Railroaders place to shoot the shit.

(The following column, by transportation journalist Don Phillips, was published by Trains magazine.)
 
I want you to consider four statements made in the Federal Railroad Administration's preliminary National Rail Plan. You may be surprised.
 
Let me say at the beginning that I was stunned by the quality and straightforward nature of this report. I am not used to such straight talk from government, especially when some special interests will be upset.

Also, let me emphasize that this is not just a FRA report. Any report like this must first be approved by the White House Office of Management and Budget, which is never reluctant to eliminate anything that doesnt fit White House policy.
 
Now, the four items:
 
First, after pointing out that railroads pay the full cost of everything including their own track while trucks pay an estimated 80 percent of the costs they impose on federal highways alone, the report says: When private freight companies provide transportation services without being held accountable for using the infrastructure, the resultant inefficiencies can impose higher costs on society.
 
That isnt the only place in the report that the FRA makes the point that only trains (and pipelines) pay their full costs. It is the inherent efficiency of rail transportation that enables freight railroads to do something that is expected of no other form of transportation: maintain their infrastructure, add capacity, host passenger operations, and pay local property taxes on their real estate.
 
Second, the country must realize that growing rail freight service is essential to meeting U.S. goals for clean air, easing highway congestion and conserving fuel. Cost-effective, fuel efficient and environmentally friendly, improved rail transportation is essential to achieving national freight transportation goals, the report said. Failure to keep and grow rail market share will impose a further burden on highways.
 
This is yet another indication that railroads are becoming one of the darlings of the environmental movement. The green movement in Europe gave the railroads a big hug many years ago, and the U.S. environmental movement is coming to the same conclusion. The railroads have proved themselves smart enough to milk that for all its worth.
 
One fuel statistic sort of took me by surprise. The report said that a SINGLE cross-country double-stack train, hauling 280 containers, would save up to 80,000 gallons of fuel compared to 280 truck trips. That is a rough approximation, of course, but even if the correct figure is half that amount, it would run my well-driven Jeep Cherokee for two years. 

Third, the report clearly points out the difference between the profit motive of a freight railroad and the public service motive of passenger rail, and it recognizes that the two may not be compatible in every case.
 
Corporate railroads have a responsibility to generate income for their shareholders and look for ways to maximize their return on investment, the report said. However, activities that may provide a broad public benefit may not adequately contribute to (and may even harm) efforts to increase revenue or reduce expenses.
 
If you think that statement is interesting, consider this: Both passenger and freight rail operations can interfere with one another, and the delay of either passengers or freight seriously diminishes productivity and customer satisfaction.
 
The point is clear: states in particular must be ready to pay railroads not only for the cost of moving new passenger trains but also the cost of making certain that freight capacity is not harmed in any way. Whats more, the report emphasizes that federal funds will be available to increase freight capacity even if passenger trains are not involved. Several states have already put millions into freight capacity, led by Pennsylvania and West Virginia. The report emphasizes that other states should profit by their example.
 
Fourth, while passenger trains were not the emphasis of this report, one sentence about passengers made me sit up and take notice. It is couched in language that would not lead one to believe it is revolutionary, but it is. The main purpose of that section of the report is to talk about positive train control (PTC), not passenger equipment.
 
This is the sentence: Going forward, PTC, in combination with other technologies and strategies, can offer levels of passenger protection that can be incorporated into new equipment design standards. In other words, once passenger trains are better protected from collisions, they wont need to be as heavy as battle tanks.
 
Weight was a major problem with the Acela, Amtraks higher-speed electric train. As the train was being tested, I made a point at lunch of skipping the dining room to have lunch out on the ballast with the French and Canadian crews who were testing it at the FRA test center at Pueblo, Colo. At one point, the conversation turned to the weight of the Acela, which the test crews considered laughably too heavy.
 
At one point, a French engineer confided that the crews called the train le cochon, meaning the pig. The man and his supervisor immediately realized he had said too much. They asked me to keep that a secret, and I did for many years until I was sure everyone on the program had moved on to other jobs.
 
The European method of protecting passengers does not include making the trains as heavy as possible. I dont have the space in this column to go into the European safety philosophy, but I do know it works. After all, a French TGV once derailed at 186 mph. There was not a death, not a serious injury, not a minor injury, not even a bruise. The major passenger advantage there was that the TGV has heavy drawbars that do not separate in a wreck, and which kept the train mostly in a straight line as it ripped up the right-of-way and came to a gradual stop.
 
That single sentence, coupled with informed rumors, leads me to believe that the FRA is no longer devoid of ideas, no longer afraid to branch out and try something new. That is very good news indeed for the industry and for those of us who ride trains. In fact, I intend to write about the new FRA in a future column.
 
Theres a lot more in this report. Like many federal reports, it is easily available on the web at:

www.fra.dot.gov/Downloads/RailPlanPrelim10-15.pdf.

(The preceding column by transportation journalist Don Phillips was published by Trains magazine.)