Posted by Buslist on Wednesday, September 30, 2015 6:06 PM
Debate over?
http://trn.trains.com/news/news-wire/2015/09/30-ptc-bill-makes-houseI'm
Link doesn't work. Delete the l'm at the end of the URL or go to trains news wire
"Yes, but, what if......?"
23 17 46 11
http://trn.trains.com/news/news-wire/2015/09/30-ptc-bill-makes-house
Euclid It is just a simple change in the terms of the mandate to make it legal for railroads to operate without PTC as they press forward with the installation, driven by the desire to avoid fines.
Simple minds think everything can be done simply.
Norm
Norm48327 Euclid That solution extends the deadline, but not the fines. Think that would hold up in court? Fat chance they could be fined for doing something congress just said it's OK to do.
Euclid That solution extends the deadline, but not the fines.
Think that would hold up in court? Fat chance they could be fined for doing something congress just said it's OK to do.
Euclid With my solution, there is no longer any reason to shut down. This is because continued operation while non-compliant will not violate the law. The railroads get to keep operating for the next three years of the extension, and the FRA gets to use fines to hurry things along for the next three years of the extension.
Please talk like you have SOME intellegence! This 'solution' is a non-starter for anyone with more than two synapse in working order within their skulls.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
EuclidThat solution extends the deadline, but not the fines.
Think that would hold up in court? Fat chance they could be fined for doing something congress just said it's OK to do. Time to post something fruitful or put your soapbox away.
I'll just wait and see what happens.
I could probably propose a solution, too, but no one would pay attention to that, either.
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...
Euclid The way to solve this problem is to impose the fines for operating in non-compliance; without making such operation illegal. That way the railroads cannot find an exemption to their common carrier obligation, nor can they choose to shut down to avoid breaking the law. This would keep the railroads boxed into their PTC obligation without this messy public backlash against the government for the interruption of rail service.
BuslistAn expert? Have you followed the oil train thread? Anything but, always being corrected by someone.
A legend in his own mind?
Hope am wrong but the house bill if passed by both houses un modified might cause many more problems. Can RRs now be ordered to operate without defying a law and be fined for operating without PTC ? The court cases might go on long after PTC is complete ?
Norm48327 tree68 Take a deep breath. Virtually all deadlines are actually "goals." The deadline to file your income tax return is April 15 (barring holidays and weekends). But if you can't meet that deadline, there are ways to deal with it. You are, per usual, making a mountain out of a molehill, and until someone agrees with your hysteria, you're going to keep right on crying "Zhomigod, the sky is falling." Give it a rest. It'll get sorted out. Standard procedure, and he has never posted any solution to the problem. And we were lead to believe he's an expert.
tree68 Take a deep breath. Virtually all deadlines are actually "goals." The deadline to file your income tax return is April 15 (barring holidays and weekends). But if you can't meet that deadline, there are ways to deal with it. You are, per usual, making a mountain out of a molehill, and until someone agrees with your hysteria, you're going to keep right on crying "Zhomigod, the sky is falling." Give it a rest. It'll get sorted out.
Take a deep breath.
Virtually all deadlines are actually "goals." The deadline to file your income tax return is April 15 (barring holidays and weekends). But if you can't meet that deadline, there are ways to deal with it.
You are, per usual, making a mountain out of a molehill, and until someone agrees with your hysteria, you're going to keep right on crying "Zhomigod, the sky is falling."
Give it a rest. It'll get sorted out.
Standard procedure, and he has never posted any solution to the problem. And we were lead to believe he's an expert.
An expert? Have you followed the oil train thread? Anything but, always being corrected by someone.
++1
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Buslist Euclid Buslist For those thinking that a shutdown might be lengthy due to congress wanting the railroads to loose revenue need to consider a basic fact. I don't know of anybody here who has said that a shutdown might be lengthy because congress wants the railroads to loose revenue. Can you please explain? someone in another forum said "In my previous post, I was talking about a case where Congress fails to grant an extension by the deadline, and the railroads shut down a large amount of operations as they have announced they will do. I can see how fuel and crews would be cheaper during a shutdown, as you say, but what about the loss of revenue? How long could the railroads stand that loss? In other words, what will the railroads do if Congress persists in not extending the deadline after it passes?" Why would they refuse to pass it if they didn't think that the loss of revenue wasn't a way to get the railroads running again?
Euclid Buslist For those thinking that a shutdown might be lengthy due to congress wanting the railroads to loose revenue need to consider a basic fact. I don't know of anybody here who has said that a shutdown might be lengthy because congress wants the railroads to loose revenue. Can you please explain?
Buslist For those thinking that a shutdown might be lengthy due to congress wanting the railroads to loose revenue need to consider a basic fact.
I don't know of anybody here who has said that a shutdown might be lengthy because congress wants the railroads to loose revenue. Can you please explain?
someone in another forum said
"In my previous post, I was talking about a case where Congress fails to grant an extension by the deadline, and the railroads shut down a large amount of operations as they have announced they will do. I can see how fuel and crews would be cheaper during a shutdown, as you say, but what about the loss of revenue? How long could the railroads stand that loss? In other words, what will the railroads do if Congress persists in not extending the deadline after it passes?"
Why would they refuse to pass it if they didn't think that the loss of revenue wasn't a way to get the railroads running again?
The difference between the lost revenue and costs saved is likely small enough that the RRs could weather a shutdown for several months, at least. That's longer than the economy could weather a shutdown....
Not all "lost revenue" would be lost. Some would just be deferred. Most bulk commodities, for example.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
The bill coming out of committee to extend the "deadline" is for three year with another two at the discretion of the FRA.
I suspect it would give the FRA the power to fine while granting the extension.
AMEN TREE
EuclidOn the contrary, the problem with all deadlines going forward is that they cannot be deadlines at all. They can only be deadlines if the railroads meet them, which is not a deadline at all. If the railroads cannot meet them, they must be extended, which is not a deadline at all. A so called extended deadline will not be a deadline. Instead, it will be a status reporting point with no ability to enforce progress. It cannot possibly be a deadline according to its definition: “The time by which something must be finished.”
ruderunner Seems the house is bringing a 3year extension to the table on its own. Hopefully the Senate will OK it all by itself instead of packed into their transportation bill.
Seems the house is bringing a 3year extension to the table on its own. Hopefully the Senate will OK it all by itself instead of packed into their transportation bill.
http://transportation.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=399332
The Positive Train Control Enforcement and Implementation Act of 2015 extends the deadline to fully implement the technology to the end of 2018, provides limited authority for the U.S. Department of Transportation Secretary to extend the deadline beyond 2018 if railroads demonstrate they are facing continued difficulties in completing the mandate, but have made every effort to install Positive Train Control as soon as possible, and requires railroads to complete progress reports on implementation.
Click here to read the Positive Train Control Enforcement and Implementation Act of 2015.
Excerpt from Reuters, Sept. 30
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/09/30/usa-trains-safety-idUSL1N12018O20150930
U.S. Representative Peter DeFazio of Oregon, the House panel's leading Democrat, said the PTC extension was necessary but expressed disappointment that the change would not be part of a larger bill that could have included other rail safety enhancements.
There was no immediate word on when the House might vote on the new legislation...
"We look forward to working with both the House and Senate bipartisan leadership to quickly get the PTC extension across the finish line," said Edward Hamberger, president and chief executive of the Association of American Railroads, an industry lobbying group.
Modeling the Cleveland and Pittsburgh during the PennCentral era starting on the Cleveland lakefront and ending in Mingo junction
Deggesty tree68 Euclid You say that the solution is more reasonable deadlines. How reasonable do they have to be? The deadline(s) should take into consideration variables over which the railroad has no control. Things like necessary technology, required equipment that hasn't been invented/purpose built yet, acquisition of land and frequencies, and the like. If a manufacturer tells you he can't have the part you need for a year, how can you meet a deadline that's three months away? Euclid You say that with reasonable deadlines, some railroads will move faster than others. What if, on the whole, they all slow way down because they think that is reasonable? ... If the only acceptable deadline is what the railroads feel is reasonable, why have a deadline? While the railroads will likely have a say in any new deadlines, they probably won't be the ones setting them - that will come down to Congress and/or the FRA. That said - if a new blanket deadline is set (as opposed to deadlines for each railroad, based on how they are coming along on the project), then perhaps a railroad that is currently ahead of the curve might "slow down." In reality, that simply means that they will redirect some of the resources currently being used on PTC to other projects. They will continue to work toward meeting the new deadline, but perhaps not as fast as they could otherwise. If individual deadlines are set, then it will depend on how "good faith" a given railroad's estimated completion date is. And all the other variables... Well said, Larry, especially the first paragraph.
tree68 Euclid You say that the solution is more reasonable deadlines. How reasonable do they have to be? The deadline(s) should take into consideration variables over which the railroad has no control. Things like necessary technology, required equipment that hasn't been invented/purpose built yet, acquisition of land and frequencies, and the like. If a manufacturer tells you he can't have the part you need for a year, how can you meet a deadline that's three months away? Euclid You say that with reasonable deadlines, some railroads will move faster than others. What if, on the whole, they all slow way down because they think that is reasonable? ... If the only acceptable deadline is what the railroads feel is reasonable, why have a deadline? While the railroads will likely have a say in any new deadlines, they probably won't be the ones setting them - that will come down to Congress and/or the FRA. That said - if a new blanket deadline is set (as opposed to deadlines for each railroad, based on how they are coming along on the project), then perhaps a railroad that is currently ahead of the curve might "slow down." In reality, that simply means that they will redirect some of the resources currently being used on PTC to other projects. They will continue to work toward meeting the new deadline, but perhaps not as fast as they could otherwise. If individual deadlines are set, then it will depend on how "good faith" a given railroad's estimated completion date is. And all the other variables...
Euclid You say that the solution is more reasonable deadlines. How reasonable do they have to be?
The deadline(s) should take into consideration variables over which the railroad has no control. Things like necessary technology, required equipment that hasn't been invented/purpose built yet, acquisition of land and frequencies, and the like. If a manufacturer tells you he can't have the part you need for a year, how can you meet a deadline that's three months away?
Euclid You say that with reasonable deadlines, some railroads will move faster than others. What if, on the whole, they all slow way down because they think that is reasonable? ... If the only acceptable deadline is what the railroads feel is reasonable, why have a deadline?
While the railroads will likely have a say in any new deadlines, they probably won't be the ones setting them - that will come down to Congress and/or the FRA.
That said - if a new blanket deadline is set (as opposed to deadlines for each railroad, based on how they are coming along on the project), then perhaps a railroad that is currently ahead of the curve might "slow down." In reality, that simply means that they will redirect some of the resources currently being used on PTC to other projects. They will continue to work toward meeting the new deadline, but perhaps not as fast as they could otherwise.
If individual deadlines are set, then it will depend on how "good faith" a given railroad's estimated completion date is. And all the other variables...
Well said, Larry, especially the first paragraph.
Johnny
EuclidYou say that the solution is more reasonable deadlines. How reasonable do they have to be?
EuclidYou say that with reasonable deadlines, some railroads will move faster than others. What if, on the whole, they all slow way down because they think that is reasonable? ... If the only acceptable deadline is what the railroads feel is reasonable, why have a deadline?
MidlandMike Euclid Well yes the deadline is enforceable in the practice of the enforcement mechanism. But if that leads to the ruin of the economy and of the railroads, the deadline is not enforceable in any practical sense. You say they will just delay enforcement. What happens after the delay? They are back to the same problem of ruining the economy. The RRs have spent $6 billion so far on PTC. Do you think that after investing so much they are just going to quit if the deadline is delayed? They will continue to implement the system under more reasonable extended deadlines. Some will move faster than others. When some have completed, while others trail behind, the slower ones will have to justify why they can't meet new deadlines. If a few RRs have been less than diligent, and enforcement action needs to be taken on them, it will not be an economic catastrophy, as their competitors will take the business. In the meantime, I previously asked you to identify a majority (republican) caucus who opposes extending PTC. You seem to have tried to deflect, while repeating the same "yeah but's".
Euclid Well yes the deadline is enforceable in the practice of the enforcement mechanism. But if that leads to the ruin of the economy and of the railroads, the deadline is not enforceable in any practical sense. You say they will just delay enforcement. What happens after the delay? They are back to the same problem of ruining the economy.
The RRs have spent $6 billion so far on PTC. Do you think that after investing so much they are just going to quit if the deadline is delayed? They will continue to implement the system under more reasonable extended deadlines. Some will move faster than others. When some have completed, while others trail behind, the slower ones will have to justify why they can't meet new deadlines. If a few RRs have been less than diligent, and enforcement action needs to be taken on them, it will not be an economic catastrophy, as their competitors will take the business.
In the meantime, I previously asked you to identify a majority (republican) caucus who opposes extending PTC. You seem to have tried to deflect, while repeating the same "yeah but's".
While Congress may be a body, it's actions over past decades demonstrates that it is many petaflops short of having a functioning brain.
1) Congress wants to extend the deadline, and they will have enough time to change the law and extend the deadline before it arrives.
2) Congress wants to extend the deadline, but will not have enough time to change the law and extend the deadline before it arrives. So they will extend the deadline sometime after 1/1/15.
3) Congress will refuse to extend the deadline because they want the deadline to remain in place.
Don't worry, the house leadership is busy on this subject.....by.....discussing planned... parenthood....?
We're screwed.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.