Cover Image

Not for Sale



View/Hide Left Panel
Click for next page ( 128


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 127
APPENDIX C Railroad Safety Regulations Contents C.1 Introduction to Federal Railroad Administration Safety Regulations C-2 C.2 Applicability C-2 C.3 Waivers C-3 C.4 Track Safety Standards (49 CFR Part 213) C-3 C.5 Train Crew Hours of Service (49 CFR Part 228 and the Railroad Safety Improvement Act of 2008) C-4 C.6 Drug Testing and Engineer Certification (49 CFR Parts 219 and 240) C-5 C.7 Signal and Train Control System Regulations before the Railroad Safety Improvement Act (49 CFR Parts 235 and 236) C-5 C.8 The Positive Train Control Mandate of the Railroad Safety Improvement Act C-6 C.9 New Technology Train Control Systems C-7 C.10 Passenger Car Safety Standards and the Operation of Non-FRA-Compliant Vehicles on Shared Corridors (49 CFR Part 238) C-8 C.10.1 Operation of Non-FRA-Compliant Passenger Vehicles C-8 C.10.2 Definition of Non-FRA-Compliant Passenger Vehicles C-8 C.10.3 Non-compliant Intercity Trains C-9 C.10.4 Use of Light Rail Vehicles on the General Rail System C-10 C-1

OCR for page 127
C-2 Guidebook for Implementing Passenger Rail Service on Shared Passenger and Freight Corridors C.1 Introduction to Federal Railroad Administration Safety Regulations Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) regulations and standards pertaining to the safety of railroad plant, equipment, and operations are contained in 49 Code of Federal Register (CFR) Parts 200-299 (49 CFR 200-299, Title 49 - Transportation, Subtitle B - Other Regulations Relating to Transportation, Chapter II - Federal Railroad Administration, United States Department of Transportation [U.S.DOT]). The same body of regulations also contains regulations pertaining to non-safety matters (for example concerning Amtrak operations) that are not discussed here. With one exception, the FRA Office of Safety is responsible for developing and enforcing rail- road safety regulations. The FRA follows the normal federal process for developing new and amended safety rules, including publishing a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), allowing for public input and discussion, and then promulgating a Final Rule. A number of years ago the FRA also established a Railroad Safety Advisory Council (RSAC) with representatives of industry and labor which, on invitation by the FRA, will assist with regulation development. The FRA and RSAC have been very active in recent years in developing new regulations to address such issues as passenger car safety, communications-based train control systems, and new technologies such as hand-held controls for switching locomotives and electronically controlled brakes for freight trains. A notable exception to this rulemaking process is the Hours of Service (HOS) Act (49 CFR 228, Hours of Service Act [Revised October 1, 1996]). This Act is a separate statute and the require- ments therein can only be changed by Act of Congress. Prior to October 2008, these requirements, which had been amended multiple times since the original Act in 1907, were cumbersome to change and did not reflect current understanding of the effects of train crew and dispatcher fatigue on safety. The Rail Safety Improvement Act (RSIA) that passed Congress in October 2008 (H.R.2095. Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008) updated the Hours of Service Act, and also required the FRA to develop regulations to enforce the new statute and to further HOS regula- tions for passenger and freight operations. Details are provided in Section C.5. C.2 Applicability The FRA railroad safety regulations are applicable to all rail lines connected to the "general rail- road system of the United States." The FRA does not regulate fully segregated urban rail transit systems (subways, light rail, and streetcar systems), except at the few points where such systems interact with the general rail system. The applicability of FRA safety regulations where conven- tional rail services and urban transit services share tracks and corridors is discussed later in this section. Other points about applicability are: The FRA specifically has authority over any new-technology guided ground transportation sys- tem, including magnetic levitation systems and systems that use non-United States (U.S.) high speed train technology, except where these systems provide urban transit services as defined above. The FRA requires an operator proposing to use these technologies to submit a "safety case," containing full details of safety related aspects of infrastructure, vehicles, and operations showing how adequate safety will be achieved and maintained. The FRA reviews the submissions, works with the applicant to ensure all safety issues are properly addressed, and develops a "Rule of Particular Applicability" documenting the terms and conditions under which the proposed system can operate. These rules essentially make the operator's safety case (with any amend- ments and conditions imposed by the FRA) a regulation that must be followed. The best prac- tical example of this process is the Rule issued for a proposed high-speed line between Miami, Orlando, and Tampa in Florida. Although the project did not go forward in the end, a Rule of Particular Applicability was completed and issued for this system, which used French TGV

OCR for page 127
Railroad Safety Regulations C-3 technology. In the future, this process is likely to be applied to the proposed California high- speed rail system and a private initiative for high-speed rail service between the Los Angeles, California area and Las Vegas, Nevada. The situation regarding a fully or largely segregated commuter rail system is somewhat ambiguous. As for intercity guided ground transportation systems, commuter rail systems appear to be subject to FRA safety regulations, whether or not they are connected to the gen- eral rail system. However, the exact boundaries between a commuter and an urban transit system are not well defined, and a longer-distance and higher-speed light rail line that pro- vides service outside a single urban/suburban area may fall into this gray area. This is espe- cially true if there are elements of connection with the general rail system, such as a shared corridor or limited local freight service. A recently completed light rail line in Austin, Texas and Triangle Transit proposals in the RaleighDurham area of North Carolina are examples of proposed operations where this ambiguity might be a factor in determining the extent of FRA jurisdiction. C.3 Waivers Any operator who wishes to have relief from any FRA safety regulation must seek a waiver. The operator must submit a waiver application to the FRA detailing what relief is sought, analysis to demonstrate that the safety of the proposed operation will be equivalent to a fully compliant oper- ation, and a justification for the waiver showing that it would be in the public interest. Public interest means that the waiver would enable rail service operators to offer passengers and/or freight shippers a higher quality or lower-cost service than would be possible with a fully compli- ant operation. The FRA may grant a waiver if it is satisfied that the waiver is in the public interest and safety is not impaired. The waiver process as currently applied can be a barrier to the introduction of new passenger rail technology, especially related to non-FRA-compliant rolling stock. The process is slow and uncertain and requires a lot of detail about the proposed operations and equipment, which is only available when a project is well advanced. A service developer may be put in the position of having to commit to system features before a waiver is finalized and risk delaying the project if the FRA requires significant changes. Some developers have elected to proceed with a fully compliant approach to avoid delay risks, even though a non-compliant approach would improve the service. However, efforts were under way in 2009 by Caltrain and the FRA to investigate the feasibility of using non-compliant European-style electric multiple unit (MU) trains for service between San Francisco and San Jose, California. This and similar waiver applications have prompted the FRA to initiate an effort to formalize a process and acceptability criteria for non-compliant rolling stock. If successful, this would make the waiver process more predictable and easier to incorporate into project schedules. Further discussion of the use of non-FRA-compliant rolling stock is provided in Section C.9. C.4 Track Safety Standards (49 CFR Part 213) These standards contain numerous requirements defining minimum acceptable track condi- tions and inspection regimes for each track class, as defined by the FRA (49 CFR 213, Track Safety Standards). Maximum speed by FRA track class for the classes most likely to be used for shared passenger and freight service are as shown in Table C-1. Freight railroads typically maintain FRA Class 3 on secondary and lower traffic main lines and FRA Class 4 on primary main lines. There is also a significant amount of FRA Class 5 track on freight railroads, often on routes used by higher-speed intermodal services. FRA

OCR for page 127
C-4 Guidebook for Implementing Passenger Rail Service on Shared Passenger and Freight Corridors Table C-1. Maximum allowable speeds for passenger and freight trains by track class. Maximum Allowable Speed (mph) FRA Track Class Passenger Freight 3 60 40 4 80 60 5 90 80 6 110 110 Class 6 is almost never found on a freight railroad, but is the standard used on predominantly higher-speed passenger lines such as the Empire Corridor between New York City and Albany, New York and parts of the Northeast Corridor (NEC). FRA Class 3 track is the min- imum acceptable for commuter operations, and a majority of intercity services are operated on FRA Class 4 or 5 track. The FRA also defines requirements for Classes 1 and 2 for low- speed branch line and yard track. Existing FRA Class 1 or 2 track proposed for passenger serv- ice would have to be extensively rebuilt. Finally, the FRA has defined Classes 7, 8, and 9 for true high-speed passenger operations (above 110 miles per hour [mph]), applied to date only on portions of the NEC. The FRA standards do not include any requirements for track design, such as weight of rail, types of ties and rail-tie fasteners, etc. Provided the condition standards are met and maintained, any form of construction may be used. C.5 Train Crew Hours of Service (49 CFR Part 228 and the Railroad Safety Improvement Act of 2008) Prior to October 2008, train crew work schedules were governed by the historic Hours of Service (HOS) Act, first passed in 1907 and amended many times since. Prior to RSIA, the principal pro- visions of the Act were that the maximum time on duty of a train crew must not exceed 12 hours except in an emergency, and must be followed by a minimum of 10 hours off duty before the start of the next on-duty period. FRA regulations define time spent waiting for transportation and trav- eling to a sign-off point after an on-duty period as being neither on- nor off-duty time. This period is sometimes termed "limbo time." FRA regulations also prescribe record-keeping and reporting requirements to monitor compliance with the law. These requirements will be replaced by those detailed in Section 108 of RSIA for freight train operations only. The principal requirements for railroad train crews are: A limit of 276 hours per calendar month for combined on-duty and limbo time. [This limit is entirely new. Previously limbo time did not count as either on-duty or rest time]. Maximum 12 consecutive on-duty hours [same as before RSIA]. Minimum 10 uninterrupted off-duty hours after a 12-hour on-duty period. [Similar to pre- RSIA, but off-duty time now cannot be interrupted by calls from the railroad giving notice of the start of an on-duty shift. Because freight train crews are typically called 2 hours before reporting for duty at their sign-on point, this provision effectively lengthens off-duty time by 2 hours]. Minimum 48 uninterrupted off-duty hours after 6 consecutive days with on-duty shifts [entirely new]. These requirements went into effect on July 16, 2009, 9 months after enactment, by which time the FRA and railroads must have established record-keeping and reporting requirements for enforcement of the law.

OCR for page 127
Railroad Safety Regulations C-5 Passenger rail operators continue to be subject to the old HOS laws for a period up to 3 years from October 16, 2008. During this time, the FRA must develop HOS regulations for passenger service that minimize crew fatigue and improve safety, while as far as possible, serving the needs of commuter and intercity passenger operations. If passenger HOS regulations are not finalized before October 16, 2011, then the freight HOS law will apply. C.6 Drug Testing and Engineer Certification (49 CFR Parts 219 and 240) All railroad employees are subject to periodic drug and alcohol testing, including after an acci- dent. The regulations specify the testing regime in detail and actions to be taken in the event of a positive test. Before the enactment of RSIA, only locomotive engineers were required to have FRA certifi- cation, earned by successfully completing an approved training course and periodic testing and refresher courses as necessary. RSIA extended this requirement to conductors, and the FRA is required to investigate the need for formal certification for other safety-related occupations, including dispatchers and signal maintainers. C.7 Signal and Train Control System Regulations before the Railroad Safety Improvement Act (49 CFR Parts 235 and 236) This section describes FRA signal and train control systems regulations, before implementa- tion of positive train control (PTC) requirements of RSIA, and will continue to apply to conven- tional signal systems retained after PTC installation. Early information on railroad response to the PTC mandate of RSIA is that PTC will be an overlay, and conventional signal systems will remain in service. These regulations apply on any rail line in the United States unless conventional signal systems are completely replaced by PTC or equivalent new-technology system. The PTC mandate and associated implications for shared passenger and freight operations are discussed in Section C.7. Part 235 requires railroads to apply to the FRA to discontinue or materially change a signal and train control installation (49 CFR 235, Instructions Governing Applications for Approval of a Discontinuance or Material Modification of a Signal System or Relief From the Requirements of Part 236). The rationale for this regulation is to ensure that railroads do not change signal systems in a way or in circumstances that could increase accident risks. Part 236 contains numerous requirements for the design, installation, maintenance, and inspec- tion of traditional-technology signal and train control systems (49 CFR 236, Rules, Standards, and Instructions Governing the Installation, Inspection, Maintenance, and Repair of Signal and Train Control Systems, Devices, and Appliances). These details are familiar to signal engineers and apply equally to passenger and freight operations. Conventional signal regulations are rarely a significant issue in shared corridors, except the provisions of Part 236.0 defining the applicability of the requirements. Part 236.0 provisions are: A block system of train control that ensures that a passenger train cannot enter an occupied block and that no other train can enter a block occupied by a passenger train is required where passenger train speeds exceed 59 mph. Automatic cab signals (ACS), automatic train stop (ATS), or automatic train control is required where any train exceeds 79 mph. This provision is very important for any proposal for passen- ger train speeds exceeding 79 mph, as most freight lines are not equipped with a qualifying train control system.

OCR for page 127
C-6 Guidebook for Implementing Passenger Rail Service on Shared Passenger and Freight Corridors Note that requirements for over-79 mph operation may change when PTC is implemented. PTC would likely meet current requirements for operation over 79 mph, but this can only be con- firmed after the FRA has developed detailed regulations for PTC implementation. Before enactment of RSIA, practice for routes with passenger traffic, reflecting FRA require- ments defined in the detailed regulations, FRA interpretations of the regulations, and industry practice generally are as follows: All passenger lines should have at least an automatic block system with wayside block signals linked to track circuits. Except for short, low-speed route segments near passenger terminals, there are few exceptions to this practice. For speeds between 80 and 110 mph, the minimum requirement is cab signals with automatic train stop. There are some routes (mostly former Santa Fe Railway routes) where passenger trains are permitted to travel at 90 mph with a simple intermittent automatic train stop system. However, the FRA has stated that it considers this system to be obsolete and would not approve a new installation. For speeds between 110 and 125 mph, an automatic train control (ATC) system is required to provide automatic speed control in response to signal indications. This system is applied on the NEC. The FRA further requires that all trains operating on ATC-equipped lines, including freight trains, must be equipped with a compatible system. Freight trains that operate on the NEC are so equipped, but the FRA has granted selective waivers to this requirement on other routes. For speeds over 125 mph, the FRA requires additional capabilities to further reduce accident risks. On the NEC, the only installation to date, this took the form of the Advanced Civil Speed Enforcement System (ACSES) overlaid on ATC. ACSES uses line side transponders for track- to-train communications, to enforce civil speed limits, and to ensure an absolute stop at inter- locking signals. Note that all these requirements and practices will change with implementation of the PTC requirements in RSIA, as described in Section C.8. C.8 The Positive Train Control Mandate of the Railroad Safety Improvement Act RSIA, signed into law on October 16, 2008, requires that a qualified positive train control sys- tem be installed on main lines carrying regularly scheduled passenger service and/or specified hazardous materials shipment. The requirements are found in Section 104 of RSIA, and state: Not later than 18 months after passage of this Act (i.e., by April 16, 2010), all Class 1 freight railroads and each entity carrying regularly scheduled passenger service must prepare and submit to the U.S.DOT a plan for implementing PTC on: Main lines over which regularly scheduled commuter or intercity passenger services are operated. Main lines over which poisonous- or toxic-by-inhalation (PIH/TIH) hazardous materials are transported. Such other lines that the Secretary of the U.S.DOT may prescribe by regulation or order. The plans must show how the railroad will complete PTC implementation by December 31, 2015, pro- vide for interoperability to facilitate the movement of trains belonging to other carriers over its tracks, and to the extent possible give priority to areas of greater risk. Main lines are defined as those carrying over 5 million gross tons/year of railroad traffic, equiv- alent to about three freight trains per day. PTC is defined as a system that will prevent train-to- train collisions, over-speed derailments, incursions into established work zones, and movement of a train through a switch set in the wrong position. RSIA requires the U.S.DOT Secretary (in practice, the FRA Office of Safety) to take a number of actions to implement PTC:

OCR for page 127
Railroad Safety Regulations C-7 Provide technical assistance to the railroads for developing their PTC implementation plans. This is likely to include guidance as to the content and level of detail in the plans. Establish detailed regulations prescribing the functional requirements of a qualified PTC system and how individual systems and plans will be reviewed and qualified as acceptable. Establish regulations for PTC implementation on lines used for commuter or intercity passen- ger service, but which carry little or no freight. Complete reviews of railroad PTC implementation plans within 90 days of submittal and either approve the plan or provide a detailed notification of deficiencies, which the railroad must cor- rect within 30 days. For each approved plan, conduct an annual review of progress toward implementation. Individual PTC systems and installations must be approved using the procedures defined in Part 236, Subpart H as described in Section C.8. The FRA established a Working Group under the RSAC early in 2009, to assist the FRA to develop regulations and guidelines for the implementation of PTC. The PTC mandate clearly adds uncertainty to the implementation of a new or expanded passen- ger service on Class 1 freight railroad tracks. Some of the questions concerning the application of PTC to shared passenger/freight rail corridors include: To what extent will the FRA require PTC installation on non-Class 1 freight railroad tracks used by passenger trains? Initial information suggests that the FRA will require PTC on all lines that carry regularly scheduled passenger service. To what extent will the FRA require PTC to be implemented on exclusive or near-exclusive pas- senger lines, and will upgrades or replacements of existing traditional cab signal and ATC sys- tems be required? Initial information is that ATC plus ACSES or an equivalent will be accepted as equivalent to PTC. Will a qualified PTC system be accepted as meeting the requirements of Part 236.0 for opera- tions over 79 mph for speeds over 110 mph, or will additional functional capabilities be required? (Note that the NEC ATC plus ACSES appears to meet all PTC functional requirements.) What principles will govern how PTC installation and maintenance costs are shared between passenger and freight users of a rail corridor? This could be a critical issue for passenger rail inter- ests, as PTC costs are expected to be very high and could substantially increase the cost of imple- menting and operating passenger rail service. Will the PTC interoperability requirements worked out among Class 1 freight railroads pose any problems for passenger service operators? To what extent will the FRA allow operations on the same line with a mix of PTC-equipped and unequipped trains? These questions will be resolved as the industry and the FRA move forward with PTC plan- ning, approval, and implementation. Publication of a NPRM on requirements for PTC plans and installations took place in June 2009 and is the first formal step toward answering these questions. C.9 New Technology Train Control Systems These systems apply electronic processing and digital radio communications technologies to perform train control functions. Most PTC systems being proposed to meet the PTC mandate in RSIA apply these technologies. Because most of the regulations in Part 236 are written for tradi- tional signaling hardware, they cannot be applied effectively to these new-technology systems. Accordingly, the FRA has developed a new regulation found in Part 236, Subpart H, Standards for Processor-Based Signal and Train Control Systems. The standards take a "safety case" approach, requiring the railroad and system vendor to demonstrate that the system and the proposed specific

OCR for page 127
C-8 Guidebook for Implementing Passenger Rail Service on Shared Passenger and Freight Corridors application is safe, using hazard analyses, risk analyses, defined installation and maintenance prac- tices, and staff training as appropriate. Obtaining approval for a new system under Subpart H requirements can be a considerable chal- lenge. Detailed safety analyses are required for both the system itself (control center, on-board and trackside systems, and the communications systems that link system components) and for appli- cations to specific routes and rail operations. Given the large number of PTC approval applications expected for PTC installations in response to RSIA, the FRA is understood to be looking at ways to streamline the approval process without compromising safety, especially where a single technol- ogy is being applied to multiple railroad route segments. C.10 Passenger Car Safety Standards and the Operation of Non-FRA-Compliant Vehicles on Shared Corridors (49 CFR Part 238) Passenger Car Safety Standards are contained in 49 CFR Part 238 (49 CFR 238, Passenger Equipment Safety Standards). The standards were issued on May 12, 1999. Part 238 standards together with selected Part 229 locomotive standards provide detailed requirements for railroad pas- senger cars, including structures, safety glazing, interior fittings, fire safety, emergency egress, inspec- tion procedures, and brakes (49 CFR 229, Railroad Locomotive Safety Standards). Two separate sets of standards are provided: Tier I, for cars operating at up to 125 mph, and Tier II for speeds over 125 mph. Among other requirements, Tier II standards specify the use of crushable energy absorb- ing structures for occupant protection in collisions. Car builders are very familiar with the standards, and almost all vehicles purchased after the regulation became effective are fully compliant. Rail passenger car safety technology continues to advance, and further development of passen- ger car safety standards can be expected, in response to research results and the findings of acci- dent investigations. This development will likely include the conditions under which operation of non-compliant passenger cars will be permitted, as discussed below, and to reflect the changes in exposure to collision risk resulting from universal application of PTC. C.10.1 Operation of Non-FRA-Compliant Passenger Vehicles The issues of whether and how to permit non-FRA-compliant passenger rail vehicles to oper- ate on the general railroad network have arisen regularly over the past two decades. This interest is driven by a desire to offer innovative rail services or to use attractive existing train designs from outside North America without incurring the cost and time delay of redesigning trains to meet U.S. standards. Examples of applications of non-compliant vehicles are: Implementing high-speed intercity passenger service using foreign, primarily European-design trains. Implementing light rail passenger services over existing lightly used local freight lines. Using European-design electric multiple unit commuter trains, most notably for the Caltrain service between San Francisco and San Jose, California. The following paragraphs provide a summary of what is meant by "non-FRA-compliant" pas- senger rail vehicles, referring to technical reports, applicable FRA safety regulations, and the cur- rent status of efforts to introduce and use such vehicles on the general railroad network. C.10.2 Definition of Non-FRA-Compliant Passenger Vehicles A non-FRA-compliant passenger vehicle is one that does not fully meet all current FRA safety regulations applicable to passenger rail vehicles operating on the general rail network. The primary

OCR for page 127
Railroad Safety Regulations C-9 area of non-compliance has always been the regulations and standards for the strength of passen- ger car structures, which can have a major bearing on the safety of rail passenger cars in collisions. There have been substantial changes to the regulatory landscape over the past 15 years. Prior to the early 1980s, the Association of American Railroads (AAR) Manual of Recommended Standards and Practices contained a volume devoted to passenger cars. The Manual required the end-load compression strength (commonly called buff strength) of a passenger car for unrestricted use in interchange service to be 800,000 lb, with other structural requirements to match. A lower buff strength of 400,000 lb was permitted for trains having an empty weight below 600,000 lb, on the logical grounds that collision impact loads are lower for lighter trains. This exception was rarely used--the only instance since 1970 has been the French-built turbo trains purchased in the early days of Amtrak, which had the European buff strength of 440,000 lb (200 metric tons). Most buy- ers did not want to operate a vehicle that would be restricted to lightweight trains. FRA regulations of the same era, in 49 CFR Part 229 (strictly applicable only to MU cars not expressly covered in the AAR Manual), were identical to the AAR standards. Otherwise, the FRA took the view that pas- senger car structural safety was effectively managed by the AAR. In the early 1980s, the AAR stopped maintaining passenger car standards, and safety standards were left to the specification writers for individual passenger rail service operators, who contin- ued to follow earlier practice. This regulatory vacuum became a concern as interest grew in the operation of high-speed and new-design intercity passenger trains. The FRA responded by ini- tiating a substantial program of research into passenger car collision safety and the development of new passenger car standards applicable to both conventional and high-speed trains (Ullman and Bing 1995). The development of specifications for Amtrak's Acela trains was deeply enmeshed in the process. Safety-related specification requirements for Acela were reviewed with the FRA, and the agreements reached influenced development of the resulting FRA standards. The new regulations in 49 CFR Part 238 became effective in May 1999 (49 CFR Parts 200-299, Specifically Part 238, current FRA Safety Standards contained in Passenger Car Safety Standards (Effective May 1999), Part 236, Signal and Train Control Standards, and Part 213, Track Safety Standards). The regulations eliminated the exception to the 800,000 lb buff strength requirement for trains under 600,000 lb and added new requirements for collision safety for trains operating at over 125 mph (i.e., the Acela). There have been a number of additions to passenger car safety requirements since 1999, notably in fire safety and emergency egress, and regulatory develop- ment continues. C.10.3 Non-compliant Intercity Trains There were two notable exceptions to Part 238 proposed or implemented during the 1990s for intercity passenger service. These were: The Florida Overland eXpress (FOX) proposal for high-speed service in Florida (49 CFR 243, FOX High Speed Rail Safety Standards, Proposed Rule, Federal Register, December 12, 1997). This service reached an advanced planning stage before being cancelled, including a full review of the plans by the FRA, resulting in a Rule of Particular Applicability specifically for this proj- ect. This approach was (and presumably still is) the way that the FRA Office of Safety deals with new-technologyguided passenger transportation systems that fall within its jurisdiction, and which have limited interaction with the general rail network. This Rule covered all the same safety issues as the conventional rules in 49 CFR Parts 200-299, but adapted to this spe- cific system. FOX proposed using French Train a Grande Vitesse (TGV) technology, and the Rule is basically an adaptation of French practice, including European passenger car body strength requirements. The proposed operation would have used a completely new alignment with virtually no physical connections to the existing rail network.

OCR for page 127
C-10 Guidebook for Implementing Passenger Rail Service on Shared Passenger and Freight Corridors Talgo trains operate in Amtrak's Pacific Northwest corridor between Portland, Oregon and Seattle, Washington (U.S.DOT 1999). The Talgo is a unique articulated train design, originat- ing is Spain, which used passive pendular tilting to increase speed in curves and thus reduce journey time. Five train sets were put into service between 1995 and 1999, and except for some structural problems (that have been corrected) have been a commercial and operational suc- cess. The Talgos are operated pushpull fashion with an Amtrak locomotive at one end and a cab-baggage car (an F40 locomotive with the power equipment removed) at the other. These Talgo trainsets are nearly identical with the European version and are built to European struc- tural requirements, including 440,000 lb (200 metric tons) buff strength. The operation takes advantage of a "grandfathering" provision in the 49 CFR Part 238 (Passenger Car Safety Standards) permitting the operation of non-compliant equipment put into service before the effective date of the rule, subject to review and approval by the FRA. The FRA's initial approval was challenged (by a competing supplier) on safety grounds, after which the FRA required Amtrak and Talgo to undertake detailed risk and collision analy- ses to demonstrate that the operation was safe. The analyses are documented in the U.S.DOT docket for the grandfathering petition and remain the most complete example of what it takes to gain approval of a non-compliant or otherwise unconventional train on a busy passenger/ freight corridor. It should be noted that part of the "safety case" was the commitment to keep the first car of the train (baggage, auxiliary power generator or otherwise) as an "unoccupied space." With compliance with 49 CFR Part 238 in full effect, including the requirement for 800,000 lb buff strength with no exceptions, any future effort to introduce non-compliant vehicles will be more challenging. C.10.4 Use of Light Rail Vehicles on the General Rail System The genesis of much of the research on this topic came from the series of reports by David Phraner (Phraner 2001; Phraner 2000a; Phraner 2000b; Phraner et al. 1999) and colleagues focus- ing on overseas developments in the application of light rail transit (LRT) and diesel multiple units (DMUs) in rail transit and commuter service, and the shared use of railroad infrastructure by both light rail and conventional rail services. The particular attraction of this form of sharing is that it allows a one-seat ride from points on an inner-city light rail network to suburban loca- tions accessible via existing railroad tracks. This form of shared use caught the attention of the U.S. transit community and gave impetus to development of shared operations. One of the most visible U.S. projects to evolve from lim- ited acceptance of non-compliant shared use was NJT's RiverLINE between Camden and Trenton where a light rail service sharing track with local freight operations was being imple- mented. A request was submitted to the FRA for approval of the proposed operation, which directly conflicted with the new Part 238, which was then about to be published and which would prohibit such operation. After some deliberation, the FRA and the FTA published a proposed joint rule that shared operation would be permitted but with strict time-of-day separation (FRA and FTA 2000). NJT had to revise planned RiverLINE operations to comply with this require- ment, with daytime passenger and overnight freight operations. Both parties had to accept less- than-ideal restrictions. Two other light rail transit lines with limited sharing (Baltimore, Maryland and St. Louis, Missouri) also complied, but with little inconvenience given very sparse freight operations. The San Diego Trolley, which had operated a shared use LRT line without attracting attention for years, also had to modify its operations. Because of these events, both the FRA and the National Academies' Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) have initiated projects to further explore the safety and feasibility of shared light rail operations. The conclusions reached by these studies are:

OCR for page 127
Railroad Safety Regulations C-11 It is feasible (i.e., safe and operationally practical) for light rail service to share tracks concur- rently with limited local freight operations during off-peak hours (Bing et al. 2007; Gross and Mortensen 2007). The key safety measure is to implement some form of automatic collision protection (train stops or ATC) to minimize collision risk. There are a number of potential applications where concurrent shared light rail and local freight- rail operations would be the best alternative to meeting both freight and passenger mobility needs (cheaper, better able to meet service needs) (Booz Allen Hamilton et al. 2009). The best way to implement the shared operation is for the transit agency to acquire the right- of-way and to give the freight operator permanent access to agreed train slots in off-peak hours (Booz Allen Hamilton et al. 2009). The investigators in these studies express the view that this subject has been analyzed enough in the abstract, and the next step is a pilot project to implement a concurrent shared-use opera- tion, including working with the FRA Office of Safety to gain approvals. The most likely loca- tions for a demonstration would be further expansion of sharing on the San Diego Trolley or on the Southern New Jersey RiverLINE. Both operators have substantial service experience with limited sharing and both would benefit from expanded concurrent operations. In parallel with this research, the FRA has recently permitted limited concurrent operations on both San Diego Trolley and the RiverLINE with appropriate safety controls and tightly defined operating procedures.