*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.
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.
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.
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.
Euclid Well then if all of the possible results are unthinkable, impossible, will never happen; then what will happen when the deadline arrives?
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.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
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?
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.
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
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
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.
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 "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.
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.
Jeff
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.