Guidebook for Intercity Passenger Rail Service and Development (2016)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

C-1 Convincing Americans to leave their cars behind in favor of passenger service is a challenge in many parts of the United States. In some regions, an entire generation has grown up with- out ready access to high-quality, reliable train service. Convenient schedules, reasonable transit times, and comfortable equipment can each contribute to ridership growth, but service reliability is equally important in achieving ridership goals. This discussion outlines considerations and action items related to service resiliency for those charged with building competitive rail service. Defining Resiliency in the Context of Passenger Rail Service Rail service may be thrown off schedule for various reasons, some of which can be anticipated while others are impossible to foretell weeks or even days in advance: • Weather. Heavy snow, ice, and rainfall may not only affect the rail network’s physical structure, but may also affect availability of service staff and train operations personnel (e.g., personnel may be unable to access their on-duty locations). Rail operations are generally better able to cope with adverse winter weather conditions than other surface transportation modes, but this advantage goes unleveraged if requisite railway staff is missing. Degraded railway signal- ing functions may also cause train operations to ether cease or operate under far slower, more restrictive protocols. • Track Failure. Inadequate train maintenance and inspection protocols, extreme weather con- ditions, acts of nature (e.g., earthquakes), or other unplanned events may cause track to fail, trains to derail, or service to be suspended over a given route. A particular challenge for rail operations (as compared to highway travel) is the lack of available alternative routes between given city pairs. Even where such routes exist, capacity and service considerations probably will severely limit opportunities to dispatch a passenger train over a different routing. • Rolling Stock Failure. Faulty locomotives or passenger coaches may be set out for repair once a defect is discovered, (preferably) at the end of a given run or occasionally in the middle of a specific train trip. Passenger trips may be disrupted and service capacity is reduced until equipment is replaced or restored to service. Freight rail equipment failures also directly affect passenger service in shared-use corridors, given the limits of the track network. • Grade Crossing Incidents. Collisions between trains and motor vehicles at railway grade crossings cause death and severe injury to hundreds of Americans each year. Beyond the direct human toll, such incidents inflict a psychological burden on railway operating personnel and affect service on trains using the line in question. Railway trespasser fatalities, which continue to climb even as grade crossing motor vehicle fatalities have declined, are a growing area of concern. The service impacts for grade crossing and trespasser incidents are similar, given the needs for emergency personnel, site evaluation, and investigative reconnaissance. A p p e n d i x C Robust Service Delivery: Building Resilient and Dependable Passenger Rail Service

C-2 Guidebook for intercity passenger Rail Service and development A resilient rail operations system that can respond quickly and effectively to the items noted above will be better positioned to provide desired service at times of unusual demand (e.g., for sporting events and festivals) and to fill a critical role in emergency transport (e.g., evacuations) where the same may be wanted as an element of civil defense or emergency management strategy. Planning a Resilient Service Service resiliency begins with an appreciation by rail service sponsors that robust scheduling and the ability to recover from unplanned events requires advance consideration and support of necessary resources. Extra assets devoted to such use come at a cost. It is the role of rail manage- ment and public policymakers to find the appropriate balance of efficient use of scarce resources while meeting the service standards demanded by patrons and the public at large. The following are necessary components of planning for resilient service: • Host Carrier Protocols. Most startup passenger rail services involve the use of shared rights of way and trackage with freight rail operators. The relationship and protocols that govern the day-to-day interface between the passenger operations and the host freight carrier are critical to rapid service recovery when the rail network, for whatever reason, is under duress. Contingency plans that carefully outline the responsibilities of each party and the technical standards that define emergency conditions are essential. As infrastructure partners, both the passenger ser- vice sponsor and the host carrier should expect to contribute additional resources in support of restoring service to normal conditions. • Special Service Trains. Passenger service sponsors may seek to run extra trains in response to festivals, sporting events, or seasonal travel patterns. The easiest answer for any host carrier representative when approached for permission to operate a special movement is no. Defining future potential requests for such operations in advance can help the host carrier assess the feasibility of such a request or to suggest alternatives. Such advance preparation improves the likelihood of receiving approval for the special train. • Capacity Planning. NCHRP Report 773 provides a broad discussion of the major elements of rail capacity planning as well as elements that may be considered in planning a new service. Testing the reaction of the service network to different types of disruption, through a service model, can help to geographically isolate areas of vulnerability and suggest mitigation strategies. Corridor passenger operations, for example, often benefit from the construction of specially assigned staging tracks just upstream from congested terminal areas as a means of quickly making full use of corridor capacity to move traffic as soon as such capacity becomes available. • Infrastructure and Capital Programs. NCHRP Report 657 includes a case-study description of the capital renewal and infrastructure maintenance practices put in place for California’s Capitol Corridor to make service more reliable. Service is made more robust through application of three key principles: – Diurnal scheduling. Most routine trackwork takes place during overnight hours so as not to disrupt daily passenger operations. – Load leveling. Capital renewals and change-out of major track components are planned and implemented at approximately the same rate from year to year, avoiding the far more onerous service impacts that would accompany a more traditional, 7-year track renewal approach. – Engineering cushion. Track is maintained to a higher engineering specification than would be strictly required for the volume and speed of trains. Due to this planned cushion, most track defects, as discovered, are sufficiently small to avoid the need for temporary speed restrictions. Off-specification conditions may be corrected as part of regular overnight work programs without affecting scheduling integrity. A robust fixed-plant infrastructure directly contributes to a robust and resilient train operation.

Robust Service delivery: Building Resilient and dependable passenger Rail Service C-3 • Rolling Stock Considerations and Strategies. Few passenger rail sponsors can maintain large reserve rolling stock fleets. Optimally, reserve cars should be stored indoors to minimize weather-related deterioration and the possibility of defacement or tampering. Restoring cars to service after a long period of dormancy requires thorough inspection and testing. Some agencies have succeeded in keeping some reserve cars on hand using the following strategies: – Strategic storage of old equipment. Purchases of new rolling stock to replace those in existing service mean that storage or purposeful strategic mothballing of the older equipment is possible. The value of this reserve capacity must be weighed against the net liquidation pro- ceeds of disposing of the old cars to third-party purchasers. Passenger car safety standards are continually evolving, and old equipment may not meet contemporary standards when the old cars are considered for a return to service. – Sharing of reserve equipment. If geography permits, sharing or pooling of reserve rolling stock capacity with other rail operators may provide a cost-effective approach to meeting this need. – Leasing equipment from third parties. Passenger cars may be leased from third-party suppliers. The limited nature of rail operations in many regions of the United States has not encouraged the development of a robust leasing industry, but this situation may improve as more rail service is developed. • Formal Contingency Plans. Effective response to emergency or unusual demand circumstances is not a matter of chance. The time and energy invested in developing formal, documented protocol to be triggered in such circumstances, particularly as between host carriers and passenger service sponsors, are resources well spent. Although the content of such plans may vary, they should at minimum incorporate the following key elements: – Technical definitions and responsibilities for triggering the plan. – Names and backup contact information for those charged with managing emergency operations. – Coordination of emergency response providers. – Communications responsibilities and roles, particularly regarding the press and the general public audience. Specific procedures for content development and signoff by stakeholders. (Conflicting messages to the press and public can derail a partnership quickly.) – Commitments for train dispatch priorities and tailoring of service levels to respect the needs of all stakeholders. – Payment provisions for work undertaken beyond the base contract. Managing Resiliency Ensuring service resiliency is an ongoing process, one that relies both on regular reviews of routine performance and thoughtful post-audits of service response to unusual circumstances. Emergency service plans and protocols should be routinely examined and either reconfirmed or adjusted as circumstances change. Difficult circumstances place everyone under stress; planning the appropriate responses in advance (or at least defining how such responses will be determined) mitigates stress at the time of acute need.