Biggest obstacle to high-speed rail: The FRA

You're talking past each other. Of course the TGV etc. does not run at high speeds while on conventional rails. But that's not the point. The issue is that the TGV uses tracks which are also used by normal passenger trains. And some of those passenger trains use tracks which are also used by freight trains. Under FRA rules, the normal passenger trains which share tracks with freight trains, would have to be built like bank vaults. That would make them so heavy that they'd be dangerous to the TGV which must share tracks with them, and thus the TGV would have to be super-strong too. And then it wouldn't be a TGV anymore, it would be an Acela - too heavy to properly tilt and go fast, and using too much power.

Even if they were all going 60 mph, under FRA rules, they'd still have to be just as equally strong.

The larger point isn't just the FRA, though. The real point is, "Government Interference is the biggest obstacle, not just to high-speed rail, but to passenger rail of every type."

Not accurate. The "super-strength" is only required if the train runs faster than 125 mph on shared-use tracks (that would be FRA rules). Certainly the AEM-7s with Amfleets operate at 125 on the NEC and don't have to meet the buff strength of the Acela Express.

The real point is, "Government Interference is the biggest obstacle, not just to high-speed rail, but to passenger rail of every type."

No TGV/Shinkansen-like system exists in a country where government support was not a major factor. Since the Acela Express is not directly analogous to the TGV in that it runs on shared-use tracks along its whole route, the same rules would not apply if it were more analogous to a TGV, that is if a dedicated set of tracks were built for it—the rules would be less stringent.

Does the Acela share tracks with freights? I don't think that it does.

But the point is, if government regulations were more reasonable in all manner of ways (e.g. property taxes), railroads would be much more able to be a going concern.

Since the Acela Express is not directly analogous to the TGV in that it runs on shared-use tracks along its whole route, the same rules would not apply if it were more analogous to a TGV, that is if a dedicated set of tracks were built for it—the rules would be less stringent.

And that right there is the issue - creating a dedicated ROW would eliminate the advantages for the TGV - elimination of the ability to use existing tracks to reach the urban areas. Even if a train traveled at <125 mph on existing / shared track (oh, say the CSX line leading through Alexandria on the way to Richmond) and then entered into a dedicated line where it would travel >125 mph (say between Fredricksburg and someplace north of Richmond), it would still be subject FRA requirements for Tier II, which are based on the assumption that there are always heavy freight trains on the HSL lines. No matter where a train is operating (shared or dedicated track), if it operates over 125 mph, it must conform to Tier II requirements if it interchanges with the regular system even if only travels >125 mph on dedicated track and <125 mph on shared track. So, even a system constructed like the TGV with shared conventional track operating at normal speeds and dedicated, TGV-only HSL, would be subject to Tier II requirements without a waiver.

Therefore, my point regarding the FRA jurisdiction on rr tracks, if a track has a link to the national railsystem it must either have a waiver or meet FRA vehicle requirements. Put simply, if you interface with the national rail system, you are subject to FRA requirements, no matter where you're funding comes from (i.e. FTA). Therefore, all time-share operations (San Diego and NJ spring to mind) or that have a switch to the national system (MARTA's switch at near West Lake) are operating under a waiver from the FRA. This is relevant since time-shared track is the one area where we have concrete proof of the FRA's reluctance to entertain new ideas (such as a waiver for dedicated only passenger lines), even when operations under a waiver have been maintained successfully and safely for well over 20 years (San Diego and MARTA).

creating a dedicated ROW would eliminate the advantages for the TGV - elimination of the ability to use existing tracks to reach the urban areas.

You are seriously not getting it, WADR. The Acela Express is not the same thing as the TGV—it runs on shared-use tracks throughout its whole route. The TGV runs at high speeds on LGVs only—it does not run at 186 or 196 mph on the shared use tracks (it runs at the same speed as all the other trains). The only completely closed system that I know of is the Shinkansen in Japan. If the AE did have separate high-speed tracks and ran faster than 125 on those tracks alone and not anywhere else, it would be subject to Tier I crashworthiness regs, because the point of the Tier II regs is for running faster than 125 mph on shared-use rails.

You are seriously not getting it, WADR. The Acela Express is not the same thing as the TGV—it runs on shared-use tracks throughout its whole route. The TGV runs at high speeds on LGVs only—it does not run at 186 or 196 mph on the shared use tracks (it runs at the same speed as all the other trains). The only completely closed system that I know of is the Shinkansen in Japan. If the AE did have separate high-speed tracks and ran faster than 125 on those tracks alone and not anywhere else, it would be subject to Tier I crashworthiness regs, because the point of the Tier II regs is for running faster than 125 mph on shared-use rails.

I do know that Acela runs on shared tracks and I am well aware of the operating systems and how the TGV operate in France and Belgium. I know that the AE is not the TGV (the overhead bins are too nice on the AE ). I know that the entire NE corridor is shared track. I know the TGV only runs at high speeds on its dedicated ROW. BTW - did you know that the German LGV are designed to operate with freight trains as well?

However, the way I read the regs, the FRA would require Tier II even if the AE ran on a dedicated line if it shared any track, at any speed, at any point simply because at some point the AE would run at >125 , even if it only at >125 mph on a dedicated line like the TGV. Perhaps it would help me to spell it out.

You have a line from Washington to Richmond (for illustrative purposes only) -

Shared track - Washington Union to Fredricksburg (current AMTRAK, CSX, and VRE service) operates at conventional speeds (i.e. 79 mph)
New Dedicated line - Fredrickburgs to Richmond Beltway. Operates >125 mph - only passenger trains (i.e. AE service extended to Richmond) - no CSX, no VRE/
SHared Track - Richmond Beltway to Richmond Station. Operates at conventional speeds

Because the train operates at >125 mph, even if it travels at that speed on a dedicated track with no other types of trains (the new line between Fredricksburg and the Richmond Beltway) and operates at conventional speeds on the truly shared track (i.e. Washington to Fredricksburg and Richmond Beltway to Richmond), it is still subject to FRA Tier II requirements because at some point along its route it shares track (i.e. it has an interchange with the national rail system). The reasoning, as I can tell, is that because there is a possibility a freight train operating on the shared use track (say around Fredricksburg) might end up on the dedicated track because of a malfunctioning switch, it might encounter a train traveling >125 mph, and therefore the passenger train should be able to survive the collison in the event that this scenario occurs - hence the requirement for Tier II. Do you understand now my reading of the regs?

The way the FRA has structured the regs requires the construction of Shinkasen type system that is prohibitively expensive and is a classic case of a bureaucracy say "Yes, you can build that (i.e. HSR) - you just have to follow these regulations that make it all but impossible." You might say "oh that is completely unrealistic - no one would be that rigid" - to which I would reply "Yeah, right." Just look at the new Georgia Department of Transportation design guidelines for construction of Truck-Only Toll lanes (elevated lanes with 80' required for two way operation - two 14' shoulders and one 12' travel lane per directio - along the I-285 Perimeter around Atlanta). Maybe I"m just cynical about how the government bureaucracy operates. Probably comes from too much experience dealing with government regulations and their implementation.

Disclaimer: I deal with transportation policy implementation on a daily basis as part of my job
Disclaimer2: I was on the ICE from Basel to Cologne and the Thalys from Cologne to Brussels on Monday

Irish Chieftain wrote:

creating a dedicated ROW would eliminate the advantages for the TGV - elimination of the ability to use existing tracks to reach the urban areas.

You are seriously not getting it, WADR. The Acela Express is not the same thing as the TGV—it runs on shared-use tracks throughout its whole route. The TGV runs at high speeds on LGVs only—it does not run at 186 or 196 mph on the shared use tracks (it runs at the same speed as all the other trains). The only completely closed system that I know of is the Shinkansen in Japan. If the AE did have separate high-speed tracks and ran faster than 125 on those tracks alone and not anywhere else, it would be subject to Tier I crashworthiness regs, because the point of the Tier II regs is for running faster than 125 mph on shared-use rails.

Now I tried two times to write something here over european HST running faster than 125mph on conventional shared-used lines. It missed and all my written contribution is gone to the nirvana two times. If this forum doesnt like me - than not...

Thomas I wrote:

Irish Chieftain wrote:

creating a dedicated ROW would eliminate the advantages for the TGV - elimination of the ability to use existing tracks to reach the urban areas.

You are seriously not getting it, WADR. The Acela Express is not the same thing as the TGV—it runs on shared-use tracks throughout its whole route. The TGV runs at high speeds on LGVs only—it does not run at 186 or 196 mph on the shared use tracks (it runs at the same speed as all the other trains). The only completely closed system that I know of is the Shinkansen in Japan. If the AE did have separate high-speed tracks and ran faster than 125 on those tracks alone and not anywhere else, it would be subject to Tier I crashworthiness regs, because the point of the Tier II regs is for running faster than 125 mph on shared-use rails.

The United States has no track dedicated for High Speed trains. The real equivalent of the Acela is the British Rail HST125 a diesel set developed about 30 years ago, and extremely successful - still running.

This train, to ordinary British standards, made use of existing tracks - but often with improved fettling and altered layouts - to achieve speeds of 125 mph routinely.

In a way it was a pity that it was so successful as 125 has remained the standard in Britain. Some trains have been developed that can go faster. However, hardly any of the track has been made suitable.

It is recognised now that only a completely new High Speed track, from London to Northern cities, could allow the kind of speeds achieved on Franch and German tracks.

Successive British governments have put off decisions on this, entirely because they don't want to spend the money, even though it is certain that such a line would be profitable. Even if the line were to be built the trains would still approach existing city centre stations on conventional tracks, mixed with today's trains. Already the Euroster comes into Waterloo on the Southern third rail network along with commuter trains. Next year, when the High Speed Line is open to St Pancras it will not, but still could if necessary.

Whether such a line could be profitable in the US is another problem. Cities are further apart there.

But it is a mystery to me why trains are so heavy in the US. It is obvious that the current fleet could not go as fast as European trains. The weight is just too much. I think rail evolution ceased in the US about 50 years ago.

Thomas I wrote:

Irish Chieftain wrote:

creating a dedicated ROW would eliminate the advantages for the TGV - elimination of the ability to use existing tracks to reach the urban areas.

You are seriously not getting it, WADR. The Acela Express is not the same thing as the TGV—it runs on shared-use tracks throughout its whole route. The TGV runs at high speeds on LGVs only—it does not run at 186 or 196 mph on the shared use tracks (it runs at the same speed as all the other trains). The only completely closed system that I know of is the Shinkansen in Japan. If the AE did have separate high-speed tracks and ran faster than 125 on those tracks alone and not anywhere else, it would be subject to Tier I crashworthiness regs, because the point of the Tier II regs is for running faster than 125 mph on shared-use rails.

Now I tried two times to write something here over european HST running faster than 125mph on conventional shared-used lines. It missed and all my written contribution is gone to the nirvana two times. If this forum doesnt like me - than not...

Okay a last one..

In Europe excists many shared-used lines with HAST rrunning faster than 125mph.

Examples for conventional shared-used lines with HST running faster than 125mph:

Köln – Aachen, Germany: ICE and Thalys 156.25mph.
Berlin – Hamburg, Germany: ICE-T 143.75mph.
Bologna – Milano, Italy: ES* 137.5mph.
Stockholm – Göteborg, Sveden: X2000 131.25mph.
London – Leeds, UK: IC225 140mph.
Barcelona – Valencia, Spain: AVE 101 137.5mph
Tours – Bordeaux, France: TGV 137.5mph

Examples for new built shared-used high-speed lines:

Bruxelles – Liege: ICE 156.25mph, TGV/Thalys: 187.5mph
Würzburg – Hannover, Stuttgart – Mannheim, Germany: ICE 175mph
Karlsruhe – Offenburg, Germany: ICE 156.25mph
Roma – Firenze, Italy: ES* 172mph
Roma – Napoli, Italy: ES* 187.5mph

All these lines are shared-used with HST and conventional passenger and freight trains.

But such a thing like a Tier-II-reg doesn’t excist in Europe.

However, the way I read the regs, the FRA would require Tier II even if the AE ran on a dedicated line if it shared any track, at any speed, at any point simply because at some point the AE would run at >125, even if it only at >125 mph on a dedicated line like the TGV.

No. Only on shared-use tracks. On dedicated lines, the FRA does not necessarily have jurisdiction, especially if other traffic (such as slow freight) is prohibited.

In Europe exists many shared-used lines with HAST rrunning faster than 125mph

That's Europe. We're talking about the USA and their convoluted rules.

The real equivalent of the Acela is the British Rail HST125 a diesel set developed about 30 years ago, and extremely successful - still running

No. The German ICT is more analogous to the Acela Express (or more accurately, the AE is supposed to serve the same function as the ICT). The HST is more of the equivalent of the Metroliner (locomotive-hauled).

No. Only on shared-use tracks. On dedicated lines, the FRA does not necessarily have jurisdiction, especially if other traffic (such as slow freight) is prohibited.

No - this is not true otherwise the Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority would not have to have a waiver for its trains. FRA require exist for any line that connects (i.e. have a switch) to an existing heavy rail line (by which I am refering to a US line that carries freight, intercity passenger trains or commuter trains - not subway/metro trains). MARTA has a switch near West Lake station that allows its trains to be delivered by diesel engines on the CSX operated track to the the subway/metro/U-bahn system it operates from the final assembly plant in Clayton County and then operated on third rail power to the on MARTA's otherwise dedicated system. In regular service, that switch is never used. In fact, it is only used when new trains are being delivered for service (such as the new Breda cars) or taken out of service for a major refurbishing. Other than that single switch, MARTA is a completely independent, third rail operate system with no other opportunity to interact with freigh trains. The only the distinction the FRA makes is between whether the system has a connection (i.e. switch) to the national rail system. Only because of that FRA exemption is MARTA allowed to operate under FTA regulations.

Since some might argue that this is only an example regarding subway, third rail system, let me point out this is the only example where a completely independent, dedicated, seperated system except for one connection to allow non-revenue, recentely trains to be transfered from their place of assembly to their main system is still required to have an FRA exemption for this operation indicating that the FRA does not allow exeptions for dedicated tracks - only for completely seperated tracks with absolutely no shared tracks. What evidence do you have that the FRA will not interpret the Tier II regulations any differently insofar as requiring any train that operates at >125 mph, even on dedicated track. That might be the case in Europe - it does not seem to be the case in the US.

That is my point Irish - the feds don't care if it is dedicated or not. They only care is a connection to the national rail system. Like you said:

We're talking about the USA and their convoluted rules.

On this as well as so many other issues, I can't help but wonder why it matters, in practice. I mean, supposing Atlanta built their system, and then the FRA wouldn't give them the waiver. What are they going to do, throw away their trains and start over? Not use the system? Hardly. Atlanta could and should just thumb their nose at the FRA and say "Stop us." What are they going to do, lie down in front of the trains? I don't see why it's any of the Fed's business.

With actual interstate railroading like the NEC, it's probably a little harder. But for a local system that's entirely in one state, if the state has the political will, I don't see what's to stop them.

FRA require exist for any line that connects (i.e. have a switch) to an existing heavy rail line (by which I am refering to a US line that carries freight, intercity passenger trains or commuter trains - not subway/metro trains).

Your "evidence" is still lacking. The Tier II crashworthiness regs are specifically for when a train operates faster than 125 mph on a shared-use alignment, not off.

MARTA cannot be used as a comparison—this has nothing to do with FTA vehicles operating on FRA tracks.

The FRA has no jurisdiction on tracks that are not under its auspices—and there is a strong implication that a dedicated high-speed alignment would not be under the FRA's auspices, if any are ever built in the USA.

That is my point Irish - the feds don't care if it is dedicated or not

False. If you want to keep comparing FTA versus FRA, then if such were the case, the River Line diesel light rail in New Jersey would not be able to operate between the Entertainment Center and 36th Street in Camden NJ after 10 pm (which it does—those are not FRA tracks). Clearly, the FRA does make the distinction. Once off FRA tracks, the rail vehicles play by non-FRA rules.

Even on seperated high speed lines the FRA would have jurdistiction, as all high speed rail comes under FRA, better yet the FRA already set standards for Maglev.
http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/wais ... 68_05.html