RSAC Proposed Engineering Task Force: Technical Criteria and Procedures for Evaluating Alternatively-Designed Passenger Rail Equipment

David Tyrell of US DOT will be discussing the work of the Task Force at the Annual Meeting on January 13, 2009

Proposed Task Force

The Engineering Task Force reports to the Passenger Safety Working Group of the Railroad Safety Advisory Committee.

Mission - The mission of the Task Force is to produce a set of technical evaluation criteria and procedures for passenger rail equipment built to alternative designs. The technical evaluation criteria and procedures would provide a means of establishing whether an alternative design would result in performance at least equal to the structural design standards set forth in the Passenger Equipment Safety Standards (49 CFR Part 238). The initial focus of this effort will be on Tier I standards.

When completed, the criteria and procedures would form a technical basis for making determinations concerning equivalent safety pursuant to 49 CFR § 238.201 and provide a technical framework for presenting evidence to FRA in support of any request for waiver of the compressive (buff) strength requirement set forth in 49 CFR § 238.203. See, generally, 49 CFR Part 211 (Rules of Practice). The criteria and procedures could be incorporated into Part 238 at a later date after notice and opportunity for public comment.

Approach - The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), with support from the Volpe National Transportation Systems Center, has been reviewing and comparing the performance of domestic, conventional equipment with equipment designed to international standards in evaluating requests, both current and anticipated, for waivers or rules of particular applicability for the use of passenger equipment not compliant with FRA’s structural standards. Based in part on knowledge gained from this effort and similar evaluations conducted at least over the past ten years since Part 238 was promulgated, FRA will present a strawman technical proposal as a starting point for the Task Force. This initial strawman will be heavily influenced by current state-of-the art research results as well as established, international performance standards. The Task Force should either confirm or modify each of the technical and the design verification requirements proposed in the strawman to better meet the goals outlined below.

The Task Force will convene as many times as necessary over an approximate 60-day period to transform the FRA strawman into consensus-recommended engineering criteria and procedures to which petitioners and FRA can refer.

Goals - The Task Force will strive to meet the following goals:

Ø Benefit from the collective “best” thinking in the passenger rail industry

Ø Produce clear, realistic technical requirements for demonstrating performance equivalent to that expected of equipment built to structural requirements set forth in the regulations

Ø Define the analyses and testing required to demonstrate the integrity of any specific design

Ø Provide clear pass/fail criteria for analyses and tests

Ø Work expeditiously so that sponsors of potential passenger service recognize available equipment options

It is not intended that the Task Force attempt to identify every possible means of determining the performance of alternative designs, nor does FRA anticipate that availability of technical criteria and procedures will eliminate the need to apply sound engineering judgment in reviewing requests for special approvals or waivers. However, it is anticipated that availability of technical criteria and procedures could substantially reduce the uncertainty associated with demonstrating alternative compliance/equivalent safety.

Task Force Membership - Task Force membership is open to designated representatives of RSAC member organizations participating in the Passenger Safety Working Group. FRA encourages participation through one of those organizations by:

Ø any car builder with capability to produce vehicles that will meet the proposed criteria, including those builders that can meet the current standards and any railroad or public authority that may procure new, alternatively-designed equipment

Ø any consultant with extensive passenger rail car structural design experience; and

Ø others who are valuable to the success of the Task Force, specifically including rail labor representatives

The focus of this effort will be the derivation of technical criteria suitable for determination of equivalent safety against existing standards. Accordingly, Task Force members will continue to be expected to apply engineering principles neutrally and professionally.

Presented to the Passenger Safety Working Group: August 5, 2009

Revised Agenda for January Meeting

AP070(1) Self-Powered Rail Car Technologies Subcommittee

Annual Meeting Wednesday January 13, 2010 10:15AM- 12:00PM

Hilton, Lincoln South, Washington Hilton, Washington, D.C.

David Nelson, Chairman | Paul Stangas, Secretary

Minutes of the Mid-Year Meeting – Saturday June 13 2009, Chicago, Illinois

Committee Business

Presentations

Research to Support the RSAC Task Force: Presentation by David Tyrell of US DOT Volpe Center

Introduction to US Rail: Presentation by Michael Pracht, President and CEO

Discussion Topics

FRA Compliant DMUs: Recent Developments affecting Supply and Demand

Updates on Non-compliant DMU planning and development

Positive Train Control , Fail Safe Collision Avoidance, and the Future of Light Passenger Rail Cars in the Shared Track Environment

Plans for Midyear Meeting

Vancouver, British Columbia 6/6/2010 - 6/9/2010

Research Plan and Agenda

Annual Meeting Agenda: Wednesday January 13, 2010 10:15AM- 12:00PM Washington Hilton (Lincoln South)

Agenda
AP070(1) Self-Powered Rail Car Technologies Subcommittee
Annual Meeting
Wednesday January 13, 2010 10:15AM- 12:00PM

Hilton, Lincoln South, Washington Hilton, Washington, D.C.
David Nelson, Chairman Paul Stangas, Secretary


Minutes of the Mid-Year Meeting – Saturday June 13 2009, Chicago, Illinois

Committee Business
A. Discussion Topics
· FRA Compliant DMUs: Recent Developments affecting Supply and Demand
· Updates on Non-compliant DMU planning and development
· Positive Train Control , Fail Safe Collision Avoidance, and the Future of Light Passenger Rails in the Share Track Environment
· What’s after TCRP 130?
· US Rail Car

B. Research Update
· FRA Crashworthiness Research
· 2007 FRA ITS Report

C. Plans for Midyear Meeting
· Vancouver, British Columbia 6/6/2010 - 6/9/2010

D. Research Plan and Agenda

Reflections from the 2009 TRB Rail Caucus: Phila PA

Saturday November 14, 2009 3:43 pm
Track 6 Suburban Platform 30th Street Station Philadelphia, Pennsylvania USA

I’m sitting in the suburban nave of an art deco cathedral to the American economy. The ancient arched steel and glass canopy filters a soft grey light onto the twenty patient passengers waiting for the 4:04 R1 train to the airport. The tranquil atmosphere is hushed between infrequent weekend trains. The air is cool but not cold. A middle aged woman chats quietly in French with her aged mother. The incessant rain of the last two days has blessedly relented.

This will be the 26th passenger train I’ve boarded in the last 54 hours on a whirlwind tour of Philadelphia’s rail network organized by the Transportation Research Board. The tour gave me a chance to reconnect with old friends, renew acquaintances and make new contacts. It also provided a hands-on opportunity to ride some services and see some facilities that I’ve only read about or haven’t seen in a long time.

The Ninth TRB Rail Passenger Caucus included a joint business meeting of the passenger
rail-oriented committees in the TRB Public Transport and Rail Groups and provided an opportunity to learn more about rail transit
systems, programs, and policies through a concentrated combination of
technical presentations and field tours.

The itinerary for the Rail Passenger Caucus provided in-service demonstrations and briefings of the following modes and agencies:

Thursday, November 12
Amtrak, DART & SEPTA Commuter Rail, SEPTA Light Rail & 25th Anniversary
Ceremonies for the Center City Commuter Connection

Friday, November 13
SEPTA Commuter Rail, Rapid Rail Transit, Light Rail, Streetcar, Electric Bus.

Saturday, November 14
PATCO Rapid Rail Transit, NJ Transit Commuter Rail and Light Rail.

PARTICIPATING AGENCIES
Delaware River Port Authoriity
Delaware Transiit Corporatiion (DART)
Delaware Valley Regiionall Planning Commiissiion
National Rail Passenger Corporatiion (Amtrak)
NJ Transiit Corporation
Port Authority Transit Corporatiion (PATCO)
Southeastern Pennsylvaniia
Transportation Authority (SEPTA)
Southern New Jersey Rail Group

A few quick observations: Philadelphia, like Boston has an extensive light rail and trolley network but in contrast to Boston it generally serves the city’s lowest economic stratum rather than its highest. The biggest surprises were the odd Norristown High Speed Line, the quaint Sharon Hill and Media lines, the newly reopened Girard Street car, the vitality of NJTransit’s RiverLINE and SEPTA’s 21st century operations control center. I never realized that Philadelphia had an extensive network of underground pedestrian passages.

Philadelphia’s investment in transport infrastructure continues to lag other major America cities, and like other cities in these times, the prospects of meeting their transport funding needs are dim for the foreseeable future. But unlike other cities they have a number of underutilized transport facilities that they continue to support at no small expense. If asked, I’d advise Philadelphians to focus their economic development efforts on employment, education and safety in neighborhoods and areas that are rich in transport capacity but socially and economically deprived.

David O. Nelson
Chair Subcommittee for Self Powered Railcar Technologies AP070(1)

45 annotated photos from the caucus are found at http://picasaweb.google.com/DAVID.NELSON.AT.JACOBS/TRBPassengerRailCaucusPhilaPANovember12142009?feat=directlink

US Railcar to Resume Production of Former Colorado Railcar DMU

In the aftermath of the shutdown of Colorado Railcar Manufacturing late last yer, private investors affiliated with Value Recovery Group Inc. (VRG) of Columbus, OH, announced that they have formed a new firm, US Railcar LLC, that will resume the manufacture of Colorado Railcar’s Diesel Multiple Unit (DMU) later this year in a new manufacturing facility to be established.

Michael P. Pracht, a rail industry veteran with experience at Siemens and Ansaldo, will serve as president and CEO of US Railcar. Assets acquired by the firm include the former Colorado Railcar DMU proprietary rights and information, manufacturing documentation, inventory, and other equipment necessary for production.

“US Railcar intends to re-establish passenger train production in the United States,” said Barry H. Fromm, chairman of VRG. “We want to keep American jobs and U.S. public investment at home.”The company plans to manufacture both single- and bi-level DMUs, which are self-propelled railcars that eliminate the need for locomotive-hauled push-pull trains in lower density corridors. The US Railcar DMU was prototyped through a demonstration project in 2002 and is available in both regional and intercity configurations.

VRG is an asset recovery and management firm that specializes in asset management, advisory, and asset recovery services for state and local governments, commercial banks, private investors, and several federal agencies.

(Appeared in APTA Passenger Transport Online July 20 2009)

Crash Energy Management

The FRA and the Volpe Center are making remarkable progress demonstratating the effectiveness of Crash Energy Management for improving the survivability of train collisions. Click here for a dramatic illustration.

The top frame in the video shows a test collision between a conventional passenger train operating at 30 mph and a short freight train standing on the same track. The results (as also shown in the timelapse photo shown here) are devastating for anyone in the first car of the passenger train.

The bottom frame in the video shows the same test collision but with prototype crash energy management gear installed. The results are relatively mild and frankly very surviveable.

Kudos to the research team from the Volpe Center and Tufts University.

Click for more information.

Agenda
AP070(1) Self-Powered Rail Car Technologies Subcommittee
Mid-Year Meeting
Saturday, June 13, 2009 3:15–4:45 PM
In conjunction with parent committee: AP070
Chicago Hilton, Chicago, Illinois
David Nelson, Chairman Paul Stangas, Secretary


Minutes of the Annual Meeting – Tuesday January 13, 2009, Washington DC

Committee Business
A. Planning for 2009 Annual Meeting: Potential Topics

• FRA Compliant DMUs: Recent Developments affecting Supply and Demand
• Updates on the Non-compliant DMU planning and development
• Positive Train Control , Fail Safe Collision Avoidance, and the Future of Light Passenger Rails in the Share Track Environment
• What’s after TCRP 130?
• Other topics?
  

B. Recent Industry Developments

• Demise of Colorado Rail Car: What’s Next?
• Changing Economics for Imported European Rail Cars
• Other topics?