Before the Federal Railroad Administration United States Department of Transportation Petition for Relief from Certain Regulatory Limitations to Permit Operation of Acela Trainsets and “Tier III” Trainsets On the Northeast Corridor At up to the Maximum Speed for Class 8 Track Preface The National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) requests the waiver of certain limitations on or associated with train speeds contained in Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) safety regulations and in the FRA Final Order of Particular Applicability published on July 22, 1998 (63 FR 39342; July 22, 1998) [Docket No. FRA 2001-9972; Formerly FRA Docket No. 87-2]. Granting this relief would enable Amtrak to achieve optimum trip times on the Northeast Corridor (NEC) consistent with the capabilities of existing Acela trainsets, where conditions otherwise permit. Relief is also requested to permit the use of “Tier III” trainsets built to designs that are already service-proven internationally, which, as adapted to meet specific U.S. requirements and respond to NEC conditions, would initially supplement and later replace the existing Acela equipment as it reaches the end of its useful life. Again, this relief would be utilized where conditions otherwise permit. Use of Tier III equipment would provide the potential for further improvements in trip times while also potentially offering increased seating capacity. The proposed path for achieving the proposed enhancements in Amtrak’s premium NEC service would then proceed as follows: First, FRA would process and—if deemed warranted—approve this petition, providing a framework for subsequent handling. Second, Amtrak would complete necessary improvements to support enhanced speeds (for the Acela service and Tier III equipment service, respectively, in the several high speed zones). Third, Amtrak and FRA would work to complete all necessary special approvals. The FRA exercises its authority regarding qualification of high-speed trainsets, train control systems, and other safety-relevant subject matter through special approvals that are based on close review of program documentation, engineering analysis, and testing. Nothing in this waiver request is intended to diminish that oversight in any way. At the present time it is anticipated that Acela service could be increased in designated speed zones on an incremental basis within the next one to three years. Introduction of the Tier III-compliant equipment would be founded on a Notice to Proceed issued only after a grant of approval in this proceeding and would occur only after (i) necessary risk mitigations had been completed in the subject speed zone(s) and all (ii) necessary qualification testing is satisfactorily completed. If this petition is approved, Amtrak would expect to issue a Notice to Proceed to the successful Tier III equipment vendor shortly after the anticipated selection of that vendor in April of 2015. Delivery and testing of new trainsets would require approximately 3 to 4 years from the Notice to Proceed, during which a variety of additional safety mitigations would be implemented. 2 This petition is organized as follows: I. Background and Introduction A. Amtrak’s role on the NEC B. Need for flexibility to meet service needs C. History of regulatory provisions D. Developments since existing regulations were issued II. NEC safety performance A. Accident/incident review B. Existing safety measures III. Acela 160 miles per hour (mph) request A. Previous waiver request for speed zone in Rhode Island B. Additional territory for up to 160 mph C. Status of qualification testing D. Specific relief requested, including conditions E. Safety rationale F. Public interest considerations IV. Tier III request A. Engineering Task Force / RSAC recommendations B. NEC constraints specific to this request C. Specific relief requested, including conditions 1. Regulations and order 2. Reservation of safety appliance and certain other issues for later decision D. Safety rationale 3 1. Programs driving safety performance going forward 2. Future growth of service on the NEC 3. Influence of equipment selection on safety outcome 4. Safety findings and proposed additional countermeasure a. Quantitative Risk Analysis methodology b. Other observations from risk analysis and experience c. Risk analysis findings and new safety mitigations flowing from the safety analysis d. Stakeholder Engagement Plan E. Public interest considerations V. Conclusions VI. List of supporting exhibits I. Background and Introduction The NEC constitutes a vital national asset that is utilized for intercity, commuter, and freight rail service along its length of 457 miles from Washington, D.C.’s Union Station to Boston’s South Station.1 Although most of the daily trains on the NEC are operated by commuter authorities serving discrete areas, and although use of the NEC is necessary to serve local customers at a number of locations on NEC tracks and on freight lines that can only be accessed via the NEC, Amtrak is the only entity that provides service using trains that traverse the entire length of the NEC; and every segment of the NEC is also used by Amtrak trains that originate or terminate off the spine of the Corridor. FRA enjoys a very long and intimate acquaintance with the NEC, having managed the original Northeast Corridor Improvement Project in the 1970s, and having funded electrification and upgrading of the “North End” in the late 1990’s. FRA continues to provide assistance to a number of parties working on coordinated improvements to the NEC, and FRA funds Amtrak capital and operating needs as provided by law. Amtrak wishes to emphasize that, even though the current petition focuses on achievement of shorter trip times and enhanced capacity for Amtrak customers, the measures that are being implemented to 1 For purposes of this filing, the “NEC” is defined as the “spine” of the electrified NEC not including auxiliary branches such as the Keystone Corridor and Springfield line. 4 facilitate this enhanced service will also benefit all users of the NEC in a variety of ways, including improved safety and reliability for all operators, their passengers, and citizens of the region.2 A. Amtrak’s role on the NEC Amtrak dispatches and maintains the NEC, on its own behalf or for another public authority, from Washington to Boston, with the exception of one interlocking with the MTA Long Island Rail Road and the portion of the NEC controlled by the MTA Metro-North Railroad (Mileposts MN 16.3 near New Rochelle to AB 72.9 near New Haven). All of the high speed zones discussed in this petition are located on portions of the NEC dispatched and maintained by Amtrak. Although dispatched and maintained by Amtrak, the portion of the NEC located in Massachusetts (MP AB 190-229) is owned by the State. Amtrak also provides leadership for improvements to the NEC that will benefit all users, both in the short term and in the future. The current petition is an important step in a series of actions that have been identified as necessary and useful to the future of the NEC and the region, as discussed under “Public Interest Considerations,” below. See, also, The Amtrak Vision for the Northeast Corridor (2012 Update Report). B. Need for flexibility to meet service needs Amtrak is requesting relief in this proceeding in order to provide enhanced high-speed rail service on the NEC, consistent with regional needs and Federal policy. Service would be “enhanced” in two respects. First, higher maximum train speeds within designated “speed zones” would contribute trip time savings that would be combined with other savings being planned at bridges, terminals and similar locations to make rail travel even more attractive and useful to current and potential Amtrak riders. Second, introduction of additional high-speed trainsets—trainsets with more passenger seats—will provide essential capacity in a growing intercity transportation market. Thus far, Amtrak’s Acela service has been extremely successful in claiming market share and thereby providing an environmentally beneficial alternative to air travel, while helping to reduce pressure on highly constrained airports in the region. However, in recent years Acela ridership has been running at or near capacity during the most heavily-traveled periods. Additional seats will facilitate growth in Amtrak’s premium service while also relieving pressure on regional service capacity. Moving toward lighter-weight international technology, as contemplated in the proposed Tier III standards, may offer the additional benefit of better acceleration while maintaining braking characteristics equivalent to the existing Acela fleet, further aiding trip times. Providing approval of the Tier III request would also permit Amtrak, over time, to retire the existing Acela fleet without being wed to an existing set of requirements that far exceed any in place elsewhere internationally. Building new trainsets (or additional coaches for existing trains) under existing Tier II requirements could limit passenger capacity, result in higher energy consumption, and could be much more costly per unit, given the unique requirements. Amtrak’s performance-based specifications do not eliminate Tier II equipment from consideration; however, Amtrak submits that continued use of Tier II equipment should not be required, given— 2 For a succinct summary of the importance of the NEC to region and the Nation, see The Northeast Corridor and the American Economy (Northeast Corridor Infrastructure and Operations