Subject: TALGO and PVs (10/20/00)
As many of you know, the FRA has, in a decision rendered Sept. 8, 2000, grandfathered the use of the old Talgo equipment on the Pacific Northwest Corridor. They have not allowed it on other corridors. They have added conditions which lead Amtrak to refuse to handle Private Cars in a train having Talgo equipment. This has resulted in 2 of our cars being stranded in Vancouver, which could only be moved South by special train. As a consequence, we have prepared and will shortly file a Petition for relief, and hopefully Amtrak and perhaps VIA will also do so. The FRA decision is available at the FRA website. We believe there is a reasonably good chance that the relief requested will be granted.
TALGO FRA - Pacific Northwest Corridor 10/20/00 In response to the Petition for Clarification, FRA advises under date of Oct. 11, 2000 that Amtrak needs to provide necessary engineering and risk analysis establishing that handling PV's is consistent with railroad safety. FRA will not act until this is provided. "However, FRA is also willing to consider interim action on this matter upon an appropriate request and showing from Amtrak". So, it appears that > individual waivers would be considered in order to continue to haul PV's > in Talgo trains, providing Amtrak is agreeable. In the long run, however, Amtrak will have to show that safety is not adversely affected.
Notice furnished by Diane: Special Notice on Talgo Decision
On September 8th, FRA issued an initial decision on Amtrak¹s petition to ³grandfather² non-compliant equipment for use on specified rail lines. The petition was filed in response to FRA¹s final rule on Passenger Equipment Safety Standards. That regulation required equipment operated on combined passenger and freight rail lines to meet the new compressive strength requirement. FRA approved Amtrak¹s request only for the operation of the current Talgo rail cars on the route between Eugene, Oregon, and Blaine, Washington. The approval came with a number of conditions, including modifications to all of the cars that must be completed within nine months. Operation in push/pull mode is allowed to continue with Amtrak required to provide FRA with further engineering data within 60 days on the safety of such operation. The decision prohibits the operation of additional equipment in the consist of the train. AAPRCO has filed a Petition for Clarification and/or Reconsideration of the decision. Both FRA and Amtrak have viewed the decision as precluding the operation of private cars in TALGO-equipped trains. All requests for travel between Seattle/Vancouver are currently being denied. Due to the terminology used in the decision, it is unclear whether the intent was to ban private cars from these trains. If that was the intent, AAPRCO is requesting that FRA exempt private cars from the decision to keep open access between the U.S. and Canada in the west. In late September, FRA granted a one-time waiver to Lovett Smith¹s NYC 3, for a previously scheduled trip in early October. One of the conditions imposed required placing the NYC 3 at the head end of the train against the Talgo equipment. Past practice was to place the private car behind the trailing locomotive. It will not be known until the car is positioned whether it is fully compatible with the Talgo set.
TALGO TRIP REPORT FROM LOVETT SMITH - 10/20/00 This item contains some editorial revision by DeVerter.
As mentioned in the Special Report on Talgo Decision, we got a one time FRA waiver to permit operation on the Talgo. Thus, our transcontinental trip was approved the day before we left. Everything worked perfectly in Seattle and we arrived about 10 minutes late in Vancouver. There were no special operational problems separating us from the train in Vancouver--primarily because it was all handled by VIA. Amtrak's crews simply came to Vancouver, parked, and left off the train. Of the 10 minute late arrival, about 6 minutes were lost prior to departing Seattle. However, the engine crew said they lost about 4 minutes because of speed reductions with our car in tow. That insignificant delay is worked into the rate schedule that Amtrak charges. (The surcharge Amtrak charges is $500 for delay of the train because restrictions on Cant Deficiency, the money to go to the State of Washington, since it sponsors the train.)
The movement appeared to me to be eminently safe and putting us behind the engine and ahead of the Talgo consist appears to eliminate the fear that the FRA has that, if we are on the rear, we might add additional inertial forces and potentially crush the Talgo cars if there were to be a head-on collision. In my personal opinion, our success should be a model for further waivers. However, comments from some of the Amtrak people in Seattle indicated that they felt this would be a one-time-only exception. While I'm pleased to have salvaged our specific trip, I'm always looking at the larger picture and I sincerely hope that we are simply the proto-type for the future, rather than an historical aberration.
(Lovett reports that both 27 pin and MU pin connections are needed, because of the position of the PV in the middle of a push-pull train, depending on whether the real engine or the cab control baggage "cabbage" engine is in the lead - Paul.)
Paul L. DeVerter II
Comments