After reading Kathi Kube’s September 2012 technology column in Trains Magazine, I was wondering if anyone out there can tell me more about the process for getting a new safety technology put on the rails. For example, if a new mechanical safety device for HAZMAT tank cars was available for testing i.e., after the concept has been proven by working prototype and after the patent has been applied for …
Specifically, who would an individual contact to get such an important safety technology industrialized, manufactured and marketed effectively to the industry?
What industrial/political/regulatory considerations are there?
I don’t have the answer, but I suspect that the actual answer to your question is extremely broad. You could show it to all the railroad companies and al
Any improvement has to be tested and approved, that’s a given. But then it has to be accepted on many levels, utmost in the minds of management/owners/stockholders/boards of directors/CEO’s/COO’s is: how much does it cost and how do we make money with it? If it can be brought to the bottom line…and quickly, too…it is installed by the day before yesterday if not before then. If the value or payback takes longer, the sale to the above mentioned will take longer and then longer after that to get it adopted and installed.
I would just add that devices that can be installed incrementally will be an easier sell than something that would require every car and locomotive to be changed. For example, a device that could keep tank car valves from leaking in a derailment could be applied one car at a time, but say a completely different coupler system (for example the European version rather than the Janney coupler) or air brake system would need to be applied all at once and so would be a hard sell no matter the advantages.
Your marketing plan would need to recognize that, in general, tank cars are not owned by the railroads. Shippers (some via leasing companies) own tank cars. So selling railroads on the new technology is going about it the long way. Get the shippers (car owners) to embrace it, and they can promote it to the regulators and railroads. Consider the article linked here:
As has been noted - you’ve got to sell an idea to the right people.
And you really need to look carefully at all possible angles, carefully removing your rose colored glasses in the process. Sometimes what sounds like a good idea becomes “what were they thinking?”
In reality, you probably need to sell an idea to the manufacturers. They’re the folks who will have to produce and install a device for their customers - the car owners. They have knowledge and expertise to fabricate and test the idea. While you would need to be a steward for your idea, if the manufacturer is prepared to deliver, and sees the idea as worthwhile, they’ll help sell it.
If you have a working prototype, mechanical specs, elevations and blueprints, look to the FRA as a first contact, submit it to them, (after you establish a patent) for consideration.
They may wish to test it at their facility.
Beyond that, contact Union Tank Car or Trinity Industries mechanical and design departments to see if there is any interest in your device.
Look at the history of the adoption of similar or related technologies, and be advised accordingly. As examples, for tank cars consider such improvements as the ‘head shields’, double shelf or interlocking couplers, recessed bottom valves, outer jackets and insulation, DOT pressure ratings, the duplicate reporting marks (car numbers) on the top so they’re visible when the car is on it’s side, the reflective yellow ‘visibility’ stripes, etc.
back in the 90’s the BN was looking for a change from the flange lubricators used on most road units. it took a seattle company five years of testing before the railroad agreed to buy the stick lubricators in use now on the BNSF. it took longer because of the merger, but was finally approved.
There is an AAR tank car committee that deals with tank car design. The FRA also would be an interested party. And, as mentioned before, the tank car owners themselves.
You’d pretty much have to get all three of these groups on the same page to get any change made - or even get a test going.
The AAR committee would be for anything that would improve safety provided it a) could be proven, and b) the car owners are willing to pay. The FRA generally won’t mandate a new device unless it can be shown to be cost effective. They might be willing to pay for some testing at Pueblo, though.