Federal Railroad Administration Set to Amend Crash Worthiness Rules

[ontheBNSF]

http://seattletransitblog.com/2014/01/03/the-cheaper-brighter-future-of-american-passenger-rail/

The outdated and expensive crash worthiness rules which made passenger rail less economical are set to be phased by 2015. Removing said rules will make both capital and operational costs of passenger rail cheaper. In my view the changes are a step in the right direction and the FRA should phase out other rules as well.

[schlimm]

+1

[NorthWest]

I think that much of the lowering of standards is based on the introduction of PTC, which may not be ready by the end of 2015.

[Overmod]

All I see here is blogs quoting from blogs quoting from other blogs.

Where is a definitive link to what the FRA is considering?  How is it different from, say, a waiver to allow Amtrak to operate some European trainsets on test?

"New rules" being formulated "under the radar"are a wonderful thing to speculate about.  But how is the situation now different from, say, the last time this topic was raised here?  Provably different, that is...

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

Loosening of crashworthiness standards is a public relations disaster waiting to happen.  When you consider the various and sundry safety issues that were raised (rightly and wrongly) in the aftermath of Chatsworth you can envision what will result if such a proposal is made.

[PNWRMNM]

Heavier stronger tank cars for crude oil, but lighter weaker cars for people!

[Buslist]

Having worked with many of the FRA safety folks, and understanding some of their mind set all I can say is "I'll believe it when I see it!" Note FRA using the Metro North derailment (not the over speed incident) as vindication of the current standards, hard to back off after those comments.

[daveklepper]

Any "weakening" will apply ONLY to operations that have a proven reliable PTC in operation.

[Buslist]

ALL FRA goverened passenger operations must be PTC equipped! So sayeth the law.

[Buslist]

BTW the Metro North derailment at Bridgeport, which FRA says vindicates its safety standards would not have been prevented by PTC. Even the NTSB admits that is case.

"The NTSB ruled out the possibility that a safety system called positive train control, a computerized and centrally controlled system of railroad signals intended to prevent train collisions, could have prevented the May 17 accident.
“Because the trains were not traveling on a single track, it is not believed that PTC would have prevented the accident,” the NTSB said in a written statement."

From the WSJ.

[DwightBranch]

Had the Metrolink crash outside of LA involved cars not covered by the FRA 800k lb. buff force standards there would have been close to 100% fatalities. In my opinion, the proposal to lower safety standards is due to a basic American cheapness about public services, and a desire not to pay for dedicated right of ways, rather than a belief that non-compliant equipment can safely interact with freight trains.

[daveklepper]

Again, I believe the MN derailment would not have occured if management had not made the totally incrediciulous decision not to install alerters in cabcars, only in locos.

[Overmod]

daveklepper

Again, I believe the MN derailment would not have occured if management had not made the totally crediciulous decision not to install alerters in cabcars, only in locos.

Dave, that is a magnificent portmanteau word -- but wouldn't it better be 'incrediculous'?

I don't think alerters would have helped that situation; in fact, I am of the opinion that alerters in general are lousy approaches using wack 'science' that probably cause more problems than they solve.  That isn't to say that a properly-designed vigilance system is a bad thing -- just that a buzzer or a synthesized voice clip in place of a buzzer is not properly-designed, either for the conditions or for 'fitness to purpose'.

(An example of a good and time-tested 'vigilance system' that works is the crew's joint responsibility to call all signals... you can use that as an interaction model on which to build one kind of 'automatic' system.  There are others.  They need not be particularly complex.  But mere alerter/forestaller/penalty devices were a mistake in 1920, and they are a worse mistake today...  ;-} )

[daveklepper]

Corrected.   I thought I had written incredulous.  But why would it not have worked?  The man dozed off.

Rapid transit cars, one-man safety streetcars, all have some kind of "dead man's pedal" or pressure applied master controller, so that if the operator dozes, brakes apply.   They would not have continued to be in use for so many years, more than ninety, if they did not work.

[Deggesty]

"portmanteau word" Overmod, I have the impression that you, too, are familiar with Charles Lutwidge Dodgson.

[oltmannd]

daveklepper

But why would it not have worked?  The man dozed off.

Rapid transit cars, one-man safety streetcars, all have some kind of "dead man's pedal" or pressure applied master controller, so that if the operator dozes, brakes apply.   They would not have continued to be in use for so many years, more than ninety, if they did not work.

I actually watched the alertor work, in one case.   Was riding an LSL test train with a pretty good engineer running, but it was at night and dark and warm and he got sleepy.  

We had just replaced the cab signal whistle with a beeper.  Locomotive already had an alerter with it's flashing light and beeper.  The LSL alarm had another, different alarm tone of it's own.  

I watched as his head bobbed and sunk to his chest.  Seconds later,   "BEEEEP"  The alertor went off.  He woke up with a start, slammed the cab signal acknowledger pedal and glanced up a the display as he began to whack away feeling for the alertor whisker switch.  On the third try, he hit it and the beeping stopped.  He sat up straight.  Nap time was over!