It is common knowledge that European freight trains are shorter and lighter than their US counterparts and there is quite a bit of mixed freight/passenger operation.
Conventional wisdom holds that our passenger equipment has to be build to tougher standard because it operates in mixed traffic with our long, heavy freight trains. Conventional wisdom also holds that Europe does more to avoid collisions than to survive them. It also holds that since less freight moves by rail in Europe, the chances of collision are lower. I'm no so sure any of these are completely true.
For starters, if you compare the kinetic energy in a typical 80 mph Amtrak train plus a typical US 50 mph freight train with their corresponding European cousins (at 125 and 70 mph), surprisingly, you get just about the same total! (energy goes up with speed squared). The US pair has quite a bit more momentum, and that may be a better indication of need for strength, but I'm not entirely sure that all of a train's momentum and kinetic energy play a roll in crash damage. Much of it, particularly as you move farther away from the point of impact, must get dissipated by friction, draft gear, etc. So, maybe the European standards would be OK to adopt in the US. How good would it be if we could just buy off-the-shelf equipment? It sure would make the equipment procurement process simpler and cheaper. How about some of those nice DMUs they have?
Automatic Train Stop. That's it. That's the safety system in place in most of Germany. Inductive train stop. Not some fancy in cab signalling - predictive stop cousin of PTC, just old-fashioned, 100 year old technology. Reactive, not predictive. Only road in the US with any left is BNSF. A bit on the transcon and a bit on the San Diego line. Maybe we don't need PTC. Maybe something simpler and cheaper would get us there.
Traffic density. They run a few freight trains.... In fact, there is one spot near Frankfurt where they change crews on 300 trains in an 8 hour period overnight. The density of freight train traffic on their typically double track lines is 5 times that of the US (US avg tracks per mainline is 1.5). This leads me to believe that the opportunity for collisions is far greater there than here. There are many more "targets"!
So, if we could get the FRA to relax and allow safety standards similar to Europe (Germany, at least) maybe we could get a whole lot of higher speed rail for a much smaller chunk of change. We could have decently light high speed trainsets that could share first and last miles with commuter rail and freight. We might also be able to have some serious fuel savings rather than the meager claims that Amtrak can currently make.
The biggest safety difference I saw between Germany and the US is road crossings. We have a ton. They have very, very few.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
In the same 180 some odd years two different operating philosopies have developed, two different ways of thinking about what to run on and how to run a railroad. To change either today is difficult. American railroads are built to a heavier guage, as you suggested, Olt, thus we are less likely to think in terms of an avoidence operating system but rather use one that can "take" the blows. That is why transplanting European or even Asian technologies and equipment to US standards has not been easy but expensive and time consuming. Can we change the thinking and attitudes of American railroads, suppliers, governing agencies, or the public? Try as we may, we always seem to stumble over rocks and rivers on our way to the future rather than building up and over.
RIDEWITHMEHENRY is the name for our almost monthly day of riding trains and transit in either the NYCity or Philadelphia areas including all commuter lines, Amtrak, subways, light rail and trolleys, bus and ferries when warranted. No fees, just let us know you want to join the ride and pay your fares. Ask to be on our email list or find us on FB as RIDEWITHMEHENRY (all caps) to get descriptions of each outing.
This is an informative post. Frankly, I don't know enough about the technologies to comment intelligently on the finer points of the discussion. Or even the not so fine points!
I have never been to Europe, except for an emergency plane stop in Frankfurt whilst flying from Australia to London, although I have been to the UK four times, and I lived in Australia for five years. Moreover, I have traveled extensively in Asia, i.e. Japan, Korea, Malasia, etc.
The best solutions for America's transport problems are ones that address our problems (not those in another country) and are best suited to our conditions (not those in another country). What works in another country may not be a good fit for the U.S.
America needs to upgrade its rail passenger system where it makes sense, which is in relatively short, high density corridors where expansion of the airways and highways is cost prohibitive. Whether we need high speed trains, i.e. a top speed of more than 150 mph or an average speed of more than 80 to 100 mph is problematic. I don't think that we do. Amtrak appears to be doing quite nicely with its current schedules between New York and Washington. It claims that it has the majority of the commercial traffic between New York and Washington. With some upgrades to the route, e.g. daylighting the Baltimore tunnels for example, the system could be even better.
U.S. national debt is more than $15 trillion. Unfunded liabilities are more than $55 trillion. State and local debt is another $3 to $5 trillion. Moreover, when set in a larger context, i.e. the debt contagion that is sweeping Europe, which could have drastic consequences for America, the question of how we will pay for high speed rail or other improvements is a paramount concern.
henry6 In the same 180 some odd years two different operating philosopies have developed, two different ways of thinking about what to run on and how to run a railroad. To change either today is difficult. American railroads are built to a heavier guage, as you suggested, Olt, thus we are less likely to think in terms of an avoidence operating system but rather use one that can "take" the blows. That is why transplanting European or even Asian technologies and equipment to US standards has not been easy but expensive and time consuming. Can we change the thinking and attitudes of American railroads, suppliers, governing agencies, or the public? Try as we may, we always seem to stumble over rocks and rivers on our way to the future rather than building up and over.
I think the divergence in operating philosophy occurred more like 50-60 years ago, but we sure have wound up different places. In many, many places in Germany, the railroad is a lot like that in the US - 19th century alignments with similar track speeds. But they can really push trains across their network with lots of mixed operation.
I think there is something each can learn from each other, both on the freight and passenger side of things. I think we may be shooting ourselves in the foot by not allowing some mixed operation of lighter weight equipment and existing freight.
Perhaps the biggest difference is the level of control over turnouts on main tracks. I don't know if all Amtrak routes are 100% CTC controlled; certainly in Canada some of Via's routes include dark territory. But in both our countries there are various spurs with manual switches off the main track. Up here after an unattended cut of cars drifted out of a yard and down the main track with tragic consequences (a freight crew lost their lives) there became a requirement for derails to be added country-wide. I suspect the typical track layout in Europe would have made such an event nearly impossible in the first place.
But as to the initial question of whether we actually need to have such a heavy duty standard, it's more a case of how high is "up". I too suspect our the design criteria are unnecessarily stringent.
PTC is being promoted as making collisions impossible. The reality is that it will only reduce, not eliminate, such events. Nothing will stop a freight that has gone out of control on a steep grade. A train derailing will suddenly foul adjacent tracks. And of course the control logic is only as complete as the geek who programmed it. No matter how idiot-proof you make something, somehow God always seems to come up with a more enterprising idiot!
cx500 Perhaps the biggest difference is the level of control over turnouts on main tracks. I don't know if all Amtrak routes are 100% CTC controlled; certainly in Canada some of Via's routes include dark territory. But in both our countries there are various spurs with manual switches off the main track. Up here after an unattended cut of cars drifted out of a yard and down the main track with tragic consequences (a freight crew lost their lives) there became a requirement for derails to be added country-wide. I suspect the typical track layout in Europe would have made such an event nearly impossible in the first place. But as to the initial question of whether we actually need to have such a heavy duty standard, it's more a case of how high is "up". I too suspect our the design criteria are unnecessarily stringent. PTC is being promoted as making collisions impossible. The reality is that it will only reduce, not eliminate, such events. Nothing will stop a freight that has gone out of control on a steep grade. A train derailing will suddenly foul adjacent tracks. And of course the control logic is only as complete as the geek who programmed it. No matter how idiot-proof you make something, somehow God always seems to come up with a more enterprising idiot!
Good points. The mainlines all appear to be CTC and the controlled sidings (and many yard tracks) are powered and signaled. Freight trains can get off the main (and back) on in short order. Having 8000 HP locomotives on 2200 ton trains helps, too.
Germany and Austria both require no grade crossings if line speed is above 160 kph (100mph), with a handful of grandfathered exceptions in Germany. Based on experience, all self-propelled vehicles (Locomotives and MU vehicles) now must have microprocessor controlled LZB/I80 Train Control equipment on board, no exceptions. This gives a degree of speed control to the ATS (called PZB) system (speed will be restricted unless signal system shows clear), also the ATS enforces the stop, it cannot just be acknowledged). The requirement for the upgraded LZB on-board equipment means that on those lines equipped with the LZB Continuous Train Control (various versions), even those historic locomotives used on the mainline will have full continuous train control.
List of German and Austrian mainlines equipped with full LZB continuous signalling or better
The Wikipedia listing for LZB is very good
LZB Linen
The big divergence of philosophy occurred with the requirement of Europe to almost completely rebuild their entire rail network in the aftermath of WWII's damages. Couple into that the highway network in Europe was also practically destroyed as well as the manufacturing base. With most railroad operations becoming publicly owned - the public decision was made to promote rail passenger transportation to minimize the need for building cars and highways to transport the public - enhanced rail passenger transportation was more economical in the short term than attempting to build roads and vehicles with the countries having seriously damaged manufacturing bases as well as the necessity to utilize the available construction capability to rebuilding housing and other buildings that had been destroyed or seriously damaged during the war.
The US by contrast had a fully vibrant construction and manufacturing base and no facilities that had been destroyed by the war. With a manufacturing element that had to be retooled from war material manufacturing to civilian manufacturing the private industry decision was made to build cars and promote the governmental building of highways for the cars to operate on. The railroads being private industry were left to fend for themselves under the strangling yoke of ICC regulations, which from the viewpoint of 20-20 hindsight we know put them on a path to circling the financial drain 30 years after the end of the war.
oltmannd I think the divergence in operating philosophy occurred more like 50-60 years ago, but we sure have wound up different places. In many, many places in Germany, the railroad is a lot like that in the US - 19th century alignments with similar track speeds. But they can really push trains across their network with lots of mixed operation.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
oltmannd Automatic Train Stop. That's it. That's the safety system in place in most of Germany. Inductive train stop. Not some fancy in cab signalling - predictive stop cousin of PTC, just old-fashioned, 100 year old technology. Reactive, not predictive. Only road in the US with any left is BNSF. A bit on the transcon and a bit on the San Diego line. Maybe we don't need PTC. Maybe something simpler and cheaper would get us there.
Exactly. 100 year old technology. And what percentage of rail lines have it? And what percentage is still "paper railroad" (track warrant/track authority/form D, etc control) ?
Maybe if more of the carriers actually adopted some sort of signal enforcement system on more of their lines during these last 100 years, then the FRA push wouldn't have been so strong. Anytime a railroad has to invest money into something (even if it benefits them long-term), they will have to be drug kicking and screaming.
It's been fun. But it isn't much fun anymore. Signing off for now.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.t fun any
BaltACD The US by contrast had a fully vibrant construction and manufacturing base and no facilities that had been destroyed by the war. With a manufacturing element that had to be retooled from war material manufacturing to civilian manufacturing the private industry decision was made to build cars and promote the governmental building of highways for the cars to operate on. The railroads being private industry were left to fend for themselves under the strangling yoke of ICC regulations, which from the viewpoint of 20-20 hindsight we know put them on a path to circling the financial drain 30 years after the end of the war.
Many railroads in the US were pretty worn out by the war - Paul North posted a WW2 era Pennsy ad about how they were not allowed to deduct deferred maintenance from their taxes (deferment was due to war requirements to handle traffic). Another statistic was that there were over 100,000 industrial fatalities just between December 1941 and June 1944 in the US. The interstate highway system and support for air travel greatly exacerbated that problem, along with dramatic changes in the industrial sector.
Lightweight passenger equipment was given a second go in the 1950's (first go were the original streamliners of 1934 to 1936(?)), but were found to be generally less satisfactory than conventional equipment of the post-WW2 era, with safety being an issue. For example, RDC's were banned from the Surf Line to San Diego after a nasty derailment, though the Santa Fe did try to reduce car weight per passenger with the bi-level cars for the El Capitan.
One other thing to keep in mind - the US was self-sufficient in oil until the late 50's, where Europe and Japan had to import almost all of their oil. This further supported policies in Europe and Japan that discouraged private auto ownership and especially long distance driving.
- Erik
beaulieu Germany and Austria both require no grade crossings if line speed is above 160 kph (100mph), with a handful of grandfathered exceptions in Germany. Based on experience, all self-propelled vehicles (Locomotives and MU vehicles) now must have microprocessor controlled LZB/I80 Train Control equipment on board, no exceptions. This gives a degree of speed control to the ATS (called PZB) system (speed will be restricted unless signal system shows clear), also the ATS enforces the stop, it cannot just be acknowledged). The requirement for the upgraded LZB on-board equipment means that on those lines equipped with the LZB Continuous Train Control (various versions), even those historic locomotives used on the mainline will have full continuous train control. List of German and Austrian mainlines equipped with full LZB continuous signalling or better The Wikipedia listing for LZB is very good LZB Linen
Interesting info! LZB is sort of a inductive cab signalling using cable loops instead of rail as the carrier and transmitting data in packets rather than just static code.
A few thoughts. It seems that it comes pretty close to the "variable block" concept that has been tossed around as a benefit of a full blown PTC system. It would allow line capacity inprovement - at least in places where block spacing is the bottle neck (and not terminal through-put).
I doubt the system would pass muster with the FRA as it relies on redundant computers rather than a "fail safe" scheme. (I hope the FRA has, or will, change how they look at this stuff....)
The system seems to work much like the LSL system that is a cab signal add-on to PRR style cab signalling. LSL is much cruder in it's application of speed enforcement and braking, though. The head of the equipment engineering dept at Conrail was a German during the period LSL was being developed at Conrail. (uh, he is still a German...funky grammar) Now I know where he got the idea.
I was intuitively opposed to the idea of push-pull operation due to safety concerns during collisions until I realized that in the 2008 Chatsworth collision the locomotive was pulling the train.
The idea is always to prevent what the DC Metro calls a "black-black." Trains should never be allowed to touch. As a result we have a new rush for PTC. I guessing that New York City subway-style tripcocks are not suitable for other railroads.
In a related point, I recently visited the U.K. and railfanned several rather high-speed freights on the same tracks as their passenger services with what I consider to be very short headways for freight. Of course the trains were also relatively short compared to USA standards, but no less dangerous.
Rapid-transit style trippers as a form of automatic train stop were long ago determined to be best suited for operations where all (or almost all) of the equipment has the same performance characteristics, such as a rapid transit or light rail operation.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.