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 81
Shared Use: Progress and Evolution 81
to use the shared tracks concurrently with a greater safety and frequency, thus improving service
delivery for customers of both the freight and passenger railways.
San Diego could be used as a test case for the framework proposed in Chapter 4 (the Task 9
report). The service goals and objectives would be formalized based on freight and transit service
requirements. The aim is clearly to upgrade the system for full concurrent operations if required
by the freight traffic densities and schedules. Different train control technologies would be eval-
uated for the application, leading to installation and operation of a concurrent shared-track rail-
way that fully meets the service requirements of both freight and passenger railway customers.
NJ Transit River LINE
New Jersey Transit's River LINE opened decades after the San Diego Light Rail system and was
specifically designed with frequent concurrent shared-track operations. In contrast to San Diego,
the system features conventional train control technologies to ensure fail-safe train separation and
was initiated with a conventional railroad rulebook and organizational culture to facilitate shared-
track operation. The system is beginning to use a novel combination of Automatic Train Stop (for
passenger trains) and interlocking controlled split point derails (for freight trains) to ensure fail-
safe train separation between freight and passenger trains at locations where freight trains must
cross or occupy short portions of the shared-track railway during the course of the normal pas-
senger service day. NJ Transit's unique combination of off-the-shelf transit and railway technolo-
gies to ensure that only one class of train can occupy the shared-track at any moment in time may
prove to be the key breakthrough that allows concurrent shared-track transit lines to be routinely
designed, built, and operated on many urban or suburban low-density freight lines.
The River LINE presents the opportunity to explore the incremental approach to improving
the scope and technology of shared-track operations in a retro-fit fashion. It is a system of recent
vintage designed with concurrent operations in mind but with only an incipient approach to
controlling freight operations in the concurrent "fail-safe separation" mode of operation. Two
years after the line opened, NJ Transit has committed to the NX signal logic (NX = entrance/exit)
approach to locking out specific sections of shared-track to specific modes, recently adding
approximately 2.5 miles territory to its NX zone. Other measures are being considered. The
demonstration project should aim to understand the feasibility and scalability of the New Jersey
approach over longer distances. NJ Transit and Conrail are interested in concurrent operations
over longer lengths of the River LINE, particularly a 17-mile segment between Burlington and
Trenton. Here the nature of the concurrent operation is more line-haul in nature rather than
short crossing movements for which NX signal logic has been successfully applied. As a demon-
stration system, NJ Transit would be encouraged to refine and document its promising approach
to ensuring safety, while making efficient use of limited urban transportation assets available for
the transport of passengers and freight.
Barriers to Implementation
This research has highlighted some of the advantages and disadvantages of the shared-track
concept, even where near shared-tracks are currently practiced. None of the disadvantages is
insurmountable, if shared-track is the right fit. Often, they can be overcome through technical,
financial, or legal resolution.
However, some more prominent barriers have subjective elements. These cases require alter-
ations to the judgment of regulators or changes in the perspectives of policy makers. Since such
perceptions can be based on the newness and limited experience with shared track and little expo-
sure to DMU or LRV equipment, they need a stronger and more irrefutable objective argument to
