Passenger Trains > Is FRA changing rules requiring US trains heavier than Europe?

I pulled this article off the Streetsblog website and looked to see if there was anything about the change in railcar crash-resistance standards in TO.  Since this is a topic which has been discussed many times over the years, I thought it interesting that we appear to see signs of movement toward bringing our standards more in line with other countries, although I expect to see some "but things are a lot different here in the US" comments.

Wednesday, November 30, 20169 CommentsFederal Regulators Will Let U.S. Railroads Run Faster, More Efficient Trainsby Angie Schmitt http://usa.streetsblog.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2016/11/1024px-TGV_Duplex_in_profile-1024x574.jpgAmerican passenger railroads will be able to save hundreds of millions of dollars annually by using trains designed to standard European specifications. Photo of France’s TGV, via Wikipedia Why are American trains so expensive and yet so slow? One factor that rail advocates often point to is the Federal Railroad Administration and its rail safety regulations — rules that are finally on the verge of changing.Antiquated regulations that date all the way back to the late 1800s (they were updated in the 1930s) compel American passenger rail operators to use trains designed like “high-velocity bank vaults,” as former Amtrak CEO David Gunn once put it. While European and Asian railcars became lighter and sleeker in recent decades without compromising safety records, FRA rules continued to insist on heavy, slow, outdated, and expensive equipment.That finally appears set to change with the FRA’s release of new draft safety rules for traincars.The FRA expects the new rules will enable railroads to use trains that are safer, more energy efficient, and cheaper to operate. The rules will allow American passenger train operators to purchase rolling stock designed to European safety standards (but not Japanese standards), without going through an expensive waiver process. “It was an obstacle for all foreign railway manufacturers to bring any state-of-the-art trains into the country,” said Alois Starlinger, a board member for the Swiss train maker Stadler Rail.Building trains to unusual U.S. safety standards for the small American passenger rail market made rolling stock purchases needlessly expensive. Opening the door to standardized European train specifications will significantly lower prices.Rail operators are expected to save hundreds of millions of dollars a year as a result, enabling them to invest more in operating train service and upgrading rolling stock and infrastructure. (Another factor driving up the price of trains for U.S. railroads is Buy America regulations, which increase the cost of equipment and the risk of manufacturing flaws but are not affected by the new rules.)It’s unknown why the new regulations spurned Japanese models, but Alon Levy, who blogs about transit issues atPedestrian Observations, speculates that it’s because Japanese safety standards focus more on crash avoidance than “survivability” compared to European standards.Even so, reforming the FRA’s old rules represents a welcome sea change in the way American regulators view train safety. Up until now, American safety standards were focused almost entirely on how trains hold up in the event of a collision. But in Europe and Asia, rail regulators and train makers have adopted a different approach to safety over time, putting a higher value on crash avoidance.Lighter trains are easier to stop, for example. European and Asian train makers also modified designs so trains could absorb crash impacts using “crumple zones” and other techniques to minimize loss of life by managing the force of a collision without adding tons of weight.EmailShare   

•  
• •  
  •  
•  

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/30/16 19:58 by DNRY122.

I really hope that something comes of this. I would hope it could reduce costs in the long run since things won't be such one-off builds.

Nathan

Posted from iPhone

A short answer to the topic heading question is "yes", but the work of the Rail Safety Advisory Committee's Engineering Task Force (ETF) is not completed yet.  The Stadler Rail executive mentioned in the article, Alois Starlinger, was in Chicago in July and gave a presentation on the topic of the FRA's alternative crashworthiness standards.  As I recall, the ETF has finished work on the Tier I alternative standards (up to 125 mph) but the Tier II (150 mph) standards are still a work in progress.  The posted article was probably triggered by an FRA Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) issued last week.  They propose establishing alternative standards for Tier III (220 mph) equipment and changing the top speed for Tier II to 160 mph.  The NPRM can be found on the FRA website here:

FRA NPRM on Tier III alternative crashworthiness standards

Incidentally, the Tier I standards are not exactly the same as the European ones.  If I'm remembering the presentation correctly, the FRA insisted on adding provisions dealing with penetration of liquids into the passenger and operator compartments (in case of grade crossing collision with a tank truck or rupturing of a locomotive fuel tank in an accident), and also with the scenario of a grade crossing collision with a steel hauler carrying a coil of steel (because of an accident on the South Shore Line in NW Indiana where the coil entered the lead car and rolled down the aisle).


 



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/30/16 21:46 by illini73.

The changes, if enacted, could be a gold mine for litigation. Consider the Philly 188 wreck with lighter requirements.

Knew the risk and put profits over safety and that nonsense.

Posted from Android

Two diffrent countrys operating in two diffrent ways on the rails. Stopping distance really in the long run means little in the accidents as how many rear end collisions have occured in recent years with US passenger trains? Head on crash stopping distance means little or nothing due to the fact usually its too late so little speed can be scrubbed off before impact. The durablity of cars is more important than saving weight so what good does it do when a train derails and side swipes another on an ajoining track or leaves the rails on a curve like one did not long ago?

Of course, the completely safe train always runs at 0mph :)

Lackawanna484 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The changes, if enacted, could be a gold mine for
> litigation. Consider the Philly 188 wreck with
> lighter requirements.

The differences in carnage from American accidents and European accidents are like night and day due to our more robust standards.

> Knew the risk and put profits over safety and that
> nonsense.

The FRA standards are a minimum standard of a care.  If there is a better way, it would be easy to argue in court the company should have undertaken to do it instead of cutting corners.

DNRY122 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> see some "but things are a lot different here in
> the US" comments.

Things are a lot different in the US regarding freight train weights, loading guage, prevelance of grade crossings, and signal protections.

> changing.Antiquated regulations that date all the
> way back to the late 1800s (they were updated in
> the 1930s) compel American passenger rail
> operators to use trains designed like
> “high-velocity bank vaults,” as former Amtrak
> CEO David Gunn once put it. While European and
> Asian railcars became lighter and sleeker in
> recent decades without compromising safety
> records, FRA rules continued to insist on heavy,
> slow, outdated, and expensive equipment.That

That isn't really true.  American equipment like Amfleet is very lightweight.  Its been more of a factor in recent years to continuously add bells & whistles to equipment which adds weight.  LIRR has mentioned to me that the weight of each new M series of EMU's increases by around 20,000 lbs. over the previous series.

> enable railroads to use trains that are safer,

That is debatable.  European accident records don't show a history of "safer" or more survivable than American accidents.  The European ones are uniformly worse, with generally 10 times as many passenger deaths.

> unusual U.S. safety standards for the small
> American passenger rail market made rolling stock
> purchases needlessly expensive. Opening the door

The American passenger rail market is not small.  Hundreds of cars per year are produced for it.  The biggest issue is the multiplicity of foreign suppliers dominating the market each with a small segment of it and using one-off plants as compared to the larger build volumes that Budd, Pullman Standard and St. Louis Car used to experience.  Here is a fairly complete roster:

Amtrak - 120 Acela trainset cars, 1588 coaches
LIRR - 1006 EMU, 134 coaches
MNR - 793 EMU, 283 coaches
METRA - 186 EMU, 808 coaches
NJT - 230 EMU, 650 coaches
MBTA - 481 coaches
SEPTA - 351 EMU, 53 coaches
Metrolink - 274 coaches
MARC - 177 coaches
Caltrain - 118 coaches
VRE - 98 coaches
South Shore - 82 EMU
Denver RTD - 66 EMU
Sounder - 58 coaches
FrontRunner - 45 coaches
Shore Line East - 33 coaches
Coaster - 28 coaches
TriRail - 26 coaches
ACE - 25 coaches
TRE - 25 coaches
RailRunner - 22 coaches
SunRail - 20 coaches
Northstar - 18 coaches
Total - 7798 cars

GO - 656 coaches
VIA - 444 coaches
AMT - 58 EMU, 206 coaches
West Coast Express - 44 coaches
Total 1408 cars

That is 9206 cars total.  If you assume a 40 year life, you need 230 new per year plus service expansion cars.  If a 30 year life 307 new per year plus service expansion.  Production lines generally can output one car per week, so 5 to 6 production lines just to keep up with the current fleet and additional lines for new service.

As a comparison for production, Boeing does around 700 planes per year for the global market.  The American passenger car market is sufficiently large to keep a couple of companies busy full time.

> to standardized European train
> specifications will significantly lower
> prices.Rail operators are expected to save

Unlikely.  The cost of rail cars is driven by technical equipment and assembly labor, neither of which are reduced by using less steel in the center sill and frame.  If you saved 20 tons of steel per car, the cost savings would be on the order of around $30,000 in a car costing $1.5 to $3 million, so 1 or 2% of costs.

Standard European cars have the wrong loading guage for the US - European trains are narrower and the cars are often shorter and articulated, and they use lower platforms (29" vs. 48") because they use a lower car floor height.

> hundreds of millions of dollars a year as a

Highly optimistic take on cost savings.

> result, enabling them to invest more in operating
> train service and upgrading rolling stock and
> infrastructure. (Another factor driving up the
> price of trains for U.S. railroads is Buy America
> regulations, which increase the cost of equipment
> and the risk of manufacturing flaws but are not
> affected by the new rules.)It’s unknown why the

Buy America regulations only increase the cost of equipment because we refuse to reserve our market for American companies like other countries do.  American trains didn't cost more when Budd and Pullman Standard built them, nor did they suffer manufacturing flaws like the foreign companies do constantly.

> avoidance.Lighter trains are easier to stop, for

Easier to stop really does nothing for rail operational safety.

> example. European and Asian train makers also
> modified designs so trains could absorb crash
> impacts using “crumple zones” and other
> techniques to minimize loss of life by managing
> the force of a collision without adding tons of
> weight.

Crumple zones have been used in the US for decades.  The US also uses the "unique" concept of taking up collision energy in the locomotive.  When you account for size differences between Acela and TGV cars, for example, there really is almost no weight difference.  There is a significant weight difference in the power cars on the ends of the trainset.  I would be concerned about the behavior of lighter locomotives in grade crossing collisions.

>
>
> The FRA standards are a minimum standard of a
> care.  If there is a better way, it would be easy
> to argue in court the company should have
> undertaken to do it instead of cutting corners.

Right.

Anyone adopting reduced strength standards better have their liability insurance in good order.

Posted from Android