Buslist 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.
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.
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.
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
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.
Interesting, but ERTMS has become the world standard because it works.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Euclidoltmannd 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? If that problem actually exists with the PTC law, the solution is to change the law so the engineer is not running a non-compliant train. There is an obvious solution to this problem which will allow the railroads to keep operating, but retain the teeth to push the process of PTC along.
That's pretty much what the extension does.
No matter what, a bill needs to be passed and signed.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Chosing ERTMS instead of Wabtec I-ETMS wouldn't have changed a thing. The problem isn't getting the components designed, it's getting them all installed and getting the system integration done.
PTC exists and has worked in revenue service in a test environment. The problems have been getting the software aligned with the rulebook and integration with back office systems, such as the dispatiching system (for movement authority creation and completion) and car reporting system (for data to feed braking algorithm)
All of this work would have to be done regardless of the system chosen.
There is also the problem of building and installing all the hardware.
The FRA rules are pretty specific about what testing has to be done and they have to review each step along the way.
Failure to meet the deadline isn't because of the choice of the system as much as it is the scope of the project.
BaltACD 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.
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?
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.
It will have to be similar. There is a provision non-equipped trains in certain circumstances - low speed transfer jobs, for example. I would expect a failed en route would be similarly limited.
The key is that you can't start out without everything working.
The thing that bugs me about some of this thread is that there's this insinuation that the RRs are:
a) arrogant and ignorant of supposed "off the shelf" technology
b) didn't really try to meet the deadline
From a somewhat inside view, I'd say a & b are pretty wholey false.
The RRs have taken this seriously and one of the reasons they chose a single, closed, proprietary system was because it greatly simplified system integration, particularly interoperability testing.
The RRs have geared up at a great rate trying to get suppliers to deliver equipment and find qualified employees and contractors to get stuff installed.
Yes, seven years is a long time, and the RRs would have been better off it they had taken a greater interest in ATC in past decades, but generally, the RRs have acted in good faith and have pedalled as fast as they can go to meet the deadline.
In comparison, it took NS nearly 20 years to roll out a new train dispatching system (UTCS).
NorthWest 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
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
President Barack Obama plans to enforce a deadline for rail operators to install safety technology by the end of the year, despite warnings from railroads including Union Pacific Corp. and Amtrak that they can’t meet the mandate and would have to suspend some service without an extension.
“Congress enacted this law, including the December 31, 2015, deadline, and we believe it is important that the Department of Transportation enforce the law that Congress passed,” Frank Benenati, a White House spokesman, said Wednesday, the day after lawmakers released a letter from Amtrak saying it might suspend some passenger service if the delay isn’t enacted.
House transportation leaders last week introduced legislation to extend the deadline for three years. House and Senate negotiators have been discussing ways to get the measure through both chambers. Benenati declined to comment on whether Obama would sign legislation extending the deadline because nothing has advanced in Congress.
It makes no sense Obama wants to keep the current deadline with all its disruptive potential intact. Anything his press officers say about PTC is said to keep the pressure up.
wanswheel It makes no sense Obama wants to keep the current deadline with all its disruptive potential intact. Anything his press officers say about PTC is said to keep the pressure up.
The Obama statement is just a strategy to get a do-nothing Congress (by design) to hurry up and pass the extension. Hopefully it will work. But with the GOP House leadership in total disarray, that may be in doubt.
schlimm wanswheel It makes no sense Obama wants to keep the current deadline with all its disruptive potential intact. Anything his press officers say about PTC is said to keep the pressure up. The Obama statement is just a strategy to get a do-nothing Congress (by design) to hurry up and pass the extension. Hopefully it will work. But with the GOP House leadership in total disarray, that may be in doubt.
I agree that this is the White House's version of jumping on the worst-case-scenario bandwagon. Sen. Thune introduced the extension bill last March, at the White House's request to give the FRA the flexibility to handle deadline extensions on a case-by-case basis.
Euclid, Yes I noticed that there was no indication that a deadline extension came up in the conversation you had with Sen. Bluemthal's office. But the inference that I get from the fact that the Senate has passed a Transportation bill with a PTC extension, is that they got over whatever problems they had with the railroad's progress, enough to move on to delay enforcement for a more achievable PTC implementation timeframe.
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...
oltmannd Euclid 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? If that problem actually exists with the PTC law, the solution is to change the law so the engineer is not running a non-compliant train. There is an obvious solution to this problem which will allow the railroads to keep operating, but retain the teeth to push the process of PTC along. That's pretty much what the extension does. No matter what, a bill needs to be passed and signed.
Euclid 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? If that problem actually exists with the PTC law, the solution is to change the law so the engineer is not running a non-compliant train. There is an obvious solution to this problem which will allow the railroads to keep operating, but retain the teeth to push the process of PTC along.
A fine is a penalty for breaking a law. The railoads are not goint to pay a fine unless there is a judgement against them for breaking a law.
MidlandMike A fine is a penalty for breaking a law. The railoads are not goint to pay a fine unless there is a judgement against them for breaking a law.
If you read what I was suggesting, you can see that the fine I am proposing would be for breaking the law. But the law would only require the installation of PTC. It would not prohibit operating without PTC.
Euclid MidlandMike A fine is a penalty for breaking a law. The railoads are not goint to pay a fine unless there is a judgement against them for breaking a law. If you read what I was suggesting, you can see that the fine I am proposing would be for breaking the law. But the law would only require the installation of PTC. It would not prohibit operating without PTC.
The fact that one would be knowingly breaking the law blows up any liability defense if a carrier continued to operate without PTC where it is required. Breaking the law is breaking the law - no matter what forms any penalty may take. No law prohibits anyone from breaking it, IF THEY SO DESIRE. The carriers do not desire to knowingly break the PTC law.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
BaltACD Euclid MidlandMike A fine is a penalty for breaking a law. The railoads are not goint to pay a fine unless there is a judgement against them for breaking a law. If you read what I was suggesting, you can see that the fine I am proposing would be for breaking the law. But the law would only require the installation of PTC. It would not prohibit operating without PTC. The fact that one would be knowingly breaking the law blows up any liability defense if a carrier continued to operate without PTC where it is required. Breaking the law is breaking the law - no matter what forms any penalty may take. No law prohibits anyone from breaking it, IF THEY SO DESIRE. The carriers do not desire to knowingly break the PTC law.
Euclid: What you are suggesting still requires the law to be amended. The courts and FRA can only base enforcement on the law as it is written. It is only words on paper, but those words are absolute. Events have proved that the original deadline, a number picked out of the air, was completely unfeasible for a variety of reasons beyond the best efforts of the railroads.
Furthermore, you haven't thought through your suggestion. If they pay a fine for "not having PTC installed" does that leave them free to operate without PTC forever after? Or do they get fined daily, weekly, monthly or annually? Even so, it still needs the existing law to be amended.
The simplest, fairest and most logical approach is to extend the deadline just enough so that the majority of railroads will have a reasonable chance of being in compliance. The present suggested date extends it only just enough to make sure the pressure stays in place to ensure the present frantic pace of development continues.
It won't be the railroads in a real pickle after a December 31 2015 shutdown. Perhaps little income but vastly reduced operating costs to compensate. Their situation will be relatively comfortable compared with the rest of the country and economy.
John
cx500 Euclid: What you are suggesting still requires the law to be amended. The courts and FRA can only base enforcement on the law as it is written. It is only words on paper, but those words are absolute. Events have proved that the original deadline, a number picked out of the air, was completely unfeasible for a variety of reasons beyond the best efforts of the railroads. Furthermore, you haven't thought through your suggestion. If they pay a fine for "not having PTC installed" does that leave them free to operate without PTC forever after? Or do they get fined daily, weekly, monthly or annually? Even so, it still needs the existing law to be amended. The simplest, fairest and most logical approach is to extend the deadline just enough so that the majority of railroads will have a reasonable chance of being in compliance. The present suggested date extends it only just enough to make sure the pressure stays in place to ensure the present frantic pace of development continues. It won't be the railroads in a real pickle after a December 31 2015 shutdown. Perhaps little income but vastly reduced operating costs to compensate. Their situation will be relatively comfortable compared with the rest of the country and economy. John
EuclidNever was it agreed that if the deadline was not met, that proves that the deadline was too short, and therefore must be extended. Yet that is the current and highly convenient, self-serving interpretation by the railroads and their boosters.
Really?
If the necessary resources are not available to complete the task, it's the railroad's fault?
How does that work?
If you're building a personal project, and a necessary part won't be available at the hardware store until next Tuesday, is it your fault that you couldn't have the project complete by this Saturday?
Yeah, yeah, I know - they've had some eight years for this.
You can't just go to the PTC store and pick up what you need for this project.
Equipment has to be designed, and/or built, frequencies acquired, land acquired, and all of that equipment has to be installed, and tested.
UP has over 10,000 locomotives, most of which I'd bet are in use most of the time. That over 1,200 per year to get installed (about six per day) IF the equipment was ready and available on day one, which it wasn't.
We're putting in a new public service radio system in my county. It's a five year project, and that involves established technologies and just one county. And acquiring land and frequencies has been a part of the process as well.
Maybe instead of fining the railroads, we should be fining the equipment manufacturers for not having the equipment ready, the Native Americans with whom it has been necessary to negotiate some of the resources, and everyone else in the supply chain...
tree68 Euclid Never was it agreed that if the deadline was not met, that proves that the deadline was too short, and therefore must be extended. Yet that is the current and highly convenient, self-serving interpretation by the railroads and their boosters. Really? If the necessary resources are not available to complete the task, it's the railroad's fault? How does that work? If you're building a personal project, and a necessary part won't be available at the hardware store until next Tuesday, is it your fault that you couldn't have the project complete by this Saturday? Yeah, yeah, I know - they've had some eight years for this. You can't just go to the PTC store and pick up what you need for this project. Equipment has to be designed, and/or built, frequencies acquired, land acquired, and all of that equipment has to be installed, and tested. UP has over 10,000 locomotives, most of which I'd bet are in use most of the time. That over 1,200 per year to get installed (about six per day) IF the equipment was ready and available on day one, which it wasn't. We're putting in a new public service radio system in my county. It's a five year project, and that involves established technologies and just one county. And acquiring land and frequencies has been a part of the process as well. Maybe instead of fining the railroads, we should be fining the equipment manufacturers for not having the equipment ready, the Native Americans with whom it has been necessary to negotiate some of the resources, and everyone else in the supply chain...
Euclid Never was it agreed that if the deadline was not met, that proves that the deadline was too short, and therefore must be extended. Yet that is the current and highly convenient, self-serving interpretation by the railroads and their boosters.
Johnny
tree68 Euclid Never was it agreed that if the deadline was not met, that proves that the deadline was too short, and therefore must be extended. Yet that is the current and highly convenient, self-serving interpretation by the railroads and their boosters. Really? If the necessary resources are not available to complete the task, it's the railroad's fault? How does that work?
It's one thing to voluntarily accept by contract those risks that Larry / tree68 listed above. That's what businesses do all the time, relying on themselves (or subcontractors, etc.) so that they'll have a way - or will figure out and make a way - to meet those obligations by the required time for performance, or accept the consequences (damages for delay, etc.).
As practical matter (only) it's something else to have those obligations forced on them by the government, and still be faced with roughly the same kinds and amounts of consequences.
- Paul North.
BaltACD, thanks for answering this one for me. Euclid is sticking by his convoluted solution, despite being shown a number of real world alternatives that work, one of which has beeen passed and advanced by the Senate.
MidlandMike BaltACD Euclid MidlandMike A fine is a penalty for breaking a law. The railoads are not goint to pay a fine unless there is a judgement against them for breaking a law. If you read what I was suggesting, you can see that the fine I am proposing would be for breaking the law. But the law would only require the installation of PTC. It would not prohibit operating without PTC. The fact that one would be knowingly breaking the law blows up any liability defense if a carrier continued to operate without PTC where it is required. Breaking the law is breaking the law - no matter what forms any penalty may take. No law prohibits anyone from breaking it, IF THEY SO DESIRE. The carriers do not desire to knowingly break the PTC law. BaltACD, thanks for answering this one for me. Euclid is sticking by his convoluted solution, despite being shown a number of real world alternatives that work, one of which has beeen passed and advanced by the Senate.
Makes one wonder if this thread will still be sputtering around in crazy circles after the House passes its bill, it goes to conference and is then passed by both houses and signed by the president.
schlimmMakes one wonder if this thread will still be sputtering around in crazy circles after the House passes its bill, it goes to conference and is then passed by both houses and signed by the president.
Years later. Some posters don't know when to stop.
Norm
I would not be at all astounded if, now that the horse has been flayed, the flesh would be stripped from the bones and soup made from the bones after the matter is resolved by law.
Maybe this will help ..
Notice to employees -
PTC Status UpdateOctober 16, 2015By congressional mandate, railroads over which passenger trains operate and Class I freight railroads that handle toxic by inhalation (TIH) materials must have PTC fully implemented by December 31, 2015, on the lines over which those operations are conducted. CSX and other freight railroads will not meet this deadline, and have acknowledged that publicly since 2012. The challenges we face include technology development, supplier capacity to meet railroad PTC needs, and construction delays associated with federal reviews of PTC implementation. With limited exceptions, passenger railroads also will not meet the deadline, which will affect all CSX freight shipments (TIH and non-TIH) over those lines. CSX has made significant progress, and will fully deploy PTC by 2020. Recently, we began operating PTC-equipped trains over our Wilmington (North Carolina) Subdivision in our first FRA-approved Revenue Service Demonstration (RSD). A feature about the RSD is available here on the Employee Gateway. CSX has partially equipped nearly 2,700 locomotives, and 4,700 miles of rail signal system have been replaced to enable PTC integration. Investment for development and installation to date totals $1.3 billion, and will ultimately reach at least $1.9 billion. PTC is first-generation technology, and as such we need adequate time to allow for field testing, evaluation, and re-testing. Only by doing so can CSX ensure a safe, effective PTC rollout that does not compromise the safe, reliable operation of passenger and freight trains. We are considering a range of options should Congress not grant an extension, and those options include suspending passenger service as well as TIH shipments. In addition, all freight operations (TIH and non-TIH) may have to be suspended over non-compliant passenger railroads. We are hopeful that Congress will address this matter in a timely manner, and CSX has taken several steps to encourage action. Efforts include a recent letter from Michael Ward to Senator John Thune of South Dakota, who is the chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, as well as frequent communication with other members of Congress on committees with jurisdiction on the issue. Legislation that would extend the deadline has been introduced in both the Senate and the House of Representatives. Additional action is required to achieve passage, which remains to be scheduled. CSX needs to prepare for the possibility that a bill that includes an extension is not passed by Congress in the next several weeks. If so, CSX regrettably will have to begin to take actions to ensure that no passenger, commuter or TIH freight operations occur on our railroad after December 31. CSX currently estimates that it will take 30 days to purge loaded and empty TIH cars from our system. Without the certainty of a PTC extension in the very near future, CSX will need to begin actions no later than November 1 to suspend TIH traffic on December 1 and have all TIH cars off the CSX system by December 31. In addition, in late December, CSX would suspend passenger operations on CSX tracks, and suspend CSX operations over passenger tracks. CSX will continue to provide updates to employees and customers as progress is made on PTC-related issues.
rdamon Maybe this will help ..
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.