ailwayAge R August 2009 Serving the railway industry since 1856

Leaner, meaner, and a whole lot cleaner
That's what Obama wants in a high speed rail system. A global search is on for the necessary technology

Managing diesel engine emissions

Industry Indicators

CARLOADS WEEK 28 ENDING JULY 18, 2009 MAJOR U.S. RAILROADS By commodity 2009 2008 % Change Grain 18,829 25,649 –26.6% Farm products ex. grain 816 681 19.8% Metallic Ores 4,205 8,684 –51.6% Coal 128,414 144,791 –11.3% Nonmetallic minerals 4,885 6,010 –18.7% Grain mill products 8,283 8,622 –4.0% Food & kindred products 7,677 8,603 –10.8% Primary forest products 1,774 2,352 –24.6% Lumber & wood products 2,210 3.713 –40.5% Pulp, paper & other 5,918 7,305 –19.0% Chemicals 30,639 –11.0% 27,269 Petroleum products 5,436 6,585 –17.4% Stone, clay, and glass 7,213 9,070 –20.5% Coke 2,729 4,164 –34.5% Metals & products 6,783 12,426 –45.4% Motor vehicles & equip. 7,676 11,279 –31.9% Waste & scrap 8,202 10,731 –23.6% All other carloads 4,780 4,739 0.9% TOTAL cars loaded 268,553 327,197 –17.9% CANADIAN RAILROADS All commodities 57,810 MEXICAN RAILROADS All commodities 12,543 U.S. TOTAL CANADIAN TOTAL MEXICAN TOTAL NORTH AMERICAN TOTAL INTERMODAL U.S. RAILROADS Trailers Containers Total units 76,473 13,534 –24.4% –7.3%

Short line and regional traffic index
Carloads, by commodity Carloads originated June ’09 Carloads originated June ’08 % Change

Chemicals Coal Crushed stone, sand, and gravel Food and kindred products Grain Grain mill products Lumber and wood products Metallic ores Metals and products Motor vehicles and equipment Nonmetallic minerals Petroleum products Pulp, paper, and allied products Stone, clay, and glass products Trailers/containers Waste and scrap materials All other carloads

38,687 16,621 18,784 14,186 23,238 8,584 6,865 2,924 13,987 7,017 2,127 1,521 16,671 13,123 30,419 9,981 84,569

38,632 21.954 23,613 12,901 25,421 7,682 10,993 4,278 29,573 8,774 2,991 1,865 22,033 15,783 41,180 14,392 99,100

0.1% -24.3% -20.5% -10.0% -8.6% 11.7% -37.6% -31.7% -52.7% -20.0% -26.9% -18.4% -24.3% -16.9% -26.1% -30.6% -14.7%

Total carloads, June: 2009 vs. 2008
June 2009 — 309.304 June 2008 — 381,085
220,000 240,000 260,000 280,000 300,000 320,000 340,000 360,000 380,000 400,000

28 weeks: 7,337,655 • % change from 2008: –19.1% 28 weeks: 1,666,531 • % change from 2008: –24.0% 28 weeks: 317,670 • % change from 2008: –14.8% 28 weeks: 9,321,856 • % change from 2008:–19.9% WEEK 28 ENDING JULY 18, 2009

Copyright © 2009. All rights reserved.

30,407 49,510 –38.6% 159,134 184,006 –13.5% 189,541 233,516 –18.8% CANADIAN RAILROADS Trailers 1,547 2,012 –21.8% Containers 38,624 49,730 –22.3% Total units 40,198 51,742 –22.3% MEXICAN RAILROADS Trailers 43 39 10.3% Containers 5,322 6,758 –21.2% Total units 5,365 6,797 –21.1% U.S. TOTAL 28 weeks: 5,182,786 • % change from 2008:–17.2% CANADIAN TOTAL 28 weeks:1,121,283 • % change from 2008:–16.2% MEXICAN TOTAL 28 weeks: 133,646 • % change from2008: –22.1% NORTH AMERICAN TOTAL 28 weeks:6,437,715 • % change from 2008:–17.1% Estimated ton-miles (billions), U.S. Class I railroads 2009 2008 % Change Week 289.9 28.7 34.7 –17.3% Total Weeks 1- 28 780.4 954.1 –18.2%
Source: Weekly Railroad Traffic, Association of American Railroads

Railroad employment Class I linehaul carriers, June 2009
(% change from June 2008)
Executives, officials, and staff assistants Transportation
(train and engine)

Professional and administrative




Total employees: 149,614 % change from June 2008: —8.45%
(other than train and engine)

Source: Surface Transportation Board

Maintenance of equipment and stores

Maintenanceof-way and structures



Employment continues to slip
Rail employment fell 8.45% in June compared with year-ago figures, according to the Surface Transportation Board, though total employment was down just 1.27% from the previous month. As in previous months, transportation (other than train and engine) held firm, this time gaining 3.46%. Executives, officials, and staff assistants slid a modest 0.02%, while maintenance-of-way and structures dipped 0.72%. The three other job categories categorized by STB showed more significant losses.







How far will $13 billion go in moving the United States into the world of high speed rail? We’re about to find out.
page 14

Cover photo by Bombardier Transportation

4 From the Editor 8 Update 44 Short Line/Regional Perspective

1 Industry Indicators 6 Industry Outlook 7 Market 36 Letters 37 People 37 Meetings 37 100 Years Ago 38 Advertising Index


39 Website Directory 40 Professional Directory 41 Classified

14 28 34 Getting America up to speed Shades of green Seminar series benefits Web customers



visit us at
Railway Age, USPS 449-130, is published monthly by the Simmons-Boardman Publishing Corporation, 345 Hudson St., 12th Fl., New York, NY 10014. Tel. (212) 620-7200; FAX (212) 633-1863. Vol. 210, No. 8. Subscriptions: Railway Age is sent without obligation to professionals working in the railroad industry in the United States, Canada, and Mexico. However, the publisher reserves the right to limit the number copies. Subscriptions should be requested on company letterhead. Subscription pricing to others for Print or Digital only versions: $85.00 per year/$130.00 for two years in the U.S., Canada and Mexico; $120.00 per year/$170.00 for two years, foreign. Foreign $220.00 (U.S. funds) per year/$370.00 for two years for Air mail delivery. When ordering Both Print and Digital: $128.00 per year/$195.00 for two years in the U.S., Canada and Mexico; $180.00 per year/$255.00 for two years, foreign. Foreign $280.00 (U.S. funds) per year/$445.00 for two years for Air mail delivery. Single Copies: $30.00 per copy in the U.S., Canada and Mexico/$100.00 foreign All subscriptions payable in advance. Copyrighted© 2009. Periodicals postage paid at New York, NY, and additional mailing offices. Canada Post Cust.#7204564; Agreement #41094515. Bleuchip Int'l, PO Box 25542, London, ON N6C 6B2. Address all subscriptions, change of address forms and correspondence concerning subscriptions to Subscription Dept., Railway Age, P.O. Box 10, Omaha, NE 68101-0010 or call toll free (800) 895-4389. In Nebraska call (402) 346-4740. Printed at Cummings Printing, Hooksett, N.H. ISSN 00338826 POSTMASTER—Send address change to Railway Age, P.O. Box 10, Omaha, NE 68101-0010.




William C. Vantuono

from the

“Gussied-up prairie schooners”


hose of you who have been involved in the high speed rail business for a while may recall, with acid reflux, Herb Kelleher, the man who, with some creative legal shenanigans, single-handedly succeeded in killing the Texas TGV in the early 1990s. Let’s go back to Don Itzkoff’s “High Speed Currents” column in the July 1991 issue of Railway Age (p. 14) for some perspective: “[Its] emergence into the national spotlight parallels a new, broader acceptance of high speed ground transportation as a significant future travel option for Americans. But recent events in Austin . . . teach a lesson in reality as well—that changing the entrenched domestic, political, economic, and institutional order to accommodate new high speed ground transportation systems will not be easy. “In Texas, the opposition came from Southwest Airlines. Southwest, which itself was an upstart carrier when it challenged the established majors two decades ago, tried to prevent both high speed rail franchise applicants, Texas TGV and FasTrac, and the Texas High Speed Rail Authority from continuing the application process (in part on the terms that the Authority’s directors were improperly staggered) and succeeded in postponing hearings for a week. Southwest attorneys also interposed literally hundreds of objections to evidence introduced by both applicants and other parties, creating such disruptions that FasTrac moved that Southwest be fined for abuse of process. At the Authority’s hearing that commenced on March 25, a small army of Southwest lawyers assaulted the applications of both prospective franchises on every conceivable front.” It gets better: “Not content to leave the battle solely to his lawyers, Southwest Chairman Herb Kelleher waded into the fray, too. Kelleher derided high speed trains as ‘gussied-up prairie schooners,’ 4

called the concept a ‘somersault backward into the 19th century,’ and threatened to move Southwest’s corporate headquarters out of the state of Texas entirely. The Texas High Speed Rail Authority ultimately rejected the arguments of Kelleher and his lawyers, voting unanimously to award the franchise to Texas TGV. But Southwest drew blood through its campaign of attrition, and the battle may only be beginning.”

The airline that heaped scorn on a high speed project in Texas and helped kill it isn’t going to get the last laugh.
Kelleher proved quite shrewd. He probably knew that, just like the TGV’s effect on French domestic air service, 200-mph trains streaking across the Texas prairies would send his airline, which at that time was still a mostly regional carrier, crashing and burning. His tenacity paid off for him. The Texas TGV died, as did other high speed rail projects, such as Florida Overland eXpress (killed by another Texan). It has taken nearly 20 years to overcome the entrenched order that Don Itzkoff so eloquently talked about in these pages. We now have an enlightened Administration in Washington (thank you, Mr. President, for this month’s “leaner-meaner-cleaner” cover line), and a supportive Congress. It’s going to take a lot more money than Obama’s initial $13 billion to build a high speed network in this country, but it’s a good start, $13 billion more than we’ve ever had. Favorable opinions on high speed rail are coming from unexpected places. Commenting on the state of America’s automotive industry in the July 2009

issue of Car & Driver Magazine, David E. Davis Jr.—the dean of automotive journalists—said: “If I were [Obama’s] car czar, I would strongly suggest that we can have no national automotive policy until we have fully comprehensive transportation and energy policies. This is serious business. We desperately need high speed transcontinental trains based on the European and Japanese models, just as we need some modern version of the old interurban rail systems.” I had to take off my bifocals and hold Car & Driver up to my nose to make sure I wasn’t imagining things, especially since I’d gotten used to reading silly anti-passenger-rail rants from (thankfully) nowretired columnist Patrick Bedard, who once called the New York City subway the “electric sewer.” Then there’s this from Association of American Railroads President and CEO Ed Hamberger: “America’s freight railroads support the goal of increased passenger rail investment. It’s good for our economy and the environment when more people and goods move faster by rail.” Our privately owned freight rail network, he said, “is the literal foundation for high speed rail in America.” And of course (and we agree): “We are critical stakeholders that need to be engaged from the very beginning of project planning and development. Passenger and freight efforts to grow and expand must complement, not compromise, one another.” See our special report on high speed rail beginning on p. 14. And be sure to attend our 16th Annual Passenger Trains on Freight Railroads Conference, Oct. 19-20 in Washington. See pp. 22-23 for details, or go to

Analyst survey: Pricing practices not out of line
Railroad shippers anticipate an average base rate increase of 3.3% during the next six to twelve months, according to a new survey conducted by New York-based investment bank Dahlman Rose & Co. The 2009 2Q Rail Shipper Survey finds railroads expecting to continue facing pricing pressure in the upcoming months. The projected increase is lower than in past quarterly surveys—3.6% was expected in the first quarter of 2009 and 3.5% in the fourth quarter of 2008. Survey respondents were U.S. companies that use rail to transport a range of materials, including metals, petroleum, and chemicals, as well as building, consumer, and paper products, said Dahlman Rose Director of Rail, Trucking, and Air Freight Research and Railway Age Contributing Editor Jason H. Seidl (pictured): “Although the near-term outlook remains bleak for railroads, shippers expect their businesses to pick up and grow 4% on average across multiple industries in the next year. The results show that agricultural products, metals, and petroleum products are leading the way for best anticipated growth; chemicals, building products, and consumer products expect lower growth. The results bode well for the railroads and the broader market in the long term. It is clear from our survey that pricing pressure exists in the marketplace. However, if shipper optimism for business growth turns out to be well-founded, this could relieve the pressure. The survey also indicates that a majority of shippers do not plan to file any rate action against a railroad during the next 12 months. The results, compared to last quarter’s, suggest that shippers believe that current pricing practices are not out of line.”

EDITORIAL AND EXECUTIVE OFFICES 345 Hudson Street, New York, NY 10014 212/620-7200; Fax: 212/633-1863 Internet: ARTHUR J. McGINNIS, Jr., President and Chairman ROBERT P. DeMARCO, Publisher WILLIAM C. VANTUONO, Editor Managing Editor: Douglas John Bowen Senior Editorial Consultant: Luther S. Miller Contributing Editors: Alex Binkley, Roy H. Blanchard, Greg Gormick, Lawrence H Kaufman, Anthony D. Kruglinski, Ron Lindsey, William D. Middleton, Jason H. Seidl Corporate Art Director: Wendy Williams Associate Art Director: Phil Desiere Corporate Production Director: Mary Conyers-Brown Marketing Director: Peter Sexton Conference Director: Jane Poterala Circulation Director: Maureen Cooney WESTERN OFFICES 20 South Clark Street, Suite 2450, Chicago, IL 60603 312/683-0130 ; Fax: 312/683-0131 E-mail: GEORGE SOKULSKI, Associate Publisher Engineering Editor: Tom Judge Editorial Assistant: Wanda Welty INTERNATIONAL OFFICES 46 Killigrew Street Falmouth, Cornwall TR11 3PP, United Kingdom Telephone: 011-44-1326-313945 Fax: 011-44-1326-211576 International Editors: David Briginshaw, Andrew Roden, Keith Barrow Director, Special Projects Robert G. Lewis 31 Julie Drive, Ormond By-the Sea, FL 32176 386/441-5650; Fax: 386/441-2137 Customer Service: 800/895-4389 For reprint information, contact: PARS International Corp. 212/221-9595; fax 212/221-9195
Railway Age, descended from the American Rail-Road Journal (1832) and the Western Railroad Gazette (1856) and published under its present name since 1876, is indexed by the Business Periodicals Index and the Engineering Index Service. Name registered in U.S. Patent Office and Trade Mark Office in Canada. Now indexed in ABI/Inform. Change of address should reach us six weeks in advance of next issue date. Send both old and new addresses with address label to Subscription Department, Railway Age, P.O. Box 10, Omaha, NE 68101-0010, or call toll free 1-800895-4389. Post Office will not forward copies unless you provide extra postage. Photocopy rights: Where necessary, permission is granted by the copyright owner for the libraries and others registered with the Copyright Clearance Center (CCC) to photocopy articles herein for the flat fee of $2.00 per copy of each article. Payment should be sent directly to CCC. Copying for other than personal or internal reference use without the express permission of Simmons-Boardman Publishing Corp. is prohibited. Address requests for permission on bulk orders to the Reprint Editor. Railway Age welcomes the submission of unsolicited manuscripts and photographs. However, the publishers will not be responsible for safekeeping or return of such material. Member of:

FRA issues PTC Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
The Federal Railroad Administration last month announced proposed rules designed to prevent train-to-train collisions through the use of Positive Train Control (PTC). The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) prescribes how railroads must use PTC systems. FRA noted that, under the Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008, major freight railroads and intercity and regional rail operators must submit PTC plans to FRA for approval by April, 16, 2010. PTC must be fully in place by the end of 2015. The proposed rules will specify how technically complex PTC systems must function and indicate how FRA will assess a PTC plan before it can become operational. “FRA is setting the bar high interms of design, construction, and oversight of PTC technologies among different railroads,” said FRA Administrator Joseph Szabo. “FRA will continue to advocate for ways to strengthen safety standards in the railroad industry.” FRA is coordinating efforts with the Federal Communications Commission to make a sufficient amount of radio frequency spectrum available, which it said is essential for PTC to function properly. FRA said this development will allow PTC to send and receive a constant stream of wireless signals regarding the location and speed of passenger and freight trains moving along rail lines.

NS’s Moorman: PPPs create capacity
Norfolk Southern CEO Wick Moorman described to the National Governors Association last month how public-private partnerships “can create additional capacity in our rail transportation network, with public benefits of jobs creation, less highway congestion, lower environmental emissions, and fuel savings.” Addressing a meeting at Biloxi, Miss., Moorman cited the Heartland Corridor between the Port of Virginia and Columbus, Ohio, and Chicago, and the Crescent Corridor linking New Jersey to New Orleans and Memphis, Tenn. He said the Crescent Corridor alone will create 41,000 “green jobs over the next decade and shift more than a million trucks a year off the highways and onto rails, saving more than 150 million gallons of fuel annually as well as reducing carbon emissions by nearly two million tons a year.” It will take more strategic initiatives like these, Moorman said, to prepare the railroads to handle their share of freight volumes that transportation economists predict will grow 86% by 2035. “Our nation’s transportation network is a complex, interdependent system that demands our combined creative efforts to operate it most efficiently,” Moorman said. “Our experience at Norfolk Southern has shown that by working together in public-private partnerships, we can achieve far more in far less time and with far greater public benefits than any of us can by working alone.” 6



North America
Amtrak: Selected engineering, architecture, and planning firm TKDA to provide design services for the new Cascades maintenance building, warehouse, and administrative and health/welfare building at the King Street coach yard in Seattle, Wash. The King Street facility services Amtrak’s long distance Empire Builder passenger trains and Sound Transit regional trains. Before Amtrak, the Empire Builder was operated by the Great Northern Railway (now part of BNSF), which TKDA’s founders helped construct more than 100 years ago. Commonwealth Railway (Suffolk, Va.): Will be incorporating RailComm’s Track Warrant Control functionality into its existing Domain Operations Controller System (DOC®). Commonwealth has dispatched trains within CTC territory by accessing RailComm’s web-enabled Software-as-a-Service (SaaS) “pay-as-yougo” delivery model, eliminating capital equipment procurement constraints. Through SaaS, Commonwealth Railway is remotely dispatched by parent Genesee & Wyoming’s Portland & Western Railroad, Salem, Ore. Dallas Area Rapid Transit: Awarded a contract to Parsons Brinckerhoff to provide engineering design services for a


Starfire Engineering & Technologies, Inc. has provided designs for three freight cars to Tikhvin Railway Car Building for use in Russia and Eastern Europe. Starfire has designed a covered hopper, container flat (pictured), and gondola to date.To build these cars,Tikhvin has established an $800 million, 728,000-square-foot manufacturing facility on a former Transmash site 125 miles east of St. Petersburg, Russia. Developed by ICT Group, the facility employs 3,500 people. Freight car series production is scheduled to begin in 2010, with an annual capacity of 10,000 cars.The first cars to be completed are Type 12-9761 76.5-ton bottom-discharge open hoppers.Tikhvin says similar cars account for about 40% of the Russian fleet; around half of these are scheduled for replacement.Tikhvin will also produce heavy castings for contract customers, and a wheel plant with an annual capacity of 50,000 wheelsets is planned.

design-build expansion of DART’s Blue Line light rail system. PB is a subcontractor to Austin Bridge & Road LP, the project’s lead. The extension runs 4.5 miles from DART’s existing Downtown Dallas Garland station to a new Downtown Rowlett station. Revenue service is scheduled for December 2012. MTA Metro-North Railroad: Awarded a contract to London-based DeltaRail Group Ltd. to supply the WheelChex® wheel impact load measuring system, which is being installed in the four-track Park Avenue Tunnel serving Grand Central Terminal in New York City. M-N also awarded Ansaldo STS USA an $8.7 million contract to design and furnish 38 pre-wired signal houses and cases for a portion of Metro-North’s New Haven Line, spanning 17 miles, from Woodlawn, N.Y., to Riverside, Conn.

The contract is the third ASTS USA has received in recent years from MetroNorth to replace the railroad’s relaybased signaling control system with the microprocessor-based MicroLok II® control system, interconnected over a fiberoptic communications network. State of Wisconsin: Will purchase two 14-car, 420-passenger trainsets from Las Rozas, Spain-based Patentes Talgo S.A. for Amtrak’s Hiawatha between Milwaukee and Chicago. The agreement includes an option to buy two more trainsets if the state gets federal stimulus money to extend rail service from Milwaukee to Madison. Talgo will perform final assembly at facilities to be built in Wisconsin. Amtrak currently operates Talgo equipment on its Cascades service in the Pacific Northwest; Talgo subsidiary Talgo, Inc., is based in Seattle.




Second-quarter financials

Have we reached the bottom?

Of like mind (left to right): CN’s Hunter Harrison, CSX’s Michael Ward, BNSF’s Matt Rose, and Union Pacific’s Jim Young, though cautious, believe freight rail traffic volumes may have hit their recessionary lows. They and other railroad executives don’t forecast a quick turnaround, however, and note they’ll continue to implement cost control measures.


ncreasing numbers of Wall Street analysts seem to have rediscovered Class I railroads, or at least their collective freight traffic, as a leading economic indicator (though some, such as Dahlman Rose & Co. director Jason Seidl, also Contributing Editor to Railway Age, staked out the terrain long ago). Some of those analysts insist the industry hasn’t yet hit its low. Though cautious, Class I railroad executives largely think differently. On July 20, Canadian National Chairman, President, and CEO E. Hunter Harrison, commenting on CN’s earnings, stated, “I think we’ve seen the bottom.” CN reported second-quarter profit fell 16%, with net income at C$387 million (US$350 million), or 82 Canadian cents per diluted share, compared with C$459 million, or 95 Canadian cents per diluted share, in the comparable 2008 quarter. Operating income fell 18% to C$583 million. Its revenue declined 15% to C$1.8 billion (US$1.6 billion). But operating expenses fell 14% due to cost-containment measures and a “significant reduction” in fuel prices compared with the comparable quarter, CN said. CN's operating ratio increased by one percentage point to 67.3%. Said Harrison, “The second quarter of 2009 saw a continuation of significant weakness in most of our commodity groups as a result of the current recession in North America and difficult global economic conditions, with all groups but coal registering double-digit declines in carloadings.” On July 14, CSX led off the earnings reports, noting a second-quarter earnings decline of 20% that nonetheless beat Wall Street consensus estimates, as the company announced earnings 8

of $308 million, or 78 cents per share, compared with $385 million, or 93 cents a share, in the second quarter of 2008. Revenue fell 25% to $2.19 billion. Earnings beat the consensus estimate of 62 to 64 cents per share. “While the economy continues to significantly impact our business, there are some signs that we may be seeing the bottom in many markets,” said CSX Chairman, President, and CEO Michael J. Ward, presaging Harrison’s similar observation six days later. Union Pacific Corp. July 23 said its second-quarter profit was better than expected despite lower freight volumes and revenue. CEO Jim Young noted, “Although we expect it will be some time before the economy recovers, it appears that volume levels may have hit the bottom as the economy seems to have stabilized.” UP’s net income of $468 million, or 92 cents per share, was down 12% from the second quarter of 2008, when it notched $531 million, or $1.02 per share. Excluding a one-time benefit from a $72 million land sale, UP reported earnings per share of 78 cents, better than the consensus estimate of 74 cents anticipated by Wall Street. Quarterly revenue fell to $3.30 billion from $4.57 billion in the comparable 2008 period; analysts had expected $3.38 billion. Freight volume fell 22%. Crediting cost control measures and lower fuel prices, BNSF the same day reported that second-quarter earnings rose to $404 million, or $1.18 per diluted share, compared with second-quarter 2008 earnings of $350 million, or $1.00 per diluted share. The 2008 earnings figures included a 31 cent per-share charge related to environmental matters in Montana. Earnings results

soundly surpassed analyst earnings-per-share expectations of $1.00. BNSF said operating expenses for the quarter declined $1.25 billion, or 33%, to $2.52 billion, compared with second-quarter 2008 operating expenses of $3.76 billion. Freight revenue fell $1.13 billion, or 26%, to $3.22 billion in the quarter compared with $4.35 billion a year ago. BNSF attributed the decline in part to a decrease in fuel surcharges of about $600 million. Said BNSF Chairman, President, and Chief Executive Officer Matthew K. Rose, “We are beginning to see BNSF’s volumes stabilize in our more economically sensitive businesses, and because of our continued focus on productivity combined with our long-term market opportunities, we are well positioned to benefit when the economy recovers.” Norfolk Southern July 28 reported second-quarter net income of $247 million, or 66 cents per diluted share, compared with $453 million, or $1.18 per diluted share, for the second quarter of 2008. That exceeded by two cents per share analyst EPS estimates of 64 cents, though after the report analysts noted the outcome was boosted by a one-time measure. Analysts also praised NS’s cost control measures, noting operating expenses for the quarter were $1.4 billion, down 29% from the same period a year ago. Norfolk Southern’s operating ratio was 74.8%, up from 71.1% during the second-quarter of 2008. Operating revenue was $1.9 billion, down 33%. Said NS CEO Wick Moorman, “[T]he measures we are taking to control expenses while maintaining our industry-leading service levels have enabled us to post solid second-quarter results, while at the same time we continue to invest in projects that position us for the eventual economic recovery.” On July 30 both Kansas City Southern and Canadian Pacific reported, with different results. KCS reported second-quarter net income declined more than 86% to $6.7 million, 7 cents per share, compared with $50.5 million, or 56 cents a share, in the second quarter of 2008. That fell short of Wall Street analyst projections of 8 cents a share. CP, crediting a one-time gain from the sale of a share of the Detroit River Tunnel Partnership, saw quarterly net profit rise to C$157.3 million ($145 million), or 93 Canadian cents a share, compared with C$154.7 million, or C$1, in the comparable 2008 quarter.

EMD California’s Department of Transportation last month dedicated an F59PHI locomotive, originally built by EMD in 2001, as part of its Amtrak California service “green” fleet. EMD has installed its 710ECO™Repower upgrade package with the latest microprocessor-controlled locomotive engine technology for lower emissions, increased fuel economy, greater reliability, and predictable maintenance costs.The upgraded locomotive will now achieve EPA Tier 2 emissions performance, two levels cleaner than required for this model, Caltrans said. BOMBARDIER Toronto Transit Commission has finalized its C$851million (US$735 million) deal with Bombardier Transportation for 204 100% lowfloor Flexity streetcars.The cars will be delivered beginning in 2012 through 2018, with final assembly taking place at Bombardier’s facility in Thunder Bay, Ontario.The agreement allows for an additional 400 vehicles to be ordered later as part of Toronto’s “Transit City Plan” to expand the streetcar system with nearly 75 miles of new routes. Overall, the contract represents the largest single order ever for light rail vehicles worldwide, Bombardier says. In the U.S., Phoenix has awarded contracts worth $255 million to Bombardier for the design, supply, operation, and maintenance of an INOVIA automated people mover (APM) at Sky Harbor International Airport. A design-build contract is valued at $186 million; under a separate, $69 million contract, Bombardier will operate and maintain the 2.2mile PHX Sky Train for 10 years following its scheduled completion in 2012. "This is the largest new-start APM contract in North America in a decade, and we are confident it will serve as the model for other cities and airports seeking modern transit solution," said Michael Fetsko, vice president APM, Systems Division, Bombardier Transportation. RAILCOMM RailComm will provide a wireless remote control yard system at CSX’s Osborn Yard in Louisville, Ky. RailComm’s Domain Operations Controller (DOC®) system will offer remote control to several GETS HydraSwitch machines. DOC® will be configured to control all switches individually as well as provide eNtrance eXit (NX) routing functionality. L.B. FOSTER L.B. Foster Co. is supplying transit rail and associated products for CTA's Dearborn Subway Project under a $6.5 million contract, delivering 80-foot rail sections, direct fixation fasteners, insulated joints, and rail insulators.





Marketing does matter

A Metro-North Hudson Line train plies the rails on its way to both old and new Yankee Stadiums (top center), but the railroad now also uses the wye to deliver riders to and from the new ballpark from both the Harlem and New Haven lines, as well, bypassing traditional endpoint Grand Central Terminal.


alk to U.S. passenger rail advocates about the best regional railroad “brands,” and two names pop up as exemplars of marrying marketing to performance: Chicago’s Metra, and New York’s Metro-North. Says Metra Marketing Director Jim Bonistalli, “You can have the best marketing program, but if the train is late, it doesn’t matter.” Says Metro-North President Howard Permut, “The centerpiece of all our marketing discussions has always been how to get more customers on a train.” That’s not a matter of simple addition. Both Metra and Metro-North have to constantly cope with ridership turnover, as established riders move out of their service area or, more recently, lose their jobs. “Ridership turns over every year; we probably turn 15% to 18% of our customer base over every year,” Bonistalli notes. “We’re constantly building from an eroding customer base.” Both railroads for years have pursued a broader service reach. Permut points to Metro-North’s early discovery in the 1980s of life beyond Grand Central Terminal “Once we figured where those ‘other’ riders were going, we decided to take some chances; we said, ‘Let’s add some trains to Stamford (Conn.), to White Plains, and fill empty seats on deadhead runs.’” In so doing, MetroNorth took a radical step: It was willing, almost eager, to tinker with operations dramatically “because we had a marketing opportunity,” Permut says. Middle management was encouraged to take chances. “If you’re right, you keep going; if you’re wrong, you make a change.” Metra’s Bonistalli concurs. “Our primary customer is the traditional work trip to the Chicago CBD. [But] even if ridership there is only stable, we’ll see growth through non-traditional sources. The recreational market is a growing market for us, and we’ve sold the experience of a train ride.” Here, Metra leverages marketing tools liberally. “The existing summer program we have personalizes the trip, which helps make it a seamless trip.” Via Metra’s website, potential customers can access connecting services, event planners, and walking tours. “On average, we’re receiving 1,000 requests a week, so we’re tapping into people who aren’t the traditional users of the system,” Bonistalli says. Metra also welcomed bikes on trains beginning in 2006. “Though we are limited to some degree, we do tout that on our website and our public train schedules: which trains carry bikes and the number they will carry,” Bonistalli says. And Metra employs direct response programs, and a new residents program




schooling potential new customers on Metra’s offerings, in conjunction with realtors, which Bonistalli says operates “as a quasisales force for us” in areas Metra serves. Permut says Metro-North unashamedly tests “other people’s good ideas,” including one from Virginia Railway Express, and a valet parking service option developed in southern California. But the railroad isn’t simply a follower. Touting “brand new” handheld ticketing machines Metro-North conductors now carry on board, Permut says, “We’re the only railroad in America, I believe, that has done away with duplexes, in cooperation with our unions—they helped design it—and it was done inhouse by our information technology people. The marketing angle to all this is twofold: People can read their receipts.” The technology gives Metro-North a quick, exact report of ticket sales each day, allowing it to see where customers are going and, perhaps, where they might wish to go. In Chicagoland, Metra struck gold with potential weekend riders in spectacular fashion, generating marketing buzz nationwide: “A $5 weekend pass, an unlimited ride pass, that we put in place in 1992,” Bonistalli says. He adds pointedly, “We still have it at the same price. It helps grow recreational ridership, and it’s tied to our family program, where kids 11 and under ride free.” Indeed, the program’s success has come at a price; capacity is decreasing as demand increases. Metra is willing to accept that, Bonistalli says, because “we become part of their transportation thought process, an option. We’ve broken down some of those mindsets that the train is only to and from work.” But those riders often require more; Metra’s summer package “promotes CTA connecting services” required for specific events. Joint CTA/Metra brochures are also a staple marketing tool, says

Bonistalli. Other Metra partners include PACE, which provides bus and paratransit service to six Chicagoland counties (including its namesake county). “It’s a significant market; the revenue generated now is a real factor,” he says. A better marketing mindset is important within the rail ranks themselves, Permut says. Metro-North’s latest effort in this regard: Rail service for New York Yankees games via the new Yankee Stadium Station, which opened in May. The railroad could have just stopped existing trains previously bypassing the site on its Hudson Line. It opted instead to provide direct service to the new station on game days from the Harlem and New Haven lines, as well, via the wye at Mott Haven Junction in the Bronx (see photo). The change in operations was challenging enough; Permut notes that while the railroad can plan its extra service to coincide with a targeted ballgame start, “after the game, there’s no schedule,” and departing trains enter the Metro-North system jockeying for position with regularly scheduled consists—in traditional terms, an operational headache. Customer service and marketing emphasis make the pains worth it, Permut says. “We are carrying 10% of people going to the game, and we think it will continue to grow.” Metra’s recent new starts also “have been a success from a marketing standpoint,” Bonistalli says. With service linking Union Station to O’Hare International Airport, and extension of the Union Pacific line from Geneva to Auburn, for example, Metra’s service reach has expanded; it’s touted that vigorously. For both Metra and Metro-North, the goals change as the playing conditions do, save one: making sure the riding customer gets the value of the service each railroad markets. —Douglas John Bowen




The Russians are moving, the Russians are moving—fast!
With an international corps of reporters aboard, Russia’s new, Siemens Transportation Systems-built high speed train, the EVS1 Sapsan (top, in tow), made a demonstration run between Moscow and St. Petersburg on July 30 at a top speed of 155 mph. In regular service, the EVS1 Sapsan, an electric train of the Velaro RUS series, will cut travel time between the two cities to 3 hours 45 minutes. Currently the fastest train travel time is 4 hours 30 minutes (bottom, with older equipment). The average time for air travel from Moscow to St. Petersburg (including trips to and from the airport, flight registration, and flying time) is at least 5 hours. “The involvement of Russian scientists and specialists in the Sapsan production project provides a good impetus to the introduction of cutting-edge, innovative technology to Russian industry,” said Russian Railways President Vladimir Yakunin. He said that foreign producers have declared their willingness to shift train production to Russia if orders for trains are increased. Sapsan is Russian for “Peregrine Falcon.”




Portec sees positive signs in challenging quarter
Portec Rail Products, Inc., has reported reduced revenues and earnings for both the second quarter and the first half of 2009, but President and Chief Executive Officer Richard J. Jarosinski said he was “pleased with our overall performance in what continues to be a tough economic climate.” He said demand has come from “a wide range of freight and transit customers, who find value in our ability to significantly reduce their operating expenses. Our friction management product group continues to lead our performance with significant growth in the current quarter and year-to-date periods. Despite a challenging economic environment, we are satisfied with the performance of our track component and wayside data management groups.” Portec reported net income of $2.2 million or $0.23 per share for the three months ended June 30, 2009, and $3.3 million or $0.35 per share for the six months ended June 30, 2009. These compare to unaudited net income of $2.4 million or $0.25 per share, and $3.8 million or $0.39 per share, for the three and six months ended June 30, 2008, respectively. Average basic and diluted shares outstanding were 9.6 million for all periods presented. Net sales for the three and six months ended June 30, 2009 were $26.5 million and $48.7 million, respectively, while net sales for the three and six months ended June 30, 2008 were $30.2 million and $55.0 million, respectively.

Transit Briefs

IBM signed a new five-year information technology (IT) agreement with Amtrak to provide data center services including mainframe, mid-range server, security services, asset management and desktop support services for 10,000 workstations nationwide.The contract continues a relationship dating back to 1994. IBM services include support of the infrastructure for Amtrak’s reservation system as well as the corporation’s entire computing infrastructure.“IBM’s strong record of delivery excellence for Amtrak has allowed them to reduce operational costs and increase productivity while focusing on their core business and customers,” said IBM Global Technology Services Vice President,Travel and Transportation Industry Steve Welsh.

ARRA funds for transit security
On July 29, the Department of Homeland Security awarded nearly $78 million in American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Transit Security Grant Program funding for approximately 240 new law enforcement officers at 15 U.S. transit systems. In addition to hiring new officers, police departments with dedicated transit bureaus will hire anti-terrorism personnel, purchase antiterrorism equipment, and obtain and train explosive-detecting canines. The following agencies will receive the funding: • Amtrak: $6,343,500 • Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA): $9,650,064. • Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority (MARTA): $685,980. • Chicago Transit Authority (CTA) for Chicago Police Department: $4,869,000. • Northeast Illinois Commuter Railroad Corporation (Metra): $1,670,988. • Metro Transit (Twin Cities): $1,328,700. • Niagara Frontier Transportation Authority (NFTA, Buffalo): $2,234,070. • New York Metropolitan Transportation Authority (for NYPD): $35,904,000. • Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority (GCRTA): $1,396,830. • Delaware River Port Authority (DRPA): $2,085,000. • Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA): $4,458,870. • Puerto Rico Department of Transportation & Public Works: $965,193. • Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART): $1,362,690. • Houston Metro: $3,040,560. • King County (Wash.) Department of Transportation: $1,906,530.

New York’s MTA has released both its 2010 Preliminary Budget and proposed Four-Year Financial Plan for 2010-2013.The MTA Board will not consider a final budget until December, but MTA says the release allows for an extended period of public discussion about the MTA's finances and budget proposals.The 2010 budget, as released, includes no service cuts or fare increases beyond those already planned, MTA said, adding that projected cash balances were $29 million in 2009, $39 million in 2010, and $1 million in 2011.“Manageable” deficits are projected for 2012 and 2013. MTA also cited “significant” spending restraints contributing to save $64 million in 2010.These savings grow to $279 million by 2013.The financial plan anticipates a continued falloff in real estate tax revenue and ridership due to recession. It also includes the 2009 Mid-Year Forecast, which reflects changes from the February 2009 plan resulting from the passage of legislation to stabilize the MTA's shortterm finances. The plan includes a 7.5% fare increase in both 2011 and 2013.

MTA Metro-North Railroad has awarded a $7.9 million contract to Progress Rail Services to overhaul six 3,000-hp F40PH locomotives in use on its West of Hudson service (NJ Transit’s Port Jervis and Pascack Valley lines). Both lines originate at NJT’S Hoboken Terminal and are operated by NJT. Work will be performed at Progress Rail Services’ Mayfield, Ky., facility. The overhaul includes rebuilt main diesel engines and main and auxiliary generators, and new HEP generator sets for passenger coach lighting, heating and air conditioning. Planned engine modifications will meet the January 2010 EPA emission requirements for newly remanufactured engines to reduce PM (particulate matter) and NOx (nitrogen oxide) emissions. Progress Rail Services will also replace the locomotives’ 1,800 gallon fuel tanks with 2,500 gallon tanks to reduce the amount of time they need to be out of service for fueling at Hoboken Terminal. Completion is set for December 2011.The contract has a $2.6 million option to overhaul two additional F40 locomotives by June 2012. Metro-North’s West of Hudson locomotive fleet consists of 15 units— eight F40PHs and seven GP40s.The latter were overhauled by the MotivePower Division of Wabtec, Boise, Idaho, between 2006 and July 2008 at a cost of $8.1 million.

Southern California Regional Rail Authority (Metrolink) has awarded a three-year, $20 million contract to RailPros, Inc. for on-call project management, construction management, and staff augmentation services. RailPros will provide services for such projects as Positive Train Control, the Orange County Service Expansion Program, the Perris Valley Line, and Maintenance-of-Way Information Systems.



Getting America up to speed
THE UNITED STATES BOASTS THE WORLD’S MOST EFFICIENT FREIGHT RAIL system—privately operated, privately built and maintained, and producing profits, even in the gloom of recession. The U.S. is also home to a ragged passenger train system, publicly and penuriously funded, that is viewed even by some of its devoted friends as more third-world than world-class. Now, after many a false start, it appears that radical change is coming to the passenger scene. A milestone initiative launched early this year by the Obama Administration—and just getting up to speed, administratively—is designed to begin the process of moving the U.S. into the expanding universe of high speed passenger rail. What Americans can now aspire to, over the long term, is what much of Europe and Asia have already grown accustomed to—fleets of futuristic trains speeding between major cities at 186 mph to 214 mph and capturing markets long controlled by air carriers. What Americans are likely to get, for the short term, is “high speed” in a relative sense: the current working definition encompasses 100- to 110-mph trains that would be a huge advance in much of the country where the top speed is often 79 mph. Call it “incremental high speed”—an approach that Railway Age Editor William C. Van-

How far will $13 billion go in moving the United States into the world of high speed rail? We’re about to find out.

tuono has vigorously promoted for the past 18 years, in the pages of this magazine as well as in annual, sold-out conferences on the subject that he conducts annually in Washington D.C. It’s a realistic view of what appears to be immediately possible with the $13 billion offered by the Administration. The Obama plan is a strong start, and it may well trigger public/private partnerships that will generate many more billions. But for now, what $13 billion will pay for is resignaled and upgraded track in a limited number of existing corridors, for incrementally faster service, as well as preliminary work on such visionary projects as a planned California system that all by itself will consume an estimated $44 billion. In the pages that follow, International Railway Journal Editor-inChief David Briginshaw fills you in on the world picture; Railway Age Managing Editor Douglas John Bowen describes the scramble among the states for a piece of the starter money; IRJ Associate Editor Keith Barrow describes one of the latest examples of high speed technology; and Engineering Editor Tom Judge outlines what incremental high speed improvements could cost. —Luther S. Miller, Senior Editorial Consultant




Time to climb on board
By David Briginshaw, Editor-in-Chief, International Railway Journal


he current surge of interest in high speed rail has taken a long time to gather momentum since the world’s first dedicated high speed railway, the Tokaido Shinkansen, opened in Japan in 1964. Today, a real network is rapidly emerging in Europe, currently involving seven countries but with several more waiting in the wings. In Asia, Japan has expanded its network to around 1,500 miles, Korea has built its first line, and China is well on the way to having the world’s largest high speed network. All the countries that have built high speed railways so far, already had welldeveloped national passenger rail services. But now high speed development is shifting to countries with only rudiIn operation Under construction mentary or even no long-dis(miles) (km/h) tance passenger rail. These Europe 3,649 1,989 include Saudi Arabia, Turkey 128 335 Argentina, and Brazil. Japan 1,524 367 What is driving this trend? China Mainland 2,940* 2,067 There are several factors. The China Taiwan 214 image of a Japanese Bullet Korea 205 51 train streaking past Mount India Fuji quickly became a symbol Iran 308 of modernity in the 1960s, Saudi Arabia Morocco and helped to change public U.S. 225 perception of rail transportaArgentina tion as an outmoded relic of Brazil the steam age. This was rein* Includes lines opening later this year or early in 2010 forced in the 1980s by the

French TGV and a decade later by the ICE in Germany. This century has seen a complete reversal of attitudes to rail by the public and politicians, which now regard rail as the mode with the brightest future because of its green credentials and its ability to help solve congestion problems. But it is not simply the appeal of high speed rail that is winning people over. The investment required is too great for that to be the case and relatively poor countries like Morocco and Turkey could not afford to build high speed lines on these grounds alone. It is the proven ability of high speed rail to get people to switch from road and air to rail. High speed rail is dealing a real blow to airlines in Europe. There are virtually

no flights anymore between Paris and Brussels, and Air France has suspended flights between Paris and a number of French cities. Rail now has 90% of the Paris-Lyon market and 70% of the ParisBordeaux market. Air France has become so worried about the onslaught from rail on its short-haul routes that it is planning to become a high speed rail operator

High speed around the world
Planned Maximum speed (mph) 218 155 186 218 186 186 Undecided 155 186 186 150 200 186 350 250 300 350 300 300 250 300 300 240 320 300 5,283 1,042 362 3,146

1,646 342 423 802 441 310




when the European market opens up to competition at the end of this year. French National Railways (SNCF) used to regard a threehour journey time as the upper limit for rail to compete effectively with air. But a rail trip time of four hours or even longer is now sufficient to get airline passengers to switch to rail. This is because of increased congestion at airports, the additional time it takes to pass through airport security measures, and poor reliability, which have all combined to make air travel less attractive. Conversely, passengers appreciate the uninterrupted nature of rail travel downtown-to-downtown, because it allows them to use their travel time more effectively and less stressfully than flying or driving permits. Rail’s environmental credentials are second to none. According to the International Union of Railways (UIC), traveling by rail is on average three to 10 times less CO2 intensive compared with road or air transportation, and two to five times more energy efficient. Strategically, an electrified railway is the only form of land transportation that can be powered by any fuel, something that politicians need to take seriously. Technical advances are allowing high speed trains to travel faster without generating more noise or CO2 emissions, and without increasing energy consumption. A few years ago, 186 mph was regarded as the upper limit for economical operation of high speed trains. Indeed, SNCF did not think it desirable or economically viable to run trains faster than this. But reductions

in train weight, improved aerodynamics, and the introduction of more compact and more efficient traction equipment (see IRJ Associate Editor Keith Barrow’s story on the AGV, p. 21) has made it viable to increase the operating speed to 200 mph in France, and now 218 mph in China and Spain. Higher operating speeds are also extending the reach of high speed rail. For example, the 820-mile high speed line now under construction from Beijing to Shanghai will have a maximum speed of 218 mph. One thing is clear as far as the infrastructure is concerned: If the decision is made to build a high speed line, then it must be built to the highest and most modern standards. A railroad built today will probably still be in operation 150 years from now. So ideally, it should be engineered for 250 mph operation. What exactly do we mean by high speed rail? The baseline is




normally regarded as 125 mph. Up to this speed, conventional rail technology is perfectly adequate, though in the U.S. it will need to be supplemented with Positive Train Control on corridors shared with freight trains. But to operate trains above 125 mph demands special measures. For example, electric traction becomes mandatory because diesel technology has not evolved beyond 125 mph operation. Some form of cab signaling is necessary. The trains themselves need to be built to higher standards, with special attention being paid to reducing noise both inside and outside the train, strengthening the suspension and braking systems, and at the same time reducing the axle load. In Europe, an 18.7-ton axle load has become the norm, but Alstom’s new AGV will improve on this. The Japanese 700-Series trains have a 12.5-ton axle load. A low axle load is vital to minimize energy consumption and reduce the impact on the track of high speed operation. Why build a high speed line, when surely it would be cheaper to upgrade an existing line and get most of the benefits? Unfortunately, the answer is not that simple. The first question that needs to be asked is, what should the journey time be to offer a commercially-attractive service between the cities that need to be connected by rail? German Rail (DB) has a good rule of thumb: The train needs to half as fast as the airplane but twice as fast as the automobile. The desired journey for a given distance will determine the maximum speed, which can then be used to decide whether upgrading is sufficient or new construction is required. However, the the cost of upgrading an existing line can be frighteningly expensive, and unlikely to solve capacity problems unless a lot of extra tracks are laid in the process. Indeed, upgrading could reduce capacity on a mixed-traffic line. Widening the gap between the slowest and fastest trains eats up capacity, and requires highly-disciplined traffic control to manage trains efficiently. So, America, what are you waiting for? Rekindle that pioneering spirit, take advantage of the political window of opportunity that has opened, and start building. Whether it is incremental improvements or dedicated high speed, it will be long overdue.



Pent-up demand? An understatement!
The Federal Railroad Administration has received 278 pre-applications for high speed rail grant funding totaling $102 billion. “The response has been tremendous and shows that the country is ready for high speed rail,” Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood said. The desire to invest outstrips current fiscal ability, since the preapplications’ fiscal requests far exceed the $8 billion coming from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), more commonly known as the federal stimulus package, for the High-Speed Intercity Passenger Rail competitive grant program. Even including the pledge by the Obama Administration to back an additional $5 billion for high speed rail funding in coming years through the Congressional appropriations process, bolstering the amount available to $13 billion, the current supply of funds measures only 12.7% of the submitted demand. 18

Handicapping U.S. high speed rail
By Douglas John Bowen, Managing Editor


he railroad supply community already has voted: It sees a huge potential business market being generated by the Obama Administration’s $8 billion “down payment” to finally get U.S. high speed rail moving—“or moving again,” one industry observer notes cautiously. Just who enters the HSR sweepstakes isn’t critical to the big players. Equipment suppliers such as Bombardier, Siemens, Alstom, and Ansaldo STS make it clear they’ll be in a bidding war for any given U.S. HSR project, if not every one. Even dark horses such as Madrid, Spain-based Patentes Talgo SA can’t be counted out, given the builder’s U.S. presence in the Pacific Northwest (through Amtrak’s Cascades service) and its recent contract with the state of Wisconsin. “I guarantee those companies that have been involved in high speed rail in Asia and Europe are in America right now meeting those folks that are putting proposals together to tap into our $8 billion,” Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood has noted. So, too, does it go for planners and contractors. Throughout 2009 heavyweight contractor Parsons Brinckerhoff has added several people with conspicuous experience with HSR and/or with government. Others, such as

AECOM, have beefed up staff in similar fashion. But where will the players play? The Administration says its geographic choices for HSR will be made on merit, not politics, but even polite skeptics note it’s possible to satisfy the first criterion while not slighting the potential political payback. Few industry voices will go on record predicting the rise of one U.S. HSR choice over another, but of the 10 candidates (11, counting the Northeast Corridor), four strong options have emerged as likely winners, based on industry comments encapsulating the current handicapping done behind the scenes—an evaluation that could go out the window once the Federal Railroad Administration makes its recommendations this fall. California Corridor: Budget crisis extraordinaire or not, Californians last fall committed $9.9 billion in state bonding capability to help fund a high speed route linking the Bay Area with Los Angeles and San Diego—the largest state commitment within the U.S. to date, and certain to sway the minds of sympathetic federal representatives, including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the state’s U.S. Sens. Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein, who have pledged to capture part of the $8 billion federal pie. Moreover, the state’s actual HSR planning process is in advanced stages. Finally, California’s geographic position is a clear counterweight to the Northeast Corridor, the sole


U.S. passenger rail route that ranks by some (if not all) measures as “high speed.” Chicago Hub Network: President Obama’s “home turf” candidate also carries several real advantages: The hub route serves several states, with numerous origin/destination pairs and a recognition of current rail service, however paltry, on many of the routes now served by Amtrak. Incremental improvements, such as raising speed limits on portions of the Chicago-St. Louis route from 5 mph to 40 mph, offer a large if unglamorous return on investment that could make “HSR” look good. The Hub also has benefited from solid and steady marketing legwork by the Midwest High Speed Rail Association, a 501(c)3 not-for-profit organization. Florida Corridor: The Sunshine State has flubbed at least two attempts to implement a HSR network, with state officials overriding public sentiment in at least one instance and an early attempt at public-private partnership funding falling through. But the concept refuses to go away, and “they’ll get it right one of these days,” one observer notes. Add to that some realpolitik—President Obama carried Florida in the 2008 election, but just barely—and Florida’s candidacy becomes a real possibility. Northeast Corridor: It’s technically not a “candidate” for HSR, since by some measures it already measures up. But the Department of Transportation has acknowledged “opportunities for the Northeast Corridor from Washington to Boston to

compete for funds,” and though the NEC suffers from at least a $3 billion backlog in infrastructure needs, a million here and there could offer demonstrable improvements to Amtrak’s showcase. Those evaluating the remaining candidate routes are quick to note that all are feasible from a physical standpoint, but in many cases are burdened with a history of local disinterest, overcome only lately by state governments smelling federal funding and claiming they wanted HSR all along. Among these:




Pacific Northwest Corridor: Residents of Washington and Oregon, known for being environmentally conscious, have supported passenger rail and show a willingness to step up to HSR. But the corridor foresees Vancouver, British Columbia, as one anchor, and the two states, along with Amtrak, only resolved customs issues this summer with Canada on Amtrak’s existing skeletal service linking the two nations. International cooperation for HSR is possible, but problematic. Southeast Corridor : It would serve the Southeast, but its best chance for implementation may be to “look north” to link with Amtrak’s Northeast Corridor. The ambititous size of the proposed route, stretching from Washington, D.C. to Jacksonville, Fla., and also to Atlanta, strikes some as too large a route structure. But its northern end, backed by pro-rail North Carolina and by Virginia, no stranger to federal largesse or to residual business benefits from the NEC, could bode well for part of the route. Empire Corridor: New York State has approached CSX to seek a third track linking Buffalo and Albany, tieing the stretch to its “near-HSR” Albany-to-New York route. But the state has its own budget woes, and has postponed or shunned more modest increases for the route since the late 1980s. Keystone Corridor: Amtrak trains also offer “near HSR” service between Philadelphia and Harrisburg, Pennsylvania’s capital, and ridership has risen— proof that incremental improvements can bolster demand. But a realistic upgrade to HSR standards of the mountainous route between Harrisburg and Pittsburgh is problematic from a physical standpoint, even if cooperation with owner Norfolk Southern was locked in. South Central Corridor: The Texasbased candidate suddenly has backing from businesses with clout, reportedly including Southwest Airlines. But the Texas legislature has been notably hostile to funding passenger rail in any capacity, including this current year, and meets only every other year. Lacking leadership from Texas, any HSR effort involving the Lone State State, Arkansas, and Oklahoma appears unlikely in the short term. Gulf Coast Corridor: “I don’t see it,” two separate sources told Railway Age. A Houston-New Orleans-Atlanta HSR effort would dovetail with the Southeast Corridor, but given the other, higher visibility HSR opportunities for both Florida and Texas, the likelihood of such a route being led by Louisiana, Mississippi, and/or Alabama appear dim at best. Amtrak’s Sunset Limited may finally return to this route this October—a step up, but nowhere near HSR. Northern New England Corridor: An Albany-Boston-Montreal routing appeas tortured on amap, faces international coordination issues similar to the Pacific Northwest Corridor, and also competition from the venerable NEC, which offers a less risky opportunity to generate rail ridership in New England.




First the TGV, now the AGV
Alstom’s next-generation high-speed train, the Automotrice à Grande Vitesse (AGV), is set to make its debut in Italy in 2011. International Railway Journal Associate Editor Keith Barrow reports from the Velim test track in the Czech Republic, where Alstom is preparing the prototype AGV for the start of testing on the Italian network.


ituated around an hour’s drive east of Prague, Czech Republic, the eight-mile Velim test circuit is one of only a handful of places in the world where trains can be tested at 125 mph without venturing onto the main line. Velim is playing a central role in the testing of Alstom’s new-generation high-speed train, the AGV, which is currently being prepared for use in Italy where the first trains will enter service in 2011. The 225 mph AGV is the culmination of nearly 10 years’ development work by Alstom, and builds on almost three decades of experience in the very-high-speed sector, which began with the delivery of the first TGV trains for French National Railways (SNCF) in 1981. Since February 2008, the prototype seven-car train has undergone a program of rigorous static and dynamic testing in France and the Czech Republic. Like all previous generations of Alstom high speed trains, AGV is articulated, meaning a seven-car train runs on eight trucks. However, the time-honored TGV configuration of power cars and articulated trailers has given way to a fully-articulated design with distributed power, and for this reason AGV is configured in groups of three cars, or “triplets.” The outer vehicle of each triplet is the driving car, which is equipped with a power truck and transformer, while the other two vehicles carry power equipment, with a second power truck on the inner vehicle. On a seven-car train, two triplets sandwich a central “key” vehicle, which carries auxiliary equipment. The triplet and key car configuration results in a train that is truly modular, ranging from a seven-car, 433-foot-long train to a 14-car, 826-foot formation, although Alstom says it has even examined the possibility of producing a 26-car version for China. Even before the first train was unveiled in February 2008, the capabilities of the distributed power system had already been demonstrated to good effect. In April 2007, a specially-adapted train formed of two TGV power cars and three

double-deck trailers fitted with AGV trucks and part of its traction system shattered the world speed record for conventional rail, reaching 357 mph on the Paris-Strasbourg TGV Est high speed line. The series of tests carried out in the run up to the record-breaking run in April 2007 gave Alstom a unique opportunity to measure and validate the aerodynamic, acoustic, and vibratory performance of many aspects of the new train. After a period of static and low-speed testing at Alstom’s La Rochelle facility in western France, the first dynamic testing phase took place at Velim between May and September 2008, when speeds were gradually raised to 125 mph. These tests covered wheel/rail and pantograph/catenary dynamics as well as traction system and aerodynamic performance. Alstom also tested acoustics and the performance of the braking system under normal and reduced adhesion conditions at different speeds. In November 2008, testing moved to TGV Est in France, where over 12 nights AGV traveled more than 4,660 miles at speeds up to 225 mph. This allowed Alstom to test the dynamic behavior of the train and its components on a line used for commercial operations. In June, the test program returned once more to Velim, where the AGV will complete 6,200 miles of running before moving to Italy for the start of main line testing, which will take place on the Rome-Florence line between October 2009 and March 2010. VUZ, the Czech company that operates the Velim test track, has certification from the Italian Railway Authority (Cesifer) for testing rolling stock, which means many of the requirements for certification can be met before the train arrives in Italy. AGV’s permanent magnet synchronous motors give a power/weight ratio of around 30 hp/ton, compared with around 25 hp/ton for previous generations of TGV. These motors are extremely compact, occupying a third less space than asynchronous motors, and the use of magnets, which create the


freight railroads
Washington Marriott Hotel • Washington, D.C.

passenger trains on
October 19-20, 2009
Joseph C. Szabo Federal Railroad Administrator

Sixteenth Annual Conference

A two-day conference devoted to developing common ground among passenger and freight rail interests.
North America’s freight rail system plays host to a growing network of regional, intercity, and light rail passenger services. Passenger and freight rail interests must deal with issues of compensation, liability, grade crossing safety, signaling and train control requirements, capacity constraints, and maintaining the integrity of freight service. Finding common ground can be problematic. These issues have taken on greater significance with the Obama Administration’s focus on passenger rail development and high speed services.

Matt Rose, BNSF

Conference topics
tapping the experts for solutions to challenging problems • Passenger growth on freight rail: How soon and how much? • Higher speed or high speed rail: should we jog before we run? • should liability laws be changed? • Passenger/freight cost sharing • Lessons learned from the european high speed experience

Chairman, President and CEO, BNSF Keynote Address

Joseph H. Boardman President and CEO, Amtrak

presented by

Monday, October 19 Registration Continental Breakfast sponsored by Veolia Transportation Keynote Address Matt Rose, Chairman, President and CEO, BNSF Railway New Challenges for Freight Railroads Moderator: William C. Vantuono, Editor, Railway Age Panelists: Jay Westbrook, AVP-Passenger and Commuter Operations, CSX; H. Craig Lewis, VP, Corporate Affairs, Norfolk Southern; DJ Mitchell, AVP-Passenger Operations, BNSF; Tom Mulligan, Director-Passenger Operations, Union Pacific Coffee Break sponsored by Oliver Wyman High(er) Speed Rail: How Soon? Moderator and Speaker: Al Engel, VP and High-Speed Rail Director, AECOM Panelists: David Carol, Market Leader, High Speed Rail, Parsons Brinckerhoff; Kevin Sheys, K&L Gates LLP; Pete Sklannik, Senior Manager, Planning & Special Projects, Parsons Brinckerhoff; Roelof van Ark, Vice President-North America, Alstom Transport Luncheon co-sponsored by Norfolk Southern and HNTB Corp. Guest speaker: Joseph Szabo, Federal Railroad Administrator Cocktail Reception sponsored by Herzog Transit Services, Inc. Tuesday, October 20 Continental Breakfast sponsored by Parsons Brinckerhoff Keynote Address Joseph Boardman, President and CEO, Amtrak Freight Trains on Passenger Railroads Moderator: Roy Blanchard, Principal, The Blanchard Company Panelists: Paul Vilter, AVP Host Railroads, Amtrak; Josh Putterman, Vice President, Operating Strategy, RailAmerica; Reilly McCarren, Chairman, Arkansas & Missouri Railroad New Directions in Rail Safety Moderator: Jim Michel, Senior Program Manager-Railroads, HNTB Corporation Panelists: Michael Long, Deputy Regional Administrator, FRA; additional panelists TBA Energy Break sponsored by HDR Program TBA A Change in Liability Law? Tim Gillespie, Independent Consultant; Bill Newman, VP-Government Relations, Conrail (retired). Panelists from AAR and APTA TBA FRA Non-Compliant Vehicles: Operational and Safety Challenges Paul Stangas, Director-Systems Engineering & Design, New Starts Projects, NJ Transit; Al Fazio, General Manager, Services, Bombardier Transportation North America Luncheon co-sponsored by Amtrak and CSX Transportation Presentation of Railway Age’s W. Graham Claytor Jr. Award for Distinguished Service to Passenger Transportation The European High Speed Rail Experience Kevin Foy, MultiModal Practice, Oliver Wyman Passenger and Freight Cost Sharing in the United Kingdom John Tunna, AVP Passenger Rail, TTCI How it All Comes Together: Thinking Intermodally Gil Carmichael, Founding Member, University of Denver Intermodal Transportation Institute Adjourn Speaker Gifts sponsored by B&I Transportation Online Conference Proceedings sponsored by AllRail, Inc. Name Tag Lanyards sponsored by RailComm Delegate Gifts sponsored by Bombardier Transportation Pens sponsored by Alstom Transport Program subject to change/augmentation Coffee Break sponsored by PTMW, Inc. Capitol Corridor Chapter X: Building On-Time Reliability Gene Skoropowski, Managing Director, Capitol Corridor Joint Powers Authority

CONFERENCE FEE AND HOTEL: The registration fee for Passenger Trains on Freight Railroads is $825, which includes admission to all conference sessions, conference documentation containing all available proceedings, and social events. The Washington Marriott Hotel has set aside a block of rooms at $259 single/ double for conference attendees. These will be held until 30 days prior to the conference; those reserving after that date will rely upon room availability. We suggest that you contact the hotel directly at (202) 872-1500 for room reservations (mention group code “Railway Age”). You will receive room confirmation directly from the Washington Marriott Hotel. CANCELLATION POLICY: Confirmed registrants who cancel less than one week prior to the conference are subject to a $250 service charge. Registrants who fail to attend are liable for the entire fee unless they notify Railway Age in writing prior to the conference.

Co n f e r e n C e r e g i s t r at i o n f o r m
Please register me for the PASSENGER TRAINS ON FREIGHT RAILROADS CONFERENCE, Washington, D.C., Oct. 19-20, 2009. Registration fee is $825 per participant, payable in advance. [ ] Check enclosed (Payable to Railway Age) [ ] Bill my company Charge my [ ] Bill me [ ] MasterCard [ ] Visa [ ] Amex


Name ____________________________________________________ _ Title _____________________________________________________ _ Company ________________________________________________ _ Address _________________________________________________ _ City ___________________________ State ______ Zip_____________ Telephone _____________________ Fax _______________________ Email ______________________________________________________ Please send this completed form, or a photocopy, with your payment to: Jane Poterala, Conference Director Railway Age, 345 Hudson St., 12th Flr. New York, NY 10014 T: (212) 620-7209 | F: (212) 633-1165 |

Card expires__________ / _________ Account number ____________________________________________ Signature __________________________________________________ Cardholder name ___________________________________________ Billing address for card ______________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ Email receipt to _____________________________________________

magnetic field for the motor to function, makes them more energy efficient than their predecessors. The test train is equipped to operate on all four power systems commonly found in Europe—1.5kV d.c., 3kV d.c., 15kV a.c. and 25kV a.c. AGV has already been extensively tested on all of these systems except 15kV a.c., and Alstom is now focusing on achieving optimum performance under the 3kV d.c. and 25kV a.c. systems used in Italy. Particular attention is being given to the interface between the contact wire and the pantograph at this stage. The pantographs are situated on either side of the connection between the driving vehicle and the center vehicle of each triplet, meaning they are particularly exposed to turbulence from the nose of the train. Roof-mounted cameras have been installed to observe the behavior of the pantograph. The prototype train is also equipped with the Italian software package, and drivers cabs carry screens for the Italian SCMT signaling system for operation on the conventional network as well as the European Rail Traffic Management System (ERTMS) is used on high speed lines. AGV will make its debut in 2011 with Nuevo Trasporto Viaggiatori (NTV), the world’s first open-access high speed train operator. NTV is investing $1.26 billion in its high speed services, which will operate from Turin, Milan, and Venice in the north to Naples, Salerno, and Bari in the south, with an hourly service on the core Milan-Bologna-Rome-Naples corridor. NTV’s fleet of 25 11-car AGV trains is being funded through a 12-year leasing contract, and Alstom will maintain the trains for 30 years. Assembly NTV’s first production vehicle was completed in July at La Rochelle, where the first two production trains will be assembled, with the first being delivered next year. The remaining 23 will be assembled at Alstom’s Savigliano site in Italy. A contract was also signed in June for construction of a $126 million maintenance depot at Nola, near Naples.





Incremental HSR

Hot trains, cold calculations
By Tom Judge, Engineering Editor


edicated (“true”) high speed or incremental (“higher ture using a typical 2007 cost day. The totals shown in the table speed”) using existing rights-of-way? With the exception on this page are cost per mile in a warm, damp climate within a of California, most proposed HSR projects around the 15-MGT-density range. Costs will be higher for FRA Class 5 nation are of the latter variety. The Obama Administration is (80 mph freight/90 mph passenger) and Class 6 (110 mph) providing funds for HSR projects, and states are scrambling to track because of tighter geometry and engineering tolerances, get a share of those billions (p. 18). How can realistic mainte- and because of projected higher 2010 material and labor prices. nance costs for incremental projects be ZETA-TECH prepared a case study determined? How much per-mile cost is using the Midwest Regional Rail Initiative Standard maintenance too much? (MWRRI). The MWRRI proposes a netcosts per mile of track ZETA-TECH Associates, Inc., under work of routes linking Chicago with other contract to the Federal Railroad AdminisMidwestern cities. The proposal calls for • Surfacing $7,000 tration, has been developing HSR costing 16 to 60 passenger trains per day—far • Rail & welding 3,600 methods for several years, using the folfewer trains than in the Northeast Corri• Ties 3,500 lowing guidelines: dor—but MWRRI routes would have any• Switch & road • Use numerical figures as much as poswhere from 6 to perhaps 35 or more crossing ties 13,000 sible, rather than mathematical symbols. freight trains on some of the suggested • Ballast 900 • Start with known wear-and-tear and HSR route segments. The maximum pas• Drainage, brush and weeds 10,800 fatigue metrics. senger speed will be 110 mph, with • Track inspection 2,400 • Consider using the continuing cost of freight at less than 70 mph. • Vehicles 6,200 upkeep as a “steady-state” shared cost. What are the likely resulting shared • Overheads 12,600 ZETA-TECH developed some exammaintenance costs per mile? “ZETA• Total $60,000 ples of a steady-state maintenance program TECH estimated costs are allocated in based on regional passenger rail infrastructwo ways,” says Director-Economics,


Operations, and Strategic Planning Jim Blaze. “First, we used a work unit model. This calculates quantities of maintenance activity as a function of various operating parameters, and then assigns a cost per work unit. Next, we used a bottom-up analysis construct. This process builds track maintenance costs up and uses the quantities of workers and materials required. We developed this model with HNTB. Both methods include m/w operating expenses and cyclic capital costs such as regular renewal of rail, ties, ballast, and so on.” The work unit model was developed in cooperation with BNSF. It calculates work unit costs for each track segment as a function of: • Track-miles (main, branch, siding, yard). • Miles of curves, by severity. • Traffic, both annual MGT and number of trains. • Number of turnouts, diamonds, and highway crossings. • CWR (continuous welded rail) mileage. • Rail defects per mile, TQI (Track Quality Index). • Climate and accessibility. The bottom-up cost calculation uses Amtrak maintenance practices and standards. It sums up costs from the number of workers and quantities of materials. “ZETA-TECH estimated the likely costs and the likely cost allocations for the MWRRI high speed passenger network,” Blaze notes. “We calculated annual per-mile maintenance costs for several scenarios. The work was undertaken for the FRA. We calculated the allocation of those costs for three strategic operating scenarios using engineering maintenance models and a special allocation model called TrackShare™. The allocation used several traffic densities on each of three scenarios between less than 5 MGT and greater than 30 MGT annual density.” Table 1 (opposite page), “Four key variables for allocation,” summarizes important variables. Blaze points out this is a shortened 3x4 matrix version. The actual results cover a 9x9 matrix of 81 cells. “To simplify, let’s reduce this to an examination of just two track density and track class allocation case studies, using the top and bottom section,” he says. “Detailed likely costs at an 80% freight/20% passenger train mix are reflected in Table 2. These numbers are the minimum expected cost per track-mile using 2003 prices.” (ZETA-TECH does have a process for substituting current 2009 or projected-year prices.) Table 3 shows the maximum costs expected at 80% freight and 20% passenger trains with four different traffic density groups. What if there were 80% passenger trains on the line? Table 4 shows the minimum expected cost per track-mile using 2003 prices; Table 5 shows the maximum expected cost per track-mile, again using 2003 prices. Because there are so many passenger trains in this scenario, there is less traffic density on such tracks as the paths available for freight trains would be much less with such intensive passenger train use. “Now, maintenance costs for sharing high speed and moder-




Incremental HSR m/w cost calculations
Table 1: Four key variables for allocation
Annual tonnage Traffic mix <5 MGT 80% freight 20% passenger 5 -15 MGT Equal 15- 30 MGT 80% passenger 20% freight Curvature Light Moderate Severe FRA Class Class 4 Class 5 Class 6

Table 2: Minimum expected cost per track-mile, 80% freight/20% passenger
FRA Class <5 MGT 4 $27, 107 5 $19,846 6 $33,808 5-15 MGT 15-30 MGT $32,107 $43,460 $35, 523 $48,484 $40,662 $55,807 >30 MGT $63,136 $71,442 $83,442

Table 3: Maximum expected cost per track-mile, 80% freight/20% passenger
FRA Class <5 MGT 4 $39,362 5 $43,255 6 $49,184 5-15 MGT 15-30 MGT $49,283 $69,464 $54,323 $76,619 $62,253 $87,856 >30 MGT $102,356 $114,189 $132,603

Table 4: Minimum expected cost per track-mile, 80% passenger/20% freight
FRA Class <5 MGT 4 $32, 691 5 $35,537 6 $38,612 5-15 MGT 15-30 MGT $48,955 * $54,049 * $60,319 * >30 MGT * * *

Table 5: Maximum expected cost per track-mile, 80% passenger/20% freight
FRA Class <5 MGT 4 $47,909 5 $51,650 6 $56,497 5-15 MGT 15-30 MGT $74,677 * $82,421 * $82,006 * >30 MGT * * *

ate high speed track can be estimated ahead of time based upon this detailed 2004 study,” Blaze says. “These maintenance costs have to be adjusted to reflect 2009 prices of materials and labor and projected into future-year operating expenses.” New-construction or upgrade costs can also be estimated using other models. ZETA-TECH expects that all new construction of an FRA Class 5 or 6 track parallel to an existing slower speed freight track would price out at a broad range of $3.5 million to $8 million per mile to build. The higher costs reflect allowances for track flyovers and crossing protection being added for a new set of parallel tracks above FRA Class 4. ZETA-TECH concludes that it is practical for freight and higher speed passenger trains to continue to share rights-of-way in the U.S. As illustrated here, the cost of shared trackage can be calculated using relatively inexpensive models like TrackShare™ to set equitable cost sharing for the much more track-intensive RA high speed trainsets.


Shades of green
There’s more than one way to tame a diesel engine to meet the EPA’s increasingly strict emissions rules.
By William C. Vantuono, Editor


ailroads may be the most environmentally benign transportation mode, but they still face serious emissions compliance challenges. It wasn’t too long ago that locomotive builders and diesel engine manufacturers cleared a relatively large hurdle, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Tier 2 standards. Now, the stricter Tier 3 is looming, and Tier 4 will soon follow. Tier 3 is effective for locomotives manufactured in 2012; Tier 4 is effective in 2015. Tier 3 standards for new locomotives, like previous standards, will most likely to be met by engine modifications and adjustments. Tier 4, however, will require specialized—and costly— equipment, some of which will decrease fuel efficiency. The “green” lingo that not all that long ago seemed foreign to railroads has, like communications and signals, added more acronyms to the industry’s vocabulary: PM (particulate matter), NOx (nitrogen oxide), SCR (selective catalytic reduction), DPF (diesel particulate filter), AECD (auxiliary emissions control

device), CO (carbon dioxide), and HC (unburned hydrocarbons) are now part of everyday locomotive language. There are numerous ways to get to the brightest shade of green, and building compliant equipment boils down to choices—and tradeoffs. The most challenging is the tradeoff between NOx and PM. “Tune for one, or cleanup for the other?” says Electro-Motive Diesel Manager-Emissions Compliance David Brann. Advancing ignition timing, though it improves fuel economy and lowers PM due to better combustion efficiency, increases NOx levels. Retarding ignition drops NOx, but raises PM as combustion efficiency and fuel economy suffer. The industry’s principal locomotive builders and engine manufacturers—EMD, GE Transportation, National Railway Equipment Company, MotivePower division of Wabtec. R.J. Corman RailPower, Brookville, Cummins, Caterpillar, Detroit Diesel— are searching for middle ground. Tier 4 is intended to force after-treatment, as it requires a



Every Track
With over 13,000 rail engines in operation worldwide and a product range from 60-3300hp Cummins has the experience and technology to provide the right engine for your installation. The latest addition to the range is the QSK50. Its 50 liter V16 configuration delivers clean power with exceptional durability, reliability and low life cycle costs, making it the perfect choice for Ultra Low Emission Locomotives. Its proven power cylinder, one-piece cast iron block, heavy duty crankshaft and connecting rods provide a long life to overhaul of up to 875,000 gallons of fuel burned, with no mid-life overhaul required. The QSK50 is available from 1800–2000hp for line-haul locomotive and switcher applications, with EPA Tier 2 and CARB ULEL certifications. Get Cummins power working for you!

Cummins Inc., Box 3005, Columbus, IN 47202-3005, USA Tel: 1-800-DIESELS (1-800-343-7357) Email:

Innovation you can depend on


GE Transportation’s Trip Optimizer fuel management system works much like cruise control on an automobile. It’s described as an energy management system that optimizes fuel consumption. It uses GPS, a digital track database, and track algorithms that automatically learn the train’s characteristics. It calculates a fueloptimal speed profile for the trip and then automatically controls the throttle to maintain that planned speed. Train crews retain responsibility for safe operation of the train and can engage or disengage the system at any time.

90% reduction in NOx and a 93% reduction in PM from uncontrolled levels. PM can be cleaned through use of a DPF, and NOx can be lowered with an SCR, but here again there are tradeoffs. “There’s not a lot of real estate on board a locomotive for extra equipment,” according to R.J. Corman Railpower Vice President-Locomotives Mitch Gillispie. DPFs and SCRs take up extra space, and have unique maintenance requirements, he notes. Favoring optimized combustion requires an SCR, which doesn’t require maintenance—but does require replacement. A DPF, which uses a substrate material to absorb PM, is selfcleaning, but only to a certain degree. For high-horsepower road locomotives equipped with a large diesel engine, a DPF can be a massive, clumsy piece of equipment, but an SCR scales up better for a large engine. “It’s like squeezing Jello in your hand,” says Gillispie. “All combustion byproducts have to go somewhere.” As with Tier 2, Tiers 3 and 4 “will require most locomotives to meet standards on a long-haul line-haul cycle that emphasizes high-load operation, and a switch cycle that emphasizes idle and low-load operation,” says David Brann. 30

“Switching operations and emissions of line-haul locomotives in yards and congested areas are included.” Some of the EPA’s rulings may need continual adjustment. For example, an AECD equipped with GPS can automatically adjust ignition timing as a locomotive enters or leaves territories with varying local emissions standards, but the EPA is being rather strict with how this device is deployed. BNSF and Union Pacific have an EPA-certified memorandum of understanding with the California Air Resources Board that permits them to operate AECD-equipped EMD and GE road locomotives in California’s South Coast (Los Angeles) Air Basin. However, the EPA has so far refused to grant a certificate for AECD-equipped locomotives to operate into Mexico, which has no emissions standards. EMD and GE have filed comments with the EPA requesting this be changed. One newer EPA requirement is that all locomotives complying with Tiers 3 and 4 be equipped with idle reduction devices, either when new or before they are placed back into service after an overhaul. Engines must be shut down after a maximum 30 minutes idling, and can be restarted only to protect the engine, keep


batteries charged or compressed air supplies up, or to accommodate crew comfort or safety. Equipment that does this, along with the means to continuously monitor performance, is available from companies like Hotstart® Manufacturing, ZTR, LatLon, Railhead, and Wi-Tronix. These suppliers and others have been able to combine their technologies. The development of genset (or “engine-dominant hybrid”) locomotives offered by NREC, MotivePower, and Railpower, and rebuild/upgrade products like EMD’s 710ECO™ Repower, are rapidly changing the locomotive landscape. Engine manufacturers like Caterpillar and Cummins have been able to expand their rail industry offerings. For example, Cummins has certified its new, 16-cylinder, 50-litre QSK50 locomotive engine to meet U.S. EPA 40CFR Part 1033 Tier 2 and European Union Stage IIIA rules. “The engine achieves the required line-haul composite NOx of 4.0g/hp-hr and is recognized by CARB as a ULEL (ultra-low-emissions locomotive) engine,” says Cummins Rail Business Marketing Director Chris Riley. “Our MRCS (Modular Common Rail System), Quantum electronics, and advanced combustion expertise have been utilized on the QSK50 to meet these emissions levels. The QSK50 builds on the success of the Cummins QSK19 in ULEL applications and is an excellent choice for railroads that need a 2,000-hp, single engine, low-emissions locomotive.” The V-16, 50-liter QSK engine features ratings from 1,800-2,000 hp for line-haul locomotive and switcher applications and provides “over 45% reduction in NOx compared to Tier 1,” says Riley. “It uses the same power cylinder and fuel system as the 700-hp inline-6 QSK19 and the 1,500-horsepower V-12 QSK38. The MCRS fuel system maintains high injection pressures regardless of engine speed, for exceptional performance at every rpm, raising fuel economy and lowering operating costs, all while providing improved response and load pickup with lower noise and vibration compared to competitive unit injection-style systems. Quantum electronics offers programmable features that optimize engine performance to specific duty cycles and job requirements, provide continuous monitoring of engine conditions, and adjust for peak operation.”

Save fuel, lower emissions
An optimally running diesel engine will conserve fuel and, by extension, reduce emissions. Operating a locomotive optimally can do the same, and a host of systems to assist locomotive engineers with “hitting that sweet spot,” like New York Air Brake’s LEADER, have been developed. One of the newest technologies is GE Transportation’s Trip Optimizer fuel management system, described by Product Manager David Eldredge as a cruise control system (much like that in an automobile or aircraft, where the operator is always in complete control) for a locomotive. Trip Optimizer, a product of 32

Ecoimgination SM, is described as “an advanced energy management system that optimizes fuel consumption based on a specific train’s makeup and route.” It uses GPS, a digital track database, and advanced track algorithms that automatically learn the train’s characteristics throughout the trip. It evaluates train length, weight, grade, track conditions, weather, and locomotive performance “to calculate the most efficient way of running the train while maintaining smooth train handling. It calculates a fuel-optimal speed profile for the trip and then automatically controls the throttle to maintain that planned speed. Train crews retain responsibility for safe operation of the train and can engage or disengage the system at any time.” Trip Optimizer can be deployed on Evolution Series locomotives as a turnkey system, and can be combined with GE LOCOTROL® Distributed Power. “There’s lots of energy to be saved,” says Eldredge. “Fuel savings has a direct correlation to reduced emissions.” Besides long-haul running, Trip Optimizer can be used in applications like slow-speed control at a mine, for loading freight cars. GE tested Trip Optimizer on 19 Canadian Pacific GE Evolution® Series locomotives in three subdivisions with significantly different geographical characteristics. Revenue-service tests showed fuel savings ranging from 6% to 10%, depending on territory. GE is now equipping 200 CP locomotives. Here’s an unusual way to conserve fuel and cut down on emissions: Change your light bulbs—not the headlamps, but the 17 or so incandescent bulbs found on a locomotive carbody (interior general purpose, marker boards, step lights)— with LEDs. Railhead’s Locomotive LED Bulbs, which have a 50,000-hour life expectancy, run on 4 watts instead of 50, lowering the electrical load on the locomotive, thus reducing fuel consumption and emissions. Railhead’s Tom Poulsen estimates that, a fuel cost savings of $1,400 to $4,000 annually per locomotive is possible. For large railroads like UP, NS, CSX, and BNSF, which can each burn through up to a quarter-million incandescent bulbs annually, the potential carbon footRA print reduction is huge.



Seminar series benefits Web customers


How GE Capital-Rail Services uses technology to assist customers with service and utilization issues.
plex railcar fleet; controlling maintenance costs; and improving railcar utilization. Among the topics: • Railcar Basics: providing overviews on general car types (hoppers), most common components needing repair, and typical preventative maintenance areas. • Maintenance Management Strategies: making sense out of data, trending costs, and developing improved maintenance practices. • Industry Changes, including ATSI (The Association of American Railroads’ Advanced Technology Safety Initiative). • Shop Talk: shop selection and factors affecting shop cycle time. Each session is 50 minutes in length, including the presentation and time for questions and answers. GE Rail Services President and CEO Joe Lattanzio says the

n the present challenging economic environment, where business travel has been curtailed, GE Capital-Rail Services “is opening its doors virtually to customers across North America,” according to Communications Leader Farrah Aper. “In past years, traditional shop open houses were hosted, enabling customers to network among industry professionals, share best practices, and tour maintenance facilities. This year, we’ve been leveraging virtual web technology through a new webinar series, ‘Managing Your Rail Fleet Through Tough Times.’” GE says its primary goal is to help customers identify their railcar fleet problems and better understand what can be done to solve them. Prior to the program’s March 2009 launch, GE surveyed customers about their current needs and problems. Three key themes emerged from the results: managing a highly com34


GE Capital-Rail Services webinar topics include Railcar Basics, Maintenance Management Strategies, Industry Changes, and Shop Talk.
webinar series “is keeping customers in touch with GE’s approach to railcar fleet management and encouraging community engagement. The more someone understands the industry and its nuances, the more effective they are in adapting to the industry’s ever-changing environment. This is an excellent way for us to share our experiences and knowledge from managing one of the largest fleets in North America, and to learn from our customers about issues they confront in managing their own fleets.” GE, however, will continue to support personalized shop visits upon customer request. Executive Vice President-Customer Operations Sameer Gaur says the webinars, described as “value-added virtual face time,” “help us to identify key customer touch points and to better understand concerns.” Adds Executive Vice President-Sales and Services Kareen Gray, “The webinars have provided our team with a deeper understanding of the unique challenges faced by our customers and help us to develop creative solutions.” GE says customers are finding the webinars useful. • Nova Chemical: “We are all managing the same issues, and the webinars help us to benchmark internally and confirm we are doing the right things.” • Sunoco: “Both thorough and simple to follow, the GE Rail Services webinars continue to be a good source of information for veteran and novice rail shippers. GE provides industry specific information during each seminar while making it simple and interesting to follow. Also, the webinars allow for more convenience during the day, both on time and on travel. We look forward to attending more webinars in the future.” • Evonik Degussa: “These days we are getting more involved with the day-to-day operations of fleet management, as companies cut back and our fleets get bigger. Ten years ago, fleet managers would focus solely on negotiating rates; today we are explaining how to use the cars, ordering parts, and auditing repair bills. The webinars are a great complement to the Sayre Shop events (opposite page) we have attended in the past. They make it easier for us to manage our fleets.” For additional information, go to or email to register for a session. Editor’s note: This story originally appeared in the July issue under the headline “,” which is an automotive RA industry website. We reprint it here for clarification.




Multiple-unit vs. locomotive-hauled
To the Editor: Your article in the June issue (p. 17) is an important consideration for passenger railroads. I have been involved in analyzing this subject periodically over the past 40 years and would like to share a few comments that support some of the comments made in the article and may help to quantify comparisons. Multiple-unit consists, in some operating scenarios, will provide shorter station-to-station times and allow closer headways than will locomotive-hauled consists. The underlying mechanics that result in such performance comparisons are tractive effort per pound of train weight and horsepower per ton of train weight. Shorter trip times may be achieved with MU consists most significantly at relatively short station spacings—less than 10 miles and especially at less than three miles—by reducing the time to reach maximum speed. At the lower speeds, this acceleration may be limited by available adhesion at the wheel/rail interface or possibly by other factors such as propulsion system limits. So if adhesion is limited, the more axles powered the higher the low-speed acceleration. At higher speeds, available horsepower at the rail limits available accelerating force. The higher the speed the lower the force, since horsepower is proportional to force times velocity. So depending on the maximum number of cars to be powered by one locomotive, and the comparative horsepowers per ton of MU and locomotive-hauled consists, one will accelerate better than the other at the higher speeds. Potentially shorter headways with MU consists are a result of reducing the time for the leading train out of the station to achieve the distance necessary to allow the following train out of the station to depart. I agree that life cycle cost and operational considerations are important, as mentioned in the article. For example, the maximum number of cars to be powered by a single locomotive should be part of such a comparative evaluation. Diesel MUs, if used exclusively in a consist, can achieve performance similar to electric MU consists in performancechallenging situations. DMU engine load rate may limit acceleration at low speeds as compared to that of EMU consists. Phil Strong, Rail Vehicle Consultant PS Consulting; Mastic Beach, N.Y.

“If We Say We’ll Do It, We’ll Do It.”
Where we live, a man’s word is gold. When we promised the industry that we’d develop the best all-around applications for plugging spike holes and repairing rail seat abrasion on concrete ties, we kept our promise. We are the industry leader in providing innovative new wood and concrete tie remediation products and application systems for today’s railroads. Our products are the solution of choice for Burlington Northern Santa Fe, Canadian National, Canadian Pacific, CSXT and Norfolk Southern. Call us today or visit our website: 800.333.9826 •




Hill International promoted Thomas J. Spearing III to President of Hill’s Project Management Group (Americas), Marlton, N.J.. Previously, he was Hill’s SVP and Chief Strategy Officer. Spearing Spearing will be Hill International responsible for all project management operations throughout the U.S. Spearing has 25 years of operational and business development experience in architecture, engineering, and construction management. Prior to rejoining Hill in 2007, he worked with STV Group, Inc. Before that, he spent 10 years with Hill, most recently as a Vice President. Spearing earned his B.B.A. in computer and information science from Temple University, his B.S. in construction management and his B.S. in civil engineering from Spring Garden College, and his M.S. in management from Rosemont College. Parsons Brinckerhoff has named Clifford Eby, former FRA Acting Administrator and Deputy Administrator, as Senior Vice President, Washington, D.C., with responsibility for strategic efforts in rail Eby Parsons Brinckerhoff and infrastructure markets, particularly high speed rail. Eby has over 36 years executive and engineering experience in the railroad industry, including safety, finance and economic regulatory practices, transportation policy, and infrastructure program design. Eby holds an M.B.A. in finance and investment from George Washington University and a B.S. in Civil Engineering from Lehigh University. Greg J. Nazarow was named a Vice President with Gannett Fleming. Nazarow serves as a senior rail operations analyst with Gannett Fleming Transit & Rail Systems, a division of Gannett Fleming specializing in transit and railroad track, signal, communication, and electric traction design. With more Nazarow Gannett Fleming than 17 years of related experience, Nazarow holds a bachelor of science in mechanical engineering from Tufts University and a master of business administration from Babson College. UNION PACIFIC—David Giandinoto appointed General Superintendent, Transportation Services for the Chicago Service Unit, replacing Rod Richardson, who moves to Superintendent, Intermodal Operations in Oakland, Calif., in turn replacing Terry Ryan, who is retiring. Kurt Zalar appointed General Superintendent, Transportation Services for the Denver Service Unit, replacing John Rourke, who also is retiring. Ruben Lopez replaces Zalar as Superintendent, Transportation Services for the Wichita Service Unit. John Huddleston has been promoted to Superintendent, Transportation Services for the Pocatello, Idaho, Service Unit, replacing Jeff Moore, who has been appointed to a position at UP’s Harriman Dispatching Center in Omaha.

September 16-18 RSI 2009 Expo. Chicago Hilton & Towers, Chicago. Amanda Trainor, (202) 347-4664; Email: Website: 2009.aspx. September 20-23 AREMA 2009 Annual Conference & Expo. Chicago Hilton & Towers, Chicago. AREMA Conference Department, (301) 459-3200, ext. 703; Website: September 23-24 AREMA Committee 2 Track Measuring Systems Fall Meeting Hilton Chicago, Chicago, Ill. Denis Zilmer, (763) 478-2282; Email: September 23-24 2009 Ohio Conference on Freight Toledo Hilton Hotel, Toledo, Ohio. Warren Henry, (419) 241-9155, ext. 129; Email:; Website: October 4-7 APTA Annual Meeting. Orlando, Fla. (202) 496-4800. Email:; Website: _calendar. October 19-20 Railway Age's 16th Annual Passenger Trains on Freight Railroads Conference. Washington Marriott, Washington, D.C. Jane Poterala, (212) 620-7209. Email:; Website: October 20-21 ASME RTD 2009 Fall Technical Conference. Renaissance Worthington Hotel, Fort Worth, Tex. Steven L. Dedmon, (717) 242-4972; Fax: ( (717) 242-4680; Email:; Website: October 27-29 Railroad Environmental Conference 2009, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Kim Hagemann, (217) 244-0841; Email: hagemann at; Website: overview.asp. October 30-November 1 Rail-Volution 2009. Marriott Waterfront Hotel, Boston, Mass. (800) 788-7077; Email:; Website:

Atlantic Track & Turnout Co. said Thomas R. Jones will retire after 40 years of service and 50 years in the railroad industry, effective Dec. 31. Chicago Freight Car Leasing named Jim Kennedy a sales director. HAX Technologies has appointed Glen Dargy to VP-Product Development. He most recently served as project director and principal engineer with Wabtec Railway Electronics. Hirschmann Automation and Control, Inc. named Cleveland Parker managing director of the ECS Division for the Americas. Mitsui Rail Capital, LLC named Scott Carroll director of sales and marketing for the southwestern U.S. and Mexico, based in Cincinnati. Morton Manufacturing Co. promoted Michael K. Ogden to president from executive VP. Veolia Transportation named Donald Saunders chief operating officer of the Rail Division.


(AUGUST 1909) Detroit River Tunnel Locomotive
A series of acceptance tests have been completed recently by the General Electric Co. and the Detroit River Tunnel Co., jointly, upon electric locomotive No. 7500—the first of six locomotives to be operated by the Michigan Central in the tunnel under the Detroit River. The electrical equipment, the most powerful ever designed for operation by direct current, was built and installed by the General Electric Co. The mechanical equipment is the product of the Schenectady works of the American Locomotive Co.

Edward H. Gold, 95, who spent 34 years with The Kerite Co., 1946-1980, died July 3.




Reader Referral Service
This section has been created solely for the convenience of our readers to facilitate immediate contact with the RAILWAY AGE advertisers in this issue.

Index of Advertisers


Phone #


Email address

Page #

AREMA Balfour Beatty Rail, Inc. Cummins Cyclonaire Corp. Danella Rental Systems Gross & Janes Co. Helm Financial Corp. Interstate Diesel Service Kim Hotstart LTK Engineering Services MIRATECH Corporation NORDCO ORX Pandrol USA, Inc. Penn Machine Co. RBT Services RailComm, Inc. Railpower Technologies Corp. Railquip, Inc. Railway Educational Bureau, The Railworks Star Headlight & Lantern Sterling Auction Services, LLC. TranSystems Corp. Vossloh Group Western-Cullen-Hayes, Inc. Willamette Valley Co.

301-459-3200 888-250-5746 +44 1325 556251 402-362-2000 610-828-6200 636-343-8484 415-398-4510, ext. 347 800-321-4234 509-536-8667 215-641-8826 918-933-6263 414-766-2180 814-684-8484 800-221-CLIP 412-279-4460 270-763-6649 585-377-3360 814-835-2212, ext. 203 770-458-4157 402-346-4300 866-905-7245 585-226-9500 210-545-3600 312-669-9601 00 49 239 252 273 773-254-9600 541-484-9621

301-459-8077 904-378-7298 — 402-362-2001 610-828-2260 636-343-9793 415-398-4816 216-881-0805 509-534-4216 215-540-8627 918-622-3928 414-766-2379 814-684-8400 856-467-2994 412-279-4465 270-763-6653 585-377-3341 814-836-2908 770-458-5365 402-346-1783 952-469-1926 585-226-2029 210-545-3610 312-669-9606 00 49 239 252 274 773-254-1110 541-284-2096 andreas.skiadopoulos@cummins.com29

24 27

10 9 7 12 32 31 33 33 35 C4 20 30 17 11 C2 19 C3 26 24 5 16 2 12 36

The Advertisers Index is an editorial feature maintained for the convenience of readers. It is not part of the advertiser contract and Railway Age assumes no responsibility for the correctness.

Advertising Sales
Robert P. DeMarco 345 Hudson St., 12th Floor New York, NY 10014 (212) 620-7244 Fax: (212) 633-1863

Mark Connolly 345 Hudson St., 12th Floor New York, NY 10014 (212) 620-7260 Fax: (212) 633-1863

Benn Wood Suite K5 & K6 The Priory, Syresham Gardens Haywards Heath, RH16 3LB United Kingdom Tel: +44-1444-416368 Fax: +44-1444-458185

Katsuhiro Ishii Ace Media Service, Inc. 12-6 4-Chome Nishiiko, Adachi-Ku Tokyo 121-0824 Japan +81-3-5691-3335 Fax: +81-3-5691-3336

George S. Sokulski George S. Sokulski Associate Publisher 20 South Clark Street Suite 2450 Chicago, IL 60603 (312) 683-5025 Fax: (312) 683-0131

Donna Edwards Suite K5 & K6 The Priory, Syresham Gardens Haywards Heath, RH16 3LB United Kingdom Tel: +44-1444-416368 Fax: +44-1444-458185

Diane Okon 20 South Clark Street Suite 2450 Chicago, IL 60603 (312) 683-5022 Fax: (312) 683-0131

Dr. Fabio Potesta Media Point & Communications SRL Corte Lambruschini Corso Buenos Aires 8 V Piano, Int 9 16129 Genoa, Italy +39-10-570-4948 Fax: +39-10-553-0088

AK, AZ, CA, CO, IA, ID, IL, KS, MN, MO, MT, NE, NM, ND, NV, OR, SD, UT, WA, WI, WY, Canada – AB, BC, MB, SK
Heather Disabato 20 South Clark Street Suite 2450 Chicago, IL 60603 (312) 683-5026 Fax: (312) 683-0131

Jeff Sutley 345 Hudson St., 12th Floor New York, NY 10014 (212) 620-7233 Fax: (212) 633-1863




BEARINGS Brenco The Timken Company CAR HOISTS Macton Corp. Railquip, Inc.

DIGITAL VIDEO RECORDERS Railhead Corp. Safety Vision WABTEC DISPATCH SYSTEMS RailComm, Inc. WABTEC DRAFT GEARS, CUSHIONING DEVICES ASF-Keystone Progress Rail Services (FMI) Independent Draft Gear Miner Enterprises WABTEC ENCLOSURES PTMW, Inc. EXHIBITS AND TECHNICAL CONFERENCES Railway Supply Institute ELECTRICAL CONNECTORS WAGO Corp. FASTENERS Pandrol Stage 8 Locking Fasteners, Inc. FRA TEST COMPLIANCE & SCHEDULING 10East Corporation Business Intelligence Solutions FREIGHT CAR PARTS Aero Transportation Products Ellcon-National, Inc. FreightCar America Miner Enterprises Railway Supply Group Schaefer Equipment Co. A. Stucki Company WABTEC GRADE CROSSING SURFACES HiRail Corporation Rail-Way, Inc. Transpo Industries GRADE CROSSING WARNING SYSTEMS, GATE MECHANISMS Alstom Transport Information Solutions GE Transportation Systems Global Signaling Safetran Systems Corp. Union Switch & Signal Inc.
Western-Cullen-Hayes, Inc.

CAR MOVERS Central Manufacturing Railquip, Inc. C&S, TRAIN CONTROL 10East Corporation Business Intelligence Solutions Alcatel Transport Automation Solutions Alstom Transport Information Solutions GE Transportation Systems Global Signaling RailComm, Inc. Safetran Systems Corp. Siemens Transportation Systems WABTEC CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT Nebraska Machinery Co. Sales & Rentals CONTRACTORS RailWorks CONSULTING Banks R. L. & Associates Edwards and Kelcey HDR Engineering Jacobs Engineering Group Inc. Interfleet Technology LTD LTK Engineering Services Parsons Brinckerhoff Parsons Transportation Group Savage CANAC, Inc. STV, Inc. SYSTRA Consulting TranSystems Corporation Zeta-Tech Associates DAMPERS Vibratech/Enidine KONI Railway Sachs of America

INSURANCE Zurich North America LEASING CIT Rail Resources FCM Rail, Ltd. First Union Rail LOAD SECUREMENT SYSTEMS Holland Company Portec Rail Products, Inc. LOCOMOTIVE/CAR REPAIR EQUIPMENT Macton Corp. Portec Rail Products, Inc. Railquip, Inc. LOCOMOTIVE CONTROL SYSTEMS WABTEC ZTR Control Systems LOCOMOTIVE FUELING SYSTEMS Snyder Equipment Co. LOCOMOTIVE-HEATING SYSTEMS Kim Hotstart Mfg. LUBRICATION-RAIL/WHEEL Portec Rail Products, Inc. Rails Company LOCOMOTIVE SANDING SYSTEMS Cyclonaire Corp. Dynamic Air Inc. METAL FABRICATION PTMW, Inc. MONITORING DEVICES Lat-Lon LLC RailComm, Inc. WABTEC M/W EQUIPMENT-TRACK MAINTENANCE Harsco Track Technologies NORDCO Progress Rail Services Railquip, Inc. PAINT AND COATINGS Carboline PASSENGER CAR DOORS Advanced Structures Corp. PRECAST CONCRETE FOUNDATIONS Dixie Precast, Inc. RAILCAR & LOCOMOTIVE MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT Railquip, Inc.

RAILCAR & LOCOMOTIVE REPAIR PARTS Progress Rail Services WABTEC RAIL GRINDING Loram Maintenance of Way, Inc. RAIL-NEW AND RELAY A&K Railroad Materials, Inc. L.B. Foster Company RAIL & TRACKWORK Progress Rail Services REMOTE CONTROL Cattron-Theimeg, Inc. Control Chief Corp. RailComm, Inc. RETARDERS AAA Sales & Engineering SAFETY EQUIPMENT Aldon Company Railhead Corp. Safety Vision SCADA RailComm, Inc. SEATS Kustom Seating Unlimited, Inc. SHOCK & VIBRATIONS Vibratech/Enidine SIDE BEARINGS A. Stucki Company Miner Enterprises SPILL COLLECTION Syntechnics SWITCH HEATERS RailComm, Inc. Rails Company TOP-OF-RAIL FRICTION SOLUTIONS Friction Management Services, LLC Portec Rail Products, Inc. The Timken Company TRANSFER-, DROP-, TURNTABLES Macton Corp. Railquip, Inc. TURNOUTS & SPECIAL TRACKWORK A&K Railroad Materials, Inc. UNDERCUTTING–DITCHING EQUIPMENT Harsco Track Technologies Georgetown Rail Equipment (GREX) WHEELS Griffin Wheel

Hot links available at www.

List your website on this page. Contact Jeff Sutley, (212) 620-7233,


s r



All Major Credit Cards Accepted

Railway Age Classified Section • Diane Okon • 312-683-5022 •



STERLING AUCTION SERVICES, LLC has active Buyers and Sellers for all of your Locomotive and Railcar needs and transactions. Contact Robert Mertz at (210)-545-3600 Texas License #16399

Wanting to Purchase Wanting to purchase wheel shop equipment to include: 1 only 600 ton mount/demount press 1 only wheel boring machine (preferably c.n.c. controlled) 1 only axle turning lathe (preferably c.n.c. controlled) Wanting to Hire Diesel mechanic engineer with lots of experience to manage shop and customers. Request information and send resumes to: 2502 Elm Street, Regional Road 35, PO Box 670 STN B, Sudbury, Ontario, P3E 4R6 Physical Address: 1 Foundry Road, Sudbury, Ontario, P3A 4R7 Phone: 705.674.5626 • Fax: 705.566.0371 email:






Available For Lease

x 5,150 cu. ft. pressure differential (PD) covered hoppers. Food grade interior linings x 3,915 cu. ft. pressure differential (PD) covered hoppers. OK for cement, sand or any dry flowable commodity.
For additional information and pricing, please contact John Goodwin PHONE (605) 582-8318 FAX (605) 582-8304 E-MAIL

Texas Railcar Leasing, Co.
“You have finally crossed the right track”


Railcars Available for Lease
4650 CF Covered Hoppers Round Hatches 3500 CF Covered Hoppers Round Hatches 3018 CF Covered Hoppers Round Hatches 2931 CF Covered Hoppers Round Hatches 3500 CF Pressure Differential Hoppers (286k) 3000 CF Pressure Differential Hoppers 4000 CF Thrall Built Gondolas 3850 CF Rapid Discharge Open Top Hoppers 3600 CF Open Top Hoppers 33000 Gallon Pressure Cars, Storage Use Only 26800 Gallon General Purpose Tank Cars 61' 100 ton Bulkhead Flat cars Wanted for Purchase Any variety of Freight and Tank Car Portfolios Full Service & Net Leases Available • Mr. Lynn Hayungs • Tel: 956-630-2723 ext. 206

Texas Railcar Leasing Co.
3900 N. 10th, Suite 1080, McAllen, Texas 78501 •

Professional Railroad Placement Services, Inc. “Serving the Railroad industry Nationwide”

PO Box 1090 Plymouth, FL 32768 Phone (352) 385-2613 e-mail:

(713) 667-0406 FAX (713) 667-1651 Web address: Email:

EDNA A. RICE, President
6750 West Loop South Suite 735 Bellaire, Texas 77401-4111




will feature the most diverse and complete marketplace for Railroad Equipment and RR Assets of every description. Launches 4th quarter of 2009 A Service of Sterling Auction Services, LLC U.S. Contact: Robert Mertz +1 210 545 3600 Texas License #16399


Reidler Decal Corporation St. Clair, PA 17970 Fax: 570-429-1528
The Federal Railroad Administration's proposed new delineator configuration

Reidler can help you comply with the FRA ruling by offering prismatic reflective yellow delineators that meet their specifications.
• 4" x 150 fl Rolls (kiss-cut available) • 400 candlepower retroreflection • Application instructions provided

Give us a call at 800-628-7770 for more information
The Leader in Railroad Markings since 1926

Let us keep you on track at

Diesel Electric Services Inc.!
We are A.A.R. certified and located in Sudbury, Ontario. Let us look after your car fleet to avoid delays. We have on staff certified car men, electricians and mechanics all highly qualified in locomotive repairs of all types including mandatory inspections. We have locomotives for sale and lease and a direct access to any parts required. For your convenience, our facilities are accessed from C.N., C.P. and the O.V.R. main lines. If you have a problem with any rolling stock we have the capabilities to get you back on track! We are also looking to expand our staff and thus looking for a highly qualified diesel mechanic engineer with lots of experience to manage our shop and customers. Request information and send resumes to: 2502 Elm Street, Regional Road 35, PO Box 670 STN B, Sudbury, Ontario, P3E 4R6 Physical Address: 1 Foundry Road, Sudbury, Ontario, P3A 4R7 Phone: 705.674.5626 Fax: 705.566.0371 email: • Watco Transportation Services, a nationwide provider of short-line freight transportation, is seeking motivated and experienced people to join its team. POSITIONS INCLUDE Train and Engine Service, Maintenance of Way, Locomotive, Marketing and Management. All Watco Transportation positions include Railroad Retirement, Health/Dental benefits and 401k. To view a detailed list of all career opportunities with the Watco team please visit our website at and submit an online application. Equal Opportunity Employer




Roxtec Inc. ( is the world’s largest manufacturer of module based cable and pipe seals. We are currently seeking a sales professional to develop the Railway segment for Roxtec. This opportunity provides great benefits and a flexible work environment with a home office Requirements • 5 years experience calling on Rolling Stock companies, OEMs, Class 1 railroads, engineering firms, and transit authorities preferred • Minimum 3 years experience selling to engineering firms and OEMs required. • Experience working projects from design to construction • BS/BA degree • Excellent presentation skills and experience presenting to groups of 20 or more people Responsibilities • Develop Railway Industry business segment and increase revenue by securing design specifications with Transit Authorities, Rolling Stock manufacturers, Engineering Firms, and Class 1 Railroads. • Attend Railway events, trade shows, and sales meetings (both domestically and internationally as needed) • Travel required (60% of time) mostly domestic but international travel as needed • Work individually or in a team environment with National and Regional Managers and International Sales Managers as well. • Perform market research focusing on new business opportunities within the Railway Industry • Provide reports to Industrial Segment Manager including but not limited to information on Projects, Quotations, Sales Activities, and Industry Trends Fax: 918.362.0239 10127 E Admiral Place • Tulsa, OK 74116

ROXTEC – Sales Professional

Locomotive Division Manager
Responsible for expanding business with industrial & railroad locomotive repairs, servicing, & re-building projects. Experience with aftermarket parts vendors necessary. Individual should be able to identify used locomotives & components for purchase; and negotiate sales/leases of locomotives to end-user. Responsible for P/L & developing strategies to promote business.

Vice President/General Manager Florida Railroad Operations
Pinsly Railroad Company has an opening for a Vice President/General Manager of its three Florida short line railroads and a distribution service company. Position would be responsible for management of day-to-day operations for a growing shortline railroad and distribution service company as well as meeting strategic and operating goals. Position would also hold a seat on the Pinsly Railroad Company leadership team providing strategic goals and direction for the entire Pinsly organization. Experience should include a minimum of 10 years railroad executive management or general management leadership roles with P&L responsibility. Experience in trucking and warehousing industry a plus. Excellent benefit package. Send cover letter and resume to: Pinsly Railroad Company Attn: Angela L. Depalo, Human Resources Director 53 Southampton Road Westfield, MA 01085 Or e-mail to:

Chief Engineer – Corporate
Anacostia Rail Holdings is seeking a Chief Engineer – Corporate. The position will be responsible for company-wide engineering staff support and specific line management. Duties include supporting engineering safety programs, developing annual engineering budgets and special projects; engineering labor agreements; management of agreements with utilities, contractors, governmental entities, etc.; preparation/review of engineering plans/specifications; administration of documents pertaining to railroad-owned real estate. Frequent travel is required in this high visibility, corporate level position. The qualified candidate will possess at least five to ten years of management and supervisory experience with a railroad and/or railroad contracting firm, will be familiar with AREMA and FRA standards, have the ability to read and draft railroad engineering documents, possess good communication skills, and have the ability to comprehend written and oral instructions. A college degree in civil or mechanical engineering is strongly preferred. Competitive salary based on experience, excellent benefits and bonus potential. Mail resume to: Yuko Ishikawa Anacostia Rail Holdings, Inc. 53 W. Jackson Boulevard • Chicago, IL 60404 Fax to: 312-431-0828


short line/regionalperspective
Richard F. Timmons
President, American Short Line and Regional Railroad Association

Adapting to a changing railroad environment


o organization that prides itself on performance and measurable results can expect to grow and prosper without dedicated training—for employees, staff, and management, as well as the education of its customers. This is fundamental to team building as well as sound and profitable railroading. Of course, productivity is an important outcome as well, and one unquestioned benefit to any training program is that worker productivity significantly improves following training. With the passage of HR. 2095, the Railway Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (RSIA), the world of railroading as we have known and understood it for decades has changed. This is a more farreaching collection of changes than the Staggers Act of 1980. Staggers laid the foundation for the dramatic resurgence of freight railroads during the past 25 years, but the RSIA will have a much greater impact on a broader range of areas. With the new law comes a wave of regulatory requirements that compel significant changes from many of the current procedures now in place, as well as unprecedented new technologies and equipment to be phased in during the next several years. Other federal government policy and equipment developments unrelated to HR. 2095 also are under way. These momentous changes bring to railroad management serious issues related to preparing its work force for the future to insure employee safety and professionalism while on the job. The most effective and profitable organizations have traditionally embraced some form of structured employee training that focuses on worker education and skills to enhance knowledge, understanding, and the execution of job tasks to specified standards. The object, of course, is to make certain the employee is safe, productive, and well aware of required 44

performance standards while serving the long term interests of the company and its’ customers. However, for management, the balancing act of beneficial employee training while accepting costs and an absence during this training is a difficult tradeoff. The old on-the-job techniques are not going to do the job in this new era simply because much of what we are working with today is too new to rely on seasoned railroaders to cover all the bases. There is little question that the most successful

Training and continuing education are more important than ever.
process for educating and training a workforce is through dedicated instruction. This only succeeds, however, if senior management has employee development and competence as a priority, and invests the resources to pursue training programs that improve employee skills and professionalism. This training approach is not a one-shot concept, but a progressive yearin, year-out program for each employee aimed at steadily building worker expertise and mastery of his field. Today the railroad industry is beginning to capitalize on new educational technologies that make training our work force achievable without divorcing the employee from his job for an extended period of time. Online training modules prepared with short lines in mind are available that can prepare the employee for many of the job demands of the

future. Webinars now address specific aspects of the industry that need clarification or introduce wholly new subjects or equipment. Class I railroad schools provide the options of attendance or online training, and some sponsor specialized training at state-of-the-art facilities. A number of universities now offer railroad certificate or diploma programs that are structured for short stays at the university, a return to work followed a month later by another session at the university. Mobile training classes sponsored by the Class I railroads, ASLRRA, AREMA, and the FRA make available short, high-intensity programs across the country to get railroaders up to speed on the most current and important topics and procedures. A prime example of this is the wide range of bridge inspection and maintenance classes being provided in numerous forums in response to HR 2095. DVDs are now becoming an important component of training and can be shipped easily to railroads or individuals for their home station use. In recent months HazMat and Security DVDs have been provided to ASLRRA members. Excellent educational opportunities that are inexpensive and convenient are at hand for those managers that are committed to safety, competence, and professionalism for their workers. Training lays the foundation for the future and develops railroaders with the correct attitudes, knowledge, and skills to adapt to the changing workplace. Many visionary railroad leaders have committed to this progressive training approach. Now is the time for all of us in management to focus on employee professional development to meet the demands of the future. Editor’s note: Since 1909, SimmonsBoardman’s Railway Educational Bureau has been providing training courses and materials to the railroad industry. For more information, see

To find out more about how R can help you meet your rail transportation needs, visit

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful