When Amtrak planned the Acela back in the 1990s, one of the design goals was to use an off-the-shelf trainset. That would avoid years of debugging and extra costs involved with designing a new train. Of course, it didn’t work out that way — thanks to the FRA. The FRA created so many special rules, that Amtrak had no choice but to build a custom train.
And has the FRA learned anything from that fiasco? You would have thought so, based on the joint press conference held by the FRA, Amtrak, and the CHSRA. The key message was that this time Acela-2 would be an off-the-shelf design, and that the FRA would do everything possible to help Amtrak achieve that goal.
Unfortunately, it does not appear that FRA staffers got the memo:
FRA believes that future high-speed operations will in comparison save on bids because of the increased number of trainsets and carbuilders that will meet the final rule’s standards with little or no modification compared to the number that would have met the prior rule’s standards with little or no modification.
FRA notes that, in commenting on the economic analysis for the NPRM, which attempted to quantify the benefits of the rule changes, Amtrak stated:
The assumption that the standards simplify the design process of the equipment and would save $2,000,000 per train set is false. The Acela example indicates the exact opposite to be true. The FRA rules, as existing and proposed, eliminate the possibility of purchasing off-the-shelf equipment. The engineering work required to design new compliant equipment alone would far outstrip any possible savings from the rules if there were any to be had.
FRA believes that the former rule would not have permitted many, and perhaps might not have permitted any, carbuilders to offer off-the-shelf equipment with little or no modification that would have met the acceleration requirements on track with geometry having the maximum allowable deviations. Under the final rule it is likely that several carbuilders could provide off-the-shelf equipment that will meet acceleration requirements on minimally compliant track. This will lower costs through increased competition, and use of existing designs. Further, railroads may now be able to order equipment without tilting mechanisms and operate that equipment at high cant deficiencies, thus saving the costs of tilting mechanisms and making the number of available trainsets even greater. Based on the above, FRA does not agree with Amtrak’s comment for the purposes of this final rule. It is not unreasonable to estimate that the equipment procurement benefits alone will justify the costs of the rule. However, even if FRA eliminates from consideration equipment procurement benefits, as a result of Amtrak’s comment, FRA believes the high cant deficiency and streamlined testing requirements would justify the costs of the rule.
This is mind boggling. Despite HSR being a top priority of the President, the FRA is still creating roadblocks. You really get the idea that FRA bureaucrats are living under a rock. The ultimate responsibility, though, is FRA Administrator Joe Szabo. I’ll have more to say about him in a follow-up posting.
Systemic Failure 
Actually, the ultimate responsibility is with Obama. he gets to hire and fire these idiots.
[…] the Network today, Systemic Failure highlights what is apparently an ongoing dispute between Amtrak and the Federal Railroad […]
“In analyzing the economic impacts of the final rule, FRA does not find that any existing operation will be adversely affected by these changes, nor does FRA find that the changes will induce any net costs.”
That’s a howler. Has the FRA ever found that their rules will adversely affect anyone? Not as funny as when they said PTC would save the railroads money in the long run, but still
The change in question is allowing trains to run at higher cant deficiency, as they do every day in France (and many other EU countries). The costs in question are track maintenance: higher cant deficiency requires higher track maintenance standards for safety and is also more maintenance-intensive on the outer rail, but slowing down for curves also exerts force on the track that requires maintenance to address. The FRA believes that those effects pretty much cancel out, and the net cost is $80 per year per track-mile, i.e. a rounding error.
The only change from off-the-shelf European or Asian trains I want to see is that they use English on the door to the ‘toilet’.
Requiring any other change I tend to think is simply the FRA regulators showing that, by golly, they will make the regulations, not Amtrak, not CAHSR, nobody.
[…] Monday, we featured a Systemic Failure post about FRA regulations in our morning round-up from the Streetsblog Network. Systemic Failure […]
Sadly, since the GOP House Majority would rather see the Northeast Corridor sold off to the highest bidder/whichever multi-national conglomerate that would raise the most funds for their members than operate with effective HSR equipment, I don’t think you will see much oversight on FRA to change the regs to get useful, less-costly off the shelf proven trains used in the EU or Asia.
Except maybe if the former highest ranking Amtrak rider VPOTUS Biden is put in charge of a Northeast Corridor task force we might see some change. Just a friendly suggestion…