Garl B. Latham : passenger, Amtrak, safety

Oh, to be compliant

Garl B. Latham — Wed, 12 Jan 2011 00:17:00 GMT

It may simply be a sign of getting old, I suppose. One believes he knows and understands certain concepts, only to discover that some of the rules have changed whilst he slept (metaphorically, of course).

In the 45 years that the F.R.A. has been in existence (yes...that's forty five years!), they've been fairly straightforward concerning the issue of equipment safety compliance. In fact, from my perspective, it's always seemed to be the epitome of simplicity: either a locomotive or piece of rolling stock was F.R.A. compliant (i.e., suitable for use on general system trackage) or it wasn't. 49 C.F.R. Part 238 may not make for great bedtime reading, but it leaves little room for quibbling.

Over here are the passenger cars that may run along side double stack container trains and high cube box cars. They are compliant. Over there are the various rail-based transit vehicles: L.R.V.s, streetcars and certain D.M.U.s (mostly of European design), which canNOT be used on general system trackage - at least without temporal separation, operational waivers and the like. They are NON-compliant.

To use a Biblical analogy, we're separating the sheep from the goats.

Ah, but nothing can be left alone, it seems - especially when politicians and attorneys are present. [At least there are many competent Professional Engineers at the F.R.A. to help keep things on an even keel.]

Surely, the need to readdress the F.R.A.'s approach to safety has often been discussed. While other modes (and most other continent's railway systems) are content to design their safety practices around the concept of incident avoidance, our own F.R.A. still dwells on incident survivability. The presumption is that derailments are inevitable and crashes unavoidable; therefore, in response, weight is added to the system by way of heftier rolling stock. This leads to train sets like Amtrak's Acela: a sort of Shinkansen on steroids.

Far be it from me to question what might happen if an Acela consist became entangled with a conventional E.M.U.-equipped train during a cornfield meet.

An aside: In this context, it's sort of profound to consider railroad/highway grade crossings and the weight differentials there. After all, Operation Lifesaver has oft' compared the results of a train/motor vehicle collision to an automobile running over a Dr Pepper can.

[Off the property, there are also plenty of sports cars sharing roadways with tractor/trailer rigs.]

No matter. This is all being driven by Washington and its desire to expedite the re-creation of railway passenger services on a strict budget.

To quote from the F.R.A.'s own work, "the proliferation of planned passenger rail systems around the country" is going to cause "more States and operating authorities...to use passenger equipment designed to alternative standards, which have been proven in foreign operating conditions but not under the more severe conditions encountered in the United States."

Now, once upon a time, "the proliferation of...passenger rail systems around the country" was taken in stride.

Interurban railways interchanged traffic with steam roads. Motors would pick up and deliver box cars and reefers at junctions for local, on line customers, sharing the route with interurbans which, in turn, safely carried passengers to and from city, hamlet and farm. When in town, those same interurban cars would often freely use trackage of local street railway lines - which fielded much smaller (though similar) equipment. In fact, many major cities (including Dallas) had interurban terminals which were owned and operated by the streetcar company.

All of this sharing and commingling with nary a complaint and rarely a fatality.

Oh, well. That was then, this is now, and Alternative Compliance is the name of the game.

Back here in (and near) Big D, there are two regional passenger services which are being championed by Dallas Area Rapid Transit, the Fort Worth Transportation Authority, and the North Central Texas Council of Governments. Both will use segments of the former Cotton Belt main heading east/northeast out of Fort Worth (owned by DART between Tower 60 [North Fort Worth] and Wylie).

DART has committed itself (and anyone else wanting to play) to use an as yet unavailable type of passenger equipment, which will combine some of the least desirable characteristics of light rail technology (size, comfort and cost among them) with some of the least desirable characteristics of commuter train technology (weight, flexibility and motive power among them). Their stated wish is to develop, as part of the combined project, an F.R.A.-compliant hybrid, to be called the "North Texas Regional Rail Vehicle" (a.k.a. "L.R.N.T." or "Light Rail New Technology").

To me, the main problem is pretty obvious: what DART is publicly searching for does not now - and I'm willing to bet will never - exist: a one-size-fits-all, go-anywhere/do-anything self-propelled railroad passenger vehicle, able to "cross all track barriers: commuter, freight, and light-rail" (according to one of the local documents).

What DART will probably end up with is a new vehicle which, by definition, will be far more costly to build and far less comfortable to ride than its conventional commuter train counterparts, unsuited for long trips (like Fort Worth to Plano) and, due to its unique nature, difficult and expensive to maintain.

Worst of all? In the process of reinventing the wheel, the feds, along with several public agencies (including the three I mentioned), are now inadvertently creating a completely new sphere of operations: a railway service under the jurisdiction of the F.R.A. which, due to its equipment, will remain forever incompatable with most general system traffic, yet will never be allowed to use F.T.A.-governed transit lines. It's not compliant, yet it's not completely NON-compliant. It exists in some sort of Neverland. Unlike Peter Pan, though, it is all too real.

For a long time, I've looked at proposals like this from both a passenger's and railroader's perspective. In doing so, I have completely lost track of reality! You see, many of these projects exist as political animals, designed to generate jobs and score points. If they actually end up serving the train riding public, so much the better; but, that's not what they're ultimately designed to do.

DART's Public-Private Partnership agreement for the Cotton Belt stipulates the service should maintain "the same type of vehicle and operating characteristics on the entire corridor." That being the case, DART can (and probably will) force all DART-owned segments of the Cotton Belt to adopt the L.R.N.T. vehicle (however that ends up being defined) - even though DART has previously stated that the operational "conditions [which caused the need for their L.R.N.T. vehicle in first place] are currently specific only to the north Dallas section of the corridor between Addison and the Red Line."

A major driving force behind the development of a North Texas Regional Rail Vehicle is the prospect that the builder of the winning design will set up a manufacturing plant in this area, with the transit agencies and the Regional Transportation Council (a division of our local COG) dutifully insisting that all future lines use the new product. [Anyone who has seen a real commuter railroad at work, like Metro North or Metra or Caltrain - FORGET about it!] We should just remain thankful the Trinity Railway Express is already in operation.

Politics may play a major role - perhaps the major role - in today's passenger transport world, but why must its involvement so often result in an inferior product?

Maybe I'll just go back to sleep.

Passengers: the "greatest threat"

Garl B. Latham — Fri, 30 Apr 2010 23:09:00 GMT

About one week ago, CSX's V.P. for public safety, Howard R. Elliott, told members of the U.S. Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee that, based upon information his railroad has "received from federal intelligence sources," the "greatest terrorist threat to CSXT comes from the approximately 8 million passenger and commuter train miles each year that operate on CSXT-owned rail lines.”

Yes, that's right; the single "greatest threat."

To be honest, I was impressed. Louis W. Menk in his prime couldn't have developed a more profound anti-passenger offensive strategy!

If course, Mr. Elliott's rhetoric may be nothing more than a thinly-veiled attempt to siphon cash from federal coffers. After all, for several years now, one of the easiest ways to get someone's attention has been to utter the word "terrorism" and begin pointing fingers.

Still, this attack-the-passenger-train paranoia doesn't even BEGIN to make sense, save from the perspective of a Lou Menk or Downing B. Jenks.

Next time you see a general merchandise train and give it a roll-by, consider all the placarded rolling stock which has been festooned with graffiti. Now, ask yourself: might a miscreant determined to wreak havoc have also gained access to the property and sabotaged a tank car or two? [Anyone for chlorine?] If we can't
secure our yards and industrial sidings enough to prevent "artists" [read: "criminals"] from defacing private property, how can we be sure those with more nefarious purposes aren't doing a bit of tinkering on their own?!

[Question: when's the last time you've seen regularly operating general system passenger equipment that's been "tagged"?]

Maybe I should be happy that passenger service can demand our industry's rapt attention; but, why does the subject always require a negative outlook? For that matter, why are passengers basically invisible, otherwise (at least those who aren't busy attracting terrorists)?

The BNSF's own Matt Rose, in his recent interview with Susie Gharib (of PBS' Nightly Business Report fame), says when he thinks "about the challenges facing our country," he pictures "a three-legged stool. Reduce our dependency on foreign oil, reducing our carbon footprint and improving America's highways for commuters and highway transportation." Those are things that, in the future, our "railroads, quite frankly, [will] be able to do..."

Okay. I'm with him for the first little bit. It's right here on the P.R. web site that I've opined regarding a "three-legged stool" of my own: a comprehensive national transportation/energy/environmental policy. Reducing dependency on foreign oil? That's energy. Reducing our carbon footprint? That's the environment. But, "improving America's highways for commuters and highway transportation"?!

That is NOT the best we can do! That is NOT what our ultimate goal should be!

Why is it the railroad's responsibility to improve "America's highways for commuters and highway transportation," anyway? [I presume Mr. Rose is speaking of reduced congestion - which still isn't logical, but at least makes more sense than a few of the alternative meanings.]

Have we sold out to the Wendell Cox school of transportation planning?

Are we so afraid of the negative issues associated with passenger operations (and, most assuredly, there are some) that we're willing to either completely ignore trains and trumpet automobiles instead, or (worse yet) accuse passengers and the equipment assigned to their service of being jihad magnets?

Back to CSX for a moment. A couple of days ago, head man Michael Ward, while visiting the Milken Institute, said that the U.S. must make a “renewed and aggressive” commitment to modernize its infrastructure. “Other nations are making serious forward-looking investments," he said. We need "to do the same and do a better job of maintaining the strong but aging systems we already have in place.”

One might hope that investing and maintaining would include our railroad system.

A suggestion, if I may. Let's step back and look at all of this from the public's perspective. Many people might be amenable to public investment in privately-owned infrastructure if they perceived a personal benefit. The vacuous promise of less congestion or fewer tractor/trailer rigs on roadways sounds as meaningless as it actually is. However, mention the idea of improved passenger train service and, suddenly, most folks can visualise the common good.

Our common-carrier railroads need to control these discussions, not abdicate that responsibility to government entities. Tell elected officials why 90 miles-per-hour is doable along shared rights-of-way, but 125 isn't. Explain the way railway companies are justifiably concerned with liability and tax issues. Describe how it makes
sense to lower terminal-to-terminal running times through the elimination of slow spots. Show maps of possible by-pass routes. Indicate a willingness - even eager anticipation - of a new passenger railway era along private trackage, IF things are done right from the start.

Prove to the people that railroads are their partners in these schemes and that our industry is solution-driven, too. If we do this, we'll hear less about re-regulation. We'll see fewer times where plans are made without consulting the property owners, first. We'll have some additional leverage when looking for federal help while wrestling with unreasonable local demands.

How about the spectre of unfunded mandates? Why not make a deal where every line that can (not necessarily does) host passenger train service have its P.T.C. system installed and maintained at the taxpayer's expense?!

We need to get over our aversion to varnish and understand that passenger trains, if properly planned, designed and executed, could play an integral role in
tomorrow's world. Who better to plan, design and execute these things than the railroads, themselves?

Passengers might even go from being our greatest threat to our greatest asset!

It could happen!