Biggest obstacle to high-speed rail: The FRA

The ICE 1 fleet is actually going in for overhaul, and the trains are being given new interiors similar to the interior of the ICE 3.

In fact, I seem to recall reading where the DB has finished rehabbing the first ICE 1 trainset.

crazy_nip wrote:there are several things in play here

1. since when is it the GOVERNMENT's role to promote long distance travel by ANY means

2. why should the government subsidize people's transportation habits

As the NEC has shown us, HSR cannot fund itself, it is a money pit

if the most dense population area in the NATION cannot be self sustaining, these cooridoors will be MASSIVE money losers

why should taxpayers fund such projects?

1. The government unfortunately took it upon itself to do exactly that in the years following the second world war (and continued to do so to this day), pouring an unending stream of taxpayer dollars into highways and airports/air traffic control. Since the government chose to subsidize highways and aviation, it should be just as prepared to subsidize the more efficient rail mode as well (in particular since it would not only be more energy efficient but would also produce less of every type of pollution than automobiles or airplanes).

2. Based on that statement, the airports should be shut down and the highways permitted to return to nature. Gentlemen, start your bicycles!

Your comments reflect the ridiculous bias reflected in the federal government and its policies over the past 50+ years. Show me a highway that is "self sustaining." It doesn't exist. Ditto for airports. The airline industry and the Interstate highways are sinkholes that will never earn anyone a nickel of profit. They are truly bottomless sinkholes, and additional highway and airport construction would neither be practical (no room for the number of highway lanes needed nor communities willing to suffer the noise of additional airports intruding on their airspace) nor would they be cost competitive with building high speed rail. Further, rail transport CAN, unlike highways and aviation, earn its cost of capital. The French have already earned back what they spent building the initial portions of their TGV system. The NEC is an upgrade to conventional tracks built around the turn of the LAST century, NOT a true high speed rail corridor, and even with all those handicaps, the fact is that Amtrak hauls more passengers in the "corridor" than the airlines and covers more of its costs per dollar for each of its passengers than do the airlines.

This nation should be building a nationwide high speed rail network and feeder rail networks to connect it to outlying areas TODAY, period. Our dependence on foreign energy sources due to our government's retarded transportation policies is making us WEAK as a country. How many more wars in the unstable middle east are we going to have to spill blood in so that we can sit in traffic jams (both on highways and on runways)??

DutchRailnut wrote:If the X2000 is such a succes why is Norway starting to downgrade these trainsets,specialy after spectacular failures including wheels and axles. If ICE is so succesfull why are first ICE trains starting to go to scrapper ???

X2000 will not be downgraded or taken out of service.

They are and will be SJ's (Swedens Railways) best trains...

Norway makes a lot of trouble with his news trains - in europe there are people which say the NSB (Norwegian State Railway) makes such a trouble to get money back from the train-building industry...

I corrected myself in my next post if you keep reading.

Irish Chieftain wrote:Given that the present convention of HSR is to not run on tracks shared with freight, the FRA is not really the biggest obstacle. No funding for high-speed corridors is, instead.

As for the Acela Express, that was never meant to be a full-blown TGV/ICE/AVE/Bullet-train, but instead more like down-dressed tilting HSR for "conventional" railroads, like the German ICT (for operation at up to about 143 mph), the Pendolino (which can operate at about 155 mph), or lower-grade models of Talgo Pendular trainsets. The Acela Express, in that department, is also the victim of insufficient funding, not to mention hastily-conceived designs and a host of other problems...but really, the FRA would have been the least of the problems associated with it, what with the upgrades to the NEC infrastructure that were not effected nor funded. A more lenient FRA would not have resulted in widespread 150-mph passenger rail operation around the USA, to be sure...

In Europe there are High Speed lines on which high speed trains run. But these trains also run on conventional lines, at conventional speeds. This is necessary so that the trains can enter the traditional city centre terminals or other pre-existing stations. You FRA regulations would need to allow high speed trains to run on some of your conventional tracks for part of their journey.

You FRA regulations would need to allow high speed trains to run on some of your conventional tracks for part of their journey

I would say that they already do, so long as the speeds are indeed also "conventional". That is not something that the FRA is "standing in the way of". Besides, there are no such examples of any running in the USA presently. (TGVs run at 138 mph off the LGV alignments, where signals permit; the US equivalent, depending on the alignment, would be either 79, 90, or 125 mph.)

Irish Chieftain wrote:

You FRA regulations would need to allow high speed trains to run on some of your conventional tracks for part of their journey

I would say that they already do, so long as the speeds are indeed also "conventional". That is not something that the FRA is "standing in the way of". Besides, there are no such examples of any running in the USA presently. (TGVs run at 138 mph off the LGV alignments, where signals permit; the US equivalent, depending on the alignment, would be either 79, 90, or 125 mph.)

You have to get the weight down, but I gather the FRA doesn't like lightweight trains. But the lightweight trains have to be able to enter on conventional tracks where heavy trains are the only ones allowed at present.

Eurostar starts out on normal commuter tracks (third rail 750 v) and nly speeds up when it gets to the new High Speed Line. In the beginning it took months of testing to get it compatible with nowmal commuter trains and the signalling system.

XBNSFer wrote:The French have already earned back what they spent building the initial portions of their TGV system.

Not actually true. The Economist thoroughly researched this in an article not long ago.

http://economist.com/displaystory.cfm?s ... =E1_GPJSND

That article is almost five years old. A lot happens in five years.

I don't think they've made up the billions of losses noted, in five years.

Two comments -

First, I think only the TGV Sud, TGV Atlantique, TGV Nord, part of line between Cologne and Frankfurt, and the Japanese lines are built for dedicated passenger service only (though when the new HST-Zuid opens to Amsterdam next April it will be too). The AVE between Madrid and Seville is passenger only, but that has more to do with that line being standard gauge and the rest of the Spanish system being 5 ft. The German ICEs are all designed to run and be compatible with the freight trains. Belgium's high speed lines are mixed as are the Swedish and Italian lines. I don't know about Korea's.

Second, my readings of the FRA Tier II requirements seems to suggest that realisticly, you would have to construct a completely seperate infrastructure for Tier II trains, which immediately eliminates the benefits of sharing tracks.

Two final thoughts, while Congress writes the law, it is up to the agency to interpret the law, and here the FRA seems to be stuck in interpreting the law in a way that has led to the financially infeasibility of any true HSR route in the U.S. Additionally, it might be worth considering that the FRA regulations amount to an illegal state support or trade restrictions under WTO rules restricting trade since nearly all passenger rail products are effectively banned in the U.S. due explicitly to FRA regulations.

gt7348b wrote:The German ICEs are all designed to run and be compatible with the freight trains

Freight uses the ICE corridors IIRC, but not at the same time of day. Trains like the ICT and ICT-VT are tilting trains intended for operation at up to 143 mph on "traditional" rail routes, and the Acela Express is supposed to be analagous to those trains.

my readings of the FRA Tier II requirements seems to suggest that realisticly, you would have to construct a completely seperate infrastructure for Tier II trains, which immediately eliminates the benefits of sharing tracks

The Tier II crashworthiness requirements are specifically in reference to shared-track operation, otherwise they would not be in force.

it might be worth considering that the FRA regulations amount to an illegal state support or trade restrictions under WTO rules restricting trade since nearly all passenger rail products are effectively banned in the U.S. due explicitly to FRA regulations

Certainly trade restrictions, because there are no more domestic US passenger railcar builders. But it makes the USA suffer in the long run, not overseas railcar builders who invariably get the building contracts.

krtaylor wrote:I don't think they've made up the billions of losses noted, in five years

If they're counting SNCF's commuter and freight services, then no. However, HSR has generated surpluses since its inception back in 1981. Any country that has built HSR systems never stops at one corridor. (And in general, with state-supported transportation corridors no matter the mode, the outlook will always be "billions of losses"...except for toll roads of course)

Freight uses the ICE corridors IIRC, but not at the same time of day. Trains like the ICT and ICT-VT are tilting trains intended for operation at up to 143 mph on "traditional" rail routes, and the Acela Express is supposed to be analagous to those trains

Yes - but they way I read FRA regulations is that in the U.S., any trains would be that run on the same track as freight rail would be required to meet the same requirement even if there was a time-differential, unless there was a waiver from the FRA - which is extremely difficult to get - ask NJT.

The Tier II crashworthiness requirements are specifically in reference to shared-track operation, otherwise they would not be in force.

Name a High speed rail (other than AVE with different track gauge) that does not have shared track operation?b Even the Thalys and Eurostar operate on shared tracks coming into Paris Nord.

Certainly trade restrictions, because there are no more domestic US passenger railcar builders. But it makes the USA suffer in the long run, not overseas railcar builders who invariably get the building contracts.

Exactly - FRA restrictions made US rail manufacturers go out of business - thus - there are no manufacturers who can meet FRA requirements. It is a Catch-22. Who will build, when there isn't a market because of regulation? Isn't that essentially market distortion? It is exactly my point that the USA suffers in the long run. Why should our own government prevent new technologies and practices - simply because it wasn't invented here?

If they're counting SNCF's commuter and freight services, then no. However, HSR has generated surpluses since its inception back in 1981. Any country that has built HSR systems never stops at one corridor. (And in general, with state-supported transportation corridors no matter the mode, the outlook will always be "billions of losses"...except for toll roads of course)

Actually, if you read about toll-roads in Europe, the profitable toll roads in France cross-subsidize the national system and Italy works because there are only a few corridors on a penisula that are possible for travel. Spain worked, but during a period of zero-interest rates and before a socialist government in 1982 decided to construct tollfree-motorways radiating from Madrid. Only one of the original five private French concessions for operating toll-roads exists today and on the on rail side, SNCF financed 70% of its infrastructure prior to 1997 (when infrastructure was split from operations) with private debt compared with 25% of private finance at DB prior to its division between infrastructure and services in 1994. What is AMTRAKs? Beyond that - what legally does the U.S. actually allow for private investment and operation? Since, to me, most U.S. regulation (such as BUYUSA requirements and FRA regulations) tend to date from the Nixon era, it is that the ability of the private sector to participate in passenger rail financing is nil-to non-existant since only states can gaurantee bonds and only for service within said state.

Name a High speed rail (other than AVE with different track gauge) that does not have shared track operation? Even the Thalys and Eurostar operate on shared tracks coming into Paris Nord.

What are you talking about...? Those trains operate at conventional speeds on those tracks off the LGV, not high speeds. In the case of the USA building high-speed corridors (which hasn't happened yet), unless the trains operate faster than 125 mph on the shared segment, the Tier II crashworthiness requirements are not in force.

the way I read FRA regulations is that in the U.S., any trains would be that run on the same track as freight rail would be required to meet the same requirement even if there was a time-differential, unless there was a waiver from the FRA - which is extremely difficult to get - ask NJT

That has to do with light rail, not high-speed rail operation, and certainly not "any trains". Light rail falls under FTA jurisdiction, not FRA, which is why the FRA has those time-share waivers to keep FRA vehicles off the tracks during FTA vehicle operation. If you can show me where NJT runs high-speed trains, I'd like to see it...

FRA restrictions made US rail manufacturers go out of business

No. US railcar manufacturers in fact used to make cars that exceeded today's buff strength requirements (look up the specs for some of the old six-axle heavyweight passenger cars). What made them go out of business was the decline in passenger rail operation; and when passenger rail started making a relative comeback, there were no companies other than overseas ones to turn to.