ruderunner Euclid, you bring up many valid reasons why PTC won't be done or in effect by 2015. But that does nothing to answer the question I posed. I appreciate your ideas, even the conspirational ones (really) But I'm looking past that problem. Falcon, so basically this is going to apply to Class1 mainlines and the NEC? I can see where shortlines and branches would be left off due the lower speeds and density. Is that a correct summation? As for defining "done" it's been pointed out that their are milestones to be reached, so let's say that those milestones won't be reached rather tha "PTC is done". What penalties do the railroads face for not meeting those milestones?
Euclid, you bring up many valid reasons why PTC won't be done or in effect by 2015. But that does nothing to answer the question I posed. I appreciate your ideas, even the conspirational ones (really) But I'm looking past that problem.
Falcon, so basically this is going to apply to Class1 mainlines and the NEC? I can see where shortlines and branches would be left off due the lower speeds and density. Is that a correct summation?
As for defining "done" it's been pointed out that their are milestones to be reached, so let's say that those milestones won't be reached rather tha "PTC is done". What penalties do the railroads face for not meeting those milestones?
When reading statutes or regulations, you need to be aware that definitions are substantive. A term is often defined a certain way to achieve a certain result, and the definition may not be consistent with the common meaning of the term. That's the case here with the definition of the term "main line". " Main line" for purposes of the PTC mandate is defined as Class I RR trackage that handles PIH and trackage (of any railroad) that handles intercity or commuter passenger service. As such, it doesn't include all trackage that a railroad would define as "main line" in its operating rules (for example, a Class II railroad's "main line" wouldn't be a "main line" for purposes of the PTC mandate unless it handled intercity or commuter passenger traffic). Conversely, a "main line" as defined in the PTC mandate may include trackage that the railroad doesn't treat as "main line".
One of my favorite examples of "defined terms" is a satirical ICC decision where ICC supposedly defined the term "cat" to include the "four legged animal commonly described as a elephant". It''s a bit of an exaggeration , but not as far out as you might think.
Euclid ruderunnerEuclid, you bring up many valid reasons why PTC won't be done or in effect by 2015. But that does nothing to answer the question I posed. I appreciate your ideas, even the conspirational ones (really) But I'm looking past that problem. You asked what it meant to railroads if they do not meet the PTC deadline. I said what I think it means. There is nothing conspiratorial about it. I am just looking at the big picture, and it is clearly beyond all of the mumbo jumbo minutia about goals, deadlines, and penalties. Now, you have sharpened the focus of your original premise of your title to ask what penalties railroads face for not meeting deadlines, as opposed to asking what it means to railroads to not meet deadlines. There also needs to be a distinction between what penalties are prescribed and what penalties will actually be imposed. I would speculate that no penalties will be imposed, although many are probably prescribed. But, to the question of what this means to railroads, I will stick to my original opinion that the penalties mean nothing because they won’t be imposed, and the industry knows this because they see the big picture. And also, I believe that the industry sees plenty of “meaning” in the PTC mandate, but not in relation to penalties. The meaning the industry sees is the staggering cost of meeting the mandate. They clearly are aware of the dynamics of a forced expenditure of such a large sum for goods and services to vendors who are keenly aware that the railroad industry happens to be flush with money. Part of the mandate requires research and development to obtain a result. Therefore the railroads realize that the price tag for PTC is actually unknowable, and has every conceivable reason to rise. And the industry realizes that they can do nothing about the rising price except pay it. These things are “what it means” to the railroads. This is the forest they see. Penalties and milestones are the trees.
ruderunnerEuclid, you bring up many valid reasons why PTC won't be done or in effect by 2015. But that does nothing to answer the question I posed. I appreciate your ideas, even the conspirational ones (really) But I'm looking past that problem.
You asked what it meant to railroads if they do not meet the PTC deadline. I said what I think it means. There is nothing conspiratorial about it. I am just looking at the big picture, and it is clearly beyond all of the mumbo jumbo minutia about goals, deadlines, and penalties.
Now, you have sharpened the focus of your original premise of your title to ask what penalties railroads face for not meeting deadlines, as opposed to asking what it means to railroads to not meet deadlines. There also needs to be a distinction between what penalties are prescribed and what penalties will actually be imposed.
I would speculate that no penalties will be imposed, although many are probably prescribed. But, to the question of what this means to railroads, I will stick to my original opinion that the penalties mean nothing because they won’t be imposed, and the industry knows this because they see the big picture. And also, I believe that the industry sees plenty of “meaning” in the PTC mandate, but not in relation to penalties.
The meaning the industry sees is the staggering cost of meeting the mandate. They clearly are aware of the dynamics of a forced expenditure of such a large sum for goods and services to vendors who are keenly aware that the railroad industry happens to be flush with money.
Part of the mandate requires research and development to obtain a result. Therefore the railroads realize that the price tag for PTC is actually unknowable, and has every conceivable reason to rise. And the industry realizes that they can do nothing about the rising price except pay it. These things are “what it means” to the railroads. This is the forest they see. Penalties and milestones are the trees.
The 4 big Class I railroads chose Wabtec's V-ETMS system for their PTC system, the other 3 Class I railroads(KCS, Soo Line, and Grand Trunk) accepted this choice as did all the Midwest and Western Commuter railroads. As part of the agreement to use Wabtec's system, Wabtec had to agree to license rights to produce and sell equipment to all the other Signalling manufacturers. The agreement included a specific Royalty percentage that the Railroad Companies agreed was reasonable. The V-ETMS system has been operational on BNSF trackage in Southern Illinois for about 5 years now, as BNSF anticipated installing the system even without the government mandate, although over a much longer timescale.
ruderunner Falcon, so basically this is going to apply to Class1 mainlines and the NEC? I can see where shortlines and branches would be left off due the lower speeds and density. Is that a correct summation?
Its not al class 1 routes, only those that handle significant amounts of TIH/PIH, its not just the NEC, its any place Amtrak and commuter lines operate. The origin of PTC was the Chattsworth incident (that's why PTC is supposed to start in California). The problem, according to testimony before congress, is that there is no PTC system developed that meets the needs of the commuter lines.
What penalties do the railroads face for not meeting those milestones?
Its in the CFR.
Whole CFR:
Penalties
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
Modeling the Cleveland and Pittsburgh during the PennCentral era starting on the Cleveland lakefront and ending in Mingo junction
Euclid ruderunner... I'm looking not for reasons why it won't be done but for what happens when it isn't done. Nothing happens if it isn’t done on time because there is no definition of “done.” The reason that there is no definition of “done” is that there is no objective definition of “PTC” in the PTC mandate. It includes things that have not been invented yet. Parts will be obsolete before other parts are finished. The PTC mandate is a launching pad to endless application of technology to a big customer with very deep pockets. Not being “done on time” is therefore a non-issue and nothing to worry about. The thing to worry about is paying forever for something that will never be done.
ruderunner... I'm looking not for reasons why it won't be done but for what happens when it isn't done.
Nothing happens if it isn’t done on time because there is no definition of “done.”
The reason that there is no definition of “done” is that there is no objective definition of “PTC” in the PTC mandate. It includes things that have not been invented yet. Parts will be obsolete before other parts are finished. The PTC mandate is a launching pad to endless application of technology to a big customer with very deep pockets.
Not being “done on time” is therefore a non-issue and nothing to worry about.
The thing to worry about is paying forever for something that will never be done.
There are mandates in the legislation for certain milestones to be completed by certain dates. It not a matter of being "done' its a matter of penalties if those milestones have not been reached (for example there has to be operable PTC in the state of California by 2015). The FRA has requested authority from Congress to extend those milestones on a case by case basis.
https://www.aar.org/safety/Pages/Positive-Train-Control.aspx
Euclid It is useful to have a definition of where PTC will be applied. Is there also a definition of what “PTC” is in this mandate?
It is useful to have a definition of where PTC will be applied. Is there also a definition of what “PTC” is in this mandate?
"POSITIVE TRAIN CONTROL SYSTEM.—The term ‘‘positive train control system’’ means a system designed to prevent train-to-train collisions, over-speed derailments, incursions into established work zone limits, and the movement of a train through a switch left in the wrong position."
The FRA PTC rules (49 CFR Part 236, Subpart I) are not nearly as simple. There are pages and pages of regulatory provisions on the design and implementation (etc) requirements applicable to PTC systems. For anyone interested in wading through this stuff, here's the link:
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2013-title49-vol4/pdf/CFR-2013-title49-vol4-part236-subpartI.pdf
schlimm Falcon48OR gross annual tonnage (all commodities) on the line will decline to below 5,000,000 gross tons annually. 5 mil. gross tons means most major and secondary lines would NOT be exempt. Grain alone averages 512 mil. tons annually. The typical freight car averages over 100 tons
Falcon48OR gross annual tonnage (all commodities) on the line will decline to below 5,000,000 gross tons annually.
5 mil. gross tons means most major and secondary lines would NOT be exempt. Grain alone averages 512 mil. tons annually. The typical freight car averages over 100 tons
In order for the PTC mandate to apply, a line must first be a "main line" as defined in 236.1003(b). In order to be a "main line", a line must be EITHER:
> A line used for regularly scheduled intercity or commuter passenger service (tourist rail service doesn't count), OR
> A Class I railroad line handling 5 million or more gross tons annually.
Now, once a line is a "main line" as defined above, the PTC mandate will apply if EITHER:
> The line is used for regularly scheduled intercity or commuter passenger service (except for certain passenger operations described in 236.1019(c)), OR
> The line is used for PIH traffic (including anhydrous ammonia). There is an exception in 236.1005 for "lines with de minimus PIH risk" (generally, less than 100 cars per year of PIH, loaded or residue).
One result of the above is that Class II or Class III (short line) railroad trackage that does not handle regularly scheduled intercity or commuter service will not be a "main line" under the 236.1003(b) definition. As such, the PTC mandate will not apply to this track regardless of whether it meets the 5 million ton threshold, and regardless of whether it handles PIH traffic.
Clear as mud?
Face it...the railroads are making hay during this delay. But they aren't behind the delay as much as two other entities. First, native Americans are having problems with the siting of radio antennas and towers within their lands. And second, the Federal Communications Commission is dragging its feet on allocations of frequencies (which some charge is because of big business interest's influence on government agencies and personnel). In effect, even if railroads wanted proceed...and there are those who are willing and able to...they are handcuffed by the government hold up.
RIDEWITHMEHENRY is the name for our almost monthly day of riding trains and transit in either the NYCity or Philadelphia areas including all commuter lines, Amtrak, subways, light rail and trolleys, bus and ferries when warranted. No fees, just let us know you want to join the ride and pay your fares. Ask to be on our email list or find us on FB as RIDEWITHMEHENRY (all caps) to get descriptions of each outing.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
I doubt that anything would be done except to allow the railroads to continue business as usual. There are three different Government agencies involved in this mandate, fighting among each other.
With railroads critical to the economic recovery, any politician who tried to shut down a railroad over their failure to install PTC would most likely be committing political suicide if the railroads really started to fight back.
Falcon and North, that's enlightening info. I knew that short lines were under limited restrictions, didn't know about the majors.
Tree, the apple pie analogy is quite fitting, but I'm lloking not for reasons why it won't be done but for what happens when it isn't done.
Paul_D_North_Jr tree68 [snipped - PDN] . . . those "feel good" groups may see PTC as another opportunity to throw a monkey wrench into the works of transporting substances they oppose (read "oil"). . . . At the risk of oversimplifying this, that "opportunity" might not work for them. As I (loosely) understand it, PTC is required for lines that carry only 2 types of cargo: 1) passengers; 2) haz-mats (and maybe just the Toxic Inhalation Hazard ["TIH"] variety). So, unless that oil is classified as a haz-mat (or even a TIH), PTC wouldn't be applicable to the lines that it's carried on (i.e., would a real haz-mat be allowed be carried in the DOT-111 type tank cars ?) Additions, corrections, and clarifications to this little analysis are invited. - Paul North.
tree68 [snipped - PDN] . . . those "feel good" groups may see PTC as another opportunity to throw a monkey wrench into the works of transporting substances they oppose (read "oil"). . . .
So, unless that oil is classified as a haz-mat (or even a TIH), PTC wouldn't be applicable to the lines that it's carried on (i.e., would a real haz-mat be allowed be carried in the DOT-111 type tank cars ?)
Additions, corrections, and clarifications to this little analysis are invited.
- Paul North.
(1) lines which are used for regularly scheduled intercity or commuter rail passenger service,
- OR -
(2) lines which handle poisonous by inhalation traffic (PIH/TIH) including annydrous ammonia AND which transport at least 5 million gross tons of traffic (all commodities) per year (note that there's a limited exception for lines carrying less than 100 cars of PIH annually)
These criteria are generally applied based on 2008 traffic. However, FRA will exclude track segments from the PTC mandate if the railroad shows that, as of December 15, 2015:
(1) no passenger service will be present on the line (or the line is subject to some limited exceptions for low speed passenger operations),
- AND-
(2) no PIH traffic will be present on the line, OR gross annual tonnnage (all commodities) on the line will decline to below 5,000,000 gross tons annually.
See 49 CFR 236.1003(b) ("main line" definition); 236.1005(b)(1)(2) (lines required to be equipped), 236.1005(b)(4)(exclusion or removal of track segments).
In response to your last point, oil is certainly a haz mat. But it is not a PIH. Therefore, its presence on a line would not, standing alone, trigger the PTC mandate.
Feel good types will drive this, but don’t underestimate the effect of the lobbying of manufactures and vendors of equipment, software, consulting, R&D, and installation of the PTC infrastructure. This is a bonanza for them. The larger a project is, the greater chance that it runs away in cost overrun. This is because the bigger it is, the greater the loss in stopping it. So it gets everybody over a barrel and then writes its own ticket.
While this is a fundamental part of business, and happens in varying degrees with all projects, usually only government projects are large enough to run the risk of a complete boondoggle. PTC is a private sector project. But have there been many private sector projects with this large of a price tag?
Further working against a reasonable outcome is the fact that this is a private sector project with a government mandate. So it is like a government project without the normal accountability to the public constituency.
Today we speak of PTC as though it will be started and finished, and we wonder if it will be done in time. I predict that it will never be done. It will always be a work in progress as new technology is developed. It will be an endless gravy train driven by an endless mandate.
Therefore, from a practical perspective, there will never be a PTC deadline. It is beside the point.
As BlueStreak points out, there are many reasons for not meeting the deadline that are well beyond the control of the railroads. There may be exceptions, but I believe the railroads are making a "good faith" effort to comply, but there are many roadblocks.
You can't bake an apple pie if you can't buy any apples.
At risk of injecting politics into the discussion, those "feel good" groups may see PTC as another opportunity to throw a monkey wrench into the works of transporting substances they oppose (read "oil"). Of course, they can conveniently blame the "big bad railroads," equally conveniently neglecting to mention why the railroads haven't complied.
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
Tree68, that "feel good" group has some serious potential to cause major headaches. Especially since many are in power positions. Things like inward facing cameras, and the FCC boondoggle/no mercy to the railroads are caused by those "feel good" types.
Cost overruns, you bet. Not just in implemenatation but in repurcussions.
I guess I'm trying to find out what kind of "teeth" the PTC mandate has, what and how much autority does the gov't have for enforcing it. Can the railroads thumb their noses at it? Judging by the way they are working on PTC I doubt it.
Most of what I've seen and read about PTC is mainly aruguments about why/why not it should be done and all the problems that exist in getting the system operational. But I haven't seen any thoughts about what happens in 2015. Everything so far has been about the here and now.
blue streak 1 Whatever the out come it will be an interesting court case. Technology non development, parts not available, FCC vs FRA vs EPA, vs ??...
Whatever the out come it will be an interesting court case. Technology non development, parts not available, FCC vs FRA vs EPA, vs ??...
Versus the mother of all cost overruns.
Whatever the out come it will be an interesting court case. Technology non development, parts not available, FCC vs FRA vs EPA, vs ??, Indian over sight ,
As noted in other threads, the railroads are already running a little behind. Given the pressure they are seeing to move things under the current conditions, it would be hard to conceive that anyone would do anything that would further restrict the ability to move traffic.
That's not to discount the "feelgood" faction, which would undoubtedly support restricting traffic, etc, at least until they have to wait in line to put fuel in their SUV.
Fining the railroads for failure to comply would be counter-productive. Better that they use that money to continue the build-out.
We can't forget, either, that some of the delay is due very simply to a lack of equipment - the mandate was passed before the technologies were really ready.
Rather than start a war about the why or why ont of PTC, I'm curious of the "what if" that seems inevitable come 2015. Namely that railroads won't be able to meet the dealine.
What are some of the "punishments" for not meeting the deadline? Fines? Orders to reduce traffic on non PTC lines? A shutdown of railroads that aren't incompliance?
What would these sanctions do to the railroads? Cause delays in infrastructure as cash needs to be dumped into PTC? Stock prices drop? Slow service due to reduced speeds/frequency?
How would the sanctions be doled out? A flat fine regardless of mileage? A fine per mile of noncompliant track? Does Amtrak face the same charges that freights would?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.