Well, this stuff always works perfectly until it doesn't.
This is a controversial item in the rail industry, make no mistake about it. The idea is over 20 years old. However, during that time Railroads saw other investments as offering a better rate of return. They didn't achieve those rates of return -- a story in itself -- so now RRs are looking back at PTC. It requires a huge capital investment. Nobody was really willing to commit unless everyone was on board -- this has always been an industry that insists that success and failure must be lockstop. The safety angle simply ensures that the regulatory system imposes it on everyone whether they can afford it or not. And make no mistake: one key cost savings will be in train crews and further reductions in employment. For train crews, it doesn't matter where you work -- road or yard -- unless you actually sit in the engineer's seat, you will not be working in this industry in ten years.
BNSF's Steve Ditmeyer was (and is) an avid proponent of PTS, and his enthusiasm has continued on in his various careers since leaving the company. He was involved with most of BNSF's experimentation with the system. I had a chance to review his Paper presented at an AREMA conference in May, 2006 and discuss it with him. I think he's probably among the brightest guys involved in the program.
Most of my career, on the other hand, has been involved in examining various face-plants by management in the rail industry, and frankly, I get nervous with each new 'bright" idea that comes along, especially when pushed by self-interested parties. The success rate of "new ideas" is astonishingly low. "Network-Centric Railroading Utilizing Intelligent Railroad Systems" (2006) is the essence of where PTC is headed. The paper is available from AREMA and it is well worth the reading.
It may well be a revolutionary step forward. I like most of the ideas and what they intend to achieve. However, when you get all inspired about the concept, then read "The Black Swan" by Nassim Nicholas Tale. Statistically, this concept builds in a dynamic tension in critical need of a functional backup.
It doesn't have one. The economic success of PTC is conditioned upon elimination of the backup.
-- Bagehot
The SEPTA Center-City Streetcar Subway does not handle trains, only single cars. There is not now and never has been multiple unit operation in this particular subway on the light rail tracks. (The two center tracks of the 4-track portion are used by the Market-Framkfort Rapid Transit Line.) I believe this is also true of the Newark subway, but I believe provision there has been made for two-car operation. Boston of course and Pacific Electric and Illinois Terminal and the Red Arrow Division of SEPTA all do or did at one time run mutliple unit trains of essentially multiple unit streetcars. Bombardier's task in the SEPTA Center Subway situation was in some senses much easier than that required by the frieght railroads, but also more difficult because of the much much shorter headways, time between cars/trains.
Regarding bandwidth and use by both freight and passenger railroads in metropolitan areas: Where multiple track operation exists and especially third rail or overhead wire electric operation, continuous antennas make for practicly a fail-safe non-inteference short-distance radio link to the moving train. Remember that parts of the Northeast Corridor have effectively had such systems in successful operation for over 70 years, along with the Long Island Railroad. Metro North for over 14 years. On Metro North, continiuous antenna, the Corridor had inductive pickup on a block system (PRR pracitce) but this may have been replaced by continuous antenna.
Railway ManThe communication bandwidth issue was resolved with the migration to the 220 MHz standard.
The communication bandwidth issue was resolved with the migration to the 220 MHz standard.
Is this the same part of the 220MHz that UPS was using? I.E. 220-222MHz.
The 220-225 MHz band was allocated to the Amateur Radio Service up until the early 1980's when UPS grabbed the bottom 2 MHz (boo - hiss). Last time I was on 220 was about that time - most memorable QSO was on 223.5 talking to a fellow at UCSB while I was in San Diego running 1 watt into a 5/8 mag-mount on a suitcase.
Paul_D_North_Jr zardoz Part of me is sad that I am no longer railroading, because it might be interesting and/or amusing watching these new technologies go through their growing pains. The entire operating department seems to have been "dumbed down" to the point where it won't be long until the human is replaced with a computer. Whether having machines doing all of our thinking for us will be good (safety, labor costs, etc.) or bad (computer doing stupid things causing derailments and/or drawbars and/or knuckle failures, etc.), we will have to wait and see. Tom Clancy - in The Hunt for Red October, I think it was - had a line about how it was getting so that you couldn't flush the head without a computer . . . But seriously, where could or will this lead and leave us ? Like "cruise control" on your car ? Like the auto-pilot on airplanes, where the pilots do the take-offs and landings, and anything exceptional, but leave it to the machine the rest of the flight ? Will the locomotive engineers be reduced to just monitoring it, and maybe taking over only if something really goes wrong - goes wrong - goes wrong ? Or not, if we really need to depend on the machine's predictable and quicker reactions instead ? (John Kneiling again) How will loco engineers obtain the training and maintain their competence in train handling if the machine is doing it all - from simulators only ? Or, will that skill set too soon pass from the scene ? (How many of us could make a fire from flints and tinder - right now ?) What's next ? This could get quickly get like the new cell phones - a whole bunch of "apps" (applications) built into or added onto it. Here's an easy one - automated grade crossing signals - the whistle-blowing. The computer knows the line's configuration and crossing locations, the train's speed, and the required timing and pattern. Set it up to do that unless overridden by the engineer. Next, maybe speed management for fuel economy and scheduling - suggest (and/or enforce) maximum and minimum speeds to fit the line's operating characteristics, the operating plan, and the dispatcher's line-up for a particular day - no sense running at 50 MPH to the next CP when you're only going to have to wait there 20 minutes for the opposing move to clear. Conversely, if the system predicts you're going to hold up a hot train if you keep moving at your present slow pace - what then ? Obviously, we don't want it to speed the train up, but maybe expect it to inform on you and then a radio message from the DS or Supt. to explain why you're not going faster ? And grade crossings ! I could see this being the next big step in safety upgrades, perhaps something like this: Install sensors/ scanners at the important ones - the ones that warrant gates, and maybe those with just flashers, too. If something "big" - truck for sure, not sure about a car - is still on the tracks when the train "hits the circuit" / the flashers activate, then the train starts to brake. But per Zardoz above, that function will wear out its welcome real quick. [sarcasm] So then what ? Maybe cameras should also be installed, and all violators ticketed/ mailed a summons, just like with the "red-light cameras" in a lot of the big cities. Keep in mind, the railroads have their own police forces, so enforcement wouldn't be dependent so much on the "discretion" or motivation of the local cops. I'm not sure if the RR police now generally have the inherent power to issue such traffic tickets, but if not then that could easily be taken care of by the appropriate remedial legislation - all in the name of safety, of course, esp. since the ticket revenue would most likely go to the government, not the railroad. Still, the word would get out, and so this might be well worthwhile for the railroads to substantially reduce that hazard. Of course, this will likely work only at the "low-hanging fruit" of the busy signalled crossings - the country crossings with only cross-bucks will probably remain devoid of such protection for a long time to come - but we do what we can, when we can. Automated switching ? I can see the loco knowing where it's at, but I don't see how PTC will reliably know where the last car in a string is, as they are added and dropped during the process. There's no sensor on the end of each car (yet) to observe or transmit that info, so it wouldn't know how many cars are actually coupled or not. Any other thoughts - suggestions - concerns ? - Paul North.
zardoz Part of me is sad that I am no longer railroading, because it might be interesting and/or amusing watching these new technologies go through their growing pains. The entire operating department seems to have been "dumbed down" to the point where it won't be long until the human is replaced with a computer. Whether having machines doing all of our thinking for us will be good (safety, labor costs, etc.) or bad (computer doing stupid things causing derailments and/or drawbars and/or knuckle failures, etc.), we will have to wait and see.
Whether having machines doing all of our thinking for us will be good (safety, labor costs, etc.) or bad (computer doing stupid things causing derailments and/or drawbars and/or knuckle failures, etc.), we will have to wait and see.
Tom Clancy - in The Hunt for Red October, I think it was - had a line about how it was getting so that you couldn't flush the head without a computer . . .
But seriously, where could or will this lead and leave us ? Like "cruise control" on your car ? Like the auto-pilot on airplanes, where the pilots do the take-offs and landings, and anything exceptional, but leave it to the machine the rest of the flight ? Will the locomotive engineers be reduced to just monitoring it, and maybe taking over only if something really goes wrong - goes wrong - goes wrong ? Or not, if we really need to depend on the machine's predictable and quicker reactions instead ? (John Kneiling again) How will loco engineers obtain the training and maintain their competence in train handling if the machine is doing it all - from simulators only ? Or, will that skill set too soon pass from the scene ? (How many of us could make a fire from flints and tinder - right now ?)
What's next ? This could get quickly get like the new cell phones - a whole bunch of "apps" (applications) built into or added onto it. Here's an easy one - automated grade crossing signals - the whistle-blowing. The computer knows the line's configuration and crossing locations, the train's speed, and the required timing and pattern. Set it up to do that unless overridden by the engineer.
Next, maybe speed management for fuel economy and scheduling - suggest (and/or enforce) maximum and minimum speeds to fit the line's operating characteristics, the operating plan, and the dispatcher's line-up for a particular day - no sense running at 50 MPH to the next CP when you're only going to have to wait there 20 minutes for the opposing move to clear. Conversely, if the system predicts you're going to hold up a hot train if you keep moving at your present slow pace - what then ? Obviously, we don't want it to speed the train up, but maybe expect it to inform on you and then a radio message from the DS or Supt. to explain why you're not going faster ?
And grade crossings ! I could see this being the next big step in safety upgrades, perhaps something like this: Install sensors/ scanners at the important ones - the ones that warrant gates, and maybe those with just flashers, too. If something "big" - truck for sure, not sure about a car - is still on the tracks when the train "hits the circuit" / the flashers activate, then the train starts to brake. But per Zardoz above, that function will wear out its welcome real quick. [sarcasm]
So then what ? Maybe cameras should also be installed, and all violators ticketed/ mailed a summons, just like with the "red-light cameras" in a lot of the big cities. Keep in mind, the railroads have their own police forces, so enforcement wouldn't be dependent so much on the "discretion" or motivation of the local cops. I'm not sure if the RR police now generally have the inherent power to issue such traffic tickets, but if not then that could easily be taken care of by the appropriate remedial legislation - all in the name of safety, of course, esp. since the ticket revenue would most likely go to the government, not the railroad. Still, the word would get out, and so this might be well worthwhile for the railroads to substantially reduce that hazard. Of course, this will likely work only at the "low-hanging fruit" of the busy signalled crossings - the country crossings with only cross-bucks will probably remain devoid of such protection for a long time to come - but we do what we can, when we can.
Automated switching ? I can see the loco knowing where it's at, but I don't see how PTC will reliably know where the last car in a string is, as they are added and dropped during the process. There's no sensor on the end of each car (yet) to observe or transmit that info, so it wouldn't know how many cars are actually coupled or not.
Any other thoughts - suggestions - concerns ?
- Paul North.
Interestingly the recent TRAINS magazine article (I believe it was the November issue?) "10 technologies that will change railroading" laid out the same scenario in discussing the use of RC and PTC systems for mainline freight. Althought the point was made that completely unmanned trains were not a realistic possibility, at least for the forseeable future, one man crews could be...
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
Next question: One word I don't remember seeing in connection with this is "Internet" - will it be dependent on that in any critical way, or will PTC be essentially independent of it ?
My concern is, of course, hackers and similar malicious types - you know, (gulp - don't want to sound like this bunch, but . . . ) the kind of thing that the mainstream media and sky-might-fall doomsayers like to worry about and raise as potential problems - that "someone might breach the system and bring it to a standstill, or worse, deliberately cause a wreck", etc., etc.
One great virtue of most of the railroad "legacy" Communications & Signals ("C&S") systems is that they were "stand-alone". While such systems were usually exposed to the risk of storm damage, they weren't easily vulnerable to undetected deliberate attacks or malfunctions introduced from the outside world. It's pretty tough - well nigh impossible - to "hack" into either the pole lines or the codes in the rails without a physical connection, and fiber-optics are essentially immune to that as well (except for maybe the NSA's monitoring taps of the Russian undersea lines ?). This is of course aside from the very rare - and essentially unpreventable - case of intentional tampering such as by "jumping" around a removed rail joint, etc. An SP passenger train wreck in the mid-1960's and a similar Amtrak wreck on the ATSF in the early 1990's come to mind as examples of that.
Anyway, anyone care to respond or address this, without disclosing too much to compromise the underlying security ?
A little further on the above, from the January 2009 issue of Trains, "Railroads vow to make PTC work", on pg. 10:
"The four big Class Is have deployed variations of Wabtec systems, which makes the basic architecture of a nationwide standard that much easier." [cols. 2- 3, emphasis added]
" . . . the most significant [challenge] is acquiring the radio spectrum needed for the wireless link between locomotives and wayside interface units. That will require help from Congress and federal regulators." [col. 3, emphasis added]
A few posts earlier RWM mentioned a migration to the 200 MHZ bandwidth. Has that been completed yet, and will that solve this issue ?
Falcon48 I'm aware of all of this stuff. The point is that none of these systems have been widely implemented - they are essentially prototype systems that the designers expect to work, but haven't yet been proven in the field. There is also a difference in design philosophy that hasn't been resolved. The BNSF system is not a "vital" system while the UP system is. The "bandwidth" problem has not been solved. There's probably enough bandwidth for the freight railroads, but not for freight and passenger railroads in major metro areas. Take a look at some of the testimony the railroads provided to Congress in connection with the recent rail safety bill for a more thorough discussion. I think it's fair to say that the railroads are optimistic about solving these problems, but they haven't been solved as of now.
The difference between "vital" and "non-vital" (or "safety-critical", the term used in the CFRs) in the system in use by BNSF and being installed by UP and NS is in the permits filed with the FRA, along with a lot of extra redundancy in the hardware. We installed the same system used by BNSF as an overlay but as a safety-critical system and it works just fine. I was never particularly worried that it would not.
I think we differ in opinion whether the BNSF, UP, and NS system is field-proven or not. I have my career sitting on top of my opinions on this, too.
I'm comfortable that the BNSF-UP-NS system works, that BNSF's field tests proved the system's reliability beyond a shadow of a doubt, and that this system is implementable throughout the U.S. with no unusual or intractable problems beyond the normal problems in instituting new practices, procurement problems typical to all projects, construction permits, and finding the right people to train to pick up where we started and expand deployment on an aggressive timetable. Given the FRA's extremely conservative and deliberative permitting process designed to eliminate 100.000000% of all risk something might someday go wrong that someone might blame on the FRA, which has been painful for all involved, I think the day the FRA signed off on BNSF's system that there should not have been any remaining doubt in anyone's mind. But obviously not.
There are many in the railroad industry that agree with you. I think my pay would be much less otherwise.
RWM
Paul_D_North_Jr For the rest of us - and from the "public domain" - here are some excerpts from a BNSF "News Release" at: http://www.bnsf.com/media/news/articles/2008/10/2008-10-08b.html BNSF Ready to Implement Positive Train Control FORT WORTH, Texas, October 8, 2008: "BNSF Railway began development of its Electronic Train Management System (ETMS) in 2003 as a partnership with Wabtec Railway Electronics and has been testing ETMS in revenue service since 2006." "ETMS is a PTC technology that has been proven to protect against the consequences of human error during extensive testing on BNSF. . . . " "BNSF has successfully tested ETMS on a 135-mile stretch of track in Illinois and is continuing to test it between Fort Worth, Texas, and Oklahoma City. ETMS has passed every test during more than 1,600 train trips made so far. ETMS has stopped every train that it should have stopped, and has not stopped any train that it should not have stopped." [emphasis added - PDN] There are a few more details in the News Release - refer to it if you want to know more. See also another News Release with the following headline and dateline at: http://www.bnsf.com/media/news/articles/2008/10/2008-10-08a.html Railroad Industry Leaders Agree On Establishing Positive Train Control Interoperability Standards OMAHA, Neb., FORT WORTH, Texas, and NORFOLK, Va., October 8, 2008: Those cities ought to tell you that it was UP, BNSF, and NS that agreed on this - again, see the News Release itself if you want more details. Notably, for this discussion the first News Release also says: "BNSF Railway today announced that it is prepared to implement Positive Train Control (PTC) technology by Dec. 31, 2015, as mandated by the Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008, and that it can have the wayside devices necessary to implement PTC in place in the Los Angeles Basin by the end of 2012." [emphasis added - PDN.] A "class act" there - the "can-do" culture of many of the constituent roads is still alive, I see. So it looks like the remaining challenges here were mainly financial and institutional, not technical. Any other objections, or are we going to get on with it now ? Edit: Here's the link to the Wabtec web page for ETMS (note that I have no known interest - financial or otherwise - in Wabtec or any of its affiliates): http://www.wabtec.com/railroad/etms.asp - Paul North. RWM - Thanks again for your extensive and insightful (perhaps "inciteful" in some instances ?) explanation and commentary on some of the nuances and implications of all this.
For the rest of us - and from the "public domain" - here are some excerpts from a BNSF "News Release" at:
http://www.bnsf.com/media/news/articles/2008/10/2008-10-08b.html
BNSF Ready to Implement Positive Train Control
"BNSF Railway began development of its Electronic Train Management System (ETMS) in 2003 as a partnership with Wabtec Railway Electronics and has been testing ETMS in revenue service since 2006."
"ETMS is a PTC technology that has been proven to protect against the consequences of human error during extensive testing on BNSF. . . . "
"BNSF has successfully tested ETMS on a 135-mile stretch of track in Illinois and is continuing to test it between Fort Worth, Texas, and Oklahoma City. ETMS has passed every test during more than 1,600 train trips made so far. ETMS has stopped every train that it should have stopped, and has not stopped any train that it should not have stopped." [emphasis added - PDN]
There are a few more details in the News Release - refer to it if you want to know more. See also another News Release with the following headline and dateline at: http://www.bnsf.com/media/news/articles/2008/10/2008-10-08a.html
Those cities ought to tell you that it was UP, BNSF, and NS that agreed on this - again, see the News Release itself if you want more details.
Notably, for this discussion the first News Release also says:
"BNSF Railway today announced that it is prepared to implement Positive Train Control (PTC) technology by Dec. 31, 2015, as mandated by the Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008, and that it can have the wayside devices necessary to implement PTC in place in the Los Angeles Basin by the end of 2012." [emphasis added - PDN.]
A "class act" there - the "can-do" culture of many of the constituent roads is still alive, I see. So it looks like the remaining challenges here were mainly financial and institutional, not technical. Any other objections, or are we going to get on with it now ?
Edit: Here's the link to the Wabtec web page for ETMS (note that I have no known interest - financial or otherwise - in Wabtec or any of its affiliates):
http://www.wabtec.com/railroad/etms.asp
RWM - Thanks again for your extensive and insightful (perhaps "inciteful" in some instances ?) explanation and commentary on some of the nuances and implications of all this.
Railway Man We didn't have any difficulties with the braking algorithms. It was really pretty straightforward. Of course, we weren't trying to do anything fancy, either.
We didn't have any difficulties with the braking algorithms. It was really pretty straightforward. Of course, we weren't trying to do anything fancy, either.
Part of me is sad that I am no longer railroading, because it might be interesting and/or amusing watching these new technologies go through their growing pains. The entire operating department seems to have been "dumbed down" to the point where it won't be long until the human is replaced with a computer.
One question from a railfan perspective that may have been covered, but I missed. Will the implementation of PTC mean that wayside signals will all go dark? I, for one, look at the signals to determine the likelyhood of a train coming by soon (when the scanner batteries go dead).
How will this affect ATCS monitoring?
Falcon48I suspect that many in the rail industry would be most interested in where you can go today and purchase all of the hardware and software you need to install a PTC system. Prototype systems have only recently begun to be tested on some freight railroads. Obstacles have been development of systems that recognize the different braking potentialities of different types of trains (for example, freight vs passengers) and development of controlling algorythms for freight trains, which is a far more difficult proposition than controlling passenger trains (for one thing, freight trains don't have graduated brake release capability). I suspect what you may be thinking of are the systems which have been developed for control of passenger trains, or some of the older train control systems such as ATC (which will not comply with the PTC mandate of the new legislation). Another major problem is getting the communications bandwidth necessary to support modern PTC systems, which will be a particularly difficult issue in urban areas with commuter service
I suspect that many in the rail industry would be most interested in where you can go today and purchase all of the hardware and software you need to install a PTC system. Prototype systems have only recently begun to be tested on some freight railroads. Obstacles have been development of systems that recognize the different braking potentialities of different types of trains (for example, freight vs passengers) and development of controlling algorythms for freight trains, which is a far more difficult proposition than controlling passenger trains (for one thing, freight trains don't have graduated brake release capability). I suspect what you may be thinking of are the systems which have been developed for control of passenger trains, or some of the older train control systems such as ATC (which will not comply with the PTC mandate of the new legislation). Another major problem is getting the communications bandwidth necessary to support modern PTC systems, which will be a particularly difficult issue in urban areas with commuter service
Who is this "many"? Not the people I work with. Alternatively, you could call BNSF, NS, and UP, and ask them, since they've all signed long-term contracts for a mature sytem. BNSF already has its pilot system up and running and FRA approved, and is now installing on two additional districts. Or, PM me, tell me your bona-fides, and I'll gladly give you the contact information for the vendor that I purchased an off-the-shelf system from in 2006, which is now in service.
I don't have any experience in transit applications. My experience in PTC is in 100% FRA-regulated freight railways, or 90%-10% passenger, or FRA-like railways.
Railway Man Blue Streak -- you can go buy this morning all the PTC hardware and software you need, off the shelf, plug-and-play, ready-to-run, works with seven-nines (99.99999%) reliability, for any system from a dark single-track railroad to a multiple-main track CTC high-speed passenger and freight railroad, and get it delivered and installed in a matter of months. Technical feasibility is not the issue here. Economics isn't even the issue here. U.S. politics, U.S. law, and the U.S. regulatory system is the issue here. The FRA has been charged by Congress (and Congress charged by the voters) with creating an impossibility -- a regulatory framework that is 100% perfect for all people at all times and upsets no one ever. We have precisely the system the U.S. voters want to have, and when the system doesn't work they blame everyone other than themselves. We have met the enemy and he is us -- the voters. Those guys in Washington are just a bunch of hired hands that we put there; we voted for them. We got what we wanted. RWM
Blue Streak -- you can go buy this morning all the PTC hardware and software you need, off the shelf, plug-and-play, ready-to-run, works with seven-nines (99.99999%) reliability, for any system from a dark single-track railroad to a multiple-main track CTC high-speed passenger and freight railroad, and get it delivered and installed in a matter of months.
Technical feasibility is not the issue here. Economics isn't even the issue here. U.S. politics, U.S. law, and the U.S. regulatory system is the issue here. The FRA has been charged by Congress (and Congress charged by the voters) with creating an impossibility -- a regulatory framework that is 100% perfect for all people at all times and upsets no one ever.
We have precisely the system the U.S. voters want to have, and when the system doesn't work they blame everyone other than themselves. We have met the enemy and he is us -- the voters. Those guys in Washington are just a bunch of hired hands that we put there; we voted for them. We got what we wanted.
You're welcome!
Now I have to go shopping.
Thanks RWM
UlrichThen why hasn't PTC been implemented yet? What's stopping the big four from going ahead with it? PTC has been on the table for about 20 years now...
Then why hasn't PTC been implemented yet? What's stopping the big four from going ahead with it? PTC has been on the table for about 20 years now...
Two r
Ulrichnot disappointed with the outcome Railwayman...but I find it hard to believe that PTC is the simpliest and most cost effective solution. It would be interesting to see the statistics on wrecks and how much they cost...By comparison, highway fatalities are around 41,000 a year in the US alone. How many people die in train related wrecks every year? Train wrecks make the headlines...car accidents..not so much..
not disappointed with the outcome Railwayman...but I find it hard to believe that PTC is the simpliest and most cost effective solution. It would be interesting to see the statistics on wrecks and how much they cost...By comparison, highway fatalities are around 41,000 a year in the US alone. How many people die in train related wrecks every year? Train wrecks make the headlines...car accidents..not so much..
Two recent specific wrecks and their costs, that are wrecks of the type that PTC is designed to prevent: Chatsworth - $1.0 billion and counting; Graniteville, $0.5 billion and counting. Those are direct costs, not indirect costs.
greyhoundsOne final consideration. What effect will this have on investment in the railroad industry? Who would willingly put their money in an industry where huge capital expenditures are mandated by the government and not evaluated on economic terms?
One final consideration. What effect will this have on investment in the railroad industry? Who would willingly put their money in an industry where huge capital expenditures are mandated by the government and not evaluated on economic terms?
Warren Buffet, for one. Seen all the puts he has sold on BNSF and UP lately?
But more seriously, I do comprehend your political perspective on what you feel is the proper role of government in the marketplace, economic regulation, safety regulation, and the public welfare.
UlrichAs usual the government comes along with its $500,000 mousetrap...PTC sounds like a very expensive and sophisticated solution to a fairly simple problem. How hard can it be to keep trains from colliding, speeding etc? a) they run on TRACKS...b) they move at fairly slow speeds...c) we already have really simple technology that can be used that wouldn't involve massive change on the scale of PTC. We've got to stop throwing millions and billions of dollars at studies and at space shuttle solutions to simple problems.
As usual the government comes along with its $500,000 mousetrap...PTC sounds like a very expensive and sophisticated solution to a fairly simple problem. How hard can it be to keep trains from colliding, speeding etc? a) they run on TRACKS...b) they move at fairly slow speeds...c) we already have really simple technology that can be used that wouldn't involve massive change on the scale of PTC. We've got to stop throwing millions and billions of dollars at studies and at space shuttle solutions to simple problems.
Please explain what the simple technology is that does what PTC does.
I think I already cited that PTC costs 10% as much as CTC; saves 5-30% on fuel -- which CTC can't ever do; and prevents billion-dollar wrecks. What specifically do you find disappointing with this? If the issue is that it took the government to mandate this, this is no longer a discussion about railroads, it's a discussion about politics and ideology.
Railway Man Universality of PTC is a real benefit because it enable locomotive utilization to remain at its current high level. Non-universality would significantly decrease utilization because it would require PTC-equipped locomotive leaders on all PTC-equipped sections, as well as stranded value in equipped locomotives off running on non-PTC sections. It would be a serious economic setback for the industry after its 50-year effort to create a universal locomotive fleet like the universal car fleet it has benefitted from for approximately 110 years.I am greatly relieved that Congress passed HR2095 and President Bush signed it, as it gives the commuter agencies the mandate they needed to make the case to their boards who are often not knowledgable of railroading to spend the money to implement PTC instead of on something that had local political appeal but little value like a new station in a neighborhood with no significant ridership, or new paint scheme or whatever; eliminates foot-dragging by any railroad that is stuck in the 19th century in its thinking or congenitally incapable of working with other railroads addresses a serious defect in the business case for the entire industry that put all at risk but for the recalcitrance or cheapness of a few (imagine a Graniteville next to an elementary school in session); gives the progressive railroads the mandate they need to enforce a common standard onto all the railroads, for the good of the industry gives the FRA the mandate it needs to improve its regulatory review process and speed up the review of implementation of PTC, as opposed to the lack of authority it had earlier which resulted in very lengthy review process as the FRA groped toward trying to guess what Congress' intent might be in the future; gives progressive thinkers at railroads the mandate they need to move their companies out of old ways of doing business and into better ways of doing business; gives railroad managements the mandate they need to take to their boards to convince them to shake loose the money and authority to make change and improve the railroad, and improve revenues, market share, profit, and safety. RWM
Universality of PTC is a real benefit because it enable locomotive utilization to remain at its current high level. Non-universality would significantly decrease utilization because it would require PTC-equipped locomotive leaders on all PTC-equipped sections, as well as stranded value in equipped locomotives off running on non-PTC sections. It would be a serious economic setback for the industry after its 50-year effort to create a universal locomotive fleet like the universal car fleet it has benefitted from for approximately 110 years.I am greatly relieved that Congress passed HR2095 and President Bush signed it, as it
I find this disturbing. According to #7 above, rail managements need a government mandate to do their job. (I know, many of you carrying union cards are shaking your heads "Yes" on reading this.)
The problem I'm citing with government mandated PTC is that the huge investment needed will not face the usual justification process. Nor will it be subject to competition from other capital projects that have the potential to produce greater benifits.
Normally, almost all capital expenditures must be justified by processes comparing the projected costs with the projected benifits. That isn't happening here. (Exceptions are absolute necessities, such as something that if not done would shut down the railroad. If a main line bridge is damaged it needs to be replaced or the railroad can't run. PTC isn't like such a bridge. The railroad can run quite well without PTC.)
As part of its job, management should be identifying such projects and working through the justification process for each one. Those projects that meet requirements are approved as the financial situation allows. According to #7 above, this isn't happening, and won't happen without government mandate. I don't believe that. There have been, and are, huge capital projects that, unlike PTC, have been put though this analysis and implamented. UP's triple tracking in Nebraska and Kate Shelley Bridge replacement are examples. So are the BNSFF double and triple tracking.
Government mandated PTC will preclude such projects. There is only so much money to spend. Important and benificial projects will not get done because the money hase been diverted by mandate, without the benifit of any analysis, to expensive universal PTC instalation.
As to the unquantified PTC benifits cited above, they all come with costs. And example is the "Universal Locomotive Fleet". While there are benifits from such a fleet, these benifits are not priceless. You can assign PTC equiped locomotives to PTC equiped routes. That assignment has a real cost. To "do it right" you've got to compare that cost with the cost of universal PTC. That isn't being done.
As to the claim that this will allow "Progressive" thinkers to move ahead; that's real subjective. Nobody is right all the time and someone who says "Why should we do this?" is asking a question that needs to be answered. "Because it's a government mandate" is a shortcut answer that avoids economic justification.
In any event, it's all moot. We're going to get universal PTC. What we'll give up to get it has not been considered.
UlrichPTC may not improve overall safety that much...if crews come to rely on it and then pay less attention. Look at anti lock brakes (for cars) when they first came in. Insurance companies discovered that accidents didn't go down because drivers, knowing they have anti lock brakes...took more chances and paid less attention in bad weather. They figured the technology would kick so why not drive faster? Icy roads?..no big deal..I've got anti lock brakes.
PTC may not improve overall safety that much...if crews come to rely on it and then pay less attention. Look at anti lock brakes (for cars) when they first came in. Insurance companies discovered that accidents didn't go down because drivers, knowing they have anti lock brakes...took more chances and paid less attention in bad weather. They figured the technology would kick so why not drive faster? Icy roads?..no big deal..I've got anti lock brakes.
PTC will very much reduce the incidence of train-to-train collisions, overspeed derailments, open-switch run-throughs on main tracks, and work-zone violations, because it takes the human single-point failure out of the equation. You may be correct that overall safety may not be improved as much as anticipated because operating and maintenance-of-way personnel come to rely upon the system to protect them, but you'd have to explain to me specifically how that would happen.
I don't think the analogy of antilock brakes is applicable as one is a positive system (PTC) which takes from the operator control of the vehicle when it determines a collision or overspeed might occur, and the other is a tool which knows nothing about the likelihood of a collision or the existence of an overspeed condition and continues to leave the decisions of speed 100% in the hands of the operator. All it does is make sure the vehicle doesn't loose adhesion when it brakes -- it does not decide when to brake. If autos had a proximity or speed-sensing system that took speed and steering control away from the operator, that could be analagous.
I believe I have read every economic analysis published to date on PTC -- a few of which I have authored, co-authored, reviewed, or contributed to. Economic justifications that have been cited, and my take on them, are:
Paul_D_North_Jr Greyhounds - Your responses above raise several valid points (as usual). So that they don't go unrebutted - at least briefly, with my limited time today - here are my responses: 1) PTC appears to be economically justified. I found a study today entitled "QUANTIFICATION OF THE BUSINESS BENEFITS OF POSITIVE TRAIN CONTROL", Prepared for the Federal Railroad Administration, Revised March 15, 2004, by ZETA-TECH Associates (Cherry Hill, NJ), 129 pgs. (approx. 416 KB in size), at: http://www.tsd.org/papers/FRA%20PTC%20final%20report%2003-16-04.pdf Real briefly, this study concluded* that the cost of the 2 competing PTC systems (identified as "PTC A" and "PTC B") would range between $1.3 billion and $4.4 billion. However, the "Estimated Annual PTC Benefits" (pages 9 - 11) would be savings with an estimated total ranging from $937,000 to $3.8 billion, for such items as: - Line Capacity - Avoided Investment, and Avoided Maintenance; - Precision Dispatch - Equipment Ownership; - Work Order Report - Car Ownership; - Loco Diagnostics - Loco Maintenance, and Loco Road Failure; - Fuel; and, - Shipper Benefits. Those savings would result in an Internal Rate of Return (IRR") ranging from 24 % to 160 % annually (based on a cost of money of 7% over 20 years, as more fully explained therein). * - Executive Summary, pp. 10 - 13. Notably, the study noted that these economic benefits did not include the savings from avoided collisions and the resultant damages, and that the FRA was preparing that estimate separately (pg. 8, bottom) - see also my next comment. I haven't yet found that study or its results; 2) I suspect that the typical annual savings of damages would not be as much as the $1.5 billion mentioned above. Instead, that seems to be something of an "out-lier" or exceptionally high data point, that probably should be excluded as an anomaly or a "one-of" occurrence, mainly due to the Chatsworth wreck alone. However, I don't have any objective basis to support another figure - hence my interest in the FRA study (above). There are a fair number of train collision incidents each year, and damages typically seem to be in the range of the low 6 figures (several hundred thousand dollars) to the low 7 figures ($1 million plus). Just as speculation for the moment, to get a handle on this: The FRA study referenced above (at page 5, middle) noted that "the Rail Safety Advisory Committee (RSAC)2, which identified nearly a thousand “PPAs” (PTC preventable accidents) on U.S. railroads over a 12-year period". That works out to about 80 such accidents per year (about 7 per month, or 1.5 per week on average). If the resulting damages are, say, typically around $0.5 million each - then that would total about $40 million per year. For the total annual costs from this to approach the $1.5 billion above, both of those estimated figures - the frequency and severity - would together have to be between 1 - 2 orders of magnitude low (i.e., by a factor of around 30 or 40, which would then be $1.2 billion to 1.6 billion), which I think is unlikely. That would mean, for example, that there are as many as 20 collisions a month (250 a year), each with damages in the $ 5 million range, or equivalent combinations - I don't think so. Anyway, the FRA study (above) also noted that "[the RSAC] determined the savings to be realized from each avoided accident. The RSAC finding was that avoidance of these PPAs was not, by itself, sufficient (from a strictly economic point of view) to justify an investment in PTC." [emphasis added]; 3) Even when expenditures make economic sense, businesses aren't always motivated do do so, for a variety of reasons. In such instances, a government mandate might be justified or even necessary, just to break the logjam, so to speak. In those cases, the government is acting more as a referee, traffic cop, stern parent, etc., than as an economic regulator. Often, the industries are just as happy to have the government make the decision, so as to keep the playing field level among competitors. There are others on this forum who can probably explain those problems better than me, but those reasons might include such things as: - competing but technically incompatible systems, such as appears to be the case with PTC (think the Beta vs. VHS debate for video cassette recorders); - systems that won't work well unless everybody implements them at the same time - think air brakes, or the Janney / knuckle coupler - the "After you, Alphonse" problem; - the "I spend the money, but someone else gets most of the benefits, unless they are compelled to put up their share of the investment, too." The classic example of this was roller bearings on freight cars - why should the owning railroad spend that money, when the cars spend most of their time on other railroads ? Now that we're down to 7 big Class I's (from what ? 50 or so back in the 1950's and 1960's when this was an issue ?), and the managements seem more astute, it's probably less of a "dilution" problem. It also seems to me that this is related somehow to the "Tragedy of the Commons" kind of problem, but I can't expound on that analogy clearly right now; - Probably other justifications. Anyone else want to chime in and support me here ? 4) I liked your "classic media "Six V" template" comment and explanation. I hadn't heard of or seen that before, but a lot of what I find annoying about the local newspapers - "the tragedy/ hard-luck story/ injustice of the week" syndrome - seems to fit that pattern. Your thoughts and responses ? - Paul North.
Greyhounds -
Your responses above raise several valid points (as usual). So that they don't go unrebutted - at least briefly, with my limited time today - here are my responses:
1) PTC appears to be economically justified. I found a study today entitled "QUANTIFICATION OF THE BUSINESS BENEFITS OF POSITIVE TRAIN CONTROL", Prepared for the Federal Railroad Administration, Revised March 15, 2004, by ZETA-TECH Associates (Cherry Hill, NJ), 129 pgs. (approx. 416 KB in size), at:
http://www.tsd.org/papers/FRA%20PTC%20final%20report%2003-16-04.pdf
Real briefly, this study concluded* that the cost of the 2 competing PTC systems (identified as "PTC A" and "PTC B") would range between $1.3 billion and $4.4 billion. However, the "Estimated Annual PTC Benefits" (pages 9 - 11) would be savings with an estimated total ranging from $937,000 to $3.8 billion, for such items as:
- Line Capacity - Avoided Investment, and Avoided Maintenance;
- Precision Dispatch - Equipment Ownership;
- Work Order Report - Car Ownership;
- Loco Diagnostics - Loco Maintenance, and Loco Road Failure;
- Fuel; and,
- Shipper Benefits.
Those savings would result in an Internal Rate of Return (IRR") ranging from 24 % to 160 % annually (based on a cost of money of 7% over 20 years, as more fully explained therein).
* - Executive Summary, pp. 10 - 13.
Notably, the study noted that these economic benefits did not include the savings from avoided collisions and the resultant damages, and that the FRA was preparing that estimate separately (pg. 8, bottom) - see also my next comment. I haven't yet found that study or its results;
2) I suspect that the typical annual savings of damages would not be as much as the $1.5 billion mentioned above. Instead, that seems to be something of an "out-lier" or exceptionally high data point, that probably should be excluded as an anomaly or a "one-of" occurrence, mainly due to the Chatsworth wreck alone. However, I don't have any objective basis to support another figure - hence my interest in the FRA study (above). There are a fair number of train collision incidents each year, and damages typically seem to be in the range of the low 6 figures (several hundred thousand dollars) to the low 7 figures ($1 million plus).
Just as speculation for the moment, to get a handle on this: The FRA study referenced above (at page 5, middle) noted that "the Rail Safety Advisory Committee (RSAC)2, which identified nearly a thousand “PPAs” (PTC preventable accidents) on U.S. railroads over a 12-year period". That works out to about 80 such accidents per year (about 7 per month, or 1.5 per week on average). If the resulting damages are, say, typically around $0.5 million each - then that would total about $40 million per year. For the total annual costs from this to approach the $1.5 billion above, both of those estimated figures - the frequency and severity - would together have to be between 1 - 2 orders of magnitude low (i.e., by a factor of around 30 or 40, which would then be $1.2 billion to 1.6 billion), which I think is unlikely. That would mean, for example, that there are as many as 20 collisions a month (250 a year), each with damages in the $ 5 million range, or equivalent combinations - I don't think so.
Anyway, the FRA study (above) also noted that "[the RSAC] determined the savings to be realized from each avoided accident. The RSAC finding was that avoidance of these PPAs was not, by itself, sufficient (from a strictly economic point of view) to justify an investment in PTC." [emphasis added];
3) Even when expenditures make economic sense, businesses aren't always motivated do do so, for a variety of reasons. In such instances, a government mandate might be justified or even necessary, just to break the logjam, so to speak. In those cases, the government is acting more as a referee, traffic cop, stern parent, etc., than as an economic regulator. Often, the industries are just as happy to have the government make the decision, so as to keep the playing field level among competitors. There are others on this forum who can probably explain those problems better than me, but those reasons might include such things as:
- competing but technically incompatible systems, such as appears to be the case with PTC (think the Beta vs. VHS debate for video cassette recorders);
- systems that won't work well unless everybody implements them at the same time - think air brakes, or the Janney / knuckle coupler - the "After you, Alphonse" problem;
- the "I spend the money, but someone else gets most of the benefits, unless they are compelled to put up their share of the investment, too." The classic example of this was roller bearings on freight cars - why should the owning railroad spend that money, when the cars spend most of their time on other railroads ? Now that we're down to 7 big Class I's (from what ? 50 or so back in the 1950's and 1960's when this was an issue ?), and the managements seem more astute, it's probably less of a "dilution" problem. It also seems to me that this is related somehow to the "Tragedy of the Commons" kind of problem, but I can't expound on that analogy clearly right now;
- Probably other justifications. Anyone else want to chime in and support me here ?
4) I liked your "classic media "Six V" template" comment and explanation. I hadn't heard of or seen that before, but a lot of what I find annoying about the local newspapers - "the tragedy/ hard-luck story/ injustice of the week" syndrome - seems to fit that pattern.
Your thoughts and responses ?
Well, I think you could have, in the Spirit of Thanksgiving, left my response unrebutted. Peace, harmoney, good will, etc. would have prevailed. BUT NO! YOU HAD TO VIOLATE "The Spirit of Thanksgiving!" BY REBUTTING. Well I'm not going to sit here and let you violate Thanksgiving - so I must rebutt your rebuttal.
First, I can't take credit for the "Six V" media template. I've spent a lot of time over the past two decades dealing with activist groups and their willing allies in the MSM. The "Six V" concept was from a book written by a PR type who dealt with these groups and stories. The activists and media are mutually dependant on each other. The activists feed sensational stories to the media. The media needs these stories to sell its product. Truth, honesty and balance are often casulties.
The use of "Six V'" isn't limited to local media. People working in local media go on to work in national media. They don't change their stripes. Don Phillips writing on PTC is a "Six V" story.
I gave the book away - but if I find a reference to its title and author, I'll provide same.
PTC installation is not at all like roller bearings or air brakes,
With roller bearings one railroad company incurred the expense while other railroad companies got most of the benifits. This is not the case with PTC. If the UP were to install a PTC system on its high volume Chicago-North Platte line, the benifits in terms of things like increased capacity and fuel savings would all go the the UP. PTC would never go "off line" as the roller bearing cars did. PTC benifits are linked directly to PTC expenditures. There is no need to install PTC universally. If can be installed on some lines and not installed on others. Mandating PTC on UP's Milwaukee-Twin Cities line is just a plain waste of scarce resources.
With air brakes the need was for universal application. Every car had to have a compatible air brake system. This is not the case with PTC. You can put it in some places and leave it out in other places. Mandating where it goes, instead of applying it where it is needed is, again, a waste of scarce resources.
As to Zeta-Tech, that's where I learned that PTC was not economically justifiable in terms of accident prevention. Randy Reesor of Zeta-Tech gave a presentation on PTC at Northwestern. Randy and I had been students there at the same time in the last centruy, so I knew him.
He gave the presentation just after the UP had two trains run together head on in New Mexico. I told him how great it would be if these incidents could be prevented with PTC. He then told me PTC can not be ecnomically justified based on accident prevention. (Again, I'm not disregarding the loss of life in these accidents. But you can't spend unlimited money on anything.)
It's this other stuff, such as capacity improvements and fuel savings, that have to justify it. And those benifits will only accrue on certain route segments. It would be applied where needed under normal circumstances. As it stands now, we've got a national mandate from an Imperial Congress to waste money.
greyhounds I have absolutely no problem with adopting PTC if it makes economic sense to do so. If the benifits from accident prevention, fuel savings, etc. outweigh the cost, then let the PTC instalment begin. It's the same as buying insurance. But in the examples you've cited the losses were/are $1.5 billion and the expense is $4.8 billion. Are there better, less expensive, ways to lessen the losses. It doesn't make sense to spend 4.8 to save 1.5. I know there will be future losses that increase the 1.5, but it's 4.8 now vs. what how may years out. What I object to is taking this out of the economic realm and mandating it. If it will produce benifits greater than its costs, then it's worth it. And it will be adopted without the need for a government mandate. If its benifits don't outweight its cost, then we can't aford it. [clip] We sure didn't get a balanced discussion of this important issue in the December Trains. We got cheerleading for intrustion. I don't like that. I expect it from Phillips. They used the classic media "Six V" template for slanting their coverage. 1) Victim, 2) Villain, 3) Vindicator, 4) Void, 5) Value, 6) Vehicle 1) Victim - the people who died and are put at risk 2) Villain - the railroads who put dollars ahead of people 3) Vindicator - "The Heros" of the Federal Government protecting us from the railroads 4) Void - the lack of economic knowledge and lack of rail operating procedures of most folks 5) Value - we should be protected and safe 6) Vehicle - Trains Magazine - to spread the word They turned this into some kind of a drama instead of a rational decision process. But that's what modern media does.
I have absolutely no problem with adopting PTC if it makes economic sense to do so. If the benifits from accident prevention, fuel savings, etc. outweigh the cost, then let the PTC instalment begin. It's the same as buying insurance. But in the examples you've cited the losses were/are $1.5 billion and the expense is $4.8 billion. Are there better, less expensive, ways to lessen the losses. It doesn't make sense to spend 4.8 to save 1.5. I know there will be future losses that increase the 1.5, but it's 4.8 now vs. what how may years out.
What I object to is taking this out of the economic realm and mandating it. If it will produce benifits greater than its costs, then it's worth it. And it will be adopted without the need for a government mandate. If its benifits don't outweight its cost, then we can't aford it.
[clip]
We sure didn't get a balanced discussion of this important issue in the December Trains. We got cheerleading for intrustion. I don't like that. I expect it from Phillips.
They used the classic media "Six V" template for slanting their coverage.
1) Victim, 2) Villain, 3) Vindicator, 4) Void, 5) Value, 6) Vehicle
1) Victim - the people who died and are put at risk
2) Villain - the railroads who put dollars ahead of people
3) Vindicator - "The Heros" of the Federal Government protecting us from the railroads
4) Void - the lack of economic knowledge and lack of rail operating procedures of most folks
5) Value - we should be protected and safe
6) Vehicle - Trains Magazine - to spread the word
They turned this into some kind of a drama instead of a rational decision process. But that's what modern media does.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.