I've always had a lot of respect for the NTSB and one big reason is that they actually seem to understand the technology they investigate. So I was pretty shocked by listening to a podcast (Behind the Scenes at the NTSB) on PTC that featured an interview with a board member Jennifer Homendy (who may be in line to be chair of the board) and heard her say over and over and over again that "we've been asking for PTC for 50 years" and how 'frustrating' it was that it was taking so long. Someone else on the podcast vainly tried to explain things like that UP alone had to build 2000 microwave towers and radio signals don't work too well in tunnels, but she just kept up the notion that 50 years ago we could have done this and why oh why do people still want accidents to happen?
Does she not realize that cell phone tech didn't exist 50 years ago? That GPS didn't exist 50 years ago? This is like saying "we've been asking for faster than light travel for 50 years and we still are getting pushback."
I'm in favor of safety upgrades but I'm also in favor of people knowing about technology before they opine about it. And having had to explain tech problems to higer ups who are clueless and just demand that people like me "fix it" I got pretty upset, I admit.
Anyone know anything about her? Is this just public posturing and she is smarter than that behind the scene? Or are we run by the clueless?
JohnNI've always had a lot of respect for the NTSB and one big reason is that they actually seem to understand the technology they investigate. So I was pretty shocked by listening to a podcast (Behind the Scenes at the NTSB) on PTC that featured an interview with a board member Jennifer Homendy (who may be in line to be chair of the board) and heard her say over and over and over again that "we've been asking for PTC for 50 years" and how 'frustrating' it was that it was taking so long. Someone else on the podcast vainly tried to explain things like that UP alone had to build 2000 microwave towers and radio signals don't work too well in tunnels, but she just kept up the notion that 50 years ago we could have done this and why oh why do people still want accidents to happen? Does she not realize that cell phone tech didn't exist 50 years ago? That GPS didn't exist 50 years ago? This is like saying "we've been asking for faster than light travel for 50 years and we still are getting pushback." I'm in favor of safety upgrades but I'm also in favor of people knowing about technology before they opine about it. And having had to explain tech problems to higer ups who are clueless and just demand that people like me "fix it" I got pretty upset, I admit. Anyone know anything about her? Is this just public posturing and she is smarter than that behind the scene? Or are we run by the clueless?
NTSB's job is to want 'protections' that don't exist. Their wants apply to all forms of Transportation they are involved in - trains, flight, river traffic, ocean traffic and pipelines.
The NTSB sees a 'failure' and want someone or something to fix it. The reality is we have been wanting to 'fix' human beings for over 300K years and haven't done that yet.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
You may remember Bella, who was always finding some way to inject PTC into anything the NTSB did.
Yes, we should have had PTC many years ago. If we had, we would have four separate systems optimized for safety functions, not the current mandate with afterthought functionality that is terrifically difficult to implement and full of operational holes.
JohnNDoes she not realize that cell phone tech didn't exist 50 years ago? That GPS didn't exist 50 years ago? This is like saying "we've been asking for faster than light travel for 50 years and we still are getting pushback."
Well...yes, but no. The underlying concepts and technologies were already in place to start their development. Handheld cell phones weren't feasible, but vehicle mounted ones were. The first handheld one was 48 years ago. GPS didn't exist, but NAVSAT did.
The base technologies for PTC were likely in place 50 years ago, just like they were for your examples.
NittanyLionThe base technologies for PTC were likely in place 50 years ago, just like they were for your examples.
Cab signals are 100+ years old. Different versions of ATS have been developing since then.
But most of the railroads still used wayside-only signals with no additional protection. I think that was the frustration with the NTSB. Current PTC software didn't exist, but the precursors weren't being widely adopted, either.
It's been fun. But it isn't much fun anymore. Signing off for now.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.t fun any
The NTSB has been demanding safer OTR trucks for decades also. It still does not stop idiots that play well this car can stop in 150 feet cutting off and then stopping in front of a 40 ton truck that on a GOOD day takes over 300 feet to stop with 5 axles worth of disc brakes screaming. For the last 5 years anything my boss has ordered has come with disc brakes 1 for the stopping distance 2 for the fade resistance and lastly for the weight savings. The automated manual transmission first came out in the OTR industry in the late 90's it still took over 20 years for it to become the industry standard. Why reliablity problems with the early models almost killed it. The OTR and railroad industries both use the KISS principle to the extreme along with interchangable equipment. Anyone of my trucks for the most part can hook up to any trailer made the exception might be a removeable gooseneck used for heavy hauling. But beyond that trailer my drivers can hook up to anything out there as gladhand electrical hookups are industry wide standards. It is the same for the railroads for the most part the only thing that might be different is the MU electrical connections and what grade of coupler is used on some knuckles.
From a couple of years ago. The train was running with PTC engaged and exCNW's Automatic Train Control disengaged. On UP, they only now run with cab signals if PTC becomes inoperative.
The train didn't derail in the usual sense. A switch was opened in front of it, PTC did not react (because it currently is an overlay) and the train went into a stub track and ran off the end.
Photos: Train derailment near Stanwood | The Gazette
Jeff
The NTSB had better come up with a fix if GPS becomes less reliable specially for PTC. The Russian test of the ASAT has put over 1000 known orbital debri into low earth orbit and maybe unknown up to 10,000 too small to detect. '
Also all the drivers that will now foul grade crossings.
Hopefully this debri will not take the GPS sats in LEO out of service. the higher orbit sats will provide some servic but will it be enough to not degrade PTC ? Do not have the orbital counts of the various orbits.
Could be that Amtrak's ACSES PTC will be correct type of PTC into the future ?
I think that GPS really represents only a cheap convenience for current PTC. A system of HA-NDGPS ground beacons could (relatively) easily replace the location tracking and track-discrimination functions 'if need be', and these would also provide accurate-enough timebase. Whether this is cheaper than orbiting one of the reserve constellations, I can't say.
If the NTSB has a major role in actively 'midcourse correcting' the ridiculous congeries if as-mandated PTC -- and recall that the NTSB has been vociferous in keeping itself out of policy matters -- it would do well (in my opinion) to separate out the four disparate and sometimes incompatible functions in the 2008 mandate, develop truly-interworkable systems that actually 'nail' the separate functions, and then build a proper nondeterministic system to coordinate them (and any future enhancements or improvements).
Then report to, or influence, or lobby Congress to amend the mandate as appropriate.
Much of the existing equipment and implementation would remain usable... fortunately. On the other hand, I don't see any really good way to overlay the safety system on regular signals... it ought to be the other way round, imho.
A big elephant is that FCC is allowing 5G to bee very close to GPS frequencies,
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.