was collected from each car examined:

• Car number

• Car owner

• Type of car and, if special service car, specific commodities usually carried
(e.g., coal-carrying hopper car)

• Date car built or rebuilt

• Measurement of distance between bottom of reflective decal and top of rail

(TOR)

• Photographic record showing the entire side of each car measured

• Date of measurement

• Yard location where measurements were taken

• Retroreflective measurements before and after washing

• Status of reflective decals, e.g., identification of missing or damaged decals

• Three measurements of the coefficient of retroreflection on each decal.

The form for recording the data is shown in Appendix B-5. The SIA measurements are given
in Appendix B-6 through B-15 for the TTC test..
 REFLECTIVITY MEASUREMENTS FORM
Using a Advanced Retro Technology, Inc. Retroreflectometer

Model 920, Serial # RT1213

Car No.: __________ Date of Measurement: __________

Owner: ___________ Yard where measured: __________
Date car Build/Rebuilt: ______ Distance from bottom of decal to TRO: ______
Type of Car: __________
Is this a measurement after washing decals: __________
Months in service at time of measurements: __________

Reflectivity Measurement Data

Right side of car (side on right when standing at brake end looking toward A end). Group 2 nearest A
end.

Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Group 4 Group 5

Red 1st 1st 1st Red
Wht 2nd 2nd 2nd Wht
Red 3rd 3rd 3rd Red
Wht Avg Avg Avg Wht
Avg Avg

Left side of car (side on left when standing at brake end looking toward A end). Group 1 nearest A
end.

Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Group 4 Group 5

Red 1st 1st 1st Red
Wht 2nd 2nd 2nd Wht
Red 3rd 3rd 3rd Red
Wht Avg Avg Avg Wht
Avg Avg

Note: Write M if decal is missing, Write D if decal is defective and explain nature of damage.
 REFLECTIVITY MEASUREMENTS FORM
Using a Advanced Retro Technology, Inc. Retroreflectometer

Model 920, Serial # RT1213

Car No.: UP 31936 Date of Measurement: 3/19/91

Owner: UNION PACIFIC Yard where measured: TTC
Date car Build/Rebuilt: 4/69 Distance from bottom of decal to TRO: 4' 4"
Type of Car: HOPPER
Is this a measurement after washing decals: NO
Months in service at time of measurements: UNWASHED REFERENCE CAR INITIAL
MEASUREMENTS

Reflectivity Measurement Data

Right side of car (side on right when standing at brake end looking toward A end). Group 2 nearest A
end.

Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Group 4

3M-O 3M-N ATM 3M-O 3M-N ATM 3M-O 3M-N ATM 3M-O 3M-N ATM
1st 80.1 1098 1.4 81.9 1185 1.5 80.7 1106 1.4 83.6 1113 1.6
2nd 80.9 1015 1.4 80.4 1175 1.4 87.2 1117 1.4 83.7 1176 1.6
3rd 80.3 1046 1.4 81.0 1193 1.5 83.8 1144 1.4 85.9 1171 1.6
Avg 80.4 1053 1.4 81.1 1184 1.47 83.9 1122 1.4 84.4 1153 1.6

Left side of car (side on left when standing at brake end looking toward A end). Group 1 nearest A
end.

Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Group 4

3M-O 3M-N ATM 3M-O 3M-N ATM 3M-O 3M-N ATM 3M-O 3M-N ATM
1st 80.3 1175 2.0 77.8 1243 2.1 75 1164 1.8 74.9 1198 1.7
2nd 80.4 1189 1.9 77 1188 2.1 74 1155 1.8 76 1210 1.3
3rd 80.5 1190 1.8 79 1169 2.1 75 1205 1.8 75 1202 1.7
Avg 80.4 1185 1.9 77.9 1200 2.1 74.7 1175 1.8 75.3 1203 1.57

Note: Write M if decal is missing, Write D if decal is defective and explain nature of damage.
 REFLECTIVITY MEASUREMENTS FORM
Using a Advanced Retro Technology, Inc. Retroreflectometer

Model 920, Serial # RT1213

Car No.: UP 32039 Date of Measurement: 3/19/91

Owner: UNION PACIFIC Yard where measured: TTC
Date car Build/Rebuilt: 12/70 Distance from bottom of decal to TRO: 4' 4"
Type of Car: HOPPER
Is this a measurement after washing decals: NO
Months in service at time of measurements: WASHED REFERENCE CAR INITIAL
MEASUREMENTS

Reflectivity Measurement Data

Right side of car (side on right when standing at brake end looking toward A end). Group 2 nearest A
end.

Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Group 4

3M-O 3M-N ATM 3M-O 3M-N ATM 3M-O 3M-N ATM 3M-O 3M-N ATM
1st 79.5 1136 1.4 70.4 1093 1.2 81.2 1198 1.4 80.6 1076 1.4
2nd 81.4 1149 1.4 63.2 1094 1.4 81.4 1182 2.0 78.5 1072 1.4
3rd 78.3 1158 1.4 57.5 1080 1.6 83.9 1190 1.5 77.8 1087 1.5
Avg 79.7 1148 1.4 63.7 1089 1.4 82.2 1190 1.63 79 1078 1.43

Left side of car (side on left when standing at brake end looking toward A end). Group 1 nearest A
end.

Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Group 4

3M-O 3M-N ATM 3M-O 3M-N ATM 3M-O 3M-N ATM 3M-O 3M-N ATM
1st 76 1132 0.6 79 1250 1.6 70 1160 1.4 76 1150 1.6
2nd 76 1105 0.6 78 1232 1.6 77 1186 1.6 78 1170 1.7
3rd 80 1186 0.4 81 1203 1.4 76 1175 1.5 75 1158 1.4
Avg 77.3 1141 0.53 79.3 1228 1.53 74.3 1174 1.5 76.3 1159 1.57

Note: Write M if decal is missing, Write D if decal is defective and explain nature of damage.
 REFLECTIVITY MEASUREMENTS FORM
Using a Advanced Retro Technology, Inc. Retroreflectometer

Model 920, Serial # RT1213

Car No.: UP 32014 Date of Measurement: 3/19/91

Owner: UNION PACIFIC Yard where measured: TTC
Date car Build/Rebuilt: 12/70 Distance from bottom of decal to TRO: 3' 6"
Type of Car: HOPPER
Is this a measurement after washing decals: NO
Months in service at time of measurements: OLD MATERIAL VS NEW INITIAL
MEASUREMENTS

Reflectivity Measurement Data

Right side of car (side on right when standing at brake end looking toward A end). Group 2 nearest A
end.

Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Group 4

3M-O 3M-N 3M-O 3M-N 3M-O 3M-N 3M-O 3M-N
1st 74.5 1188 79.7 1236 75 1164 76.8 1207
2nd 74.5 1139 79.6 1185 76 1156 75.6 1088
3rd 76.5 1150 80.5 1236 73 1176 78.4 1117
Avg 75.2 1159 79.9 1219 74.7 1165.3 76.9 1137.3

Left side of car (side on left when standing at brake end looking toward A end). Group 1 nearest A
end.

Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Group 4

3M-O 3M-N 3M-O 3M-N 3M-O 3M-N 3M-O 3M-N
1st 76 1200 78 1110 76 1125 81 1136
2nd 78 1180 78 1122 79 1125 79 1113
3rd 74 1222 77 1107 78 1081 80 1120
Avg 76 1200.7 77.7 1113 77.7 1110.3 80 1123

Note: Write M if decal is missing, Write D if decal is defective and explain nature of damage.
 REFLECTIVITY MEASUREMENTS FORM
Using a Advanced Retro Technology, Inc. Retroreflectometer

Model 920, Serial # RT1213

Car No.: UP 32087/td> Date of Measurement: 3/19/91

Owner: UNION PACIFIC Yard where measured: TTC
Date car Build/Rebuilt: 12/70 Distance from bottom of decal to TRO: 3' 6" -- 140$quot;
Type of Car: HOPPER
Is this a measurement after washing decals: NO
Months in service at time of measurements: SIDE BRACE

Reflectivity Measurement Data

Right side of car (side on right when standing at brake end looking toward A end). Group 2 nearest A
end.

Left side of car (side on left when standing at brake end looking toward A end). Group 1 nearest A
end.

Right side Left side

Top Top
White 908 White 225
Red 208 Red 1029
White 865 White 227
Red 198 Red 985
White 920 White 230
Avg. 619.8 Avg. 539.2

Bottom Bottom

Note: Write M if decal is missing, Write D if decal is defective and explain nature of damage.
 REFLECTIVITY MEASUREMENTS FORM
Using a Advanced Retro Technology, Inc. Retroreflectometer

Model 920, Serial # RT1213

Car No.: UP 32001 Date of Measurement: 3/19/91

Owner: UNION PACIFIC Yard where measured: TTC
Date car Build/Rebuilt: 2/70 Distance from bottom of decal to TRO: 3' 6"
Type of Car: HOPPER Solid Red
Is this a measurement after washing decals: NO #1
Comments on car or decals: SOLID RED SQUARE #2
INITIAL #3
MEASUREMENTS

Reflectivity Measurement Data

Right side of car (side on right when standing at brake end looking toward A end). Group 2 nearest A
end.

Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Group 4

1st 217 198 225 202
2nd 226 210 216 213
3rd 226 213 220 201
Avg 223 207 220.3 205.3

Left side of car (side on left when standing at brake end looking toward A end). Group 1 nearest A
end.

Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Group 4

1st 220 198 220 198
2nd 211 196 217 196
3rd 207 202 214 205
Avg 212.7 198.7 217 199.7

Note: Write M if decal is missing, Write D if decal is defective and explain nature of damage.
 REFLECTIVITY MEASUREMENTS FORM
Using a Advanced Retro Technology, Inc. Retroreflectometer

Model 920, Serial # RT1213

Car No.: UP 31990 Date of Measurement: 3/19/91

Owner: UNION PACIFIC Yard where measured: TTC
Date car Build/Rebuilt: 4/69 Distance from bottom of decal to TRO: 3' 6"
Type of Car: HOPPER Solid Red
Is this a measurement after washing decals: NO #1 #1
Comments on car or decals: PATTERN HALF WHITE HALF
RED #2 #2
INITIAL MEASUREMENTS

Reflectivity Measurement Data

Right side of car (side on right when standing at brake end looking toward A end). Group 2 nearest A
end.

Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Group 4

White Red White Red White Red White Red
1st 975 224 935 222 960 227 1006 204
2nd 1000 225 940 209 985 224 956 212
Avg. 606 573.8 599 594.5

Left side of car (side on left when standing at brake end looking toward A end). Group 1 nearest A
end.

Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Group 4

White Red White Red White Red White Red
1st 958 228 955 204 980 226 975 208
2nd 976 227 924 205 975 224 947 209
Avg. 597.3 572 601.3 584.8

Note: Write M if decal is missing, Write D if decal is defective and explain nature of damage.
 REFLECTIVITY MEASUREMENTS FORM
Using a Advanced Retro Technology, Inc. Retroreflectometer

Model 920, Serial # RT1213

Car No.: UP 32080 Date of Measurement: 3/19/91

Owner: UNION PACIFIC Yard where measured: TTC
Date car Build/Rebuilt: 1/71 Distance from bottom of decal to TRO: 3' 6"
Type of Car: HOPPER White @ Red Stripes
Is this a measurement after washing decals: NO
Comments on car or decals: PATTERN RED @ WHITE
STRIPES
INITIAL MEASUREMENTS

Reflectivity Measurement Data

Right side of car (side on right when standing at brake end looking toward A end). Group 2 nearest A
end.

Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Group 4

Measurement Taken 1/2 on Red 1/2 on White
1st 580 508 470 637
2nd 659 540 480 573
3rd 640 536 540 720
Avg 626.3 528 496.7 643.3

Left side of car (side on left when standing at brake end looking toward A end). Group 1 nearest A
end.

Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Group 4

Measurement Taken 1/2 on Red 1/2 on White
1st 468 650 547 526
2nd 505 579 558 515
3rd 598 610 492 523
Avg 523.7 613 532.3 521.3

Note: Write M if decal is missing, Write D if decal is defective and explain nature of damage.
 REFLECTIVITY MEASUREMENTS FORM
Using a Advanced Retro Technology, Inc. Retroreflectometer

Model 920, Serial # RT1213

Car No.: UP 32070 Date of Measurement: 3/19/91

Owner: UNION PACIFIC Yard where measured: TTC
Date car Build/Rebuilt: 1/71 Distance from bottom of decal to TRO: 3' 6"
Type of Car: HOPPER Red on White
Is this a measurement after washing decals: NO
Comments on car or decals: PATTERN RED ON WHITE
SQUARE
INITIAL MEASUREMENTS

Reflectivity Measurement Data

Right side of car (side on right when standing at brake end looking toward A end). Group 2 nearest A
end.

Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Group 4

White Red White Red White Red White Red
1st 1125 206 1067 207 1140 208 1120 206
2nd 1036 1065 1095 1110
Avg. 789 779.7 814.3 812

Left side of car (side on left when standing at brake end looking toward A end). Group 1 nearest A
end.

Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Group 4

White Red White Red White Red White Red
1st 1072 205 1028 206 1070 202 1057 208
2nd 995 1105 1115 1118
Avg. 757.3 779.7 795.7 794.3

Note: Write M if decal is missing, Write D if decal is defective and explain nature of damage.
 REFLECTIVITY MEASUREMENTS FORM
Using a Advanced Retro Technology, Inc. Retroreflectometer

Model 920, Serial # RT1213

Car No.: UP 32005 Date of Measurement: 3/19/91

Owner: UNION PACIFIC Yard where measured: TTC
Date car Build/Rebuilt: 12/70 Distance from bottom of decal to TRO: 3' 6"
Type of Car: HOPPER White on Red
Is this a measurement after washing decals: NO
Comments on car or decals: PATTERN WHITE ON RED
SQUARE
INITIAL MEASUREMENTS

Reflectivity Measurement Data

Right side of car (side on right when standing at brake end looking toward A end). Group 2 nearest A
end.

Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Group 4

Red White Red White Red White Red White
1st 290 723 346 778 238 719 204 795
2nd 220 216 240 235
Avg. 411 446.7 399 411.3

Left side of car (side on left when standing at brake end looking toward A end). Group 1 nearest A
end.

Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Group 4

Red White Red White Red White Red White
1st 245 771 309 696 260 690 220 726
2nd 290 298 288 208
Avg. 435.3 434.3 412.7 384.7

Note: Write M if decal is missing, Write D if decal is defective and explain nature of damage.
 REFLECTIVITY MEASUREMENTS FORM
Using a Advanced Retro Technology, Inc. Retroreflectometer

Model 920, Serial # RT1213

Car No.: UP 31902 Date of Measurement: 4/19/91

Owner: UNION PACIFIC Yard where measured: TTC
Date car Build/Rebuilt: 4/69 Wheel measurement 120 Deg.
Type of Car: HOPPER
Is this a measurement after washing decals: NO
Comments on car or decals: 120 DEGREE ALL WHITE
1 MONTH MEASUREMENTS

Reflectivity Measurement Data

Right side of car (side on right when standing at brake end looking toward A end). Group 2 nearest A
end.

AVERAGE NEW WHITE = 1205

PERCENTAGE OF ORIGINAL COEFFICIENT OF RETROREFLECTION = 41%

Wheel 1 Wheel 2 Wheel 3 Wheel 4

1st 463
2nd 513
3rd 503
Avg 494.7

Left side of car (side on left when standing at brake end looking toward A end). Group 1 nearest A
end.

Wheel 1 Wheel 2 Wheel 3 Wheel 4

1st
2nd
3rd
Avg

Note: Write M if decal is missing, Write D if decal is defective and explain nature of damage.
 APPENDIX C

TANK CAR REFLECTOR INITIAL MEASUREMENTS

 Tanker Car Data - Month '0':
Number of SIA Readings vs. SIA Values of
Red and White Reflectors for Position 1
100
Position 1 Red Reflectors
90 Mean = 241
Standard Deviation = 12

80 Position 1 White Reflectors

Mean = 1076
Standard Deviation = 47
70
Number of SIA Readings

60

Position 1 - Red Reflector Readings

50
Position 1 - White Reflector Readings

40

30

20

10

0
25

00

75

50

25

00

75
5

0
12

20

27

35

42

50

57

65

72

80

87

95
10

11

11

12

13

14

14
2
SIA (cd/lx/m )
 Tank Car Data - Month '0':
Number of SIA Readings vs. Average SIA Values for Positions 2, 3, &4

45
Number of Cars Measured = 30

40 Position 2
Mean = 1169
Standard Deviation = 51
35

Position 3
30 Mean = 1167
Number of SIA Readings

Standard Deviation = 47
Position 2
25 Position 4 Position 3
Mean = 1164 Position 4
Standard Deviation = 45
20

15

10

0
25
75
25
75
25
75
25
75
25
75
25
75
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
12
17
22
27
32
37
42
47
52
57
62
67
72
77
82
87
92
97
10
10
11
11
12
12
13
13
14
14
15
15
SIA Values
 Tanker Car Data - Month '0':
Number of SIA Readings vs. SIA Values of
Red and White Reflectors for Position 5
100
Position 5 Red Reflectors
90 Mean = 240
Standard Deviation = 10

80 Position 5 White Reflectors

Mean = 1069
Standard Deviation = 46
70
Number of SIA Readings

60

Position 5 - Red Reflector Readings

50
Position 5 - White Reflector Readings

40

30

20

10

0
25

00

75

50

25

00

75
5

0
12

20

27

35

42

50

57

65

72

80

87

95
10

11

11

12

13

14

14

SIA Values
 APPENDIX D

DOUBLE STACK CAR REFLECTOR INITIAL MEASUREMENTS

 Double Stack Car Data - Month '0':
Number of SIA Readings vs. SIA Values of
Red and White Reflectors for Position 1
400

Position 1: Red Reflectors

Mean = 220
350
Standard Deviation = 14

Position 1: White Reflectors

300 Mean = 1031
Standard Deviation = 56
Number of SIA Readings

250

Position 1 - Red Reflector Readings

200
Position 1 - White Reflector Readings

150

100

50

0
1025

1100

1175

1250

1325

1400

1475
125

200

275

350

425

500

575

650

725

800

875

950

SIA Values
 140

120

Position 2
100 Mean = 1015
Standard Deviation = 117
Number of SIA Readings

Position 3
Mean = 1015
80
Standard Deviation = 118 Position 2
Position 3
Position 4
Mean = 1013 Position 4
60 Standard Deviation = 118

40

20

0
1025
1075
1125
1175
1225
1275
1325
1375
1425
1475
1525
1575
125
175
225
275
325
375
425
475
525
575
625
675
725
775
825
875
925
975

SIA Values
 Double Stack Car Data - Month '0':
Number of SIA Readings vs. SIA Values of
Red and White Reflectors for Position 5
350

Position 5: Red Reflectors

Mean = 220
300 Standard Deviation = 16

Position 5: White Reflectors

Mean = 1035
250 Standard Deviation = 56
Number of SIA Readings

200 Position 5 - Red Reflector Readings

Position 5 - White Reflector Readings

150

100

50

0
1025

1100

1175

1250

1325

1400

1475
125

200

275

350

425

500

575

650

725

800

875

950

SIA Values
 APPENDIX E

HOPPER CAR REFLECTOR INITIAL MEASUREMENTS

 800
Position 1 Red Reflector:
Mean = 226
700 Standard Deviation = 25

Position 1 White Reflector:

Mean = 1032
600 Standard Deviation = 66

Position 1 - Red Reflector Readings

Number of SIA Readings

500 Position 1 - White Reflector Readings

400

300

200

100

0
25

00

75

50

25

00

75
5

0
12

20

27

35

42

50

57

65

72

80

87

95
10

11

11

12

13

14

14

SIA Values
 300

Position 2
Mean = 960
250 Standard Deviation = 89

Position 3
Mean = 963 Position 2
Number of SIA Readings

200 Standard Deviation = 87 Position 3

Position 4
Position 4
Mean = 960
150 Standard Deviation = 86

100

50

0
25
75
25
75
25
75
25
75
25
75
25
75
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
12
17
22
27
32
37
42
47
52
57
62
67
72
77
82
87
92
97
10
10
11
11
12
12
13
13
14
14
15
15
SIA Values
 Hopper Car Data - Month '0':
Number of SIA Readings vs. SIA Values of
Red and White Reflectors for Position 5
800
Position 5 Red Reflector:
Mean = 226
700 Standard Deviation = 25
Position 5 White Reflector:
Mean = 1034
600 Standard Deviation = 68

Position 5 - Red Reflector Readings

Number of SIA Readings

500 Position 5 - White Reflector Readings

400

300

200

100

0
25

00

75

50

25

00

75
5

0
12

20

27

35

42

50

57

65

72

80

87

95
10

11

11

12

13

14

14
SIA Values
 APPENDIX F

BOX CAR REFLECTOR INITIAL MEASUREMENTS

 Box Car Data - Month '0':
Number of SIA Readings vs. SIA Values of
Red and White Reflectors for Position 1
100
Position 1: Red Reflectors
Mean = 233
Standard Deviation = 37

80 Position 1: White Reflectors

Mean = 1099
Standard Deviation = 131

60
Number of SIA Readings

Position 1 - Red Reflector Readings

40 Position 1 - White Reflector Readings

20

0
1025

1100

1175

1250

1325

1400

1475

1550
125

200

275

350

425

500

575

650

725

800

875

950

-20
SIA Values
 Box Car Data - Month '0':
Number of SIA Readings vs. SIA Values
for Position 2, 3, and 4

90
Position 2
Mean = 1009
80
Standard Deviation = 71

70 Position 3
Mean = 1012
Standard Deviation = 72
Number of SIA Readings

60
Position 2
Position 4
Position 3
Mean = 1012
50 Position 4
Standard Deviation = 71

40

30

20

10

0
1025
1075
1125
1175
1225
1275
1325
1375
1425
1475
1525
1575
125
175
225
275
325
375
425
475
525
575
625
675
725
775
825
875
925
975

SIA Values
 Box Car Data - Month '0':
Number of SIA Readings vs. SIA Values of
Red and White Reflectors for Position 5
120
Position 5 Red Reflectors
Mean = 233
Standard Deviation = 39
100
Position 5 White Reflectors
Mean = 1101
Standard Deviation = 133
80
Number of SIA Readings

60
Position 5 - White Reflector Readings
Position 5 - Red Reflector Readings

40

20

0
1025

1100

1175

1250

1325

1400

1475

1550
125

200

275

350

425

500

575

650

725

800

875

950

-20
SIA Values
 APPENDIX G

ALL CAR TYPE REFLECTOR AGGREGATE INITIAL MEASUREMENTS

 All Car Data - Month '0':
Number of SIA Readings vs. SIA Values of
Red and White Reflectors for Position 1
1400
Position 1 Red Reflector:
Mean = 226
Standard Deviation = 24
1200
Position 1 White Reflector:
Mean = 1043
Standard Deviation = 78
1000
Number of SIA Readings

800
Position 1 - Red Reflector Readings
Position 1 - White Reflector Readings

600

400

200

0
25

00

75

50

25

00

75

50
5

0
12

20

27

35

42

50

57

65

72

80

87

95
10

11

11

12

13

14

14

15
SIA Values
 600

500 Position 2:
Mean = 988
Standard Deviation = 106
Position 3:
Mean = 991
400 Standard Deviation = 105
Number of SIA Readings

Position 4:
Mean = 988
Standard Deviation = 104
300
Position 2
Position 3
Position 4
200

100

0
1025
1075
1125
1175
1225
1275
1325
1375
1425
1475
1525
1575
125
175
225
275
325
375
425
475
525
575
625
675
725
775
825
875
925
975

SIA Values
 All Car Data - Month '0':
Number of SIA Readings vs. SIA Values of
Red and White Reflectors for Position 5
1400
Position 5 Red Reflector:
Mean = 226
Standard Deviation = 25
1200
Position 5 White Reflector:
Mean = 1044
Standard Deviation = 79
1000
Number of SIA Readings

800
Position 5 - Red Reflector Readings
Position 5 - White Reflector Readings

600

400

200

0
1025

1100

1175

1250

1325

1400

1475

1550
125

200

275

350

425

500

575

650

725

800

875

950

SIA Values
 APPENDIX H

FREIGHT CAR REFLECTORIZATION MEMORANDUM

 Memorandum
U.S. Department
of Transportation

Research and John A. Volpe

Special Programs National Transportation Systems Center
Administration

Subject: Freight Car Reflectorization Date: November 2, 1998

From: Erica Rhude Reply to

Attn of: Anya A. Carroll, DTS-73
To: Claire Orth Thru: John Hitz, Anya Carroll, Jordan
Multer and Debra Williams

Background
The Volpe Center previously completed two studies evaluating the reflectorization of freight cars as
a means of improving the safety of highway-railroad grade crossings. The first study involved field
operational tests, which included a demonstration test at the Transportation Technology Center in
Pueblo, Colorado and in-service testing on Alaska Railroad and Norfolk Southern Corporation
freight trains. From this testing it was concluded that a vertical pattern of red and white
microprismatic retroreflectors meet visibility requirements for detection of freight cars at night. It
was also found that under the harsh operating conditions of the railroad, larger (4" x 36") vertically
oriented reflectors maintained acceptable visual performance longer than smaller (4" x 8")
horizontally oriented reflectors. With routine maintenance, this newly developed prismatic material
is likely to perform above the visual threshold for up to 10 years.

The second study involved the human behavior testing. At the University of Tennessee, human
factors testing was conducted to determine the detection characteristics of the new reflective material
in various colors and mounting configurations. Further testing was done with Massachusetts
Institute of Technology (MIT) to determine how well people recognize various reflector patterns on
the sides of trains. From these human factors studies, a reflectorized freight car was found to be
significantly more detectable than a non-reflectorized freight car. Further consensus was that a
uniform vertical reflector pattern yields the highest level of detection and recognition.

Grady Cothen, FRA, Office of Safety, Deputy Associate Administrator for Safety Standards &
Programs, requested that the following analysis be provided. The analysis documented in this
memorandum serves as a supplement to the freight car reflectorization studies discussed above. It
will be used, by the FRA, in determining the effectiveness of this technology for a cost-benefit study.
This memorandum specifically addresses the effects of automotive headlights, weather conditions
and highway-rail crossing geometry on the effectiveness of freight car reflectorization.

Headlight Effects
There are two main factors that affect the relationship between automotive headlight intensities and
their role in the effectiveness of reflectorization of railroad freight cars: manufacturing variation and
headlamp misalignment. While light-output regulations dictate luminance ranges at selected points,
the headlamp beam pattern is a non-uniform feature dependent on the individual manufacturer.
H-3
From a 1997 study done by the University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute, “A
Market-Weighted Description of Low-Beam Headlighting Patterns in the U.S.”, a typical light output
pattern was established for headlights currently used in the US. While the median headlamp exhibits
luminous intensities consistent with estimates used in our previous study, the 25th percentile
headlamp is roughly one third of this intensity (see Figure 1). Such low intensity headlights still
maintain acceptable threshold SIA (specific intensity per unit area) values for all large reflectors tested in
the in-service testing. In the case of the smaller reflectors, where degradation levels on some freight
car reflectors were found to fall below the current threshold in the testing cycle, half the acceptable
life cycle would result from the 25th percentile headlight intensity.

12000

10000
(2 headlights on low beam)
Headlight Intensity (cd)

8000

headlight intensity
6000 assumed in analysis

4000

2000

0
25th 50th 75th

Market Weighted Percentile of U.S. Headlights

Figure 1. Light intensities from pairs of low beam headlights at freight car reflector location, from a market-
weighted database of U.S. headlights (Savik, 1997)

All analyses in Volpe studies were done assuming the use of two headlights at low beam settings. In
the case of high beam headlights, the reflectivity would only be enhanced and detectable at a further
distance from the crossing. A study conducted by the Southwest Research Institute found that only
25% of motorists, in the vehicles studied, used high beams in an environment when a they would be
unable to see a train in a crossing and it was appropriate to do so (McGinnis, 1979). An additional
condition arises for vehicles with only one working headlight. The resulting illuminance is roughly
half that produced by two headlights, but depends further on which side of the vehicle it is on. U.S.
headlights are aimed down and to the right for driving on the right side of the road. If the passenger's
side headlight is the functioning headlight, less light is directed in the driver's line of sight at the
level of the reflectors, than the from the driver's side headlight.

Misaimed headlights pose further discrepancy in the luminance projected upon the reflectors.
Vertically misaimed headlights have a greater effect on the detection distance of the retroreflectors
than misaim in the horizontal direction. Although vertically and horizontally misaimed headlights
can affect the detection distance of reflectors, the microprismatic retroreflectors recommended,
virtually eliminate this effect, compared with enclosed or embedded reflective sheeting (Zwahlen,

H-4
1989).
Recent changes and advancements in headlight technology may potentially affect the performance of
proposed freight car reflectorization. One consideration, by the NHTSA, is to conform US headlamp
profiles with European Standards, which have a sharp beam cutoff for minimum glare to opposing
traffic. While such a profile also improves visual headlight alignment and reduces misaiming
problems, it drastically reduces the illumination of reflective signs and warnings in the driver’s line
of sight, as less light is aimed above the horizontal axis of the headlight. Consequently, new
headlight regulations may reduce the effectiveness of proposed freight car reflectorization. NHTSA
has recently begun investigation into such changes in order to reduce glare to oncoming traffic.

Weather Condition Effects

Changes in weather conditions alter the atmospheric transmissivity through which light must travel
to reach the reflectors and return back to the eyes of the driver. Threshold SIA values, for tested
reflectors in our previous study, were determined using an atmospheric transmissivity corresponding
to conditions of light haze. Both the small and large reflectors recommended in that report, exhibit
safe SIA values under conditions of clear skies, haze and thin fog. The large reflectors tested in the
in-service test, performed with a safety margin that would allow adequate reflection, at the required
detection distance, up to the condition of moderate fog. In thick fog, the visual threshold,
recommended by the FAA and the IES Lighting Handbook, would occur at approximately 100-ft
short of the 500-ft detection distance required for safe stopping from a vehicle speed of 50 mph.
Through most conditions of reduced visibility, detection of larger reflectors may occur as much as
fifty feet before that of the smaller reflector. Figure 2 shows how changes in atmospheric conditions
affect the minimum SIA for both reflector sizes. The atmospheric transmissivity characteristic of
each weather condition, as defined by the IES Lighting Handbook, can be found in the Appendix.

1200

1000

800
Minimum SIA (cd/fc/ft2)

Small
Reflector
600 Large
Reflector

400

200

0
r
e

ar

r
e
g

g
og

ea
ea
az

az
fo

fo

le
tf

cl
cl
H

th

C
in
e

gh
at

lly
ry
Th

gh
Li
er

Ve

na
Li
od

io
M

pt
ce
Ex

Atmospheric Conditions

Figure 2. Effects of atmospheric conditions on minimum detection levels for both the small (4” x 8”) and the large
(4”x 36”) reflectors.

H-5
Roadway Geometry Effects
The crossing geometry used in our previous study, to establish reflector requirements, assumes that
the road is level with the tracks and that the vehicle approaches perpendicular to the direction of the
train (90o intersection). This situation obviously does not account for the common humped crossings
or angled and curved approaches encountered in many highway-rail crossings. Reflector
effectiveness is maximized as both the observation and entrance angles (as seen in Figure 3)
approach zero. The closer the vehicle is to the crossing, the larger both of these angles become. The
observation angle however has a greater effect on the reflectivity than does the entrance angle.

Figure 3. Side view of various highway-rail crossing geometry

H-6
In the case of humped crossings, where the track is at a higher elevation than the road, the luminous
intensity estimated to reach the reflectors, in the calculations of minimum reflectance, are higher
than the actual intensities at this geometry. Standard US headlights are aimed 2o below the horizontal
axis of the vehicle so that above the horizontal axis the luminous intensity drops off sharply to light
the roadway while reducing glare to oncoming vehicles. However, at the optimal detection distance
of 500-ft, a track raised to the elevation of 4 ft above road level, would result in a 0.5o offset from the
current angle. At this angle, light intensities are roughly half of the values assumed in our previous
study (Savik, 1997). This would result in a doubling of the threshold SIA levels of the requirements
of both reflector sizes. As with the case of atmospheric deviations, the margin between the actual and
threshold SIA levels of the larger reflector allows this variation of intensity within acceptable levels.
Additionally, the 36" height of the large reflector allows for greater variability of light intensity
resulting from the larger range in angle. In the situation where the highway is elevated above the
level of the grade crossing, headlight aim would result in increased luminance intensities and better
reflector performance. When this approaching road has a downward slope, as seen in Figure 3, the
luminous intensities are again decreased as they are emitted from above the horizontal beam. The
exact effects are dependent on specific road geometry that varies by crossing.

The Federal Railroad Administration’s Grade Crossing Inventory identifies crossings into three
categories of crossing angles: 60-90o, 30-59o, and 0-29o. Approximately 80% of all crossing have
crossing angles between 60-90o, 16% are 30-59o, and only 4% are 0-29o (The Highway-Rail Crossing
Accident/Incident and Inventory Bulletin, 1996). Many roads do not approach the intersection in a
straight path but rather with some independent curvature as seen in Figure 4. There is also the
possibility of obstructions such as trees or buildings, which may restrict the path of the headlight
illumination as well as the driver's site triangle. Although it is impossible to account for all such
variations, if it is assumed that the vehicle does approach the intersection in a straight path, as seen
in Figure 5, an effective degree of crossing angles can be established.

Figure 4. Top view of highway/rail intersection with roadway curvature

H-7
 Figure 5. Top view of highway/rail intersection without roadway curvature (tangent).

From specifications provided by one retroreflective material manufacturer, the average reflector
performance as a function of crossing angle can be seen in Figures 6 and 7. Figure 6 shows the
typical values for the coefficient of reflectivity for 3M's series 981 sheeting for the small 4" x 8"
white retroreflectors. Figure 7 is averaged values for the red & white 4" x 36" sheeting. Both plots
show values at observation angles of 0.2o and 0.5o. At the detection distance of 500 ft, the
observation angle on a level road ranges from 0.15o for small passenger cars to 0.55o for cab-over-
engine trucks, as the elevation from the driver to the headlight increases. (McGinnis, 1979)

1000

0.2o Observation
Angle
800
0.5o Observation
Typical SIA (cd/fc/ft )
2

Angle

600

400

M in im u m D e t e c t io n
200
T h r e s h o ld

0
4% of Crossings 16% of Crossings 80% of Crossings
0 30 60 90

Crossing Angle (degrees)

Figure 6. Typical Coefficients of Retroreflection for 3M's 981 sheeting series as a function of grade crossing angle
(white 4" x 8")

H-8
 600
0.2 o Observation
Angle
0.5 o Observation
Typical SIA (cd/fc/ft ) Angle
2

400

200

Minim u m D e t e c t i o n
Threshold

0 4 % o f C r o s s in g s 1 6 % o f C r o s s in g s 8 0 % o f C ro ssin g s
0 30 60 90

Crossing Angle (degrees)

Figure 7. Typical Coefficients of Retroreflection for 3M's 981 sheeting series as a function of grade crossing angle
(red & white 4" x 36")

Both reflectors are found to perform above the detection threshold for crossing angles from 30o to
90o, for the average vehicle. This accounts for 96% of the crossings for cars and small trucks. The
larger red & white reflectors perform at or above the threshold level for all vehicles from 30o to 90o
crossing angles. Values beyond 30o were not available at this time and would require further
investigation. These values represent measurements made by the manufacturer prior to service use
and dirt accumulation.

Summary
From the previous Volpe studies performed on the use of reflective material on the sides of railroad
freight cars, it was concluded that reflectorized freight cars are more detectable than non-
reflectorized freight cars. Both human factors testing and field operational testing also concluded that
vertically oriented reflectors enhance freight car visibility to the motorist. Larger (4" x 36") vertically
oriented reflectors were found to be both more detectable and withstand the harsh railroad
environment better than smaller (4" x 8") reflectors. The analysis presented here further substantiates
the use of larger vertically oriented reflectors for use on freight cars, despite variability in headlamps
and crossing geometry. Together these studies conclude that a uniform pattern of vertically oriented
retroreflectors, significantly enhances the conspicuity of railroad freight cars.

H-9
Appendix

Transmissivities for various weather conditions according to IES Lighting Handbook:

Maximum Transmissivity
Weather (per statute mile)
Exceptionally clear 0.91+
Very clear 0.91
Clear 0.79
Light Haze 0.62
Haze 0.30
Thin fog 0.090
Light fog 0.0081
Moderate fog 0.000065
Thick fog 3.4 x 10-11
Dense fog 1.3 x 10-42
Very dense fog 1.6 x 10-70
Exceptionally dense fog 2.6 x 10-140

References

1. Highway-Rail Crossing Accident/Incident and Inventory Bulletin. 1996. U.S. Department of

Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration.
Illuminating Engineering Society of North America. 1990. IES Lighting Handbook,
Reference Volume. Second Printing (March).

2. McGinnis, Richard G. 1979. The Benefits and Costs of a Program to Reflectorize the U.S.
Fleet of Railroad Rolling Stock. Department of Civil Engineering, Bucknell University,
Lewisburg, PA. Prepared for Office of Policy and Program Development, Federal Railroad
Administration. U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C. Report No. FRA-
OPPD-79-12

3. Savik, Michael, Michael J. Flannagan, Shinichi Kojima, and Eric C. Traube. 1997. A Market-
Weighted Description of Low-Beam Headlighting Patterns in the U.S.. The University of
Michigan Transportation Research Institute. Report No. UMTRI-97-37.

4. Zwahlen, Helmut T., Michael E. Miller, and Jing Yu. 1989. Effects of Misaimed Low
Beams and High Beams on Visual Detection of Reflectorized Targets at Night. In
Transportation Research Record 1247:1-11.

H-10
 GLOSSARY

Candela (cd): The base unit of luminous intensity. One candela is equal to 1 lumen per unit
solid angle.

Category 1 Accident: A term used to describe a collision at a highway-rail intersection where a

motor vehicle strikes a train at a point on the train which indicates the driver could have
stopped safely if the train’s presence was detected the moment it entered the crossing.

Coefficient of Retroreflection (also known as Specific Intensity per Unit Area [SIA]): The ratio
of the luminous intensity of the surface to the normal illuminance and to the area of the
retroreflective surface. This is expressed in units of candela per lux per square meter
(candela per footcandle per square foot), and the SI and English units are numerically
equal (ASTM, 1981).

Footcandle (fc): Unit of luminance equal to one lumen per square foot. One footcandle equals
10.764 lux.

Illuminance: The ratio of the optical power of incident light by the area of a surface exposed.

Intensity (formally known as Luminous Intensity): The ratio of optical power of incident light
per unit solid angle in the direction in question.

Lumen: Unit of optical power equal to 0.00146 watts.

Luminance: The luminous intensity per unit area of a given surface.

Lux: Unit of illuminance equal to 1 lumen per square meter. One lux equals 0.093 footcandle.

Microprismatic Corner Cube Material (also referred to as prismatic, retroreflective, and/or

corner cube material): Thin plastic-like material containing microprisms used to channel
incident light to and near the source of the incident light.

Minimum Threshold: The lowest luminance value that allows a motorist to detect the presence
of a retroreflector, (hence, a freight car) in a crossing.

Natural Environmental Effects: Changes in a retroreflector’s intensity due to meteorological/

atmospheric events (e.g., rain, strong sun rays, snow, etc.).

Operational Effects: Changes in a retroreflector’s intensity due to the operation of the freight
car (e.g., dust, grease, loading damage, etc.).

Specific Intensity per Unit Area (SIA): See “Coefficient of Retroflectorization” above.

GL-1/GL-2
 REFERENCES

1. American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM). 1981. Standard Practice for
Describing Retroreflection. ASTM Designation: E808-81.

2. Andre, A. D., and C. D. Wickens. 1995. When users want what’s not best for them.
In Ergonomics in Design (October):10-13.

3. Aurelius, J. P., and N. Korobow. 1971. The Visibility and Audibility of Trains Approaching
Rail-Highway Grade Crossings. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Transportation,
Federal Railroad Administration. Report No. FRA-RP-71-2.

4. Breckridge, F. C., and C. A. Douglas. 1945. Development of Approach- and Contact-Light

Systems. In Illuminating Engineering XL (November):785.

5. Browder, William. Association of American Railroads. Washington, DC. Telephone

conversation, April 23, 1998.

6. Burger, William, Mark Mulholland, and Russell Smith. 1985. Improved Commercial
Vehicle Conspicuity and Signaling Systems; Task 3: Field Test Evaluation of Vehicle
Reflectorization Effectiveness. DOT Final Report No. DOT-HS-806-923.

7. Carroll, Anya, Jordan Multer, and Stephanie Markos. 1995. Safety of Highway-Railroad
Grade Crossings: Use of Auxiliary External Alerting Devices to Improve Locomotive
Conspicuity. Organization Report No. DOT-VNTSC-FRA-95-10.

8. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). 1995. 16 CFR, Commercial Practices. Subchapter C,

Federal Hazardous Substances Act Regulation. Subpart 1512, Requirements for Bicycles.
Consumer Product Safety Commission. Register, National Archives and Records
Administration. January 1, 1995.

9. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). 1996. 49 CFR, Transportation. Part 571, Federal
Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. Subpart B, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards.
Register, National Archives and Records Administration, October 1, 1997.

10. Commission Internationale de l’Éclairage (CIE). 1987. Guide to the Properties and Uses of
Retroreflectors at Night. Publication No. 72.

11. Commission Internationale de l’Éclairage (CIE). 1978. Surface Colours for Visual
Signalling. Publication No. 39 (TC 1.6).

12. de Boer, J. B. “Visibility of Approach and Runway Lights,” Phillips Res. Rep., Vol. 6,
p. 224, 1951.

13. Fisher, A. J., and B. L. Cole. “The Photometric Requirements of Vehicle Traffic Signal
Lanterns,” Proc. Aust. Road Res. Board, Vol. 7, No. 5, 1974.

R-1
 REFERENCES (continued)

14. Ford, Robert E., Stephen H. Richards, and John C. Hungerford. 1998. Evaluation of
Retroreflective Markings to Increase Rail Car Conspicuity. Project Memorandum No.
DOT-VNTSC-RR897-PM98-22. U.S. Department of Transportation, Volpe National
Transportation Systems Center.

15. House. 1994. Swift Rail Development Act of 1994. 103d Congress, 2d Session. H.R. 4867.

16. Illuminating Engineering Society of North America. 1984. IES Lighting Handbook,
Reference Volume. Second Printing (March).

17. Jennings, L. Stephen. 1995. Compilation of State Laws and Regulations Affecting
Highway-Rail Grade Crossings. Second edition. Prepared for the U.S. Department of
Transportation Federal Railroad Administration, Office of Safety.

18. Lauer, A. R., and Virtus R. Suhr. 1956. An Experiment Study of Four Methods of
Reflectorizing Railway Boxcars. In Highway Research Board Bulletin 146:45-50.

19. Lepkowski, J. Richard, and William Mullis. 1973. Considerations for Improving the
Conspicuity of Railroad Rolling Stock. Phase V Report (FRA-AR-20033).

20. Mace, D. J., and R. Gabel. 1993. Development of Headlight System Performance Criteria.
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration.

21. McGinnis, Richard G. 1979. Reflectorization of Railroad Rolling Stock. In Transportation

Research Record 737:31-43.

22. McGinnis, Richard G. 1979. The Benefits and Costs of a Program to Reflectorize the U.S.
Fleet of Railroad Rolling Stock. Department of Civil Engineering, Bucknell University,
Lewisburg, PA. Prepared for Office of Policy and Program Development, Federal Railroad
Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C. Report
No. FRA-OPPD-79-12.

23. Minihan, D. J., and J. O’Day. 1977. Car-truck accidents in Michigan and Texas. Ann
Arbor, MI: Highway Safety Research Institute. Report No. UM-HSRI-77-49.

24. Nadrowski, Robert. Wisconsin Central Limited Railroad. Shaumburg, IL. Telephone
conversations on December 6, 1995, and February 12, 1996.

25. Olson, Paul L. 1987. Visibility Problems in Nighttime Driving. SAE Technical Paper
Series 870600. In Accident Reconstruction: Automobiles, Tractor-Semitrailers,
Motorcycles, and Pedestrians. Proceedings No. P-193:97-112. Warrendale, PA: Society of
Automotive Engineers.

R-2
 REFERENCES (continued)

26. Olson, P. L., K. Campbell, D. Massie, D. S. Battle, E. C. Taub, T. Aoki, T. Sato, and L. C.
Pettis. 1992. Performance Requirements for Large Truck Conspicuity Enhancements.
Transportation Research Institute, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI. Prepared for
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation,
Washington, D.C. Report No. DOT HS 807 815.

27. Poage, James L., and John B. Hopkins. 1983. Measurements and Analysis of Degradation
of Freight Car Reflectors in Revenue Service. In Transportation Research Record
904:67-74.

28. Poage, J. L., J. C. Pomfret, and J. B. Hopkins. 1983. Freight Car Reflectorization.
Transportation Systems Center, Research and Special Programs Administration,
U.S. Department of Transportation, Cambridge, MA. Report No. FRA-RRS-83-1.

29. Russell, Eugene, Margaret Rys, and Bernard Adams. 1994. Headlight Illumination and
Other Study Results Supporting the Use of Retroreflective Material at Grade Crossings.
Presentation at the Third International Symposium on Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing
Research and Safety, October 1994, Knoxville, TN.

30. Saskatchewan Highways and Transportation. 1995. Reflectorization of Rail Cars. In

Traffic Safety News 2.4 (April).

31. Sivak, Michael. 1979. A Review of Literature on Nighttime Conspicuity and Effects of
Retroreflectorization. In HSRI Research Review (November-December).

32. Stalder, Harold I., and A. R. Lauer. 1954. Effective Use of Reflectorized Materials on
Railroad Boxcars. In Highway Research Board Bulletin 89:70-75.

33. Stalder, Harold I., and A. R. Lauer. 1952. Effects of Pattern Distribution on Perception on
Relative Motion in Low Levels of Illumination. In Highway Research Board Bulletin
56:25-35.

34. Uber, Charles B. 1994. Trial of Reflectors on Railway Wagons. Presented at the 17th
Australian Road Research Board Conference, August 15-19, Gold Coast, Australia.

35. United States General Accounting Office. Railroad Safety: Status of Efforts to Improve
Railroad Crossing Safety. A report to Congressional Requestors (Hons. Richard Lugar and
Dan Coats). Report No. GAO/RCED-95-191.

36. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center. 1992. Freight Car Reflectorization –
Demonstration Test. 12 min., VHS videocassette.

R-3
 REFERENCES (continued)

37. Ziedman, K., W. J. Burger, L. R. Smith, M. U. Mulholland, and T. Sharkey. 1981.

Improved Commercial Vehicle Conspicuity and Signalling Systems: Task II Analysis
Experiments and Design Recommendations. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of
Transportation, National Highway Transportation Administration.

38. Zwahlen, Helmut T., Jing Yu, Shaolin Xiong, Qu Li, and John W. Rice. 1989. Night Time
Shape Recognition of Reflectorized Warning Plates as a Function of Full Reflectorization,
Borders Only Reflectorization and Target Blindness. In Proceedings of the Human Factors
Society 33rd Annual Meeting: 970-974. Human Factors Society, Santa Clara, CA.

R-4