National Academy of Sciences | 150 Year Anniversary

Questions? Call 800-624-6242

| Items in cart [0]

The National Academies Press

Rights & Permissions

topleft topright

TCRP Report 130: Shared Use of Railroad Infrastructure with Noncompliant Public Transit Rail Vehicles: A Practitioner's Guide (2009)
Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP)

Citation Manager

Transportation Research Board. "8) Issues Unique to Train Control for Shared-Track." TCRP Report 130: Shared Use of Railroad Infrastructure with Noncompliant Public Transit Rail Vehicles: A Practitioner's Guide. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2009.

Please select a format:

BibTeX EndNote RefMan


Page
32
bottomleft bottomright
Page
32
Front Matter (R1-R12)
Research Objective (1-1)
Report Output (2-2)
Business Case (3-4)
Train Control Technology (5-5)
Grade Crossing Hazards (6-6)
Requirements for Concurrent Shared-Track Operations (7-7)
Practical Shortcuts (8-8)
Advancing the Shared-Track Concept (9-9)
Introduction (10-10)
Reader's Guide to the Final Report (11-11)
Scope of Work for Project A-27 (12-12)
Research Approach (13-13)
Characteristics of a Shared-Track Corridor (14-14)
Freight Operations Perspective (15-16)
Why Share Track? (17-17)
The Business Model (18-18)
Business Model Structure (19-19)
The Business Case (20-20)
Shared-Track - A Practical Business Case Structure (21-22)
Role of the Designated State Safety Organization (23-23)
Methods for Risk Analyses (24-24)
Equal Risks, Equivalent Safety (25-25)
Underpinning the Case for Shared-Track (26-26)
The Role of Command and Control Systems in Shared-Track (27-27)
1) Train Control System Functions (28-28)
2) Train Control System Design Parameters (29-29)
4) Train Control - Emerging Technology - PTC and CBTC (30-30)
System and Integration Testing - Vendor Role (31-31)
8) Issues Unique to Train Control for Shared-Track (32-32)
Auxiliary Safety Critical Systems (33-33)
9) Fail-Safe Train Separation (34-35)
2) Regulatory and Practical Requirements (36-37)
4) Functional Design of a Communications System (38-38)
2) Regulatory Mandates (39-39)
4) The Rulebook (40-40)
5) Rules and Procedures for Shared-Track (41-41)
Background (42-42)
2) Diesel Multiple Units and Electrical Multiple Units (43-43)
2) Crash Energy Management (CEM) (44-44)
3) Propulsion System (45-45)
5) Other Considerations (46-46)
Vehicles for Shared-Track Applications (47-47)
3) Standardization (48-48)
Applying Technology to Shared-Track Operations - A Brief Guide (49-50)
Shared-Track Operations - The North American Experience (51-51)
2) Former Private Freight Railroad Owner Becomes a Privileged Tenant (52-52)
4) Pressure to Commingle Is Heaviest on Lines with Higher Freight Densities* - A Review of Different Solutions (53-53)
6) Transit Operators Choosing to Avoid Commingling Sacrificed Service Quality and Efficiency (54-54)
Business Case Template (55-55)
Alternatives Analysis (56-56)
Reasons to Consider Noncompliant Equipment (57-57)
Service Characteristics to Justify the Choice of a Light Rail System (58-58)
Structures Considerations (59-59)
Cost and Ridership Analyses (60-60)
Cost Analysis for Signal System Alternatives (61-62)
System Capital Cost Assessment (63-63)
System Operating Cost Assessment (64-65)
Alternatives Evaluation (66-66)
Introduction (67-67)
Risk Analysis and Modeling Methodology (68-70)
Results and Risk Analysis Findings (71-72)
Safety Case Findings (73-73)
San Diego Trolley (74-74)
Achievable Incremental Steps (75-75)
Practical Shortcuts For Shared-Track (76-76)
Demonstration Project (77-77)
Application of Risk Analyses Methodology to the Demonstration Project (78-78)
Data Collection Plan (79-79)
San Diego Trolley, Inc. (80-80)
Barriers to Implementation (81-81)
Shared Track - The Potential Market (82-82)
Shared-Track Operation - An Evolving Concept (83-84)
Bibliography (85-86)
Appendix 1 - Abbreviations (87-87)
Appendix 2 - Glossary of Shared-Track Definitions (88-92)
Appendix 3 - TCRP A-27 Research Task Descriptions (93-97)
Appendix 4 - Relative Cost Comparison of Train Control Systems (98-99)
Appendix 5 - Sample Operating Rulebook Table of Contents (100-100)
Appendix 6 - Vehicle Cost Drivers (101-101)
Appendix 7 - Some Examples of Current Production LRV and MU Vehicle Types (102-105)
Appendix 8 - Shared-Track System Status (106-106)
Appendix 9 - Shared-Track Configuration and Operational Alternatives (107-109)
Abbreviations used without definitions in TRB publications (110-110)

Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 32
32 Shared Use of Railroad Infrastructure with Noncompliant Public Transit Rail Vehicles: A Practitioner's Guide Proving the system also may include other activities such as: · Test plans, procedures, and reports--normally defined in procurement documents; · Maintenance--inspections and periodic testing--addressed in 49 CFR Part 234 and 236 tests; and · Verification and validation--typically required for software based systems. 7) Practical Considerations for Shared-Track Because of its impact on safety, train performance, and operator behavior, the selection of a train control system may be the most significant choice for a transit agency considering shared- track. Transit-like (2­5 minutes) headway is not envisioned on shared-track lines. Most likely, an occasional freight move is required along the corridor during an off-peak period when the transit vehicles are running at 20­30 minute intervals. In some cases, the last few passenger trains of the day would overlap with a freight train switching on-line industries. Train control can be the dominant influence on the regulatory review process and directly affect the viability of the project. The choice of technology is influenced by many considerations. Some of the most important are: · Current train control technology is mature and offers little room for improvement. Marginal improvements are achieved at significant cost. Absent a strong business case, there is little incentive to change or upgrade the technology. · Design, manufacture, and installation of train control systems are expensive and require a long lead time. Once in place, train control systems are not readily adaptable to changes in tech- nology or operating patterns without incurring substantial costs and time-consuming field modifications. · Railroads and regulators can be very conservative in adopting new technologies, particularly where safety is affected. The FRA staff carefully scrutinizes any divergence from requirements of 49 CFR Parts 234 or 236. While deviation from regulations is sometimes incorporated, each must be justified to the FRA case by case. · The system must be suitable for both freight and passenger equipment. It also must fulfill owner specified requirements and support the service plan envisioned. 8) Issues Unique to Train Control for Shared-Track When choosing a train control system, the prospective operator is advised to develop a design that meets FRA regulations and acknowledges the need to submit a waiver petition to the FRA. The system designers and operators should engage the Federal authorities as early as possible to engineer an acceptable train control system. Any request for relief from Federal requirements must be justified. The following technical choices may encourage a favorable regulatory review and acceptance by the freight operator. 1. A train control system that provides fail-safe train separation is essential for concurrent operations. 2. The train control system should favor the transit operation and accommodate only an occa- sional freight movement among off-peak passenger service. 3. The design should consider the needs of the freight operator in addition to standard passen- ger rail service requirements. To enlist cooperation of the freight operator, the benefit of a new train control system should be quantified. 4. Designers should consider vehicle shunting characteristics for both conventional and light rolling stock, for track circuits, and grade crossing warning systems.