FRA
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
The notice is a proposed rulemaking for new standards.
The thing I see here that is interesting is that the new proposed "Tier III" for equipment capable of 220mph makes it illegal to operate that equipment over 125mph if there is not complete grade separation, whereas the less restrictive Tier II appears to permit 150mph with controlled-access crossings.
In my opinion, which could be wrong, this is an attempt to ensure that any of the 'new' projects designed to use high-speed equipment will have to do full grade separation, whether they intend to operate at anywhere near the 'full design speed' of their equipment or even can reach high maxima briefly over 125mph with it. This is clever, but it strikes me as being possibly somewhat akin to denaturing beverage alcohol with methanol, the "cure" being out of proportion to the problem that provoked it.
The alternative interpretation is that much of the "220mph" capable equipment has far lower crash integrity than current FRA standards, and would be dangerous to its crew and passengers at the lower speed. The relaxation of buff and draft standards is associated with this, and it's possible that this is a recognition that grade collisions, as well as collisions with other trains, are more dangerous at high speed in lightweight equipment.
[EDIT: Reviewing the older standards, I believe at least some of the 220mph trains do carry passengers in the end units, and this might have something to do with why the proposed Tier III for them is more restrictive.]
Comment on this proposed rule when you can, and we'll see what makes it into the Final Rule.
RMEThat notice is not "new standards"; it is a proposed rulemaking for new standards.
Corrected to read "proposed."
"The proposed standards are particularly industry-friendly because they borrow from international standards. It shouldn’t surprise you that experienced rail engineers are mostly overseas, working for folks like Siemens, Nippon Sharyo, and Alstom, in places where they can actually, you know, build railroads. Federal rules say heavy infrastructure must be built stateside, but the whole enterprise gets a jump start by borrowing from foreign smarties."
https://www.wired.com/2016/11/feds-finally-make-safety-rules-high-speed-rail/
RMEIn my opinion, which could be wrong, this is an attempt to ensure that any of the 'new' projects designed to use high-speed equipment will have to do full grade separation, whether they intend to operate at anywhere near the 'full design speed' of their equipment or even can reach high maxima briefly over 125mph with it. This is clever, but it strikes me as being possibly somewhat akin to denaturing beverage alcohol with methanol, the "cure" being out of proportion to the problem that provoked it. The alternative interpretation is that much of the "220mph" capable equipment has far lower crash integrity than current FRA standards, and would be dangerous to its crew and passengers at the lower speed. The relaxation of buff and draft standards is associated with this, and it's possible that this is a recognition that grade collisions, as well as collisions with other trains, are more dangerous at high speed in lightweight equipment.
Other countries have been running HSR many million KMs for 30+ years, many with few, if any, fatal crashes.
schlimmOther countries have been running HSR many million KMs for 30+ years, many with few, if any, fatal crashes.
And it has been thoroughly established, over and over, that true HSR vehicles have to be built more to aerospace construction standards than anything that effectively passes the 1940-era buff and draft tests.
On the other hand, when there actually is an accident the European trains often seem to disintegrate into shards of composite and aluminum, more or less as airplanes would at comparable speed, and all the controlled-crush technology in the world isn't likely to help much in a true high-speed collision with even a relatively light road vehicle. The current highest-speed HSR trains make a great production out of their enhanced forward crash bracing, but that won't keep a chassis from getting underneath and derailing the lead truck...
I am still not quite sure how we all survived the TurboTrain collision with a trailer full of frozen meat, let alone the train surviving with relatively minor damage to the nose doors.
True HSR needs a protected RoW for the higher speeds, as is being done on the 110 mph RoW in Illinois. It's about time we enter the 21st century, or at least the late 20th.
schlimmTrue HSR needs a protected RoW for the higher speeds, as is being done on the 110 mph RoW in Illinois. It's about time we enter the 21st century, or at least the late 20th.
Or even the middle 20th -- a great deal of effort was used to close the grade crossings on the PRR from New York to Washington in the '60s, to the point where I was astonished to see one (in Maryland, on the southern end) from my Metroliner trip (I believe it was one of three remaining). Even in the 1990s you could still see where some of the original crossings at grade had run, and how heroic some of the replacement ramps and overhead bridges were.
I thoroughly agree that any service over ... well, over 79mph, really, thinking of the accident in Bourbonnais ... should have true grade separation on all its crossings. Monitored four-gate crossings are fine as far as they go, but (as sometimes noted here) there is no possible technology that permits free enough road access but also assures full safe braking distance for HSR trains in a great many common circumstances.
I also think that at least some of the accidents that occur from vehicles falling off the overhead bridges, or trains running into them as at Escheide, do not really prove that true grade separation isn't practical, or the best approach.
Part of the key is to have 'billyuns and billyuns' of dollars available for all the bridges plus their ongoing care and maintenance. That wasn't available 'back in the day'...
RME Part of the key is to have 'billyuns and billyuns' of dollars available for all the bridges plus their ongoing care and maintenance.
Part of the key is to have 'billyuns and billyuns' of dollars available for all the bridges plus their ongoing care and maintenance.
dakotafred RME Part of the key is to have 'billyuns and billyuns' of dollars available for all the bridges plus their ongoing care and maintenance. Plus appropriate assignment of costs! Cities, counties, farmers and businesses who insist on the promiscuous crossings of old should bear the cost of their new protection -- not the R.R., as the CN was with the EJ&E in Chicagoland. Otherwise, it will be a cold day when HSR can be a paying proposition.
That's largely how it works now. There's a federal program. But why should railroads be exempt from safety upgrades? No one else is.
schlimmBut why should railroads be exempt from safety upgrades? No one else is.
What he's saying - and I have some sympathy for it - is that railroads shouldn't have to bear a penny of the cost to avoid people running road crossings, committing various forms of 'suicide by train', playing chicken in the time-honored James Dean teenager fashion, high-centering or stalling things with or without sloppy permitting, etc. Why shouldn't they be "exempt" from the costs of things they didn't ask for, and shouldn't be responsible for eliminating (if friendly local police and what-all can't get the job done properly with existing crossings)?
Much of the NIMBY opposition to HSR seems to involve the 'Chinese wall' aspect of new zero-crossing construction, where even 'duck-throughs' for small farm equipment apparently carry a high marginal cost. It would be tempting to see if the British self-operated gated crossing approach for ag equipment could be used here (the idea being in part that anyone crossing has to PHONE the dispatcher and get clearance to open the gate and cross, with train speeds then being proactively adjusted as appropriate) but I'm sure there would be "incidents". And even one is far too many.
RMEMuch of the NIMBY opposition to HSR seems to involve the 'Chinese wall' aspect of new zero-crossing construction, where even 'duck-throughs' for small farm equipment apparently carry a high marginal cost. It would be tempting to see if the British self-operated gated crossing approach for ag equipment could be used here (the idea being in part that anyone crossing has to PHONE the dispatcher and get clearance to open the gate and cross, with train speeds then being proactively adjusted as appropriate) but I'm sure there would be "incidents". And even one is far too many.
On the high volume multiple track territories I am familiar with - the farmers would not like the answers they would about crossing the tracks - in most cases that answers would be NO.
Remember, when a Dispatcher says YES, they then become responsible for the safety of the move. For a Dispatcher to be able to safely say YES he would have to have STOP signals displayed on control points that bracket the crossing (and those control points would be several miles from the farm crossing). Having control points set to STOP would frequently end up delaying trains. The farmer would also have to report clear so protection can be released. Additional voice transactions and thought processes - just what the Dispatcher needs (NOT!).
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
RME schlimm But why should railroads be exempt from safety upgrades? No one else is. It would be tempting to see if the British self-operated gated crossing approach for ag equipment could be used here (the idea being in part that anyone crossing has to PHONE the dispatcher and get clearance to open the gate and cross, with train speeds then being proactively adjusted as appropriate) but I'm sure there would be "incidents". And even one is far too many.
schlimm But why should railroads be exempt from safety upgrades? No one else is.
It would be tempting to see if the British self-operated gated crossing approach for ag equipment could be used here (the idea being in part that anyone crossing has to PHONE the dispatcher and get clearance to open the gate and cross, with train speeds then being proactively adjusted as appropriate) but I'm sure there would be "incidents". And even one is far too many.
It's my understanding that Amtrak tried to get this system utilized on the original Michigan line upgrade (it helped that several Amtrak engineering staff worked on the US team that helped Railtrack out of the post Hatfield disaster and were familiar with the system) but FRA would have none of it.
RME Why shouldn't they be "exempt" from the costs of things they didn't ask for, and shouldn't be responsible for eliminating (if friendly local police and what-all can't get the job done properly with existing crossings)?
Thez should not be exempt because freight railroads here have thousands of crossing collisions. The unspoken reason for some is that operations have changed for freight: faster, longer, much much heavier requiring far more feet to stop than the technology for crossings was designed years ago. Yes, there are many fools who break rules at crossings. But the rails have some portion of responsibility, too. That's the way tort law works for most: proportionate responsibilty.
schlimm True HSR needs a protected RoW for the higher speeds, as is being done on the 110 mph RoW in Illinois. It's about time we enter the 21st century, or at least the late 20th.
That argument is made both ways.
We have a high-speed common carrier transportation system in the U.S., namely, domestic airline service. Tremendous R&D is put into improvements in aircraft, engines, and yes, even the air traffic control system and its navigation aids. And yes, dumb gummint decisions also get made there too. But the proponents of that system can and have made the (rather derisive) argument that rail is a "mid 19th century" transportation technology.
Furthermore, domestic air travel in Europe is on a par with their passenger rail passenger-mile volume, with air travel growing.
To the extent that rail can subsitute for air travel in the "corridors under 400 miles in length", let's discuss what needs to be done. I think that policy makers in the U.S. are immune to being shamed that our passenger rail mode is out-of-date. These arguments probably find an audience about people who are not aware of what is taking place here and with our trading partners, which is certainly not the case for participants on this forum.
Among many of us with respect to the "national shame" argument for passenger advocacy, there is a sense of "been there, done that, and can we please move on and talk about the technological issues"? And aren't such shame arguments a form of nationalist jingoism?
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
Population density is the key. Where we have it, let us have HSR to the best of our ability ... even rearrange some of our spending priorities to make sure we have the $. This does not have to be at the expense of Amtrak LD ... which, 20th or 19th century, whichever you like, is well patronized and serves a useful social purpose at a cost of peanuts.
Paul Milenkovic schlimm True HSR needs a protected RoW for the higher speeds, as is being done on the 110 mph RoW in Illinois. It's about time we enter the 21st century, or at least the late 20th. That argument is made both ways. We have a high-speed common carrier transportation system in the U.S., namely, domestic airline service. Tremendous R&D is put into improvements in aircraft, engines, and yes, even the air traffic control system and its navigation aids. And yes, dumb gummint decisions also get made there too. But the proponents of that system can and have made the (rather derisive) argument that rail is a "mid 19th century" transportation technology. Furthermore, domestic air travel in Europe is on a par with their passenger rail passenger-mile volume, with air travel growing. To the extent that rail can subsitute for air travel in the "corridors under 400 miles in length", let's discuss what needs to be done. I think that policy makers in the U.S. are immune to being shamed that our passenger rail mode is out-of-date. These arguments probably find an audience about people who are not aware of what is taking place here and with our trading partners, which is certainly not the case for participants on this forum. Among many of us with respect to the "national shame" argument for passenger advocacy, there is a sense of "been there, done that, and can we please move on and talk about the technological issues"? And aren't such shame arguments a form of nationalist jingoism?
The problem with air in what should become HSR corridors is that the airports are at maximum capacity for their current configurations and most have no way to expand. The Interstates between these O-D pairs are at practical time sensitive capacity. And people just keep on traveling. There needs to be additional traffic capacity on these corridors and HSR is probably the most inexpensive way to provide the additional capacity, even though it's price presents sticker shock. Airports and Interstates hide what they actually cost from the public and Congress very well - if the true costs were publicized one could judge HSR on a equal footing.
Paul Milenkovic We have a high-speed common carrier transportation system in the U.S., namely, domestic airline service. Furthermore, domestic air travel in Europe is on a par with their passenger rail
We have a high-speed common carrier transportation system in the U.S., namely, domestic airline service.
Furthermore, domestic air travel in Europe is on a par with their passenger rail
So you want to put all your eggs into that basket ?
Tell that to those people who has to navigate the I-405 Wedensday morning at 0400 - Thursday morning.
Buslist RME It would be tempting to see if the British self-operated gated crossing approach for ag equipment could be used here (the idea being in part that anyone crossing has to PHONE the dispatcher and get clearance to open the gate and cross, with train speeds then being proactively adjusted as appropriate) but I'm sure there would be "incidents". And even one is far too many. It's my understanding that Amtrak tried to get this system utilized on the original Michigan line upgrade (it helped that several Amtrak engineering staff worked on the US team that helped Railtrack out of the post Hatfield disaster and were familiar with the system) but FRA would have none of it.
RME It would be tempting to see if the British self-operated gated crossing approach for ag equipment could be used here (the idea being in part that anyone crossing has to PHONE the dispatcher and get clearance to open the gate and cross, with train speeds then being proactively adjusted as appropriate) but I'm sure there would be "incidents". And even one is far too many.
This reminds me of a Michigan farm crossing incident I witnessed about 40 years ago when I was working on a seismograph crew. We were working east of Jackson, along the busy PC (ex-MC) double track Detroit-Chicago main line. In addition to multiple Amtrak trains, this was still part of PC's main DET-CHI freight route (west of Jackson it diverted over the "Air Line" to Elkhart). One of the surveyors decided to use a farm crossing. The crossing was just ballast mounded up about level with the top of the rail. He got his Ford pick-up stuck on the tracks. He quickly hopped out, locked in the front axles on both front wheel hubs, jumped back in, put it in 4 wheel drive and drove off. It wasn't all that long before a freight came thru.
Since then, Conrail moved the thru freight off the route, single tracked it, and sold it to the state, who is now fixing up the track for 110 mph ATK operation. I wonder what will happen to the farm crossing.
Paul MilenkovicThat argument is made both ways. We have a high-speed common carrier transportation system in the U.S., namely, domestic airline service. Tremendous R&D is put into improvements in aircraft, engines, and yes, even the air traffic control system and its navigation aids. And yes, dumb gummint decisions also get made there too. But the proponents of that system can and have made the (rather derisive) argument that rail is a "mid 19th century" transportation technology. Furthermore, domestic air travel in Europe is on a par with their passenger rail passenger-mile volume, with air travel growing. To the extent that rail can subsitute for air travel in the "corridors under 400 miles in length", let's discuss what needs to be done. I think that policy makers in the U.S. are immune to being shamed that our passenger rail mode is out-of-date. These arguments probably find an audience about people who are not aware of what is taking place here and with our trading partners, which is certainly not the case for participants on this forum. Among many of us with respect to the "national shame" argument for passenger advocacy, there is a sense of "been there, done that, and can we please move on and talk about the technological issues"? And aren't such shame arguments a form of nationalist jingoism?
Also you will find that on some air routes in the United States the jet aircraft flys SLOWER than it's cruising speed due to congestion, schedule padding, and timing of some flight lanes.........very sad and also inefficient.
Then there is the padding at each terminal. I seem to remember when I was just a kid (late 1970's) a Milwaukee to Twin Cities flight would take a mere 45 min gate to gate. Check the timetables today and see what it takes.......ridiculous.
CMStPnP Also you will find that on some air routes in the United States the jet aircraft flys SLOWER than it's cruising speed due to congestion, schedule padding, and timing of some flight lanes.........very sad and also inefficient. Then there is the padding at each terminal. I seem to remember when I was just a kid (late 1970's) a Milwaukee to Twin Cities flight would take a mere 45 min gate to gate. Check the timetables today and see what it takes.......ridiculous.
Current Southwest schedule time between San Diego and Oakland is 1:30, in the 1970's, schedule time for nonstop flights on PSA was an hour even. In the 1970's, Air Cal could fly OAK to SAN in two hours with stops in SJC AND SNA. Terminals on all four airports were a lot smaller back then.
I do wonder if an electric airliner service between So Cal and No Cal would make more economic sense than 220MPH HSR, especially if they could operate out of smaller airports. The cost of developing such a beast may well end up less than a true 220 MPH line between downtown LA and Downtown SF. OTOH, the HSR would be nice going from San Jose to/from So Cal as every train would likely stop in San Jose.
No matter the form of transport - a scheduler that devises schedules at optimum run times for that form of transport, has only himself to blame when those schedules aren't maintained with consistancy.
No form of transport has its scheduled services operating in a vacuum of being the ONLY vehicle using the necessary resources. As traffic levels on various routes and/or terminals additional traffic must be accounted for by maintainable schedules.
blue streak 1 Paul Milenkovic We have a high-speed common carrier transportation system in the U.S., namely, domestic airline service. Furthermore, domestic air travel in Europe is on a par with their passenger rail So you want to put all your eggs into that basket ? Tell that to those people who has to navigate the I-405 Wedensday morning at 0400 - Thursday morning.
I wouldn't know anything about the difficulties traversing the '405 on the runnup to Thanksgiving, a peak travel time that will stress whatever transportation system or plurality of transportation systems you have in place.
Why? Because I don't have the financial means to live anywhere near the '405. I am a hick of modest means living in the stix, which are served by roadway and airline transportation rather well, thank-you-very-much.
The original posting was on FRA rulemaking regarding buff-strength standards for passenger trains and especially high-speed passenger trains. The FRA is contemplating relaxing the standard for HSR, and that they are not doing this quickly enough is evidence that the transportation system is antiquated and that things are so bad that we can expect an outflow migration of our people like what is happening in Venezuela right now?
A case can be made that the stout construction mandated for passenger trains, especially passenger trains that share track with freight and have grade crossings, should be that toughly built, regardless of what are enlightened trading partners are doing. A case could also be made that such stout construction doesn't make any difference in a wreck at 220 MPH -- if your cab signals and automatic train stop (or your rubber/steel composite wheel) fails, you will have a horrific accident much like with an airliner crash. It is not that a heavier weight higher speed train is a show-stopper (think Acela), but if you are going to go that fast, you may as well build lightweight to get energy and other cost savings, just like they do with jets?
Just like they do with jets. There was that trans-Pacific crew that crumped a Boeing 777 on landing, and some are crediting the stout construction of that Boeing for saving a lot of people. Does the product offering of our enlightened trading partners in the EADS consortium make a jet following similar construction principles of structural redundancy that Boeing is famous for?
Just saying that our transportation system, especially when you take into account us rubes in flyover country, is not in the extreme crisis that it is made out to be, the U.S. is not as backward in relation to its trading partners that it is made out to be, and that the FRA carefully deliberating on how best to advance HSR with adequate safety is not as broken as made out tobe.
"Just saying that our transportation system, especially when you take into account us rubes in flyover country, is not in the extreme crisis that it is made out to be; the U.S. is not as backward in relation to its trading partners that it is made out to be' and that the FRA carefully deliberating on how best to advance HSR with adequate safety is not as broken as made out to be."
Amen Mr. Milenkovic
Rio Grande Valley, CFI,CFII
erikemI do wonder if an electric airliner service between So Cal and No Cal would make more economic sense than 220MPH HSR, especially if they could operate out of smaller airports.
Especially hybrid tiltrotor service. Combine this with the expanded guidance system for the 4200-odd secondary airports that FAA was playing with a decade or so ago (seems like just yesterday!) and the ability for one aircraft to serve multiple sequential route segments ... or skip segments in the absence of traffic ... and with the increasingly-pervasive presence of Internet-scheduled 'ride for hire' last-mile coverage and autonomous shuttle vans.
Be interesting to see just how quickly a 'boosted' electric tiltrotor could reach cruising speed (probably well over 220mph) after STO. And how the charge power and time would compare with 50kV power to a train, per seat-mile.
More amenities technically possible on the train, but modern design seems to be optimizing or prioritizing only the ones an airplane can provide just as well...
Might not have to be a tiltrotor, electric propulsion would adapt it self to motors/props over the entire wingspan. Coupled with full span flaps, this would allow for an impressive coefficient of lift. If going for the tiltrotor approach, I would go for the XC-142A design over the V-22 design.
The best battery technology now, Li-S, is good for 0.45kWH/kg, which is about enough to get a plane from LA to the Bay Area. A puddle jumper approach, e.g. La to Fresno to SF, might be a piece of cake if batteries could be swapped - think hardpoints with pylons on the wing to hold a battery pack the way the B-52 carried the Hound Dogs - although these could be distributed further out on the wing.
My big frustration is that 110MPH on the LOSSAN corridor would generate a lot more traffic than 220 MPH between LA & SF. Especially if this also meant significant speed ups on the Metrolink and Coaster service.
erikemIf going for the tiltrotor approach, I would go for the XC-142A design over the V-22 design.
Absolutely, but I think it's important to keep the nacelle salience independent of the wing salience, so you can tilt the props separately from the wing sections. That was something that the Canadair 'Dynavert' CL-84 did not have, and as I recall sorely missed. I was also thinking (as you were) of multiple props, probably counterrotating, distributed along the span (so the aircraft would be fully capable of regular high-AOA takeoff as well as STOL using vertical lift). Would have been difficult to control all that stuff in the '60s. Piece of cake now.
For folks who don't know the design erikem is referencing:
and here is its page at the Air Force museum.
This does not have the nasty Osprey issues with high disk loading but tips that contact the ground anywhere near normal 'aircraft' nacelle position with the aircraft on the ground (or even flying in ground effect or as an 'ekranoplan')
I also think that having some actual power generation (genset or fuel cell) in addition to the high-energy-density batteries is sensible, even if it is light or "disposable" (cf. the Williams engine in the '80s cruise missiles with its self-lubricated 35-hour bearings) for emergency use. As a potential railroad tie-in, such a device could be used to supply power for sustained emergency track braking over, say, the units of an articulated container underframe set.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.