Have the Native American's approved all the radio installations?Have standards been set for inter-operatability between carriers?Have standards been set for the manufacturers to be able to build the necessary equipment in volumes sufficient to comply?
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
A highly political and contentious subject to be sure. The politicians want the public to think they are doing something so they can get reelected. The railroads need relief from an onerous piece of legislation, and in the final analysis, the consumer will be forced to pay the bill.
As for passage of SB 650, anything originating at the Republican's desks stands little chance of getting approved by the current administration.
BaltACD brings into focus other obstacles to be overcome. Will all parties agree to the necessary concessions? Not likely. The brick wall seems insurmountable at this point.
Norm
So .. do we close the routes that are not complete by the deadline? Would almost serve them right IMHO
Norm,
I agree with your points on this. I have not looked into this, but if the deadline cannot be extended, and the railroads can't meet it; then what?
Euclid Norm, I agree with your points on this. I have not looked into this, but if the deadline cannot be extended, and the railroads can't meet it; then what?
Same thing they do in football: PUNT! Seriously though, I guess we'll just have to cross that bridge when the water goes down.
In reference to putting together and implementing the PTC system in the time limit set out by congress I can say from a professional point of view that its impossilbe.
As a background to my discussion below let me briefly tell you of my professional qualifications. I was in the infromation technology industry for forty five years before I retired. I started out as computer operator trainee and worked my way up to various management positions in all phases of the industry (operations, programming, networking, security, procutement and communications).
With such a background I will point out that:
1. The programs necessary jto perform the tasks to control the PTC system would hard, but not impossible to write. They would be very complex and creating a test structure that would include all possible senarios that the PTC system might encounter would be a nightmare. This would be bad enough except the each of the railroads are doing this on there own. The is no combined team to ccreate one system that all of the railroads would use. Thsi would include the programs on the mainframe computers of the railroads, the programs in the control systems of the engines. Thsi would require a major rewritiing of the engine computer systems. The engines that do not have computers would have to have them installed. These programs would have to be able to automatically control the locomotives engine and brake systems when the engineer or conductor does not rea cto to an unsafe condition.
I2. There is no coordiantion among the railroads to use one type of equipment to be able to communicate between railroads. There are multiple vendors offering their own version of the PTC hardware which creates the problem of ensuring that the system will work perfectly all of the time.
3. Although the frequencey that will be used by the PTC system to communicate between the railroads, and the trains has been set. It is a logistical and financial nightmare to produce, test and install the towers and equipment necessary to get the PTC system up and running in the time set by Congress.
I have probably left a few things out, but you can get the idea of how complex this system is going to be.
caldreamer In reference to putting together and implementing the PTC system in the time limit set out by congress I can say from a professional point of view that its impossilbe.
It must be remembered that PTC was sold to congress by the NTSB has something that was available and ready to go right now. That the only reason the railroads hadn't deployed it was because they didn't want to spend money.
Jeff
Since when has the NTSB been known for desiging computer programs, telecommunications equipment, locomotive controls or having any number of other skilled professions that PTC requires?
Is PTC possible? Yes. Is it quick and easy? No.
Modeling the Cleveland and Pittsburgh during the PennCentral era starting on the Cleveland lakefront and ending in Mingo junction
Euclid As I understand it, part of what the PTC mandate calls for has not even been developed yet, so the mandate includes research and development. R&D is fundamentally prone to cost overrun. So when you put a Federal mandate on research and development you have a recipe for runaway cost.
And what funcitionality is that? Strange given FRA's OK to Metrolink to turn on PTC on one of their lines.
Buslist Euclid As I understand it, part of what the PTC mandate calls for has not even been developed yet, so the mandate includes research and development. R&D is fundamentally prone to cost overrun. So when you put a Federal mandate on research and development you have a recipe for runaway cost. And what funcitionality is that? Strange given FRA's OK to Metrolink to turn on PTC on one of their lines.
I don't know the details, but I am referring to a paper that was published by the FRA a few years ago. I have it here if I can find it. It gave a lot of details to show the overall complexity of the PTC implementation, including the fact that some of the technology had not been developed yet.
Buslist Euclid And what funcitionality is that? Strange given FRA's OK to Metrolink to turn on PTC on one of their lines.
Euclid
One line is not the whole system. The FRA has authorized a number of specific real world test environments. Test environments are far from full implementation.
Sorry to interject this thought, but it must be said. This is the same government that has paid to create a system for computerized, national healthcare system(ACA) Since 20101 its costs have tripled to +$35 B. See Link @ http://www.medicalrecords.com/physicians/electronic-medical-records-deadline Demanded(seperately) that the EMR system must be adopted by healthcare professionals in 2015. See link @ http://www.medicalrecords.com/physicians/electronic-medical-records-deadline
And my favorite; The Veteran's healthcare System. It operates with an arcane data system. It (The VA's IT system) is unable to 'talk' between Service Branches. This simply means that there are extra months added for a Veteran [excerbted, If the Vet has no 'hard copy' medical information, as proof of a service connected injury]
Similarly; The POSITIVE TRAIN CONTROL system mandated by Congress as The Rail Safety Improvement Act (RISA) of 2008. See link @ https://www.aar.org/policy/positive-train-control
"PTC: Railroads, suppliers still have a ways to go to meet the 2015 positive train control mandate" see article linked from 2010 @ http://www.progressiverailroading.com/ptc/article/PTC-Railroads-suppliers-still-have-a-ways-to-go-to-meet-the-2015-positive-train-control-mandate--24053
Then one moves forward to March 2013: Progressive Railroading, again:
"Class I railroads rate the state of positive train control"
http://www.progressiverailroading.com/ptc/article/Class-I-railroads-rate-the-state-of-positive-train-control--35442
FTL:[snipped]"...The technical obstacles cited by railroads include the availability of communications spectrum; radios; design specifications; back office servers and dispatch systems; track database verifications; installation engineering; and system reliability. Programmatic issues include budgeting and contracting, and stakeholder availability.
PTC isn't one complete system, it's a "system of systems," says Frank Lonegro, who on Jan. 1 became CSX Corp.'s vice president of mechanical after serving as president of CSX Technology for five years.
"There are 30 moving parts, and most of them didn't exist. Maybe three did when all this started," he says. "The clear answer as to whether this all can be completed in time is, 'No.'".." [snipped]
Even from the perspective of a couple of years out from the Congressional mandated operational date of December 2015. PTC seems to have been ordained to be "dead on arrival", even when it was passed into Law. A victim of politicians with overly large ideas, ambitious plans, and Fairygodmother complex,[ not to mention a sesnse of seeming to Have to do something for their constituants ] but no magic wand.... [my2c]
[quote user="Steve Sweeney"]
There, I said it out loud.
Let me know what you think: http://cs.trains.com/trn/b/staff/archive/2015/03/06/positive-train-control-extension-probably-not.aspx
Railroad safety is important to everyone. Cutting the funding for AMTRAK's Positive Train Control (PTC) system means that some aamerican citzens will surly die in railroad accidents that the PTC would have avoided.
WASHINGTON — The Amtrak train that derailed in Philadelphia on Tuesday night was equipped with an automatic speed control system that officials say could have prevented the wreck, which killed eight passengers and injured hundreds. But the system, which was tantalizingly close to being operational, was delayed by budgetary shortfalls, technical hurdles and bureaucratic rules, officials said Thursday.
In 2008, Congress ordered the installation of what are known as positive train control systems, which can detect an out-of-control, speeding train and automatically slow it down. But because lawmakers failed to provide the railroads access to the wireless frequencies required to make the system work, Amtrak was forced to negotiate for airwaves owned by private companies that are often used in mobile broadband.
Officials said Amtrak had made installation of the congressionally mandated safety system a priority and was ahead of most other railroads around the country.
But the railroad struggled for four years to buy the rights to airwaves in the Northeast Corridor that would have allowed them to turn the system on.
Railroad safety is important to everyone. The GOP cut the funding to complete Amtrak's Positive Train Control (PTC) system and Americans died. This week the GOP cut the funding again which means means that some more Americans will surely die in railroad accidents that the PTC system would prevent. Another demonstration of the GOP's lack of political will to govern this country
We know that the GOP has been willing let some of Americans die for lack of affordable healthcare. Now we know that the GOP is also willing to let Americans die for lack of a PTC system on our railroads. The GOP is wrong on this and they have are wrong on the ACA Medicaid expansion. They are usually wrong on everything. Why does anyone vote for or listen to these fools?
It is independent of if and when a statory extension is granted. It is not physically possible to meet the deadline given the supply chain etc. So what do we do? shut down the offending properties?
So what happens on Jan 1 2016 ? Amtrak shut down except for the NEC only if Amtrak's ACSES is approved for full use ? Freight RRs shut down all non PTC lines. As this poster can see very nasty political and court battles could happen on Jan 1st. Unintended consequences.
Not all freight lines need PTC. Only those that handle passenger trains and certain levels and/or types of hazmat. Maybe they will tell Amtrak and those hazmat shippers, "Sorry, can't service you because we don't have PTC operational."
I would guess that even if congress doesn't issue an extension, the FRA/USDOT will figure out a way to interpret the law to allow for individual waivers to be granted for those lines not equipped. Possibly only allowing the targeted trains (passenger and those with certain hazmat) to move only under absolute block rules on unequipped routes.
Since there are no industry standards for PTC and no sign that the Anti-Trust folks in the DOJ have given their blessing to any effort to develop them, even if some or all of the affected RRs do implement their in-house PTC, what will have been gained? AMTRAK is a horrible example. They have developed a system for the NE Corridor, but will that system work for AMTRAK trains operating on other RRs? While there are Members of Commerce who would be very happy to see all of AMTRAK shut down except for the NE Corridot there are many others who would not be happy. IMHO, when Congress realizes what the unforseen cosquences of the Law will do to the economy. they will hold hearings and then grant an extension.
DAN TAMSKY When electric suburban trains began to run over the San Francisco – Oakland Bay Bridge in January 1939, an “automatic cab signal” system was installed. The following paragraph is from the railroad enthusiast newsletter The Western Railroader booklet “IER ‘The Big Red Cars:’” [On the bridge passenger trains] “Were under automatic cab signals. When operating in this train control territory the engineer received a permissive speed indication of 11, 17, 25, or 35 miles per hour, depending on the traffic ahead. When the train speed equaled the cab signal indication a white light appeared. If the train exceeded by 1-1/2 miles [MPH] or more the permitted speed, a speed warning whistle sounded; and if the engineer did not shut off the power and apply the brakes within 2-1/2 seconds the power would be shut off automatically and the brakes applied in emergency. On leaving train control territory an “NS” indication appeared on the indicator showing that the train is operating in non – automatic signal territory…” The first installation of automatic cab signaling on the Southern Pacific was about nine years earlier, in 1930. A similar system was in place on the Pennsylvania Railroad between Philadelphia and Trenton before 1947. Given the advances in automation and electronics since World War II, why has this type of system not been improved and universally installed? "Overnight?" Does 85 years count as "overnight?" It just doesn't sound like it was a priority, doesn't it? When railroad bureaucracies or government bureaucracies want something to happen, surprising things can happen. If they don't care or don't want to do something, 85 years can be "overnight."
There is some thought that if the RRs had been a bit more proactive and installed cab signal with ATC (speed control, as you describe) - at least on the more heavily trafficed lines, the PTC stuff might not have happened.
The biggest difference between ATC and PTC is that ATC is reactive - the system doesn't do anything until some authority has been violated. PTC is proactive. It prevents the violation.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
jeffhergert Not all freight lines need PTC. Only those that handle passenger trains and certain levels and/or types of hazmat. Maybe they will tell Amtrak and those hazmat shippers, "Sorry, can't service you because we don't have PTC operational." I would guess that even if congress doesn't issue an extension, the FRA/USDOT will figure out a way to interpret the law to allow for individual waivers to be granted for those lines not equipped. Possibly only allowing the targeted trains (passenger and those with certain hazmat) to move only under absolute block rules on unequipped routes. Jeff
The problem is the law is written so that the lines requiring PTC are already set in stone regardless of the lack of any future hazmat or Amtrak traffic. The RRs would be non-compliant even if they didnt' turn a single wheel.
ramrod Since there are no industry standards for PTC and no sign that the Anti-Trust folks in the DOJ have given their blessing to any effort to develop them, even if some or all of the affected RRs do implement their in-house PTC, what will have been gained? AMTRAK is a horrible example. They have developed a system for the NE Corridor, but will that system work for AMTRAK trains operating on other RRs? While there are Members of Commerce who would be very happy to see all of AMTRAK shut down except for the NE Corridot there are many others who would not be happy. IMHO, when Congress realizes what the unforseen cosquences of the Law will do to the economy. they will hold hearings and then grant an extension.
Get real please. There are industry standards. A committee was established within days after the law was passed in 08 to insure interoperability of the systems. That's why the industry has jointly decided to use the 220MH spectrum for the radio, that's why the industry formed PTC220 LLC to acquire the spectrum, that's why the industry purchased the Radio manufacturer. Unfortunately 3 systems have evolved, the Michigan (GE) system that was already in place that has now spread to Illinois, the Alstom system based on the 9 aspect cab signal system on the NEC that was already in place but required some enhancements to meet the full PTC functionality and the WABTEC used everywhere else.
The DOJ has nothing to do with it. The interchange standards only apply to rolling stock in free interchange (a railroad is free to do what ever it wants on equipment that stays on its property) since locomotives are interchanged (run throughs) the PTC equipment on board is of interest. Did the DOJ approve the 27 Pin MU connector, of Westinghouse air brakes or the right hand coupler?
Amtrak equipment is really not a issue as the electric locomotives and Acelia train sets can't operate off the corridor so no need to equip them with a second system. Most of the diesels operate almost entirely on the freight railroads so equip them with the freight system. There will be a few diesels that operate on both the corridor (or MN) and on a freight that may require dual systems ( as will freight locomotives that operate on the corridor)
Buslist ramrod Since there are no industry standards for PTC and no sign that the Anti-Trust folks in the DOJ have given their blessing to any effort to develop them, even if some or all of the affected RRs do implement their in-house PTC, what will have been gained? AMTRAK is a horrible example. They have developed a system for the NE Corridor, but will that system work for AMTRAK trains operating on other RRs? While there are Members of Commerce who would be very happy to see all of AMTRAK shut down except for the NE Corridot there are many others who would not be happy. IMHO, when Congress realizes what the unforseen cosquences of the Law will do to the economy. they will hold hearings and then grant an extension. Get real please. There are industry standards. A committee was established within days after the law was passed in 08 to insure interoperability of the systems. That's why the industry has jointly decided to use the 220MH spectrum for the radio, that's why the industry formed PTC220 LLC to acquire the spectrum, that's why the industry purchased the Radio manufacturer. Unfortunately 3 systems have evolved, the Michigan (GE) system that was already in place that has now spread to Illinois, the Alstom system based on the 9 aspect cab signal system on the NEC that was already in place but required some enhancements to meet the full PTC functionality and the WABTEC used everywhere else.
I always thought it was a shame Harmon/GE couldn't get their ITCS system up to speed a bit quicker. Might have made a good alternative to WABTEC.
ACSES is a silly, overcomplicated mess.
oltmannd I always thought it was a shame Harmon/GE couldn't get their ITCS system up to speed a bit quicker. Might have made a good alternative to WABTEC. ACSES is a silly, overcomplicated mess.
The problem with the GE system is that it's distributed and not office centric. This makes it almost impossible to deliver those often claimed business benefits of PTC. The current rollout of the WABTEC system doesn't but can eventually be upgraded to do so, the GE system is where it's at, really no upgrade path.
oltmannd The problem is the law is written so that the lines requiring PTC are already set in stone regardless of the lack of any future hazmat or Amtrak traffic. The RRs would be non-compliant even if they didnt' turn a single wheel.
Actually I don't think the law was written that way but the FRA rule making was. It froze in time traffic patterns of 2008 even though there were new hazmat routing requirements going in place in 2010. As I recall the AAR filed suit on this one and won.
BuslistActually I don't think the law was written that way but the FRA rule making was
I stand corrected! (Thanks..)
oltmannd jeffhergert Not all freight lines need PTC. Only those that handle passenger trains and certain levels and/or types of hazmat. Maybe they will tell Amtrak and those hazmat shippers, "Sorry, can't service you because we don't have PTC operational." I would guess that even if congress doesn't issue an extension, the FRA/USDOT will figure out a way to interpret the law to allow for individual waivers to be granted for those lines not equipped. Possibly only allowing the targeted trains (passenger and those with certain hazmat) to move only under absolute block rules on unequipped routes. Jeff The problem is the law is written so that the lines requiring PTC are already set in stone regardless of the lack of any future hazmat or Amtrak traffic. The RRs would be non-compliant even if they didnt' turn a single wheel.
You are probably correct. I was just thinking about the law passed by Congress setting up the monthly hourly (total and limbo times) cap, 48 or 72 hours off after so many continuous days of work, requiring 10 hours undisturbed rest, etc. The way I read the law, any time you did anything at the requirement of the railroad (running a train, deadheading, rules classes, etc.) it counted towards those caps. The way the FRA interpreted and implemented the law was different. Some things count fully towards all, some things partially.
Either the copy of the law posted on our bulletin board was wrong, or the FRA got creative in their interpretations. If it was the latter, that "stone" may be more like sandstone rather than granite.
oltmannd The biggest difference between ATC and PTC is that ATC is reactive - the system doesn't do anything until some authority has been violated. PTC is proactive. It prevents the violation.
From what I've read, either in Trains or Railway Age-maybe both, PTC (in it's current form) would not have prevented a couple of the low speed collisions that have happened. (Neither would ATC for that matter.) The trains were moving within the parameters of restricted speed and PTC would have allowed them to pass the last signal before the collision.
AMTRAK expects its version of PTC to be operational by the end of the year deadline regardless of future funding cuts.
jeffhergert oltmannd The biggest difference between ATC and PTC is that ATC is reactive - the system doesn't do anything until some authority has been violated. PTC is proactive. It prevents the violation. From what I've read, either in Trains or Railway Age-maybe both, PTC (in it's current form) would not have prevented a couple of the low speed collisions that have happened. (Neither would ATC for that matter.) The trains were moving within the parameters of restricted speed and PTC would have allowed them to pass the last signal before the collision. Jeff
And the FRA will also allow, short distance, low speed transfer runs to operate without PTC in covered territory without being equipped. This seems to be a huge mistake to me...
...and a big mistake for the RRs to want it. It's not terrible if you are doing a PTC overlay and keeping the existing signals for determining train location and movement authority. But if you ever want to wean yourself off fixed signalling onto "real" PTC, it's just one more hurdle to get over with the FRA.
It's bad enough to have installed all this new fixed signalling you're only going to ask to pull up in a decade or two. If you make it a part of your safety plan you had to get approved, you have to jump through all those hoops again.
PTC - WILL FAIL
Either on specific locomotives and/or on wayside appurtences. These failures will happen every day in various locations with various pieces of equipment. The trains and locations involved will not be brought to a complete stop and will not stay stopped until the malfunctions are repaired.
With the Operating Rules for PTC operations having yet to be formulated it is unkonwn how badly the railroad will be affected by routine PTC failures; if the rules are written wrong it could be catastrophic.
In the harsh railroad enviornment - THINGS BREAK! It isn't if, but when.
BaltACD PTC - WILL FAIL Either on specific locomotives and/or on wayside appurtences. These failures will happen every day in various locations with various pieces of equipment. The trains and locations involved will not be brought to a complete stop and will not stay stopped until the malfunctions are repaired. With the Operating Rules for PTC operations having yet to be formulated it is unkonwn how badly the railroad will be affected by routine PTC failures; if the rules are written wrong it could be catastrophic. In the harsh railroad enviornment - THINGS BREAK! It isn't if, but when.
I would guess that a PTC failure would be treated similar to the way current cab signal/ATC failures are handled. A failure to pass the departure test at the initial station and the engine can't lead. An enroute failure and the train can continue, either on signal indications (assuming they left them in) and/or absolute block.
The thing is, if they have gone to one man crews than the argument that the PTC system was the "second set of eyes" in the cab go out the window. Reading a discussion about the voted-down contract on the BNSF that would've allowed engineer only on PTC equipped trains pointed out that if the PTC failed, they didn't have to call a conductor for the train to continue. If the PTC failed 10 miles into a 200+ mile run, the engineer would've been on his own for the remainder of the trip. (Except for the Master Conductor supervising him and who knows how many other trains via drone and/or inward facing camera.)
Considering the current political enviornment, I doubt the rules governing PTC failure will be as simple and straight forward as they are concerning the failure of current Train Control.
BaltACD Considering the current political enviornment, I doubt the rules governing PTC failure will be as simple and straight forward as they are concerning the failure of current Train Control.
+1 I'd guess it will follow the rules that allow unequipped transfer jobs. Maybe restricting speed plus all sorts of manual "belt and suspenders" OS reporting in dark territory.
jeffhergertI would guess that a PTC failure would be treated similar to the way current cab signal/ATC failures are handled. A failure to pass the departure test at the initial station and the engine can't lead. An enroute failure and the train can continue, either on signal indications (assuming they left them in) and/or absolute block.
Might be even worse. Cab signal failure enroute knocks you to down to 40 mph (by rule, I think, on NS, maybe not be reg.) I'll bet PTC failure will be more restrictive. The irony is that one slow train among many faster ones creates many more chances for collisions.
oltmannd jeffhergert I would guess that a PTC failure would be treated similar to the way current cab signal/ATC failures are handled. A failure to pass the departure test at the initial station and the engine can't lead. An enroute failure and the train can continue, either on signal indications (assuming they left them in) and/or absolute block. Might be even worse. Cab signal failure enroute knocks you to down to 40 mph (by rule, I think, on NS, maybe not be reg.) I'll bet PTC failure will be more restrictive. The irony is that one slow train among many faster ones creates many more chances for collisions.
jeffhergert I would guess that a PTC failure would be treated similar to the way current cab signal/ATC failures are handled. A failure to pass the departure test at the initial station and the engine can't lead. An enroute failure and the train can continue, either on signal indications (assuming they left them in) and/or absolute block.
Our rules say 40 mph with wayside signal indications without an absolute block. Once an absolute block is given, may run up to 79 mph with wayside signal indications.
If there are no wayside signals, without the absolute block restricted speed. With the absolute block 49 mph.
When operating with an absolute block you can't pass a signal displaying restricting, restricted-proceed, stop and proceed or stop without the dispatcher's permission.
I think a PTC failure will be treated along the same lines. While politicians may have forced the implementation of PTC, I doubt they really know much about it, other than it's promised to prevent accidents and crashes. Where it's required or the exceptions within PTC territory to allow unequipped trains and engines. I would even bet they haven't thought what to do when it fails because they don't believe it can fail.
Bottom line up until at least 1969 this was the system that protected the main line of what was the Penn RR, it worked quite well, but it also needed maintenance the fact that todays trains are running without that protection is an outright crime. Safety of life has to be the number one responsibility of all employees and management.
The rules are already in place and have been since FRA published the PTC rule. It's unlikely it will be modified in the current environment. It would require all the NPRM protocol etc.
Euclid There will also be more features added to the mandate as time allows the state of the art to expand. The industry is a cash cow now, and safety mandates are in season politically.
Additional features would probably be outside the safety mandate and therefore not an FRA issue. If it were it would require (under current FRA protocol) an RSAC recommendation and an NPRM that requires an OMB audit!
Buslist BaltACD Considering the current political enviornment, I doubt the rules governing PTC failure will be as simple and straight forward as they are concerning the failure of current Train Control. The rules are already in place and have been since FRA published the PTC rule. It's unlikely it will be modified in the current environment. It would require all the NPRM protocol etc.
BaltACD Considering the current political enviornment, I doubt the rules governing PTC failure will be as simple and straight forward as they are concerning the failure of current Train Control. The rules are already in place and have been since FRA published the PTC rule. It's unlikely it will be modified in the current environment. It would require all the NPRM protocol etc.
I am talking about carrier operating rules that will apply to train and engine crews, train dispatchers, signal personnel and MofW personnel.
While such rules may be written at present, they have yet to be published or placed in effect on the carriers.
Railroad safety is important to everyone. The GOP congress cut the funding to complete Amtrak's Positive Train Control (PTC) system and Americans died, Immediately after the accident the GOP cut the funding again which means means that some more Americans will surely die in railroad accidents that the PTC system would prevent.
I have been copying the applicable parts of the rrequirements for the PTC system (49CFR 236) to allow me to write a PTC system for my model railroad. Just those parts will as stated in my earlier post VERY complex, no less those parts that I will not use. Writing the code will have the programmers pulling their hair out. Does anyone know what computer language will be used to write. the code (C, C++, Python, Jave)?. I would love to see the completed code that will be used by the railroads.
RGARYK Railroad safety is important to everyone. The GOP congress cut the funding to complete Amtrak's Positive Train Control (PTC) system and Americans died, Immediately after the accident the GOP cut the funding again which means means that some more Americans will surely die in railroad accidents that the PTC system would prevent. We know that the GOP has been willing let some of Americans die for lack of affordable healthcare. Now we know that the GOP is also willing to let Americans die for lack of a PTC system on our railroads. The GOP is wrong on this and they have are wrong on the ACA Medicaid expansion. They are usually wrong on everything. Why does anyone vote for or listen to these fools?
Rubbish.
The Senate just passed a long term Transportation bill that includes a rollback of the PTC deadline to 2018. Now let's see what the house does.
RGARYKThe GOP is wrong on this and they have are wrong on the ACA Medicaid expansion. They are usually wrong on everything. Why does anyone vote for or listen to these fools?
"No one in this world, so far as I know—and I have researched the records for years, and employed agents to help me—has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people. Nor has anyone ever lost public office thereby." --H.L. Mencken, 1926.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
I use the middle part of that quote at least weekly, and sometimes daily (pertaining to drivers on public roads in my work zones).
Thanks for the attribution.
- Paul North.
It's hard to tell if Mencken was just being sharp-tongued and sarcastic or if he really had a low opinion of democracy as a form of government when he made that quote. Fascism was beginning to be looked at favorably by many as an alternative to representative democracy.
I think Mencken was a clever writer, but also an embittered cynic to the extreme. Like many on here and elsewhere, he had a low opinion of politicians and the people who "elect" them in a corrupt and flawed system. I suspect his views would be even nastier today post C-U.
CSSHEGEWISCHIt's hard to tell if Mencken was just being sharp-tongued and sarcastic or if he really had a low opinion of democracy as a form of government when he made that quote.
What he had was a low opinion of the American 'booboisie' -- as expressed in another great Menckenism, 'you'll never go broke underestimating the taste of the American people'.
It's not a problem with democracy as much as it's a problem with its evil twin, ochlocracy ... or perhaps the 'best kind of democracy money can buy' that gave us Tweed and the Boston Irish ward-heelers ... and, later, the Prendergast machine that produced Harry Truman.
Excerpt from “Happy Days 1880-1892” by H. L. Mencken (1940)
I always enjoyed the train ride to and from Washington, and in fact still prefer railroad travel to any other mode of conveyance by land. We used the B. & 0. exclusively, not only because its ancient Baltimore station, Camden, was convenient to my father’s office, but also as a matter of local pride and patriotism. The B. & O. made Baltimore, and Baltimoreans have never forgotten the fact. The company is tax exempt in Maryland to this day, and Baltimoreans going to New York would use its trains almost invariably if it had a tunnel through the North river. Its once famous flyer, the Royal Blue, did not go into service until 1890, but it had fast trains running between Baltimore and Washington so long ago as 1881, and by the middle eighties they were making the forty miles in fifty minutes, including the time wasted in getting in and out of the two cities. My father began to sell cigars to the B. & O. back in the seventies, when it added the first dining cars to its star trains, and this business, along with the accompanying station-restaurant business, helped to put his firm on its feet. He died convinced that B. &O. trains were somehow superior to all others. If it were argued in his presence that they shipped a great deal of ballast dust and locomotive ash, then he would reply that those of both the Pennsylvania and the New York Central shipped even more, and that in any case no rational man could object to a nuisance that had its origin in immutable natural laws, and was thus in accord with the will of God.
Wizlish CSSHEGEWISCH It's hard to tell if Mencken was just being sharp-tongued and sarcastic or if he really had a low opinion of democracy as a form of government when he made that quote. What he had was a low opinion of the American 'booboisie' -- as expressed in another great Menckenism, 'you'll never go broke underestimating the taste of the American people'. It's not a problem with democracy as much as it's a problem with its evil twin, ochlocracy
CSSHEGEWISCH It's hard to tell if Mencken was just being sharp-tongued and sarcastic or if he really had a low opinion of democracy as a form of government when he made that quote.
It's not a problem with democracy as much as it's a problem with its evil twin, ochlocracy
Your quote is not from Mencken; it is a misattribution. The correct quote was the one I gave.
If you read more of Mencken, it is pretty clear he had a very low opinion of democracy, along with many other icons, such as religion.
"Oligarchy" or "ochlocracy"? Or both? Mencken detested the rich.
"Liberty and democracy are eternal enemies, and every one knows it who has ever given any sober reflection to the matter. A democratic state may profess to venerate the name, and even pass laws making it officially sacred, but it simply cannot tolerate the thing. In order to keep any coherence in the governmental process, to prevent the wildest anarchy in thought and act, the government must put limits upon the free play of opinion. In part, it can reach that end by mere propaganda, by the bald force of its authority — that is, by making certain doctrines officially infamous. But in part it must resort to force, i.e., to law. One of the main purposes of laws in a democratic society is to put burdens upon intelligence and reduce it to impotence. Ostensibly, their aim is to penalize anti-social acts; actually their aim is to penalize heretical opinions. At least ninety-five Americans out of every 100 believe that this process is honest and even laudable; it is practically impossible to convince them that there is anything evil in it. In other words, they cannot grasp the concept of liberty. Always they condition it with the doctrine that the state, i.e., the majority, has a sort of right of eminent domain in acts, and even in ideas — that it is perfectly free, whenever it is so disposed, to forbid a man to say what he honestly believes. Whenever his notions show signs of becoming "dangerous," ie, of being heard and attended to, it exercises that prerogative. And the overwhelming majority of citizens believe in supporting it in the outrage. Including especially the Liberals, who pretend — and often quite honestly believe — that they are hot for liberty. They never really are. Deep down in their hearts they know, as good democrats, that liberty would be fatal to democracy — that a government based upon shifting and irrational opinion must keep it within bounds or run a constant risk of disaster. They themselves, as a practical matter, advocate only certain narrow kinds of liberty — liberty, that is, for the persons they happen to favor. The rights of other persons do not seem to interest them. If a law were passed tomorrow taking away the property of a large group of presumably well-to-do persons — say, bondholders of the railroads — without compensation and without even colorable reason, they would not oppose it; they would be in favor of it. The liberty to have and hold property is not one they recognize. They believe only in the liberty to envy, hate and loot the man who has it. "Liberty and Democracy" in the Baltimore Evening Sun (13 April 1925), also in A Second Mencken Chrestomathy : New Selections from the Writings of America's Legendary Editor, Critic, and Wit(1994) edited by Terry Teachout, p. 35
schlimmYour quote is not from Mencken; it is a misattribution. The correct quote was the one I gave.
I'd just thought it was a different quote from a different essay -- but no, apparently not. I heard it from my father, who said he learned it about the time he first read 'Anti-Intellectualism in American Life' in school (he couldn't pin it down any closer than that). A pity; it made a good quote and now I'll have to stop using it.
Ochlocracy strictly defined, the flip side of democracy according to Aristotle. (You will notice I tried to distinguish this from the 'madness of crowds' mob-rule sense of the word.)
As your quote so well points out, Mencken detested oligarchies (in Aristotle the flip side of 'aristocracy' properly defined) as well, particularly those that manipulated public matters. I find I share that with him.
WizlishOchlocracy strictly defined, the flip side of democracy according to Aristotle. (You will notice I tried to distinguish this from the 'madness of crowds' mob-rule sense of the word.)
The original Greek okhlokratia, from okhlos ("mob") and kratos (meaning "rule, power, strength"). In short, it means mob rule, now and to any ancient Greeks. It was first used by Polybius in 2nd century BCE.
[from Wiki] "Ancient Greek political thinkers regarded ochlocracy as one of the three "bad" forms of government (tyranny, oligarchy and ochlocracy) as opposed to the three "good" forms of government (monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy). They distinguished "good" and "bad" according to whether the government form would act in the interest of the whole community ("good") or in the exclusive interests of a group or individual at the expense of justice ("bad")."
schlimmThe original Greek okhlokratia, from okhlos ("mob") and kratos (meaning "rule, power, strength"). In short, it means mob rule, now and to any ancient Greeks.
You need a better understanding of Greek than you can get from Wikipedia. It's a bit like the distinction between 'logos' and 'nomos'. "Ochlos" doesn't mean 'mob' (as in shorthand for mobile vulgaris); it means 'crowd' or 'multitude' -- or 'the common people' with perhaps the same nuance given by our contemporary use of 'hoi polloi', or Mr. Mencken on a bad day, or Cyril 'would you buy it for a quarter?' Kornbluth. (One group of Bible scholars, for example, finds 87 references of 'crowd' to one identifiable as 'mob' in the sense you mean.) It most certainly does NOT mean in and of itself merely the sort of enraged 'community organized' sans-culottery with emotionally driven dynamics that comes to mind when 'mobs' are mentioned. Polybius (in the Histories, book VI) is using the word metonymically, as a technical term for part of an 'inevitable' political progression that only reaches 'recognizable' violence when "community-organized" by the wrong sort of demagoguery.
I'm not sure that Polybian anacyclosis is any more inevitable or 'defined' than, say, Toynbean (or Marxist) progressions. He thinks it self-evident that 'the people, having grown accustomed to feed at the expense of others and to depend for their livelihood on the property of others, as soon as they find a leader who is enterprising but is excluded from the houses of office by his penury, institute the rule of violence; 9 and now uniting their forces massacre, banish, and plunder, until they degenerate again into perfect savages and find once more a master and monarch.' (Remember he is describing the history of the Roman republic in this chapter of the Histories.) He also thinks that out of such a state of affairs, there will inevitably be a 'man on horseback' (or other individual) who will start the cycle over again with monarchy, now that the mass of the populace has experienced the consequences. I get the strong sense from a number of passages that the real 'problem' is not a tendency toward mob behavior, but a forgetting of the ills of earlier 'perversions' of government...
I think that you, Mencken, and Polybius are correct in noting where key distinctions between the two 'classical' types of popular government (democracy and ochlocracy) reside. There is the characteristic, as defined in Polybius, that 'during ochlocracy ... the people of the state will become corrupted, and will develop a sense of entitlement and will be conditioned to accept the pandering of demagogues.' That is very similar to the gist of what Mencken said in the quote you provided.
"ochlos" = the masses. a crowd that is disorganized, i.e., a mob.
"laos" = a crowd. a collective of people that is gathered around some commonality, much akin to citizens
"ochlos" is not so much 'disorganized' as it is 'every man for himself' -- making each man easy prey for demagogues, unenlightened self-interest, etc.
"laos" is a small country in the Indochinese region ... no, it's just as you say, an assembly of people marked by some common interest or identifiable characteristic, probably one with which they primarily self-identify. (This is the Greek word for 'people' in the expression 'chosen people of God').
No question which of the two will be more 'proof' against the wrong sort of community organizing!
I like the H. L. Mencken excerpts posted by wanswheel above better . . . - especially the railroad-related ones. Thanks !
From the above excerpt:
"John White's The American Railroad Passenger Car (1978, Johns Hopkins) grew logically from Mencken's work. White valued this book especially for Part II, which consists of excerpts of narratives from passengers recounting their travel experiences."
John H. White, Jr. using this book as a source or basis for his work is about the highest scholarly praise there can be in a railroad context.
Mike, thanks once again for sharing with us the results of your skilled research !
Wizlish ... -- as expressed in another great Menckenism, 'you'll never go broke underestimating the taste of the American people'. ...
... -- as expressed in another great Menckenism, 'you'll never go broke underestimating the taste of the American people'.
...
This sounds like a quote from P.T.Barnum, of circus fame:
Barnum preceded Mencken by many years, and I suspect HLM was paraphrasing the quote to adapt it to his topic.
Thanks Paul.
One more article, the context of ‘underestimating the intelligence.’
Notes on Journalism by H. L. Mencken
http://archives.chicagotribune.com/1926/09/19/page/87/
The general success of the tabloid papers, the oldest of which is only seven years old, still seems to puzzle the majority of newspaper men. When they admit it at all, they commonly credit it to the looseness and imbecility of the newcomers, which are described as given over wholly to crime and scandal. But this is plainly a prejudiced and highly inaccurate view of them. In the whole country there are not more than three that actually specialize in such matters. The rest, at worst, are no worse than the usual run of yellows. And at best they are fiery good newspapers, intelligently edited and carefully printed.
What makes them popular, I believe, is far less their contents than their form. They are made for reading in crowds, and it is in crowds that they are mainly read. A great advertising boom now rages in the United States, and all the old line papers run to an immense bulkiness. Some of the more prosperous of them, on the days that advertisers favor, come out in two or three sections and weigh a pound or more. To go through such a paper in a jammed street car is quite impossible. The man who attempts it gets a beating for his pains. But he can manage a tabloid without making his neighbors yell, and so he reads it.
The lightness of the little papers gives them another advantage: they can be distributed much more quickly than the larger. A boy on a motorcycle can carry a hundred copies of even the bulkiest of them to a remote junction in ten or twenty minutes, but the old style papers have to go by truck, which is slower. Not so many can be printed in an hour. Not so many can be carried by a single newsboy. These advantages count up. The majority of readers, when there is news afloat that interests them seriously, look for it in the larger papers, which can give it in full. But these same readers also buy the tabloids for the first bulletins. Thus there is much duplication of circulation. The tabloids take a certain amount of circulation away from the larger papers, but not enough to be disastrous.
They would be even more successful than they are, I believe, if their editors could resist the temptation to improve them. That temptation, of course, is easy to understand. Every newspaper man worthy of the name dreams of making his paper better than it is, and those who run the tabloids are stimulated further by the general professional opinion that their papers are somehow low. So every tabloid, as soon as it gets into safe waters, begins to grow intellectual. The bald, gaudy devices that launched it are abandoned and it takes on decorum. Already there are tabloids with opinions on the French debt, the Philippine question, and the music of Stravinsky. I know at least two that are actually liberal.
This, I fear, is a false form of progress. The tabloid, so lifted by its boot straps, becomes simply a little newspaper, and it must inevitably be inferior to the big ones. If I were a tabloid magnate I'd head in the other direction. That is to say, I'd try to produce a paper interesting and instructive to the uncounted thousands who read no newspaper at all. That such persons exist may seem incredible, but it is nevertheless a fact. They swarm in every large American city. They include the vast class of illiterates, which is everywhere larger than the statistics show. And they include the even larger class of near-illiterates—that is, those who are able to spell out enough words to get them through the ordinary business of life, but find reading so laborious and painful that they avoid it as much as possible.
Many of them, as the psychologist, Dr. Eleanor Wembridge, has demonstrated, are congenitally incapable of mastering it. They understand only such words as are comprehensible to a child of, say, ten. The rest is simply a fog to them. An ordinary newspaper article, even in a tabloid, is thus mainly unintelligible to them. Half the words in it are beyond them. Even when, by dint of hard sweating, they spell their way through it, the impression it leaves upon them is very vague and unsatisfactory. They may grasp its main propositions, but all its details are lost upon them.
It is my belief that a newspaper aimed at such readers would make a great success in any large American city, and especially in Chicago or New York. It should be printed throughout, as First Readers are printed, in words of one syllable. It should avoid every idea that is beyond the understanding of a boy of ten. It should print no news about anything that morons are not interested in. And its illustrations, instead of being mere decorations, should really illustrate, as the pictures in a First Reader illustrate.
I don't think it would be difficult to get together a staff for such a paper. If journalism itself failed to produce the necessary talent, recourse might be had to pedagogy. There are schoolma’ams, male and female, all over this great land who are professionally adept at explaining things to children. They have perfected technical devices that do the trick quickly and effectively, and those devices could be adapted to journalism without the slightest difficulty. Journalists themselves, after a little training, would greatly improve them, for journalists as a class are much more intelligent than pedagogues. In the end there would be a new English (or American) for the submerged, and reading would spread to a vast class that now gets all its news by listening.
To that class, as to children, much of what now passes for news, and is dished up in endless columns every morning, is wholly uninteresting. Its members, despite the alarms of bank directors and other such naive fellows, are not Socialists: they are, indeed, quite incapable of comprehending politics save as a combat between two men, A and B. In the strict sense, all ideas are beyond them. They can grasp only events. Are they interested only in crime? I don't think so. What they are interested in is drama. The thing presented to them must take the form of a combat, and it must be a very simple combat, with one side clearly right and the other clearly wrong. They can no more imagine neutrality than they can imagine the fourth dimension. And when they see drama they want to see it moving.
Soon or late some sagacious journalist will set up a paper made to the tastes and limitations of this immense horde of God's children, and his rewards will descend upon him like a deluge. The earliest movie magnates tapped that colossal till with great skill, and so lifted the movies to the third (or is it second?) place among the country's industries. They did not start out with Balzac, Joseph Conrad, and Dostoieveski; they started out with "The Perils of Pauline" and of serials out of the Fireside Companlon.
But once they got rich, they began to develop, in the immemorial human way, a yearning to be respectable, and even intellectual. That is, they began to turn their backs upon their original clients, who had poured all their wealth into their coffers, and to reach out for customers of a higher sophistication. Thus, the 10 cent movie house passed into the shadows and in its place appeared the blazing hell showing pictures at $2—pictures full of artistic and even literary pretension. Fortunately for the movie magnates, this pretension was mainly buncombe. They lacked the skill and culture necessary to make the movies genuinely intelligent, and so they escaped bankruptcy. But even so, they converted a business whose profits were as certain as those of a bootlegger into a business full of hazards and calamities.
They will come to a safe harbor again when they return to the Fireside Companion level. No one in this world, so far as I know—and I have searched the records for years and employed agents to help me—has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people. Nor has any one ever lost public office thereby. The mistake that is made always runs the other way. Because the people are able to speak and understand, and even, in many cases, to read and write, it’s assumed that they have ideas in their heads, and an appetite for more. This assumption is a folly. They dislike ideas, for ideas make them uncomfortable. The tabloids, seeking to force such things upon them, will inevitably alarm them and lose their trade. The journalism of the future—that is, the mob journalism—will move in the direction that I have indicated.
Mencken was a good writer although he reads like a less bombastic Lucius Beebe. His smug elitism is almost offensive, though.
Buslist The Senate just passed a long term Transportation bill that includes a rollback of the PTC deadline to 2018. Now let's see what the house does.
We will not know what Congress will do to enact an extension or not even on Dec 31st.
blue streak 1 We will not know what Congress will do to enact an extension or not even on Dec 31st.
Whether Congress does anything or (likely) not, it appears that an extension will be a fait accompli by non-compliance, presumably with any penalty.
PTC - Perpetual Tort Competition
Let the games begin!
On the PTC deadline, etc., see this recent pointed column/ blog by David Schanoes:
http://ten90solutions.com/position_available_seeking_cynical_jaded_not_necessarily_new_yorker
- PDN.
[quote user="Paul_D_North_Jr"]
So the Class 1s jointly own a company that owns the 220 spectrum ? Very interesting. That will get us posters started.
[quote user="blue streak 1"]
Paul_D_North_Jr http://ten90solutions.com/position_available_seeking_cynical_jaded_not_necessarily_new_yorker - PDN. So the Class 1s jointly own a company that owns the 220 spectrum ? Very interesting. That will get us posters started.
its been mentioned in posts several times before. PTC 220 LLC was created by the class 1s to acquire spectrum for PTC jointly rather than each railroad acquiring their own band width. And David is WRONG 220 LLC didn't get going until after the PTC mandate. The original intent was to use voice and data on the 160 frequencies until the radio developed said it couldn't be done in time. The big discussion between LA and 220 LLC was to get 220 to acquire spectrum for Metrolink's use (I was close to this process so I know a bit about it).
BuslistAnd David is WRONG 220 LLC didn't get going until after the PTC mandate.
You appear to have the sequence wrong. 220 LLC was started in late 2007 by NS and UP, and ownership by other rails followed; the AAR-endorsed PTC mandate (US Rail Safety Improvement Act) passed Congress and was signed Oct.16, 2008.
schlimm Buslist And David is WRONG 220 LLC didn't get going until after the PTC mandate. You appear to have the sequence wrong. 220 LLC was started in late 2007 by NS and UP, and ownership by other rails followed; the AAR-endorsed PTC mandate (US Rail Safety Improvement Act) passed Congress and was signed Oct.16, 2008. http://www.ntsb.gov/news/events/Documents/2013_Train-Control_FRM_Panel2e-Schnautz.pdf
Buslist And David is WRONG 220 LLC didn't get going until after the PTC mandate.
as an industry wide effort it's post the PTC mandate, and note in Tom's PowerPoint it was acquired to support PTC not other business objectives as David claims.
here's a direct quote from an informed and close to the action source (shades of Roger Ford if you read Modern Railways)
"Metrolink wasn't talking about PTC220 spectrum ... their rep was talking about spectrum I helped Metrolink find from a private source ... and that deal still is not done, contrary to Dave's claim. Fortunately, PTC220 came to the rescue in the mean time. The spectrum LIRR and MNR were able to get in certain areas is simply not available on other parts of MNR. And until all the recent attention of Philly, FCC was unwilling to help with PTC. Now they've gotten very helpful all of a sudden and the NEC spectrum problem is on it's way to being solved. We ... are planning out the use of PTC220 spectrum, and to date, it has been for nothing other than PTC. That may change in the future, but not so far."
Say whatever you want ("WRONG 220 LLC didn't get going until after the PTC mandate")., but 2008 (the mandate of RSIA) came after 2007 (220 LLC's founding), in any world by about 11 months.
schlimm Say whatever you want ("WRONG 220 LLC didn't get going until after the PTC mandate")., but 2008 (the mandate of RSIA) came after 2007 (220 LLC's founding), in any world by about 11 months.
sorry but it wasn't an industry wide initiative until after the the confessional mandate. Dave's implication that the spectrom was held hostage for this requirement is just wrong, sorry you seem to be supporting it! I
Buslistsorry but it wasn't an industry wide initiative until after the the confessional mandate. Dave's implication that the spectrom was held hostage for this requirement is just wrong, sorry you seem to be supporting it! I
Yes, and that only shows that some railroads are more advanced than others as well as the necessity for a mandate so that one system is adopted nationally. The same was true of other safety appliances in the past.
Next installment on this by David Schanoes: "Controversy?" dated Aug. 13, 2015, at:
http://ten90solutions.com/controversy
It covers several topics related to PTC, which are beyond my ability to summarize them concisely tonight - you'll just have to go and read the column yourself.
I don't want to get into a rabid political name calling contest here. However, if you were to insert Democrat or Republican into your sentences where you said GOP, the results would be the same.
Open your mind to the real world in Washington and don't be a pawn to either party.
Paul_D_North_Jr Next installment on this by David Schanoes: "Controversy?" dated Aug. 13, 2015, at: http://ten90solutions.com/controversy It covers several topics related to PTC, which are beyond my ability to summarize them concisely tonight - you'll just have to go and read the column yourself. - Paul North.
I'll quote his main points:
The essential point is that Congress defined PTC by functionality not technology. The railroads opted for wireless data transmission, GPS, track databases, algorithmic based braking curves for satisfying these functional requirements. That decision took into account the already existing "ownership" of the 220 spectrum by UP and NS.
But again, that decision by the railroads as to achieving compliance was acommercial decision by the railroads, not a public safety decision. So I think it's a bit of a stretch to accuse Congress or FCC of dereliction of duty by not providing, free of charge, radio spectrum to the railroads. Spectrum is, after all, a national resource.
If you ask me, and most of the time nobody is, I think commuter railroads should have "broken from the pack" with the Class 1s and not opted for the GPS, wireless data radio, WIU, GPS, BOS type system.
I think the commuter agencies should have made use of existing track circuits; should have made use of existing cab signaling technology; should have enhanced automatic speed control technology to meet the functionality requirements for PTC.
The Class 1s opted for the wireless data radio/GPS/BOS/OBC system because approximately 40 percent of their trackage is dark territory-- without track circuits, without automatic block signals, without remote control and protection of mainline switches. Automatic enforcement is impossible under these conditions because occupancy cannot and is not determined in the field.
So we have to accept where we are, and deal with it. We have to push out the date. There is no point pretending we don't, or demanding fines, or "heads." We have to require railroads to indeed layout how PTC will be installed in a)passenger service areas b)areas of high risk. We have to provide FRA with the resources to oversee the implementation-- the supervision of this project.
We do not have to blame the Congress for taking an action in the interests of public safety. We donot have to pretend that business interests did not inform the practical decisions regarding implementation strategies and technologies.
This is the world we live in. No whimpering.
There's one very important(okay, maybe 2) that most people are overlooking, as the PTC deadline is Jan 1, 2016...aka New Years Day, most if not all freight traffic has already been halted en route. Everyone is hung over from celebrating the night before, and our Federal government would have roughly 48 hours to inact a PTC extension before freight traffic would start backing up...and then it would be a negligible amount as there's always a precipitice drop in volume around the New Year. So it's conceivable that the RR's would get their extension without any potential FRA fines every being discussed.
GERALD L MCFARLANE JRThere's one very important(okay, maybe 2) that most people are overlooking, as the PTC deadline is Jan 1, 2016...aka New Years Day, most if not all freight traffic has already been halted en route.
Not so much. They might run about half the number trains, but that can still be over a thousand trains on one class one (plus switch engines and passenger trains). Most roads will run coal, grain, intermodal and automotive if they have crews. If there isn't an extension by Christmas, then the railroads will pretty much have their plans in place and if it impacts operations, they will be implementing the plan the last several days of December to be in place on Jan 1.
While the government may wait til Jan 2 to start figuring out what to do, the railroads being real businesses with real planning processes will already be well into whatever actions they have decided to take. I wouldn't be suprised if they haven't had teams formulating options and the steps to implement the various options working on this for months. Most likely this will not be a suprise, if the railroads do anything that affects operations they will be notifying customers (including passenger operations) and the government what the plans are well in advance.
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
I do not think that anything like stopping all trains will occur. As we said when I worked for the governemt "PUNT", in other words the government will tell the railroads to just run their trains slower (e.g. maximum speed 40 MPH). Any stopping of the railroads running would be desatersous to the US economy. An extention MUST be made to the PTC deadline due to the technicla issues involved.
Who has suggested that railroads will stop running trains if they cannot comply with the deadline? What would be the point?????????????????
Its only purpose would be to motivate Congress to get off center and address the issue rather than posturing and kicking the can down the road.
Does this mean that shutting down is exclusively a railroad industry idea as a kind of spite protest against a deadline that they feel is too close?
Wouldn't such a shut down be illegal?
Congress does not seem concerned about shutting down the government. I can't imagine that the railroads shutting down would even come up on their radar.
I doubt if there will be any drama Jan. 1. If the rails were to threaten to shut down, that could precipitate some executive order, but I seriously doubt they would do anything so childish.
If the government grants the extension it will take several years to fully implement PTC.
If the goverment doesn't grant the extension it will take several years to fully implement PTC.
Fining the railroads will not speed up implementation. It will not make it safer. Fining the railroads won't improve anything. Congress imposed an arbitrary deadline, the government drug its feet for years before setting the final rules, the FCC slowed the progress of the implementation, setting it back a year or more.
If after 12/31/2015 it is illegal to operate certain trains incertain territories without PTC, the railroad is under no obligation to operate those trains. It will be hard to justify requiring the railroads to violate the law and then fining them because they violated the law.
dehusman If after 12/31/2015 it is illegal to operate certain trains incertain territories without PTC, the railroad is under no obligation to operate those trains. It will be hard to justify requiring the railroads to violate the law and then fining them because they violated the law.
Euclid dehusman If after 12/31/2015 it is illegal to operate certain trains incertain territories without PTC, the railroad is under no obligation to operate those trains. It will be hard to justify requiring the railroads to violate the law and then fining them because they violated the law. As I understand it, passing the deadline without complying with the mandate to install PTC is illegal. Has it been officially determined and stated that operating trains without PTC after not complying with the deadline is also illegal?
Not all railroad territories are required to be PTC equipped. Operating those territories without PTC would be legal.
BaltACD Euclid dehusman If after 12/31/2015 it is illegal to operate certain trains incertain territories without PTC, the railroad is under no obligation to operate those trains. It will be hard to justify requiring the railroads to violate the law and then fining them because they violated the law. As I understand it, passing the deadline without complying with the mandate to install PTC is illegal. Has it been officially determined and stated that operating trains without PTC after not complying with the deadline is also illegal? Not all railroad territories are required to be PTC equipped. Operating those territories without PTC would be legal.
Complying means just that - PTC installed and operative.
schlimmComplying means just that - PTC installed and operative.
If it means just that; then there is no requirement to stop operating trains in the mandated areas if the mandate is not met before the deadline. Is that correct?
"It may be that the path forward really does involve the cessation of service. We're all looking at that," said Frank Lonegro, a vice president at CSX Corp, the freight handler that operates a 21,000-mile network spanning 23 U.S. states. CSX expects full implementation by 2020.
Euclid Without an extension, railroads could be forced to suspend operations to avoid the financial liabilities of operating outside the law, industry officials said at the same hearing.
Do RRs think it a possibility that any accident location not covered by an active PTC would place a RR in a very exposed liability court situation ?
blue streak1,
Yes, I think that is possible. What about the common carrier obligation? Would that be void if a railroad shut down operations to avoid possible liability for operating without PTC after the deadline?
MidlandMike Congress does not seem concerned about shutting down the government. I can't imagine that the railroads shutting down would even come up on their radar.
CNN is reporting that the senate has passed an extention to the PTC drop dead date of 2018. After the August recess the House will have to pass the bill.
Euclid schlimm Complying means just that - PTC installed and operative. If it means just that; then there is no requirement to stop operating trains in the mandated areas if the mandate is not met before the deadline. Is that correct?
schlimm Complying means just that - PTC installed and operative.
EuclidWouldn't such a shut down be illegal?
It's going to be illegal to operate in many instances, without a PTC system in place.
They'd just be obeying the law.
Leo_Ames Euclid Wouldn't such a shut down be illegal? It's going to be illegal to operate in many instances, without a PTC system in place. They'd just be obeying the law.
Euclid Wouldn't such a shut down be illegal?
I understand your point. It is a sort of catch-22. The mandate must be clear as to whether it forces a shutdown for non-compliance or merely imposes fines.
This might take us into new territory. Congress is empowered to act in the event of a labor shutdown or employer lockout. Would this qualify as a lockout?
Congress mandating that a business operate illegally not only sounds entertaining, but exactly like something that they'd do.
Yes, it's simply a question of which laws you break. By operating trains without PTC in place you are breaking one law. But by not operating trains so as not to contravene that law you are breaking others which mandate the common carrier service obligation. So without an extension, come January 1st the railroads will have to decide which legislation to contravene. Nothing they can do will be legal.
Historically, most safety legislation in the past was not enacted until the relevant systems had been developed and proven effective on at least part of the rail network. This is not the case with PTC requirements. Often adoption was already underway and the legislation was primarily directed at the hold-outs.
John
EuclidThat leaves the question of whether or not ceasing operation would be illegal. There is an assumption that it would be illegal because of the common carrier obligation, but is it possible that that obligation will be suspended by the circumstances of failing to meet the PTC deadline?
Nothing in the common carrier obligation requires the railroad to break the law to haul the commodity. A carrier is not required by common carrier obligation to offer a rate for and haul a carload of illegal drugs. A railroad doesn't have to accept a shipment if its isn't properly packaged or placarded or described. If track is unsafe or doesn't meet Federal standards, the railroad is under no obligation to operate on that track. If the track is "exempt" then the railroad can refuse to move hazardous material over it. Nothing in the law requires a railroad to break the law to comply with the law.
Well then if there is no common carrier obligation when out of compliance with the PTC mandate, I would expect companies to suspend operations if out of compliance with the mandate.
OBVIOULSY no one has read my last post. The senate has passed a three year extention to the PTC mandate. It will go the huse after the august recess and they are expected to pass the bill.. Congress will not allow a shutdown of the railroads.
caldreamer OBVIOULSY no one has read my last post. The senate has passed a three year extention to the PTC mandate. It will go the huse after the august recess and they are expected to pass the bill.. Congress will not allow a shutdown of the railroads.
Why confuse posters with reality?
Euclid Reality? What difference does it make whether the deadline is 2015 or 2018? The issues of the two deadlines are the same.
2018 might be achieved by a majority of companies.
2015 won't.
Euclid Who has suggested that railroads will stop running trains if they cannot comply with the deadline? What would be the point?????????????????
They would merely be complying with the law. The requires PTC. They don't have it. They can't legally operate.
Yes. And there are fines for non-compliance. The only way to stay compliant would be to not operate non-compliant trains. The RRs could operate lines that don't require PTC.
Operating a non-compliant train would be akin to operating locomotives with know safety defects, or operating crude oil trains with know safety defects. It opens you up to a whole world of hurt should something go wrong.
The RRs wouldn't be walking away from their common carrier obligations any more than what happens during a strike or during periods of congestion.
oltmannd The only way to stay compliant would be to not operate non-compliant trains.
The only way to stay compliant would be to not operate non-compliant trains.
What is so hard to understand about the regulation (that was posted) that it requires endlessly going round and round?
New York's MTA announced a couple of weeks ago that Metro-North and the Long Island Rail Road are currently scheduled to begin testing PTC equipment on their trains by the end of 2016. This was carried in a news report in USA Today that the FRA had surveyed commuter agencies and found most were not planning on doing serious testing until sometime in 2016.
From the article-
MTA spokesman Adam Lisberg said PTC is expected “to be fully installed and operational on both railroads by 2018,” noting that the federal government recently approved a nearly $1 billion loan “to help us install on-board components for 1,455 rail cars as well as transponders along 588 route miles of track as quickly as possible.’’
It sounds like there is a lot going on behind-the-scenes.
NTSB's crusade for PTC isn't their only crusade.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2015/06/09/ntsb-collision-avoidance-all-cars/28724575/
Buslist"Metrolink wasn't talking about PTC220 spectrum ... their rep was talking about spectrum I helped Metrolink find from a private source ... and that deal still is not done, contrary to Dave's claim. Fortunately, PTC220 came to the rescue in the mean time. The spectrum LIRR and MNR were able to get in certain areas is simply not available on other parts of MNR. And until all the recent attention of Philly, FCC was unwilling to help with PTC. Now they've gotten very helpful all of a sudden and the NEC spectrum problem is on it's way to being solved. We ... are planning out the use of PTC220 spectrum, and to date, it has been for nothing other than PTC. That may change in the future, but not so far."
What has Amtrak been using for the last 15 years from NHV to BOS and parts of the NYP-WAS routes? I've seen those PTC antennas for 15 years, but I have no clue what frequency they are running on...
BaltACD NTSB's crusade for PTC isn't their only crusade. http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2015/06/09/ntsb-collision-avoidance-all-cars/28724575/
"... with its chairman, Christopher Hart, saying, "You don't pay extra for your seat belt..."
Sez who?
_____________
"A stranger's just a friend you ain't met yet." --- Dave Gardner
CSX is threatening to suspend their freight operations over commuter lines they operate on -- Metro-North in New York, MBTA in Massachusetts among them -- if Congress does not extend the deadline for implementing PTC. Most of the commuter lines over which CSX has track rights (Septa is an exception) are not scheduled to have PTC operational by the Dec. 31, 2015 deadline. In addition, CSX may ban Amtrak trains from CSX lines that are not compliant by the deadline.
Any suspension of service over Metro-North would create an immediate crisis for New York City since a significant portion of the city's solid waste from Brooklyn and Queens is carried to landfills by CSX via the Oak Point yard in the Bronx and MNR's Hudson Line.
From an article in a local newspaper, The Journal News:
“CSX is seriously considering suspending freight operations’’ on commuter rail lines that don’t have PTC operational by Jan. 1, CSX Chairman and CEO Michael Ward wrote...Without “a reasonable extension,’’ Ward said, “any accident involving Amtrak, commuter or TIH (toxic inhalation hazards) products would expose CSX to huge potential liability for operating in violation of federal law.’’ http://www.lohud.com/story/news/transit/2015/09/11/csx-metro-north/72085824/
Congress will be considering an extension at an October 29th hearing.
Edited to add: I think that, contrary to the thread title, an extension to the PTC deadline is not only likely, I think it's almost certain to happen.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.