Real nice hit for the Economy if this happens. Who is the government bozo in DC that is refusing to grant them an exemption?
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/exclusive-safety-deadline-may-exempt-050847710.html
The "government bozo" is Sara Fienberg who is the acting adminstrator
of the FRA. She apparantly has no idea of how a shutdown would
affect the commerce of the nation.
The rails have resisted this for 40+ years. They've known the deadline was there for 4 years. Sometimes threats are needed for foot draggers.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
nyc#25 The "government bozo" is Sara Fienberg who is the acting adminstrator of the FRA. She apparantly has no idea of how a shutdown would affect the commerce of the nation.
The administrator did not write the statute. She may well be aware of the consequences involved but doesn't have a lot of options in enforcing the law as written since not enforcing the statute could establish a lot of unintended precedents for other issues.
schlimm The rails have resisted this for 40+ years. They've known the deadline was there for 4 years. Sometimes threats are needed for foot draggers.
And of course the lack of available equipment and frequencies, nor the inability for defense/aerospace firms (Lockheed Martin and GE Harris) to produce a workable system doesn't contribute.
The shutdown will NOT happen. The senate has allreadypassed an extention through 2018. When the hosue comes back from it's Ausgust recess it is expected to pass the bill, so don;t get your insides all in an uproar over nothing.
caldreamer The shutdown will NOT happen. The senate has allreadypassed an extention through 2018. When the hosue comes back from it's Ausgust recess it is expected to pass the bill, so don;t get your insides all in an uproar over nothing.
Can you provide a source reference that explains this? If what you say is true, there is no deadline.
BuslistAnd of course the lack of available equipment and frequencies, nor the inability for defense/aerospace firms (Lockheed Martin and GE Harris) to produce a workable system doesn't contribute.
Indeed - while it's a great concept, making it actually work, and at the scale it needs to work, is another story entirely. It's already been reported that the railroads are "running as fast as they can." I've seen much evidence of same in this area.
But if there are key parts of the system that are not available, whether for technical or legal reasons, it becomes very hard to meet the deadline.
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...
Of course this Administration diligently inforces all statutes, no exceptions, so we should expect them to enforce this one.
Euclid:
There was a post on the CNN online site that stated this fact. Let's see what happens when the house of representatives gets back to wrok/ Untill then I would not worry about it.
Bovine Excriment
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
You mean 1975 when you were the only person in the world to have a GPS helping you drive around, as your wife called on your I-phone to ask you to pick up milk on the way home. When operating trains with DPU units the receiving equipment required a separate railcar to hold it, and that was for something comparitively simple.
It is easy to forget just how recently most of the technology we now take for granted was developed, and is rapidly continuing to evolve. And much of that is critical to making PTC, as legislated, feasible. It is better to take the necessary time to ensure the safe, robust, result that is absolutely required. Hastily made decisions and designs often prove unsatisfactory in the long run.
John
BaltACD schlimm The rails have resisted this for 40+ years. They've known the deadline was there for 4 years. Sometimes threats are needed for foot draggers. Bovine Excriment
Real professional language.
cx500You mean 1975 when you were the only person in the world to have a GPS helping you drive around, as your wife called on your I-phone to ask you to pick up milk on the way home.
In the late 60s and later, older technologies were discussed. Development was not necessaritly dependent on wireless and GPS. The German protototype for the LZB system was first tested by Siemens in 1963, with improvements following. In 1990, 25 years ago, the NTSB put PTC at the top of its list of most wanted transportation safety improvements. The UP was in the forefront of developing PTC here.
schlimm BaltACD schlimm The rails have resisted this for 40+ years. They've known the deadline was there for 4 years. Sometimes threats are needed for foot draggers. Bovine Excriment Real professional language.
Professional language for a professional troll.
What ever it takes to get some time off.. I need a vacation ! Shut em down .
No. It's Congress that has to legislate an extension. FRA just gets to enforce it.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Meh. Had the RRs been more active in exanding train control technology over the past 40 years, they probably could have headed off PTC legislation at the pass and built out a system to their own specs at their own pace.
But, the law as written? The RRs had no chance to comply - even without the FCC snafu. The RRs truly are pedalling as fast as they can go - expect Connecticut where only a "good faith effort was made".
schlimmThe UP was in the forefront of developing PTC here.
No. BN and CN took the lead, with CSX pushing from behind.
BaltACDProfessional language for a professional troll.
Norm
oltmanndMeh. Had the RRs been more active in exanding train control technology over the past 40 years, they probably could have headed off PTC legislation at the pass and built out a system to their own specs at their own pace.
Exactly. I feel not one bit of sorrow for these railroad companies. They knew this stuff was coming years ago. Is safety first more than a slogan?
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.
Buslist schlimm The rails have resisted this for 40+ years. They've known the deadline was there for 4 years. Sometimes threats are needed for foot draggers. And of course the lack of available equipment and frequencies, nor the inability for defense/aerospace firms (Lockheed Martin and GE Harris) to produce a workable system doesn't contribute.
Now now, don't let the facts get in the way of Schlimm's rant
An "expensive model collector"
She has no idea how this will affect the railroads and the US economy.
First of all, an important disclaimer. I've mentioned in some other posts that I have a Class I railroad background (I'm retired now). But I want to make it clear that I have absolutely NO inside information on what any railroad may be planning to deal with the PTC deadline and I have had NO discussions with any of my industry contracts about the subject (if I had I wouldn't be writing this post). I'm speculating, just like everyone else.
That out of the way, I would be very surprised if any railroad totally shut down if the PTC mandate isn't extended. There's no reason to do that. The PTC mandate requires installation of PTC on rail lines that carry TIH or intercity/commuter passenger operations. A railroad that eliminates those operations is in compliance with the mandate.
But, you may ask, how can they do that? What about the common carrier obligation? Don't they have to carry whatever may be offered to them? Well, no. The letter from STB Chairman Elliot mentioned in the link provided in CMSTPnP's post alludes to this. As he states, the common carrier obligation is not absolute, and railroads can suspend service for various reasons, including safety. There's nothing shocking or new about this. In fact, the case law on the common carrier obligation makes this quite clear. A railroad doesn't have a common carrier obligation to handle hazardous commodities in ways that violate Federal rail safety laws or regulations. There are many commodities prohibited in rail shipment by Federal rules. There are many others that a railroad is obligated to refuse if the railroad knows that they aren't "packaged" in accordance with Federal rules. In this case, the effect of the PTC mandate is to tell the railroad that it's unlawful to handle TIH over a line that isn't equipped with PTC. If it's unlawful, then there's no common carrier obligation to do it. It's no different than if a shipper demanded a railroad handle a hazmat shipment in a car that couldn't lawfully be used for the shipment. There's no common carrier obligation to handle it.
In the case of passenger services, there isn't any "common carrier obligation" to provide these services (there used to be, but not anymore). There are, however, a whole bunch of contracts providing for various entities to provide these services, or to host passenger services provided by other entities (like Amtrak on a host freight railroads). But a Federal law which makes it unlawful to provide these services over lines not equipped with PTC should trump any contractual commitments like this. Think about it - is a contract to rob a bank enforceable? Of course not. Why? It's unenforceable because it's unlawful to rob a bank. A contract to provide passenger service over a non-PTC equipped line should be similarly unenforceable in the face of a Federal law declaring the operation unlawful.
Of course, a railroad that attempted to cease TIH or passenger service in response to the PTC mandate would face lots of litigation. It might even be forced by a court or a regulatory authority to continue providing some of these services in the face of the PTC mandate. I think most courts would be cautious about mandating services that violate the PTC mandate. But, even if they did, a railroad that's forced to provide unlawful services is in a better position than a railroad which does so voluntarily.
Bottom line, if Congress doesn't extend the mandate, I wouldn't book any Amtrak trips for after Christmas.
I can understand the argument that they have the right or even the legal obligation to shut down non-compliant operations. But what happens if they do?
Does the government not realize that operating non-PTC compliant operations after the end of the year would be illegal? If they come to that realizaton only after the railroads shut down, will the government admit that they made a mistake and withdraw the mandate?
If they do realize that operating non-compliant operations after the deadline is illegal, what then do they expect the railroads to do?
It seems like a standoff with no workable positions for either side to take.
I would say that if the government dug thier heels in , railroads jobs would be hard to come by.
Will Amtrak, on the track that they own, be compliant by 1/1/16?
I suggest we all take a deep breath and slowly exhale and relax. The railroads won't be shutting down.
Why do I think this way? Several reasons: First, it's not in anyone's interest, but rather potentially disadvantageous to several parties. Second, the Administration is not going to allow this sort of major disruption to the economy. They'll leave that to the GOP and the up-coming budget battle and looming gov't shutdown (what will this be? Number 17? 23?).
This "issue" is an example of what my inner-city students in 1970 termed "sellin' wolf tickets." Translation: All for show; ain't gonna happen.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.