FRA compliance hindering passenger rail

It's not news that FRA's crashworthiness compliance hurts passenger railroads by forcing them to buy made for the US tanks-on-tracks or heavily modified European rolling stock, a la Acela. But I'm working on a research project to try to quantify (or at least detail) how much they've hindered passenger rail, and I need some help to identify which agencies have faced inflated costs because of these requirements.

I know most commuter railroads operate under FRA regulations. Which ones have made procurements recently? I know SMART and Amtrak, of course, but what other ones have been hit by the regulations?

I don't see how keeping people from getting killed or injured is harmful to passenger rail service. I would think it would be a plus.

It's not a plus if the cost of compliance reaches the point at which a line doesn't get built or service doesn't get started, thus forcing passengers onto the highways, where the chance of people getting killed or injured is significantly greater. There is a certain mindset which demands that rail transportation be 100% risk free while applying much less stringent standards to other modes.

CHTT1 wrote:I don't see how keeping people from getting killed or injured is harmful to passenger rail service. I would think it would be a plus.

Are we sure the standards actually protect people? Until recently there has been no mention anywhere about crumble zones in trains. Crumple zones are in part what have reduced driving fatalities over the years.

I'm pretty sure I saw mention in these very hallowed rr.net fora about crumble zones. I can't pin down the exact posts, but certainly every now and then when someone discusses standing in vestibules I usually see another post that says it's dangerous because the vestibule's supposed to be a crumble zone.
And somebody posted links to some crash tests at the Pueblo Colorado railroad test facility. Again I can't pin down where the post is, but it's somewhere within the last 6 months right here on rr.net, your best source for train safety.

ExCon90 wrote:It's not a plus if the cost of compliance reaches the point at which a line doesn't get built or service doesn't get started, thus forcing passengers onto the highways, where the chance of people getting killed or injured is significantly greater.

I agree. Hopefully Octavius's research project will help understanding the cost-benefit mix

Patrick Boylan wrote:...And somebody posted links to some crash tests at the Pueblo Colorado railroad test facility. Again I can't pin down where the post is, but it's somewhere within the last 6 months right here on rr.net, your best source for train safety.

Probably this one. It's a compilation of videos that are available on the FRA's website.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NUpUJrk4QBE

LIghter cars means you can use a less powerful motor in the MU or a less powerful locomotive using less fuel or run longer trains for the same amount of fuel. They don't pound the track as hard. Saves money lots of ways. The new Silverliners and the M8s are in the ballpark of what new railroad cars cost. More expensive than most but not outrageously so.

Metrolink has recently purchased new equipment that reflects lessons-learned from the 2008 Chatsworth crash. But would the new equipment have prevented any of the deaths that occurred in that crash?

Vincent wrote:Metrolink has recently purchased new equipment that reflects lessons-learned from the 2008 Chatsworth crash. But would the new equipment have prevented any of the deaths that occurred in that crash?

Maybe. PTC would have prevented the crash....

There is speculation that the lawsuits will exceed the 200 million dollar liability limit railroads have. According to Metrolink installing PTC will cost 216 million. 25 deaths settled for 8 million each is 200 million. Then there are going to be all the lawsuits over the injuries.

PTC does not prevent derailments or sideswipes due to derailments, The FRA rules do serve a purpose and only the nincompoops complain.
no one in industry complaints about safety standards, just sayin...

DutchRailnut wrote:PTC does not prevent derailments or sideswipes due to derailments, The FRA rules do serve a purpose and only the nincompoops complain.
no one in industry complaints about safety standards, just sayin...

There are other solutions to the sideswipe problem besides wrapping passengers in a steel cage.

What single track all railroads ?? again no one in Railroad industry questions the FRA safety rules...

Maybe that's why the industry keeps shrinking as a whole.

wider track spacing , which the freight railroads are upgrading too .

Mr Benton not all railroads have that option, for example how do you increase track spacing on NEC with Catenary and lots and lots of small and big bridges.
its not easy to have answer to all situations, but current FRA rules do cover more bases than railbuffs.

true , but where it is possible , and on new builds , its a good option . i guess your point is the passenger cars would still have to be built to the standard for existing infrastucture anyway .