acela: in need of a diet

Ahh Steve, if you're gonna pop his bubbles, at least do it the fun way and quote the CFR...

CHAPTER II--FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION

Subpart A_General
Sec. 238.3 Applicability.

(a) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, this part
applies to all:
(1) Railroads that operate intercity or commuter passenger train
service on standard gage track which is part of
the general railroad system of transportation; and
(2) Railroads that provide commuter or other short-haul rail
passenger train service in a metropolitan or suburban area as described
by 49 U.S.C. 20102(1), including public authorities operating passenger
train service.

(b) Railroads that permit to be used or hauled on their lines
passenger equipment subject to this part, in violation of a power brake
provision of this part or a safety appliance provision of this part, are
subject to the power brake and safety appliance provisions of this part
with respect to such operations.

(c) This part does not apply to:
(1) Rapid transit operations in an urban area that are not connected
to the general railroad system of transportation;
(2) A railroad that operates only on track inside an installation
that is not part of the general railroad system of transportation;
(3) Tourist, scenic, historic, or excursion operations, whether on
or off the general railroad system of transportation; or
(4) Circus trains.

Thus, if it's not part of the general system, it's not FRA regulated.

Period.

Further:

TITLE 49--TRANSPORTATION
CHAPTER II--FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION

Subpart E_Specific Requirements for Tier II Passenger Equipment
Sec. 238.401 Scope.

This subpart contains specific requirements for railroad passenger
equipment operating at speeds exceeding 125 mph but not exceeding 150
mph. The requirements of this subpart apply beginning on September 9,
1999. As stated in Sec. 238.433(b), all such passenger equipment
remains subject to the requirements concerning couplers and uncoupling
devices contained in Federal statute at 49 U.S.C. chapter 203 and in FRA
regulations at part 231 and Sec. 232.2 of this chapter.

Further, 49CFR238.201 even states clearly that certain regulations can be waived, though this applies to sub 125mph systems. This is pretty much the section which allows non FRA equipment/operations, i.e. RiverLINE.

Thus:

If it's sub 125mph and meets certain restrictions, it's waivered.

If it's faster than 150mph, Tier II does not apply, period.

If it's not connected to the national system, it's not FRA regulated, period. All California has to do id specify a speed of faster than 150mph, and/or no connections to the national system, and the FRA, by their own rules, has no say.

He's claiming that a system built with federal funds must be connected to the federal system. Let's see a cite in the CFR saying that, because there's plenty of rail systems built with federal funding that have no national system connection whatsoever.

And, if it's not in the CFR, the FRA can't require it, period. Like any other agency, they can't just make up the rules as they go along.

gprimr1 wrote:But really, could a dedicated HSR system ever be built in the NEC? It would prevent trains from traveling west/south of the the NEC without people transferring?

we could get pretty close. we could have the NEC be a five track main, three conventional and two HSR. At a few select places we could make it 2+2 for cost reasons, say a bridge. Stations would have separate platforms areas for HSR so that between NYC and WAS there is no opportunity for intermingling. given the likely close proximity of the conventional and HSR tracks on bridges train may need to slow to 150MPH of so for dangerous airflow reasons, otherwise true HSR speeds should be possible. The ROW would need to be widened and straightened, this would cost tens of billions of dollars and take ten years to do, I figure.

Nasadowsk wrote: if it's not in the CFR, the FRA can't require it, period. Like any other agency, they can't just make up the rules as they go along.

I don't belive that you have this right. I think that the FRA maintains its right to regulate even a HSR system that has no connection to the rest of the national rail system, that while they don't currently have written rules above tier two that they have committed themselves to theory and methodology which leave no doubt what those rules will say when written. California alludes to its sense that the regulation is not firm yet, one would assume because the FRA see's no reason to regulate what does not yet exists (and may have no legal right to write regulation for something that does not exist). No matter, we can't proceed with HSR until we straighten out the FRA, make them see reason. If the FRA will not do this willingly then Congress will need to force the matter, with law if need be.

Again your not bursting my bubble Phil. as long as Amtrak demands acces to the general railway system of USA then its fair for freight carriers to demand acces for purpose of fair trade.
As for waivers they are never granted automaticly but are on case by case basis and normally only for a period of time.

As for 5 track NEC it will never happen, the real estate is just not there, the cost of providing a dedicated track for 442 miles would approach the cost of Iraq war. and that would not even include moving stations for that 5th track, and again once you connect the track to general railway system of US and want acces by other trains its no longer a dedicated right of way.

As long as we have Lawyers and N.I.M.B.Y's we will only go back in technology, never forward.

Amtrak can't 'demand access' to any part of the rail network they want, or else they wouldn't have to to negotiate at all with the freight RRs. I believe this was changed in the 90's, though the few that follow Amtrak's regulations would know.

Further, 'what's fair' doesn't matter. It's what the law says that does. If the law doesn't say freight RRs have access to all parts of any rail network, then they don't, fair or not.

Let's see a cite of the CFR for your claims, Dutch:

a) That federally funded rail lines must be connected to the national network.
b) That amtrak has access to any rail line they want.
c) That freight RRs have access to any rail line they want.

Again, <b>if it's not in the CFR, it's not the law</b>

DutchRailnut wrote:Again your not bursting my bubble Phil. as long as Amtrak demands acces to the general railway system of USA then its fair for freight carriers to demand acces for purpose of fair trade.
.

That is a joke right? The railroads are going to demand access to a row on which they would need to operate at high speeds? if they did Congress would fix their wagon lickity split with law.

Steve - I suspect our difference in interpretation isn't unique. In fact, I wouldn't at all be surprised if California and the feds end up in court over these very issues....

Specialy since California does not want HSR but wants to put up a electrified commuter network over existing lines with light weight MU's.
So infact wants to evict the freight railroads or severly limit them.
As for California's HSR network that is still in hands of voters and once they get the pricetag it goes in round file.

Nasadowsk wrote:Steve - I suspect our difference in interpretation isn't unique. In fact, I wouldn't at all be surprised if California and the feds end up in court over these very issues....

There has been talk of this. I think that all sides have decided that here is no reason to have this battle until and unless CALIFORNIA can figure out funding. Still, if you read the California stuff you will I am sure get the same impression that I get, which is that they have no intention of willingly following current FRA ideology on HSR, or loosing their fight with the FRA if it comes to that.

The Grand Republic of California, would need to battle FRA, STB,Commerce Dept. etc before any changes will happen.
its not just CFR they need to change.

DutchRailnut wrote:The Grand Republic of California, would need to battle FRA, STB,Commerce Dept. etc before any changes will happen.
its not just CFR they need to change.

This is the same California that took on the EPA over air quality standards, forced the once powerful auto industry into submission on gas mileage standards and auto emission standards, took on and beat the tag team of the oil companies and the feds on gas mixture regulations....my money is on California.

They went strickter than Federal rules, which is possible for any state law.
Going more leanient than Federal rule is different game and not easely won, even by California.

DutchRailnut wrote:They went strickter than Federal rules, which is possible for any state law.
Going more leanient than Federal rule is different game and not easely won, even by California.

in point of fact: the state of California has repeatedly sued the Federal Government when they have believed that the feds were either in error or not doing their jobs. Taking on the FRA would be another chapter in a long history of the state of California forcing change on the federal government by way of the courts.

David Benton wrote:heavier is not necessarily safer . A study here showed some lighter Automobiles were safer than thier heavier counterparts .
They need to look at passenger safety , not train safety . Its not much use having a carriage intact if all the passengers inside are splattered against the wall . I'm sure a lightwieght carriage could be designed to be just as , if not safer from that perspective as a heavy one . the money could also be spent on better signalling / safety systems , so that a crash becomes very unlikely .

Thats actually a good point. If a light train needs to stop quickly in an emergency, a lighter train will stop in much less distance then a heavy train with the same (or slightly stronger) brakes.

Not true, a light train will slide easier , with resulting flatspots and there fore can not have same brake rate as a heavier train.
As for California and some of other stuff that would never be Amtrak anyway and is therefore no longer a subject on this forum.