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.
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.
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
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.
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?
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
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.
No. BN and CN took the lead, with CSX pushing from behind.
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.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
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.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.
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.
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
tree68 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.
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?
They've been doing it with ECP braking, too. Those chickens are just starting to roost.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
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.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.