UNITED STATES | Regional Rail

[MarneGator]

@Silver Swordsman: The Acela is hobbled by FRA regs not because the NEC is "nearly a hundred years old with little to no modifications", but rather that it's a mixed traffic environment, with commuter and (especially) freight trains. If the tracks connect to the larger US rail network and a slower train, especially of the freight variety, runs on the track, the FRA and its terrible regulations take effect (some degree of waivers excepted).

[trainrover]

Originally Posted by Silver Swordsman

freight companies refused

Disagree. Ownership of the refusal lies with the regulator, authority.

[Sopomon]

Originally Posted by Silver Swordsman

If so, I'm pretty sure Obama would find a way to repeal them (it was Obama who pushed for HSR in the first place).

I can only hope

[Silver Swordsman]

Originally Posted by trainrover

Disagree. Ownership of the refusal lies with the regulator, authority.

I beg to differ. I may have been wrong about the reason for implementing regulations, but I remember clearly that the 79 mph limit was set for stretches of track that did not have PTC or ATC installed. All freight companies balked at the costs, and the only reason why Amtrak trains operate at increased speeds in Michigan and the NEC is because they installed ATC or an equivalent.

[Nexis]

Some freight companies like BSNF , NS and smaller companies have finally cracked and will install ATC and PTC on some main lines and branches were they hinted at starting up a passenger service. BSNF and NS are pro-HSR and commuter rail....so a little push and they'll do it.

[aquaticko]

Originally Posted by Nexis

Some freight companies like BSNF , NS and smaller companies have finally cracked and will install ATC and PTC on some main lines and branches were they hinted at starting up a passenger service. BSNF and NS are pro-HSR and commuter rail....so a little push and they'll do it.

I'm curious, what would reasons are there for a freight company to be pro-passenger rail, particularly when an increase in services isn't, for the most part, going to accompanied by construction of new track? Or are they hoping that, assuming passenger rail is successful, new track will eventually be built and they can then have their lines entirely to themselves?

[Nexis]

Originally Posted by aquaticko

I'm curious, what would reasons are there for a freight company to be pro-passenger rail, particularly when an increase in services isn't, for the most part, going to accompanied by construction of new track? Or are they hoping that, assuming passenger rail is successful, new track will eventually be built and they can then have their lines entirely to themselves?

It makes them look better on the state level and then they can get state funding for smaller projects like restoring branches to Industrial parks and grade separations. The smaller companies do the same and some are trying to get back into the business. I think has to do with improving image....and getting funding. Alot of the Class 1 Railroads have a bad public image and not so nice relationship on the state level....

[trainrover]

Originally Posted by Silver Swordsman

I beg to differ.

Were the regulations, legislation in place, then what likelihood of existent rogue operators, track owners would there be?

[XAN_]

Originally Posted by Silver Swordsman

So, I'd imagine that in the event that CHSR has proved itself to be completely modern (not running on outdated rail infrastructure), I don't see how FRA mandates would apply. If so, I'm pretty sure Obama would find a way to repeal them (it was Obama who pushed for HSR in the first place).

Well, AFAIK the last stretch to SF would be the regular Caltrian track, wich is freight-anabled anyway, isn't it?

[krnboy1009]

Originally Posted by Nexis

It makes them look better on the state level and then they can get state funding for smaller projects like restoring branches to Industrial parks and grade separations. The smaller companies do the same and some are trying to get back into the business. I think has to do with improving image....and getting funding. Alot of the Class 1 Railroads have a bad public image and not so nice relationship on the state level....

If freight companies support running commuter/intercity trains then they can get what is essentially free upgrades for their tracks.

Some of the freight rail line old and worn.

[trainrover]

As much as I like Amfleet, is there any plan in the works at replacing this aging stock?

clickable...

Something tells me that the topic of any stock replacement hasn't appeared on any Amtrak agenda for the last few years ...

[Fan Railer]

Originally Posted by trainrover

As much as I like Amfleet, is there any plan in the works at replacing this aging stock?

Something tells me that the topic of any stock replacement hasn't appeared on any Amtrak agenda for the last few years ...

Wrong; Amtrak has already drafted plans for a fleet replacement cycle spanning the next 40 or so years.

http://www.amtrak.com/servlet/Conten...=1241245669222

Go down to "Comprehensive Business Plan" and read the Fleet Strategy Plan document.

In addition, 130 Viewliner II's are already on order with an additional 70 on option, as mentioned elsewhere before. Superliner III and Amfleet III specifications have been drafted and approved, along with a new generation of higher speed Diesel electrics. And finally, 70 Siemens Electrics are on order for 2013-2016 to replace all electric locomotives running on the NEC.

[trainrover]

Drafted? Except for the electric loco replacement, a development which I myself seem to remember having learned about some time while ago, I must be right No image of any one of the trailers you've mentioned appears to exist online. What stock would Viewliner II be replacing?

[Gag Halfrunt]

Originally Posted by XAN_

I heard that Californians somehow got a waiver for the structure of their trains, so they dont need to use that overweighted cars in future.

Caltrain (which runs one line in the Bay Area) has obtained a waiver from FRA crashworthiness regulations, but only for double decker EMUs. There are no existing FRA-compliant designs for double decker EMUs. Caltrain currently runs bilevel cars hauled by diesel locomotives, but it plans to electrify the line.

The waiver does not apply to any other operator or to any rolling stock except double decker EMUs.

[Nexis]

SEPTA



NJT

[trainrover]

[Fan Railer]

Originally Posted by trainrover

Drafted? Except for the electric loco replacement, a development which I myself seem to remember having learned about some time while ago, I must be right No image of any one of the trailers you've mentioned appears to exist online. What stock would Viewliner II be replacing?

Well, just because you don't find images online, does not mean that it is not on the Amtrak agenda.

http://www.highspeed-rail.org/Pages/DocsSpecs.aspx
http://www.trainorders.com/discussio....php?4,2267845

Just scroll through. These are all the design specifications that have been approved by Amtrak for about a year or two now. We are just waiting for contract tenders to surface, an event that should occur within the next year or two.

The Viewliner II is considered fleet expansion, not replacement, but regardless, it still represents the first in a long list of Amtrak rolling stock procurements to come.

[trainrover]

Was hoping any would've migrated from agenda to action item, oh well.

[trainrover]

Anybody else make out the 2nd danger?

[pi_malejana]

lol so random... and no i couldn't make out the 2nd danger, electrocution??

i thought signals would be on poles much like traffic lights in roads??