thanks for all the discussion i have been busy working at the coal mine for the past week and read the all the opinions as to why america could not run high ( medium ) speed D M U sets loading gauge wrong... no money to pay for them ( bring the troops home for a week... that should cover it ) insurence too high etc etc etc.... in australia the australian version ,s of the british HST 125 have been running daily 600 miles north , south and west from sydney for approx 30 years and no accidents... why would the D M U ,s have to be built stronger the freight cars in australia are built to american design ( generally ) so whats the problem ????????????
Falcon48 Railway Man Falcon48 If I were the manager of a short line and the government came out with a mandate that I had to install PTC because I handled a few carloads ot TIH a year (or PIH, depending on your preference in acronymns, I wouldn't install PTC and I wouldn't petition STB for a waiver. I would simply embargo the TIH traffic on the grounds that government safety regulations prohibit me from handling it on my railroad (which fits neatly into one of the acknowledged exceptions to the common carrier obligation). I suppose someone might try to argue that I was somehow required to make a multimillion dollar expenditure so that I could keep handling this stuff, but the statutory common carrier obligation only applies to "reasonable"requests for service. I seriously doubt that STB would take the position that it's "reasonable" to expect a short line to handle TIH if it means that the short line has to bankrupt itself on PTC. And the short line manager might do that, and might prevail. [snip] RWM [snip] Now for the substantive part. I'm not opining on what government policy on requiring PTC on short lines with TIH traffic ought to be. Rather, my comment went to what a short line's response is likely to be if such a requirement were imposed. I think it's very likely that most short lines would respond by simply refusing to handle TIH traffic - after all, what other choice do they really have?. Further, I think the odds of a short line prevailing in a refusal to provide TIH service rather than installing PTC for a few TIH (or PIH) shipments a year are excellent. There's no issue about STB picking a fight with the adminstration - I'm not aware that the administration has taken any position one way or another about whether the government should require a cash strapped shortline to bankrupt itself installing PTC to handle a few carloads of TIH traffic as opposed to refusing to handle the traffic. And the position of a short line in this scenario is very sympathetic. Unless the party demanding to transport the TIH is willing to front the money for the PTC installation, where's the short line going to get it - from its other shippers? In principle, this is no different than a shipper demanding transportation of a high/wide shipment that doesn't fit under a short line's highway bridges. Is the short line required to rebuild the bridges in order to handle the shipment (particularly if the shipper isn't willing to front the necessary funds)? Of course not. [snip]
Railway Man Falcon48 If I were the manager of a short line and the government came out with a mandate that I had to install PTC because I handled a few carloads ot TIH a year (or PIH, depending on your preference in acronymns, I wouldn't install PTC and I wouldn't petition STB for a waiver. I would simply embargo the TIH traffic on the grounds that government safety regulations prohibit me from handling it on my railroad (which fits neatly into one of the acknowledged exceptions to the common carrier obligation). I suppose someone might try to argue that I was somehow required to make a multimillion dollar expenditure so that I could keep handling this stuff, but the statutory common carrier obligation only applies to "reasonable"requests for service. I seriously doubt that STB would take the position that it's "reasonable" to expect a short line to handle TIH if it means that the short line has to bankrupt itself on PTC. And the short line manager might do that, and might prevail. [snip] RWM
Falcon48 If I were the manager of a short line and the government came out with a mandate that I had to install PTC because I handled a few carloads ot TIH a year (or PIH, depending on your preference in acronymns, I wouldn't install PTC and I wouldn't petition STB for a waiver. I would simply embargo the TIH traffic on the grounds that government safety regulations prohibit me from handling it on my railroad (which fits neatly into one of the acknowledged exceptions to the common carrier obligation). I suppose someone might try to argue that I was somehow required to make a multimillion dollar expenditure so that I could keep handling this stuff, but the statutory common carrier obligation only applies to "reasonable"requests for service. I seriously doubt that STB would take the position that it's "reasonable" to expect a short line to handle TIH if it means that the short line has to bankrupt itself on PTC.
And the short line manager might do that, and might prevail. [snip]
RWM
[snip] Now for the substantive part. I'm not opining on what government policy on requiring PTC on short lines with TIH traffic ought to be. Rather, my comment went to what a short line's response is likely to be if such a requirement were imposed. I think it's very likely that most short lines would respond by simply refusing to handle TIH traffic - after all, what other choice do they really have?. Further, I think the odds of a short line prevailing in a refusal to provide TIH service rather than installing PTC for a few TIH (or PIH) shipments a year are excellent. There's no issue about STB picking a fight with the adminstration - I'm not aware that the administration has taken any position one way or another about whether the government should require a cash strapped shortline to bankrupt itself installing PTC to handle a few carloads of TIH traffic as opposed to refusing to handle the traffic. And the position of a short line in this scenario is very sympathetic. Unless the party demanding to transport the TIH is willing to front the money for the PTC installation, where's the short line going to get it - from its other shippers? In principle, this is no different than a shipper demanding transportation of a high/wide shipment that doesn't fit under a short line's highway bridges. Is the short line required to rebuild the bridges in order to handle the shipment (particularly if the shipper isn't willing to front the necessary funds)? Of course not.
[snip]
This discussion (excerpts above) reminds me of the stories about the legendary General Manager of the Eureka & Palisade RR, John E. Sexton, in the 1925 - 1927 time frame, and his guerilla skirmishes with the bureaucracies of the U.S. Post Office, the SP, and the Nevada Railroad Commission. See Railroads of Nevada and Eastern California, David F. Myrick, pp. 107 - 110. There was quite a write-up in the NMRA Bulletin sometime in the 1970s - 1980s time frame - it's fair to say that Sexton would be a kind of counter-culture hero to the anti-government conservative set. I just saw something on-line about a book of some kind titled "A Dinkey to Call Our Own" IIRC, but I don't know anything more about that.
- Paul North.
EDIT: The last item I referenced above now does not appear to be a book, but instead a copy of a magazine article, supplemented with some index and/ or geneaology information about the persons, places, and things mentioned in the article. The title of the article is "Our Own Dinky Railroad", by Edgar Web - date and original magazine not apparent or stated. For more information see the seller's website at: (note: I have no affiliation with and do not endorse this item - it is linked here merely "For Your Information" only)
http://www.ioffer.com/i/EUREKA-PALISADE-NARROW-GUAGE-RAILROAD-Genealogy-89687071
See also Bonanza Railroads, Gilbert H. Kneiss, Revised Edition, published by Stanford University Press, Stanford, Calif., Date ?, ISBN 080472413X, 9780804724135, Chapter IV - Iron Rails and Lead Pigs (Eureka & Palisade Railroad), pp. 79-101, esp. pp. 96-100.
Falcon48With respect to your comment about the protection provided by an alias on a forum, I take it you are still actively employed in the railroad industry (many of your posts suggest as much, since they display a knowledge of rail strategy and economics that most railfans don't have). I, on the other hand, have the luxury of being retired from the industry (my website actively picked up noticeably once that happy event occurred). So, while I don't particularly want to advertise myself, I'm not really that worried about my cover being blown anymore. The joys of old age.
With respect to your comment about the protection provided by an alias on a forum, I take it you are still actively employed in the railroad industry (many of your posts suggest as much, since they display a knowledge of rail strategy and economics that most railfans don't have). I, on the other hand, have the luxury of being retired from the industry (my website actively picked up noticeably once that happy event occurred). So, while I don't particularly want to advertise myself, I'm not really that worried about my cover being blown anymore. The joys of old age.
I'm envious. No disrespect intended.
Railway Man Falcon48 If I were the manager of a short line and the government came out with a mandate that I had to install PTC because I handled a few carloads ot TIH a year (or PIH, depending on your preference in acronymns, I wouldn't install PTC and I wouldn't petition STB for a waiver. I would simply embargo the TIH traffic on the grounds that government safety regulations prohibit me from handling it on my railroad (which fits neatly into one of the acknowledged exceptions to the common carrier obligation). I suppose someone might try to argue that I was somehow required to make a multimillion dollar expenditure so that I could keep handling this stuff, but the statutory common carrier obligation only applies to "reasonable"requests for service. I seriously doubt that STB would take the position that it's "reasonable" to expect a short line to handle TIH if it means that the short line has to bankrupt itself on PTC. And the short line manager might do that, and might prevail. I try to guess what people, railroads, and agencies will do, not prescribe what they ought to to. Telling some people what they ought to do could get me into trouble with other people (I have very limited faith in the protection afforded by an alias on a forum). And more important, I don't think it's my place or prerogative to pronounce what policy ought to be because that enters into the political realm and leaves the technical realm. I'm like a doctor who would recommend quitting smoking if you first told me your goal was a long healthy life, whereas if you came into the room and announced that your goal was merely to get your ingrown toenail removed and that's it, I'd provide just that service and keep my mouth shut about your other choices. In other words, I'm not one who will be agreeing or disagreeing with you on what policy ought to be, only the guy who talks about what policy is, what it might be, and the consequences and implications of both. I have no idea if the STB would choose to pick a fight with the administration over PTC and the common-carrier obligation. In fact, I still have no idea what the final rule will look like after RSAC finishes its process and the FRA does what it does. I am only making the prediction that the rule will be far-reaching, not restrictive, and that the STB as I know them and work with them will probably not disagree. Could I be wrong? Sure! But I'm going to plan for the worst case. On the other hand, the STB might uses this to just push the whole common-carrier, chemical-carrying hot potato back into the hands of Congress and let it figure out how to resolve it. It was TIH but, then, possibly just to annoy us, the DOT and FRA started using PIH. I've been training myself to quit using TIH. RWM
If I were the manager of a short line and the government came out with a mandate that I had to install PTC because I handled a few carloads ot TIH a year (or PIH, depending on your preference in acronymns, I wouldn't install PTC and I wouldn't petition STB for a waiver. I would simply embargo the TIH traffic on the grounds that government safety regulations prohibit me from handling it on my railroad (which fits neatly into one of the acknowledged exceptions to the common carrier obligation). I suppose someone might try to argue that I was somehow required to make a multimillion dollar expenditure so that I could keep handling this stuff, but the statutory common carrier obligation only applies to "reasonable"requests for service. I seriously doubt that STB would take the position that it's "reasonable" to expect a short line to handle TIH if it means that the short line has to bankrupt itself on PTC.
And the short line manager might do that, and might prevail.
I try to guess what people, railroads, and agencies will do, not prescribe what they ought to to. Telling some people what they ought to do could get me into trouble with other people (I have very limited faith in the protection afforded by an alias on a forum). And more important, I don't think it's my place or prerogative to pronounce what policy ought to be because that enters into the political realm and leaves the technical realm. I'm like a doctor who would recommend quitting smoking if you first told me your goal was a long healthy life, whereas if you came into the room and announced that your goal was merely to get your ingrown toenail removed and that's it, I'd provide just that service and keep my mouth shut about your other choices. In other words, I'm not one who will be agreeing or disagreeing with you on what policy ought to be, only the guy who talks about what policy is, what it might be, and the consequences and implications of both.
I have no idea if the STB would choose to pick a fight with the administration over PTC and the common-carrier obligation. In fact, I still have no idea what the final rule will look like after RSAC finishes its process and the FRA does what it does. I am only making the prediction that the rule will be far-reaching, not restrictive, and that the STB as I know them and work with them will probably not disagree. Could I be wrong? Sure! But I'm going to plan for the worst case. On the other hand, the STB might uses this to just push the whole common-carrier, chemical-carrying hot potato back into the hands of Congress and let it figure out how to resolve it.
It was TIH but, then, possibly just to annoy us, the DOT and FRA started using PIH. I've been training myself to quit using TIH.
Now for the substantive part. I'm not opining on what government policy on requiring PTC on short lines with TIH traffic ought to be. Rather, my comment went to what a short line's response is likely to be if such a requirement were imposed. I think it's very likely that most short lines would respond by simply refusing to handle TIH traffic - after all, what other choice do they really have?. Further, I think the odds of a short line prevailing in a refusal to provide TIH service rather than installing PTC for a few TIH (or PIH) shipments a year are excellent. There's no issue about STB picking a fight with the adminstration - I'm not aware that the administration has taken any position one way or another about whether the government should require a cash strapped shortline to bankrupt itself installing PTC to handle a few carloads of TIH traffic as opposed to refusing to handle the traffic. And the position of a short line in this scenario is very sympathetic. Unless the party demanding to transport the TIH is willing to front the money for the PTC installation, where's the short line going to get it - from its other shippers? In principle, this is no different than a shipper demanding transportation of a high/wide shipment that doesn't fit under a short line's highway bridges. Is the short line required to rebuild the bridges in order to handle the shipment (particularly if the shipper isn't willing to front the necessary funds)? Of course not.
"TIH" = "Toxic Inhalation Hazard". It seems to be mainly on RR and transportation-related pages.
Railway Man A.K. CummingsRailway Man — Interesting indeed. Question: What about the eight-mile short line that serves one cannery with a single SW9 that makes five trips a week with six cars at a time to the CSX interchange? I mean, is the industry seriously concerned the feds would take the clearly asinine step of requiring installation of PTC there? Not trying to be argumentative or anything, and I'd hate to underestimate the lunacy that can come from the government process. But, seriously. This sort of thing always reminds me of the Simpsons. There's a character that show that appears every time a public policy issue is being debated. Her one single line, spoken in a freaked-out tone of voice, is: "Won't somebody PLEASE think about the CHILDREN??!!" Andy Cummings Associate Editor TRAINS Magazine Waukesha, Wis. If the SW9 is hauling PIH to the cannery, and the line passes through your typical small Wisconsin town with an elementary school, a church, and a hardware store, like a Revell catalog, all within earshot of the air horn, I doubt you will find a majority in that town considering it asinine. If the public says, "This is the safety level we require," the public, being a democracy, has the right to demand that. The public could demand all the locomotives be painted purple with pink polka-dots, if it wanted. And then, the public lives with the consequences of their decisions. The government isn't the lunacy, the government is the receptacle the lunacy is placed into. Government isn't Martians imposing their will on us from some other planet, it's people we elect, lobbyists we hire, petitions we sign. If you want to see lunacy, look at the ballot intiatives concocted by citizens that get onto the state ballots each year simply by obtaining enough signatures at a folding table in front of the Safeways. The Simpsons' character is a parody of the public. Speaking of your example, if the PTC ruling is deemed to extend to everything that hauls PIH -- and I don't see why it won't be -- then the short line will have to petition for a waiver of the common-carrier requirement to accept PIH, or the public will have to pay for the PTC, because the shipper won't and the short line's owners can't afford it. The shippers of PIH will work very hard to make sure the public and the rest of the shippers pay for as much as possible, because they can't afford it on their own for all the non-passenger, with-PIH PTC lines, and neither do they want to exit their businesses gracefully into the night. You can choose to do battle on the merits of the law (which is what you're recommending) or do battle on the flanks (which is what shippers will do). Shippers aren't going to stand up and say "PTC is not needed to keep you safe in Anyburg from our ammonia and chlorine shipments." They'll instead tacitly not disagree at least in public with the need, and then work Washington to make sure someone else pays for it. RWM
A.K. CummingsRailway Man — Interesting indeed. Question: What about the eight-mile short line that serves one cannery with a single SW9 that makes five trips a week with six cars at a time to the CSX interchange? I mean, is the industry seriously concerned the feds would take the clearly asinine step of requiring installation of PTC there? Not trying to be argumentative or anything, and I'd hate to underestimate the lunacy that can come from the government process. But, seriously. This sort of thing always reminds me of the Simpsons. There's a character that show that appears every time a public policy issue is being debated. Her one single line, spoken in a freaked-out tone of voice, is: "Won't somebody PLEASE think about the CHILDREN??!!" Andy Cummings Associate Editor TRAINS Magazine Waukesha, Wis.
If the SW9 is hauling PIH to the cannery, and the line passes through your typical small Wisconsin town with an elementary school, a church, and a hardware store, like a Revell catalog, all within earshot of the air horn, I doubt you will find a majority in that town considering it asinine. If the public says, "This is the safety level we require," the public, being a democracy, has the right to demand that. The public could demand all the locomotives be painted purple with pink polka-dots, if it wanted. And then, the public lives with the consequences of their decisions.
The government isn't the lunacy, the government is the receptacle the lunacy is placed into. Government isn't Martians imposing their will on us from some other planet, it's people we elect, lobbyists we hire, petitions we sign. If you want to see lunacy, look at the ballot intiatives concocted by citizens that get onto the state ballots each year simply by obtaining enough signatures at a folding table in front of the Safeways. The Simpsons' character is a parody of the public.
Speaking of your example, if the PTC ruling is deemed to extend to everything that hauls PIH -- and I don't see why it won't be -- then the short line will have to petition for a waiver of the common-carrier requirement to accept PIH, or the public will have to pay for the PTC, because the shipper won't and the short line's owners can't afford it. The shippers of PIH will work very hard to make sure the public and the rest of the shippers pay for as much as possible, because they can't afford it on their own for all the non-passenger, with-PIH PTC lines, and neither do they want to exit their businesses gracefully into the night. You can choose to do battle on the merits of the law (which is what you're recommending) or do battle on the flanks (which is what shippers will do). Shippers aren't going to stand up and say "PTC is not needed to keep you safe in Anyburg from our ammonia and chlorine shipments." They'll instead tacitly not disagree at least in public with the need, and then work Washington to make sure someone else pays for it.
RWM: One of the things you did not mention is property taxes. If the additional trackage is owned by some government entity but controlled and operated by the appropriate RR then the capacity increase would not cause additional taxes. If signaling upgrades are also taxed the full bidirectional signaling and PTC could also be owned by the government. I'm thinking especially about the New York state property tax situation which speeded up the retirement of the 4 track water level route and caused NYC to slow their passengerf trains probably hastening NYC train's demise since interstate roads could beat complete with better travel times at the slower passenger speeds.
To RWM's 1st paragraph (above): "See, there isn't much new under the sun - the more things change, the more they remain the same." And like I said about a week ago, now we know why the PRR & NYC did that 4-track thing from NYC to Chicago.
To RWM's 2nd para: Oh - yeah - ditto the above.
oltmanndWhat I've always imagined would work w.r.t. mixed "higher speed" passenger and freight along existing frt ROW would be an additional single track, primarily for passenger, but connected to the adjacent, existing frt tracks at some intervals. The connection would allow meets between the opposing passenger trains, allow for maintenance, and even provide opportunity for the frt road to run higher speed intermodal trains. The track would be controlled by the frt road as part of their network. It would allow for curve realignment and selective grade crossing elimination, as well. I figure you'd probably be able to successfully mix 110 mph passenger with std frt traffic with this arrangement. How about Cleveland to Chicago as the first, best place to try it out?
What I've always imagined would work w.r.t. mixed "higher speed" passenger and freight along existing frt ROW would be an additional single track, primarily for passenger, but connected to the adjacent, existing frt tracks at some intervals. The connection would allow meets between the opposing passenger trains, allow for maintenance, and even provide opportunity for the frt road to run higher speed intermodal trains.
The track would be controlled by the frt road as part of their network. It would allow for curve realignment and selective grade crossing elimination, as well.
I figure you'd probably be able to successfully mix 110 mph passenger with std frt traffic with this arrangement.
How about Cleveland to Chicago as the first, best place to try it out?
Using "standard" passenger equipment, I agree that it's technically and economically feasible, at 110. 150? That's a different matter. I'm hoping we will run some RTC models later this year to see how such a 110-mph freight/passenger scenario works out, but speaking with my dispatcher's green eyeshade on, 99% of the time I believe it will operate just like it was the NYC and this was 1922, with high-wheel Atlantics flashing past on the passenger tracks and 2-8-0 hogs toiling on the freight tracks.
A bigger question is what would be the outcome of the possibly tendentious negotiations between the passenger and freight railroads over who controls what, pays for what, rents what, uses what, accepts liability for what, ad infinitum. Some of the passenger people I know are a little more creative than others. On the one hand I'm excited because things are suddenly changing fast, and on the other I'm filled with dread that once again we've got the cart before the horse -- decisions will be made, a policy will be created later to justify the decisions, and we'll all be living with less-than-ideal outcomes for a long, long time. There are people who will stick their head in the sand and hope it all goes away, people who will seek to control the outcome though they have no stake in the outcome and just like having power drip from their fingers, people who can actually solve the problems but can't get a ticket to the show because they've spent their lives seeking knowledge instead of seeking power, and people who are just cynically looking for opportunity. In other words, the U.S. at its finest.
Like the old curse says, "May you live in interesting times."
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
HarveyK400Nowhere did I advocate non-compliant fast or high-speed passenger equipment. The reality is that, just as in France and elsewhere, parts of high speed routes will be on existing lines with mixed traffic. They have done well with sophisticated signaling that enforces driver compliance. PTC would be even better; but I'm not holding my breath on any relaxation of structural requirements.As for liability, I acknowledge there is a slight risk of a derailment on a parallel track. This unwelcome cost even on freight-only lines can be minimized with good inspection and maintenance, and defect detection equipment. The advantage is a cost savings from flexibility in operation and better utilization of infrastructure - from tracks to grade separation.I fully agree that crush zones and side impact protection need to be incorporated in future passenger equipment; otherwise passengers will continue to be exposed to death or serious injury by being thrown violently in a steel box. By the way, the Talgo baggage van end unit was needed initially for coupling to a separate locomotive; and this practice persists for trains on secondary routes in Spain as well as the Pacific Northwest. The crush zone it affords is a bonus.150 mph operation is a possibility for lines that do not require significant curve reduction and do not have the market base to support more aggressive improvements and electrification for 200 mph service on a fully segregated HSR route segment. Many existing routes with a low market base may not support full grade separation and be limited to 110 mph. Other routes only may be practical with tilt suspension just to achieve 80 mph, let alone 110 mph with curve restrictions. These all expand public support through the reach and relevance of rail passenger services.
Nowhere did I advocate non-compliant fast or high-speed passenger equipment. The reality is that, just as in France and elsewhere, parts of high speed routes will be on existing lines with mixed traffic. They have done well with sophisticated signaling that enforces driver compliance. PTC would be even better; but I'm not holding my breath on any relaxation of structural requirements.
As for liability, I acknowledge there is a slight risk of a derailment on a parallel track. This unwelcome cost even on freight-only lines can be minimized with good inspection and maintenance, and defect detection equipment. The advantage is a cost savings from flexibility in operation and better utilization of infrastructure - from tracks to grade separation.
I fully agree that crush zones and side impact protection need to be incorporated in future passenger equipment; otherwise passengers will continue to be exposed to death or serious injury by being thrown violently in a steel box. By the way, the Talgo baggage van end unit was needed initially for coupling to a separate locomotive; and this practice persists for trains on secondary routes in Spain as well as the Pacific Northwest. The crush zone it affords is a bonus.
150 mph operation is a possibility for lines that do not require significant curve reduction and do not have the market base to support more aggressive improvements and electrification for 200 mph service on a fully segregated HSR route segment. Many existing routes with a low market base may not support full grade separation and be limited to 110 mph. Other routes only may be practical with tilt suspension just to achieve 80 mph, let alone 110 mph with curve restrictions. These all expand public support through the reach and relevance of rail passenger services.
Harvey, I wanted to acknowledge that I read this since you took the time to write it, but for me to reply further on some of your points might enter into ethics and non-disclosure agreement territory for me.
HarveyK400If PTC is installed for passenger service on a line with more than 5 million annual gross freight tons, what's the difference (train control-wise) whether passenger trains are limited to 79 mph or are allowed up to 150 mph? In my opinion, the cost should be shared and pro-rated on a factored per car formula.
If PTC is installed for passenger service on a line with more than 5 million annual gross freight tons, what's the difference (train control-wise) whether passenger trains are limited to 79 mph or are allowed up to 150 mph? In my opinion, the cost should be shared and pro-rated on a factored per car formula.
Not quite sure I understand the question, so might I reframe it? I think what you're asking is this:
"Is it technically feasible to implement a PTC system that meets FRA regulations for a 79 mph railroad and also obtain 150 mph operation without significant cost increases?"
Answer is, I haven't a clue because there's no implementation rules yet. Intuition says, "No, it's a biiiig number."
In my opinion, speaking from experience and a lot of hallway discussions in the last few months with the engineering, operating, government affairs, NRPC officers, and marketing people, and with the corridor operators and commuter operators, a 150-mph high-speed passenger railroad and a freight railroad are only marginally economically feasible on the same main track at present, using U.S. axle loading, loading gauge, trailing tonnage, pricing, car supply, market economics for freight transportation, and car maintenance standards. It's barely feasible to mix passenger and freight on the NEC right now, and that's only with the benefit of a lot of grandfathered exceptions to all sorts of rules and regulations, and that's with a pretty limited, most temporally separated, freight presence. I don't know anyone who is proposing to mix the two except in some extremely restricted, temporally separated instances, and everyone else is dubious they know what they're in for.
And then ... there's the liability issue. How much will it cost to insure for the claim for a 150-mph trainset using lightweight non-FRA compliant car construction full of 350 high-paid, high-remainder-of-life-earnings businessmen and women that runs into a centerbeam or two that wanders into its path?
I don't think many of us are building a mental picture looking like the NEC when we envision new, modern, 21st Century 150-mph railways in the U.S., but something more like Spain's AVE.
A.K. CummingsRailway Man — Of course, I agree with you 100 percent on members of the public being the reason for the restrictions that occur. It's very much a double-edged sword. At times it influences public policy positively, at others negatively. I'm interested to hear your thoughts on the STB and their interaction with the public. The fact that the board approved both the DM&E coal project and the CN-EJ&E merger in the face of stiff public opposition is sort of a reverse of the paradigm you describe. Is that unique to the STB? How is it that they stand firm in the face of public opposition? And aren't there examples of lobbyists successfully countering this phenomenon across a wide variety of industries? Part of the problem here is that one can never completely eliminate risk. GCOR 1.1.1 states that one should always take the safest course. I always felt I was in violation of that rule every time I took a call. By leaving the house, I risk getting hit by a drunk driver. By climbing on a locomotive and staying on board as it goes into motion, I risk a truck driver with a load of gasoline stalling on a crossing ahead of me and getting fried. Same logic goes with everyday life, for that matter. If you stay in bed forever, you'll starve to death. But if you get up and go to the store, you risk getting run down while crossing the road. Risk will always be there. I guess public policy, in cases like these, is about deciding what's acceptable risk and what's not. If the public always errs on the side of too little risk, how will business even get done in the future? Best, Andy Cummings Associate Editor TRAINS Magazine Waukesha, Wis.
For reasons of ethics I can't comment on any recent STB decisions.
If you step back, and look at how the machinery of the STB and public policy works, the outcomes are rarely a surprise. The STB is charged (by the ICC Termination Act) with maintaining and advancing the economic health of the national rail system. It can disallow a merger, acquisition, new construction, or abandonment only on merits, that is, it fails to advance the economic health of the national rail system. Secondarily, the STB is charged with performing an Environmental Impact assessment (either an EI Statement or EI Report) of an action before it per the requirements of the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA), and if environmental effects occur that meet NEPA's tests for being harmful, it shall order the applicant to mitigate those effects in accordance with NEPA as a condition of allowing the action.
Mergers can be successfully attacked on two grounds only: one, on merits; two, an EIS or EIR having been prepared not in accordance with NEPA. The mitigations that may be required by an EIS or EIR are defined in NEPA. That's the railway and environmental law as Congress wrote it, and if the people want a different railway or environmental law, they can will Congress to write it, too. And regardless of which law it is, the people enjoy the consequences.
Let me repeat, because it's easy to gloss, that Congress's intent when it wrote the ICC Termination Act was to ensure the national rail system is economically viable and healthy. As far as a "national transportation policy" for railways exists, that's what we have.
While all exposure and risk cannot be eliminated, reasonable measures such as PTC can be applied. The allowance of wiggle room around 5 million AGT keeps the door open for appeal for special and mitigating circumstances.
Nobody, other than suicides, ever planned on being in a collision; yet they happen all too frequently on freight as well as passenger lines and people die.
Dear Acronym Police:
You are over-ruled on the context of a discussion of railroads.
Case dismissed.
RMW, you are free to post.
RWM -
OK, but note that it's not "stand" - it's "5 posts".
But I can't decide if it would be more painful to you (or us) if you had to hold back and suppress your next 5 posts - kind of like a "time-out" sitting in the penalty box for an infraction during an ice hockey game - or if you have to write 5 more posts - kind of like Bart Simpson having to write "I will not [insert favorite one here]" 100 times on the blackboard after school . . .
[I'm a little punchy from checking the details of survey property descriptions this afternoon . . . ]
Paul_D_North_Jr 5-yard post penalty on RWM for undefined use of a non-railroad acronym ! - The AP* * - Acronym Police From http://acronyms.thefreedictionary.com/Poison+Inhalation+Hazard [emphasis added - PDN] Acronym Definition PIH Partners in Health (Boston, MA) PIH Pregnancy-Induced Hypertension (medical) PIH Presbyterian Intercommunity Hospital (Whittier, CA) PIH Permanent Income Hypothesis PIH Poison Inhalation Hazard PIH Prolactin Inhibiting Hormone PIH Plug-In Hybrid (vehicle) PIH Pocatello, ID, USA (Airport Code) PIH Provinciale Industriële Hogeschool PIH Pan American Institute of Highways PIH Pin in Hole (circuit card assembly process) acr()
5-yard post penalty on RWM for undefined use of a non-railroad acronym !
- The AP*
* - Acronym Police
From http://acronyms.thefreedictionary.com/Poison+Inhalation+Hazard [emphasis added - PDN]
acr()
It is too a railroad acronym! Shows up in the CFRs that regulate railroad safety.
But I accept the penalty. Where do I have to stand?
TrainManTyA.K. CummingsRailway Man — Interesting indeed. Question: What about the eight-mile short line that serves one cannery with a single SW9 that makes five trips a week with six cars at a time to the CSX interchange?Actually, I have another question about that... Do lines with only one train operating on them need PTC too? Or is it required just in case the railroad eventually adds another train? PTC doesn't add any level of safety for just one train, except at the interchange, possibly.
A.K. CummingsRailway Man — Interesting indeed. Question: What about the eight-mile short line that serves one cannery with a single SW9 that makes five trips a week with six cars at a time to the CSX interchange?
Actually, I have another question about that... Do lines with only one train operating on them need PTC too? Or is it required just in case the railroad eventually adds another train? PTC doesn't add any level of safety for just one train, except at the interchange, possibly.
The train can also collide with the track machine, hi-rail, or the signal maintainer or track inspector. PTC adds safety for even a one-train-at-a-time railroad, because it also enforces for overspeed and open switches, both of which are single-train events. Both are required under RSA08 as well as train-to-train collision protection.
Graniteville, SC, the 2005 derailment that killed nine railroad employees and people living and working adjacent to the track, was an open-switch, single-train event that resulted in breaching of a chlorine tank car.
Paul_D_North_Jr "PIH" = "Poison Inhalation Hazard", such as the ammonia & chlorine mentioned further on in RWM's post. 5-yard post penalty on RWM for undefined use of a non-railroad acronym ! - The AP* * - Acronym Police From http://acronyms.thefreedictionary.com/Poison+Inhalation+Hazard [emphasis added - PDN] Acronym Definition PIH Partners in Health (Boston, MA) PIH Pregnancy-Induced Hypertension (medical) PIH Presbyterian Intercommunity Hospital (Whittier, CA) PIH Permanent Income Hypothesis PIH Poison Inhalation Hazard PIH Prolactin Inhibiting Hormone PIH Plug-In Hybrid (vehicle) PIH Pocatello, ID, USA (Airport Code) PIH Provinciale Industriële Hogeschool PIH Pan American Institute of Highways PIH Pin in Hole (circuit card assembly process)acr()
"PIH" = "Poison Inhalation Hazard", such as the ammonia & chlorine mentioned further on in RWM's post.
Johnny
It's been a while since I've seen the "new RDC" debate, but this conversation used to happen all the time on the newsgroup misc.transport.rail.americas. This is what I can remember:The FRA crush rating is 800,000lbs (it may have been bumped up to 1,000,000lbs recently, IIRC). The 800k rating was determined over 80 years ago by taking a PRR P70 steel coach and applying force to the ends until it failed. It failed at 800,000lbs, so that's what we're stuck with. The big fear of the day was telescoping (a major problem of the wood car era), and they wanted cars to be able to prevent that.
A high buffer strength certainly helps the car to survive an accident. However, the people inside the car are more likely to be injured in relatively minor accidents because they are bouncing around inside the steel box like ping pong balls. What's needed are crush zones at the end of each car that help absorb the energy in a collision. Auto manufacturers have learned this lesson which is why modern cars are safer even tho' they can't hit a mailbox post without falling apart. Obviously, you can't make the car out of tissue paper, but a stong central box with crumple zones at either end will be a lot safer than the armored boxes of today's passenger car fleet.
alcodave,Sure, someone could retool for making Budd RDC's. The only trick is that they'd be hideously expensive. Note that few new passenger cars are made from stainless steel these days, and I don't think anyone's making the same diesel powerplants anymore. So you'd have to redesign the whole car to different material specs...or spend millions trying to copy 50-year old technology.
zugmann,Um, no the "Roger Williams" was created with diesel loco-like cabs because it was a "high speed" train set, not for any kind of safety reasons. The Roger was also equipped with 3rd rail shoes and traction motors for use in GCT. The original Budd design used a much more streamlined end (like an airplane nose), but the NH wanted these for a lot less money than it would take for something like that. So Budd, instead of trying to come up with a radical design, simply took their standard RDC and lowered it 6", gave it more powerful diesels (50hp more per diesel), regeared it for higher speeds, added 3rd rail gear and motors, put different stainless steel fluting on it, and put cabs on the end of the train (A units) while removing them from all the central cars (B units). The Roger was developed at the same time as the "John Quincy Adams" and the "Dan'l Webster" high speed train sets for the New Haven. Out of the 6 car Roger train set, three units survive today (both A's and one B), fully restored & privately owned, at the Danbury Railroad Museum in CT. These units only survived because they were, under the skin, Budd RDC's, and were compatible with all others. The JQA and DW were both orphans, and were scrapped because they were failures.
Railway Man,IIRC, the only reason the Cascade cars are allowed in service is because they have a baggage car either end (the one with the "bat ears") that acts as a giant crash buffer for the train. They had to get an FRA waiver to use these cars, AFAIK.
TrainManTy,I think the engineer in the Chatsworth collision was due in part to the engine tipping over on the engineer's side. I don't know for certain what the cause of death was, but it may have been the leading factor as for why he died, but the UP crew didn't.
The NEC has freight traffic, just not too many mile long freights. There was a recent Trains mag article on this very subject within the past year. CSX, P&W, et al, all run freights on the NEC.
Mookie,There are still a few grade crossings on the NEC in Eastern Connecticut. In fact, the Acela has already been in a grade crossing accident because of that. The only saving grace is that because of the curves and speed restrictions, the track speed is relatively low (not 150mpg, IOW).
Paul D North Jr,A PCC-type passenger car? Hmm... I think there would be some resistance due to the very different markets that each commuter rail network serves. I suppose it's possible, but I think of some that require low boarding, others that need high level platforms, those that want double deckers and those that want single levels, MU's vs. loco-hauled, one door vs. three doors, etc. It would be a difficult sale to the commuter agencies, IMHO.
Paul A. Cutler III*******************Weather Or No Go New Haven*******************
A.K. CummingsRailway Man — Just a caveat to what you're saying. Union Pacific put on a "webinar" a few months ago, and according to them, the requirement only applies to rail lines that handle more than 5 million gross ton miles per year. Doing some basic math (the least objectionable kind, IMHO), that's four hundred and fifty-five 11,000-ton trains per year, or better than one per day. I don't know many short lines that handle that kind of tonnage. As a side note, UP estimates 89 percent of its lines will require PTC under the statute. So even some Class I branches and secondaries won't need it. Best, Andy Cummings Associate Editor TRAINS Magazine Waukesha, Wis.
Andy, while that's what the law says (read the earlier discussion between myself and Falcon48). it also directs the Secretary to implement rules to meet the intent of the law, and it does not say "PTC will not be installed on <5 MGT lines, ever, finis." We in Washington are interpreting the intent as saying "Although we [Congress] gave a loophole to short lines, we don't really expect you to take it, unless they've got one heck of a lobbyist."
Do you really expect a Congressman or Congresswoman to look their constituents in the eye, and say, "Your safety is important to Congress but only when you're riding on a train on a line with more than 5 MGT of freight per year." Especially if an accident occurs? And get away with that? Can you imagine the headline in a newspaper, say in Albuquerque, "Safety system for commuter trains not needed here, says federal government." That would be just ducky. Or in a city after an accident occurred, and someone says, "Hey, how come the PTC system didn't stop it?" and the commuter agency replies "Oh, we never installed one because the FRA said we didn't need to."
My 35 years of experience with the federal government and the FRA is they will always default to the maximum possible level of safety, because they are never rewarded by the public for saving money, but they are very much punished by the public for anything going wrong and someone getting hurt.
Anyway, we'll see what RSAC comes up with. I'll be in Washington all next week.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.