DOCSLIB.ORG

High-Speed Rail: a National Perspective High-Speed Rail Experience in the United States

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
High-Speed Rail: a National Perspective High-Speed Rail Experience in the United States High-Speed Rail: A National Perspective High-Speed Rail Experience in the United States A report prepared for National Railroad Passenger Corporation December 2008 High-Speed Rail: A National Perspective High-Speed Rail Experience in the United States final report prepared for National Railroad Passenger Corporation prepared by Cambridge Systematics, Inc. with SYSTRA Consulting, Inc. December 2008 www.camsys.com final report High-Speed Rail: A National Perspective High-Speed Rail Experience in the United States prepared for National Railroad Passenger Corporation prepared by Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 9015 Mountain Ridge, Suite 210 Austin, Texas 78759 with SYSTRA Consulting, Inc December 2008 High-Speed Rail: A National Perspective High-Speed Rail Experience in the United States Table of Contents Executive Summary .............................................................................................................. ES-1 1.0 Introduction................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Context for the Study............................................................................................ 1-1 1.2 Key Players............................................................................................................. 1-2 1.3 Process and Products of This Report.................................................................. 1-2 1.4 A Word about Definitions.................................................................................... 1-3 2.0 Description of Corridors Studied.............................................................................. 2-1 2.1 The Federal HSR Designation Process ............................................................... 2-1 2.2 Northern New England HSR Corridor .............................................................. 2-3 2.3 Empire HSR Corridor........................................................................................... 2-3 2.4 Northeast Corridor Mainline............................................................................... 2-3 2.5 Keystone HSR Corridor........................................................................................ 2-4 2.6 Southeast HSR Corridor....................................................................................... 2-4 2.7 Florida HSR Corridor ........................................................................................... 2-4 2.8 Gulf Coast HSR Corridor ..................................................................................... 2-4 2.9 South Central HSR Corridor................................................................................ 2-5 2.10 Chicago Hub Network Corridor......................................................................... 2-5 2.11 Pacific Northwest HSR Corridor......................................................................... 2-5 2.12 California HSR Corridor ...................................................................................... 2-5 3.0 Information Collection................................................................................................ 3-1 3.1 FRA and Amtrak Interview Sessions ................................................................. 3-1 3.2 Corridor Stakeholder Interview Sessions .......................................................... 3-2 3.3 Corridor Success Elements from Amtrak Interviews ...................................... 3-2 3.4 Corridor Development Factors Highlighted in Interviews .................................. 3-4 4.0 Corridor Evaluation ..................................................................................................... 4-1 4.1 Evaluation Metrics................................................................................................ 4-1 4.2 HSR Corridor Evaluation Coding....................................................................... 4-8 4.3 Individual HSR Corridor Assessments.............................................................. 4-10 5.0 Key Findings................................................................................................................. 5-1 5.1 Impediments to HSR Development.................................................................... 5-1 5.2 Delineation of HSR Benefits ................................................................................ 5-6 5.3 Characteristics of Successful Corridors.............................................................. 5-7 6.0 Action Items................................................................................................................... 6-1 6.1 Federal Funding for HSR ..................................................................................... 6-1 6.2 Resolve Impediments........................................................................................... 6-3 6.3 Equip and Prepare States for HSR Projects ....................................................... 6-6 6.4 Comparison of Action Items to PRIIA ............................................................... 6-7 Appendix A: Fact Sheets i 8006.001 High-Speed Rail: A National Perspective High-Speed Rail Experience in the United States List of Tables 4.1 Evaluation Criteria Applied to Corridors ................................................................. 4-1 6.1 Comparison of Action Steps to PRIIA........................................................................ 6-8 iii High-Speed Rail: A National Perspective High-Speed Rail Experience in the United States List of Figures 1.1 Amtrak Track Standards and Safety Regulations Summary.................................. 1-6 2.1 U.S. DOT Designated High-Speed Rail Corridors ................................................... 2-2 4.1 Status of U.S. High-Speed Rail Development........................................................... 4-9 4.2 The NECHSR Corridor................................................................................................. 4-11 4.3 The California HSR Corridor Conceptual Alignment ............................................. 4-12 4.4 The Chicago Hub Network HSR Corridor................................................................ 4-13 4.5 The SEHSR Corridor..................................................................................................... 4-14 4.6 The PNWHSR Corridor ............................................................................................... 4-15 4.7 The Keystone HSR Corridor........................................................................................ 4-16 4.8 The Empire HSR Corridor ........................................................................................... 4-17 4.9 The NNEHSR Corridor ................................................................................................ 4-18 4.10 The Gulf Coast HSR Corridor ..................................................................................... 4-19 4.11 The Florida HSR Corridor ........................................................................................... 4-20 4.12 The South Central HSR Corridor................................................................................ 4-21 v High-Speed Rail: A National Perspective High-Speed Rail Experience in the United States Executive Summary ES.1 Introduction and Context The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA) established a proc- ess for designating U.S. high-speed rail (HSR) corridors. Since that time, a total of 11 HSR corridors have been designated, but none has yet approached the operational status of high-speed rail as originally envisioned. In spite of slower than anticipated progress, the desire for high-speed rail has remained present in the national consciousness, particularly within Congress. Seventeen years following the passage of ISTEA, Congressional com- plaints about America’s failure to match foreign progress in high-speed rail are more than mere envy of the successes achieved in those countries. They represent frustration that the national vision implicit in ISTEA – that the United States would be making progress toward bringing about European style high-speed rail – has failed to fully take hold. Amtrak commissioned this study to help identify the trends and prospects for improved service – in terms of operating speeds, frequency, and reliability – in rail corridors around the country. The goal of the study was to produce a summary of the lessons learned from the corridor improvement projects across the country and to develop criteria that might describe corridors most likely to succeed with high-speed rail improvements. This report examines progress being made in 11 HSR corridors, including the Northeast Corridor (NEC) from Boston to Washington, D.C., and presents evaluation criteria to measure relative progress being made in various corridors. The report also provides an in-depth profile of each designated corridor in Appendix A, which consists of fact sheets that con- tain a description of each corridor, a summary based on stakeholder and agency interviews, and the application of evaluation criteria to each corridor. The report offers a synthesis of observations and recommendations, which have applica- tions for future legislative efforts to advance high-speed rail and for future study. A series of observations describe key findings about factors that inhibit high-speed rail develop- ment, benefits that would accrue if high-speed were developed, common elements necessary for high-speed rail corridors,
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Harrisburg Line Capacity Improvements Upgrade of Track 2 from Glen Interlocking to Thorn Interlocking
    HARRISBURG LINE CAPACITY IMPROVEMENTS UPGRADE OF TRACK 2 FROM GLEN INTERLOCKING TO THORN INTERLOCKING FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION FEDERAL-STATE PARTNERSHIP FOR STATE OF GOOD REPAIR PROGRAM GRANT APPLICATION Lead Applicant: Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA) Joint Applicant: Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT) FEDERAL FUNDING REQUESTED: $8,337,500 (50%) PROPOSED NON-FEDERAL MATCH: $8,337,500 (50%) TOTAL PROJECT COST: $16,675,000 PROJECT LOCATION: Caln Township, Downingtown Borough, East Caln Township, West Whiteland Township, & East Whiteland Township in Chester County, Pennsylvania - 6th Congressional District No Federal Grant Application Previously Submitted for this Project Table of Contents I. Project Summary .................................................................................................................................. 1 II. Project Funding ..................................................................................................................................... 2 III. Applicant Eligibility ............................................................................................................................... 3 IV. NEC Project Eligibility ........................................................................................................................... 3 V. Detailed Project Description ................................................................................................................ 5 VI. Project Location .................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • NORTHEAST CORRIDOR New York - Washington, DC
    NORTHEAST CORRIDOR New York - Washington, DC September 5, 2017 NEW YORK and WASHINGTON, DC NEW YORK - NEWARK - TRENTON PHILADELPHIA - WILMINGTON BALTIMORE - WASHINGTON, DC and intermediate stations Acela Express,® Reserved Northeast RegionalSM and Keystone Service® THIS TIMETABLE SHOWS ALL AMTRAK SERVICE FROM BOSTON OR SPRINGFIELD TO POINTS NEW YORK THROUGH WASHINGTON, DC. Also see Timetable Form W04 for complete Boston/Springfield to Washington, DC schedules, and Timetable Form W06 for service to Virginia locations. FALL HOLIDAYS Special Thanksgiving timetables for the period, November 20 through 27, 2017, will appear on Amtrak.com shortly and temporarily supersede these schedules. 1-800-USA-RAIL Amtrak.com Amtrak is a registered service mark of the National Railroad Passenger Corporation. National Railroad Passenger Corporation, Washington Union Station, 60 Massachusetts Ave. N.E., Washington, DC 20002. NRPC Form W2–Internet only–9/5/17. Schedules subject to change without notice. Depart Depart Depart Depart Depart Arrive Depart Depart Depart Depart Depart Arrive Train Name/Number Frequency New York Newark Newark Intl. Air. Metropark Trenton Philadelphia Philadelphia Wilmington Baltimore BWI New Carrollton Washington Northeast Regional 67 Mo-Fr 3 25A 3 45A —— 4 00A 4 25A 4 52A 5 00A 5 22A 6 10A 6 25A 6 40A 7 00A Northeast Regional 151 Mo-Fr 4 40A R4 57A —— 5 12A 5 35A 6 04A 6 07A 6 28A 7 27A 7 40A D7 59A 8 14A Northeast Regional 111 Mo-Fr 5 30A R5 46A —— 6 00A 6 26A 6 53A 6 55A 7 15A 8 00A 8 15A D8 29A 8 50A Acela Express 2103 Mo-Fr
    [Show full text]
  • Pioneering the Application of High Speed Rail Express Trainsets in the United States
    Parsons Brinckerhoff 2010 William Barclay Parsons Fellowship Monograph 26 Pioneering the Application of High Speed Rail Express Trainsets in the United States Fellow: Francis P. Banko Professional Associate Principal Project Manager Lead Investigator: Jackson H. Xue Rail Vehicle Engineer December 2012 136763_Cover.indd 1 3/22/13 7:38 AM 136763_Cover.indd 1 3/22/13 7:38 AM Parsons Brinckerhoff 2010 William Barclay Parsons Fellowship Monograph 26 Pioneering the Application of High Speed Rail Express Trainsets in the United States Fellow: Francis P. Banko Professional Associate Principal Project Manager Lead Investigator: Jackson H. Xue Rail Vehicle Engineer December 2012 First Printing 2013 Copyright © 2013, Parsons Brinckerhoff Group Inc. All rights reserved. No part of this work may be reproduced or used in any form or by any means—graphic, electronic, mechanical (including photocopying), recording, taping, or information or retrieval systems—without permission of the pub- lisher. Published by: Parsons Brinckerhoff Group Inc. One Penn Plaza New York, New York 10119 Graphics Database: V212 CONTENTS FOREWORD XV PREFACE XVII PART 1: INTRODUCTION 1 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION TO THE RESEARCH 3 1.1 Unprecedented Support for High Speed Rail in the U.S. ....................3 1.2 Pioneering the Application of High Speed Rail Express Trainsets in the U.S. .....4 1.3 Research Objectives . 6 1.4 William Barclay Parsons Fellowship Participants ...........................6 1.5 Host Manufacturers and Operators......................................7 1.6 A Snapshot in Time .................................................10 CHAPTER 2 HOST MANUFACTURERS AND OPERATORS, THEIR PRODUCTS AND SERVICES 11 2.1 Overview . 11 2.2 Introduction to Host HSR Manufacturers . 11 2.3 Introduction to Host HSR Operators and Regulatory Agencies .
    [Show full text]
  • PRIIA Report
    Pursuant to Section 207 of the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (Public Law 110-432, Division B): Quarterly Report on the Performance and Service Quality of Intercity Passenger Train Operations Covering the Quarter Ended June, 2020 (Third Quarter of Fiscal Year 2020) Federal Railroad Administration United States Department of Transportation Published August 2020 Table of Contents (Notes follow on the next page.) Financial Table 1 (A/B): Short-Term Avoidable Operating Costs (Note 1) Table 2 (A/B): Fully Allocated Operating Cost covered by Passenger-Related Revenue Table 3 (A/B): Long-Term Avoidable Operating Loss (Note 1) Table 4 (A/B): Adjusted Loss per Passenger- Mile Table 5: Passenger-Miles per Train-Mile On-Time Performance (Table 6) Test No. 1 Change in Effective Speed Test No. 2 Endpoint OTP Test No. 3 All-Stations OTP Train Delays Train Delays - Off NEC Table 7: Off-NEC Host Responsible Delays per 10,000 Train-Miles Table 8: Off-NEC Amtrak Responsible Delays per 10,000 Train-Miles Train Delays - On NEC Table 9: On-NEC Total Host and Amtrak Responsible Delays per 10,000 Train-Miles Other Service Quality Table 10: Customer Satisfaction Indicator (eCSI) Scores Table 11: Service Interruptions per 10,000 Train-Miles due to Equipment-related Problems Table 12: Complaints Received Table 13: Food-related Complaints Table 14: Personnel-related Complaints Table 15: Equipment-related Complaints Table 16: Station-related Complaints Public Benefits (Table 17) Connectivity Measure Availability of Other Modes Reference Materials Table 18: Route Descriptions Terminology & Definitions Table 19: Delay Code Definitions Table 20: Host Railroad Code Definitions Appendixes A.
    [Show full text]
  • Regional Rail Service the Vermont Way
    DRAFT Regional Rail Service The Vermont Way Authored by Christopher Parker and Carl Fowler November 30, 2017 Contents Contents 2 Executive Summary 4 The Budd Car RDC Advantage 5 Project System Description 6 Routes 6 Schedule 7 Major Employers and Markets 8 Commuter vs. Intercity Designation 10 Project Developer 10 Stakeholders 10 Transportation organizations 10 Town and City Governments 11 Colleges and Universities 11 Resorts 11 Host Railroads 11 Vermont Rail Systems 11 New England Central Railroad 12 Amtrak 12 Possible contract operators 12 Dispatching 13 Liability Insurance 13 Tracks and Right-of-Way 15 Upgraded Track 15 Safety: Grade Crossing Upgrades 15 Proposed Standard 16 Upgrades by segment 16 Cost of Upgrades 17 Safety 19 Platforms and Stations 20 Proposed Stations 20 Existing Stations 22 Construction Methods of New Stations 22 Current and Historical Precedents 25 Rail in Vermont 25 Regional Rail Service in the United States 27 New Mexico 27 Maine 27 Oregon 28 Arizona and Rural New York 28 Rural Massachusetts 28 Executive Summary For more than twenty years various studies have responded to a yearning in Vermont for a regional passenger rail service which would connect Vermont towns and cities. This White Paper, commissioned by Champ P3, LLC reviews the opportunities for and obstacles to delivering rail service at a rural scale appropriate for a rural state. Champ P3 is a mission driven public-private partnership modeled on the Eagle P3 which built Denver’s new commuter rail network. Vermont’s two railroads, Vermont Rail System and Genesee & Wyoming, have experience hosting and operating commuter rail service utilizing Budd cars.
    [Show full text]
  • High-Speed Rail Projects in the United States: Identifying the Elements of Success Part 2
    San Jose State University SJSU ScholarWorks Faculty Publications, Urban and Regional Planning Urban and Regional Planning January 2007 High-Speed Rail Projects in the United States: Identifying the Elements of Success Part 2 Allison deCerreno Shishir Mathur San Jose State University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.sjsu.edu/urban_plan_pub Part of the Infrastructure Commons, Public Economics Commons, Public Policy Commons, Real Estate Commons, Transportation Commons, Urban, Community and Regional Planning Commons, Urban Studies Commons, and the Urban Studies and Planning Commons Recommended Citation Allison deCerreno and Shishir Mathur. "High-Speed Rail Projects in the United States: Identifying the Elements of Success Part 2" Faculty Publications, Urban and Regional Planning (2007). This Report is brought to you for free and open access by the Urban and Regional Planning at SJSU ScholarWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Publications, Urban and Regional Planning by an authorized administrator of SJSU ScholarWorks. For more information, please contact [email protected]. MTI Report 06-03 MTI HIGH-SPEED RAIL PROJECTS IN THE UNITED STATES: IDENTIFYING THE ELEMENTS OF SUCCESS-PART 2 IDENTIFYING THE ELEMENTS OF SUCCESS-PART HIGH-SPEED RAIL PROJECTS IN THE UNITED STATES: Funded by U.S. Department of HIGH-SPEED RAIL Transportation and California Department PROJECTS IN THE UNITED of Transportation STATES: IDENTIFYING THE ELEMENTS OF SUCCESS PART 2 Report 06-03 Mineta Transportation November Institute Created by 2006 Congress in 1991 MTI REPORT 06-03 HIGH-SPEED RAIL PROJECTS IN THE UNITED STATES: IDENTIFYING THE ELEMENTS OF SUCCESS PART 2 November 2006 Allison L.
    [Show full text]
  • Interaction of Lifecycle Properties in High Speed Rail Systems Operation
    Interaction of Lifecycle Properties in High Speed Rail Systems Operation by Tatsuya Doi M.E., Aeronautics and Astronautics, University of Tokyo, 2011 B.E., Aeronautics and Astronautics, University of Tokyo, 2009 Submitted to the Institute for Data, Systems, and Society in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Engineering Systems at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology June 2016 © 2016 Tatsuya Doi. All rights reserved. The author hereby grants to MIT permission to reproduce and to distribute publicly paper and electronic copies of this thesis document in whole or in part in any medium now known or hereafter created. Signature of Author: ____________________________________________________________________ Institute for Data, Systems, and Society May 6, 2016 Certified by: __________________________________________________________________________ Joseph M. Sussman JR East Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering and Engineering Systems Thesis Supervisor Certified by: __________________________________________________________________________ Olivier L. de Weck Professor of Aeronautics and Astronautics and Engineering Systems Thesis Supervisor Accepted by: _________________________________________________________________________ John N. Tsitsiklis Clarence J. Lebel Professor of Electrical Engineering IDSS Graduate Officer 1 2 Interaction of Lifecycle Properties In High Speed Rail Systems Operation by Tatsuya Doi Submitted to the Institute for Data, Systems, and Society on May 6, 2016 in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in Engineering Systems ABSTRACT High-Speed Rail (HSR) has been expanding throughout the world, providing various nations with alternative solutions for the infrastructure design of intercity passenger travel. HSR is a capital-intensive infrastructure, in which multiple subsystems are closely integrated. Also, HSR operation lasts for a long period, and its performance indicators are continuously altered by incremental updates.
    [Show full text]
  • Missouri Blue Ribbon Panel on Hyperloop
    Chairman Lt. Governor Mike Kehoe Vice Chairman Andrew G. Smith Panelists Jeff Aboussie Cathy Bennett Tom Blair Travis Brown Mun Choi Tom Dempsey Rob Dixon Warren Erdman Rep. Travis Fitzwater Michael X. Gallagher Rep. Derek Grier Chris Gutierrez Rhonda Hamm-Niebruegge Mike Lally Mary Lamie Elizabeth Loboa Sen. Tony Luetkemeyer MISSOURI BLUE RIBBON Patrick McKenna Dan Mehan Joe Reagan Clint Robinson PANEL ON HYPERLOOP Sen. Caleb Rowden Greg Steinhoff Report prepared for The Honorable Elijah Haahr Tariq Taherbhai Leonard Toenjes Speaker of the Missouri House of Representatives Bill Turpin Austin Walker Ryan Weber Sen. Brian Williams Contents Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 3 Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 5 A National Certification Track in Missouri .................................................................................................... 8 Track Specifications ................................................................................................................................. 10 SECTION 1: International Tube Transport Center of Excellence (ITTCE) ................................................... 12 Center Objectives ................................................................................................................................ 12 Research Areas ...................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Transportation Planning for the Richmond–Charlotte Railroad Corridor
    VOLUME I Executive Summary and Main Report Technical Monograph: Transportation Planning for the Richmond–Charlotte Railroad Corridor Federal Railroad Administration United States Department of Transportation January 2004 Disclaimer: This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the Department of Transportation solely in the interest of information exchange. The United States Government assumes no liability for the contents or use thereof, nor does it express any opinion whatsoever on the merit or desirability of the project(s) described herein. The United States Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. Any trade or manufacturers' names appear herein solely because they are considered essential to the object of this report. Note: In an effort to better inform the public, this document contains references to a number of Internet web sites. Web site locations change rapidly and, while every effort has been made to verify the accuracy of these references as of the date of publication, the references may prove to be invalid in the future. Should an FRA document prove difficult to find, readers should access the FRA web site (www.fra.dot.gov) and search by the document’s title or subject. 1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No. FRA/RDV-04/02 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date January 2004 Technical Monograph: Transportation Planning for the Richmond–Charlotte Railroad Corridor⎯Volume I 6. Performing Organization Code 7. Authors: 8. Performing Organization Report No. For the engineering contractor: Michael C. Holowaty, Project Manager For the sponsoring agency: Richard U. Cogswell and Neil E. Moyer 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10.
    [Show full text]
  • Sounder Expansion to Dupont
    S-17: Sounder Expansion to DuPont Project Number S-17 PROJECT AREA AND REPRESENTATIVE ALIGNMENT Subarea Pierce Primary Mode Commuter Rail Facility Type Station Length 7.8 miles Version ST Board Workshop Date Last Modified 11-25-2015 SHORT PROJECT DESCRIPTION This project would extend Sounder commuter rail service from Lakewood to Tillicum and DuPont with two new stations. Note: The elements included in this representative project will be refined during future phases of project development and are subject to change. KEY ATTRIBUTES REGIONAL LIGHT No RAIL SPINE Does this project help complete the light rail spine? CAPITAL COST $289 — $309 Cost in Millions of 2014 $ RIDERSHIP 1,000 — 2,000 2040 daily boardings PROJECT ELEMENTS · One at-grade station: Tillicum neighborhood of Lakewood near the intersection of I-5 and Berkeley Avenue SW, sized to accommodate 7-car trains or longer if Projects S-06 or S-07 are implemented · Pedestrian plaza at Tillicum Station · Surface parking at the Tillicum with approximately 125 stalls; the scope of the transit parking components included in this project could be revised to include a range of strategies for providing rider access to the transit facility; along with, or instead of, parking for private vehicles or van pools, a mix of other investments could be accomplished through the budget for this project · One at-grade station: Sound Transit’s existing DuPont Station on Wilmington Drive, just northeast of the intersection of I-5 and Center Drive in DuPont, sized to accommodate 7-car trains or longer if Projects S- 06 or S-07 are implemented · A second mainline track from Bridgeport Way SW to the DuPont Station · One new layover and train storage facility southwest of the proposed DuPont station with a capacity for five trains · Operator welfare building and security equipment · 4 trains in the a.m.
    [Show full text]
  • 2021 Georgia State Rail Plan
    State Rail Plan Georgia State Rail Plan Final Report Master Contract #: TOOIP1900173 PI # 0015886 State Rail Plan Update – FY 2018 4/6/2021 State Rail Plan Contents 1. The Role of Rail in Statewide Transportation ......................................................................................... 1-7 1.1. Purpose and Content ...................................................................................................................... 1-7 1.2. Multimodal Transportation System Goals ...................................................................................... 1-8 1.3. Role of Rail in Georgia’s Transportation Network .......................................................................... 1-8 1.4. Role of Passenger Rail in Georgia Transportation Network ......................................................... 1-16 1.5. Institutional Governance Structure of Rail in Georgia ................................................................. 1-19 1.6. Role of Federal Agencies .............................................................................................................. 1-29 2. Georgia’s Existing Rail System ................................................................................................................ 2-1 2.1. Description and Inventory .............................................................................................................. 2-1 2.2. Trends and Forecasts ...................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • HQ-2017-1239 Final.Pdf
    Federal Railroad Administration Office of Railroad Safety Accident and Analysis Branch Accident Investigation Report HQ-2017-1239 Amtrak 501 DuPont, Washington December 18, 2017 Note that 49 U.S.C. §20903 provides that no part of an accident or incident report, including this one, made by the Secretary of Transportation/Federal Railroad Administration under 49 U.S.C. §20902 may be used in a civil action for damages resulting from a matter mentioned in the report. U.S. Department of Transportation FRA File #HQ-2017-1239 Federal Railroad Administration FRA FACTUAL RAILROAD ACCIDENT REPORT SYNOPSIS On December 18, 2017, at 7:33 a.m., PST, southbound National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) Passenger Train Number 501 (Train 501) derailed in an 8-degree, 22-minute, left-hand curve at Milepost (MP) 19.86 on the Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority, Sounder Commuter Rail (Sound Transit) Lakewood Subdivision, in DuPont, Washington. The lead locomotive and 12 cars derailed, with some sliding down an embankment, and some landing on the southbound lanes of Interstate 5, colliding with several highway vehicles. Train 501 is part of the Amtrak Cascades passenger train service funded by the States of Washington and Oregon. The Cascades passenger train service operates between Vancouver, British Columbia, and Eugene, Oregon, using Talgo, Inc. (Talgo) passenger equipment. DuPont, Washington, is located approximately 18 miles southwest of Tacoma, Washington. Sound Transit is the host railroad to Amtrak on the Lakewood Subdivision, which is approximately 20 miles in length from Tacoma to DuPont. Train 501 was traveling from Seattle, Washington, to Portland, Oregon, over the Point Defiance Bypass track between Tacoma and DuPont.
    [Show full text]