S-Line Rail Transit - brief thoughts

[Nawdry]

.
Some quick thoughts from the Light Rail Now Project...

(1) Your S-Line proposal looks promising - especially because it uses an existing
asset (the S-Line ROW) for rail transit. I've only taken a precursory look, but it
would seem to have potential in serving existing O/Ds plus laying the basis for
TOD, including the rehab of historic structures.  In contrast, the official "BRT"
plan seems to depend heavily on freeway routing. Freeway (or tollway)
alignments are almost invariably terrible for transit - nearly impossible to serve
the multiple motor vehicle-oriented destinations along each side of the wide
roadway, plus construction cost is high, plus adjacent real estate costs (for
station access, P&R, etc.) are awful.

(2) The deployment of a DMU or DEMU on this alignment would surely work, but
I'd urge you re-consider electification. The incremental cost of electrification is
not really that high (unless the wrong consultant engineers get hold of the
project), and the payoff can be substantial, mainly in speeding service (through
higher acceleration) and avoiding the capital costs and deadheading associated
with fueling facilities for DMUs.  Also lower rolling stock costs - DMUs/DEMUs
are now pushing toward about $6 million or more per car, compared with  $3-4
million for electric light railcars. For what it's worth, I'll also point out that there's a
far larger market in used electric LRT rolling stock than modern "light" DMUs
such as the Bombardier Talents on Ottawa's O-Train.  In addition, the emissions
problems of DMUs/DEMUs are a headache - I know this from firsthand
experience (which I can relate privately).  I'll note that your proposal for a DMU or
DEMU for Jacksonville seems to resemble the Austin, Texas-area Capital
MetroRail project to a considerable extent.

For more on electrification issues:
http://www.lightrailnow.org/industry_issues.htm#electrification

(3) Consider the use of streetcar technology. Your S-Line route would be a
natural for a Rapid Streetcar - for more on this concept, see:
Rapid Streetcar: Rescaling Design and Cost for More Affordable Light Rail
Transit
http://www.lightrailnow.org/features/f_lrt_2007-02a.htm

Also, I would think a streetcar circulatory system would be lots cheaper, more
amenable to expansion, less costly to operate, and more attractive and user-
friendly to the public than the Skyway system - as a CIRCULATOR.  On the
other hand, I wonder whether the Skyway aerial structure (built originally, I
believe, for the VAL light metro system) could provide an aerial alignment for a
more commuter-oriented LRT (including Rapid Streetcar) technology, thus giving
it access south across the river.  Probably just a daydream.

L. Henry
Technical consultant - Light Rail Now Project

[Ocklawaha]

Welcome aboard Henry, THAT was a masterpiece.

Ocklawaha

[thelakelander]

Welcome to the forum, Nawdry.

One of the major reasons many of us are looking at the DMU based system is because these vehicles would be able to operate on existing feight rail lines, along with the S-Line to form a more comprehensive regional system. 

If we went with LRT from the start, would that mean having to build new light rail track, along side rail corridors, such as the CSX "A", as opposed to using what's already there?

[Nawdry]

The Lakelander asks:

>>
One of the major reasons many of us are looking at the DMU based system is because these vehicles would be able to operate on existing feight rail lines, along with the S-Line to form a more comprehensive regional system. 

If we went with LRT from the start, would that mean having to build new light rail track, along side rail corridors, such as the CSX "A", as opposed to using what's already there?
<<


OK, to run rail transit on existing freight rail lines, there are basically two options:

(1) If the freight rail traffic is fairly heavy and frequent, you would need to run transit service "interspersed" among the freight movements. This would probably limit service frequency to some extent (i.e., lengthen headways), but also the FRA (and almost surely the private railroad) would require FRA-compliant (high buff strength) rolling stock - basically, "heavy" regional rail ("commuter rail") type of equipment.  These days, railroads seem to be starting to demand this, even if the transit service runs on its own separate tracks (e.g., Denver's proposed regional rail to Boulder). Your rolling stock options here would be limited either to "heavy" locomotive + coaches equipment, or some kind of compliant DMU (which are currently not that available in North America - I'll address the issue of Colorado Railcar at another time).

(2) If freight traffic is light and infrequent, and the railroad is amenable, it could be "temporally separated" - i.e., freight operations moved to late-night and rail transit operated throughout most of the day. The FRA currently does NOT want any chance of freight and non-compliant rail passenger rolling stock to have even the remotest chance of contact. This is the situation where a "light" DMU or DEMU would work (the Austin rolling stock is a Stadler "light" DEMU that falls just short of FRA buff strength compliance).

Now, if you can run a light DMU/DEMU service, almost surely you could operate an electric LRT service. Both would be temporally separated. There are a number of examples where this is actually happening (i.e., tracks shared with freight):

* Ottawa O-Train - DMU shares with freight
* New Jersey River Line (Camden-Trenton) - DEMU shares with freight
* San Diego Trolley - LRT shares with freight
* Salt Lake City - LRT formerly shared with freight (freight operation may have ended)

I think the new Sprinter DMU in Oceanside, Ca (northern exurb of San Diego) will share with freight. Here in Austin, Capital Metro owns the rail line - currently exclusively freight rail - and Capital MetroRail will use this, with freight service relegated to late night hours.

I should also point out that there are clearance issues to address - freight cars must be able to clear rail transit platforms and, in the case of electrification, the OCS (overhead contact system) must be able to clear the highest freight cars (double-stack containers, bilevel passenger coaches, etc.). This is routinely possible.

Incidentally, the FRA are coming under a lot of criticism within the US transit industry for their rigid attitude on joint freight and rail transit use of infrastructure. In contrast, "tram-trains" are all the rage throughout Europe, and that concept is spreading like wildfire. But at the moment you will have to plan around the FRA's current restrictions and other policies.

Finally, I'll note that another advantage of electric LRT is that it can more easily penetrate the central part of a city - in most cases. LRT cars generally have a significantly tighter turning radius than DMUs/DEMUs (an issue we're currently struggling with here in Austin in regard to our DEMU operation). Also, electric LRT cars can negotiate much steeper grades - 10% and even above, although most are designed for 6-9%), whereas DMUs/DEMUs are limited to somewhere under 3% (meaning we are having to build a much longer viaduct here to carry our light regional rail over the UPRR main line).  And electric LRT also offers faster acceleration as I pointed out in a previous post.

A major advantage I see to DMUs/DEMUs is (1) this option avoids the extra cost of electrification and public aversion to its visual impact, and (2) the Stadler DEMU for Austin will operate in excess of 70 mph, whereas even the fastest electric LRT rolling stock typically has a max speed of around 65 mph.

LH

[JaxNole]

Is it possible to contact visionaries behind successful transit systems to join our cause and take on JTA, Peyton and others who continue to ignore the real and true cost of BRT on our neighborhoods and livelihood?

Ock, don't you know how to contact consultants or project engineers behind some of the very successful transit systems championed on this forum?  Someone influential is bound to be horrified at the poor leadership and direction we are traversing and, in turn, will either provide guidance or become involved in preventing such wasteful projects as BRT.

We have an insightful, educated and passionate collective, but we need more clout.  Someone...please help!

[Lunican]

Nawdry, thanks for the info.

If we want to use existing rail lines in Jacksonville, we are really just left with option number 1. The Florida East Coast line has a heavy amount of traffic on it around the clock. The CSX A Line will see a reduction in freight traffic (not an elimination), and even if an agreement could be made to run freight at night, it will still host 6 daily Amtrak trains, all of which operate through Jax in the day.

Unfortunately, light rail does not seem to be an option on these corridors. If you know of any way around these problems please let us know.

[Ocklawaha]

Jaxnole, Nawdry has joined us! This DOES add some heavyweight clout to our little forum. Take heart my friend.

Ocklawaha

[Nawdry]

Lunican wrote:

>>
If we want to use existing rail lines in Jacksonville, we are really just left
with option number 1. The Florida East Coast line has a heavy amount of
traffic on it around the clock. The CSX A Line will see a reduction in freight
traffic (not an elimination), and even if an agreement could be made to run
freight at night, it will still host 6 daily Amtrak trains, all of which operate
through Jax in the day.

Unfortunately, light rail does not seem to be an option on these corridors.
If you know of any way around these problems please let us know.
<<


Just a brief caution.  If you use a lightly used line, and can implement temporal separation, not much problem - you could do this with "light" or "heavy" rail transit.  Since "heavy" (FRA-compliant) equipment can "mix" with freights, the main reason for separation would be just for scheduling and avoiding conflicts.

However, on heavier-traffic main freight lines, the trend among the private freight RRs is to insist on TRACK separation - this is what's happening in Denver.  Also, for any kind of decent schedule frequency, you would probably want this anyway. Keep in mind what David Gunn said when his Amtrak train was stuck waiting by a freight RR (CSX, I think) dispatcher: the railroads schedule by a calendar, not a clock.  What this means is that regional passenger rail (RPR, AKA "commuter rail") trains would find themselves at the mercy of slow, erratic freight movements, even if the freight line has double track.

So that's why, to implement RPR,  transit agencies are increasingly going for installing their own tracks - either along freight RR ROW or on ROW they own outright.  The big RRs are also starting to refuse to allow light railway (i.e., non-FRA-compliant) operation alongside their tracks in their ROW.

So, bottom line: Except in a few cases of lighter traffic (Miami Tri-Rail and New Jersey River Line probably fall in this category), or situations where a freight RR branch has been purchased outright, to operate in active freight RR corridors transit agencies are increasingly finding it necessary to install separate tracks for the transit service.

And to recycle an earlier point: If you're going to do this, you should definitely look at the option of electrification, and running EMUs instead of DMUs or DEMUs.  Maybe the numbers won't pan out - but far too many new RPR proposals are going forward without doing the math and finding out.

LH

[Ocklawaha]

I am a huge fan of the clean-economy of LRT. Sure it won't work with our two SE or SW lines. It MIGHT work with the "S". However, I'd like to toss a curve ball into the mix. Has anyone besides San Pedro, done a "Heritage Interurban?" We could pioneer here, perhaps some Blimps? Hollywood Cars? and THEY were railroad size, at least the Blimps were. The builders say they could turn them out for us. They think Anti-Climbers would do the trick but I wonder what the FRA would say? CSS&SB had similar cars, in fact one vanished somewhere in West Jacksonville! (moved to a private location?) After being years in the yard for our first try at "heritage electric".

Ocklawaha

[Nawdry]

.
Ocklawaha writes:

>>
I am a huge fan of the clean-economy of LRT. Sure it won't work with our two SE or SW lines. It
MIGHT work with the "S". However, I'd like to toss a curve ball into the mix. Has anyone besides
San Pedro, done a "Heritage Interurban?" We could pioneer here, perhaps some Blimps?
Hollywood Cars? and THEY were railroad size, at least the Blimps were. The builders say they
could turn them out for us. They think Anti-Climbers would do the trick but I wonder what the FRA
would say? CSS&SB had similar cars, in fact one vanished somewhere in West Jacksonville!
(moved to a private location?) After being years in the yard for our first try at "heritage electric".
<<


Re: the San Pedro project (uses an original PE car, rehabbed, plus two newly built PE replicas) ... I know John Smatlak, the basic guru of that project, very well, so I'll ask him about the FRA-compliance of this rolling stock. But I would not hold out a microgram of hope these cars - or any such cars - would pass the FRA's extremely stringent requirements today, which are getting even more stringent as we speak.

The FRA is basically going into outer space, Where No Man Has Gone Before, in its obsession over supposedly preventing the "worstest" conceivable, possible accident that humankind can envirision with rail transportation. No other country on earth is anywhere near them on this.

Keep in mind that the FRA now classifies self-propelled railcars, including DMUs and EMUs, as "locomotives". The agency is moving (or has moved) to ratchet up the already highest-in-the-world buff-strength requirements of this type of railcar, a measure that will surely increase the weight, increase the cost, and lower the passenger capacity of each car. (This seems to be mainly a response to the crash not long ago of a Los Angeles Metrolink push-pull train, running cab-forward.)

Anyway, under these conditions, I would not hold out a molecule of hope that the FRA would certify compliance or grant exception to the kind of interurban-type heritage cars, original or replica, that are running on the San Pedro line.

Many transit industry professionals are beginning to challenge the FRA's rulemaking. The position of the Light Rail Now Project is that federal legislation needs to be passed that would model FRA and FTA safety regs after those used in Europe - thus opening up the possibility for tram-train services and similar innovative operations.  Actually, this is really a return to what was commonplace throughout North America back in the heyday of electric streetcars and interurban railways - this type of rolling stock ROUTINELY crossed intercity railroad tracks (now strongly disfavored by the FRA) and ran on stretches of intercity railroad throughout continent. The FRA and FTA rules thus represent a departure from what was longstanding practice considered acceptable and safe.

LH

[Ocklawaha]

Nawdry, I'm pretty much up on the rules thing, and was using San Pedro as a concept example. For equipment I was thinking more along the lines of "Blimp" or "South Shore" type. Using platforms with ramps (as in Miami) for ADA.

In other words, if we are going to have a CRC built, why not a replica "blimp" with all the modern rules?

Ocklawaha

[Nawdry]

.
Ocklawaha writes:

>>
I'm pretty much up on the rules thing, and was using San Pedro as a
concept example. For equipment I was thinking more along the lines of
"Blimp" or "South Shore" type. Using platforms with ramps (as in Miami)
for ADA.
In other words, if we are going to have a CRC built, why not a replica
"blimp" with all the modern rules?
<<


Well, theoretically, you could fashion a modern railcar in virtually any style you want, including heritage. But that could get rather expensive because this sounds like it would be pretty much a highly customized, "one-off" order. Railcars are expensive enough already when you just buy stock, off-the-shelf items.

I really don't mean to seem to keep shooting down your ideas. I like what you're trying to do. But if you want to contain costs, trying to procure a custom-built railcar to the new FRA buff strength requirements (and more) is probably not the way to go.

The other wrinkle I should mention is that the FTA & FRA are now requiring full level boarding of EVERY CAR of each regional passenger rail ("commuter rail") train. Given available options, that seems to mean a high platform, more or less, or at least some way to permit floor-level access into each car.  The Tri-Rail method of a pedestal platform ("high-block") - also used on Dallas's TRE and various "older" LRT systems (Dallas DART, Denver RTD, Sacramento RT, Salt Lake City UTA, Baltimore MTA, etc.) - is no longer permitted for new RPR systems.

Stupid, yes. But that's what agencies are being told. This also limits the use of recycled ("pre-owned") rolling stock, such as Nashville used for their Music City Star RPR.

So, back to your heritage-style option ... it would also have to comform to this new rule.

LH

[Lunican]

An old Budd SPV-2000 RDC would comply. Reliability might be an issue though.

[Ocklawaha]

Reliability might be an issue though.

It sure was when Budd delivered these cars, but given the rebuilder policies of backing their work "as new" that should be gone. Also the Budd car gets about 3 Mpg with full load, while the CRC is at about 1.4. CRC's CAN pull a trailer car (a coach like CRC) not quite up to full rail coach standards in weight. While the RDC or SPV really can't. They DID pull them in real service, but the agencys quickly learned they were underpowered for this and it played hell on the reliability of the cars. However, two RDC's or SPV's can operate at more like a 75% power and still beat out the CRC in MPG. The cars in Canada, Oregon, or Oklahoma, are offered with FULL "new car" service programs.

The idea of "Heritage Interurban" still seems very workable to me. True the SPV or RDC would get up and running faster and cheaper. But with a 20 year service life, we could see electric's come in to replace them. If those electrics were rebuilt "Northern Ohio", "CSS&SB" or "PE Blimps" we really would have something unique and almost certainly gain "World Fame" as THE destination City in Florida for Rail Fans. My marketing study shows that even in 1985, they figured some 500,000 extra folks would stop in to see a "Heritage Trolley". If we did the same with Interurbans, rather then stopping for a couple of CSX photos on the way to Mickey with the Family. Joe Lunchbucket would be PLANNING extra trips to Mickey just to get a day trackside in Jacksonville. Spell that $$$ return on investment.

Ocklawaha

[Lunican]

I think pushing for Heritage Interurbans, historic trolleys, and transit as a tourist attraction increases the cost and therefore reduces the feasibility. If a rail system is going to get off the ground, its going to need to start simple and cheap.