FRA Developing Technical Criteria for Non-Compliant Passenger Rail Equipment

 

www.fra.dot.gov/rpd/downloads/TR_RSAC_Report_final_2.pdf

 

Mission

The mission of the task force was to produce a set of technical criteria and procedures for evaluating passenger rail trainsets built to alternative designs. The technical evaluation criteria and procedures would provide a means of establishing whether equipment of an alternative design would result in at least equivalent performance to that of equipment designed in accordance with the structural standards in the Passenger Equipment Safety Standards (49 CFR Part 238). The criteria and procedures described in this document are specifically intended to apply to trainsets operated at speeds up to 125 mph that may need a waiver from (or, as appropriate under § 238.201(b), approval of alternative compliance with) one or more of the Passenger Equipment Safety Standards. The initial focus of this effort was on Tier I crashworthiness and occupant protection standards. This report is the product of this effort.

The criteria and procedures contained within this report provide a technical framework for presenting evidence to the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) in support of a request for waiver of the Tier I crashworthiness and occupant protection standards, including the compressive (buff) strength requirements set forth in 49 CFR § 238.203. See, Rules of Practice (49 CFR Part 211) for rules on waiver petitions. In addition, these guidelines form a technical basis for making determinations concerning alternative compliance with the Tier I crashworthiness and occupant protection standards, as set forth in §238.201(b). The criteria and procedures contained in this report may be incorporated into the Passenger Equipment Safety Standards at a later date, after notice and opportunity for public comment.

Approach

 

 

I remain perplexed about the exclusive focus on survivability of crashes and not on the prevention of crashes, with PTC, and other technologies.

 

imagine the airline industry being regulated to focus only on survivability of crashes and nnot how it is now on the prevention of crashes.

Good points. And add on top of this the ridiculous amount of liability insurance that the freight railroads require passenger railroads (Amtrak, commuter rail authorities etc) to carry before they will even consider letting them use their tracks. How much insurance? Try policies with $500 million coverage! That means the passenger railroads have to come up with at least several million dollars per year just for insurance premiums. If you're running 300 trains a day like Amtrak does nationwide, at least you can spread that cost around. But if you're running a 30-mile commuter railroad route with a half-dozen rush hour-only runs, that's a monumental burden.

Good points. And add on top of this the ridiculous amount of liability insurance that the freight railroads require passenger railroads (Amtrak, commuter rail authorities etc) to carry before they will even consider letting them use their tracks. How much insurance? Try policies with $500 million coverage! That means the passenger railroads have to come up with at least several million dollars per year just for insurance premiums. If you're running 300 trains a day like Amtrak does nationwide, at least you can spread that cost around. But if you're running a 30-mile commuter railroad route with a half-dozen rush hour-only runs, that's a monumental burden.

 

The only entity that could cover a $500 million premium is the federal government and that's exactly what it should do for any QUALIFIED carrier. That would put the insurance issue to rest for good.

Oh, there's way more money to be made as a result of a crash than avoiding crashes. Capitalism. Only in the case of airplanes do they make an exception because people wouldn't fly if there were more place crashes.

Good points. And add on top of this the ridiculous amount of liability insurance that the freight railroads require passenger railroads (Amtrak, commuter rail authorities etc) to carry before they will even consider letting them use their tracks. How much insurance? Try policies with $500 million coverage! That means the passenger railroads have to come up with at least several million dollars per year just for insurance premiums. If you're running 300 trains a day like Amtrak does nationwide, at least you can spread that cost around. But if you're running a 30-mile commuter railroad route with a half-dozen rush hour-only runs, that's a monumental burden.

 

The only entity that could cover a $500 million premium is the federal government and that's exactly what it should do for any QUALIFIED carrier. That would put the insurance issue to rest for good.

 

the government does this for nuclear power plants and Airlines.

 

I do believe this should help reduce the costs of new starts, rail service. 

 

eliminating dumb rules is a benefit for all rail projects.

 

in addition I strongly believe that  FRA needs to alter its focus from survival toward prevention, using advanced technology, to avoid collisions.

Various railroads' requirements for very high-dollar liability insurance were a major factor in mostly ending steam passenger excursions on mainlines. Perhaps somewhat ironically, the railroads' risk-management lawyers scrutiny of insurance coverage was brought about by a high-speed derailment of a passenger train pulled by NS's 611 on an excursion for railroad employees and their families. I believe the president of the railroad (Mr. Claytor) was at the throttle.

 

During the mid- to late-1980s, liability requirements for passenger excursions on some railroads reached $25 million for two one-day round trips of less than 150 miles each.

Various railroads' requirements for very high-dollar liability insurance were a major factor in mostly ending steam passenger excursions on mainlines. Perhaps somewhat ironically, the railroads' risk-management lawyers scrutiny of insurance coverage was brought about by a high-speed derailment of a passenger train pulled by NS's 611 on an excursion for railroad employees and their families. I believe the president of the railroad (Mr. Claytor) was at the throttle.

 

During the mid- to late-1980s, liability requirements for passenger excursions on some railroads reached $25 million for two one-day round trips of less than 150 miles each.

The high speed accident happened in 1986.  In 1994 they had an switching accident in a yard that damaged a few of the coaches and that was the end.  How does Union Pacific still run steam?  I am guessing they only carry employees to get around the common carrier insurance rates.