Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
[quote user="ecoli"] [quote user="Bucyrus"] Why have the railroads not voluntarily adopted PTC prior to this current mandate?  Have they simply refused to invest in something that is necessary; or have they refused to invest because it is not necessary?  If it is the former explanation, does that mean that Congress knows more about the safety issues and need for PTC than the railroads do?  Or is Congress simply forcing something onto the railroad industry that is unnecessary? With something as big as the PTC mandate, there is an obvious commercial agenda of the PTC industry besides just preventing accidents.   I wonder if that agenda pushed Congress to force a mandate on the industry that is not necessary. <div style="clear:both;"></div> [/quote] It wouldn't be the first time safety had to be forced upon the railroad industry. Consider the air brake, which was opposed by management because it would cost money, and by labor because it would eliminate jobs. If only PTC were as ready for adoption as the air brake was. As for the theory that it's a conspiracy by the PTC industry in conjunction with the dad-burn gummint, compare the total revenues of the railroads versus the total expenditures expected to flow to PTC suppliers, and consider which side had more resources to devote to lobbying, had the two decided to do battle. If one likes railroads, then instead of looking for every possible reason why PTC is impractical, will fail, and shouldn't be required, one should be hoping that it will succeed and will be implemented in a fashion that improves productivity.[/quote] Yes I agree that the PTC mandate is similar to the air brake and automatic coupler with regard to a government set deadline.   Maybe that is all it really amounts to.  Maybe the PTC mandate is perfectly analogous to the air brake and coupler mandate.   I really don’t know the answer.  But by mentioning the economic interest of the supplier, I am not suggesting that entire impetus for the PTC mandate was some deep conspiracy between suppliers and government.  All I am saying that it would be foolish to believe that the only motive for something this massive is to save lives or save money for the railroads.  Lots of backs get scratched when you spend money by the billions.  Even during the era of the coupler and air brake mandates, railroads were besieged with inventors trying to get their idea adopted.  Railroads would be great customers for any mechanical improvement if it made sense to them.   It is still that way, and to make this gigantic sale to the railroad industry with the aid of a government mandate is a very big deal in several different ways. I would like to know more about the scale and terms of this PTC mandate compared to that of the coupler and air brake mandates.  Maybe somebody here can shed some light on that.  What was the cost of those early mandates, and how does that convert to today’s dollars for comparison to the price of the PTC mandate? In any case, what we think or say about it is not going to make it succeed or fail.  I think it pays to look at it critically.  This type of forced action could very well cause damage.  I am confident that the railroad industry would have moved in the right direction on their own volition.  And I am sure their course of train control development would have been straight and efficient.   Mandating this with so many engineering and system unknowns seems like a recipe for a course of development that will twist and turn.
Tags (Optional)
Tags are keywords that get attached to your post. They are used to categorize your submission and make it easier to search for. To add tags to your post type a tag into the box below and click the "Add Tag" button.
Add Tag