You can't require a locomotive engineer to take a train in cab signal territory if the cab signal signal system on the locomotive isn't funcitoning. He's criminally liable if for all the bad things that may occur (remember Chase MD?).
How are you going to force a locomotive engineer to take a non-compliant PTC train?
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Euclid3) Their common carrier obligation is suspended if they are out of compliance with the PTC law.
The interpretation of the law w.r.t common carrier requirments belongs exclusively with the STB. If Congress thinks the STB is getting it wrong, they can only change the law. They have no standing to tell the STB they are doing it wrong.
oltmannd You can't require a locomotive engineer to take a train in cab signal territory if the cab signal signal system on the locomotive isn't funcitoning. He's criminally liable if for all the bad things that may occur (remember Chase MD?). How are you going to force a locomotive engineer to take a non-compliant PTC train?
With my company's rules, Train Control must be tested and working at the Origin of the train (that is Origin of the train, not crew change location), there is a form on which the performance of the TC test is recorded for successive Enginemen to note if the engine was tested. If the Train Control stops working while the train is in route to it's destination, the Train Control may be cut out and the train can continue to operate on wayside signals. It must stop at Restricted Proceed signals and must get the Train Dispatchers permisson to enter that signal block.
While I have no idea how failure of PTC will be handled when PTC is implemented, there will have to be rules that will permit trains to continue to operate when having experienced PTC failure.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Deggesty Paul, perhaps you are right, though Houston Ed may have hit it--he can't help it. My thought was of the explanation why the upper berth is lower than the lower--Paul North and Jeff Hergert should catch on to this quickly.
Paul, perhaps you are right, though Houston Ed may have hit it--he can't help it. My thought was of the explanation why the upper berth is lower than the lower--Paul North and Jeff Hergert should catch on to this quickly.
A further footnote: the explanation of the price difference between upper and lower goes on and on and on.
Johnny
1) It would be illegal to operate out of compliance with the PTC law.
2) It would increase their liability in case of accidents while operating out of compliance with the PTC law.
3) Their common carrier obligation is suspended if they are out of compliance with the PTC law.
1) Congress does not agree with the railroads’ conclusions about any of the three points listed above.
2) Congress sees no reason for the railroads to shut down if not compliant after the PTC deadline.
3) There is nothing in the PTC law that requires the railroads to shut down if not compliant after the PTC deadline.
4) Congress has not determined what enforcement action they will take if the railroads shut down.
5) Senator Blumenthal believes that the railroads are using their claim that they must shut down as a tactic to pressure Congress into granting a PTC extension because the railroads know that Congress will not want the economy to be damaged by a shutdown.
Euclid I was told today by Blumenthal’s office that Congress did not know all of that in 2008 because they did not contemplate the railroads threatening to shut down. I was told that this idea of a shutdown is solely the creation of the railroads in the last couple months, and that Congress disagrees with it.
Congress and it's thought processes, have a national approval rating below used car dealers. Congress hasn't THOUGHT about what it has been doing for the past decade or more.
Anyone who has had to create instructions governing the actions of a work force knows first hand the term malicious compliance.
Appears that Congress never considered reality, just like a new hire supervisor that couldn't spell the word supervisor before being hired.
In 2008 Congress had no idea of the magnitude of what they were asking for. The railroads were a little better off, since they knew from numerous test installations of just a few of the components that are needed to fulfill the PTC mandate that it was going to be a massive challenge. I have no idea who picked the 2016 deadline date but it was likely not anyone close to the technical folks who would have to do the design and installation. Once the project was underway I'm sure the railroads found previously unforeseen aspects to challenge the design team. Of course other regulatory agencies inserted their own interference.
Lots of things are "more easily said than done", and politicians are definitely past masters of that craft.
Euclid stated
"It would have been a big deception of the public if they knew all of that in 2008."
Why do you act surprized? Deception is just routine business for congress.
Deception, hell Congress cannot hit their backside with either hand. They are not, COLLECTIVELY, able to make rational decisions.
cx500 In 2008 Congress had no idea of the magnitude of what they were asking for. The railroads were a little better off, since they knew from numerous test installations of just a few of the components that are needed to fulfill the PTC mandate that it was going to be a massive challenge. I have no idea who picked the 2016 deadline date but it was likely not anyone close to the technical folks who would have to do the design and installation. Once the project was underway I'm sure the railroads found previously unforeseen aspects to challenge the design team. Of course other regulatory agencies inserted their own interference. Lots of things are "more easily said than done", and politicians are definitely past masters of that craft.
1. The FRA should have been given more discretionary flexibility with deadlines.
2. 7 years is a long time, considering the working technology existed in part here and completely in Europe. The moon landing was proposed in 1961 and fulfilled in 1969. The Manhattan Project managed to build operable nuclear weapons in 3 years.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
schlimm2. 7 years is a long time, considering the working technology existed in part here and completely in Europe.
It's less a matter of the technology than the tools therein. Getting locations for towers and necessary frequencies and bandwidth has been a major hurdle. There is also the need to build a system that will be seamless nationwide (and potentially internationally). Simply getting all vendors to speak the same language can be problematic.
It can take two years to get a single frequency here north of the "A Line."
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 2. 7 years is a long time, considering the working technology existed in part here and completely in Europe. It's less a matter of the technology than the tools therein. Getting locations for towers and necessary frequencies and bandwidth has been a major hurdle. There is also the need to build a system that will be seamless nationwide (and potentially internationally). Simply getting all vendors to speak the same language can be problematic. It can take two years to get a single frequency here north of the "A Line."
schlimm 2. 7 years is a long time, considering the working technology existed in part here and completely in Europe.
The rails should take some responsibility for their choices for PTC. Nobody mandated they use the new untested products they chose.
schlimm The moon landing was proposed in 1961 and fulfilled in 1969. The Manhattan Project managed to build operable nuclear weapons in 3 years.
And if you adjust the Government-paid price for either of those projects to 2008 dollars, and ensure that the Government pays it without demur, you'll get your PTC on schedule.
A bit different if you look at the history of privately-funded trips to the moon and development of nuclear fission/fusion for commercial profitability, don't you think?
schlimm tree68 schlimm It's less a matter of the technology than the tools therein. Getting locations for towers and necessary frequencies and bandwidth has been a major hurdle. There is also the need to build a system that will be seamless nationwide (and potentially internationally). Simply getting all vendors to speak the same language can be problematic. It can take two years to get a single frequency here north of the "A Line." The rails should take some responsibility for their choices for PTC. Nobody mandated they use the new untested products they chose.
tree68 schlimm It's less a matter of the technology than the tools therein. Getting locations for towers and necessary frequencies and bandwidth has been a major hurdle. There is also the need to build a system that will be seamless nationwide (and potentially internationally). Simply getting all vendors to speak the same language can be problematic. It can take two years to get a single frequency here north of the "A Line."
schlimm
So what 'tested technology' existed the fulfilled the demands of PTC and was compatable with US operations.
Wizlish schlimm The moon landing was proposed in 1961 and fulfilled in 1969. The Manhattan Project managed to build operable nuclear weapons in 3 years. And if you adjust the Government-paid price for either of those projects to 2008 dollars, and ensure that the Government pays it without demur, you'll get your PTC on schedule. A bit different if you look at the history of privately-funded trips to the moon and development of nuclear fission/fusion for commercial profitability, don't you think?
It's a comparative analogy: two highly complex projects vs this one.
BaltACD schlimm tree68 schlimm It's less a matter of the technology than the tools therein. Getting locations for towers and necessary frequencies and bandwidth has been a major hurdle. There is also the need to build a system that will be seamless nationwide (and potentially internationally). Simply getting all vendors to speak the same language can be problematic. It can take two years to get a single frequency here north of the "A Line." The rails should take some responsibility for their choices for PTC. Nobody mandated they use the new untested products they chose. So what 'tested technology' existed the fulfilled the demands of PTC and was compatable with US operations.
You are the railroader. Do the research for yourself.
Ya a pretty ridiculous comment (as one of the "Tappet Brothers" once said "don't let the facts get in the way of an answer ". Two of the best aerospace electronics firms, GE Harris and Lockheed Martin couldn't produce a working system guess they just missed the tested technology part.
Euclid, as readers of Fred Frailey's blogs know, Sen. Blumenthal and a few others were not happy that the railroads would not meet the deadline, so everyone knew there was another side. The problem is that you and Sen. Blumenthal's office use the same rhetorical device, that you see "Congress" as like a monolithic entity. However, Bluemthal's people do not seem to speak for the whole Senate, which passed a transportation bill containing a deadline extension, with almost a 2/3 majority.
schlimmThe rails should take some responsibility for their choices for PTC. Nobody mandated they use the new untested products they chose.
The railroads could have chosen an "existing technology." But the problem of securing frequencies and tower locations (and issues of the like) would have still existed. We're trying to put in a new public safety radio system here, and will end up buying frequencies from existing license holders. That takes time, in addition to costing very real cash.
So, too, the simple logistics issue of getting tens of thousands of copies of the locomotive equipment necessary, as well as all of the lineside equipment, and getting it installed is a very real issue. And getting the locomotive equipment installed in rolling stock that is in use on a daily basis.
Even the GAO, generally regarded as an impartial body, has said the current deadline is unworkable.
While some footdragging is possible, and maybe even likely, by all indications the railroads have been working toward the goal.
Just imagine a plaintif's lawyer suing the railroad and asking why they had not installed PTC as congress had mandated. If they had done as congress ordered, then the accident would not have happemed. Therefore they were negligent! I ask for a directed guilty vertict.
BuslistTwo of the best aerospace electronics firms, GE Harris and Lockheed Martin couldn't produce a working system guess they just missed the tested technology part.
And that was the problem. Should have used one of the companies experienced with rail control, not an aerospace outfit.
schlimm Buslist Two of the best aerospace electronics firms, GE Harris and Lockheed Martin couldn't produce a working system guess they just missed the tested technology part. And that was the problem. Should have used one of the companies experienced with rail control, not an aerospace outfit.
Buslist Two of the best aerospace electronics firms, GE Harris and Lockheed Martin couldn't produce a working system guess they just missed the tested technology part.
Companies experienced with rail control had no clue how to deal with the security protocols required to operate trains at 99.99999% reliability (FRA requirement) via radio signals.
schlimm BaltACD schlimm tree68 schlimm It's less a matter of the technology than the tools therein. Getting locations for towers and necessary frequencies and bandwidth has been a major hurdle. There is also the need to build a system that will be seamless nationwide (and potentially internationally). Simply getting all vendors to speak the same language can be problematic. It can take two years to get a single frequency here north of the "A Line." The rails should take some responsibility for their choices for PTC. Nobody mandated they use the new untested products they chose. So what 'tested technology' existed the fulfilled the demands of PTC and was compatable with US operations. You are the railroader. Do the research for yourself.
Can't support your claims?
And there isn't any and don't ever fool yourself into thinking that ERTMS is it. Note how little deployment of that technology exists. A friend is NR's lead guy for ERTMS and all he can do is shake his head, nothing truly operable in the UK and little operable anywhere in 2008 when the US railroads had to choose a direction. ERTMS's wayside transponders are a nonstarter in the wide open spaces of rural America.
I think a lot of people think of ARES that BN tested back in the late 1980s. That's why they think there was a system that could be implemented immediately.
http://www.designnews.com/document.asp?doc_id=228051&dfpPParams=ind_182,aid_228051&dfpLayout=article (it may not link direct, but ask to open in a new window)
Since it's been over 20 years since they discontinued it, would any of the technology be usable today? We did go to the moon almost 50 years ago, but I don't think we could do it anytime soon now.
Jeff
Not that this thread needs another bombshell tossed in, but this appears that it could be a big part of the story...
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-10-07/obama-won-t-support-extending-deadline-for-rail-safety-equipment
schlimm 2. 7 years is a long time, considering the working technology existed in part here and completely in Europe. The moon landing was proposed in 1961 and fulfilled in 1969. The Manhattan Project managed to build operable nuclear weapons in 3 years.
The moon landing had relied on a lot of that was done prior to 1961, work on the F-1 engine used on the Saturn 5 launch vehicles was started in 1958 by people who were fresh off designing the engines for the Atlas missile. There was also a lot of ogoing research into guidance and control systems.
The Manhattan Project benefitted from a lot of research that was being done in the 1939-1941 time frame, Lawrence was getting ready to demostrate electromagnetic enrichment of 235U on the eve of Pearl Harbor. The project also benefitted from a lot of people being forced from their land - the equivalent with PTC implementation would be yanking the licenses of entities using frequency space needed by PTC, telling the FCC to go pound sand about licensing the towers needed for the radio equipment, etc.
For something a bit closer to present time - how long has it taken the FAA to update the 1960's era Air Traffic Control system - which likely was based on the experience implementing SAGE.
- Erik
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.