HOW TO FIX AMTRAK... LATEST TRAINS MAG..... WHY NOT D.M.U

[Railway Man]

MJChittick

TrainManTy

So the government is paying for this PTC system, correct? At least the system allowing up to 79 MPH?

No, I don't think so!  Congress mandated PTC, but the railroads will have to fund the installation from their own capital budgets.

 

That's correct, there was only modest funding attached to the Act, and it basically only will pay for testing, planning, technology assessment and design, and regulatory administration requirements.

Various portions of the public will pay 100% of the costs for PTC on passenger-only lines, will pay some portion of the costs for PTC on any freight line on which passenger trains are tenants, and will pay 100% of the cost to gain plus-80 mph speeds on a freight railroad.

I don't know if anyone has a plan yet on who will pay the cost to put PTC on the bits and pieces of short lines, terminal railroads, and regional railroads that host passenger trains.  Expecting some of these small railroads to shoulder the cost is expecting some of them to go bankrupt.

RWM

[Railway Man]

TrainManTy

I was reading an article today (Power from the People in Popular Science) that was wondering why the mass transit uses such large and heavy vehicles to move such a light load. Hopefully if someone can convince the FRA to allow non-compliant DMUs and EMUs (electric multiple units) then the weight and size can be reduced to be more efficient. That should save a big portion of the electric bill...

  Haven't seen the article but if they are talking about heavy rail (subway) and light rail, which use their own rights-of-way or are temporally separated from freight railroad, the carbodies are properly designed and not excessively heavy.  If they're talking about FRA-compliant vehicles, then they should read up on federal law.  The electric bill isn't the problem here, it's the cost of the vehicle and the difficulty of making it perform (speed, maintainability, comfort, ride quality, etc.) as desired.

And even with Colorado Railcar in bankruptcy, if the market is there, someone will spring up to fill the new market. Bombardier, Siemens, or other subway-type car builders maybe? Or maybe a company with more experience with diesel propulsion... GE maybe?

That is highly unlikely because the market is far too small, far too unstandardized, and far too feast-and-famine to make it economically viable.  Even light-rail vehicles and subway vehicles are very poor business opportunities in this country, which is why Pullman-Standard, Budd, and ACF all exited the business.  The current players in the market are either heavily subsidized by a foreign government, or adapting designs for a foreign country for U.S. needs, or both.  Since FRA-compliant DMUs are not a product built for or needed for Europe, there's no technology already paid for by a European government to borrow for a U.S. railroad!  Now, if someone steps up and says, "We will guarantee, on a take-or-pay basis, a market for 100 DMUs per year for the next 20 years and they will all be identical except for the decals and the seat-cover colors no matter which commuter line is buying them," well, then there would be a market.  But I do not expect that will ever happen, it looks too much like socialism to some people, too much like a handout to big business to other people, and too much like federal government dictating local and state policy to just about everyone.  Democracy and common-sense don't necessarily go hand in hand.

RWM

[Falcon48]

Railway Man

TrainManTy

Ah, that explains a lot. So the high speed lines need ABS? Is CTC also acceptable?

I see what you mean about the Acela and Talgos. Since starting from basically scratch to comply with FRA requirements is the only way to do it, there are bound to be problems. That's what we've seen with the frame cracks on the Talgos, the Acela brake disc problems, and the early Acela derailments. If Amtrak had used proven technology that was not FRA compliant, there wouldn't have been many teething problems.

The new Austin, TX, light rail system is using non-FRA compliant DMUs, capable of 100+ MPH operation (I think it goes up to 110 or something) on a freight line. The freight trains will operate during the night, while the DMUs will operate during the day.

Will the new Caltran HSR trains be FRA compliant? If they are, they'll have a lot of teething problems too since they will have to be either designed from scratch or adapted from the Acela.

And if new FRA compliant DMUs are used elsewhere in the US, would they be from scratch also? I know there is an Acela varient in Colorado (stored at a testing center maybe?) that isn't electric. It looks just like the Acela except sans pantographs and the blue is replaced with red. I think it's LPG powered or something.

More info on this, anyone?

 

Toooooo many acronyms -- allow me to restate definitions:

ABS = Automatic Block Signals; wayside signals at the entrances to fixed block limits that do not grant authority for train movement, but only advise of track conditions ahead.  ABS is an overlay on a Method of Operation such as CTC, TWC, DTC, Timetable & Train Order, or Yard Limits; it's not a Method of Operation

CTC = Centralized Traffic Control, a Method of Operation that uses wayside signals at the entrances to fixed block limits that grant authority for train movement, and advise of track conditions ahead just like ABS signals.  Most CTC systems consist of Absolute Signals and Intermediate (aka ABS) signals.  The Absolute Signals grant authority and are denoted by the lack of a numberplate, and are typically found at ends of sidings, entrances to interlockings, drawbridge approaches, and locations where it is desired to positively hold trains (these are called hold signals).  The Intermediate Signal is denoted by the presence of a numberplate, and are typically found at intermediate locations between Absolute Signals in order to make block lengths feasible for broken-rail detection, and to create additional capacity for more trains following more closely than would be possible if the only signals were at ends of sidings.

To your first question, the FRA has speed limits that require increasingly more positive Methods of Operation and increasing safety measures:

1. Nonblock, "dark" (unsignaled) = 59 mph passenger, 49 freight
   
2. Block system, which can be manual (dark) or ABS = 79 mph passenger, 79 mph freight
   
3. Automatic Train Control, Automatic Train Stop, or Automatic Cab Signal system = 80+ mph passenger (and a Positive Train Control system that meets the requirements of 49 CFR 36)
   

So to go to a faster speed than 79 mph, you have to install ACS, ATC, or PTC.  These can all be an overlay on CTC or a stand-alone system.  Looking forward, no one is going to install anymore ACS or ATC except as a stop-gap measure.  In the Northeast Corridor, Amtrak and the commuter agencies have made a huge investment in a unique ATS system called Advanced Speed Enforcement System (ASES).  It will be upgraded to comply with the Positive Train Control requirements of the Railroad Safety Act of 2008.  Elsewhere in the U.S., UP, BNSF, CSX and NS have all agreed to employ a PTC system manufactured by Wabtec; most of the commuter lines that run on these Class 1s will likely emulate this.  What KCS, CPR, and CN will do is not known at this time.  However, none of these Class 1s are, on their own dime, planning to invest the substantial sums necessary to make their PTC systems plus-80 mph compliant with FRA regulations since they do not intend to run freight trains faster than 79 mph.  If Amtrak or someone else wants to run faster than 79 mph on a Class 1s railroad, they will have to come up with the money necessary to design, permit, and install the required upgrades to the standard PTC system.

You've summarized the design-flaw problems with Acela.  The problems, unfortunately, go much deeper than just the reinvent-the-wheel design; the weight and bulk of the Acela vehicle necessary to make it FRA-compliant creates significant problems in obtaining the same performance from the traction, suspension, HVAC, and other systems, that one can get with a lighter vehicle.  Imagine the problems in designing a commercial jet's landing gear and engines if you had to build the airframe out of 1/2" steel sheet vs. thin aluminum, and you can see where this leads.  The Acela is as a result a highly compromised design compared to things like the ICE train.

It's a very interesting question what will happen with CalTrain and California High-Speed Rail.  CalTrain's plan is that their forthcoming PTC system, which they call CBOSS, will enable them to successfully apply to the FRA to implement non-compliant vehicles, both their own and the future HSR trains running on their tracks.  I and a lot of other people are watching this carefully because it's terra incognito.

There's a lot of people who would like to have non-compliant DMUs, and not have to use temporal separation as in Austin.  The Colorado Railcar DMU is compliant, but it's anyone's guess if that design will be the foundation of a new era in commuter rail, or a dead end, given Colorado Railcar's bankrupcty.  Someone will fairly soon start getting serious about stating that PTC will make the U.S. mixed freight/passenger rail environment safe enough for non-compliant DMUs, and since there's a huge price differential between building a separate, non-joint-use infrastructure for non-compliant DMUs, and running them on existing freight infrastructure, there's a lot of incentive here.  Whether the FRA will agree?  I have no idea.  Won't come easy, though.

RWM

  I doubt that there's a single Class I railroad in this country that would support the use of non-FRA compliant passenger vehicles on freight lines without temporal separation, PTC or no, and that includes their own lines or any lines on which they operate.  Contrary to popular belief, PTC does not completely eliminate the risk of accidents between trains, although it certainly reduces it.  For example, assume a local freight is switching cars on a line during DMU operations and a car gets away from them.  FRA will likely have the same reaction.

[Falcon48]

Railway Man

MJChittick

TrainManTy

So the government is paying for this PTC system, correct? At least the system allowing up to 79 MPH?

No, I don't think so!  Congress mandated PTC, but the railroads will have to fund the installation from their own capital budgets.

 

That's correct, there was only modest funding attached to the Act, and it basically only will pay for testing, planning, technology assessment and design, and regulatory administration requirements.

Various portions of the public will pay 100% of the costs for PTC on passenger-only lines, will pay some portion of the costs for PTC on any freight line on which passenger trains are tenants, and will pay 100% of the cost to gain plus-80 mph speeds on a freight railroad.

I don't know if anyone has a plan yet on who will pay the cost to put PTC on the bits and pieces of short lines, terminal railroads, and regional railroads that host passenger trains.  Expecting some of these small railroads to shoulder the cost is expecting some of them to go bankrupt.

RWM

Just as clarification, the Congressional PTC mandate doesn't automatically apply to all rail lines.  I don't have a copy of the bill in front of me but, as I recall, the mandate applies to "mainlines" (defined as > 5 million GTM annually) of Class I and passenger railroads with intercity or commuter service or TIH traffic.  This should exclude most short lines. FRA has authority to require PTC on additional rail lines, but isn't obligated to do so.  

[Railway Man]

Falcon48

  I doubt that there's a single Class I railroad in this country that would support the use of non-FRA compliant passenger vehicles on freight lines without temporal separation, PTC or no, and that includes their own lines or any lines on which they operate.  Contrary to popular belief, PTC does not completely eliminate the risk of accidents between trains, although it certainly reduces it.  For example, assume a local freight is switching cars on a line during DMU operations and a car gets away from them.  FRA will likely have the same reaction.

 

For professional and ethical reasons I try to resist my temptation to speculate what a Class 1 railroad will or won't do, or guess what they will or won't do.  However, I wouldn't be one you would find betting against your prognostication.  The question will not be viewed in isolation, but as part of the ongoing discussion between Amtrak, Class 1s, Congress, States, and commuter agencies over terms of access.  This makes it very hard for me to predict a specific outcome.

RWM

[Railway Man]

Falcon48

Just as clarification, the Congressional PTC mandate doesn't automatically apply to all rail lines.  I don't have a copy of the bill in front of me but, as I recall, the mandate applies to "mainlines" (defined as > 5 million GTM annually) of Class I and passenger railroads with intercity or commuter service or TIH traffic.  This should exclude most short lines. FRA has authority to require PTC on additional rail lines, but isn't obligated to do so.  

 

I do have a copy in front of me -- I practically sleep with it under my pillow -- because it's my personal bete noire.  The relevant section of RSA08 reads as follows:

  ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—
‘‘(1) PLAN REQUIRED.—Not later than 18 months after the date of enactment of the Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008, each Class I railroad carrier and each entity providing regularly scheduled intercity or commuter rail passenger transportation shall develop and submit to the Secretary of Trans
portation a plan for implementing a positive train control system by December 31, 2015, governing operations on—
‘‘(A) its main line over which intercity rail passenger transportation or commuter rail passenger transportation, as defined in section 24102, is regularly provided;
‘‘(B) its main line over which poison- or toxic-by-inhalation hazardous materials, as defined in parts 171.8, 173.115, and 173.132 of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, are transported; and
‘‘(C) such other tracks as the Secretary may prescribe by regulation or order.

Section 20157 (i)(2) of RSA08 defines "main line" as 5 million GTM or greater, but Sections (i)(2)(a) and (b) give the Secretary authority to designate any other track anywhere as a "main line." I and others are interpreting sections a & b not as permissive (allowing the Secretary to exclude track) but as restrictive (instructing the Secretary to include track), and that the intent of Congress when they wrote this section was to include everything, and only leave a little bit of wiggle room for individual appeals on a case-by-case basis.  The FRA, if history is any guide, will choose to err on the side of extreme caution.

Section C is one of many Achilles' Heels. The bill when it went to markup did not exclude Class II and III railroads, but at the last moment there was a successful effort to exclude them.  Now reality is setting in because there is extensive mileage of Amtrak, commuter, and PIH on Class II and Class III railroads.  This is one of the many questions before the RSAC committee right now, the committee that is authoring the new Subpart I of Section 236 of the CFRs, which will govern PTC.  As of today -- because tomorrow might be different -- I expect the FRA to include in the requirement for PTC, all Class II and Class III for intercity and commuter passenger, all Class II for PIH, and in some cases exclude Class III for PIH.  The next few months will tell the tale.

RWM

 

[Falcon48]

Railway Man

Falcon48

Just as clarification, the Congressional PTC mandate doesn't automatically apply to all rail lines.  I don't have a copy of the bill in front of me but, as I recall, the mandate applies to "mainlines" (defined as > 5 million GTM annually) of Class I and passenger railroads with intercity or commuter service or TIH traffic.  This should exclude most short lines. FRA has authority to require PTC on additional rail lines, but isn't obligated to do so.  

 

I do have a copy in front of me -- I practically sleep with it under my pillow -- because it's my personal bete noire.  The relevant section of RSA08 reads as follows:

  ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—
‘‘(1) PLAN REQUIRED.—Not later than 18 months after the date of enactment of the Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008, each Class I railroad carrier and each entity providing regularly scheduled intercity or commuter rail passenger transportation shall develop and submit to the Secretary of Trans
portation a plan for implementing a positive train control system by December 31, 2015, governing operations on—
‘‘(A) its main line over which intercity rail passenger transportation or commuter rail passenger transportation, as defined in section 24102, is regularly provided;
‘‘(B) its main line over which poison- or toxic-by-inhalation hazardous materials, as defined in parts 171.8, 173.115, and 173.132 of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, are transported; and
‘‘(C) such other tracks as the Secretary may prescribe by regulation or order.

Section 20157 (i)(2) of RSA08 defines "main line" as 5 million GTM or greater, but Sections (i)(2)(a) and (b) give the Secretary authority to designate any other track anywhere as a "main line." I and others are interpreting sections a & b not as permissive (allowing the Secretary to exclude track) but as restrictive (instructing the Secretary to include track), and that the intent of Congress when they wrote this section was to include everything, and only leave a little bit of wiggle room for individual appeals on a case-by-case basis.  The FRA, if history is any guide, will choose to err on the side of extreme caution.

Section C is one of many Achilles' Heels. The bill when it went to markup did not exclude Class II and III railroads, but at the last moment there was a successful effort to exclude them.  Now reality is setting in because there is extensive mileage of Amtrak, commuter, and PIH on Class II and Class III railroads.  This is one of the many questions before the RSAC committee right now, the committee that is authoring the new Subpart I of Section 236 of the CFRs, which will govern PTC.  As of today -- because tomorrow might be different -- I expect the FRA to include in the requirement for PTC, all Class II and Class III for intercity and commuter passenger, all Class II for PIH, and in some cases exclude Class III for PIH.  The next few months will tell the tale.

RWM

 

  What are you saying I got wrong? The Congressional mandate only applies to Class I track, but the legislation gives FRA authority to include additional track. You may well be right as to how FRA will exercise its discretionary authority, but it's not required to do so. 

[Anonymous]

Railway Man

Haven't seen the article but if they are talking about heavy rail (subway) and light rail, which use their own rights-of-way or are temporally separated from freight railroad, the carbodies are properly designed and not excessively heavy.  If they're talking about FRA-compliant vehicles, then they should read up on federal law. 

 

I'm not sure from the article either, but it was in conjunction with something like a bike that can turn into something like a personal monorail, so it could mean either... 

Railway Man

That is highly unlikely because the market is far too small, far too unstandardized, and far too feast-and-famine to make it economically viable.  Even light-rail vehicles and subway vehicles are very poor business opportunities in this country, which is why Pullman-Standard, Budd, and ACF all exited the business.  The current players in the market are either heavily subsidized by a foreign government, or adapting designs for a foreign country for U.S. needs, or both.  Since FRA-compliant DMUs are not a product built for or needed for Europe, there's no technology already paid for by a European government to borrow for a U.S. railroad!  Now, if someone steps up and says, "We will guarantee, on a take-or-pay basis, a market for 100 DMUs per year for the next 20 years and they will all be identical except for the decals and the seat-cover colors no matter which commuter line is buying them," well, then there would be a market.  But I do not expect that will ever happen, it looks too much like socialism to some people, too much like a handout to big business to other people, and too much like federal government dictating local and state policy to just about everyone.  Democracy and common-sense don't necessarily go hand in hand.

 

Ah. That does seem to be a problem. I wonder what will happen when someone does want new equipment... Too often with startup commuter lines, the order gets delayed by some minor problem, costing the railcar company heavily to stop production, etc...

I really wonder how the shortlines and regionals are going to pay for installing PTC. It might be manageable on a shorter route (I assume the costs are smaller on a shorter section of route, although there is definetely a minimum cost for installing such a system for electronics, training, equipping locomotives, etc) but I wonder about the regionals with long routes who aren't exactly rolling in cash. New England Central Railway (several hundred miles route hosting Amtrak's Vermonter) comes to mind...

This should be an interesting show to watch as the deadline nears...

[Paul_D_North_Jr]

Railway Man

  [from near the top = 4th post down - on Page 1 of 3 (currently) of this thread - original post on 02-13-2009 at 10:54 PM - snipped]

Most railway passenger vehicles in Europe do not meet U.S. safety standards.  This does not mean that European railways are unsafe, in fact they are equivalent to U.S. railways when it comes to the risk of injury to passengers: both are extremely low.  But European railways and U.S. railways acquire this similar level of safety through entirely different pathways, and one cannot just mix and match equipment and methods however one wants, and still reach the same safety result.  To stick a Virgin DMU vehicle into a U.S. environment would be like taking a zebra and putting it into a herd of Angus cattle in Nebraska and expecting it to thrive just like the cow, or taking the Angus cow and putting it into the African savannah and expecting it to thrive.

Yep - just look at the hurdles VIA Rail Canada has had to get over - with its own government, no less - to try to be able to use the non-handicap and otherwise non-compliant surplus English Channel Tunnel ("Chunnel") passenger equipment that it acquired about 10 years ago at a "bargain basement" price.  Yup, it was quite some bargain !  If they'd only known . . .

Railway Man

The market conditions in the U.S. for a passenger-car builder are extremely poor.  Amtrak and several commuter agencies spoke at a talk earlier this week precisely to that point, and confirmed that point.  The market is too small, too fragmented, and too feast-or-famine in terms of orders to make it viable. 

Somewhere on this forum (not this thread, apparently) in the past month or so someone raised the question of whether a "universal" passenger car could be designed by a committee, such as the PCC ("President's Conference Car") trolley design.  That suggestion was . . . not well accepted, for a couple of reasons, one of which is that while the PCC was essentially a venture by the privately-owned trolley companies, all passenger US operations are now government-owned, -run, or -sponsored, so the strong economic incentive isn't there.  Fair enough. 

However, there is another precedent:  The USRA's standardized steam locomotive designs of the WW I era and shortly thereafter.  Some of those were not popular, but others were very much so - the light and heavy Pacifics (4-6-2s) and heavy Mountains (4-8-2s) come to mind.  Is that not an arrangement that could be implemented again ? 

Then again, while it seems that in recent years the freight railroads have pretty much standardized on about 4 principal road diesel models (1 each from EMD and GE, each in both DC and AC versions) - among Amtrak and the many commuter operations, are there any 2 sets of locomotives that are alike ?  It doesn't seem like it - every time I read about one, it seems to be yet another variant of some design or another.

My other wacky thought this morning - after hearing so much about Chrysler and GM bail-outs and plant closures and the like - is:  As part of the bail-out, the US government should purchase and take title to at least 1 complete auto manufacturing plant - complete with CNC machine tools, welding robots, paint shop, etc., etc. - and "mothball" it, the same as is done with US Navy ships and Army ammo factories between wartimes, instead of letting it be demolished and sold for scrap as is usually done.  It could be made available to any passenger railcar builder - with a successful bid and contract from someone in hand, of course - for the proverbial $1 to modify (which would be quite a bit, for sure) and use as they see fit.  After that, it would remain set-up for the next user.  At least, then we'd have a real passenger car factory back in the US, instead of just Bombardier's plant in Canada, and the bunch of short-term minimum-required US-labor content assembly plants scattered all over the US as a result of the fragmented local commuter passenger car market.

Or maybe just turn it over to Amtrak's Beech Grove shops crew, who seem to know what they're about.

Just some ideas to provoke thought and responses.

- Paul North.

[HarveyK400]

Moth-balling an auto assembly plant for railcar building is intriguing; but aren't there other shuttered rail plants around already? 

How do workers support themselves and their families during shut-downs?  Over the years Beech Grove has gone up and down as well.

[Modelcar]

Paul_D_North_Jr

As part of the bail-out, the US government should purchase and take title to at least 1 complete auto manufacturing plant - complete with CNC machine tools, welding robots, paint shop, etc., etc. - and "mothball" it, the same as is done with US Navy ships and Army ammo factories between wartimes

 

....That certainly is something different....and makes good sense if we expect to see some RR passenger units designed and produced in this country for use in a 21th century  system.

[Andy Cummings]

Railway 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.

[Railway Man]

A.K. Cummings

Railway 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.

RWM

[Andy Cummings]

Railway 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.

[Paul3]

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
*******************

[Railway Man]

A.K. Cummings

Railway 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

[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()

[Anonymous]

A.K. Cummings

Railway 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.

[Deggesty]

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()

Thanks, Paul. Railroading seems to have enough acronyms of its own, without bringing  others in. I fear that we are going to be as bad as the British, whose writing can be indecipherable because their widespread use of acronyms. Do all Britons understand all of their acronyms?

Johnny

[Railway Man]

TrainManTy

A.K. Cummings

Railway 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.

RWM

[Railway Man]

 

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()

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?

RWM

[Paul_D_North_Jr]

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 . . . 

- Paul North.

[I'm a little punchy from checking the details of survey property descriptions this afternoon . . . ]

[Andy Cummings]

Railway 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.

[HarveyK400]

 Dear Acronym Police:

You are over-ruled on the context of a discussion of railroads.

Case dismissed.

RMW, you are free to post.

 

[HarveyK400]

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. 

[Railway Man]

A.K. Cummings

Railway 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.

RWM

[HarveyK400]

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.

[Railway Man]

HarveyK400

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.

RWM

[HarveyK400]

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.

 

[Railway Man]

HarveyK400

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.

RWM