More passenger trains? "Yes—if"

Railway Age, Nov, 2004 by William C. Vantuono

Five years ago, when Norfolk Southern Chairman and CEO David Goode spoke at Railway Age's "Passenger Trains on Freight Railroads" conference, he "came as 'Dr. No'--but said 'maybe.'" At this year's event, his message was "yes--if."

Much has changed in five years. Freight railroads have taken an "attitude shift" toward passenger rail, Goode said. Why? "It makes business sense, and it can work mutually for freight and passenger rail under the right circumstances."

"I won't take the plunge and say yet that freight railroads love passenger trains," Goode said. "We have come a long way, though, in becoming friends. 'To illustrate, when I last addressed this conference, I posed this question: Do freight railroads really dislike passenger trains? My answer was, 'We'd better like each other, because I'm sure we'll be working together.' That turned out to be an understatement. Times and circumstances have changed. Greater awareness of each other's operations is leading to a better understanding of our mutual challenges and conflicts. Some on-the-job sensitivity training, if you will, has made us more aware of the public benefits of working together."

This started, said Goode, with "a recognition that freight and passenger rails have lived in different worlds for the past three decades. We needed to under stand each other's experiences, fears, expectations, and pressures. That sounds a lot like the process of" becoming friends." Such factors as increased highway congestion and rising fuel costs "helped push rail in the forefront of public transportation policy thinking, which we welcome. For freight rail, just getting on the page for public transportation policy groups is a new age."

Around the time of the Conrail split in 1999, "Congress made a big chunk of money available for passenger studies," said Goode. "At a time when freight railroads were having increasing difficult, meeting capital investment requirements, public infrastructure funding was being tied more and more to passenger programs." Result: "Change is in the air for all of us. Many opportunities and plenty of challenges lie ahead."

When asked point blank if NS, as has been widely rumored, would be interested in operating its own commuter trains under contract to a state or local transit agency (rather than playing host), Goode said, "We certainly have the expertise to operate a large transportation system."

You can probably interpret that to mean "yes--if."

High profile: Our story on Norfolk Southern's gigantic "high-high" auto parts boxcar in the October issue (p. 25) prompted this question from Mark R. Christian of the New York State Department of Transportation Freight and Economic Development Division, Intermodal Program Evaluation & Service Development Bureau:

"My attention was drawn to your remark that the boxcar's roof height has the same clearance requirements as a Q2 autorack. It included a dimension of 19 feet, 1.25 inches above top-of-rail (ATR). It has been my understanding that Q2s are typically 20 feet, 2 inches ATR. The Official Railway Equipment Register (p. RR 591, Oct. 2004 edition) lists the subject prototype boxcar 'NS 489700' as being 20 feet, 2 inches to Extreme Height. Would you please clarify the height and clearance requirements of this revolutionary railcar?"

Norfolk Southern's Pat Torres provided this explanation: "Very often, the critical point in clearance analysis is not the absolute height of a car, but the height of the car at its widest point. Many tunnels are not square at the top, but rounded. Similarly many bridges are supported by diagonal trusses near the top. As a result, clearance profiles taper to narrower widths as the height above the rail increases. The new 86-foot car is described as fitting within the Q2 profile because its widest point, at the upper door track, just firs within the Q2 profile. Using the Q2 profile as a base helps a lot in determining where the car can be operated. Railroad operating personnel are familiar with Q2 clearance requirements, and clearance routes have already been programmed into railroad operating systems. However, the new car may clear some routes that a Q2 can't because it is a foot lower than a Q2 at its highest point."