Cover Image

Not for Sale



View/Hide Left Panel
Click for next page ( 9


The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



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 8
8 Shared Use of Railroad Infrastructure with Noncompliant Public Transit Rail Vehicles: A Practitioner's Guide Additionally, the lower freight speeds on branch lines with shorter train lengths can be accommodated too. Ultimately the vehicle should be considered one part of an integrated `system' of safety that relies on crashworthiness, train control, training, and Rules and Procedures. Whatever Command and Control and vehicle technology forms the basis of the shared- track operation, it should provide some capacity for service growth by both the passenger and freight operator. Practical Shortcuts 1. Pursue "near compliance" wherever possible. The system has to look, feel, and sound like a railroad to the FRA, while applying transit technology and most important, assume that an FRA waiver will be necessary. 2. Control of movement authority is the key to safety and regulatory compliance. Consider that the choice of a train control system can contribute to a positive review of the Waiver Petition, improve the freight operation, and provide a faster, safer passenger operation. 3. A fail-safe train separation system with the capacity to override the train operator is nec- essary to prevent a potentially catastrophic collision and essential for concurrent opera- tions. Cab signals can provide speed enforcement and reduce risk. 4. Where possible, incorporate CEM features on rail cars to reduce risk of potential injuries and fatalities. 5. Analyze nature of freight traffic and the physical configuration of track; modify track sep- aration and/or elevations to protect against derailment accidents where possible. 6. Consider measures to mitigate risk: Recognized Risk Parameters Accident rate variability with volume and type of rail traffic. Frequency, nature and proximity of freight traffic. Single or double tracks, yard operations. Account for the operating speeds of the light passenger rail equipment. Secondary collisions (effects on standees is a particular concern). Note reduced fire hazard from less fuel and improved protection for the fuel tank on typical DMU equipment. The number of cars in the consist. Collision effects on the articulated joint. Collision effects on power module or propulsion components. Number of grade crossings, volume and nature of highway traffic. Potential Risk Reduction Actions Upgrade the track maintenance class to reduce the likelihood of a derailment. Lower the operating speeds of freight, time of day track restrictions. Add intrusion detection and other hazard detection devices. Failsafe train separation. Protection from freight siding roll-outs. Automatic Train Protection. Grade crossing warning system technology. Extremely high braking rates and redundancy of brake system on DMUs and LRVs. Well developed operating rules and procedures with training and enforcement program. Provision of CEM design including frangible and crush-zone elements in vehicle, in addition to interior features that offer more protection for passengers. Anti-climber features for carbody and roof.