FRA wants safer vehicles

Railway Age, Sept, 2007

For the Federal Railroad Administration, making the safest ground transport mode even safer has been an axiom, almost a mantra. And as transportation (and/or the transportation crisis) continues to grow within the U.S., FRA is anticipating the growth in the U.S. passenger rail fleet by moving to implement improved safety standards for new equipment likely to be ordered.

Last month, FRA Administrator Joseph H. Boardman unveiled proposed upgraded federal safety standards for cab cars and multiple-unit (MU) locomotives that provide both passenger seating and crew space for train operations in the same car, chiefly by enhancing structural component strength. FRA describes cab cars and MUs as "the two most typical forms of passenger rail service in the U.S." The proposal also was outlined in detail the same day in the Federal Register.

Forward corner posts would have to withstand 300,000 pounds of force before failing, doubling the current federal requirement. Forward corner and collision posts would have to satisfy new federal standards to absorb a minimum level of energy and bend a specific distance without breaking.

The new standards would apply to cab cars and MU locomotives ordered beginning in October 2009, FRA said, updating the most recent standards update published May 12, 1999.

FRA cites as its motivation "the 1996 Secaucus, N.J. [NJ Transit] collision between a cab car-led consist with a conventional locomotive-led consist, in which the fight corner post of the cab car and its supporting end frame structure had separated from the car. Another such incident was the 1996 Silver Spring, Md., collision between a cab car-led consist with a locomotive-led consist, in which the cab car's left corner post and its supporting end frame structure had separated from the car."

To prevent such mishaps, FRA seeks to implement "sacrificial crush zones into unoccupied locations in the equipment. These crush zones are designed to crush gracefully, with a lower initial force and increased average force," so that "energy absorption is shared by multiple cars during the collision, consequently helping to preserve the integrity of the occupied areas."

Since the two 1996 incidents, FRA has overseen testing efforts on actual equipment coming on line, primarily the Bombardier M7 units ordered by New York's Metropolitan Transportation Authority, as well as "state of the art" (SOA) end-frame designs. Study results suggest the safety enhancements can be achieved reliably. "Overall, the crashworthiness performance of the collision posts of the SOA and M7 designs were found to be essentially the same, and the M7 corner post design was found to perform better than the SOA corner post design," the agency notes.

FRA's proposal is nothing if not political on at least two levels.

First, FRA seeks to cement its role as the regulator of all U.S. railroad activity, not just freight railroad use, and believes it must clarify (and reinforce) its oversight of states and other governmental operators of passenger trains comparable to FRA's jurisdiction over "a private entity" such as a Class I freight carrier. FRA says its safety standards "are minimum safety standards," with states free to do more (but not less) on the matter with operations they run.

Second, FRA is mindful that safety improvements, while seen by some as a "motherhood and apple pie" issue, are not immune from criticism in some quarters, particularly the potential increased cost per passenger railcar, which could negatively impact some cash-stressed or fledgling state or regional passenger operators.

Here, FRA has taken pains to include a wide range of industry interests in the decision-making process, tapping into industry expertise (and, political observers might suggest, spreading the risk). FRA notes its Railroad Safety Advisory Committee "provides a forum for developing consensus" on safety issues, and pointedly includes a broad spectrum of players encompassing Class I freight railroads, Amtrak, short line and regional railroads, labor, and passenger advocacy groups.

FRA downplays the proposal's potential impact on Amtrak itself, noting the National Railroad Passenger Corp. relies on push-pull operations only minimally. Amtrak's fiscal year 2008 budget request does include a modest $21 million for purchasing MU equipment, most likely diesel multiple-unit (DMU) gear, so the new rules would have at least a modest impact on Amtrak's ability to address its needs to expand and update its passenger car fleet.

FRA expects written comments on the plan by Oct. 1, though it says comments filed after that date "will be considered to the extent possible without incurring additional expense or delays." Comments can be filed at the USDOT's website, http://dms.dot.gov, Docket No. FRA2006-25268 by following the instructions for submitting comments on the DOT electronic docket site.