posted
Take it easy on me, I'm new to the boards! Anyway, I have a question regarding FRA regulations and such. This is in specific reference to New England, so keep that in mind.
In Europe, they use DMUs, such as the Talent and Coradia, which are of a scale and efficiency that they can run more frequently over less heavily used lines. The problem with running them here is that they are not FRA compatible, and to run them you either have to run them on dedicated track OR separate them by time, which isn't always possible.
Now, IF there was a signaling system and traffic control system in place to coordinate train movements both passenger and freight, what other obstacles would be in the way of convincing the FRA to allow such rail vehicles? I want to stay away from a discussion comparing those vehicles to typical North American loco-pulled trains. I am curious as to how to make it so that lighter, more efficient trains could be used on our rail network.
George Harris Member # 2077
posted
There are FRA Crashworthiness reuirements that must be met for any passenger carrying vehicle on a mixed traffic railroad. The standard European DMU and EMU designs do not meet them or come anywhere close.
Baltimore Light Rail and the San Diego system get around this by not allowing freight operation during the times that the light rail vehicles are running.
Colorado Rail Car has built a diesel car that does meet FRA standards. It's success is apparently debatable. However, it does prove that it can be done and reasonably done. From what I have heard, the failures are more in the realm of details than concept, like the need for a signifcantly more robust transmission.
The main problem is that the European car builders have an attitude toward new designs to standards other than their own that can be summed up by one or both of the following: 1. What is good enough for us should be good enough for anybody. 2. If we don't already know how to do it, then it can't be done at all.
One more thing: It also appears that the savings in operating DMU's / MEU's may be more theoretical than real. You must remember that the standard American diesel locomotive is a very reliable, rugged, and economical to operate and maintain machine. Fuel cost is not everything.
Geoff M Member # 153
posted
Dear oh dear, George. I sometimes wonder whether you deliberately try to wind me up! European railways are a different beast to North American railways. What works for European railways doesn't necessarily work for NA railways - and, equally importantly, vice versa. Different environments require different solutions. FRA standards wouldn't meet European standards - they differ for the reason explained. From direct and relevant experience in the railway industry, I do know that 1 and 2 aren't true - but what I will concede is the "not invented here" syndrome that can hinder development.
By the way George, did you ever find those standards for European car design that I asked you for? I would still like to know what the standards actually are. I found some US documents but not yet found the European standards for comparison. Until then, I'm afraid I can't give too much credence to your statements.
I know you don't want a discussion comparing DMUs to loco hauled operation, but I don't think you can avoid it with such questions. One of the biggest savings on DMU/EMU operation is the dual cab option - one at each end. Loco haulage, particularly with single-cab American locos, is that the engine needs to run round the train at a terminus - and potentially be turned around to face the correct way. This is big in terms of time and money. So, no, fuel isn't the only concern.
Geoff M.
Cloudboy Member # 4588
posted
Well, so much for keeping this on track.
Here's the situation. The current autos only type of transportation system we have now just isn't working up here anymore. And it's not just a polution thing, but not all of the US is pread out in huge sprawling cities. Paticularly in the Northeast cities are dense, people have to live hours away by car (what is usually a half-hour commute by the same distance out west), and it is becoming altogether unafordable. Yes, we are trying the commuter rail thing, but that is proving not to work. To make a train like that cost effective requires a number of people, requires a lot of power to move all that weight, and can't run at effective speeds.
Lighter trains can solve that. Yes, I know some people are convinced anything European is not safe - perhaps we should then also start looking at our bus and car safety issues. Better yet, let's compare the safety of SUVs against passenger cars! See who wins out there! In any case, a smaller light train simply is what the region needs. But due to a mindset of regulations for western states pulling huge consists of coal, we are limited in what we can do in the northeast.
I want to find a way to change that.
George Harris Member # 2077
posted
Geoff:
Not really trying to wind you up. I have yet to see anything to change my opinion and a lot that tends to confirm it. I have pounded my head against the wall enough with a couple of European trackwork suppliers to be totally convinced that both 1 and 2 are overwhelmingly true in that area, at least. They have some very nice ideas on some geometric concepts and some of the components. For example, I really like the UIC 33, or as the Germans call it, the U69 check rail section, and the 60B switch rail section, called Zu1-60 by the Germans, seems to be a great thing under transit axle loadings, and so far as I know fairly good under heavier loads as well, but a lot of the other stuff I would avoid to the greatest extent possible, particularly the obsession with squared joints and those feature with umpteen components and lots of bolts.
As to DMU, EMU, I am merely trying to say why it never seems to have caught on in the US. It does seem logical that they would be used much more in commuter service to save lugging around the diesel, but, the reality is that most US agencies that have used DMU's in the past, primarily the 1950's Budd cars, have gone to push-pull with a diesel loco on one end.
Both of you:
I am NOT trying to say European equipment is unsafe. Only that it does not meet current FRA standards. That is true regardless of how much anyone might wish otherwise. I am not going to try to argue the reasonableness or unreasonableness of the standards. For our world, they are simply a given condition that must be met. END OF STORY.
We do a lot of push-pull service, some up to 90 mph and that does away with the need to turn engines.
Geoff: As far as getting European car standards: There are UIC standards which would probably tell you all you or I either one would want to know, but they are extremely pricey. Well beyond me spending the money simply to satisfy my curiosity. They are happy to sell them to anyone who will be willing to pony up the well over 100 euro price.
Now, here is the wind up: What is going on in the French signalling that you can get a clear block when there is an approaching train?
George
Kiernan Member # 3828
posted
If you check you will find that the new Raleigh Durham commuter rail system plans to use DMUs, at least they did the last time I checked. The DMUs will have to be FRA certified because of the close proximity to existing freight routes.
Geoff M Member # 153
posted
quote:Now, here is the wind up: What is going on in the French signalling that you can get a clear block when there is an approaching train?[/QB]
Well, it wouldn't. As I understand it, there was single line working in operation at the time. I don't know whether that line was signalled in both directions. If not, then there would have been either a pilotman or flagmen protecting the section.
I'm more concerned with the accident in Germnay on the maglev system. How can a simple human error cause such a catastrophe? One wonders whether the engineers have any railway background, as the principles still apply.
(Sorry, Cloudboy, for hijacking your DMU discussion).
Geoff M.
Cloudboy Member # 4588
posted
The MagLev incident is really not comparible to regular train service. This is single, short test track, with normally one vehicle running on it. It is more of a case of an amusement park ride than a transit system. Had a high-speed, or even low speed, train been on the same tracks the same thing would have occured, simply because the proper safeguards for multiple vehicle operation really wern't there.
No, to swing things back on track - yes, this discussion has been presented before, and every time it has (I did not realize this was indeed the same railfan forum as is linked through tons of other websites) it has turned into a giant battle of track standards and ego protection and bruising.
This is not about little details of track standards or of freight train design or car design or anything like that. This is in answer ti a greater question - how do we make our transportation system work? While this is certainly not the case in much of America, in New Englamd, at the least, traditional roads and cars are reaching a maximum. There just is not the space to add more roads, there is not the resources to continue to run those cars through major traffic, and there is not the economic ability to afford high gas prices and no parking.
We have a growing network of commuter rail - Boston's system extends into Rhode Island and covers a great part of eastern Mass. And the New Haven lines cover much of southern connecticut. There is a very strong demand for increased service, but there is a problem - the large traditional diesel locos and 5 or 6 car consists just aren't economically viable, there is a big backlash against the noise and polution issues of these trains, and our rail infrastructure just does not have the room to support as many trains as the freight and commuter lines would like. Correction, need.
Now, New England has a very strong rail netowrk already in place, even if it is in terrible condition. Unfortunately, it is still controlled to a large extent by freight companies. The MBTA has already taken over some trackage, and is being pushed to take over more. So what to do?
Running traditional trains has proven not to be economical for the needed frequency and routes. Something like the Talent would be. Talent can't run with freight. Option 1: Simply take the track from the freight companies and kick them off, allowing the Talent to run. Option 2: Build a new rail system, perhaps narrow gauge even, to have a separate system. Option 3: Dig up the tracks and turn the rights of way into roads.
Option 2 has a problem that there really isn't the room to run additional tracks, not to mention the prohibitive costs. Option 3, well, who really gains from that?
So, how do you avoid option 1 from happening - how do you find a way to let those trains run together? I know current regulations prohibit that, and that's the point. What changes can be made that would least compromise safety, be most acceptable to the freight industry and the FRA, and be a viable, affordable solution?
rresor Member # 128
posted
Okay, when I was still a consultant (I'm now with the government) I was deeply involved in the whole "shared use" issue -- running non-FRA-compliant EMU or DMU equipment on freight rail lines.
There has been a lot of recent work in this area, and FRA and APTA have been looking at ways to relax the existing restrictions.
Basically, FRA will not permit the simultaneous operation of freight and non-FRA-compliant passenger trains. Recently FRA has relaxed their position somewhat, allowing San Diego, for example, to operate freight on one track of a double-track line while LRVs used the other track. This has enabled San Diego to extend somewhat the hours during which freight trains can operate.
APTA is working on a demonstration project that will use Positive Train Control (PTC) or some other technology that enforces movement authorities, the purpose being to ensure positive separation of freight and passenger trains. APTA's hope is that if this can be demonstrated to FRA, FRA may relent and allow simultaneous operation.
Yes, yes, I know it's done in Europe. But there are a couple of (IMHO) good reasons for FRA's reluctance. The first is the 1987 Chase, MD crash, which was the result of FRA allowing Conrail to operate diesels on the NEC without cab signal enforcement (just a whistle signal, no penalty application). The second was the Eschede, Germany ICE train wreck. Recall that the cafe car ended up being 18 inches wide -- with a bunch of people still stuck between the walls.
FRA feels justified in requiring 800,000 lb. buff and draft.
George Harris Member # 2077
posted
I also have no problem with the FRA buff and draft requirements. It can be achieved without the end of the world weight increases that those opposed to it postulate.
First, I have no idea what the "Talent" is. Please educate me.
As to your three possibilities:
No. 1: "Kick off the freight operators" A really bad idea for several reasons, the main two. a. This is called expropriation, confication, or other names even less polite, is an exptremely bad concept, and without reasonable payments is illegal undar all laws in this country. b. We need more freight moving by rail, not less, bot ofr energy consumption and road preservations and safety reasons.
No. 2 "build additional tracks for the passenger operation - even if narrow gauge." Not practical, but maybe you can build an addtional track if and where needed in the existing right of way. a. There is nothing whatsoever gained by going to a different gauge and a lot to be lost. Consider that the narrowest practical vehicle for people in bulk is about bus sized and that is 8'-6" wide and that is about the width of the British coaches which run quite happily on standard gauge, and that the Shinkansen coaches are slightly over 11 feet wide, also running quite happily on standard gauge. As to the disadvantages of a non-standard gauge, a discussion of that could run for pages. Not that there is anything wrong with other track gauges, the problem is having more than one to deal with in a given country. b. Most rialroad rights of way can hold an additional track or two, and I would suspect that a lot of the lines in New England that are now single track were at one time doubled. You can move a lot of trains on two tracks. Most of the freight volume in New England is low enough that it does not have to be kicked off to run passenger services. It can be worked around. It comes down to an issue of money and cooperation. Or, more likely, cooperation bought with money. Forget trying to make provisions for some proprietary "magic bullet" solution and develop appropriate equipment for mixed train operation.
3. "pull up the tracks and make a road" - as you say, a really bad idea.
******
As to the German Maglev accident: I am with Geoff on that one. Anytime you operate in such a manner that you can not stop your vehicle within the distance that you can see, the basic priciples of railroad operations apply, whether it is on rails or maglev. That is you must have some means of being absolutely certain that the path ahead is clear. Even basic American style manual block or timetable and train order systems do that for you, it is just that they have larger human factors than signalling that depends upon electrical circuits.
posted