Amtrak to ask FRA to relax crashworthiness stds for NEC equipment. Check out Train's Newswire...
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
WASHINGTON — In an interview with Bloomberg News earlier this week, Amtrak President Joe Boardman said the company will ask the Federal Railroad Administration to revise its current crashworthiness standards, which prevent state-of-the-art high speed train sets from Europe and Asia from operating in the United States without substantial modification.Lower structural strength requirements for equipment operated on the Positive Train Control-equipped Northeast Corridor are being requested so Amtrak can acquire new trainsets that are faster and lighter than the Acela Expresses it currently operates. Those train sets, consisting of two locomotives bracketing six cars, complied with long-standing U.S. buffer strength requirements designed to protect occupants in the event of a crash. But the resultant excessive weight has limited Acela’s performance in both speed and energy efficiency compared with French TGV and Japanese Shinkansen equipment that has operated safely for decades.In December, Boardman announced at a Congressional hearing that Amtrak, in early 2013, would ask manufacturers to submit bids for new Northeast Corridor train sets. This would mitigate the need to order 40 additional Acela Express coaches, part of an earlier plan that would have added two cars to each of the 20 existing trainsets. Relaxed structural strength requirements would theoretically allow prospective bidders to align their submissions more closely to “off-the-shelf” high speed rail train sets, both locomotive-hauled and electric multiple unit, now manufactured for use in other countries.When Amtrak first embarked on its high speed rail program in the early 1990’s, it obtained waivers from the FRA to host Swedish X2000 and German ICE trainsets in successive years for a demonstration project. But, it was precluded from ordering that equipment because neither trainset met the buffer strength requirement. Only a few years earlier, on Jan. 4, 1987, the northbound Colonial had slammed into a Conrail locomotive at 108 mph when Conrail engineer Ricky Gates failed to respond to an absolute stop signal at Gunpow Interlocking near Chase, Md. The collision killed 14 passengers plus the Amtrak engineer and lounge car attendant. The wreck made relaxation of crashworthiness standards unlikely at the time, and eventually Amtrak had to settle on the Acela, built by a consortium of Bombardier and Alstom. Yet it also accelerated development of Amtrak’s Advanced Civil Speed Enforcement System, the pioneering signaling and train control technology that now protects Northeast Corridor operations at tested speeds up to 165-mph.With the enforcement providing protection, Amtrak is asking safety regulators to rely more on crash avoidance than crashworthiness. When seeking bids for it’s next-generation high-speed train sets, Amtrak hopes to avoid a scenario in which a list of potential bidders is limited by an unwillingness to build equipment that is compliant with U.S. regulations when those hurdles don’t exist in other world markets seeking high-speed train sets.
James
Finally! It may save money, too.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
I guess that it means that safety is a negotiable expense.
CSSHEGEWISCH I guess that it means that safety is a negotiable expense.
It has always been. A moving thing is always less safe than a standing thing. As soon as something starts to move, it has kinetic energy that, if misdirected, can break things. You can minimize the risk by decreasing the chances of misdirection or by building things to absorb and deflect the energy. While these are not mutually exclusive, each has diminishing returns. The more you reduce the the chances of misdirection, the less cost-effective the "build tough" becomes.
I can't see a good reason why the NEC couldn't adopt European stds. for crashworthiness. There is plenty of mixed operation there, and although the trains are smaller and lighter, the train that caused all the mess at Chase MD years ago was much lighter than the typical European freight train.
My only question is why it has taken this long for Amtrak to bring it up with the FRA?
This was great news to hear. I remember a thread a few monthes ago where it was stated car fuel efficiency continued to improve while while rail numbers were flat.
Why are we so ashamed to admit other folks around the world know how to run trains and we should take advantage of their experience.
CSSHEGEWISCH guess that it means that safety is a negotiable expense.
I've been on planes where, just before landing, the pilot would announce "You are now about to begin the most dangerous part of your journey. Your drive home."
Any kind of commercial transportation is safer than an automobile.
One wonders how many years the FRA will take to "study" the problem. It ought to be put to the FRA in very simple terms -- "Pick one or more existing designs and approve it with minimum modifications. Do so by X date without fail or your employment will end."
Dakguy201 One wonders how many years the FRA will take to "study" the problem.
One wonders how many years the FRA will take to "study" the problem.
...and how many trainsets they will wreck during the study.
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
Dakguy201One wonders how many years the FRA will take to "study" the problem.
Really good question! It will require them to call their own baby ugly. Might take some top down pressure to get them moving, but it's hard to see that being a priority.
If the FRA drags its feet Amtrak will have to deal with the problem. However, it is better to deal with the problem of a bureaucracy moving slowly in the right direction than with the problem of a bureaucracy not moving at all.
oltmannd Dakguy201One wonders how many years the FRA will take to "study" the problem. Might take some top down pressure to get them moving, but it's hard to see that being a priority.
Might take some top down pressure to get them moving, but it's hard to see that being a priority.
blue streak 1 oltmannd Dakguy201One wonders how many years the FRA will take to "study" the problem. Might take some top down pressure to get them moving, but it's hard to see that being a priority. Yep ---- write the DOT and the White House.
A great idea!
The crashworthiness safety issue in regards to light weight is quite interesting. People have often used the safety issue as an excuse to justify buying their heavy gas guzzler instead of a car with better mileage and lighter weight. There was a perception that lighter cars were less safe than heavy cars since lighter cars were seen as more likely to fold up in a crash.
It would seem quite likely that the safety issue would be raised quickly if and when the FRA came out with a new set of crashworthiness standards based on lighter weight. One only has to remember what happened on the IC electric line in October 1972 to see the basis of this issue.
CSSHEGEWISCH The crashworthiness safety issue in regards to light weight is quite interesting. People have often used the safety issue as an excuse to justify buying their heavy gas guzzler instead of a car with better mileage and lighter weight. There was a perception that lighter cars were less safe than heavy cars since lighter cars were seen as more likely to fold up in a crash. It would seem quite likely that the safety issue would be raised quickly if and when the FRA came out with a new set of crashworthiness standards based on lighter weight. One only has to remember what happened on the IC electric line in October 1972 to see the basis of this issue.
Telescoping rear-enders are the kind of thing that PTC should eliminate - maybe the only thing.... For operation predominantly on the NEC in the PTC world, I'm not sure the buff strength and collision post requirements as they are make much sense.
The only problem with the PTC protection vs crashworthiness is the occasional obstruction on tracks. Whether it be a vehicle ignoring crossing protection, something falling on track ( truck, cargo, etc ) some equipment fouling track but not on track or any other obstruction.
blue streak 1 The only problem with the PTC protection vs crashworthiness is the occasional obstruction on tracks. Whether it be a vehicle ignoring crossing protection, something falling on track ( truck, cargo, etc ) some equipment fouling track but not on track or any other obstruction.
From what I read, Amtrak is seeking it for the NEC only. I suppose this might allowed limited used on the branches or branch routes (hopefully). Not many road Xings
In the US, we let light rail vehicle operate at pretty good speeds over road Xings. We don't worry too much about plowing into things.
Germany has road Xings on their conventional routes and had one disaster on an ICE train at 125 mph. Their reaction wasn't to legislate more buff strength....
There is real money to be saved in energy and purchase price. I think the risk is pretty small if we adopt European stds for our most European route.
oltmannd Germany has road Xings on their conventional routes and had one disaster on an ICE train at 125 mph. Their reaction wasn't to legislate more buff strength.... There is real money to be saved in energy and purchase price. I think the risk is pretty small if we adopt European stds for our most European route.
Are you referring to the Eschede crash of 1998? That was caused by a single metal fatigue crack in one wheel which, when it finally failed, caused the train to derail at a switch. The intense destruction of the train was due to a collision with a road bridge after the derailment. Buffer strength wouldn't have helped much.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.