FRA compliance hindering passenger rail

[mtuandrew]

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 .

On new build high-speed lines, wider spacing between tracks are already part of the FRA's regulations.

I wonder if there have actually been too few technological advances for the FRA to take a more proactive stance. Electro-pneumatic braking and positive train control are two areas in which railroads can increase their safety, efficiency, speed and capacity, but the increases are not overwhelming nor are they obtainable everywhere. If there were a truly revolutionary advance, like a 400,000 lb-capacity boxcar that weighed only 8,000 lbs but required a different crash standard and signaling system, you'd see the FRA act. Same if there was a set of passenger equipment that beat the efficiency of European designs by a factor of two, while fitting within the American loading gauges, being easy to operate, and having a low price, but requiring that it be given an extra layer of safety. It will take a bigger carrot for the FRA to move conclusively, and a bigger stick wielded by Amtrak and the passenger railroads, as well as the freight lines.

[OctaviusIII]

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...

It depends on which industry. If you mean passenger railcar manufacturers, then they're loudly complaining. If you mean public transit agencies, they're complaining, too. Freight is the only one that isn't.

[hammersklavier]

One of the rich ironies being how Nederlanse Spoorwegen (I think I got that right) is one of the models, as far as railroad engineering for passengers are concerned.

It's a huge freight-passenger divide, to the point almost of a dog whistle or a Rorschach test. Someone in the freight industry hears FRA and goes "meh". Labor, too. Someone in the passenger industry hears FRA and--I guarantee you--will launch into tirades with plenty of words you don't want your children to hear. I have run the experiment myself.

It's all a function of what the regulations protect, and what they don't. The FRA came into being in the twilight of passenger rail, and essentially began by turning existing equipment standards into regulations. Which is why, as pax equipment in Europe and Japan became lighter and lighter and lighter over the next 40 years or so, the divergence between international best practices and what is allowed in the U.S. became so pronounced. Compared to what is possible (S-Bahnen, R-Bahnen, night trains, HSR) and what we actually have, it is clear the passenger industry drew the FRA's short stick.

Again, this is not in the slightest surprising considering the trajectory of freight rail here vs. in Europe or Japan. Here, freight rail became bulk-oriented, consigning LCLs, short-distance, and time-sensitive freight to trucks; there, bulk freight moves by ship and so railfreight has to compete directly with roads for LCL, short-distance, and time-sensitive cargo. Among other things, this has led to peculiar freight inefficiencies in the European system--in particular, the lack of major north-south trunk lines from the Baltic to the Balkans, where bulk freight begins to be competitive with shipping.

As a professional transportation engineer, it is my opinion that this striking dichotomy--which only started to arise in the latter half of this century--is at (or close to) its acme. But, as it happens, the dichotomy proffers lessons for both sides on how to run a railroad that the common carriers of yore didn't have. Europe has much to teach us in how to run passenger trains, and how to build truck-competitive freight service. We have much to teach them on how to build good bulk freight routes and networks. Throw into that mix China, which operates a common carrier system, and Australia, whose interesting gauge situation forces them to run a blend between European and American practices, and we can certainly start to see lessons percolate in.

Among the first--get the horsepower without the weight. This and this have the same prime mover. The latter, however, is approximately 30% lighter. Yes, you read that right*.
_____________
*For numerically inclined: the AC4400CW weighs 210 tons**, and the Class NR, with identical prime mover, weighs ~145.51 short (US) tons***. 100-[(145.51/210)100]=30.71% lighter. Horsepower-to-weight ratios are 20.95 hp/ton on the AC4400CW and 27.62 hp/ton on the Class NR. (Please correct me if the formula I am using to achieve these figures is wrong.) In other words, the Aussie model gets seven more horsepower per ton than its American equivalent.
**420,000 lbs = 210 tons (420,000/2,000).
***The given statement is 132.00t. However, since Australia is metric, I assumed metric ton and converted to US tons. If you assume the given figure is already in short tons, the figure is actually closer to 40% lighter.

[amtrakowitz]

One of the rich ironies being how Nederlanse Spoorwegen (I think I got that right) is one of the models, as far as railroad engineering for passengers are concerned.

It's a huge freight-passenger divide, to the point almost of a dog whistle or a Rorschach test. Someone in the freight industry hears FRA and goes "meh". Labor, too. Someone in the passenger industry hears FRA and—I guarantee you—will launch into tirades with plenty of words you don't want your children to hear. I have run the experiment myself.

It's all a function of what the regulations protect, and what they don't. The FRA came into being in the twilight of passenger rail, and essentially began by turning existing equipment standards into regulations. Which is why, as pax equipment in Europe and Japan became lighter and lighter and lighter over the next 40 years or so, the divergence between international best practices and what is allowed in the U.S. became so pronounced. Compared to what is possible (S-Bahnen, R-Bahnen, night trains, HSR) and what we actually have, it is clear the passenger industry drew the FRA's short stick.

Again, this is not in the slightest surprising considering the trajectory of freight rail here vs. in Europe or Japan. Here, freight rail became bulk-oriented, consigning LCLs, short-distance, and time-sensitive freight to trucks; there, bulk freight moves by ship and so railfreight has to compete directly with roads for LCL, short-distance, and time-sensitive cargo. Among other things, this has led to peculiar freight inefficiencies in the European system--in particular, the lack of major north-south trunk lines from the Baltic to the Balkans, where bulk freight begins to be competitive with shipping.

As a professional transportation engineer, it is my opinion that this striking dichotomy--which only started to arise in the latter half of this century--is at (or close to) its acme. But, as it happens, the dichotomy proffers lessons for both sides on how to run a railroad that the common carriers of yore didn't have. Europe has much to teach us in how to run passenger trains, and how to build truck-competitive freight service. We have much to teach them on how to build good bulk freight routes and networks. Throw into that mix China, which operates a common carrier system, and Australia, whose interesting gauge situation forces them to run a blend between European and American practices, and we can certainly start to see lessons percolate in.

Among the first--get the horsepower without the weight. This and this have the same prime mover. The latter, however, is approximately 30% lighter. Yes, you read that right*.
_____________
*For numerically inclined: the AC4400CW weighs 210 tons**, and the Class NR, with identical prime mover, weighs ~145.51 short (US) tons***. 100-[(145.51/210)100]=30.71% lighter. Horsepower-to-weight ratios are 20.95 hp/ton on the AC4400CW and 27.62 hp/ton on the Class NR. (Please correct me if the formula I am using to achieve these figures is wrong.) In other words, the Aussie model gets seven more horsepower per ton than its American equivalent.
**420,000 lbs = 210 tons (420,000/2,000).
***The given statement is 132.00t. However, since Australia is metric, I assumed metric ton and converted to US tons. If you assume the given figure is already in short tons, the figure is actually closer to 40% lighter.

With all due respect, why is a professional transportation engineer comparing apples to oranges? The AC4400CW has the 4400-hp 7FDL-16 and AC traction while the NR class has a 4020-hp 7FDL-16 and DC traction, just for one; there is most likely a very large disparity between the wheel horsepower ratings of each locomotive as well (which is the real horsepower), with adhesive weight being an additional factor on top of the difference between AC versus DC traction. Australia's lighter rails (and lighter permissible axle loads) also mean that less tonnage can be transported per train. (Incidentally, the top speed of the NR class is lower than that of the AC4400CW.) What is being demonstrated here? Neither the NR class nor the AC4400CW are passenger speedsters. We aren't even speaking of the potential performance of, let's say, an EMD E-unit re-engined with two 12-710s (with at least 3K horses each for the sake of argument) and AC traction.

Also, passenger car weights in Europe were trending upwards due to their own crashworthiness regulations increasing, but reached an infrastructure-imposed ceiling (axle loads again). The USA had used steel-bodied cars (and even a number of extruded-aluminum cars of exceptionally light weight, i.e. under 40 short tons) for many decades while many countries in Europe still operated wooden-body passenger cars in the 60s and 70s.

Arguably, 1966, the year the FRA came into existence, was not passenger rail's twilight, not even in the USA. The Metroliner project was still in full swing (although not complete at that time), Amtrak (whose creation would mean the numbers of intercity trains at the time of its implementation would be cut clean in half) was four years off, private railroads in general were still experimenting with increasing speeds of both passenger and freight, and the Post Office Department was still transporting first class mail by rail. It is also still arguable as to the damage that the FRA wreaked and continues to wreak through government micromanagement, compared to the ICC.

[mtuandrew]

We aren't even speaking of the potential performance of, let's say, an EMD E-unit re-engined with two 12-710s (with at least 3K horses each for the sake of argument) and AC traction.

I think this deserves to be pointed out again. Who else here just got a massive grin thinking of an E80PH in an E9A body?

Regarding the rolling stock, we are having a similar discussion in the Amtrak forum regarding how the American railcar has not lost much weight per passenger, despite the example of the Pioneer III, the Turbotrain coaches, and the Talgo. All of these were or are fully FRA-compliant, and yet Amtrak and other agencies have chosen cars with twice the weight per passenger as a rule. The technology to build lightweight, reliable, sturdy cars certainly hasn't disappeared entirely from our shores (even if much of it is held by foreign concerns, e.g. Bombardier and Nippon Sharyo) but it isn't being used much despite the greater efficiency promised.

[hammersklavier]

With all due respect, why is a professional transportation engineer comparing apples to oranges? The AC4400CW has the 4400-hp 7FDL-16 and AC traction while the NR class has a 4020-hp 7FDL-16 and DC traction, just for one; there is most likely a very large disparity between the wheel horsepower ratings of each locomotive as well (which is the real horsepower), with adhesive weight being an additional factor on top of the difference between AC versus DC traction. Australia's lighter rails (and lighter permissible axle loads) also mean that less tonnage can be transported per train. (Incidentally, the top speed of the NR class is lower than that of the AC4400CW.) What is being demonstrated here? Neither the NR class nor the AC4400CW are passenger speedsters. We aren't even speaking of the potential performance of, let's say, an EMD E-unit re-engined with two 12-710s (with at least 3K horses each for the sake of argument) and AC traction.

1. Then use a C44-9W in the comparison! The AC4400CW was the first example that came readily to hand this morning, but yes the C44-9W is more of a technical match to the NR class, which sharpens the point of the comparison more.

2. May I remind you, there is a reason the railroads scrapped their Big Boys and cab forwards and Mountains in favor of F7s way back when? There's a lot of nostalgia on this board, but the railroads themselves would have cited three major reasons:
a. Ease of maintenance. Fewer moving parts, smaller packages.
b. Greater control over horses used on a train. Each F7 had far fewer horses individually than the steamers they competed against, but they were significantly easier to lash together to get exactly how many horses were actually needed for the task at hand.
c. Superior horsepower/weight ratio. Think about it: Steamers were heavy beasts. A typical F7 weighed a fraction of a large mainline steamer, which meant that less horses needed to be burned hauling the engine itself around. And two or three or four F7s on the road would have had better weight distribution to go along with the more tailored horses and easier maintenance.

The principal reason that railroads dieselized in the '40s and '50s was because diesels were superior in just about every way imaginable. And that was because diesels were smaller, lighter, and more flexible than steamers.

Now let's take a look at current diesels. What I want to call to your attention is that, over time, our road diesels have, like the steam engines before them, begun to bloat in terms of weight relative to compenents. AC4400CWs tend to handle more like e.g. Big Boys than most people realize. What I mean is that they have become so obsessed with power and power-output, and with 79 mph speed on zero grade, that they've sacrificed the ability to maintain speed while climbing. Exactly like superpowered steam. And when a real, non-capital-intensive alternative to superpower steam appeared, our railroads grabbed on and abandoned nearly all those superpowering efforts. This is what I wanted to draw your attention to: American road diesels are like superpower steam, a technical apogee but one that sacrifices a lot to do it. Most diesels in the world today are significantly smaller, lighter, and faster than American examples--and make relatively marginal sacrifices in terms of horsepower to do it. The Class NR is a particularly striking example because it is, quite literally, a reskinned GE engine, and that is the contrast I need your eye drawn towards.

Finally, there is a certain obsolescence in this whole discussion w/r/t passenger trains. Probably my own fault, since I bought it up in the first place. But around the world, loco-hauled pax service is going the way of the dinosaur--fast. The fastest trains today are all EMUs, and the S- and R-Bahnen services are generally run with short consists of EMU equipment. Night trains are the last bastion of loco-hauled pax services in Europe today.

Also, passenger car weights in Europe were trending upwards due to their own crashworthiness regulations increasing, but reached an infrastructure-imposed ceiling (axle loads again). The USA had used steel-bodied cars (and even a number of extruded-aluminum cars of exceptionally light weight, i.e. under 40 short tons) for many decades while many countries in Europe still operated wooden-body passenger cars in the 60s and 70s.

A historical irony! Harks to a time when the US was still the leading manufacturer of passenger equipment. Yes, as late as 1960 the US was still the world's undisputed leader in passenger railroading, but the greases had already been skidded for the collapse of the Grand Manner. Even when the FRA was first formed, the difference between American and European pax railroading was slight. It's really in the 1970s, as the major S-Bahn systems were assembled, that pax rail really began to come back in Europe, and in the '80s and '90s, with the development of HSR, that it was able to build a whole market segment totally for itself.

None of this would have happened had "crashworthiness standards" been insisted upon as they were in the US. Instead, European builders took Budd's lightweight legacy and continued to tinker, make the trains lighter and safer. Crash energy management was a massive breakthrough, and it's really when CEM systems began to be applied at scale that European railcars became significantly lighter than American models.

We are a generation late to that game.

Arguably, 1966, the year the FRA came into existence, was not passenger rail's twilight, not even in the USA. The Metroliner project was still in full swing (although not complete at that time), Amtrak (whose creation would mean the numbers of intercity trains at the time of its implementation would be cut clean in half) was four years off, private railroads in general were still experimenting with increasing speeds of both passenger and freight, and the Post Office Department was still transporting first class mail by rail. It is also still arguable as to the damage that the FRA wreaked and continues to wreak through government micromanagement, compared to the ICC.

Passenger rail had already begun to be abandoned wholesale by 1966, and by Amtrak's formation most passenger rail in the US was run because the ICC demanded it. Don't think they've gotten off scot-free. Before the FRA, the ICC incompetently regulated American rail. The operations getting the short stick are the major difference, in this regard. It is clear from the historical record that the ICC shafted freight operations in its day just as much as the FRA does today.

[David Benton]

I would think the 70's would be the time when the great divide started . budd opted to continue with the metroliner design for the amfleets , europe started to move to monocoque bodies , and corresponding higher strength at a lighter weight .