Yes, RME, my question was serious. Thank you for providing one specific example which brought attention to the matter
Also, your mentioning the Coast Line's desire to run at 100 mph on single track led me to look at the schedule of the South Wind between Montgomery and Waycross (single track and dark) in January of 1941 and in November of 1947: The earlier times were out of Montgomery (CT) at 12:40 am and into Waycross (ET) (314.7 miles) at 7:55 am, and out of Waycross at 2:40 am and into Montgomery at 7:55 am. The later times were out of Montgomery at 11:40 pm and in to Waycross at 7:10 am, and out of Waycross at 1:43 am and into Montgomery at 7:15 am.
Not at all germane to this discussion was the time given to turn the three coach streamliners in Miami: two hours from arrval to departure.
Johnny
jeffhergert Bucyrus So part of the mandate orders research and development, which by its very nature is impossible to deliver on a schedule, or deliver at a predicable cost. I think the mandate came about because enough people in the right positions believe that PTC is available right now, today and has been available for some time. That the only reason the railroads have not already adopted PTC is only because they don't want to spend the money. Since PTC in some form has been looked at since at least the 1980s and some vendors, railroads in other countries and transit systems have or claim to have PTC like capabilities, I can see where people could think this. Especially if the people's only knowledge comes from "experts" with an agenda or short media clips of said experts. It doesn't help when TV shows and movies purportedly set in current times show technologies that are still more sci-fi than reality. We've come along way, but sometimes not as far as we think. Jeff
Bucyrus So part of the mandate orders research and development, which by its very nature is impossible to deliver on a schedule, or deliver at a predicable cost.
So part of the mandate orders research and development, which by its very nature is impossible to deliver on a schedule, or deliver at a predicable cost.
I think the mandate came about because enough people in the right positions believe that PTC is available right now, today and has been available for some time. That the only reason the railroads have not already adopted PTC is only because they don't want to spend the money.
Since PTC in some form has been looked at since at least the 1980s and some vendors, railroads in other countries and transit systems have or claim to have PTC like capabilities, I can see where people could think this. Especially if the people's only knowledge comes from "experts" with an agenda or short media clips of said experts. It doesn't help when TV shows and movies purportedly set in current times show technologies that are still more sci-fi than reality. We've come along way, but sometimes not as far as we think.
Jeff
Jeff,
I think you have perfectly described the situation.
People with authority make a knee jerk decision with only a simplistic understanding of what they are mandating, egged on by a bunch of special interests who stand to gain by the mandate, and are doing their best to create the perception that PTC is a sure fire solution, ready to go.
And in these days of fashionable, corporation hating, it is very easy to sell the idea that this public safety improvement is being held up only by the greed of the railroad companies who don’t want to spend money to save lives because it adds nothing to their bottom line.
I know how projects can get underestimated, and this could be a real humdinger.
Deggesty Well said, Jeff. Does any one of us know of a specific incident that caused the ICC to sit up and take notice of a need for more signal/ATC/ATS protection sixty-six years ago?
Well said, Jeff.
Does any one of us know of a specific incident that caused the ICC to sit up and take notice of a need for more signal/ATC/ATS protection sixty-six years ago?
Is that a serious question? Because the answer is yes, in a number of respects, and some of them IIRC are cited in the discussion leading up to the order.
If you need a direct example, with pictures for those who can't get the impact just by reading, look here.
It has been said numerous times, with a certain amount of justification, that this wreck wouldn't have been 'prevented' by operating ATS. But the subsequent discussion at the ICC took place during that period in the late '40s that railroads were frantically buying shiny new lightweight equipment and high-speed locomotives, with the implicit assumption that higher speeds were going to continue the 'streamliner' tradition interrupted by the War. Many Southern lines, I believe ACL specifically among them, were planning for peak speeds well in excess of 100mph on significantly single-tracked routes.
In any case, the order wasn't anything new; it was a re-application of the existing requirement (from the Esch Act) that some form of approved ATS or ATC be in use for passenger trains running 80 mph or over. I can easily see this being a priority given the conditions being observed.
RME
DeggestyI may be wrong, but I expect that those people on the ICC who asked for this order were somewhat familiar with actual operating conditions on railroads, what had already been done in the way of the protection, and what needed yet to be done in in the way of protection-- unlike most of the people who agreed to demand that PTC be put into service by a certain date.
Johnny,
I think that you make a very pertinent point that the PTC mandate differs from the previous big mandates. Unlike those previous mandates, the PTC mandate orders not only implementation of technology, but also it orders the development of practical application that does not yet exist. So part of the mandate orders research and development, which by its very nature is impossible to deliver on a schedule, or deliver at a predicable cost.
On the contrary, the air brake and automatic couplers were fully developed for practical application when mandated. So the mandates simply pushed to get the job done faster.
ontheBNSF,
I understand your point that property rights give people the right to sue for damages. And that is the economic incentive for railroads to spend money developing measures to prevent accidents and the resulting damage claims.
As long as we have government we will have government regulation, not only of railroads but also of just about everything in our lives. Certainly regulations may be questioned and may even add to risk but they will be there. What railroads can do is to participate in making the regulations.
Last night, I happened to pick up my copy of the August, 1947, issue of Trains, which had a report on the ICC dictum concerning signaling, ATS, ATC, and cab signals. ("Signaling Ordered on High Speed Lines," pp. 4 and 6) The railroads were given until the end of 1952 to complete the installation of signals and/or ATC or ATS.
This was the first such general order since 1922, when the ICC "...ordered all roads with more then $25 million annual revenue to install automatic train control on at least one fullpassenger division of certain heavily traveled main lines. The purpose was not only to improve safety but to put various systems into actual service where they could be further developed."
I may be wrong, but I expect that those people on the ICC who asked for this order were somewhat familiar with actual operating conditions on railroads, what had already been done in the way of the protection, and what needed yet to be done in in the way of protection-- unlike most of the people who agreed to demand that PTC be put into service by a certain date.
Bucyrus So therefore, it is fair to say that improvements in safety alone will certainly add profit by reducing the costs associated with wrecks, injuries, and deaths. And therefore, railroad companies are on a continuous trajectory of improving safety in pursuit of profit by developing and adopting whatever technologies happen to be proven at any given time. Examples of such technologies leading to safety improvements are the air brake, automatic couplers, ECP brakes, and PTC. Therefore, because the railroads are already motivated to develop these safety improvements in their own self-interest, no government mandate is needed. In retrospect, it seems absurd to conclude that railroads would have failed to convert to standards such as the air brake or automatic couplers. By extension, it seems equally absurd to conclude that railroads will not develop PTC without a government mandate.
So therefore, it is fair to say that improvements in safety alone will certainly add profit by reducing the costs associated with wrecks, injuries, and deaths. And therefore, railroad companies are on a continuous trajectory of improving safety in pursuit of profit by developing and adopting whatever technologies happen to be proven at any given time. Examples of such technologies leading to safety improvements are the air brake, automatic couplers, ECP brakes, and PTC.
Therefore, because the railroads are already motivated to develop these safety improvements in their own self-interest, no government mandate is needed. In retrospect, it seems absurd to conclude that railroads would have failed to convert to standards such as the air brake or automatic couplers. By extension, it seems equally absurd to conclude that railroads will not develop PTC without a government mandate.
My main point was upholding property rights and that if you did that many externalities would disappear. Largely property rights are not upheld. For example steam locomotives used to smoke stacks which would capture cinders because they did not want to be sued for property damage associated with burning down people's fields.
Railroad to Freedom
And furthermore! Government regulation is not benign. It has harmful effects. There are very necessary regulations, such a driving on the right side of the road.
But the government has no special knowledge or altruism. They are very subject to political influence which harms the general population.
When I was with the railroad we knew that the best thing we could do to improve the bottom line was to improve safety. Train wrecks and injuries are costly. We also knew we had a moral obligation to the employees to keep them out of harms way as best we could.
Regulation is not only "Not the Complete Answer". It is often more of a problem causer than an answer. Congress doesn't know a lot about rail safety but they mandated PTC because they wanted to "Do Something". Well, it's going to be an expensive mess.
BucyrusIt has been suggested here and in the other recent PTC thread that the railroad companies will not spend money on safety improvements unless they add enough profit to justify the improvements.
1. We will always have private industry including railroads and we will always have government. And there will always be some tension between them about these issues.
2. Left to themselves different railroads will treat problems in different ways. However, we are talking about the Federal Government so there will be only one government and it will treat problems in only one way.
3. Whether or not the Federal Government treats individual safety issues in the best way will no doubt be a matter of conjecture and debate. Railroads if left to themselves would not ignore safety but would have differing perspectives on it.
4. With regard to government alone, consider the issue of roads. Some roads are much safer than others are. Your local DOT knows which roads are more safe and which are less safe. Yet the government does not bring all roads up to one common standard of safety. So government regulation, while it will always exist, will never be a complete answer.
You really don't need safety regulations of any kind if you uphold property rights. For example if a train crashes into someone's property than the railroad would be sued for property damage thus driving up the cost of doing business. The combination of not wanting to be sued and not wanting to loose customers would encourage safe railroad practices without regulatory busy bodies.
It has been suggested here and in the other recent PTC thread that the railroad companies will not spend money on safety improvements unless they add enough profit to justify the improvements. Therefore, when a safety improvement is in the public interest, but does not add sufficient profit for the railroad companies, the government must force the companies to implement the safety improvement. And so that is the rationale justifying that PTC be mandated by government.
This dynamic has been compared to the mandates for automatic couplers and the air brake. So, then is it accurate to say that had the government not mandated automatic couplers and air brakes, the railroad companies would still be using link and pin couplers and controlling trains with handbrakes?
Bucyrus So why aren’t the railroads motivated by saving the lives of their employees?
So why aren’t the railroads motivated by saving the lives of their employees?
Because most of the lives lost on the railroads are not lost in train collisions that would be minimized by PTC - note, I did not say eliminated as I suspect through some forms of malfunction and mis-operation there will still be the occasional collision, even with PTC.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Railroad profit might be increased by more efficient train control. But that alone appears to be insufficient in the PTC mandate to motivate the railroads to approve it. However, reducing the incidence of train collisions also increases profit.
So if PTC is justified to the public by the lives it saves among the public, would it not also be justified to the railroads by the lives it saves among railroad employees? So why aren’t the railroads motivated by saving the lives of their employees?
edblysard schlimm Just two simple questions: 1. Would the auto industry have developed effective pollution controls without the federal (and California) mandated standards? 2. Would the rails have developed better signal and control systems without the mandate? As for the first, no…..more efficient and powerful engines, yes, but pollution control, no, there would have been no profit motive in it. As for question number two, if by” better” you mean PTC, then not right now and in the manner it is being mandated, not enough bang for the buck and return on the bottom line…if you mean would they have come up with a more sophisticated wayside and in cab signal system, most likely, if it would increase track utilization and train speed, adding dollars to the bottom line.
schlimm Just two simple questions: 1. Would the auto industry have developed effective pollution controls without the federal (and California) mandated standards? 2. Would the rails have developed better signal and control systems without the mandate?
Just two simple questions: 1. Would the auto industry have developed effective pollution controls without the federal (and California) mandated standards? 2. Would the rails have developed better signal and control systems without the mandate?
As for the first, no…..more efficient and powerful engines, yes, but pollution control, no, there would have been no profit motive in it.
As for question number two, if by” better” you mean PTC, then not right now and in the manner it is being mandated, not enough bang for the buck and return on the bottom line…if you mean would they have come up with a more sophisticated wayside and in cab signal system, most likely, if it would increase track utilization and train speed, adding dollars to the bottom line.
Thanks for your responses. So, as many understand, the profit motive may be insufficient to bring about some improvements, whether in regard to concerns with the environment or safety.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
I agree that there is an analogy between the PTC mandate and other government mandates such as emission regulations; in that they are both mandates. But the existence of an analogy does not mean that both mandates are equivalent. The issue is the difference in scale.
Sure, we can live with the slowly ratcheting up of emission standards, but what would we say about a zero CO2 emission mandate that must be met in say four years? That would be more in scale with the scope of the PTC mandate in that it would require the development of cost effective CO2 sequestration technology-- all in a very short time frame.
On another note, it has been claimed that Banks is advocating a pie-in-the-sky solution for PTC, whereas the mandate will use proven technology. However, many seem to be saying the opposite is true. They say that the mandate is forcing unproven technology upon the railroads. Furthermore, they say that some of this unproven technology is not only unproven, but it is undeveloped, and the mandate will force the railroads to develop it before implementing it.
23 17 46 11
oltmanndThe problem isn't really the mandate, it's the scope and timing that make it so hard.
But I would say that the scope is the mandate. Therefore the problem with the scope is the problem with the mandate.
The timing is difficult to meet, but the railroads will be given the time if they can't meet the deadline. But they won't be compensated for lost progress and wasted money due to a wrongheaded scope.
schlimm1. Would the auto industry have developed effective pollution controls without the federal (and California) mandated standards?
No. None of the benefits show up on the automaker's balance sheet.
schlimm2. Would the rails have developed better signal and control systems without the mandate?
No. All of the benefits show up on the RRs balance sheet, but they are not enough to fund the project. The interesting question is what else might have been done with the money? How many grade Xing projects/eliminations could have been done, for example? Would that have enhanced overall safety more?
The problem isn't really the mandate, it's the scope and timing that make it so hard. The PTC pieces can all be useful in making the RR and trains more "intelligent". This has benefit that may ultimately yield a net benefit to the RRs, but those benefits are all so distant and squishy that they kill the ROI. Only the gov't has the luxury of spending capital today w/o worry when or if the revenue stream will start.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
jeffhergertThe unionized signal maintainers may not be getting much out of PTC installations right now. Most of the lineside hardware, so far, in my area was installed by outside contractors. Not railroad personnel, although when it's time to connect it up then railroad people will be involved. I hope. Jeff
I do not know to what extent the unions might benefit from new membership due to the mandate. It would be interesting to hear what their position is on the mandate. But, as you say, I suspect most of PTC implementation will be carried out by outside contractors.
Look at page 40 of this FRA report on PTC:
http://www.fra.dot.gov/eLib/Details/L03718
It talks about the shortage of signal maintainers and the new hiring that will be needed to carry out the mandate.
Here is a quote, although the formatting is imperfect:
“Railroad signalmen, the craft most responsible for PTC system installation, have fewer than
9,500 members nationwide.32 In addition to implementing PTC systems, these persons are
also working full time to keep currently installed signal and train control systems operational.
The work is also arduous. PTC system installers are often required to travel 100 percent of
the time away from home—sometimes, in excess of 300 miles—working either 4 days on
and 3 days off, or 8 days on and 6 days off. They work outdoors in all types of weather, over
uneven terrain, and are required to do heavy lifting, climb ladders and poles at heights that
can exceed 40 feet. All this while working under live rail traffic conditions where both the
reliability of the existing systems must be maintained at all times, as well as the personal
safety of all persons involved.
The industry has already hired more than 2,000 additional signal technicians specifically for
PTC and is planning to hire hundreds more. It typically takes 18–24 months for an
individual to receive the training and gain the experience necessary to handle the
complexities of a PTC system.”
[My emphasis added]
The mandate for PTC thrust on the carriers is similar to the mandate for air pollution controls that was thrust on the automobile industry in the 60's. 'Come up with something, anything, to meet the numbers - no matter how good or bad the solution may be in reality; and in the 1970's while the engines met the desired numbers they were some of the WORST engines put in cars before or since - gas hogs with minimal reliability. Once the original mandate was 'satisfied' the science of combustion and the technology of how to better control it began moving forward to the point that todays engine produce more power with less polution and greater economy that could ever have been thought of in the 1960's. In the automotive industry, each manufacturer was able to develop and implement their own solution, and their solution did not have to be the solution for their competitors.
In the rail industry, with PTC, the solution for one carrier must also be the solution for all carriers that are installing PTC and not only must the solution solve the issues on signalled territory it must also solve the issues on unsignaled territory. Existing signal systems were not installed 'whole cloth' on the carriers, they were installed territory by territory as both need and financial ability of the carriers permitted and with 'state of the art' equipment when it was installed - systems installed 20 years apart, would have totally different hardware to accomplish the same end as the 'state of the art' moves on, year by year as various more reliable and/or efficient technologies get implemented into the suppliers product line.
The mandate for PTC is forcing it to be installed and implemented relatively 'whole cloth' - all territories on all carriers within a very compressed time window. Additionally, what works for CSX, must also work for UP, BNSF, NS, KCS, CN, CP and any other carrier that has traffic that requires the use of PTC. A tall, tall order.
The signal person I mentioned was a system company officer, not some one with the union or in a union agreement job. Whether he came up through the ranks and had been a unionized signal man or not, I don't know.
The unionized signal maintainers may not be getting much out of PTC installations right now. Most of the lineside hardware, so far, in my area was installed by outside contractors. Not railroad personnel, although when it's time to connect it up then railroad people will be involved. I hope.
jeffhergert They've only been working on this is some form or another for about the last 30 years. While I myself wouldn't mind if they worked on it another 30 before deployment, so they could get the "perfect" version, many others would not. Remember, too this is one consultant's opinion. Maybe he has an interest in another, more expensive angle of PTC technology? Besides, most articles that I've seen usually mention that the first deployment of PTC is just the first generation. Eventually they'll have their rolling blocks and elimination of wayside signaling. There was a letter once from a class one signal department higher up manager in a trade magazine. He lamented the fact that some, kind of like this Banks person, wanted to scrap the existing signal systems in favor of some of the pie in the sky PTC systems, that weren't yet available. His chief complaint was that some, and usually they are people that have to listen to "experts" to make their decisions because they don't have any real world/field experiences, were ready to abandon things that have been refined and worked for over 100 years for an unproven technology. Jeff
They've only been working on this is some form or another for about the last 30 years. While I myself wouldn't mind if they worked on it another 30 before deployment, so they could get the "perfect" version, many others would not.
Remember, too this is one consultant's opinion. Maybe he has an interest in another, more expensive angle of PTC technology? Besides, most articles that I've seen usually mention that the first deployment of PTC is just the first generation. Eventually they'll have their rolling blocks and elimination of wayside signaling.
There was a letter once from a class one signal department higher up manager in a trade magazine. He lamented the fact that some, kind of like this Banks person, wanted to scrap the existing signal systems in favor of some of the pie in the sky PTC systems, that weren't yet available. His chief complaint was that some, and usually they are people that have to listen to "experts" to make their decisions because they don't have any real world/field experiences, were ready to abandon things that have been refined and worked for over 100 years for an unproven technology.
Well maybe you and BaltACD are right about Banks. I really don’t know, but there does indeed seem to be two ways of looking at this. Initially, my impression was that the railroads are against this mandate because they feel it is the wrong approach and that it will set back progress and force them to waste a lot of their money. They also feel that they are currently developing PTC on their own, and without the mandate, they will arrive at a better execution of PTC. If that is the railroads’ position, I would expect everybody in the industry to be on the same page.
However, there is an opposite position held by Congress and the non- railroad-industry advocates of PTC that wants PTC to be implemented as quickly as possible. And this position also includes the belief that the mandate is necessary because the industry will not act quickly enough without it. Generally, it paints the industry as a greedy villain for resisting a noble safety improvement in the same way they resisted other safety improvements such as automatic couplers and the air brake.
Apparently the position within the industry that the PTC mandate is bad for them is not universally held within the industry. Maybe it is only the position of management, but not of labor. Management and labor are often at odds with each other, so it would not be surprising for them to differ over the PTC mandate. Or maybe even management itself is divided over the PTC mandate.
It is true that a consultant such as Banks might have an agenda for selling his own services which might conflict with where the mandate will lead. However, it is also quite possible that the mandate will open the door for consultants such as Banks. In fact I would expect the mandate to be a bonanza for consultants in general. So I would not discount Banks for the assumption that his position is self-serving.
The mandate will also be a bonanza for the signal workers union, so they would certainly have a powerful motive to discredit Banks for his opposition to the mandate.
Bucyrus zugmannNo matter what the technology is, by the time it gets installed, of course it's going to be seen as outdated. The stuff is outdated before it even leaves the factory. The question is whether the "outdated" stuff is better than what currently exists. True, it might be partly outdated by the time it is installed, but I think it is likely to be more outdated once it is installed if the railroads are forced to install what they feel is more outdated at the beginning. The outdated stuff may indeed be better than what preceded it. But even so, I would not conclude that forcing the wrong approach is a net win just because of that marginal safety improvement. The issue is that the money wasted by forcing an inferior approach could have resulted in even more safety improvement in a shorter time had it not been wasted.
zugmannNo matter what the technology is, by the time it gets installed, of course it's going to be seen as outdated. The stuff is outdated before it even leaves the factory. The question is whether the "outdated" stuff is better than what currently exists.
True, it might be partly outdated by the time it is installed, but I think it is likely to be more outdated once it is installed if the railroads are forced to install what they feel is more outdated at the beginning.
The outdated stuff may indeed be better than what preceded it. But even so, I would not conclude that forcing the wrong approach is a net win just because of that marginal safety improvement. The issue is that the money wasted by forcing an inferior approach could have resulted in even more safety improvement in a shorter time had it not been wasted.
No matter what the technology is, by the time it gets installed, of course it's going to be seen as outdated. The stuff is outdated before it even leaves the factory. The question is whether the "outdated" stuff is better than what currently exists.
But there's also the issue that railroads do not exist in a vacuum....
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
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.