posted
Zephyr, in the David Gunn thread you asked for some "outside the box" ideas to improve Amtrak. Here's my plan, or rather, a process for developing a plan. Its not really outside the box, so much as common sense. As such, it has the virtue of never having been tried.
1. Somebody, be it Amtrak, USDOT or somebody, needs to do a comprehensive, national market study to find out where the riders are and where they want to go. This should also include population projections to estimate where growth will most likely occur and where future markets might lie. They need to look 20 years ahead, which is typical in most transportation planning.
2. Take that information and outline a route structure for both long distance and corridor services.
3. Determine what sort of equipment and infrastructure will be needed to serve each route in the most cost effective manner.
These three steps will form the foundation for a national rail transportation plan.
4. Identify potential sources of capital funding to make the plan a reality.
5. Determine what sort of business structure will best facilitate the implementation of service. It may be similar to the existing Amtrak model, some form of public/private partnership, or something else entirely. Its important to keep an open mind here.
6. Develop a timetable based on funding availability to implement the capital program, and transition from existing services to the new services.
7. Based on the conclusions drawn during the previous steps, write legislation to bring the plan to fruition.
The problem is everyone in Washington DC wants to do this backwards. One side wants to design the organization first, and hopes market forces will draw in the funding. The other side wants the funding first, and expects the capital improvements will automatically bring in the riders. Neither method is gonna work. They need to set realistic, justifiable goals first, then worry about the funding and business plan.
George Harris Member # 2077
posted
YES ! ! ! Unfortunately, rather than do this sort of study all they want to do is dissect what we have. Essentially, what we have was to take the higher trafficed routes as they existed in 1971, add a few based on political pressure, and then follow it with a pack of wolves to cut down any that showed any sign of weakness.
However, any plan that does not include significant funding at a rate well above what has been provided to date, and it myst include both equipment and infrastructure improvements will be just as doomed to failure as what we have now.
George
RRCHINA Member # 1514
posted
Mr. Toy and Mr. Harris suggest some practical ideas that will involve Congress, the same body that has been tinkering with this for 34 years.
Another thought for the long distance trains on routes west from Chicago and New Orleans: 1. Since these must operate over BNSF, UP, CN and perhaps KCS or a short line; let these railroads operate them. 2. Allocate public funds sufficient to provide the necessary equipment and keep it repaired. 3. Provide a financial incentive, as is currently done, to operate on time as nearly as weather and other incidents permit. 4. Let them be the employer and be responsible for providing the efficient and courteous service they once did. The costs associated with this over and above revenues would be reimbursed with interest.
These railroads have the infrastructure in place, with perhaps a few additions required. They currently operate very efficiently and are constantly impoving as their business grows so do not handicap them with "government interference" beyond the initial contractual document. They of course will not agree to do this unless it is structured so that it makes sense within their busines plan. But they certainly could make it work if it did.
This is a first outline of something that might work. It would need to be "fine tuned" of course but the major thrust is to have Congress and the Administration, regardless of which party is in place, held at "arms length" in the day to day operation.
jgart56 Member # 3968
posted
A few years ago, Tony Haswell came and spoke to a local NARP group in Milwaukee and talked about how Amtrak came about. One of the suggestions at the time (and one that he favored)was to contract the routes out to the Railroad and provide the monies directly to them to run the trains. Amtrak would provide the on-board crew, except for engineers and conductors, would sell the tickets, provide and care for the equipment, etc. etc. The idea was that the railroads would take more pride and care in running the trains on time...this works well in the Chicago area as BNSF runs all the Metra trains on their lines and does so in an orderly and timely fashion.
I agree with a comprehensive market study and planning that would come from that. I also agree with Haswell's idea as well (it may be too late for that though as most railroads are too far away in time from running their own passenger trains).
CG96 Member # 1408
posted
I think Gene S. had some very salient points in the bit that Mr. Toy posted a few days ago in this post.
I think the time has long since come for something like a Passenger Rail Trust Fund, along the lines of the Highway Trust Fund and the Airport Trust Fund. Something that would help defry or compensate the RRs for maintenance of their lines up to respectable (U.S. Class 5 or 6) track speeds.
George Harris Member # 2077
posted
Under the current FRA regualtions, to go from class 4 (80 mph passenger speed - actually 79 mph legal) to class 5 (90 mph passenger speed) or higher is simply huge. Not track costs, but signal costs, as "to operate at speeds of 80 mph or higher" is the break point for requirement for some form of ATC or ATS system.
One big problem affecting most of the system is that a lot of the time on nominally 79 mph track is spent running at much slower speeds. The real effort needs to be to change this aspect of the operation. We need to add sidings and second track, third tracks in some instances, to reduce delays for meets, to eliminate slow zones in urban areas and due to curve restrictions, and get lines with 60, 70, 75 mph general limits up to 79 mph. If you can run consistently at 79 mph between station stops, a stops included average of about 55 to 60 mph is practical, depending upon distances between stops and duration of stops.
After this stage, then we can think about the practicality of rebuilding lines that are slow because they are curvey. For example, the Atlanta to Birmingham line is 165 miles long and scheduled for 4 hours. It has never been faster, and even though theoretically a 79 mph railroad, the length of line straight enough for a long enough distance for that speed to be achieved is zero. A rebuilding to permit 79 mph to be run throughout could change the 4 hour time to 2h45m easily.
These changes will take years, and should have been started years ago, but if we intend to keep any form of national passenger service, they must occur.
CG96 Member # 1408
posted
Would it be possible to simply pass new legislation that overrides the STB or FRA regs regarding track speed, and increase Class 4 track so that it has a 90 mph speed limit? then have Class 5 track speed limit be 100 mph? In other words, change the regs so that the Class 5 designation and requirements don't apply unless one wants to go over 90 mph?
George Harris Member # 2077
posted
These FRA regs are defined as track safety standards. While they are probably a little conservative for safety, for comfort you will still have a very rough ride on track that meets the safety standards. The limits of comfort are well inside the limits of safety, so even if your suitcase bounces out of the rack, you are prbably still safe against of derailment. IMHO to increase the numbers used to set the speed breaks in the safety standards is something like trying to legislate the laws of physics. In other words, don't even think about it.
Now, to change the law that gives you the 79 and 59 mph limits, which are based on requirements for signal hardware is another story. These limit are arbritary and technology based, and could reasonably be adjusted, or even ouright cancelled. This regulation was based on signal and communication technology as it existed in 1947 and its need was somewhat dubious even then. Much has changed since them.
George
Mr. Toy Member # 311
posted
George, if you have time can I impose upon your wealth of knowledge to give us a more detailed history of the 79 MPH speed limit? I've never been clear what the issue actually was, and why the limit was imposed. Usually (though not always) regulation is imposed to solve or prevent a problem. I'm wondering how the regulation was justified.
CG96 Member # 1408
posted
Mr. Harris: I was thinking of changing the law that gave us the 79 & 59 mph speed limits. Thank you for your insight.
George Harris Member # 2077
posted
Government meddling in things they do not understand is a game as old a governments. The Interstate Commerce Commission pushed for application of signal systems and train control systems from virtually the beginning of thier existence.
One very old ICC accident report I read was about a Y&MV rear end collision near Baton Rouge, where apparently the rear brakeman did "back porch" flagging on a foggy night. It ended with the conclusion that the accident resulted from multiple rules violations (speeding of the following train, failure of the flagman to walk back his flagging distance and place torpedos, the breakdown of the engine due to it being sent out with know defects, etc. but then followed with the conclusion that the whole thing could have been prevented if an automatic block system should have been in place and that it should have been, since it was well within the financial capabilities of the line's owner, which was Illinois Central. This theme was repeated in numerous accident reports from that point forward where by any conceivable leap of logic a signal system would have helped prevent the accident. For accidents in signaled territory where there was any sort of signal rule violation, the same sort of logic was used to promote Automatic Train Stop (ATS) or some form of Automatic Train Control (ATC), or in cases where there were questions about visibility of signals, Cab Signals. Of course no consideration of the economic realities was included. The ICC actually did compel some lines to install signals, and required every Class I railroad (IIRC) to install ATC or ATS on at least one subdivision. Do not know the date of that requirement.
Generally the railroad companies were left alone to set their own speed limits, except for local regulation, where many cities would set speed limits across grade crossings. These appear to have not been challenged legally until recent years, except possibly those that were truly rediculous.
Track speeds were not really high on most lines until the the speed-ups that came with streamlining and the desperate efforts to retain passenger service after WW2. For example, in a 1935 or thereabouts Florida East Coast accident report, the issue raised was that FEC had recently increase their passenger train speed limit from 50 mph to 65 mph, but had not changed the lengths of their signal blocks, a fact which was irrelevant to the accident being investigated, which was running through an open drawbridge. On the other hand, by the 1940's, there was a lot of milage controlled by timetable and train orders only which had pasenger train speed limits of 70 mph, possibly higher, but that number I am sure of.
After the war, there began to be major speed ups in an attempt to retain passengers. One example that I heard of, but have no real information to back up the quoted speed, was the plan of the Rock Island / Southern Pacific to implement the Goldent Rocket with 100 mph being allowed over much of the line between Topeka and El Paso, and thereby match the Super Chief's total time.
There was a big issue of safety raised concerning these higher speeds. The immediate post war period was also an era of labor strife, and safety was one of the issues raised. The signal men and signal supplies also had a vested interested in greater signal system expenditures.
In short, there was a good deal of pressue on the ICC to "do something" about railroad safety. As part of this "do something" they decided that there needed to be some form of control on how fast trains could be run based on the form of signals and train control system in place. The numbers picked were probably fairly arbitrary. Sort of a this feels like a good number. It was probably a compromise to reduce the the affected properties.
I have not tried to find the regulation, but it probably could be found with a search. If I do so later, I will add the reference. But the gist of it is, that 1. To run passenger trains at speeds of 60 mph or faster and freight trains at speeds of 50 mph or faster, a railroad line must be equipped with some form of automatic signal system or other non-manual system to indicate the presence of trains. 2. To run trains at speeds of 80 mph or faster there must in addition be some form of automatic train control system or cab signals or other control or warning system that does not depend upon the engineer's observance and obedinece to lineside signals.
Since ATSF already had ATC on their high speed lines so far as I know, they were realatively unaffected by any of it. Ditto for the Pennsylvania with their cab signals which may be the reason cab signals were included in the order, Southern also had a lot of ATC, but did not allow over 80 mph in any case. L&N at that time had speed limtis of 55 mph for passenger and 35 mph for freight, so they were also unaffected by the final order.
These legal limits, "80 mph or higher" and "60P/50F or higher" are the reason for the 79 and 59P49F limits used. It is difficult to see how picking these particular numbers opposed to some other numbers amkes any real difference. The Canadian regulations are different.
Not all roads went with 1 mph under. KCS used to be a little more conservative and used 78 mph and 58P/48F, or 55P on thier non-signaled lines. L&N stuck with 55P/40F on non-signaled lines, but never were higher than 70 mph on the signaled lines, even the Mobile to New Orleans segment which had either ATC or ATS installed.
The track safety standard regulations and associated speed limits began in the early 1970's. These requlations have been tweaked several times since. At this point there are 9 classes, beginning with 1 as the lowest.
posted
CG96, your link did not work for me. Try this: www.fra.dot.gov/us/content/460 That gives you the FRA itself and the Track Safety Standards Compliance Manual which contains CFR 213. That I already have. This does not have the regulation which gives us the 79 and 59/49 speed limits which are signal based.
Go to www.fra.dot.gov/us/Content/1456 Under this you will see parts 233, 234, 235, and 236. Under the first piece of part 236 you will find the following:
The opening paragraph states, "This section specifies that the Rules, Standards and Instructions (RS&I) apply to each railroad that operates on standard gauge which is part of the general system of railroad transportation. Further, this section also prescribes the criteria requiring the installation of block signal systems, automatic train stop, train control, or cab signal systems."
The first paragraph under "Application" states:
"This rule requires that a block signal system complying with the RS&I or a manual block system complying with the provisions of this section be installed where passenger trains operate at 60 or more miles per hour or freight trains operate at 50 or more miles per hour. Further, an automatic train stop, train control, or cab signal system shall be installed where any train operates at 80 or more miles per hour."
This is about the limit of my knowledge of signals.
Notice that the way this is written, the signal requirements not apply to transit systems such as BART, WMATA, etc., nor to the narrow gauge lines such as the Durango and Silverton, nor to a railroad that is isolated from the rest of the system, such as the Black Mesa and Lake Powell. And yeah, I know BART and D&S have a double exemptions, BART because it is transit and not standard gauge and D&S because it is isolated and not standard gauge. As best I recall, the track safety standards do not have the statement about "standard gauge" nor "part of the general system of railroad transportation" so they would apply to narrow gauge lines, but I do not know about whether they apply to transit systems. Of course any transit system not compliant with the FRA track standards would be dead meat if they ever had a track related derailment.
posted ![[Smile]](smile.gif)