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.
NKP guy The railroads won't be shutting down. Why do I think this way? Several reasons: First, it's not in anyone's interest,...
The railroads won't be shutting down.
Why do I think this way? Several reasons: First, it's not in anyone's interest,...
Well it is in someone's interest. It is in the interest of the railroads if they want to abide by the law if they are non-compliant when the deadline arrives. Not only is it in their interest, it is required if they want to follow the law.
I agree that the railroads will not likely be "shutting down". The most likely scenario is that Congress, being the reasonable institution it is, is going to be sensible and extend the PTC mandate (I also still believe in the Tooth Fairy).
But if Congress isn't sensible (imagine that) and doesn't extend the mandate, I still don't think that any railroad is going to "shut down", for the reasons discussed in my earlier note. Rather, I think that several (perhaps all) railroads will stop providing TIH service and stop providing, or hosting, passenger service. My impression is that neither of these services are considered particularly desireable by commercial freight railroads, and they wouldn't be crying in their beer if one or both of them had to be discontinued because of the PTC mandate.
In response to Falcon48's post above:
Well said -
The only contra argument I can think of is this: Amtrak or such a shipper of hazmat could take the position that the railroad had an obligation to install PTC by the deadline, and that Amtrak/ shipper should not be disadvantaged by the railroad's failure to comply by then. The PTC mandate trumps any tariff or contract of carriage. So if the railroad can't actualy perform, then Amtrak/ the shipper is entitled to appropriate monetary damages.
I too doubt that a court will order "specific performance" (as a court of equity) - i.e., for the railroad to actually move the hazmat or Amtrak train. Instead, the court will likely act as a "law court" and say that the remedy of monetary damages is sufficient to make the aggrieved party "whole". (The reasons for this would get us bogged down in a lot of legal theory.)
If such a shutdown - or even the threat of it - comes to pass, the doctrines of impossibility, commercial impracticality, anticipatory breach of contract, force majeure, 3rd-party (govt.) interference with contract rights, mutual and/ or unilateral "mistake" or assumption/ allocation/ knowledge/ control of the risk of this, etc., will get a major workout in the courts.
- Paul North.
BaltACD 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.
Sorry your language is so inadequate that you can only make specious, ad hominem attacks to comments that are not directed at you personally. Perhaps such is the expected response of a disgruntled, embittered worker?
schlimmPerhaps such is the expected response of a disgruntled, embittered worker?
Naww, just another day on the Geezernet.
23 17 46 11
Falcon48 I agree that the railroads will not likely be "shutting down". The most likely scenario is that Congress, being the reasonable institution it is, is going to be sensible and extend the PTC mandate (I also still believe in the Tooth Fairy). But if Congress isn't sensible (imagine that) and doesn't extend the mandate, I still don't think that any railroad is going to "shut down", for the reasons discussed in my earlier note. Rather, I think that several (perhaps all) railroads will stop providing TIH service and stop providing, or hosting, passenger service. My impression is that neither of these services are considered particularly desireable by commercial freight railroads, and they wouldn't be crying in their beer if one or both of them had to be discontinued because of the PTC mandate.
oltmannd schlimm The UP was in the forefront of developing PTC here. No. BN and CN took the lead, with CSX pushing from behind.
schlimm The UP was in the forefront of developing PTC here.
You are right. However, in the 1990s, UP and GE did work on a moving block system called PTC - Precision Train Control, but abandoned it.
The mandate was passed in the RSIA in 2008, so seven years before the deadline. It was endorsed by the AAR in a written statement by its CEO, Edward Hamberger.
schlimm The mandate was passed in the RSIA in 2008, so seven years before the deadline. It was endorsed by the AAR in a written statement by its CEO, Edward Hamberger.
and it was NOT either a designed or purchasable product from any vendor or consortium of vendors and no standards existed for it.
You all know about the 10 minute home repair job - that ends up taking 10 months and $10K to finally accomplish once the real significance of the repair becomes clear and understood.
BaltACD schlimm The mandate was passed in the RSIA in 2008, so seven years before the deadline. It was endorsed by the AAR in a written statement by its CEO, Edward Hamberger. and it was NOT either a designed or purchasable product from any vendor or consortium of vendors and no standards existed for it. You all know about the 10 minute home repair job - that ends up taking 10 months and $10K to finally accomplish once the real significance of the repair becomes clear and understood.
I agree. So why did the AAR endorse the deadline in 2008? Since they certanily would have known there was no US off-the-shelf system available, why didn't they push for a later deadline at that point? Or adapt the proven European system which is becoming the world standard? Or Japanese?
schlimm BaltACD schlimm The mandate was passed in the RSIA in 2008, so seven years before the deadline. It was endorsed by the AAR in a written statement by its CEO, Edward Hamberger. and it was NOT either a designed or purchasable product from any vendor or consortium of vendors and no standards existed for it. You all know about the 10 minute home repair job - that ends up taking 10 months and $10K to finally accomplish once the real significance of the repair becomes clear and understood. I agree. So why did the AAR endorse the deadline in 2008? Since they certanily would have known there was no US off-the-shelf system available, why didn't they push for a later deadline at that point? Or adapt the proven European system which is becoming the world standard? Or Japanese?
schlimm The mandate was passed in the RSIA in 2008, so seven years before the deadline. It was endorsed by the AAR in a written statement by its CEO, Edward Hamberger. and it was NOT either a designed or purchasable product from any vendor or consortium of vendors and no standards existed for it.
because the AAR is a mouthpiece and was parroting the belief that it was a 10 minute home repair - seriously underestimating the size of the undertaking for the RAILROAD INDUSTRY, not just a individual carrier that could probably kluge together something that would operate on their property alone (like Amtrak has done with the NEC - with the NEC being electric their locomotives won't be operating on the rest of the railroads and thus don't have to have interoperatability).
Excerpt from the Reuters article
In a July 24 letter provided to Reuters by BNSF, railroad president and chief executive Carl Ice informed Elliott that BNSF is analyzing the possibility of a service shutdown and actively consulting with customers.
Excerpt from Carl Ice’s letter to Daniel Elliott
Further on my post above:
"Courts of equity will not act when there is adequate remedy at law."
Courts generally prefer to order someone to not do something; they are extremely reluctant to order someone to actually do something, because of the difficulty of monitoring, supervising and enforcing the performance of said acts.
(Thank goodness Mrs. Palsgraf vs. Long Island RR is not involved in any of this [inside joke, goes to the "forseeability" of the chain of results of and hence damages from the wrongful act] ).
BaltACDbecause the AAR is a mouthpiece and was parroting the belief that it was a 10 minute home repair - seriously underestimating the size of the undertaking for the RAILROAD INDUSTRY
[from the AAR website]: "AAR is the world's leading railroad policy, research and technology organization focusing on the safety and productivity of rail carriers."
The AAR also owns the Transportation Technology Center, Inc. which manages/operates the FRA's facility in Pueblo. Doesn't sound like a just another DC mouthpiece, i/e., lobbyist. http://www.aar.com/
So I guess from your perspective, they are just liars (or trolls).
I am not aware of anything in the mandate tht would impose fines for most traffic, only on lines running passenger trains and hazardous materials. If there were a embargo on that traffic for a few days, it would not be cataclysmic.
I think some of you that are posting here that a shutdown will not happen should look at the amount of the daily fines for non-compliance that the government will levy FOR EACH INCIDENT OF VIOLATION. It's well above pocket change.
Since almost all Amtrak operations outside of the NEC lose money, there would be no monetary damages to Amtrak. Long shot, but maybe passengers could claim damages but only if no other transportation means was available. The TIH volume is small enough to pay to make it go away as they tried to get rid of it before.
schlimm BaltACD [from the AAR website]: "AAR is the world's leading railroad policy, research and technology organization focusing on the safety and productivity of rail carriers." The AAR also owns the Transportation Technology Center, Inc. which manages/operates the FRA's facility in Pueblo. Doesn't sound like a just another DC mouthpiece, i/e., lobbyist. http://www.aar.com/ So I guess from your perspective, they are just liars (or trolls).
BaltACD
They SERIOUSLY UNDERESTIMATED the size and complexity of the undertaking.
CMStPnP I think some of you that are posting here that a shutdown will not happen should look at the amount of the daily fines for non-compliance that the government will levy FOR EACH INCIDENT OF VIOLATION. It's well above pocket change.
I posted that before. Each vioation per day is $10-30K, fairly costly. But that seems to only apply to running hazardous cargo and passenger trains. If an extension has not been passed by Congress by Jan. 1 (I believe it will), embargo them (running Amtrak passenger trains cost the freight lines money), run everything else and wait a few days for Congress to act. It's really a lot of hysteria.
An extension to Dec. 31, 2018 should suffice. Ten years is a long time since the mandate was passed in 2008. It took less time to send men to the moon, build an atom bomb, etc.
schlimm An extension to Dec. 31, 2018 should suffice. Ten years is a long time since the mandate was passed in 2008. It took less time to send men to the moon, build an atom bomb, etc.
Neither of which was privately funded.
We have the best government money can buy. The date will be pushed back.
BaltACD schlimm An extension to Dec. 31, 2018 should suffice. Ten years is a long time since the mandate was passed in 2008. It took less time to send men to the moon, build an atom bomb, etc. Neither of which was privately funded.
So what? PTC is not rocket science or nuclear physics. Why did the US rails elect to go with an entirely new design? Why didn't they buy the products from Siemens (ECTS-Trainguard) or Hitachi (ATACS)?
schlimmSo what? PTC is not rocket science or nuclear physics. Why did the US rails elect to go with an entirely new design? Why didn't they buy the products from Siemens (ECTS-Trainguard) or Hitachi (ATACS)?
Given the ways of US bureacracy, neither probably met the requirements for some reason or another.
tree68 schlimm So what? PTC is not rocket science or nuclear physics. Why did the US rails elect to go with an entirely new design? Why didn't they buy the products from Siemens (ECTS-Trainguard) or Hitachi (ATACS)? Given the ways of US bureacracy, neither probably met the requirements for some reason or another.
schlimm So what? PTC is not rocket science or nuclear physics. Why did the US rails elect to go with an entirely new design? Why didn't they buy the products from Siemens (ECTS-Trainguard) or Hitachi (ATACS)?
Could be but I don't recall the mandate gave any specs. More likely other reasons within the rail's bureaucracy. Purchasing managers tend to seek business from folks they have a history with.
zugmann oltmannd 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. 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?
oltmannd 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.
They've been doing it with ECP braking, too. Those chickens are just starting to roost.
schlimm BaltACD schlimm An extension to Dec. 31, 2018 should suffice. Ten years is a long time since the mandate was passed in 2008. It took less time to send men to the moon, build an atom bomb, etc. Neither of which was privately funded. So what? PTC is not rocket science or nuclear physics. Why did the US rails elect to go with an entirely new design? Why didn't they buy the products from Siemens (ECTS-Trainguard) or Hitachi (ATACS)?
Because those aren't off-the-shelf ready for US freight railroading, either.
schlimm BaltACD because the AAR is a mouthpiece and was parroting the belief that it was a 10 minute home repair - seriously underestimating the size of the undertaking for the RAILROAD INDUSTRY [from the AAR website]: "AAR is the world's leading railroad policy, research and technology organization focusing on the safety and productivity of rail carriers." The AAR also owns the Transportation Technology Center, Inc. which manages/operates the FRA's facility in Pueblo. Doesn't sound like a just another DC mouthpiece, i/e., lobbyist. http://www.aar.com/ So I guess from your perspective, they are just liars (or trolls).
BaltACD because the AAR is a mouthpiece and was parroting the belief that it was a 10 minute home repair - seriously underestimating the size of the undertaking for the RAILROAD INDUSTRY
The AAR doesn't own TTCI. They are just leasing it. Uncle Sam still owns it.
Sorry Don, but you are confused. The Transportation Technology Center in Pueblo is owned by USDOT. TTCI (Incorporated) operates it:
Welcome to Transportation Technology Center, Inc. (TTCI), a wholly owned subsidiary of the Association of American Railroads. TTCI is a world-class transportation research and testing organization, providing emerging technology solutions for the railway industry throughout North America and the world.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
Murphy SidingCould it be that it is as complicated as rocket science or nuclear physics and maybe you're the one that doesn't get it? The railroads were told to spend their money to go and fix a problem that some politicians felt needed to be fixed, without a real clear cut plan. If you had to spend your money on a major expense that ultimately affected your company's whole future, wouldn't you want to take your time and do it right?
If you choose to believe it is that complicated, that is your privilege. If you choose to believe that purchase managers never make a mistake, that is also your privilege.
schlimm Murphy Siding Could it be that it is as complicated as rocket science or nuclear physics and maybe you're the one that doesn't get it? The railroads were told to spend their money to go and fix a problem that some politicians felt needed to be fixed, without a real clear cut plan. If you had to spend your money on a major expense that ultimately affected your company's whole future, wouldn't you want to take your time and do it right? If you choose to believe it is that complicated, that is your privilege. If you choose to believe that purchase managers never make a mistake, that is also your privilege.
Murphy Siding Could it be that it is as complicated as rocket science or nuclear physics and maybe you're the one that doesn't get it? The railroads were told to spend their money to go and fix a problem that some politicians felt needed to be fixed, without a real clear cut plan. If you had to spend your money on a major expense that ultimately affected your company's whole future, wouldn't you want to take your time and do it right?
I've read BNSF's letter to STB. They say that they are considering not operating any lines that are required to have PTC after 12/31/15. That sounds like it means a complete shutdown of most of their mainlines. But does it?
PTC is only required on "main lines" that carry TIH traffic or regularly scheduled intercity or commuter passenger trains (49 CFR 236.1005(b)) The nominal date for making the determination of which lines are required to have PTC is 2008. But - and this is an important "but" - a railroad is entitled to exclude lines from the mandate if it shows FRA that the lines will no longer handle TIH or the specified passenger services as of December 31, 2015 (49 CFR 236.1008(b)(4)).
Now BNSF is right that, if a line is required to have PTC, then it's probably unlawful for the railroad to handle any traffic over the line, not just TIH and passenger service. But that assumes that the line is required to have PTC. If a railroad terminates its TIH and passenger services before 12/31/15, the railroad is entitled to the exclusion provieded in 236.1008(b)(4). What this means is that the lines covered by the exclusion will no longer be required to have PTC. If the lines are not required to have PTC, then it is not unlawful to use them for services other than TIH or intercity/commuter passenger service. This was the basis for my speculation that, if the PTC mandate is not extended, most or all Class I railroads will seek to end TIH and intercity/commuter passenger services on non-PTC equipped lines by the end of 2015.
I suspect what will happen is that most railroads will wait to see what happens in Congress before they take any self-help steps. But, if nothing is done by early December, I think you will see Class I railroads making the 236.1008(b) filings with FRA to exclude lines from the PTC mandate, and taking the necessary measures to terminate their TIH and intercity/commuter passenger services on these lines by 12/31/15. Hopefully, it won't come to that.
Falcon48 I suspect what will happen is that most (or all) railroads will wait to see what happens in Congress before they take any self-help steps. But, if nothing is done by early December, I think you will see all or most Class I railroads making the 236.1008(b) filings with FRA to exclude lines from the PTC mandate, and taking the necessary measures to terminate their TIH and intercity/commuter passenger services on these lines by 12/31/15. Hopefully, it won't come to that.
I suspect what will happen is that most (or all) railroads will wait to see what happens in Congress before they take any self-help steps. But, if nothing is done by early December, I think you will see all or most Class I railroads making the 236.1008(b) filings with FRA to exclude lines from the PTC mandate, and taking the necessary measures to terminate their TIH and intercity/commuter passenger services on these lines by 12/31/15. Hopefully, it won't come to that.
I might add, with VRE and MARC commuter service - if those services are shut down it will hit a lot of governmental staffer's right where they live.
Link to trains article states BNSF considering suspension of freight operations:
http://trn.trains.com/news/news-wire/2015/09/08-stb-letter-latest
I get the biggest kick out of the fact that the MOST unsafe public transportaion is also the only one that's not privatly held. The highway system , 100%US governmentowned and operated. Thousands of fatalities every year and we ACCEPT it !
The usual answer is for more education and it appears that it means including the video game "Grand Theft Auto" as drivers ed simulators for education.
If one major railroad closes the others will follow. Shortlines and regionals depend on interchange and the class ones depend on each other. The whole system of interchange will fall apart with just a few route closures. Re-routing cars to PTC compliant routes will cost big bucks in many cases, driving the customers either out of business or onto the public highways.
Freight cars will be stranded leaving car owners and lessors without usable assets. Many of the car lessors and owners are banks !!
Without income the railroads will default on equipment payments and trusts.
Thousands of people will be out of work or switching careers to driving trucks.
Ethenol, crude oil, chlorine and other hazmat will be on the highways in never before seen volumes or cost.
If we thought the crash of 1929 was bad.. just watch this unfold if it goes South.
Murphy Siding schlimm Murphy Siding Could it be that it is as complicated as rocket science or nuclear physics and maybe you're the one that doesn't get it? The railroads were told to spend their money to go and fix a problem that some politicians felt needed to be fixed, without a real clear cut plan. If you had to spend your money on a major expense that ultimately affected your company's whole future, wouldn't you want to take your time and do it right? If you choose to believe it is that complicated, that is your privilege. If you choose to believe that purchase managers never make a mistake, that is also your privilege. Fair enough. If you choose to believe that nobody who ever worked for a railroad ever did anything right, that is your privilege.
Fair enough. If you choose to believe that nobody who ever worked for a railroad ever did anything right, that is your privilege.
And it is your right to repeatedly either make inane, distorted comments to those who voice any criticisms and facts or to be a sycophant for railroad management.
Randy StahlIf we thought the crash of 1929 was bad.. just watch this unfold if it goes South.
Wow, drama queen, much?
The thing is about all this back and forth about PTC, is that come next year some of you are going to be wrong. But one thing you will NOT hear is I WAS WRONG. Never going to happen, that's why all the goings on about a few errors in the recent Trains magzine issue ring very hollow.
ouibejamn Randy Stahl If we thought the crash of 1929 was bad.. just watch this unfold if it goes South. Wow, drama queen, much?
Randy Stahl If we thought the crash of 1929 was bad.. just watch this unfold if it goes South.
Evidently I'm not the only "drama queen"
http://cs.trains.com/trn/b/fred-frailey/default.aspx
My 29 year career on the railroad is under threat , I've been an industry insider, have you ?
Obviously you have no clue how much PRIVATE capital is tied up in the railroads and what will happen to it. Think before you type !
Randy StahlMy 29 year career on the railroad is under threat , I've been an industry insider, have you ?
Every week on this and other sites,I hear from "insiders" how poorly run and effed up the railroads are, but it's always somebody else doing the effing, never them. They are geniuses with 29, heck 39 years of experience, but never in a position to do anything but occupy a space for, oh say, 29 years. Seriously (without rancor), what have you done? Heck start a new thread "Randy makes sense of railroading". See you over there.
UP is firing first shot publically. They say they will have to embargo all new TIH by December 1st. Makes sense as it might take that long to move all TIH to its final destination by Jan 1. So congress cannot take its time into December but ------------- ??? Guess what ??
http://www.up.com/customers/announcements/customernews/generalannouncements/CN2015-59.html
Here's a link to UP's Media page dealing with PTC. There are a couple of pdf links on what they are planning should there not be any extension or other relief granted. They aren't planning on shutting down whole routes completely that require PTC, just not accept TIH/PIH shipments or passenger trains. Embargoes will be placed in advance of the PTC deadline to ensure there will be no such loads (or passenger trains) on the system when the ball drops.
http://www.uprr.com/newsinfo/media_kit/ptc/index.shtml
Jeff
ouibejamn Randy Stahl My 29 year career on the railroad is under threat , I've been an industry insider, have you ? Every week on this and other sites,I hear from "insiders" how poorly run and effed up the railroads are, but it's always somebody else doing the effing, never them. They are geniuses with 29, heck 39 years of experience, but never in a position to do anything but occupy a space for, oh say, 29 years. Seriously (without rancor), what have you done? Heck start a new thread "Randy makes sense of railroading". See you over there.
Randy Stahl My 29 year career on the railroad is under threat , I've been an industry insider, have you ?
Sans rancor.
If you have such low regard for rail employees why in gods name are you on a rail forum?
The locomotives don't fix and run themselves.
As far as what I've done , I WORKED those 29 years. Usually at the end of a tool of the trade like a spike mall, a throttle, a wrench or a test meter.
As a manager I keep my employees safe and still have the ability to pass on what I know to the next generation! The one thing I do have is experience, lots of it. Enough experience to know that an undesired full service brake application from a faulty PTC is nearly as dangerous as a collision.
Personally I don't think it will come down to the worst case scenario of route closures but one never knows anymore. In any case I'm glad I'm not a car owner or a chemical shipper !
Euclid1) Government extends the deadline. 2) Government takes over the railroads and operate them until PTC is complete.
Under what authority would the government "take over the railroads"?
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
As I said weeks ago, the railroads are evaluating their contingency plans for what to do in case the deadline is not extended. They will have their plans in place months before the deadline, they will communicate their plans well before the deadline. none of this will be a surprise.
If they stop hauling RSSM it will turn the screws much faster. Its not just TIH, its RSSM. RSSM is TIH, explosives and radioactive materials. When the water treatment plants can't get chlorine to make fresh water (TIH) or the military can't get ammunition (explosives), the pressure on congress will increase.
dehusman Euclid 1) Government extends the deadline. 2) Government takes over the railroads and operate them until PTC is complete. Under what authority would the government "take over the railroads"?
Euclid 1) Government extends the deadline. 2) Government takes over the railroads and operate them until PTC is complete.
Johnny
Euclid Randy, I do not think your characterization of the chaos is exaggerated at all. The law will require the suspension of service. So the whole thing is in the hands of the government, and they have two choices for government action as follows: 1) Government extends the deadline. 2) Government takes over the railroads and operate them until PTC is complete. Of course the rational choice is number one. But there is something else at work here that makes choice number one seem uncertain. I almost sense a sort of contempt by the Obama Administration toward the railroad industry. I get the impression that the Administration does not trust certain sectors of corporate America, particularly the fossil fuel energy sector. That is the industry that they see as fighting their favorite mission of fixing climate change. They pick and choose with sectors to favor, and the railroads may not be one of them. It’s just a hunch. They may be leery of the railroads because of their involvement with oil trains. Shoving an ECP brake mandate down the railroad’s throat seems indicative of that underlying contempt. That may have been an expression mistrust of the railroad industry as to whether they will do the right thing for public safety. The PTC mandate falls right in line with that same template. An unyielding PTC dead line may be an expression of that same mistrust. At this point in time, it is obvious that the industry is making a good faith effort to install PTC. And it is obvious that they do not have enough time ahead of the deadline. Why wouldn’t a reasonable government work with the industry to overcome this problem? One reason might be that they don’t trust the industry to complete the task unless they hold their feet to the fire. Instead of working with the industry in a sense of good will, there is an obvious stubbornness at work here in the refusal to grant more time. The mandate and its deadline are being administered as though they are punishment for a misbehaving industry. So against that backdrop, consider choice number two above. Considering the government attitude of distrust toward the railroads, the industry reaction of shutting down service will only heighten the sense that they are misbehaving and deserve even more punishment. It will not matter that the railroads will only be doing what the government demands by shutting down. The government will view it as further insubordination. It will also not matter that the government will botch the job of running the railroads. In their stubborn arrogance, they will refuse to acknowledge that, and just press ahead at the expense of the economy and the welfare of the people. Ironically, they are likely to inflict far more hardship on society than would a few train wrecks that PTC might prevent.
Utter hysteria. You choose to ignore the factual posts of folks like Jeff Hergert and prefer your chicken little mantra which is largely a product of an overactive imagination, with a helping of OCD and some paranoid anti-government delusions for seasoning.
If you read BNSF's letter, then you would see that they believe that any line required to have PTC could not be used to haul any traffic at all. BNSF believes that if a train operating over a line that is required to have PTC but doesn't have it has an accident, that would expose the company to the risk of greatly increased financial liabilities. Then there is the question of a railroad operating over another railroad via Trackage Rights where the other Railroad might choose the shutdown option. And then what happens over trackage that the Class I railroads have sold to Commuter Agencies like Metrolink. Do BNSF and UP have anyway to reach the Port of LA/LB without using some Metrolink trackage?
BNSF Railway
September 9, 2015
The Honorable John Thune
Chairman, Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation
United States Senate
Washington, DC 20510
Dear Senator Thune:
I write in response to your letter of August 28, 2015, regarding the potential consequences of a failure to extend the current December 31, 2015, Positive Train Control (PTC) implementation deadline contained in the Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (RSIA).
BNSF has invested over $1.5 billion in the testing, development, purchase, and installation of PTC components out of an estimated total exceeding $2 billion. PTC will be deployed on roughly half of our system; these lines host 80 percent of BNSF’s freight density. We expect to have a significant portion of the necessary PTC system implemented on the network by the current December 31, 2015, deadline, but after that date we still require ongoing installation and extensive testing, as discussed below.
PTC deployment is an unprecedented technical and operational challenge that requires the entire U.S. railroad network to develop, test and implement this new safety system, and avoid impacts to network capacity and fluidity as we do. Despite our strong commitment to this technology, BNSF has faced significant technical, regulatory and operational obstacles to meeting the PTC implementation deadline imposed by the RSIA and will not meet the RSIA deadline for deployment. As a result, BNSF believes that Congress must move the PTC deadline in order to achieve successful PTC implementation and to avoid potential significant and unnecessary congestion and shipper service impacts.
Challenges to PTC Deployment and Related Impacts on Train Operations
As should be expected in the development and implementation of any “Next Generation” technology, there have been significant challenges to nationwide, interoperable PTC deployment. First, fully functional, interoperable and production-ready PTC hardware or software did not exist in 2008. The development and production of PTC systems has been affected by the availability and reliability of hardware components, spectrum and software.
Second, as you know, one of the biggest impediments to PTC deployment was the more than a year period of time during which railroads were unable to obtain necessary Federal Communications Commission permits for radio tower and antennae construction. Third, as we deploy and test PTC on BNSF, we continue to experience technical issues related to software, component reliability and availability. In addition, construction and “cut-over” (or turning on) of PTC systems across subdivisions must be carefully timed, as it can impact network capacity.
The component and software challenges that our real world use of PTC in revenue service continue to uncover adverse impacts to train operations. For example, we are seeing the PTC system trigger unnecessary braking events in which trains are stopped with a full-service brake application. This means that significant work has to occur before the train can re-start. These kinds of delays are numerous and cumulatively consume railroad capacity. Our experience thus far shows that railroads will need a reasonable period of time to test PTC and “work the bugs out” after PTC is deployed to avoid significant service impacts.
Legal Considerations if PTC Deadline is Not Extended
BNSF has evaluated the competing statutory and regulatory requirements regarding operations on mandated lines where PTC has not been installed and operational as of January 1, 2016, and our legal analysis calls into question whether we legally may operate any freight or passenger service on such lines. There are several legal and policy reasons why BNSF believes this is so.
First, BNSF reads the RSIA and the Federal Railroad Administration’s (FRA) PTC implementing regulations as requiring PTC on lines that are part of the FRA-approved PTC Implementation Plan in order for any train to originate on such a line as of January 1, 2016. Under this plain reading of the RSIA, the deadline will impact all freight service, as opposed to only TIH-PIH and passenger trains, on the lines where PTC is not fully installed and implemented, which we noted in our recent “Fall Peak” letter to the Surface Transportation Board.
Second, BNSF recognizes that, in addition to the RSIA PTC requirement, it continues to have a common carrier obligation to provide service upon reasonable request pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 11101, but is concerned whether it can reconcile its duty to provide common carrier service on lines not in compliance with the PTC mandate as of January 1, 2016. BNSF believes that the common carrier obligation is tempered by reasonableness, and must be read as subject to the later-enacted RSIA safety rules, such as the requirement to have an interoperable PTC system. BNSF is concerned that it is not reasonable to operate in violation of a legal safety requirement in order to fulfill its common carrier obligation.
Third, BNSF, as a matter of law, corporate policy and principle, does not willfully violate safety statutes or regulations or ask our employees to do so. The announced enforcement policy by the FRA of imposing fines for non-performance puts BNSF in a position that will be difficult to reconcile with our aforementioned unwillingness to willfully violate safety laws or regulations. BNSF does not believe that it can pick and choose which safety rules must be followed. And even if a railroad, in theory, was ordered by a governmental entity to or simply was inclined to direct its employees to operate over lines where PTC is required but is not yet installed, another federal statute protects employees from acting to perform tasks in violation of law. (Specifically, 49 U.S.C. 20109(a)(2) protects employees who “refuse to violate or assist in the violation of any Federal law, rule, or regulation relating to railroad safety or security.”)
Fourth, in addition to the statutory PTC deadline, BNSF’s commuter contracts generally require that such service be operated in compliance with all applicable laws and regulations, which we believe would include the current mandate for PTC operation over certain rail lines. That is, BNSF may not be able to provide all existing commuter service to various agencies, such as Chicago, Seattle and Minnesota, as well as certain Amtrak lines. Thus, BNSF would be faced with the difficult choice of operating in violation of the PTC statute or risking breach of contract claims for not operating the service. This does not even take into account the potential social and economic costs to communities were BNSF to not operate commuter service.
Finally, were BNSF or any other railroad to attempt to operate over lines where PTC is not yet in place and an accident were to occur that is found to be PTC-preventable, the exposure to legal claims, including punitive damages, would pose a significant financial and reputational risk.
Consequences of Failing to Extend the PTC Deadline
As I have indicated above, BNSF has serious questions whether it should operate on subdivisions that have not been equipped with PTC in knowing violation of the federal law that mandated PTC as of January 1, 2016. Enormous congestion could result from efforts to re-route traffic that moves on the PTC lines, which are maintained to handle the most density, to lines on which PTC is not required. These are generally low-density territories where we do not have crews and maintenance resources positioned for those volumes. We have analyzed what train operations could continue if operations are halted on mandated subdivisions without PTC installed and believe that operations across our entire network will likely be compromised by congestion and effectively shut down. BNSF would do whatever is reasonably possible to mitigate this impact, but the consequences for the economy and for our company would be substantial.
Furthermore, if we knowingly operate in violation of the law on mandated portions of the network without PTC and FRA engaged in enforcement against BNSF, it’s unclear what kind of operational choices, and related network impacts, BNSF would face in order to minimize its exposure to enforcement and liability risk.
If Congress does not act to move the deadline and BNSF operations are out of compliance with the PTC statute and regulations, BNSF could be left with few acceptable options. You may be assured that we have, and will continue, to update Congress and our customers on whatever actions we believe we are compelled to take in that circumstance. We are developing potential communications to our customers and passenger rail tenants in the event that no extension is enacted by the end of October, as these stakeholders may need to make preparations or alternative plans well before the current December 31, 2015, deadline.
We appreciate the action that you and your colleagues in the Senate have taken to responsibly extend the PTC deadline, thereby ensuring that railroads can deploy reliable PTC as soon as possible. We remain hopeful that Congress will take appropriate action.
Sincerely,
Carl R. Ice
President & CEO
cc: The Honorable Bill Nelson
The Honorable Deb Fischer
The Honorable Cory Booker
The Honorable Anthony Foxx, United States Secretary of Transportation
The Honorable Sarah Feinberg, Acting Administrator, Federal Railroad Administration
The Honorable Daniel R. Elliott III, Chairman, Surface Transportation Board
The Honorable Ann D. Begeman, Vice Chairman, Surface Transportation Board
beaulieu If you read BNSF's letter, then you would see that they believe that any line required to have PTC could not be used to haul any traffic at all. BNSF believes that if a train operating over a line that is required to have PTC but doesn't have it has an accident, that would expose the company to the risk of greatly increased financial liabilities. Then there is the question of a railroad operating over another railroad via Trackage Rights where the other Railroad might choose the shutdown option. And then what happens over trackage that the Class I railroads have sold to Commuter Agencies like Metrolink. Do BNSF and UP have anyway to reach the Port of LA/LB without using some Metrolink trackage?
UP's opinion and statements differ from BNSF's.
schlimm beaulieu If you read BNSF's letter, then you would see that they believe that any line required to have PTC could not be used to haul any traffic at all. BNSF believes that if a train operating over a line that is required to have PTC but doesn't have it has an accident, that would expose the company to the risk of greatly increased financial liabilities. Then there is the question of a railroad operating over another railroad via Trackage Rights where the other Railroad might choose the shutdown option. And then what happens over trackage that the Class I railroads have sold to Commuter Agencies like Metrolink. Do BNSF and UP have anyway to reach the Port of LA/LB without using some Metrolink trackage? UP's opinion and statements differ from BNSF's.
Murphy Siding schlimm beaulieu If you read BNSF's letter, then you would see that they believe that any line required to have PTC could not be used to haul any traffic at all. BNSF believes that if a train operating over a line that is required to have PTC but doesn't have it has an accident, that would expose the company to the risk of greatly increased financial liabilities. Then there is the question of a railroad operating over another railroad via Trackage Rights where the other Railroad might choose the shutdown option. And then what happens over trackage that the Class I railroads have sold to Commuter Agencies like Metrolink. Do BNSF and UP have anyway to reach the Port of LA/LB without using some Metrolink trackage? UP's opinion and statements differ from BNSF's. Perhaps, but as long as both railroads are intertwined in a nationwide system, what affects one railroad affects all railroads in the system.
Perhaps, but as long as both railroads are intertwined in a nationwide system, what affects one railroad affects all railroads in the system.
Yes. However there are 2 1/2 months to an embargo, 3 1/2 to the deadline. In this game of chicken, I have confidence in the acumen of the top brass at the Big4 +2 and the AAR to work things out even if an obstructionist Congressional leadership does/can not.
schlimm Yes. However there are 2 1/2 months to an embargo, 3 1/2 to the deadline. In this game of chicken, I have confidence in the acumen of the top brass at the Big4 +2 and the AAR to work things out even if an obstructionist Congressional leadership does/can not.
In what way might they work things out? What are their options?
Both require legislation. The second would require the government violate it's own laws. That usually puts people in jail.
schlimm Sorry Don, but you are confused. The Transportation Technology Center in Pueblo is owned by USDOT. TTCI (Incorporated) operates it: Welcome to Transportation Technology Center, Inc. (TTCI), a wholly owned subsidiary of the Association of American Railroads. TTCI is a world-class transportation research and testing organization, providing emerging technology solutions for the railway industry throughout North America and the world.
Thanks. Had my acronyms wrong. The facility is owned by DOT - leased to and operated by, AAR.
Euclid Well then if all of the possible results are unthinkable, impossible, will never happen; then what will happen when the deadline arrives?
Randy StahlWithout income the railroads will default on equipment payments and trusts.
Not likely. One example, the UPRR GAAP cash low for fiscal 2014 from the Form 10K: "Cash provided by operating activities $ 7,385,000,000, i.e., over $7 billion.
DS4-4-1000 Euclid Well then if all of the possible results are unthinkable, impossible, will never happen; then what will happen when the deadline arrives? Possibly something similar to what occurred in 1969. The cause was different, but the railroads shut down and after a few days the Nixon ordered everyone back to work and initiated a commission to resolve the problems.
Wasn't that a labor dispute where Nixon ordered the unions to work? In the case of the PTC mandate, how could the president order the railroads to go back to work against a management decision to shut down in order to obey the law?
Euclid DS4-4-1000 Euclid Well then if all of the possible results are unthinkable, impossible, will never happen; then what will happen when the deadline arrives? Possibly something similar to what occurred in 1969. The cause was different, but the railroads shut down and after a few days the Nixon ordered everyone back to work and initiated a commission to resolve the problems. Wasn't that a labor dispute where Nixon ordered the unions to work? In the case of the PTC mandate, how could the president order the railroads to go back to work against a management decision to shut down in order to obey the law?
dehusman As I said weeks ago, the railroads are evaluating their contingency plans for what to do in case the deadline is not extended. They will have their plans in place months before the deadline, they will communicate their plans well before the deadline. none of this will be a surprise. If they stop hauling RSSM it will turn the screws much faster. Its not just TIH, its RSSM. RSSM is TIH, explosives and radioactive materials. When the water treatment plants can't get chlorine to make fresh water (TIH) or the military can't get ammunition (explosives), the pressure on congress will increase.
The UP's letter to the chemical industry, besides warning them of a possible embargo of certain loads, might also get that industry to lobby the Government for an extension or other relief. If congress starts hearing from lobbyists from affected industries, maybe it might influence them to act. Some members of congress may dismiss the railroad's talk of shutting down, in whole or in part, as just so much bluster. Coming from a non-railroad source, they may take more notice of the consequences. Or maybe not.
Will the NEC and the Amtrak owned Mich. track be PTC equipped by 1/1/16?
If not, does the law apply equally to them or is a Federal agency exempt?
Gore enough oxes and when they bellow, congress will move. The Koch Brothers will pull their strings as will other political sponsors and congress will find a way to claim that "In the cause of saving JOBs andthe ECOMOMY" they will extend the deadline. All while uttering many other pious platitudes. Two major RR's have started the ball rolling and Congress has two and a half months to sputter and harumpf but I would bet a sizable amount that just as the Republicans woke up to the results of shutting down government, congress doesn't want to really shut down the railroads. It will be fun/painful to watch the brinksmanship and blustering that is coming.
Under the heading "be careful what you wish for," the possibility that an extension will come with strings attached...
For our legal eagles. Could a court order suspending the PTC mandate, or ordering the RRs to operate ignoring the PTC mandate or other such item suspend enforcement and any court action against RRs ?
Can we suspect that some NIMBY(s), RR hater, etc might try to appeal any such order but probably not the FRA ? Try to claim court order infringes upon their sleep ?
Further, if a rail line currently handles "trigger traffic" on a line, but the railroad ceases to handle this traffic on the line prior to 12-31-15 and follows the procedures in 49 CFR 236.1005(b)(4) for excluding the line from the PTC baseline, the railroad is not required to have PTC on the line. In this case, the railroad should be able to lawfully handle other traffic on the line after 12-31-15. My speculation is that this is probably what UP intends to do, although I obviously don't know this as a fact.
The "Metrolink issue" is an interesting one, and I don't have an easy answer for it. On the one hand, the obligation to install PTC, where it is required, is on the "host railroad", defined in the FRA PTC rule as "a railroad that has effective operating control of a segment of track". That would be Metrolink, not the tenant freight roads. On the other hand, the tenant roads may violate the FRA rule by operating non-equipped trains contrary to the FRA approved PTC plan applicable to the track. I'd have to do further research to resolve this.
jeffhergert The UP's letter to the chemical industry, besides warning them of a possible embargo of certain loads, might also get that industry to lobby the Government for an extension or other relief. If congress starts hearing from lobbyists from affected industries, maybe it might influence them to act. Some members of congress may dismiss the railroad's talk of shutting down, in whole or in part, as just so much bluster. Coming from a non-railroad source, they may take more notice of the consequences. Or maybe not. Jeff
MATTHEW HASKETT She has no idea how this will affect the railroads and the US economy.
I'm very sure that she does. You may want to believe otherwise, but not every one in government is down to you level.
Ken G Price My N-Scale Layout
Digitrax Super Empire Builder Radio System. South Valley Texas Railroad. SVTRR
N-Scale out west. 1996-1998 or so! UP, SP, Missouri Pacific, C&NW.
Electroliner 1935 Gore enough oxes and when they bellow, congress will move. The Koch Brothers will pull their strings as will other political sponsors and congress will find a way to claim that "In the cause of saving JOBs andthe ECOMOMY" they will extend the deadline. All while uttering many other pious platitudes. Two major RR's have started the ball rolling and Congress has two and a half months to sputter and harumpf but I would bet a sizable amount that just as the Republicans woke up to the results of shutting down government, congress doesn't want to really shut down the railroads. It will be fun/painful to watch the brinksmanship and blustering that is coming.
I believe that you have figured it out!
I'm just struggling to sort out the probable outcomes should an extension not be granted.
Any way you view it, methinks Amtrak is screwed outside the Northeast Corridor and the Flordia services. Would I be incorrect in thinking that there are a number of railroad executives who might see this as an unqualified positive? . I don't think there is much squirm room on passenger trains - were there to be an accident with fatalities on an excepted section of line for any reason, the fallout would be politically explosive. Besides - half of the Amtrak lines centering on Chicago shut down in winter anyhow... I have to think that restricted haz-mat loads will be allowed on non-PTC-equipped designated lines, with a bunch of restrictions regarding speed, etc. No problem - just let the loads pile up at your major yards for a few days, put 'em all on one train heading for another major yard evey 3-4 days, and run it under whatever newly-discovered "safe method" is established. You could also just route them via your non-signaled secondary lines - that would certainly be safer than on CTC equipped lines without PTC, from which we have now been saved. Shipper's in-transit inventory will just double or triple (which everyone knows doesn't really cost anyone money - unless you're an accountant :P) - if you need your chlorine at the water treatment plant in a hurry, just put it on a truck - far safer than letting it run on non-PTC lines. The sad part is that 90% of the people outside the rail industry wouldn't see the sarcasm involved above.
It's useful to take a step back and remember that this PTC mandate was an over-reaction to one accident involving an engineer who was driving distracted. Whereas we've enjoyed 180 years now of railroading with, yes, the accidents and loss of life that accompany any human enterprise but, overall, a remarkable record of safety, especially in the modern era.
PTC: A solution looking for a problem.
wanswheel Letter from CSX CEO Michael J. Ward http://static.politico.com/56/9a/940e046d4737bd07f04a6e6eb8a2/csx-letter-to-senate-commerce.pdf
Falcon48 BNSF is certainly correct that IF a line is required to have PTC, then the railroad is in violation of the law if it hauls ANY traffic over the line after 12-31-15. But - and this is the important "but" discussed in my earlier note - a line isn't required to have PTC if it doesn't handle TIH (sometimes called PIH) or intercity/commuter passenger service (I'll call these two types of traffic "trigger traffic" for short, although that's not a term used in the PTC law or regulations). If a line doesn't handle "trigger traffic", it isn't required to have PTC, and there is no liability for continuing to operate the line for other kinds of traffic.
BNSF is certainly correct that IF a line is required to have PTC, then the railroad is in violation of the law if it hauls ANY traffic over the line after 12-31-15. But - and this is the important "but" discussed in my earlier note - a line isn't required to have PTC if it doesn't handle TIH (sometimes called PIH) or intercity/commuter passenger service (I'll call these two types of traffic "trigger traffic" for short, although that's not a term used in the PTC law or regulations). If a line doesn't handle "trigger traffic", it isn't required to have PTC, and there is no liability for continuing to operate the line for other kinds of traffic.
I would like to point out that the FRA can and has refused to reclassify some line segments as not requiring PTC, the submission was based on TIH traffic falling to minimal levels. It is also possible that the FRA could claim to be overwhelmed by the volume of exemptions being requested or just plain sit on the requests to put pressure on Congress for a different resolution to the problem.
While all this conjecture can be fun, this thread reminds me of something I read recently:
"If a problem can be solved, it will be. If it can not be solved, there is no use worrying about it." ... Dalai Lama
_____________
"A stranger's just a friend you ain't met yet." --- Dave Gardner
Paul of Covington While all this conjecture can be fun, this thread reminds me of something I read recently: "If a problem can be solved, it will be. If it can not be solved, there is no use worrying about it." ... Dalai Lama
dakotafred It's useful to take a step back and remember that this PTC mandate was an over-reaction to one accident involving an engineer who was driving distracted. Whereas we've enjoyed 180 years now of railroading with, yes, the accidents and loss of life that accompany any human enterprise but, overall, a remarkable record of safety, especially in the modern era. PTC: A solution looking for a problem.
This was NOT an over-reaction. This was a long-due requirement that the railroads ignored for years or decades, and unfortunately, a lot of people had to die in the process for this to be implemented. If the railroads had successfully self-regulated, PTC would have been standard 15 or 20 years ago.
All that being said, given the current mandate situtation, most of the railroads are going full tilt trying to get this implemented. As far as I know, several of the eastern commuter railroads, including LIRR, aren't going to make the deadline, and they have ZERO excuse whatsoever, since ACSES, while not appropriate for the freight railroads, has been around and working since 1999 for the NEC-connected operations, and yet MN and LIRR refused to put it in under the federal mandate came along, and then dragged their feet more after the mandate. Some heads need to roll at any NEC commuter railroad that's not 100% PTC compliant on Jan 1.
I really hope that Congress understands what an incredible disaster this would be if we pass December without an extension in place. People will absolutely die in highway crashes, for one. Power will probably become unreliable in much of the country after the week or two or three of stockpiled coal runs out. The highways are going to be a parking lot, particularly in NYC and Chicago. Ironically, while LA will see a huge upswing in truck traffic, Metrolink is already PTC-compliant, so the most car-clogged place in the US will still have commuter trains.
Unfortunately, DC won't see the affect nearly as much as other cities, since it mostly uses the Metro, and has small commuter rail operations, with the MARC Penn Line likely to be PTC-compliant (I believe that section already has ACSES), and it's not really in a through freight route to anywhere that competes with intermodal or anything else.
Even if we pass Dec 1 without a resolution, the month of December is going to be chaos for the railroads, as they will have to start preparing to embargo traffic, all the while handling massive tonnages of coal, steelmaking materials, and other non-truckable materials that industries want to stockpile, all the while being in intermodal season, and not being able to do much actual work on PTC or anything else due to the glut of December Z-trains that zip around their networks (especially BNSF) moving an endless stream of UPS and FedEX boxes and trailers loaded with chrimstime stuff.
At the same time, starting on Jan 1, while the US economy is crashing and burning, the highways are clogged beyond imagination, and there are tons of highway crashes, pretty much every person in the US who is licesned to drive a semi will be making bank.
Actually not the case. The forefront of PTC was ATCS which was a CN initiative which was intended to bring radio based signals to formally dark territory. UP had little involvement until the Northwest Project intended to demonstrate interoperability between UP and BNSF. BNSF really carried the ball from here not UP.
wanswheelThis deadline appears to have been selected with no analysis or feasibility inquiry.
This.
And this is why even those railroads making a definite effort to meet the mandate (if not the deadline) will not be able to meet the deadline.
Dakguy201Ms. Feinberg is a political operative whose background is a staffer for former Senate Leader Tom Dashle, former White House Chief of Staff Rahn Emanuel and Secretary of Transportation Anthony Foxx. As a matter of law, her position "shall be an individual with professional experience in railroad safety, hazardous materials safety, or other transportation safety." It is unclear to me just where she might have attained such experience.
Both elegantly and eloguently stated.
ChuckAllen, TX
C'mon, Balt. How about a little decorum here, if you will. The proper term, I believe, is Agricultural Slag.
ALEXANDER WOOD dakotafred It's useful to take a step back and remember that this PTC mandate was an over-reaction to one accident involving an engineer who was driving distracted. Whereas we've enjoyed 180 years now of railroading with, yes, the accidents and loss of life that accompany any human enterprise but, overall, a remarkable record of safety, especially in the modern era. PTC: A solution looking for a problem. This was NOT an over-reaction. This was a long-due requirement that the railroads ignored for years or decades, and unfortunately, a lot of people had to die in the process for this to be implemented. If the railroads had successfully self-regulated, PTC would have been standard 15 or 20 years ago ... People will absolutely die in highway crashes ...
This was NOT an over-reaction. This was a long-due requirement that the railroads ignored for years or decades, and unfortunately, a lot of people had to die in the process for this to be implemented. If the railroads had successfully self-regulated, PTC would have been standard 15 or 20 years ago ... People will absolutely die in highway crashes ...
So, where is the PTC for highways, where 35,000 die each year, and for the airlines for that matter?
Railroad deaths have been miniscule; when they've occurred, it's usually because of the failure of imperfect human beings who, God bless them, do right 99.9 percent of the time.
Civilian -- non-railroad -- casualties, like the California passengers who died and inspired PTC, probably made mistakes in their own jobs that had serious consequences. Where was the PTC for their line of work?
PTC is an unattractive bit of political grandstanding by Congress that is pure economic waste and a smear on the people operating our trains.
Would that Congress did one-tenth as good a job as our railroaders.
*Sigh.* Yet another hint that our government is slowly taking our freedom away. *sigh* What the heck is this law for, anyways? To stop a certain operation that's necessary? What the heck?
Private: Failure to meet PTC deadline.
Public:
NextGen (airtraffic control system)
Affordable Care Act exchanges.
Score: Private 1, Public 2.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
ALEXANDER WOOD This was NOT an over-reaction. This was a long-due requirement that the railroads ignored for years or decades, and unfortunately, a lot of people had to die in the process for this to be implemented. If the railroads had successfully self-regulated, PTC would have been standard 15 or 20 years ago.
Of course the fact that no one, not even the aerospace firms could build or demonstrate a workable system is irrelevant! We should have installed something that had no chance of working and gummed up the industry then! There were plenty of test installation, all of which failed, the Lockheed Martin Illinois project probably the most visible (Only about $50M blown on that attempt, but then again it's easy). You can still see the marks in the ballast from their foot dragging. Great thinking!
beaulieu Falcon48 BNSF is certainly correct that IF a line is required to have PTC, then the railroad is in violation of the law if it hauls ANY traffic over the line after 12-31-15. But - and this is the important "but" discussed in my earlier note - a line isn't required to have PTC if it doesn't handle TIH (sometimes called PIH) or intercity/commuter passenger service (I'll call these two types of traffic "trigger traffic" for short, although that's not a term used in the PTC law or regulations). If a line doesn't handle "trigger traffic", it isn't required to have PTC, and there is no liability for continuing to operate the line for other kinds of traffic. I would like to point out that the FRA can and has refused to reclassify some line segments as not requiring PTC, the submission was based on TIH traffic falling to minimal levels. It is also possible that the FRA could claim to be overwhelmed by the volume of exemptions being requested or just plain sit on the requests to put pressure on Congress for a different resolution to the problem.
At one point FRA was going to use 2008 traffic flows to define what needed PTC and what didn't. There was a big issue over this as there were some TIH reroute rules taking effect in the '09-10 time frame which would effect PTC requirements. The industry sued over this and as I recall they won. But the point is what track segments need to have PTC installed was defined several years ago.
12444 *Sigh.* Yet another hint that our government is slowly taking our freedom away.
*Sigh.* Yet another hint that our government is slowly taking our freedom away.
The deadline is Jan 1, 2016. The RRs will likely shut down.
They'll do this like they do when strikes occur. Run trains to destination and park the equipment. They won't originate any trains that won't get to a where they're going by the deadline or at least good place to lay the train down en route.
It's fortunate that Jan 1 falls on a Friday. It's likely the RRs are only planning to run limited service over the holiday weekend, anyway. That provides a few days to get the deadline extended before the full impact of the shutdown hits.
With the current political climate involving numerous and important federal elections next year it is unlikely that any party will jeopardize their position by allowing things to occur that will have negative affects on the economy. To avoid a public battle of words, PTC I feel will be extended but not without stern language.
CSSHEGEWISCH 12444 *Sigh.* Yet another hint that our government is slowly taking our freedom away. I presume that you complained mightily when it became necessary to purchase a digital television or converter box when the FCC mandated the change from analog to digital television signals. Full disclosure: I don't waste money paying for cable or satellite television.
No, I didn't, I'm only 18. But, even with PTC, accidents are STILL gonna happen. And, we may become depndent on PTC, and that's a bad thing. Are they really gonna extend the deadline? Good God I hope so, cause, if they don't, and the railroads do shut down, good night economy, and good night lowering fuel prices.
Some more on this....
http://www.politico.com/tipsheets/morning-transportation/2015/09/150915-pro-morning-transpo-210209
12444 *Sigh.* Yet another hint that our government is slowly taking our freedom away. *sigh* What the heck is this law for, anyways? To stop a certain operation that's necessary? What the heck?
What freedom? Please explain. Railroads do not operate in a vacuum. Do you beleive there should be no regulation at all?
wanswheel The House takes the entire week off to celebrate the Autumnal Equinox, Columbus Day, Veterans Day and Thanksgiving. Only 39 potential deadline-extension days till Christmas.
Not a single 5 day week
BaltACDNot a single 5 day week
I'm in the wrong line of work.
Dakguy201 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. Ms. Feinberg is a political operative whose background is a staffer for former Senate Leader Tom Dashle, former White House Chief of Staff Rahn Emanuel and Secretary of Transportation Anthony Foxx. As a matter of law, her position "shall be an individual with professional experience in railroad safety, hazardous materials safety, or other transportation safety." It is unclear to me just where she might have attained such experience.
Excerpt from Senate press release
The pending nominee to be the next administrator of the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) will provide testimony at a U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation confirmation hearing on Thursday, September 17th at 9:45 a.m. Ms. Feinberg has served as the Acting Administrator of the FRA since January 2015 and the president formally nominated her to be the next administrator at FRA on May 29, 2015. Her nomination questionnaire is available here. This hearing will take place in Senate Russell Office Building, Room 253 and a live video of the hearing will be available.
zugmann 12444 *Sigh.* Yet another hint that our government is slowly taking our freedom away. *sigh* What the heck is this law for, anyways? To stop a certain operation that's necessary? What the heck? What freedom? Please explain. Railroads do not operate in a vacuum. Do you beleive there should be no regulation at all?
No, I just think it's dumb how the railroads have no choice but to meet the deadline, and that they have to shut down if they don't.
dakotafredSo, where is the PTC for highways, where 35,000 die each year, and for the airlines for that matter? Railroad deaths have been miniscule; when they've occurred, it's usually because of the failure of imperfect human beings who, God bless them, do right 99.9 percent of the time. Civilian -- non-railroad -- casualties, like the California passengers who died and inspired PTC, probably made mistakes in their own jobs that had serious consequences. Where was the PTC for their line of work? PTC is an unattractive bit of political grandstanding by Congress that is pure economic waste and a smear on the people operating our trains. Would that Congress did one-tenth as good a job as our railroaders.
If the railroad had successfully self-regulated, all the major lines would have been running PTC in the 1990's. But they didn't. So that's how we got to where we are today. The technology for PTC has been around for a decade or two, and the technology for ATC has been around since the 1930's or earlier.
I hope that in the coming years, as the technology develops, crash-avoidance technology is mandated into new cars, as it will save lives. Planes already almost auto-fly, and planes are the safest mode of transportation already, which is amazing given the fundamental risks involved in getting something off the ground and back on the ground, and then going that with hudreds of aluminum tubes all moving around at the same airport over the course of a day.
BuslistOf course the fact that no one, not even the aerospace firms could build or demonstrate a workable system is irrelevant! We should have installed something that had no chance of working and gummed up the industry then! There were plenty of test installation, all of which failed, the Lockheed Martin Illinois project probably the most visible (Only about $50M blown on that attempt, but then again it's easy). You can still see the marks in the ballast from their foot dragging. Great thinking!
This is utter nonsense. FEC has been running PTC for quite a while, and while not practical for remote freight rail lines, Amtrak's ACSES has been running since 1999, and it works fine for mixed passenger/freight operations.
Heck, if the railroads had all installed ATC like the PRR and New Haven had, many of those accidents likely would have been prevented, and the calls for PTC may never have materialized.
The only downside I can see is that now billions have been invested in the old-school block signalling system, so it's unlikely that any FRA operations will see rolling-block CBTC for a very, very long time, while transit operations, as closed systems, can use CBTC to increase capacity. Although it may not be relevant anyway, as the densest commuter rail operations around NYC use very short fixed blocks anyway.
ALEXANDER WOOD dakotafred If the railroad had successfully self-regulated, all the major lines would have been running PTC in the 1990's. But they didn't. So that's how we got to where we are today. The technology for PTC has been around for a decade or two, and the technology for ATC has been around since the 1930's or earlier. I hope that in the coming years, as the technology develops, crash-avoidance technology is mandated into new cars, as it will save lives. Planes already almost auto-fly, and planes are the safest mode of transportation already, which is amazing given the fundamental risks involved in getting something off the ground and back on the ground, and then going that with hudreds of aluminum tubes all moving around at the same airport over the course of a day. Buslist This is utter nonsense. FEC has been running PTC for quite a while, and while not practical for remote freight rail lines, Amtrak's ACSES has been running since 1999, and it works fine for mixed passenger/freight operations. Heck, if the railroads had all installed ATC like the PRR and New Haven had, many of those accidents likely would have been prevented, and the calls for PTC may never have materialized. The only downside I can see is that now billions have been invested in the old-school block signalling system, so it's unlikely that any FRA operations will see rolling-block CBTC for a very, very long time, while transit operations, as closed systems, can use CBTC to increase capacity. Although it may not be relevant anyway, as the densest commuter rail operations around NYC use very short fixed blocks anyway.
dakotafred
Buslist
Bovine excrement young man. ACSES only has applicability to Amtrak and only to their electrified territory. FEC has not been running PTC, as the design standards have yet to be fully standardized for all Class 1 carriers which FEC is not. They may be running some form of home grown kluge system that satisfies their own needs but that system is not the PTC system that the rest of the Class 1's have settled on. Get some real world work and railroad experience.
Remember, we were all 18 once and had all the answers - it is only when we got older that we realized our answers were useless and we didn't even understand the questions. You are no different.
ALEXANDER WOODAmtrak's ACSES has been running since 1999, and it works fine for mixed passenger/freight operations.
Not so sure this is correct. No NS or CSX locomotives have ACSES equipment. I doubt P&W power does, either. They do have the LSL version of ATC, but that is not PTC.
I think freight trains running on the NEC (the south end, at least) will not be ACSES equipped. They'll run under the loophole that allows some unequipped trains to run in PTC territory, I think. NS, CSX, Amtrak and Conrail haven't figured out what an interoperable I-ETMS/ACSES system might look like, yet.
ALEXANDER WOODIf the railroad had successfully self-regulated, all the major lines would have been running PTC in the 1990's. But they didn't. So that's how we got to where we are today.
They didn't even have to do that much. Expansion of cab signal and/or equipping some dark territory with functional PTC would likely have taken the heat out of the NTSB's drive for PTC.
oltmannd ALEXANDER WOOD Amtrak's ACSES has been running since 1999, and it works fine for mixed passenger/freight operations. Not so sure this is correct. No NS or CSX locomotives have ACSES equipment. I doubt P&W power does, either. They do have the LSL version of ATC, but that is not PTC. I think freight trains running on the NEC (the south end, at least) will not be ACSES equipped. They'll run under the loophole that allows some unequipped trains to run in PTC territory, I think. NS, CSX, Amtrak and Conrail haven't figured out what an interoperable I-ETMS/ACSES system might look like, yet.
ALEXANDER WOOD Amtrak's ACSES has been running since 1999, and it works fine for mixed passenger/freight operations.
All of the P&W engines have cab signal and ACSES.
ALEXANDER WOOD This is utter nonsense. FEC has been running PTC for quite a while, and while not practical for remote freight rail lines, Amtrak's ACSES has been running since 1999, and it works fine for mixed passenger/freight operations. Heck, if the railroads had all installed ATC like the PRR and New Haven had, many of those accidents likely would have been prevented, and the calls for PTC may never have materialized. The only downside I can see is that now billions have been invested in the old-school block signalling system, so it's unlikely that any FRA operations will see rolling-block CBTC for a very, very long time, while transit operations, as closed systems, can use CBTC to increase capacity. Although it may not be relevant anyway, as the densest commuter rail operations around NYC use very short fixed blocks anyway.
Please do some research before commenting. FEC has (or had) cab signals, that is NOT PTC. And ACSES required significant augmentation to meet the statuary requirements. Just so you know I was a member of the FRA's RSAC PTC panel so I know a bit about it! Your credentials?
oltmannd ALEXANDER WOOD If the railroad had successfully self-regulated, all the major lines would have been running PTC in the 1990's. But they didn't. So that's how we got to where we are today. They didn't even have to do that much. Expansion of cab signal and/or equipping some dark territory with functional PTC would likely have taken the heat out of the NTSB's drive for PTC.
ALEXANDER WOOD If the railroad had successfully self-regulated, all the major lines would have been running PTC in the 1990's. But they didn't. So that's how we got to where we are today.
Remember cab signals would not have prevented Chatsworth so there would still be heat. And cab signals do nothing to enforce slow orders or work zone restrictions which are a significant part of the PTC funcunalit.
BuslistRemember cab signals would not have prevented Chatsworth so there would still be heat.
You can't make that claim. Maybe having that approach, then restricting lit up on the tree in the cab would have been enough to prevent the engineer from running the signal. Or maybe not.
zugmann Buslist You can't make that claim. Maybe having that approach, then restricting lit up on the tree in the cab would have been enough to prevent the engineer from running the signal. Or maybe not.
Remember, that engineer had made a station stop in view of the stop signal he ran past.
BaltACD Remember, that engineer had made a station stop in view of the stop signal he ran past.
Yeah, but the claim still can't be made. You know that. I ran under both cab and non-cab. Something nice about having that display in the cab. I'm not saying it would have prevented it, but we can't say it wouldn't have, either.
Randy Stahl oltmannd ALEXANDER WOOD Amtrak's ACSES has been running since 1999, and it works fine for mixed passenger/freight operations. Not so sure this is correct. No NS or CSX locomotives have ACSES equipment. I doubt P&W power does, either. They do have the LSL version of ATC, but that is not PTC. I think freight trains running on the NEC (the south end, at least) will not be ACSES equipped. They'll run under the loophole that allows some unequipped trains to run in PTC territory, I think. NS, CSX, Amtrak and Conrail haven't figured out what an interoperable I-ETMS/ACSES system might look like, yet. All of the P&W engines have cab signal and ACSES.
No wonder the P&W is nearly broke!
Buslist oltmannd ALEXANDER WOOD If the railroad had successfully self-regulated, all the major lines would have been running PTC in the 1990's. But they didn't. So that's how we got to where we are today. They didn't even have to do that much. Expansion of cab signal and/or equipping some dark territory with functional PTC would likely have taken the heat out of the NTSB's drive for PTC. Remember cab signals would not have prevented Chatsworth so there would still be heat. And cab signals do nothing to enforce slow orders or work zone restrictions which are a significant part of the PTC funcunalit.
It possibly could have prevented Chatsworth. He'd have had a restricting in the cab. As soon as he hit 23 mph he would have gotten a penatly brake application.
Plus, as soon as he got past the plant, the UP train CS would have knocked down to restricting.
To your point, Conrail had at least a couple terrible wrecks in CS territory. But, I think there's enough "better" in it to have turned the heat down a notch.
The point is the RR's were so busy merging and sorting out merger effects to devote any attention and/or money to safety systems. Some/any forward progress might have put them in a better position today.
oltmannd Randy Stahl oltmannd ALEXANDER WOOD Amtrak's ACSES has been running since 1999, and it works fine for mixed passenger/freight operations. Not so sure this is correct. No NS or CSX locomotives have ACSES equipment. I doubt P&W power does, either. They do have the LSL version of ATC, but that is not PTC. I think freight trains running on the NEC (the south end, at least) will not be ACSES equipped. They'll run under the loophole that allows some unequipped trains to run in PTC territory, I think. NS, CSX, Amtrak and Conrail haven't figured out what an interoperable I-ETMS/ACSES system might look like, yet. All of the P&W engines have cab signal and ACSES. No wonder the P&W is nearly broke!
I do hope your wrong !!!!
oltmannd Buslist oltmannd ALEXANDER WOOD If the railroad had successfully self-regulated, all the major lines would have been running PTC in the 1990's. But they didn't. So that's how we got to where we are today. They didn't even have to do that much. Expansion of cab signal and/or equipping some dark territory with functional PTC would likely have taken the heat out of the NTSB's drive for PTC. Remember cab signals would not have prevented Chatsworth so there would still be heat. And cab signals do nothing to enforce slow orders or work zone restrictions which are a significant part of the PTC funcunalit. It possibly could have prevented Chatsworth. He'd have had a restricting in the cab. As soon as he hit 23 mph he would have gotten a penatly brake application. Plus, as soon as he got past the plant, the UP train CS would have knocked down to restricting.
If they would be using UP's coded cab signals, there would be no penalty brake application as long as the cab signal aspect change was acknowledged. There is no speed component for them.
I myself haven't forgotten that there were a few witnesses that say they saw a clear signal for the commuter train. http://www.latimes.com/local/la-me-traincrash4-2008oct04-story.html They couldn't find any record of it or get the signal system to reproduce a false clear, so of course it didn't happen. I don't know, but it always seemed odd that almost immediately a spokesperson blamed the accident on their own employee. Something you don't usually do, unless maybe you know your new million dollar computer aided CTC has bugs in it.
oltmanndPlus, as soon as he got past the plant, the UP train CS would have knocked down to restricting.
An interesting irony is that the UP engine was equipped for operation in ATC, ATS and CCS, but none were in effect on the commuter line.
BaltACDBovine excrement young man. ACSES only has applicability to Amtrak and only to their electrified territory. FEC has not been running PTC, as the design standards have yet to be fully standardized for all Class 1 carriers which FEC is not. They may be running some form of home grown kluge system that satisfies their own needs but that system is not the PTC system that the rest of the Class 1's have settled on. Get some real world work and railroad experience.
I did NOT say that the FEC is running I-ETMS, but rather that they are running PTC (of an unspecified type). Maybe you should bother to read my posts in full. If you had bothered to read my post, you would see that my point is that Amtrak has been running A FORM OF PTC since 1999, proving that PTC technology, in one form or another, has been around for a while.
oltmanndNot so sure this is correct. No NS or CSX locomotives have ACSES equipment. I doubt P&W power does, either. They do have the LSL version of ATC, but that is not PTC. I think freight trains running on the NEC (the south end, at least) will not be ACSES equipped. They'll run under the loophole that allows some unequipped trains to run in PTC territory, I think. NS, CSX, Amtrak and Conrail haven't figured out what an interoperable I-ETMS/ACSES system might look like, yet.
P&W is full ACSES. Back in the day when the ethanol trains went on the ENC, P&W power had to go on in Willimantic, CT well away from the corridor, since NECR doens't have ACSES gear on any of their locomotives. Then they backed the trains across the Thames river bridge, which is a bizarre move. They later re-did the shortcut to avoid the NEC until Providence that was FRA excempt previously. There is a video of an ethanol train that was behind schedule running up the150mph section of the NEC to save transit time, which is pretty interesting. I believe it was doing 60ish over the 150mph track in RI.
Apparently they are going to connect I-ETMS and ACSES together in the back office and put the I-ETMS gear on the line too. I guess NS figured that was cheaper than putting ACSES in all the locomotives that handle NEC service, the figure I heard a number of years back was $50K per loco for ACSES. You'd think that they could make a combined I-ETMS and ACSES setup for a small marginal cost above just I-ETMS, but I guess not.
That section of the NEC is the last place in the US that could avoid PTC after Chase, Silver Spring, and now Philadelphia.
oltmanndThey didn't even have to do that much. Expansion of cab signal and/or equipping some dark territory with functional PTC would likely have taken the heat out of the NTSB's drive for PTC.
Quite possibly.
BuslistPlease do some research before commenting. FEC has (or had) cab signals, that is NOT PTC. And ACSES required significant augmentation to meet the statuary requirements. Just so you know I was a member of the FRA's RSAC PTC panel so I know a bit about it! Your credentials?
Supposedly they have/had PTC. I don't know how close it is to meeting the modern requirements of PTC in regards to the current mandate or in comparison to the 1999 implementation of ACSES. There is very little information available about it on the internet.
jeffhergertI myself haven't forgotten that there were a few witnesses that say they saw a clear signal for the commuter train. http://www.latimes.com/local/la-me-traincrash4-2008oct04-story.html They couldn't find any record of it or get the signal system to reproduce a false clear, so of course it didn't happen. I don't know, but it always seemed odd that almost immediately a spokesperson blamed the accident on their own employee. Something you don't usually do, unless maybe you know your new million dollar computer aided CTC has bugs in it.
Wow, that's interesting. Wikipedia says 3 people saw the green signal. I seem to think that they are mistaken, based on the other evidence, but it is spooky nonetheless.
Good news! The dealine has been extednded to 2020!: https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/senate-bill/1462
12444 Good news! The dealine has been extednded to 2020!: https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/senate-bill/1462
^old news - Senate is only 1 part of the legislative process - the House is a different kettle of fish
Tha GAO now concurs that it will be impossible for the railroads to meet the Dec. 31, 2015 deadline and recommend an extension along with more extensive FRA oversight.
http://www.railwayage.com/index.php/ptc/gao-report-confirms-need-for-ptc-deadline-extension.html?channel=63
From the bill summary on the linked page:
08/01/2013 Read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
That was two years ago...
BaltACD 12444 Good news! The dealine has been extednded to 2020!: https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/senate-bill/1462 ^old news - Senate is only 1 part of the legislative process - the House is a different kettle of fish Tha GAO now concurs that it will be impossible for the railroads to meet the Dec. 31, 2015 deadline and recommend an extension along with more extensive FRA oversight. http://www.railwayage.com/index.php/ptc/gao-report-confirms-need-for-ptc-deadline-extension.html?channel=63
Ohh, ok.
Capital Metro, Long Island Railroad, Massachusetts Bay Transit Administration (MBTA), Metro North, New Mexico Rail Runner Express, North East Illinois Commuter Rail (Metra), Peninsula Joint Powers (Caltrain), RTD Denver, South Eastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA), Southern California Regional Rail Authority (Metrolink), Utah Transit Authority, Virginia Railway Express, TriMet.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.