RailForum.com
TrainWeb.com

RAILforum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile | directory login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» RAILforum » Passenger Trains » Amtrak » FRA To Allow European HSR Trains On US Tracks By 2015(?)

   
Author Topic: FRA To Allow European HSR Trains On US Tracks By 2015(?)
Vincent206
Full Member
Member # 15447

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Vincent206     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I would classify this story on the Next City blog as still being at the rumor stage, but I wouldn't be surprised to eventually see some relaxation of FRA crash standards once PTC is implemented.
quote:
Beginning in 2015, regulators and manufacturers expect the FRA to allow modern European designs on tracks throughout the country, running side by side with heavy freight at all times of day. There will be no special signaling requirements for trains purchased under the new rules, although a separate requirement for more advancing anti-collision signaling, called positive train control, is set to kick in around the same time.
One immediate beneficiary if the new rules do take effect would be the All Aboard Florida project, which I imagine has been working behind the scenes to encourage a re-examination of the crash strength rules. I wonder, however, how many of Amtrak's host railroads would welcome the lighter trains on their properties and what other requirements might be needed to accommodate off-the-shelf European and Asian HSR trainsets on North American rail infrastructure.
Posts: 831 | From: Seattle | Registered: Jan 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Geoff Mayo
Full Member
Member # 153

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Geoff Mayo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
What is perhaps most surprising to me is that the comment section is largely welcoming of this idea!

--------------------
Geoff M.

Posts: 2426 | From: Apple Valley, CA | Registered: Sep 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
irishchieftain
Full Member
Member # 1473

Icon 1 posted      Profile for irishchieftain     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
If we start seeing Siemens Venturios running at 150 mph on the Northeast Corridor, then it'll be a true "relaxation" of said standards.
Posts: 566 | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MargaretSPfan
Full Member
Member # 3632

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted      Profile for MargaretSPfan     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
That article is very biased, and shows how little the writer knows about why our passenger rail cars have to be built to be much stronger than their European counterparts.

I hope this relaxation of the FRA crashworthiness standards never happens. Those rules were written in blood, and should never be weakened. Yes, weakening them would allow European trainsets to be used here, and many would approve of this, but the next bad crash in which the passenger cars involved were made to weaker European standards will prove I am right in opposing these new standards.

Posts: 211 | From: California | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
George Harris
Full Member
Member # 2077

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for George Harris     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
As Margaret said. I think the outcome of the recent derailment in Spain is an example of what going to weak vehicle standards would give us. A look at the results of the Eschede, Germany crash would also be instructive. Several of the cars essentially disassembled themselves into their major components on impact, that is you can see separate sides, tops, and floors where the welds came unzipped.

If anyone thinks the Europeans are such geniuses in railroad equipment, I suggest that for starts they look at the glorified link and pin system that they continue to use as a coupling system. There are some things they do well, and some things that leave you shaking your head asking, "why oh why?"

Just my opinion.

Posts: 2808 | From: Olive Branch MS | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
irishchieftain
Full Member
Member # 1473

Icon 1 posted      Profile for irishchieftain     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
IINM, most high-speed trains in Europe have Scharfenberg couplers on the end cars and use drawbars in the fixed-set portion. Germany still uses buffers and chains for their 137-mph InterCity trains, most of which have been converted to push-pull these days.

The majority of mainline rails in the USA are what, Class 4 tracks with CTC? Frankly, the FRA's regulations are not so much "written in blood" as have been designed to remove passenger rail from the private sphere into the public, where they have been greatly curtailed; all you get is additional expense piled on to the private railroads for the most part. Take note that during the 50s and 60s, there was a concerted effort to make lighter railcars (especially those meant for high-speed intercity running!) in order to mitigate the costs incurred due to ICC regulations. (Pullman Standard "Comet I" cars weighing no more than 71,000 lbs empty have been running up until about last year on commuter services, with no "blood" to speak of other than one notable accident on NJ Transit, at an interlocking that no longer exists, the victim being the engineer.)

Posts: 566 | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Gilbert B Norman
Full Member
Member # 1541

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Gilbert B Norman     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Mr. Harris, in view of your wide knowledge of railroad engineering issues, how do you think Acela equipment would have faired at Eschede compared with the ICE equipment that met European crashworthy standards but hardly those in force within the US?
Posts: 9975 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
irishchieftain
Full Member
Member # 1473

Icon 1 posted      Profile for irishchieftain     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Eschede wasn't speed-related so much as design-related, FWICS. The offending design flaw was driving wheels with tires, which made the train derail and the passenger cars crash into a highway overpass at something like 175 mph. I don't see weight being a saving factor.

ICE 1 trains run at 143 mph on the Berlin-Hamburg Railway quite often these days.

Posts: 566 | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Geoff Mayo
Full Member
Member # 153

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Geoff Mayo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Mr. Norman, perhaps a reminder of at least one occasion when you asked the same question before

Simply put, if the European experts and the Asian experts have approved, and now the American experts are seemingly likely to approve, very similar crashworthiness standards, then who are we on a forum to question otherwise?

--------------------
Geoff M.

Posts: 2426 | From: Apple Valley, CA | Registered: Sep 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
irishchieftain
Full Member
Member # 1473

Icon 1 posted      Profile for irishchieftain     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Geoff Mayo:
Mr. Norman, perhaps a reminder of at least one occasion when you asked the same question before

Simply put, if the European experts and the Asian experts have approved, and now the American experts are seemingly likely to approve, very similar crashworthiness standards, then who are we on a forum to question otherwise?

That's argumentum ad verecundiam. Never mind making the mistake of calling government officials "experts", which reduces the USA to a technocracy (or attempts to).

And AFAICS, the crashworthiness requirements actually have not been reduced; only the means to achieve them have been changed.

Posts: 566 | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MargaretSPfan
Full Member
Member # 3632

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted      Profile for MargaretSPfan     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The 1998 ICE crash at Eschede:
Folks, please read the Wikipedia article about this horrible crash:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eschede_train_disaster

That crash was initialed when a tire on in the 3rd axle of the first car broke. That wheelset had never been inspected, even though it had been in service since 1994. That tire was worn to below the acceptable limit, yet was still allowed to be in service.

The collapsing 300-ton overpass crushed the last half of the 4th car and the entire 5th car, which was crushed to a height of only 6n inches.

I am not an engineer, but it seems to me that,. after reading the Wikipedia article, and info in the link to a summary of the official report on the crash, at the end of the Wikipedia article, that that crash was not survivable by anyone in the 5th though 12th cars (car 13 was a power car), because those cars rammed into the collapsed 300-ton overpass at 120 mph. Even had those cars been built like tanks, no one in them could have survived. Going from 120 mph to zero in a very short time creates forces no human body can withstand. The car stops, but the passengers in it are still going 120 mph, and slam against the closest hard surfaces.

On another subject: those Comet cars.
I had no idea they were so light. They must, nevertheless, somehow meet the FRA's crashworthiness standards. They are now in use on two trains on the "San Joaquins", but there is a cab-control car, a demotored F40PHH, leading when those two trainsets are operated in the push mode. This is essential, given the tule fog that sometimes happens in the San Joaquin Valley and the vehicle-train collisions that sometimes happen.

Posts: 211 | From: California | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Henry Kisor
Full Member
Member # 4776

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Henry Kisor   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I believe Mr. Mayo's tongue was in his cheek on that one.
Posts: 2236 | From: Evanston, Ill. and Ontonagon, Mich. | Registered: Feb 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Geoff Mayo
Full Member
Member # 153

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Geoff Mayo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Only partly so. The current FRA standards date back nearly a century; "foreign" trains take advantage of extensive research in the last few decades that allow for controlled and graceful degradation of non-passenger areas - not armor-plating the cars.

As Margaret said, it would have been difficult to improve survivability in Eschede due to the extreme deceleration. Same for the one in Spain recently - it was reported by experts that the train showed "considerable resilience" (sorry, I only have paper reports).

Grayrigg in the UK involved a train derailing on facing points (switch) at 96mph. The train rolled down an embankment, yet, just one person died. The train stayed largely inline and coupled (and not a "link and pin" in sight!). Again, the train's excellent crashworthiness was commented on in the official report into the accident.

--------------------
Geoff M.

Posts: 2426 | From: Apple Valley, CA | Registered: Sep 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
George Harris
Full Member
Member # 2077

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for George Harris     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I am well aware of the details of Eschede. It is a classic case of what could go wrong did.

Yes the wheel failure was the initiating incident.

The design of the overpass without a crash wall along the columns, the column closer to the track than they should be, and lack of a pier cap all contributed to the collapse of the structure on top of the train.

The striking of the structure by the coaches resulted in the disassembly of some of these cars along the lines of the welds This last is what absolutely should not have happened. It is my opinion that the weakness of the coaches structurally led to a significantly larger number of deaths than there would have otherwise been. This last is why I strongly opposed weakening of the crashworthiness requirements of American passenger carrying rail cars.

I am of the opinion that the excess weight from this cause is exaggerated, There may be some increase, but I am inclined that it is in part propaganda from those wanting to sell their home country equipment with the only thing being different being the paint job. The additional weight should be improved by some intelligent redesign.

The hook, link, and screw system may still remain primarily in freight service, but it is still there. Why get on the ball and require conversion to what is in essence the AAR coupling as has been done in most of the rest of the world?

Expert: What is the definition of "ex"? A prefix meaning formerly or past tense. What is a small volume of water? A drip. So, what is an expert? A drip that has been under pressure. Nuff said for some of what passes as expertise.

I have lived too long and seen too many experts having conflicting views, or being just plain wrong to get too excited about the views of an "expert" that is not thoroughly backed up with solid studies and irrefutable facts.

Posts: 2808 | From: Olive Branch MS | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Geoff Mayo
Full Member
Member # 153

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Geoff Mayo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I understand your point - after all "experts disagree" is a common enough phrase in the media. My point was more the gap between those who are qualified to talk about such issues (even if they disagree) and those who are armchair enthusiast wannabee experts.

By the way, calling it a weakening of standards (as a couple here have done) is missing and misunderstanding a great deal of the fact. I suggest more armchair research is necessary.

--------------------
Geoff M.

Posts: 2426 | From: Apple Valley, CA | Registered: Sep 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
George Harris
Full Member
Member # 2077

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for George Harris     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Geoff, unless something has changed in European standards to eliminate either the crumpled tin can or coach kit pieces results I seen in pictures of some accidents, I stand by what I have said. Some improvement is fabrication and design standards is one thing, but accepting design standards that leave poor collision results is another thing altogether.

I have said more than a few times, we may want to shop in the Eurorail store, and maybe the Japan/Asia rail store as well, but that does not mean we should be bying the store. There are good things there, but that is not a universal truth. There are plenty of thigs here that should not be given away.

Posts: 2808 | From: Olive Branch MS | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Geoff Mayo
Full Member
Member # 153

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Geoff Mayo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by George Harris:
Geoff, unless something has changed in European standards to eliminate either the crumpled tin can or coach kit pieces results I seen in pictures of some accidents,

Can you elaborate on *which* accidents you are referring to then?

quote:
Originally posted by George Harris:
I stand by what I have said. Some improvement is fabrication and design standards is one thing, but accepting design standards that leave poor collision results is another thing altogether.

It's fine to have a personal opinion. The problem is your opinion seems to differ from that of experts with access to the details in their accident reports.

--------------------
Geoff M.

Posts: 2426 | From: Apple Valley, CA | Registered: Sep 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
George Harris
Full Member
Member # 2077

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for George Harris     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Obviously Eschede, but also Santiago de Compostela, although that appears to have come out some better thanks to the Talgo type connections. Regardless, the coaches between power cars still come across as a string of tin cans between a pair of bricks.

By this time of my life, having been playing this rail game for over 40 years, although mostly from the track and civil engineering side, disagreeing with "experts" bothers me not at all. In fact, it can be quite intersting to watch "experts' with differing convictions in the same room.

Posts: 2808 | From: Olive Branch MS | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Geoff Mayo
Full Member
Member # 153

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Geoff Mayo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
In that case it would appear that the politest way that I can think of putting this is that you should leave judgment up to the people with the knowledge and expertise. I know whose opinion I would trust more.

--------------------
Geoff M.

Posts: 2426 | From: Apple Valley, CA | Registered: Sep 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
George Harris
Full Member
Member # 2077

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for George Harris     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
My polite response is that we should always approach any expertise on any subject with a certain amount of skepticism. One of the best reality checks is to read 20 to 50 or more year old scientific literature on any give subject and compare it with current wisdom on the same subject. Likewise, read scientific literature from different parts of the world. There may be no real consensus on a subject.

I have by now lived through the global cooling scare into the global warming scare. Can't help not being paniced.

At the time I was a student the revealed wisdom was that the practical upper bounds for speed on rails was around 110 mph on standard gauge and 60 mph on meter to 3'-6" gauge. I have heard that these constraints had a lot to do with the Japanese selection both of standard gauge and a 200 km/h design speed for the Shinkansen. We will know that these limits have proved wrong in both cases. In fact in a discussion with another long time track engineer, we see nothing in gauge that imposes any sort of limit at all, as long as certain relationships are respected.

With this I will say no more on this whole issue of vehicle standards and "experts"

Posts: 2808 | From: Olive Branch MS | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
palmland
Full Member
Member # 4344

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted      Profile for palmland     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
If they can make it work in Iraq, certainly seems feasible for higher speed rail in the U.S.

From Train.com;

******

"QINGDAO, China – China South Locomotive and Rolling Stock Corp. has completed the first of 10 intercity train sets for Iraqi Republic Railways. The first train was unveiled at a ceremony that included the ambassador of Iraq in China and other three countries’ diplomatic envoys. The train is part of a $115 million contract Iraqi Republic Railways signed in December with the state-owned equipment builder.

The train consists of two locomotives and eight cars that can carry 343 passengers at a maximum speed of 100 mph. The trains are designed to operate in the hot and windy Iraq desert environment. The cars are equipped with rotating seats, sleeping berths, full kitchen equipment and a broadcast and video system. They will be used on the Baghdad-Basra route.

The train will undergo line testing before being placed into regular service."

Posts: 2397 | From: Camden, SC | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
George Harris
Full Member
Member # 2077

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for George Harris     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Palmland: Nice to know, but I don't see how this relates to what has gone before in this thread.

quote:
Originally posted by palmland:
If they can make it work in Iraq, certainly seems feasible for higher speed rail in the U.S.

From Train.com;

******

"QINGDAO, China – China South Locomotive and Rolling Stock Corp. has completed the first of 10 intercity train sets for Iraqi Republic Railways. . . .


Posts: 2808 | From: Olive Branch MS | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
palmland
Full Member
Member # 4344

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted      Profile for palmland     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
George, my only connection was that this type equipment might meet the modified specs the FRA is rumored to allow starting in 2015.
Posts: 2397 | From: Camden, SC | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
George Harris
Full Member
Member # 2077

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for George Harris     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by palmland:
George, my only connection was that this type equipment might meet the modified specs the FRA is rumored to allow starting in 2015.

Gotcha
Posts: 2808 | From: Olive Branch MS | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.

Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Home Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2




Copyright © 2007-2016 TrainWeb, Inc. Top of Page|TrainWeb|About Us|Advertise With Us|Contact Us