A fine response; but I’d like to add a couple fine points.
For Illinois, 110-mph service finally may become a reality in the next couple years. P42’s, Horizon, and Amfleet are all capable of running this fast. Illinois has long stretches of tangent between Chicago and Saint Louis; but trains would need to slow to 90 for the occassional curve. More curves and crossings are encountered between Chicago and south of Joliet, around Macoupin, and between north of Alton and Saint Louis. New tilting trains would allow 90 mph for most of the latter zones and eliminate the speed reduction for the occassional 1-degree curve.
As for stations, there is no denying that stops take time. A six-car train with a P42 can accelerate to 110 and brake to a stop in about five miles. A minute is saved for every 5 miles that can be run at 110 instead of 79. Some savings can be achieved even with relatively frequent intercity stops, such as Kenosha-Racine. A Talgo of similar capacity should do at least as well.
The problem of platform height not matching car floor height is not a serious safety hazard; but even a passenger not in a wheelchair may want crew assistance, and Midwest trains have fewer crew than cars.
Station stop dwell time for boarding and alighting passengers is exacerbated by allocating one or more car for a particular station. Instead, boarding ideally should be distributed evenly to use all available doors. This would be possible with computer-generated car and seat assignments. 200 commuters can board a 6-car Metra in less than a minute; but I’ve caught #304 at Springfield, IL when it took 8 minutes to load 100 passengers. It takes 35 miles at 110 just to make up the difference in boarding time. Streamlining boarding can gain a bigger payback than curve reduction and increasing speed.
At this time, the greater boarding delay problem arises from requirements for checki
RWM - I am still hung up on the crossing issue. From what I have seen, hi-speed trains run on lines that have closed crossings. How would you ever get this off the ground if you still have the possibility of grade accidents? And this would be worse in the more populated areas, wouldn’t it?
So the solution should be dedicated lines for passenger service with closed crossings and when pigs fly…
Method of Operation? I have never heard of this, although I would be interested to hear more. Please elaborate.
I had seen just a couple overhead news photos of the F59 (most I saw were focused on the coaches) so my knowledge of the aftermath is limited. Reading the many threads here about the wreck, I gathered that since the SD70s pushed the Metrolink train from the point of impact, and the crew of the UP train survived while the Metrolink engineer did not, the weight of the locomotives had something to do with it.
In writing that the “European rail system is a lot safer” I had meant that there seems to be a lot less incidents resulting in loss of life or major derailments there. Maybe it’s because many of
The North-East Corridor is almost completely grade-separated. I think the high-speed lines in Europe and Asia are 100% grade-separated and fenced, but beaulieu is better equipped than I to affirm that. The proposed high-speed systems such as California’s would be 100% grade-separated and fenced, at least where they run at high speeds, and to a large degree even where they weren’t because they do not want to build heavy vehicles that can withstand colliding with an 80,000 tractor-trailer loaded with steel (like Bourbonnais, Illinois).
The FRA and the industry acknowledge that grade-crossing collisions are a serious drawback to deploying non-compliant vehicles, and there is a lot of study and thought being given to reducing the problem short of grade-separating all the crossings. Grade-separations, of course, are the best solution from a safety perspective, but are expensive. The less-well-known problem with grade separations is they are extremely hard to fit into many urban areas. They can ruin the property values of adjacent residential neighborhoods and the viability of commercial districts, and destroy street traffic flows, which tends to have ripple effects on things such as how kids walk to school, fire engines get to neighborhoods, and where people shop. Constructability is a major problem: when the grade-separation is built, it can do severe damage for several years to traffic flow, local business receipts, and the environment. Many a municipality rues the day it d
I must be a little slower to understand some things[age,IQ,bad eyes,stupidity etc]but I read the Trains article twice and never learned how to fix AMTRAK.
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.
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
So the government is paying for this PTC system, correct? At least the system allowing up to 79 MPH?
Definitely. I would be willing to bet that the ICE and other non-FRA compliant vehicles have a far superior acceleration and current draw because of the reduced weight. Or does the Acela have more powerful traction motors to compensate? The extra strain on the traction motors, suspension, brakes, and even the ground-based power system (that supplies power to the overhead wires) from all the extra weight probably doesn’t come cheap. It all add
I wouldn’t say fully railroad-funded installation of PTC is a certainty. Can’t railroads build in the cost of the PTC mandate in new service agreement(s) and renewal(s) with Amtrak? Maybe the stimulus money will go to Amtrak for the purpose of making the railroads whole for installing PTC.
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.
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.
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
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 f
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.
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.
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 wa
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 tha
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…
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
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 ! [sigh] If they’d only known . . .
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 Conferenc