CHSRA wants to use European and/or Japanese rolling stock, which doesn't have the buff strength (crash protection) the FRA normally mandates. The federal agency normally considers passenger trains to be also-rans on freight lines, which must therefore be constructed to let passengers survive low-speed crashes with freight trains. This focus on passive over active safety is analogous to NHTSA's position for passenger cars.
It explains why passenger trains in the US use locomotives and rolling stock that's far heavier than it really needs to be - plus, they are limited to 79mph. In many places, the tracks are actually in such poor state of repair that the top speed is just 30-40mph. Btw, track and track bed wear and tear increase dramatically with rising vehicle weight, again analogous to road infrastructure.
Rail freight companies enjoy special privileges that protect them from eminent domain proceedings, so cannot be bothered to invest in positive train control and other modern crash avoidance technology. HSR trainsets use modern in-cab signalling and therefore need dedicated track for very high speed operation. To avoid a redesign of the trainsets, the FRA will be asked to issue a regulatory waiver for HSR to cover the small portions that are shared with freight trains. Whether it will do so is still uncertain, its Record of Decision from 2005 merely states that a Rule of Particular Applicability *may* be required for operation above 200mph and shared-use rail corridors.
The section of the network where this will be most problematic is the LOSSAN corridor from LAUS to Irvine, because there is only room for two tracks. Unlike the East Bay spur, the Peninsula corridor between San Jose and San Francisco actually carries very little freight traffic and has room for four tracks. It also already features numerous over- and underpasses, but closing the many remaining level crossings will remain difficult. Worst case, operation there will be limited to 110mph.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2008-04-20 09:44 pm (UTC)It explains why passenger trains in the US use locomotives and rolling stock that's far heavier than it really needs to be - plus, they are limited to 79mph. In many places, the tracks are actually in such poor state of repair that the top speed is just 30-40mph. Btw, track and track bed wear and tear increase dramatically with rising vehicle weight, again analogous to road infrastructure.
Rail freight companies enjoy special privileges that protect them from eminent domain proceedings, so cannot be bothered to invest in positive train control and other modern crash avoidance technology. HSR trainsets use modern in-cab signalling and therefore need dedicated track for very high speed operation. To avoid a redesign of the trainsets, the FRA will be asked to issue a regulatory waiver for HSR to cover the small portions that are shared with freight trains. Whether it will do so is still uncertain, its Record of Decision from 2005 merely states that a Rule of Particular Applicability *may* be required for operation above 200mph and shared-use rail corridors.
http://www.fra.dot.gov/downloads/RRDev/hst_rod.pdf
The section of the network where this will be most problematic is the LOSSAN corridor from LAUS to Irvine, because there is only room for two tracks. Unlike the East Bay spur, the Peninsula corridor between San Jose and San Francisco actually carries very little freight traffic and has room for four tracks. It also already features numerous over- and underpasses, but closing the many remaining level crossings will remain difficult. Worst case, operation there will be limited to 110mph.
rgseidl