Buslist schlimm BaltACD Wick Mooreman disagrees Big surprise? So you support him as head of Amtrak?
schlimm BaltACD Wick Mooreman disagrees Big surprise?
BaltACD Wick Mooreman disagrees
Big surprise?
So you support him as head of Amtrak?
1. That seems like a non sequitur, based on the previous discussion.
2. As to your question, from what I have heard, he's probably a pretty good choice.
3. He retired from NSC at 62. I thought that was to get out of the stress of business. Now he goes to Amtrak. Frying pan to the fire?
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
CSX News ​Positive Train Control Implemented on 21 Subdivisions Published on 8/23/2016 9:36 AMCategory: Front Page Spotlights CSX’s Operating teams are making steady progress on implementing Positive Train Control (PTC), as the company advances toward the December 2018* federal deadline. PTC is a set of highly advanced technologies designed to make freight rail transportation even safer by automatically stopping a train before certain types of accidents occur; it is required on passenger routes and certain routes that handle toxic by inhalation materials. Over the last couple of weeks, CSX rolled out PTC to three new subdivisions – Savannah, Nahunta and Jesup – bringing the year to date total to 17 subdivision implementations in 2016 and 21 total subdivisions since revenue service began in August 2015. “By the end of 2016 over 26 subdivisions will have PTC technology installed,” said Lisa McGowan, director-PTC Operations, who manages the PTC Support Desk. “My team’s focus is helping employees get conditioned to this new technology, troubleshooting issues, handling support calls, and minimizing issues that cause enforcements (PTC-automated application of train brakes).”PTC is one of the biggest projects ever undertaken by CSX and has required the participation of virtually every department in the company. The $2.2 billion project is expected to add an additional layer of safety to our existing signal system, as well as prevent train-on-train collisions, over speed derailments, and other work zone limit and switch movement incidents.“The project has transitioned from development to implementation,” said Ken Lewis, director-PTC, who manages PTC plans and schedules.The CSX PTC network comprises about 12,788 track miles and more than 3,200 locomotives are slated for installation during the next several years. More than 900 locomotives are already PTC-enabled, and approximately 4,600 Wayside interface detectors are required. *Note: Although the deadline is 2018, a railroad may request two additional years (to 2020) if the railroad meets certain implementation thresholds.
​Positive Train Control Implemented on 21 Subdivisions Published on 8/23/2016 9:36 AMCategory: Front Page Spotlights
CSX’s Operating teams are making steady progress on implementing Positive Train Control (PTC), as the company advances toward the December 2018* federal deadline. PTC is a set of highly advanced technologies designed to make freight rail transportation even safer by automatically stopping a train before certain types of accidents occur; it is required on passenger routes and certain routes that handle toxic by inhalation materials. Over the last couple of weeks, CSX rolled out PTC to three new subdivisions – Savannah, Nahunta and Jesup – bringing the year to date total to 17 subdivision implementations in 2016 and 21 total subdivisions since revenue service began in August 2015. “By the end of 2016 over 26 subdivisions will have PTC technology installed,” said Lisa McGowan, director-PTC Operations, who manages the PTC Support Desk. “My team’s focus is helping employees get conditioned to this new technology, troubleshooting issues, handling support calls, and minimizing issues that cause enforcements (PTC-automated application of train brakes).”PTC is one of the biggest projects ever undertaken by CSX and has required the participation of virtually every department in the company. The $2.2 billion project is expected to add an additional layer of safety to our existing signal system, as well as prevent train-on-train collisions, over speed derailments, and other work zone limit and switch movement incidents.“The project has transitioned from development to implementation,” said Ken Lewis, director-PTC, who manages PTC plans and schedules.The CSX PTC network comprises about 12,788 track miles and more than 3,200 locomotives are slated for installation during the next several years. More than 900 locomotives are already PTC-enabled, and approximately 4,600 Wayside interface detectors are required. *Note: Although the deadline is 2018, a railroad may request two additional years (to 2020) if the railroad meets certain implementation thresholds.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
http://www.bizjournals.com/triangle/blog/techflash/2016/02/heres-what-csx-has-to-do-to-implement-federal.html?ana=yahoo
Thank you Balt, for posting Mr. Moorman's statement. It certainly clarifies, for me, the current situation with PTC--especially in his answering the complaint that the railroads have dragged their feet.
Johnny
schlimm “I have no doubt that the BRS, along with the UTU and Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen, influenced [the late Rep. Jim] Oberstar in the drafting of the RSIA,” adds Steve Ditmeyer. “Both the RSIA and the subsequent FRA PTC regulations, however, set performance requirements, not design or configuration standards. Consequently, neither the RSIA nor the FRA’s PTC regulations required railroads to replace their old signals with new ones or to tie their PTC systems to each of the new signals with wayside interface units and data radios. Those decisions and requirements were made in the ITC Committee meetings, which were closed to union members. And all attendees were required to sign non-disclosure agreements. When a railroad submitted its PTCIP (PTC Implementation Plan, required by FRA), and said it intended to replace its old signals and to tie its PTC system to the new signals with wayside interface units and data radios, and if FRA accepted the PTCIP as meeting its safety standards, then the railroad was obliged to follow its PTCIP.” “I don’t discount BRS input, given that the UTU and the BLET had their hands on the throttle with Oberstar through the whole legislative process,” adds Frank Wilner. “Labor took no back seats during Oberstar’s reign. BRS, understandably out of self-interest, monitors these events carefully. One could argue they would have access to new technology jobs, but, in context, you saw how UTU deep-sixed the BNSF offer for job security, higher pay and access to new jobs were UTU to accept engineer-only on PTC-equipped lines. For sure, at meetings involving planning for PTC architecture, labor relations would have played an important role in addressing perceptions and likely actions by labor re: scope agreements with BRS. Moreover, UTU and BLET have always stressed the ‘overlay’ nature of PTC to bolster the arguments for retention of two-person crews. Two engineers is BLET’s fervent, but not admitted, hope.”
“I have no doubt that the BRS, along with the UTU and Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen, influenced [the late Rep. Jim] Oberstar in the drafting of the RSIA,” adds Steve Ditmeyer. “Both the RSIA and the subsequent FRA PTC regulations, however, set performance requirements, not design or configuration standards. Consequently, neither the RSIA nor the FRA’s PTC regulations required railroads to replace their old signals with new ones or to tie their PTC systems to each of the new signals with wayside interface units and data radios. Those decisions and requirements were made in the ITC Committee meetings, which were closed to union members. And all attendees were required to sign non-disclosure agreements. When a railroad submitted its PTCIP (PTC Implementation Plan, required by FRA), and said it intended to replace its old signals and to tie its PTC system to the new signals with wayside interface units and data radios, and if FRA accepted the PTCIP as meeting its safety standards, then the railroad was obliged to follow its PTCIP.”
“I don’t discount BRS input, given that the UTU and the BLET had their hands on the throttle with Oberstar through the whole legislative process,” adds Frank Wilner. “Labor took no back seats during Oberstar’s reign. BRS, understandably out of self-interest, monitors these events carefully. One could argue they would have access to new technology jobs, but, in context, you saw how UTU deep-sixed the BNSF offer for job security, higher pay and access to new jobs were UTU to accept engineer-only on PTC-equipped lines. For sure, at meetings involving planning for PTC architecture, labor relations would have played an important role in addressing perceptions and likely actions by labor re: scope agreements with BRS. Moreover, UTU and BLET have always stressed the ‘overlay’ nature of PTC to bolster the arguments for retention of two-person crews. Two engineers is BLET’s fervent, but not admitted, hope.”
Wick Mooreman disagrees
http://www.railwayage.com/index.php/ptc/untangling-the-tale-of-ptc.html?channel=63
blue streak 1 Now worries across the pond that PTC can be hacked in the future. Of course ! http://www.railpage.com.au/news/s/rail-signal-upgrade-could-be-hacked-to-cause-crashes-
Now worries across the pond that PTC can be hacked in the future. Of course !
http://www.railpage.com.au/news/s/rail-signal-upgrade-could-be-hacked-to-cause-crashes-
Remember the Europeans are using a very different radio system for their ETCS system, GSM-R. This is a commericial cell phone system with some modifications for rail applications, not a custom designed system, with all its pluses and drawbacks, that will be used in North America. As for hacking experience remember we now have almost 30 Years experience moving safety critical signal controls over the ATCS system, without any hacks that I'm aware of, although the safety logic (vitality) remains in the field installations.
Given the need to transport large amounts of data over wide-ranging locations, plus the tiny proportion of such data that will move over anything resembling secure channels (ie, fiber, wire), any data that moves unencrypted is an accident that will happen (no waiting about it).
I'm not privy to how, or if, encryption is being used for PTC, but if it's not, it's a grave mistake. And the higher the level of encryption used, the better things will be.
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...
Not a doubt in my mind.
blue streak 1 Silicon valley relation suggests asking this question. " What happens if a software , firmware, hardware manufacturer go out of business and/or bankrupt for what ever reason ?"
Silicon valley relation suggests asking this question. " What happens if a software , firmware, hardware manufacturer go out of business and/or bankrupt for what ever reason ?"
I haven't designed, built, or whatever, any of the PTC stuff, but I'll opine that on the hardware side, there won't be a problem. The days of purpose built equipment are waning - more and more we're seeing existing equipment used. On the software side, that's why folks like open source and standards.
schlimm NorthWest wanswheel Excerpt from Reuters, Nov. 4 http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/11/04/us-railways-safety-lobby-insight-idUSKCN0ST0JB20151104#0o5L9j8IlZUs0jEG.97 Seems like they are really trying to make this into a major corruption story where none exists. Railroads will not 'put off' purchasing and installing PTC, they will simply continue to install it. The pace they are installing it is not unreasonable, the deadline was. Railroads would not 'attempt to cripple the economy'-they would, and they had no other choice. It isn't that they were trying to hold the economy hostage; they found that it was illegal to operate without it under the law. The best way to repeal (or modify) a bad law is to follow it to the letter, and they were prepared to do exactly that. "Railroads and allies including unions"-interesting statement, considering how often the railroads and unions lobby against each other. Same goes for shipper groups. If everyone is calling for it... The railroads bear full liability for all crashes even without PTC. They don't want to bear the full liability and the liability that comes from breaking the law together. It is not because operating is dangerous that the railroads would have shut down, but the illegal aspects of operating. This was a bad law, and sad pictures of AMTK 601 do not change that. {/quote}The "party line" and what Reuters and even more so what Railway Age (a trade journal) says are quite different stories.
NorthWest wanswheel Excerpt from Reuters, Nov. 4 http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/11/04/us-railways-safety-lobby-insight-idUSKCN0ST0JB20151104#0o5L9j8IlZUs0jEG.97 Seems like they are really trying to make this into a major corruption story where none exists. Railroads will not 'put off' purchasing and installing PTC, they will simply continue to install it. The pace they are installing it is not unreasonable, the deadline was. Railroads would not 'attempt to cripple the economy'-they would, and they had no other choice. It isn't that they were trying to hold the economy hostage; they found that it was illegal to operate without it under the law. The best way to repeal (or modify) a bad law is to follow it to the letter, and they were prepared to do exactly that. "Railroads and allies including unions"-interesting statement, considering how often the railroads and unions lobby against each other. Same goes for shipper groups. If everyone is calling for it... The railroads bear full liability for all crashes even without PTC. They don't want to bear the full liability and the liability that comes from breaking the law together. It is not because operating is dangerous that the railroads would have shut down, but the illegal aspects of operating. This was a bad law, and sad pictures of AMTK 601 do not change that.
wanswheel Excerpt from Reuters, Nov. 4 http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/11/04/us-railways-safety-lobby-insight-idUSKCN0ST0JB20151104#0o5L9j8IlZUs0jEG.97
Seems like they are really trying to make this into a major corruption story where none exists.
Railroads will not 'put off' purchasing and installing PTC, they will simply continue to install it. The pace they are installing it is not unreasonable, the deadline was.
Railroads would not 'attempt to cripple the economy'-they would, and they had no other choice. It isn't that they were trying to hold the economy hostage; they found that it was illegal to operate without it under the law. The best way to repeal (or modify) a bad law is to follow it to the letter, and they were prepared to do exactly that.
"Railroads and allies including unions"-interesting statement, considering how often the railroads and unions lobby against each other. Same goes for shipper groups. If everyone is calling for it...
The railroads bear full liability for all crashes even without PTC. They don't want to bear the full liability and the liability that comes from breaking the law together. It is not because operating is dangerous that the railroads would have shut down, but the illegal aspects of operating.
This was a bad law, and sad pictures of AMTK 601 do not change that.
{/quote}The "party line" and what Reuters and even more so what Railway Age (a trade journal) says are quite different stories.
A great example of sophisticaed spin. Looks to me as if folks are lining up for 2018.
The "party line" and what Reuters and even more so what Railway Age (a trade journal) says are quite different stories.
wanswheelExcerpt from Reuters, Nov. 4 http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/11/04/us-railways-safety-lobby-insight-idUSKCN0ST0JB20151104#0o5L9j8IlZUs0jEG.97
Coulda, Woulda, Shoulda - 2nd guessers - those not charged with the actual responsibility for it come out of the wood work.
Let's have Parks & Recreation decide how to protect the country with the Pentagon's budget!
Says Dittmeyer: “The Class I CEOs made a big mistake when they all assigned the responsibility for PTC implementation to their signaling departments. Signal engineers were fearful that PTC would mean the demise of their signal systems. When they were given the responsibility for implementing PTC, they changed the architecture so that PTC would be tied to all intermediate wayside signals, meaning that more than 20,000 data radios would need to be installed. And then they also decided that they needed to replace all their old wayside signals with new ones to which they could connect the PTC system. These decisions more than doubled the cost of PTC from what FRA had estimated.
“Tying PTC to intermediate wayside signals also had an adverse effect on business benefits. It meant that existing fixed blocks, and the relay logic that controlled the signals, would remain in place. Thus, moving block, and the possibility of closer train spacing, would not be possible. That in turn meant that business benefits such as improved running times, improved reliability, increased track capacity and improved asset utilization would not be obtainable. Had the railroads implemented PTC in such a way as to obtain those benefits, their customers would receive better, more reliable service."
blue streak 1 BaltACD Railway Age presents some arguments http://www.railwayage.com/index.php/ptc/the-tangled-tale-of-ptc.html?channel=63 Quite an indictment. Wonder how much effort BNSF officials will take to keep Buffet from reading the article ?
BaltACD Railway Age presents some arguments http://www.railwayage.com/index.php/ptc/the-tangled-tale-of-ptc.html?channel=63
Railway Age presents some arguments
http://www.railwayage.com/index.php/ptc/the-tangled-tale-of-ptc.html?channel=63
Lots of blame to go around, mostly the lack of a systems integrator, corporate ignorance and some union aspects. Looks like the results are that PTC won't deliver what it could have (probably meeting the deadline, too) if the railroads had been better organized.
kgbw49 Good point. Possibly the money might have been used for stock buybacks, and that is not necessarily a bad thing either, as the capital would be deployed to other investments. But had dollars diverted to PTC been deployed for capacity expansion, perhaps the Sunset Route would have been completed, more double track on the BNSF Northern Transcon would be in operation, Hearne might be farther along as would Virginia Avenue, more grade separations on the EJ&E, etc. it will be interesting to see what the final cost turns out to be.
Good point. Possibly the money might have been used for stock buybacks, and that is not necessarily a bad thing either, as the capital would be deployed to other investments. But had dollars diverted to PTC been deployed for capacity expansion, perhaps the Sunset Route would have been completed, more double track on the BNSF Northern Transcon would be in operation, Hearne might be farther along as would Virginia Avenue, more grade separations on the EJ&E, etc. it will be interesting to see what the final cost turns out to be.
So you are a railfan/railroad investor but you don't see problems with the Class 1's using capital to buy back stock rather than improve capacity?
Read this:
http://cs.trains.com/trn/b/fred-frailey/archive/2015/04/21/10-billion-flies-out-the-door.aspx
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
kgbw49 We can "guesstimate", but will never officially know, how much capacity could have been bought with the additional capital dollars put into PTC since 2008 and thrugh 2018 or 2020. How much more double track, how many more intermodal terminals, how much more of CREATE completed? The ongoing maintenance costs will also be substantial. In theory the railroads are supposed to be safer after rollout. It certainly has good intentions. As we all know, the price of theory and good intentions can be very high. Time will tell.
We can "guesstimate", but will never officially know, how much capacity could have been bought with the additional capital dollars put into PTC since 2008 and thrugh 2018 or 2020. How much more double track, how many more intermodal terminals, how much more of CREATE completed? The ongoing maintenance costs will also be substantial. In theory the railroads are supposed to be safer after rollout. It certainly has good intentions. As we all know, the price of theory and good intentions can be very high. Time will tell.
Most of the things you mention were done to a large extent by the RRs to stay in business. The extra $$ saved if not for PTC would have been added to the billions the RRs spent on stock buy-backs to please investors.
schlimm As some of us predicted on here, in spite of the many "the-sky-is-falling!" wails and cries of doom. Let's see if they can manage the 2018 deadline without invoking additional extensions to 2020.
As some of us predicted on here, in spite of the many "the-sky-is-falling!" wails and cries of doom. Let's see if they can manage the 2018 deadline without invoking additional extensions to 2020.
I would opine that inasmuch as a few locations are already "PTC Ready" (or close to it), this three years will allow for a continuation of efforts. I'd say completion, but this will be a work in progress for years to come.
I know the CSX line in my area has lots of new lineside equipment. Many of the shelters may be waiting for some key component to be complete.
As we've discussed here, this is a large and complex (not to mention expensive) project. I would suspect that the groundwork is largely complete, but as the 80-20 rule implies, the last 20% of the project will take 80% of the time.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.