# FRA Committee approves new HSR crashworthiness standards



## afigg (Jun 17, 2013)

Article in Railway Age: FRA committee OKs HSR crashworthiness standards. Good news for the plans for making an Acela II purchase of existing HSR designs with modifications for the NEC and for the CAHSR project.

Excerpts:



> The Federal Railroad Administration's (FRA) Railroad Safety Advisory Committee (RSAC) voted unanimously on implementing new crashworthiness performance standards for next-generation passenger high speed rail (HSR) equipment that will operate in the U.S.....
> 
> The standards, which FRA is developing now before they are published later this year in a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, will provide baseline safety requirements for next-generation rail equipment that would travel up to speeds of 220 mph on high-speed rail tracks, while providing the flexibility to operate with existing freight and passenger systems up to speeds of 125 mph. Once finalized through the FRA's rulemaking process, the new standards would be employed along the Northeast Corridor and in California, regions both designated for HSR service.


----------



## Ryan (Jun 17, 2013)

What does this mean in practical terms for Acela II on the NEC?


----------



## jis (Jun 18, 2013)

This by itself is mostly useless for Acela II until dedicated HSR lines are built along the NEC, which won't be until well into the second half of the '20s at the earliest. Until then it means you can get Acela II sets compliant with Tier III which will be able to operate at 125mph on the NEC since they will be operating in mixed mode. OTOH it will be immediate use to CAHSR which presumably will be operating Tier III sets on exclusive RoW's with no Tier I equipment operating on them, thus allowing full speed.

There is a follow on rule making activity specific to the NEC that is going on which will enable Tier III equipment to operate at greater than 125mph while commingled with Tier I and II equipment, that will be of real use on the NEC. Until that happens there will be no Acela II orders placed. That is still a year or two away. But notwithstanding all that, this is an important step in the right direction and an eventual enabler for operations on the NEC at speeds above 125 mph using Tier III sets.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Jun 18, 2013)

Good news. Is there anything the FRA can do about reviewing and potentially improving conventional passenger train speeds elsewhere in the country?


----------



## Anderson (Jun 18, 2013)

On the limits of these sets in "mixed traffic": Considering that Amtrak wants to replace some of the Amfleets, even if we stopped dead right here this rule would allow off-the-shelf purchases of sets to replace Regionals and allow those cars to be moved around. Mind you, I say this not knowing the cost-effectiveness of such an option (since ten single-level cars and a toaster is probably around $30-35m, while twelve and two toasters would be in the $40-45m range IIRC).

Presuming that you could get sets with better acceleration/deceleration, that would still lop some travel time off of the NEC with electric sets; if there are any workable diesel options, that could also have medium-term consequences for All Aboard Florida and other operations. These two notes alone make the rule valuable: The equipment can be acquired and used in a capacity that would help Amtrak's performance, and then shifted into even higher-speed service assuming other rules (or operating conditions) improve.


----------



## Ryan (Jun 18, 2013)

Thanks, Jishnu. I was a bit perplexed by the thought that Acela II would end up having a lower top speed (my baked in assumption is that it runs on the current RoW, I'll be surprised if I see even a shovel turned on any new HSR line in the NE during my lifetime).


----------



## jis (Jun 19, 2013)

Anderson said:


> Presuming that you could get sets with better acceleration/deceleration, that would still lop some travel time off of the NEC with electric sets; if there are any workable diesel options, that could also have medium-term consequences for All Aboard Florida and other operations. These two notes alone make the rule valuable: The equipment can be acquired and used in a capacity that would help Amtrak's performance, and then shifted into even higher-speed service assuming other rules (or operating conditions) improve.


Yes, for equipment that is targeted for use below 125mph this is a good thing. However, forget about the idea of shifting anything later to higher speed, since it is more than likely that the higher than 125mph mixed mode operation stuff will have additional collision post requirements beyond what is standard in off the shelf equipment. The bottom line is someone will have to have a lot of faith in something to order equipment targeted for higher than 125mph service in mixed mode before knowing what the new standard is.
One thing that people forget about the NEC in particular regarding mixed mode operation is that the track centers are not exactly the most optimal for operation at higher speeds. We saw a live demonstration of what can happen in adjacent track derailment situations a few weeks back. Higher speed mixed mode operation equipment have to be strengthened to at least the current level of collision posts in intermediate cars to withstand such an event which is more likely on the NEC than on any European mixed mode HS line. Hence the mixed mode Tier III operation standard for above 125mph is likely to continue to be somewhat heftier than standard European or Japanese HSR stock.

It should be noted that while the new standard for tier III does allow for lighter equipment, it does not really allow completely off the shelf European equipment. The US targeted equipment still requires a few modifications. It is just that they are not as extensive as they used to be.


----------



## Ziv (Jun 24, 2013)

Does this mean that the LD trains out west and in the South will be able to operate up to 125 in more areas? The new FRA standards are slight reductions in the strength, crash worthiness and weight of cars, or is it more than that?

Sorry to ask a newby question but I am not sure just what the article is stating. Or was it left ambiguous intentionally?

Are the standards going from ridiculously strict to a more logical position or is it something else entirely?


----------



## MattW (Jun 24, 2013)

Just like with PTC, the trains top speeds won't get any faster. Others would know far better than I do, but if Tier-III trains could be made lighter than their Tier-I counterparts, then the lighter trains could allow faster acceleration which might reduce average speeds in places, but that would be it. I know most of the publicity with this pending decision has been essentially off the shelf bullet trains on dedicated track using existing track in urban areas, but I've always thought that this could allow for a DMU market to develop in this country.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Jun 25, 2013)

Can anyone list the various restrictions that keep LD trains out west from traveling faster? Here in Texas road traffic that once was restricted to 55MPH is now doing 80MPH or more. That's over a 45% increase for vehicles while passenger trains have managed a 0% increase during the same time frame. That's going to make it harder and harder to keep passenger rail traffic relevant and viable over the long term.


----------



## Ryan (Jun 25, 2013)

I'm sure I'll miss some thing, but I think the big ones are:

Track maintenance (can be fixed with $$$)

No ATS (will go away with PTC)

Timing of grade crossing signals (can be fixed with $$$)

Speed differential between passenger and freight (the major one, IMO - freight isn't going to run over 70)


----------

