wildlife, and the administration of accidents (Child and Stuart 1987; Jaren et al.
1991; Gundersen and Andreassen 1998).
However, since WTCs do not cause human injury or death, and hence are not
considered a traffic safety problem, the Swedish railway network is still largely
unprotected against collisions with wildlife. Except for a few railway sections in the
northern region, where accidents with semi-domestic reindeer lead to expensive
reimbursements, fencing has long been regarded as economically unviable for
railways, and alternative measures have not been seriously tested. This attitude,
however, is changing as train operators upgrade their train systems to modern
light-weight multiple-unit trains. These trains are less robust than traditional single
train engines and require more expensive repairs after a WTC, sometimes leading to
significant delays in railway traffic. The overall socio-economic costs of WTCs in
Sweden have recently been estimated at 100,000,000–150,000,000 million Euros
per year (Seiler et al. 2014). This is similar to the costs estimated for wildlifevehicle collisions on roads (250,000,000 Euros per year) (Seiler and Olsson 2015),
despite railways comprising less than 2% of the national road network. Thus, the
number of collisions with larger wildlife, especially ungulates, per kilometer, is
greater on railways than public roads.
Preliminary analyses of the Swedish railway network suggest that there are at
least 10 railway sections with very high WTC frequencies where fencing would be
economically viable today. On most railway sections, however, fencing still may
not be cost-effective. Alternative methods, such as wildlife deterrents or warning
systems, need to be developed to keep animals off railways, at least when trains
approach. Initial attempts with such wildlife warning systems in other studies have
produced promising results (Larsson-Kråik 2005; Werka and Wasilewski 2009;
Babińska-Werka et al. 2015; Shimura et al. 2015).
Therefore, the Swedish Transport Administration, in cooperation with Swedish
Railways, Enviroplanning AB, and the Swedish University of Agricultural
Sciences, initiated a project in 2015 to develop and test methods for deterring
wildlife from railways when trains approach. In this chapter, we describe the
research that provided the baseline for this unique project and describe its specific
settings and objectives.
Background
Wildlife-train collisions (WTC) on Swedish railways were not scientifically studied
before 2011 (Seiler et al. 2011) because empirical data was not accessible, and
authorities did not perceive WTC as a problem and thus did not finance research.
Collisions with semi-domestic reindeer were an exception, probably because rail
authorities had to reimburse reindeer owners and therefore maintain detailed
statistics (Åhrén and Larsson 1999, 2001). WTCs are reported by train drivers via
telephone to a central register. Based on these reports, railway patrols and specially
trained hunters visit the accident site to remove the carcasses or take care of the
17 Wildlife Deterrent Methods for Railways—An Experimental Study
279
1991; Gundersen and Andreassen 1998).
However, since WTCs do not cause human injury or death, and hence are not
considered a traffic safety problem, the Swedish railway network is still largely
unprotected against collisions with wildlife. Except for a few railway sections in the
northern region, where accidents with semi-domestic reindeer lead to expensive
reimbursements, fencing has long been regarded as economically unviable for
railways, and alternative measures have not been seriously tested. This attitude,
however, is changing as train operators upgrade their train systems to modern
light-weight multiple-unit trains. These trains are less robust than traditional single
train engines and require more expensive repairs after a WTC, sometimes leading to
significant delays in railway traffic. The overall socio-economic costs of WTCs in
Sweden have recently been estimated at 100,000,000–150,000,000 million Euros
per year (Seiler et al. 2014). This is similar to the costs estimated for wildlifevehicle collisions on roads (250,000,000 Euros per year) (Seiler and Olsson 2015),
despite railways comprising less than 2% of the national road network. Thus, the
number of collisions with larger wildlife, especially ungulates, per kilometer, is
greater on railways than public roads.
Preliminary analyses of the Swedish railway network suggest that there are at
least 10 railway sections with very high WTC frequencies where fencing would be
economically viable today. On most railway sections, however, fencing still may
not be cost-effective. Alternative methods, such as wildlife deterrents or warning
systems, need to be developed to keep animals off railways, at least when trains
approach. Initial attempts with such wildlife warning systems in other studies have
produced promising results (Larsson-Kråik 2005; Werka and Wasilewski 2009;
Babińska-Werka et al. 2015; Shimura et al. 2015).
Therefore, the Swedish Transport Administration, in cooperation with Swedish
Railways, Enviroplanning AB, and the Swedish University of Agricultural
Sciences, initiated a project in 2015 to develop and test methods for deterring
wildlife from railways when trains approach. In this chapter, we describe the
research that provided the baseline for this unique project and describe its specific
settings and objectives.
Background
Wildlife-train collisions (WTC) on Swedish railways were not scientifically studied
before 2011 (Seiler et al. 2011) because empirical data was not accessible, and
authorities did not perceive WTC as a problem and thus did not finance research.
Collisions with semi-domestic reindeer were an exception, probably because rail
authorities had to reimburse reindeer owners and therefore maintain detailed
statistics (Åhrén and Larsson 1999, 2001). WTCs are reported by train drivers via
telephone to a central register. Based on these reports, railway patrols and specially
trained hunters visit the accident site to remove the carcasses or take care of the
17 Wildlife Deterrent Methods for Railways—An Experimental Study
279