The civil-penalty tickets result from “Operation Classification” (alliteratively known as the “Bakken Blitz”) in which inspectors for the department's Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) conducted unannounced inspections of crude loading facilities in the state, following the catastrophic July 5, 2013 oil train explosion at Lac-Mégantic, Quebec.

“Beginning in August to Nov. 1, 2013, PHMSA inspectors tested samples from various points along the crude oil transportation chain: from cargo tanks that deliver crude oil to rail loading facilities, from storage tanks at the facilities, and from the pipeline connecting the storage tank to the railcar that would move the crude across the country,” said DOT. “Based on the test results, 11 of the 18 samples taken from cargo tanks delivering crude oil to the rail loading facilities were not assigned to the correct Packing Group.”

PHMSA fined Whiting Oil and Gas $12,000 for allegedly downgrading medium-risk Packing Group II oil received by truck to low-risk Packing Group III before loading it into railcars. Hess Corporation was fined $51,350 for down-classifying high-risk Packing Group I crude to medium-risk Packing Group II for rail shipment. The third alleged offender, Marathon Oil, was levied a $30,000 fine for downgrading the classification of oil received as Packing Group I to Packing Group II..

Canadian Transportation Safety Board investigators had previously declared that the contents of the train that exploded in Lac-Mégantic were incorrectly classified as Packing Group III instead of its actual Packing Group II. No charges or tickets have been assessed in the Lac-Mégantic case as the criminal investigation continues.

Accurate classification, said DOT, is essential to safe shipment and handling: “Shipping crude oil—or any hazardous material—without proper testing and classification could result in material being shipped in containers that are not designed to safely store it, or could lead first responders to follow the wrong protocol when responding to a spill.”

The DOT enforcement action closely follows a U.S. bankruptcy court action by the trustee for the former Montreal Maine & Atlantic Railway, which operated the Lac- Mégantic train. Had the cargo been properly classified, argues the suit against the oil broker, transloader, and tank car provider, the railroad would have handled the train in such a way that the runaway derailment would not have occurred.

“The shipping documents provided by Defendants identified the train’s entire cargo of crude oil as a Class 3 flammable liquid having a high flash point—the temperature at which organic material gives off sufficient vapors to ignite—and, hence, a low danger,” states the action filed Jan. 30 in the Maine division of the federal bankruptcy court. “These representations were false. On the contrary, tests conducted after the derailment have confirmed that the crude oil had a dangerously low flash point and was highly volatile.”

The suit claims MM&A protocols would have treated the train differently had dispatchers and crews been aware that the crude was explosive, instead of merely flammable. Specifically, MM&A would have ensured that “the train never be left unattended, always be parked on a blocked side track, and never be parked on a main track.”

Defendants in the MM&A suit include World Fuel Services, Western Petroleum Co. and Petroleum Transport Solutions, which among themselves owned the crude, loaded it, and provided the ill-fated string of 72 DOT-111 tank cars. MM&A is seeking damages in “an amount to be determined at trial.”

The separate DOT ticketing of North Dakota transloaders presages an expansion of Operation Classification to test for more than just flash point.

“As a result of today’s findings, PHMSA has expanded the scope of Operation Classification to include testing for other factors that affect proper characterization and classification, such as Reid Vapor Pressure, corrosivity, hydrogen sulfide content, and composition/concentration of the entrained gases in the material.”

Because of the silence of written hazmat law and regulations with respect to required testing procedures, there is much confusion in the oil field concerning the scope and frequency of testing required before crude may be loaded into tank cars. By expanding its enforcement initiative to include vapor pressure, corrosivity, and gas content, the U.S. regulator is prescribing classification factors that may not be precisely specified in law or regulation.

The 19-page protest letter, addressed to IDOT’s Chief Procurement Officer and State Purchasing Officer, Bill Grunloh and Gretchen Tucka, respectively, and signed by EMD Vice President Passenger Locomotive Sales Gary Eelman, says that the proposed award to Siemens “does not meet the Illinois Procurement Code requirement that ‘[a]wards shall be made to the responsible offeror whose proposal is determined in writing to be the most advantageous to the State, taking into consideration price and the evaluation factors set forth in the request for proposals.’ In short, Siemens is not a ‘responsible offeror’ and its offer is not ‘responsive’ with respect to the Procurement. EMD is confident that after IDOT reviews the facts presented in this protest, an award to Siemens will be deemed to be contrary to Illinois law, in addition to being inconsistent with the interests of the taxpaying public and the JPEs. . . Pursuant to Illinois General Assembly [law], any award for this Procurement must be stayed until this protest is resolved.”

Following is a condensed version of EMD’s protest, as submitted to IDOT.

“The Procurement specifications require that the locomotive offered by each offeror be able to operate at a sustained speed of 125 mph under loaded conditions as specified. This is a material requirement listed as a ‘pass/fail’ criterion in the Procurement.

“Siemens has offered a locomotive that cannot achieve and sustain 125 mph, making its proposal non-compliant with the Procurement specifications. In its proposal, the Siemens locomotive is shown to be only 4,200 BHP (brake horsepower)-rated. It is not possible for a locomotive to achieve, let alone sustain, 125 mph with merely 4,200 BHP in the train configurations specified in the Procurement, despite the ‘BOOST’ feature provided in Siemens’s design. The ‘BOOST’ feature appears to elevate the locomotive’s BHP to 4,400 for ‘a controlled period of time,’ which allows its locomotive ‘to achieve a higher acceleration or top speed.’ In the context of ‘higher acceleration or top speed,’ the ‘top speed’ on the Siemens locomotive would be something less than 125 mph because it lacks sufficient horsepower.

“Determining the ability of a locomotive to achieve and sustain 125 mph is done empirically through a relatively straightforward and objective calculation. In this case, such calculation concludes that a minimum of 4,530.5 BHP would be required under the specified load conditions and rolling resistance formula (Davis) in a best-case scenario (assuming, for instance, level tangent track and system efficiencies). Because the EMD locomotive offered is 4,700 BHP, it provides sufficient power to achieve 125 mph and it can maintain this speed through minor curves and grades. The Siemens locomotive cannot achieve this speed even on level tangent track. Though the Procurement documents do not specify a minimum horsepower requirement, speed and horsepower are directly related under the laws of physics, and speed is absolutely derived from horsepower.

“IDOT’s technical evaluation team would have concluded the Siemens locomotive to be underpowered if this calculation were made. To be fair, the Siemens locomotive can achieve 125 mph, but only while operating downhill. To contemplate such operational limits in real-life service would be unrealistic, not likely acceptable to the public, and could not have possibly been IDOT’s intent.

“Siemens changed the Procurement’s strictly specified rolling resistance formula and used variations of the Sauthoff formula instead of the required Davis formula. It is industry-wide knowledge that the application of the Sauthoff formula yields more favorable results as opposed to using the Davis formula. This action, which might be Siemens’s most egregious departure from the PRIIA and IDOT requirements, may be a disingenuous act to show compliance with required performance and suggests a blatant disregard for the Procurement’s specifications.

“Siemens used flawed and incorrect assumptions in acceleration performance simulation. Here again, Siemens displays its non-compliance and creates its own operating conditions and rolling resistance formula for the acceleration simulation. Despite the performance simulation requirements described in the PRIIA Specifications . . . Siemens patently disregards this requirement and ran the simulation using the Sauthoff formula with no HEP load. This is not a valid simulation in either respect and again demonstrates Siemens’s attempt to circumvent the Procurement requirements in two material respects: HEP load and rolling resistance. In its attempt to appear compliant, Siemens proceeds to state that the ‘Davis formula is used . . . for the simulations at TTCI.’ Siemens knew well that on each completed loop of the TTCI test track, its locomotive will achieve 125 mph at least once while traveling downhill even using the more restrictive Davis formula. Thus, a statement saying that the Davis equation was used per the specification in the TTCI simulations . . . gives the appearance of complying with the specifications while not being compliant at all. Siemens used the Davis formula where its underpowered locomotive would not be seen as such (reaching the top speed once going downhill) but changed the formula to accommodate itself where weaknesses in its locomotive’s performance would be obvious, as in the acceleration performance using the Davis formula. . . . The fact is that if Siemens had followed the proper formula and included HEP as required by the Procurement specifications, its locomotive could neither achieve nor sustain 125 mph.

“In requiring a higher constant speed, nothing can substitute for horsepower. Criteria for train rolling resistance were clearly specified in the PRIIA Specification, affording no latitude for alternative assumptions in any calculations. Thus, the results would have been consistent for any offeror. Comparing the horsepower offered with the performance required of the locomotive would have yielded clear results. . . . [T]he highest speed that the Siemens locomotive can achieve and sustain is 121 mph under ideal conditions, assuming no grades or curves. The “BOOST” mode offered by Siemens cannot even be considered because it permits a higher BHP for ‘a controlled period of time’ and merely for the purpose of achieving ‘a higher acceleration or top speed,’ but not both, as described by Siemens itself in its proposal. But even if that feature can operate continuously for an extended period of time, the Siemens locomotive still cannot sustain 125 mph as required by the Procurement specifications because the requisite horsepower simply is not available. Indeed, the sustainable speed is likely to be several miles per hour lower than 121 mph in real world conditions. Even at an achievable (but not sustainable) speed of 121 mph, the Siemens locomotive still fails to achieve the strict specification that IDOT stressed as being a material component of the specification and mandatory in this Procurement.

“As the agency providing oversight of the Procurement, it was IDOT’s responsibility to ensure that those reviewing the performance section of the proposals would calculate (logically early on in the process) whether a proposed locomotive could reach, let alone sustain, 125 mph based simply on the horsepower offered. This would have served to distinguish ‘pass’ from ‘fail’ proposals immediately through a straightforward mathematical calculation. However, it is not clear whether these calculations were made. If they were made, IDOT would have concluded that the Siemens locomotive could not possibly reach and sustain 125 mph given its horsepower; indeed, if the calculations were made, the results appeared to have been ignored. Failing to examine the horsepower aspect as it relates to the ability of the locomotive to meet IDOT’s requirements has led to the selection of a factually non-compliant locomotive. Siemens’s proposed locomotive simply does not comply with the achievable or sustainable speed requirement of the specification which is both paramount for real world performance and compulsory for award of the contract according to IDOT’s own requirements.

“Providing an underpowered locomotive presents a number of opportunities for Siemens to significantly reduce the overall cost of ownership of the vehicle and its purchase price. When a locomotive is underpowered, the diesel engine can be smaller, thus reducing the number of cylinders required. In Siemens's proposal, it is able to supply a locomotive with 20% fewer cylinders than the locomotive offered by EMD. Fewer cylinders means lower life-cycle costs. It also means the engine support systems (such as the emissions after-treatment and cooling systems) and the alternator and propulsion system components can be smaller. Smaller components are less costly to manufacture and lighter in weight, and consequently, the total cost of ownership are [dramatically] reduced for the locomotive. As a result, Siemens is able to offer a locomotive which weighs at least 11,000 pounds less than EMD's locomotive. But it can only do so because the engine and support components are not sized to meet the material requirements of the Procurement—to achieve and sustain 125 mph.

“The unfair advantage given to Siemens severely disadvantaged EMD. [I]f all offerors had been afforded the ability to arbitrarily reduce the performance of their proposed locomotive, or apply other means to obtain more favorable results such as disregarding HEP load or using the Sauthoff formula, thereby allowing offerors to propose a locomotive with lower sustained speed (believing it to be acceptable to IDOT), other product configurations could have been submitted. A lower performing locomotive requires less power, and consequently, a lower price could be offered. Such differences shape the determination of the Procurement’s award. Most important, scoring in other categories also could have been profoundly different.

“EMD prides itself in its ability to find the right solution for its customers. If EMD had known that offerors may provide a solution with lower performance criteria, EMD may have provided a different solution that would have met the JPEs’ needs and with reduced pricing. However, EMD was unconscionably deprived of this opportunity. No communication was made to EMD (and other offerors) providing specifications for a lower-performing locomotive. Knowing only those specifications provided in the Procurement and trusting the integrity of the procurement process, EMD strictly adhered to the Procurement documents and offered a compliant locomotive in all areas of the specifications, as well as meeting all ‘pass/fail’ items. As a result of EMD’s strict compliance with the Procurement documents, EMD’s proposal was automatically placed at a distinct handicap in price and scoring in contrast to the non-compliant locomotive offered by Siemens, thus requiring that the relief sought by EMD be granted to ensure fairness and preservation of the Procurement’s integrity.

“EMD requests that IDOT immediately stay the proposed award to Siemens . . . confirm the statements in this protest, and subsequently cancel this Procurement. EMD further requests that a new procurement be issued as soon as possible and that IDOT adheres to all requirements for locomotive performance in its evaluation."

Greenbrier Chairman and CEO William Furman says the company’s new “Tank Car of the Future” design “is intended to meet anticipated new industry and government standards for tank cars transporting certain hazardous material. Greenbrier is addressing the tank car safety issue on two fronts: by supporting a Tank Car of the Future, and through offering retrofit alternatives for the legacy fleet, including our most recently built CPC-1232 tank cars, as may be appropriate. This allows the industry to take immediate steps to improve public safety. It also preserves the massive investment in tank cars now in service, by extending the time these cars could be used in hazardous material transportation as they ultimately transition over time to less hazardous service. The Department of Transportation has yet to rule on industry recommendations to adopt the newer and safer CPC-1232 standards submitted to them in March 2011. These were subsequently mandated by the Association of American Railroads on tank cars ordered after October 2011.”

“As of November 2013, there were 272,100 DOT-111 tank cars in service in North America, of which 255,000 were of the older legacy design,” said Furman. “Among those tank cars, 170,000 were in hazardous transport, with 68,000 tank cars in crude oil and ethanol service. In order to respond to immediate safety concerns, and in anticipation of future action by the DOT, Greenbrier is also introducing retrofits for legacy DOT-111 cars and newer cars that meet the current CPC-1232 standard mandated by AAR. Retrofit options for the legacy DOT-111 tank cars will include high-flow pressure relief valves, head shields, top fittings protection, and thermal protection. It is expected that appropriate retrofit choices could allow extended service for DOT-111 tank cars as these cars are placed in lower-risk service over time. Industry research has shown that bottom and top appurtenances on the legacy DOT-111 tank cars are impacted in high speed derailments. Greenbrier’s proposed retrofit is targeted to improve these tank car features, and adds head shields, to achieve better performance in a derailment event.”

Greenbrier will also provide retrofit offerings for newer tank cars built under the AAR’s CPC -1232 standard, which applies to all tank cars ordered after October 2011. Greenbrier’s retrofit package for newer CPC-1232 cars includes high-flow pressure relief valves and improved bottom outlet valve handles for any CPC-1232 cars in crude and ethanol service that were not originally equipped with these features.

“Combined, these retrofits can meaningfully improve the safety performance of both car types in continued service,” said Furman. “Greenbrier expects its Tank Car of the Future and retrofit offerings will comply with anticipated Class I rail carrier requirements as well as pending regulatory actions by the U.S. and Canadian governments. Our retrofitting work, as part of our Wheels, Refurbishment & Parts segment, will not materially impact production rates for new builds as part of our Manufacturing segment.”

“Greenbrier has a rich history of designing and building the world’s most durable tank cars for delivering sensitive materials,” Furman noted. “For more than 30 years, our Wagony Swidnica facility in Poland has built all types of pressure tank and specialty cars for the Western European rail system. European tank car service is highly regulated, and typically consists of shorter, faster trains than in the U.S. and North America, with many advanced safety features and an excellent safety record for hazardous materials service.

“We are prepared to respond in part as the result of an order to build 500 pressure cars in North America. Currently, pressure cars are used to transport hazardous freight other than crude oil and ethanol. These cars exceed current tank car standards for cars transporting crude oil and ethanol, as well as all new tank car standards recently considered by AAR. Our pressure car experience will aid our design effort on the Tank Car of the Future for non-pressurized hazardous service, including the transportation of crude oil and ethanol.”

Greenbrier says it can build tank cars at a rate of 4,000 cars per year in North America, and is increasing its capacity “in light of higher demand for tank cars related to the energy renaissance in America.” As of Nov. 30, 2013, 47% of Greenbrier's backlog consisted of tank cars “that are almost entirely the more advanced and safer CPC-1232 tank cars and pressure cars. Greenbrier no longer produces the legacy DOT-111 tank car for use in flammable service.”

“Greenbrier will collaborate with industry leaders to achieve a shared goal of providing the safest means of transportation of crude oil and ethanol by rail,” said Furman. “Railroads already have addressed operating practices to improve safety, while energy and chemical shippers are evaluating the content of their commodities to verify proper packaging to protect the public and the environment.”

Tacoma, Wash.'s City Council has formally endorsed its preferred route for extending the city's existing 1.6-mile Link Light Rail (often defined by some as a streetcar) operated by Sound Transit.

The Council officially ratified what it had already informally backed earlier, an extension along Stadium Way, mirrors that preferred by a plurality of city residents weighing in on the matter. Voters approved an extension in November 2008.

The recommendation now goes before Sound Transit's Board of Directors, also evaluating the planned 2.3-mile LRT extension up Stadium Way and down Martin Luther King Jr. Way into Hilltop. City Council members said they want Sound Transit to build a station on Stadium Way to give residents of the St. Helens neighborhood access to light rail. But the hilly terrain has prompted some to express concern over LRT's ability to handle steep grades, and the ability of some citizens with mobility problems to do the same.

Local media reported that Sue Comis, a project engineer with Sound Transit, told the council she is confident the situation can be addressed adequately.

The projected $150 million project would receive $50 million from Sound Transit, with $50 million hoped for from federal grants, such as the Federal Transit Administrations Small Starts program. Another $50 million would be generated from an undesignated "funding partner," according to transit officials.

Long Island Rail Road riders may have to brace for a strike as early as next month, following a unanimous vote Wednesday, Feb. 5, 2014, by the LIRR's largest union authorizing a strike.

The vote, held by two local chapters of the Sheet Metal, Air, Rail and Transportation Union (SMART), readied the union for a strike as early as March 21. A third SMART local reportedly did not participate in the vote.

SMART represents approximately 2,700 workers, ranging from train conductors to mechanics to cleaners, that work for the LIRR, once again the nation's largest regional passenger railroad. 

LIRR's labor force of 6,000 has lacked a contract for longer than three years. Labor says LIRR and parent company Metropolitan Transportation Authority should heed a settlement recommendation by a Presidential Emergency Board, which MTA has rejected.

The Presidential Emergency Board recommended MTA pay workers an additional 2.85% a year for six years, without raising passenger fares in 2015 more than the planned 4%. Union members, in turn, would contribute 2% of an individual's base pay to health care coverage. But the MTA seeks a three-year wage freeze from all of its workers unless pay increases are offset by cost savings related to productivity.

After an absence of more than 67 years, rail transit is poised to return to Ontario's twin cities.

The last trolley bus between Kitchener and Waterloo, Ontario—known as the province's twin cities—operated on March 26, 1973, while Dec. 27, 1946 wrote finis to the King Street streetcar line. The planned arrival of light rail transit is yet one more example of how electric rail transit, specifically the updated and improved urban streetcar, has returned to the scene.

Approval, including funding, is in place for a 12-mile, C$818 million LRT line being built under the auspices of the Waterloo Region Rapid Transit Division. It will extend from Fairview Park Mall in south Kitchener to Conestoga Mall in north Waterloo. In addition, a 10.5-mile BRT (Bus Rapid Transit) line is being built from Fairview Park to Ainslie Terminal in downtown Cambridge, just south of Kitchener. This is expected to be carrying passengers this year, and is projected to ultimately be converted to LRT.

Some land clearing for the new intermodal station to be built at King Street and the CN main line to Toronto has taken place, but overall construction will commence this year. The intermodal terminal will provide connections between the LRT and GO Transit regional/commuter trains and VIA intercity trains, as well as city and intercity buses. The existing Charles Street bus terminal will continue in operation as well, for the time being. Opening of the LRT line is projected for 2017.

From Fairview Park Mall, the LRT alignment parallels the CN Huron Park Spur between Mill Street and Hayward Avenue. Between Mill Station and Borden/Ottawa Station, the line is on parallel streets, then proceeds along Charles Street in double track to Frederick Street. From here, the line splits again, along Charles and King, to the Transit Hub Station (intermodal station) at Victoria Street. It tunnels beneath the CN right-of-way, then remains as a double-track operation all the way to the terminal at Conestoga Mall. The line will be above ground except for the underpass beneath the CN main line downtown.

Between Uptown Waterloo Station and Northfield Station, the route follows the CN Elmira Spur, then swings eastward onto Northfield Drive to the terminal. The split-running downtown is necessitated by the narrow width of King Street, the Kitchener-Waterloo main thoroughfare. Along the CN right-of-way, the LRT will serve the University of Waterloo, and the Research and Technology Park. Part of the route follows that of former streetcar and trolley coach operations, along King Street.

The LRT tracks will be curbside along Ottawa and Borden Streets, in downtown Kitchener and uptown Waterloo. For the street-running portions of the line, they will be separated from traffic by a raised concrete lip or other form of delineation. In downtown Waterloo the tracks will also be split, between paralleling King and Caroline Streets, before turning onto the CN Elmira Spur right-of-way.

The maintenance shop and yard will be located at 518 Dutton Drive in Waterloo, near the terminal. The yard will accommodate about 30 LRVs. Fourteen LRVs are required for the initial operation, and have been ordered from Bombardier Transportation, piggybacking on Toronto's Transit City order, with an option for 14 more cars, seeking to benefit from a lower unit price. Bombardier's low-floor FLEXITY cars will be built in Thunder Bay, Ontario. The LRVs will draw traction power at 750 volts DC.

The population of Ontario's Waterloo Region is 543,000, which is greater than Calgary and Edmonton when they launched their LRT projects more 30 years ago. Daily ridership is projected at 27,000, increasing to 56,000 by 2031. Trains will operate on 7.5-minute headways during peak periods and at 15 minute intervals at other times.

U.S. freight rail traffic declined during the week ending Feb. 1, 2014, but gained ground during the month of January, the Association of American Railroads reported Thursday, Feb. 6.

U.S. freight carload traffic fell 1.5% during the week ending Feb. 1, measured against the comparable week in 2013. U.S. intermodal volume, uncharacteristically, also fell during the week, down 0.8%. Total U.S. rail traffic for the declined 1.2%.

Just two of the 10 carload commodity groups AAR tracks on a weekly basis posted increases compared with the same week in 2013: grain, up 22.5%, and petroleum and petroleum products, up 0.8%. Declining commodities included nonmetallic minerals and products, down 8.8%.

Canadian freight carload traffic for the week ending Feb. 1 followed suit, down 3.8% measured against the comparable week in 2013, and Canadian intermodal also retreated, down 6.3%. Mexican freight carload traffic also failed to gain ground, down 1.3%, but Mexican intermodal, up 1.1%, spoiled the negative North American sweep.

Combined North American freight carload traffic for the first five weeks of 2014 on 13 reporting U.S., Canadian, and Mexican was down 0.7% percent compared with the same point last year. Combined North American intermodal volume, by contrast, was up 0.5%.

AAR reported a more upbeat picture in tabulating U.S. freight traffic's January results. U.S. intermodal volume rose 1.3% for the month when measured against January 2013; U.S. freight carload traffic edged up 0.4%.

Seven of the 20 commodity categories tracked by the AAR each month saw year-over-year carload increases in January over January 2013. Grain rose 13.2%, while petroleum and petroleum products rose 10.4%. Commodity categories with carload declines last month included metallic ores, down 23.5%, and motor vehicles and parts, down 6.1%. Coal carloads were down a modest 0.5%.

"Railroads are very good at operating their 140,000 mile long, outdoor 'factory floor' in all kinds of difficult weather. That said, in many parts of the country, January took the term difficult weather to new lows, as in low temperatures, for recent years," said AAR Senior Vice President John T. Gray. "We can't quantify it precisely, but the extreme cold probably held down rail traffic to some extent – for example, by making it more difficult for rail customers to produce their products and to load what they did produce into rail cars."

As the U.S. bolsters its passenger rail options, from high speed rail startups to streetcar revivals, those designing the safest land transport mode seek to make it safer still.

Notwithstanding high-profile incidents involving fatalities, from Los Angeles's Metrolink in 2008 to New York's Metro-North in late 2013, passenger rail transport remains far safer than most other options, even as expectations and demands for even greater passenger rail safety continue unabated.

Suppliers are confident they can meet—and even beat—those rising expectations. Railway Age talked to one industry representative who outlined safety developments for high speed rail (as well as higher-speed implementation), and to a second evaluating the lower-speed rail options, light rail transit and streetcars, with other (though not exclusively different) safety priorities.

Focusing, and flexing, HSR needs

Last month, defying some doomsayers, Amtrak and the California High Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA) issued a long-awaited Request For Proposals for high speed trainsets that will be "essential to meeting Amtrak's critical short-term need to expand the capacity of its current Northeast Corridor high speed service and meeting the long-term operational needs of both Amtrak and the CHSRA." Proposals are due May 17, 2014; a builder is expected to be selected by the end of this year.

Paul LaRouche, Bombardier Transportation director of product planning, assures anyone interested that the new train equipment will be as safe as cutting-edge technology can make it, and dismisses recent rumors dogging both CHSRA and Amtrak HSR programs.

In part that's because LaRouche, along with suppliers colleagues and competitors, transit agencies, and Amtrak, has helped advance specifications developed by the Federal Railroad Administration through the FRA Rail Safety Advisory Committee.

The industry in late 2010 established standards for passenger rail gear designed for speeds up to 125 mph through FRA's Engineering Task Force 1 (ETF1). Standards for the next level, ETF2, initially outlined specifications for mixed service including speeds up to 150 mph, subsequently informally adjusted to 160 mph.

But the Rail Safety Advisory Committee, scheduled to meet again late last month, was to focus on "covering Tier 1 and Tier 3 simultaneously," LaRouche says. Tier 1 specs would include alternative designs to facilitate mixed service—regional/commuter rail and more conventional passenger rail, along with service equivalent to Amtrak's Acela Express at speeds up to 125 mph. "It's a giant step forward," he says. Also scheduled: outlining safety procedures for Tier 3, mixed service up to 125 mph, and "dedicated" high speed rail passenger service, such as sought by California, at speeds of 220 mph.

LaRouche says the ongoing work is a good condition, and not indicative of a failure to achieve a consensus on safety or operations. "FRA is not lowering the standards," he stresses. "They're not inferior; they're different." LaRouche has previously noted that crash avoidance becomes more critical than crashworthiness as train speeds increase, a stance critics of the FRA stressed for years.

"People now are saying, 'Amtrak backed down on speed requirements.' But no, they're still going forward with a joint procurement [with California High-Speed Rail Authority]; they'd like to buy something with a similar platform."

From Bombardier's point of view, "Ideally, one would like to offer them equipment that eventually can go 220 mph, but can operate in mixed service at 160 mph," LaRouche says. "That sounds like Tier 2, but Tier 3 rules creates an environment where Amtrak can work toward an environment that allows them to do that." Both the Safety Advisory Committee and Engineering Task Force provide the groundwork for that to happen, he adds.

As for California's HSR plans, "People are quick to seize on a setback and say 'that's the end of that project,'" LaRouche notes. As the state struggled with the quarreling over the legitimacy of a bond issue process, "people said that's the end. But that's one particular aspect of that project that has to be worked on," LaRouche says.

The needs of the two HSR projects, and the safety requirements surrounding them, will remain different for some time. "Tier 3 work is perfect for California, which is a 'greenfield' project" with brand-new right-of-way, says LaRouche, contrasting it with Amtrak's venerable Northeast Corridor, "defined 100 years ago; you have to deal with that reality" of a "brownfield" project.

Amtrak is seeking up to 28 high speed trainsets, each with between 400 and 450 seats, that can meet or exceed current Acela Express trip times on existing NEC infrastructure.

CHSRA is seeking an initial order of 15 trainsets with a minimum of 450 seats that can meet its planned trip-time requirements for service from the San Francisco Bay Area to Los Angeles, again, on what is planned as mostly new infrastructure.

Only current manufacturers of high speed rail equipment, which Amtrak and CHSRA define as "manufacturers with equipment in commercial operation at speeds of at least 160 mph (257 kph) for at least two years," will be eligible to submit a bid. Bombardier plans to be one of those qualified bidders.

Safety for low-speed gear

Almost counterintuitively, the return of streetcars and light rail transit to North American urban centers (see story, p. 41) has highlighted potential safety issues urban rail can have vis a vis pedestrian and bicycle traffic, themselves enjoying a resurgence in cities across the continent. The new mix, however, also has proven effective in exposing a far more dangerous mode—automotive traffic—giving rail suppliers that much more of an incentive to display the better safety performance of steel wheel on steel rail.

Indeed, some urban activists suggest the presence of a streetcar, by itself, enhances street safety through its predictable travel route and stricter adherence to street speed limits, both often far superior to the individual automobile, known to wander off path and onto sidewalks—or into LRT or streetcar vehicles, even broadsiding them. "When a car T-bones a [rail] vehicle, we ensure that the design can absorb that impact," says George Long, Director of Engineering, Siemens Rail Systems, U.S.

So even at low speeds, crash energy management becomes critical for rail vehicles traversing and sharing those streets otherwise behaving themselves. "What can we do to absorb the energy, and protect the drivers and the passengers?" Long asks, setting the table.

Siemens, in deploying its S70 platform for both light rail and streetcar submodes, has generated 14 iterations of the product line since 2002. Per Europe's EN-13227 standard and the U.S.'s Rail Transit-1 (RT-1) standard, crash resistance of 20 mph was specified. A revision to RT-1 increased that to 25 mph, and "We thought it was better to go to 25 mph, just to be the first one in the market," Long says.

Long notes Ottawa's recent equipment purchase (awarded to Siemens competitor Alstom) specified RT-1 standards, something Long believes will be commonplace very shortly.

Automobiles do hit LRT and streetcar vehicles broadside, but more often the clashes are "typically vehicle-to-vehicle head-on" incidents, Long says. That makes it imperative for the rail vehicles to be built to protect engineers or operators through "a progressive collapse of the vehicle," or crumple zone, similar to what automobiles employ. Such design also fosters "replaceable structural elements that are more 'repairable,'" Long notes.

"We prove it first by calculation, then analytically by software analysis. Then we actually crash [a test vehicle] at 25 mph." Since test crashes are costly, the effectiveness of a crash-absorbent operator's cab pays off not just in a better product in the field but also reduces the cost of the crash tests themselves.

But just like HSR operations, crash avoidance also factors in heavily into Long's thinking. "What can we do to have more pedestrian safety?" he asks rhetorically. Some responses are simple (and elegant). S70 LRT gear in Minneapolis (and, later this year, in sister city St. Paul, Minn.) have automatic couplers and snowplows, with covers, to keep pedestrians and others from literally being dragged underneath a vehicle. Even automobiles are considered. "We're looking at couplers all folded back so they can't puncture a car vehicle gas tank," Long says.

Then there's the operator, the human element, that can be assisted. "How can we improve his or her viewing angles? What are the blind spots he or she might have? You want good visibility around you," Long says—as critical to enhanced safety as any high-tech development.

A final factor, compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), "is very critical," Long observes. "A lot of cities have ADA committees," active in ensuring the safe boarding, or departure, of rail passengers cross the U.S. and Canada, more eager than ever to opt for the safer way to travel.

Amtrak’s new electric workhorses, known as the Amtrak Cities Sprinter, are being assembled at the Siemens solar-powered rail manufacturing plant in Sacramento, Calif. The equipment includes parts built from Siemens plants in Norwood, Ohio, Alpharetta, Ga., and Richland, Miss., and nearly 70 other suppliers, representing more than 60 cities and 23 states.

The ACS-64s will become the mainstay of Amtrak’s Northeast Corridor operations, powering all Northeast Regional and long-distance trains, and matching existing trip times at speeds up to 125 mph. Eventually, they also will operate on the Keystone Service linking New York, Philadelphia, and Harrisburg, Pa.

The new locomotives will replace Amtrak’s AEM7 fleet. The AEM7s have between 25 and 35 years of service and average mileage of more than 3.5 million miles traveled with some approaching 4.5 million miles. Amtrak expects to have several more ACS-64s enter revenue service in the coming weeks and then will receive monthly delivery of the remaining units through 2015.

The ACS-64 “is designed for improved reliability and easier maintenance, leading to faster turn-around times and increased availability for service,” Amtrak said. “A state-of-the-art microprocessor system performs self-diagnosis of technical issues, takes self-corrective action, and notifies the locomotive engineer. In addition, there are redundant systems to ensure HEP (head-end power) is maintained to the passenger cars to keep heating and cooling systems working, the lights on, and the doors operational. The locomotives also meet the latest federal rail safety regulations, including CEM (crash energy management) components. Furthermore, the locomotives are energy efficient and use a regenerative braking system to feed energy back into the power grid. Together, the 70 locomotives could save over 3 billion kilowatt-hours of energy and could result in more than $300 million in savings over 20 years.”

Vice President Joe Biden (pictured at left)—an ardent Amtrak supporter who during his days as a U.S. Senator from Delaware logged more than 8,000 Amtrak round-trips commuting between his Wilmington, Del., home and his Washington office—helped unveil the ACS-64 at a Feb. 6 event at Philadelphia’s 30th Street Station. He was accompanied by Amtrak President and CEO Joe Boardman (Railway Age’s 2014 Railroader of the Year), U.S. Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx, and Siemens USA President and CEO Eric Speigel.

Biden, introduced by Foxx as “president of the Amtrak fan club,” traveled to the event aboard an Amtrak Acela Express train. The Vice President gave an impassioned speech in which he emphasized the importance of the Northeast Corridor and of investing in the nation’s transportation infrastructure. “It’s hard to imagine what life would be like in the Northeast without the Northeast Corridor,” he said. “Fifty percent of the worst highway bottlenecks in the country are in the Northeast. People spend an average of 47 hours per year sitting in traffic jams. That’s $51 billion in lost productivity. The airports in New York and Philadelphia account for 50% of all national flight delays. Criticizing members of Congress who complain about the federal financial support that Amtrak receives for the NEC, Biden said, “The last thing I need to hear from my colleagues is ‘why should we subsidize Amtrak in the Northeast Corridor?’ It’s time to get moving, and Amtrak is on the move. Amtrak is one of the critical elements that’s going to bring America into the 21st Century.”

“Amtrak is integral to the daily life of the Northeast, and our new locomotives will keep the people and businesses of the region connected and on the move," said Boardman. “New equipment ensures Amtrak can deliver the reliable service the region depends on and supports the growth of the region as America’s economic powerhouse.”

DOT Secretary Foxx noted that the ACS-64 order, financed by a $560 million RRIF loan, is the largest electric locomotive fleet purchase in the U.S. since World War II.

PATH weekend train service between New Jersey points and downtown Manhattan will cease for 45 weekends during this year, in order to expedite installation of Positive Train Control (PTC), PATH and parent Port Authority of New York & New Jersey (PA) said.

PATH hopes to meet the federal deadline of Dec. 31, 2015, for PTC installation. Some observers suggest the increased emphasis on installation results from the Metro-North train derailment last December, which killed four; Metro-North's lack of progress in implementing PTC subsequently became a political talking point.

The cost of PTC installation also reportedly has risen from an earlier estimate of $580 million, with estimates ranging from $10 million to $60 million in additional expense, local media report.

The closure also comes at the 9/11 Memorial Museum, which lies immediately adjacent to PATH's World Trade Center Station, plans to open to the public in May. Weekday service, however, will offer museum visitors PAT access to the facility.

PATH officials say the tunnel closure also will aid repair efforts required from damage inflicted by Superstorm Sandy in late October 2012; the tunnels will be powerwashed with a desalinization agent, while "intrusion detection systems" will be added to reduce the risk of (and impact of) future flooding. Closure also will allow continued installation of antiterrorism systems in the trans-Hudson tunnels.

PATH also hopes to expedite the modernization and automation of its signaling equipment with CBTC (Communications-Based Train Control), initially due for completion in 2017. The CBTC work is proceeding under a consortium led by the Siemens Mobility Division.

Railcar suppliers gear up to meet demand for safety-first tank cars.

For tank car builders—American Railcar Industries, The Greenbrier Cos., National Steel Car, Texana Tank Car, Trinity Industries, Union Tank Car—the business outlook for the next five years is good, as demand for tank cars continues to surpass builder capacity. The RSI's year-end 2013 report showed deliveries of 28,996 tank cars, and a backlog of 55,386. With builder capacity expected to be approximately 30,000 cars per year, this backlog will take close to two years to fill.

The tank car building boom is tempered by a regulatory climate in which new safety standards are the subject of intense discussion among railroads, carbuilders, lessors, and oil producers. Following several serious accidents involving crude oil trains, as well as the discovery that crude oil from Bakken shale deposits extracted by hydraulic fracturing is particularly volatile, the PHMSA, FRA, and Transport Canada are expected to impose new standards for DOT 111 (AAR 211) non-pressurized tank cars handling hazardous materials, specifically those transporting Class 3 PG (Packing Group) I and II denatured ethanol and crude oil. That's not expected to happen until 2015, despite calls by politicians to speed up the usually lengthy federal rulemaking process.

The industry has not waited for a rulemaking to manufacture stronger tank cars. Since October 2011, well before the CBR (crude by rail) boom started, all DOT 111s have been built far sturdier than their predecessors.

The AAR, with support from the RSI Committee on Tank Cars (RSICTC),

in March 2011 submitted to PHMSA Petition 1577 to amend 49 C.F.R. Part 179 for tank cars used to transport PG I and II hazmat. P-1577 included both a jacketed and a non-jacketed option for new tank car construction. DOT 111s built since October 2011—so-called "good-faith cars"—have head shields, top-fitting rollover protection, half-inch-thick normalized tank steel (for unjacketed applications), double-shelf couplers, and bottom skid protection.

Currently, there are approximately 272,000 DOT 111s in the North American fleet. Of these, about 171,000 (63%) handle hazmat. Roughly 29,000 (17%) meet P-1577 standards, which AAR implemented as CPC (Casualty Prevention Circular) 1232.

Now, the AAR and RSICTC each have proposals in response to a PHMSA Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that would make the current voluntary P-1577 standards law, presumably improve upon those standards, and set a time-frame for the phase-out or retrofitting of pre-P-1577 DOT 111s. The proposals are similar, but there are some key differences based on ownership and car utilization.

The AAR Tank Car Committee on Jan. 22, 2014 proposed tougher standards for new non-pressurized tank cars, plus retrofitting of P-1577 cars: 9/16-inch-thick TC128 Grade B steel shell and head, an 11-gauge outer steel jacket around the tank with thermal protection in the form of a protective blanket or equivalent protective layer, full-height half-inch-thick head shields, high-flow-capacity pressure relief valves, and design modifications (removal of the operating handle or system) to prevent bottom outlets from opening in the case of an accident. AAR was expected to amend an earlier proposal to PHMSA to reflect its new position.

The RSICTC issued a proposal to PHMSA on Dec. 5, 2013 that continues P-1577 standards for newly constructed DOT-111s transporting Class 3 PG I and II materials, with some key enhancements: tank cars constructed to 286,000-pound GRL (gross rail load) standards, heads and shells made of normalized steel, and, at minimum, half-inch-thick half-head shields. For tank cars constructed of normalized TC128 Grade B steel, head and shell thickness must be one-half-inch for non-jacketed cars, and 7/16-inch for jacketed cars. For cars constructed of normalized A516-70 steel, shells of non-jacketed cars must be 9/16-inch thick, while shells of jacketed cars must be a half-inch thick. Top fittings must be protected by a protective structure as tall as the tallest fitting. Finally, the RSICTC recommends installation of a reclosing pressure relief valve.

The RSICTC also supports reclassifying denatured ethanol and crude oil grades that are currently classified as PG III to PG I or II.

The RSICTC has urged PHMSA "to adopt a separate approach for existing tank cars that is uniquely tailored to the needs of the existing DOT 111 fleet. Because the industry voluntarily adopted the CPC-1232 standard, a significant number of DOT 111s are already compliant with P-1577 enhancements. Many builders and shippers have already made a significant capital investment in these cars. More than 55,000 CPC-1232-compliant tank cars will be in service by the end of 2015, representing an industry investment in excess of $7 billion.

In light of the industry's proactive decision to incorporate these new safety enhancements, RSICTC requests that PHMSA recognize that these cars already contain safety enhancements and thus exempt them from any additional modifications that may be required under the future rule."

What about the 140,000-plus non-P-1577 DOT 111s? The AAR has recommended that all such cars in hazmat service be phased out (retired, or repurposed to carry non-hazardous materials) or retrofitted. The AAR previously opposed retrofitting, saying it would cost the industry more than $1 billion, but there are many cars whose service life won't expire for many years. There are about 75,000 of these newer yet non-P-1577 DOT 111s that are candidates for retrofitting; the cost is estimated at $20,000 to $40,000 per car.

What is a realistic time frame for retrofit or retirement of older cars? How long before the DOT 111 fleet is up to specs (whatever those will be)? "We have deferred to PHMSA to make this determination," AAR told Railway Age. "The goal is for these improvements to be implemented as aggressively as possible, without curbing the industry's ability to serve energy sector customers and support North American progress toward energy independence. RSI and others had specific timeline proposals, to which we did respond as we believe this ultimately must be decided by PHMSA."

The NTSB estimates that 69% of today's tank car fleet has a high incidence of tank failure during accidents. For cars transporting Bakken crude, corrosion problems are a concern. The Volatile chemicals in the oil (hydrogen sulfide, etc.) are likely accelerating the corrosion. Crude oil composition varies by region, and even within regions, making documentation of loaded crude oil, now under intense scrutiny, problematic. Corrosion-resistant tank linings are one solution, but they may render CBR less competitive due to the high cost of a lining—$7,000 to $10,000 per car—and the resulting reduction in tank capacity and higher transportation cost.

The industry watches—and waits—for regulatory bodies to decide exactly what the rules will be.

Crude by rail is not entirely new. Railway cars were first developed for the shipment of oil out of Pennsylvania as early as 1865. By 1910, sets of crude-laden tank cars were routinely moving between wells and refineries in Asia, the Middle East, and much of the Western world. In the 1980s, unit train service was started between central California and a refinery outside Los Angeles, with 70 or more cars handling in excess of 40,000 barrels of crude per trip.

What is new is the enormous scale of volume and distance. In 2009, U.S. Class I railroads moved just under 11,000 carloads of crude. In 2011, that number increased to more than 65,000 carloads. Then came 2012, when U.S. railroads hauled some 235,000 carloads of crude, a feat made possible in part through increased use of hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking” (which has tapped vast supplies of previously unreachable shale oil), and also through the increased use of unit trains that are dedicated to handling crude.

Year-end estimates show U.S. railroads transported close to 400,000 carloads of crude in 2013. And the majority of those shipments are traveling 1,200 miles or more, by rail, from the heartland of North America outward to refineries and terminals on the Pacific, Atlantic, and Gulf coasts, locations that have traditionally been supplied by pipelines, offshore wells, or by tanker ships delivering crude from Alaska or foreign sources.

Pipelines on rails

Some have pointed to President Obama’s decision not to approve the Keystone XL pipeline as being the catalyst for the energy sector’s rush toward CBR. That pipeline, a portion of which remains under review, would deliver Canadian oil to markets in the central and southern U.S. But at 1,179 miles and a price tag of $5.4 billion, Keystone XL will not be ready any time soon. In December 2013, one of its potential customers announced it was already shipping 90% of its crude by rail. Likewise, a 740-mile, $2 billion pipeline that Kinder Morgan planned to build from Texas to California was cancelled after refineries chose to increase their use of crude delivered by rail.

In addition to the oil-rich Bakken shale/Williston Basin area of North Dakota and eastern Montana, CBR has tapped numerous other crude oil sources, the largest of those being the Marcellus shale formation in the Northeastern U.S., the Eagle Ford formation in southern Texas, and the Permian Basin in west Texas and New Mexico, as well as the oil sands of western Canada. Railroads already had the basic route structure in place to connect this new generation of oil producers with their customers. By investing millions of dollars in new transloading facilities, energy companies and railroads accomplished in a matter of months what it would have taken pipelines several years, and billions of dollars, to do.

In North Dakota’s Bakken alone, no less than 18 separate CBR loading facilities were operating as of 2013. In June 2013, a study by Bloomberg Industries said that 71% of Bakken crude production was shipping out by rail, up from 25% in early 2012. BNSF Railway, which has been at the forefront of Bakken CBR, offers the most rail loading capacity in the Williston Basin through service from 11 originating terminals. In all, BNSF serves more than 30 CBR loading facilities across its system.

Destinations for CBR include rail-to-barge terminals on the Mississippi River, as well as refineries and terminals on or near the Gulf Coast. However, CBR destinations on the East and West coasts have presented economic advantages, according to oil industry data published last year. Crude from as far west as Utah’s Uinta Basin was shipped by rail to the East Coast in 2013. That delivery of 250,000 barrels was minor compared to the 38 million barrels—mostly from the Bakken—that moved by rail through Albany, N.Y., alone.

CSX moved more than 46,000 carloads of crude oil in 2013, compared with fewer than 10,000 carloads in 2012. As for destinations, CSX serves existing unit train terminals in Albany, N.Y.; Westville, N.J.; Eddystone, Pa.; Yorktown, Va.; and Walnut Hill, Fla.; and refineries in Philadelphia, Pa., and Saint John, New Brunswick, Canada.

Norfolk Southern moves crude oil across its rail network in both unit train and manifest service to serve the Northeast (its largest customer, PBF Energy, built two unit train unloading tracks at its Delaware City, Del., refinery in early 2013), Gulf Coast, and Mid-Continent (Illinois/Indiana) refining markets. The railroad exchanges unit trains outside Chicago, and delivers to refinery customers in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic. Its Mid-Continent service involves delivering crude to terminals for ultimate delivery via barge to refineries on the Mississippi River. For north-south movements, NS works with interline rail partners to transport heavy crude oil from Canadian shale fields to U.S. refineries on the Gulf and East coasts.

“We offer the shortest and most direct route to the East Coast,” NS says. “Our crude network is very resilient due to the existence of multiple tracks and large, evenly distributed rail yards capable of staging unit trains. We operate parallel routes on 91% of our network, providing even additional resiliency. We’ve made track improvements to accommodate crude traffic growth, and refineries are investing in plant expansions. For third-quarter 2013, we moved the equivalent of two unit trains (about 200 cars) per day, the largest absolute volume share for an East Coast rail carrier. But we still have adequate capacity to grow crude by rail volumes.”

Current market fundamentals and demand suggest that the crude oil business will grow well beyond current levels.

The West is arguably where CBR’s star shines brightest. North Dakota is second only to Texas for U.S. oil production, but North Dakota is the largest and fastest-growing source of CBR in the U.S. There are no pipelines to adequately compete with rail for shipment of Bakken crude to Pacific region terminals. The cost for shipping Bakken crude by rail during 2013 hovered near $10 a barrel for Northwest destinations, $14 per barrel to California, but was up around $17 per barrel for the East Coast. Correspondingly, there are more than a dozen locations between California and the Pacific Northwest where receiving facilities are either in full operation, are undergoing expansion for CBR, or are on the drawing board.

Among its western destinations, BNSF delivers unit crude trains to refineries at Anacortes and Tacoma, Wash., as well as Richmond and Bakersfield, Calif. It also interchanges unit crude to short line Portland & Western for delivery to a distribution terminal near Clatskanie, Ore. An existing BP refinery at Cherry Point, Wash., will likely have the next West Coast unit train terminal to go on line. New unit train receiving tracks were in place at Cherry Point as of late 2013, with operation expected to begin in 2014.

Union Pacific tells Railway Age, “Our largest origin [for CBR] is the Bakken formation in North Dakota served by BNSF and Canadian Pacific. Through partnership with those two companies, we’re able to deliver Bakken crude to several on-line customers. Our flagship destination is St. James, La. There are two terminals in St. James and both facilities handle multiple trains per day.” System-wide, UP says it moves approximately three to five loaded unit crude trains per day. UP is tapping new crude sources outside the Bakken as well. It handled the first train departing the new terminal in Pronghorn, Wyo., in late December. This facility will serve the growing Niobrara shale area.

Canada to California, and coast to coast

Union Pacific is also increasing its unit train and manifest deliveries of crude to refineries in California. UP began hauling blocks of CBR south from Canada into California during 2013. Valero Energy, whose tank cars are transporting that Canadian crude, announced last year that it plans to enlarge its Benicia, Calif., terminal to accommodate unit trains. Valero’s Benicia rail offloading facility is undergoing an environmental impact study, which should be completed soon. Once it is complete, the city of Benicia can proceed with the project evaluation process.

CBR represents a small (less than 5%) but rapidly growing segment of California’s oil imports. Crude from North Dakota, via BNSF and UP, accounted for roughly 40% of the oil being delivered to California by rail in 2013. That figure may not include oil that was moved by rail to Northwest ports then brought south along the Pacific Coast by barge.

Canadian Pacific and CN deliver crude to terminals in the U.S. as well as Canada, and they’re hauling it from two distinctly different sources: Bakken shale and oil sands. Between 2009 and 2012, CP went from moving 500 carloads of crude per year to more than 53,000 per year. Through 2013’s first three quarters, CP moved 65,000 carloads of crude, and predicted that year-end totals would reach 85,000-90,000 carloads. CN estimates its crude carloads for 2013 exceeded 65,000, up from roughly 35,000 in 2012.

What sets Canada apart from the U.S. is export policy. Since the OPEC energy crisis of the 1970s, the U.S. has banned nearly all crude exports (with limited exceptions for crude from Alaska and California) to all countries except Canada. The oil industry and others are now lobbying for a repeal of that ban. For now, railroads can only deliver U.S. crude to refineries and distribution terminals in the U.S. or Canada. CBR originating in Canada, however, can be moved directly to export docks. OmniTRAX subsidiary Hudson Bay Railway plans to begin moving Canadian crude to an export terminal at Churchill, Man., by mid-2014.

The road ahead

For North America’s railroads, crude-by-rail could not have come at a better time. As BNSF CEO (now Executive Chairman) Matt Rose told Railway Age in mid-2013, “CBR is backfilling 50% of our coal loss, and we are allocating a significant amount of capital to our Northern corridor for CBR.” During 2013, BNSF spent $220 million on CBR-related infrastructure in North Dakota, and it’s also investing in capacity improvements from there to the Pacific Northwest. BNSF has been running one to three loaded crude trains per day into the Northwest. That number should increase once Cherry Point’s unit CBR terminal opens.

CBR-related capacity improvements are also happening at UP, including roughly $200 million for its route leading to St. James, La. And at CSX, CBR business benefits from a capacity expansion project along the River Line between Albany, N.Y., and northern New Jersey. In 2013, CSX spent $26 million double-tracking 18 more miles of this line. Global Partners, which operates a CBR terminal in Albany, could bring optional crude capability to the Northeast through its proposed rail-to-barge terminal on the Hudson River at New Windsor, N.Y.

CBR has made even bigger headlines following recent accidents in which tank cars carrying crude exploded or caught fire, following derailments—all of which were from different causes. Statistically, these incidents were an anomaly when compared with U.S. Department of Transportation figures cited by the AAR. U.S. railroads had fewer than 150 incidents during 2002-2012 involving releases of crude, with 2,300 barrels spilled. U.S. pipelines during that same 10 -year period had 1,785 incidents, which spilled an estimated 474,000 barrels. A single pipeline leak this past September went unnoticed for days and spilled some 21,000 barrels of crude across seven acres of a North Dakota wheat field.

Those figures provide little consolation for the 47 lives lost in a CBR-related disaster in Quebec last July. Nor do they address the surprisingly volatile nature of crude coming from Bakken shale, something the rail industry, DOT, and other agencies are now committed to resolve. Tank car builders are now gearing up to meet demand for safety-first equipment, and the current construction boom could accelerate as older equipment is phased out or retrofitted, as Editor-in-Chief William C. Vantuono describes.

In the coming year, the geopolitical and environmental aspects of oil could weigh more heavily on railroads than ever before. At the same time, railroads are proving capable of meeting unprecedented demand for transporting affordable energy to national and global markets.

Phase 1 construction and testing of Washington, D.C.'s Silver Line Metro project has been completed, according to documents submitted by contractors on Friday, Feb. 7, 2014.

Before Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) takes control of the line, however, Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority must review the documentation during the next 15 days to affirm its validity, according to local media. WMATA officials will also participate in the review

Should the two agencies approve the documentation, of testing and training regimens will follow on the 11.6-mile extension, with service possibly starting as early as this summer.

The Silver Line rail extension, formally named the Dulles Corridor Metrorail project, is a two-phase construction effort intended to link Metrorail with Dulles International Airport. Phase 2 of the project, adding 11.5 miles, is expected to be completed in 2018.

Edmonton, Alberta, will be opening the latest extension to its light rail transit system in late June, when the 3.3-kilometer (2-mile) Northwest Line is extended from Churchill Station, in downtown Edmonton, to the Northern Alberta Institute of Technology.

The extension is the first stage of a planned LRT expansion to the adjoining town of St. Albert, and represents the first LRT branch added to the original line, which opened in 1978 as the first modern LRT line in North America and has had several additions put in place over the years.

The line is expected to add 13,200 riders to existing ridership. The extension being opened in June traverses through a tunnel between Churchill and MacEwan stations, and on center reservation on city streets from there to its terminus.

Estimated total project cost is C$755 million (US$684 million), with Edmonton paying C$158 million, Alberta province contributing C$497 million, and the federal government supplying C$100 million.

The NITL Petition for Rulemaking to Adopt Revised Competitive Switching Rules asks the STB to allow shippers in origin or destination terminal areas, served by one Class I railroad that has at least a 75% market share at that terminal, to be granted mandatory terminal access to a second railroad having an interchange within 30 miles.

Under the NITL proposal, the railroad serving the shipper would be required to tender or receive any portion of a shipper’s traffic, upon demand, to or from a second railroad. A shipper would have only to demonstrate that the existing carrier handles at least 75% of the shipper’s freight and that there is no effective truck or barge competition. Why the percentage of traffic is not 90% or 30%, but 75%, is not explained.

There would be no requirement that a shipper document anticompetitive conduct as a requisite for obtaining competitive switching,” yet no shipper has ever asked the STB to waive or exempt the need for showing anticompetitive conduct to obtain terminal access.

The NITL does not indicate what is to be paid for moving the freight competitively switched, which would be less efficient than its handling by a single railroad. That price will be determined by the STB without any standards.

The Association of American Railroads (AAR) estimates that the NITL scheme could cost the industry some $8 billion annually, fully 80% of the railroads’ annual capital investment in service-quality improvement.

There is no statutory authority for “competitive switching,” although the STB has authority to “require terminal facilities, including main line tracks for a reasonable distance outside of a terminal . . . to be used by another rail carrier.” Regulators historically have limited such rulings to railroad consolidations and, in one case, new control of a bankrupt carrier.

For example, regulators ruled they were without authority to order Chicago & North Western (now part of Union Pacific) access to BNSF predecessor Burlington Northern’s line-haul trackage serving the Powder River Basin solely to create competition and achieve lower freight rates.

Converting railroad private property to communal trackage would overturn 126 years of legislation and regulatory rulings without any showing that the current regulatory arrangement protecting shippers from unreasonable rates is deficient.

Shippers served by a single railroad already have an effective rate-grievance forum at the STB.

Of 45 shipper complaints filed with the STB since 1996, shippers prevailed 11 times, and railroads eight times. The remaining 26 complaints, a majority, were settled voluntarily.

Yes, the number of competing railroads, owing to consolidations—many following massive financial failure—has declined to just seven, and railroads have cancelled many joint rates and routes to increase traffic density, reduce inefficient routes, and (under the pre-Staggers Act regime of collective ratemaking) eliminate an uneconomic system of equalized joint rates, prescribed divisions of rates among connecting carriers, and below-cost switching charges.

Why?

Because, previously, one-third of rail route-miles carried just 1% of freight—inefficiency that was a root cause of earlier railroad financial failures and widespread service degradation nationwide.

In years past, the NITL said an improvement in service quality—requiring substantial railroad capital investment—was an acceptable tradeoff for higher freight rates, and collaborated with the railroads on revised regulatory standards for resolving rate complaints.

Rather than rely on those guidelines, which have produced for shippers more victories than losses, the NITL now wants the STB to confiscate railroad private property solely to produce lower freight rates.

Rail service quality depends on profit that stimulates capital investment, making the NITL petition a prescription for returning railroads to the darkest days of the 1970s, when the healthiest railroad was but the fittest iron horse in the glue factory.

Macduff’s line in Macbeth well describes the NITL petition: “Confusion now hath made his masterpiece.”

Indiana Rail Road Company and Pan Am Railways, Inc. have joined the AAR as Full Members. “We are delighted to welcome them into our association,” said AAR President and CEO Ed Hamberger, “Their decision to join the AAR broadens our membership and strengthens our ability to effectively represent our industry."

Eight companies joined the AAR as Associate Members in January 2014.

EVRAZ North America has joined the AAR as a new Gold Associate Member. EVRAZ has an extensive portfolio of premium, intermediate, and standard strength rail. It also offers forged wheel products that comply with AAR standards. The company’s state-of-the-art Technology Center provides on-site testing and accelerated development of next-generation products.

Trailers y Tanques de Aluminio, S.A. de C.V. has joined the AAR as a new Gold Associate Member. A manufacturer of trailers located in Monterrey, Nuevo Leon, Mexico, its goal is to offer transportation solutions for bulk products by providing aluminum trailer tanks, carbon steel, and stainless steel to carry both crude oil and refined products, such as low density solids. With presence in South America and the U.S., the company currently exports products and provides high quality services for the transportation industry.

Cisco Systems, Inc. has joined the AAR as a new Silver Associate Member. Cisco deploys secure, flexible IP networks and ruggedized products in stations, on board trains, and at trackside. Designed with safety and security as a top priority, Cisco’s Connected Rail solutions converge disparate networks, which reduces costs and improves operational efficiency while enhancing the passenger experience.

Greenbrier Leasing Company has joined the AAR as a new Silver Associate Member. GLC is headquartered in Lake Oswego, Oregon and is the leasing and services platform for the Greenbrier Companies. With an owned fleet of approximately 8,300 railcars, a managed fleet of approximately 231,000 railcars, and syndications of over $2 billion leased railcars within the past nine years, GLC is one of the three business segments that allows Greenbrier to be an integrated supplier to the rail market.

IRECO, LLC has joined the AAR as a new Silver Associate Member. IRECO combines its engineering expertise with experience in the appropriate materials selection to meet the needs of railroad customers. Products include stamped and drop forged railcar components, cable assemblies, and plastic and rubber moldings. In addition, IRECO has been a recipient of the TTX SECO Award for the past 20 years.

Lockheed Martin Mission Systems and Training (MST) has rejoined the AAR as a Silver Associate Member. Lockheed Martin is the System Integrator for the Advanced Train Management System (ATMS), developed for the Australian Rail Track Corporation (ARTC). ATMS is a vital positive train control system developed in accordance with CENELEC standards and designed to support ARTC’s objectives of improving rail network capacity, operational flexibility, availability, reliability, transit times, and rail safety.

RESIDCO has joined the AAR as a new Silver Associate Member. RESIDCO is a highly experienced and uniquely qualified transportation equipment lessor and asset management company that operates and manages a fleet of more than 4,000 freight cars and locomotives. RESIDCO has specialized in the trading, acquisition, syndication, leasing, and financing of rail equipment representing every major car type since our inception in 1982, involving over 70,000 railcars.

Roll Form Group has joined the AAR as a new Silver Associate Member. The Roll Form Group of Samuel, Son & Co., Limited consists of three manufacturing locations across Canada and one manufacturing facility in the U.S. Each of the locations is set up to manufacture certain types of roll formed products. The Roll Form Group supplies all major industries with custom roll forming and fabrication solutions as well as branded product lines targeted to the commercial building industry. As a value-added supplier, the Roll Form Group provides customers with complete integration of the Group’s facilities, product planning, and research and development.

UP’s 2014 capital plan of approximately $3.9 billion represents an increase of about $300 million from 2013. The increase, UP said, is driven primarily by acquisition of 200 locomotives—a doubling of the units purchased in 2013—and larger investments in additional capacity. Spending on Positive Train Control (PTC) is expected to increase to $450 million, vs. $420 million in 2013.

“Our capital investments serve a critical role in supporting future cash generation and returns,” said UP CFO Rob Knight. “The increased capital spending plan for 2014 also highlights our expectation of future volume growth across a wide range of markets in 2014 and beyond.”

Jim Young retired as UP’s Chairman at the end of January 2014, but will stay on as non-executive Chairman. Lance Fritz is UP’s new President and Chief Operating Officer, and Cameron Scott replaces Fritz as Executive Vice President Operations. Jack Koraleski remains as CEO. “Our entire management team is focused on safely providing great service to our customers while providing strong financial results to our shareholders,” said Koraleski. “These appointments reinforce this commitment, and I am looking forward to our continued success in 2014 and beyond.”

Current anti-rail forces notwithstanding, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) appears to be encouraging Cincinnati to begin planning to extend its starter streetcar line, the latter currently under construction.

FTA is urging the line be extended to the city's Uptown area, an employment center of 55,000 jobs. The current line, serving the city's Downtown, is home to 64,000 jobs.

But Cincinnati rail opponents, already smarting from their failure last December to stop the current work on the starter line, already are marshalling their forces to reject the plan, counting on Ohio Gov. John Kasich to deny any state fiscal assistance, as he has done in the past. Cincinnati Mayor John Cranley, elected last November on a platform that included killing the current streetcar project, also is certain to oppose any expansion effort.

As well, those who might benefit from a streetcar extension, including Uptown's businesses and institutions, have shown reluctance to help pay for the expansion, saying it's the responsibility of the government.

Nonetheless, FTA, which contributed $45 million to the current $133 million, 4.4-mile project, and made clear to Mayor Cranley and others last December that streetcar funding would not be repurposed, is urging pro-rail advocates to begin planning for a second step to access Uptown by streetcar. Uptown was to be included in the original plan's first phase.

AmtrakConnect, the national passenger railroad's WiFI service, now is available to customers traveling on seven routes linked to Amtrak's Chicago hub.

The rollout, effective Monday, Feb. 10, 2014, covers Amtrak's Lincoln Service, Illini Saluki trains and lIlinois Zephyr/Carl Sandburg trains, all serving Illinois. Also now served are three routes primarily serving Michigan: Amtrak's Wolverine Service, Blue Water, and Pere Marquette. Chicago-Milwaukee Hiawatha Service is also included in the WiFi package.

Notably not in the mix is Amtrak's Hoosier State Service, linking Chicago with Indianapolis and other Indiana locales. Indiana's support for Amtrak has paled in comparison with other Midwest states, particularly Illinois, numerous industry advocates are quick to point out.

"Amtrak trains in Illinois are faster, thanks to our joint commitment to high speed rail," Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn said in a statement announcing the service. "Now, Wi-Fi access on those same trains will make each trip more productive and enjoyable."

AmtrakConnect also is available on Amtrak trains on the Northeast Corridor and on the West Coast.