of suitable forage, and preferred habitat, and the presence of linear structures, such
as minor roads and water courses that would lead animals toward the railway or
encourage them to cross (Seiler et al. 2011).
From the top 50 hotspots, we then selected those that contained more than one
ungulate species besides moose, had high traffic volumes and were used by SJ
passenger trains, and had been subject to vegetation clearance (tree felling) within a
30-m wide corridor alongside the railway. In addition, the railway sections had to
run primarily through forest-dominated landscapes and not through built-up areas.
With these criteria, we eventually selected three railway sections for the experimental mitigation study (Olsson and Seiler 2015) (see below).
Wildlife-Train Encounters
In cooperation with Swedish Railways, we initiated a new project in 2015 to study
the behaviour of animals when they encountered an approaching train. This
was carried out using video recordings made by train drivers on a commercial
dashcam (DOD-LW730). The dashcam records continuous video in 1–5 min clips,
but overrides old recordings when memory capacity is full. If the camera alarm is
set off, however, a recording in progress is protected and can be extracted for later
analysis (Fig. 17.4). The advantage of this approach is that the alarm does not need
to be set immediately, but can be made after the incident in question occurred. In
this project, 15 train drivers volunteered to use a dashcam during their daily work
routines. They were instructed to set off an alarm whenever they saw an animal on
or near the railway. While this project is still ongoing (as of October 2016), preliminary findings from the first 178 recordings confirm the previous driver survey
results: many ungulates utilize rail corridors for browsing or transport (see also
Jaren et al. 1991). Most individuals were attentive to traffic, but in about 15% of the
documented encounters, animals did not respond to the approaching train. The
overall kill rate was 5% in both moose and roe deer. Mean flight initiation distances
were short in both species (112 and 125 m, respectively), leaving the animals less
than 2 s to respond correctly and leave the track when a modern passenger train
approached at about 200 km/h. Flight initiation distances varied slightly, depending
on whether the animals were on the track or beside the track, but due to the limited
number of observations, these differences are not yet significant. They suggest,
however, that animals may less easily detect approaching trains when on the railway tracks or be unable to distinguish risks, depending on how close they are to the
railway. We could not detect any effect of the horn or the headlights used by the
driver to warn animals, but as the study continues, we hope to find out whether
acoustic or optic signals help to increase flight distances and reduce the risk for
collisions.
17 Wildlife Deterrent Methods for Railways—An Experimental Study
283
as minor roads and water courses that would lead animals toward the railway or
encourage them to cross (Seiler et al. 2011).
From the top 50 hotspots, we then selected those that contained more than one
ungulate species besides moose, had high traffic volumes and were used by SJ
passenger trains, and had been subject to vegetation clearance (tree felling) within a
30-m wide corridor alongside the railway. In addition, the railway sections had to
run primarily through forest-dominated landscapes and not through built-up areas.
With these criteria, we eventually selected three railway sections for the experimental mitigation study (Olsson and Seiler 2015) (see below).
Wildlife-Train Encounters
In cooperation with Swedish Railways, we initiated a new project in 2015 to study
the behaviour of animals when they encountered an approaching train. This
was carried out using video recordings made by train drivers on a commercial
dashcam (DOD-LW730). The dashcam records continuous video in 1–5 min clips,
but overrides old recordings when memory capacity is full. If the camera alarm is
set off, however, a recording in progress is protected and can be extracted for later
analysis (Fig. 17.4). The advantage of this approach is that the alarm does not need
to be set immediately, but can be made after the incident in question occurred. In
this project, 15 train drivers volunteered to use a dashcam during their daily work
routines. They were instructed to set off an alarm whenever they saw an animal on
or near the railway. While this project is still ongoing (as of October 2016), preliminary findings from the first 178 recordings confirm the previous driver survey
results: many ungulates utilize rail corridors for browsing or transport (see also
Jaren et al. 1991). Most individuals were attentive to traffic, but in about 15% of the
documented encounters, animals did not respond to the approaching train. The
overall kill rate was 5% in both moose and roe deer. Mean flight initiation distances
were short in both species (112 and 125 m, respectively), leaving the animals less
than 2 s to respond correctly and leave the track when a modern passenger train
approached at about 200 km/h. Flight initiation distances varied slightly, depending
on whether the animals were on the track or beside the track, but due to the limited
number of observations, these differences are not yet significant. They suggest,
however, that animals may less easily detect approaching trains when on the railway tracks or be unable to distinguish risks, depending on how close they are to the
railway. We could not detect any effect of the horn or the headlights used by the
driver to warn animals, but as the study continues, we hope to find out whether
acoustic or optic signals help to increase flight distances and reduce the risk for
collisions.
17 Wildlife Deterrent Methods for Railways—An Experimental Study
283