Euclid tree68 Euclid PTC will never reach a conclusion, but will forever be a work in progress. As noted, just like everything in life. In fact, it would still be true if PTC was able to be fully implemented by the end of the year. When I said PTC will never reach a conclusion, but will forever be a work in progress, I did not mean that as a philosophical platitude generalizing about “everything in life.” I meant it literally, just as all the things in life that actually do get finished. Obviously the PTC mandate was for a job that had a beginning and an end. When I say it will never reach a conclusion, I mean that the entire project objective will keep evolving with new parts added and older parts made obsolete in a forever expanding timeline. That was not the intent. When I read this summation in Railway Age that BaltACD posted in another thread, considering how screwed up the progress is in the first seven years, I would say it is going to take a lot longer than three more years to finish it if it actually is finished. http://www.railwayage.com/index.php/ptc/the-tangled-tale-of-ptc.html?channel=63
tree68 Euclid PTC will never reach a conclusion, but will forever be a work in progress. As noted, just like everything in life. In fact, it would still be true if PTC was able to be fully implemented by the end of the year.
Euclid PTC will never reach a conclusion, but will forever be a work in progress.
As noted, just like everything in life. In fact, it would still be true if PTC was able to be fully implemented by the end of the year.
My guess is that you'll see 90% of the Class one mileage in place and operating by the deadline, with frequent outages where train operations falls back to non-PTC mode while bugs, big and small, get worked out.
The big terminal areas, where interchange and run throughs will likely take longer. Places like Chicago, even now, nobody really knows if the radio traffic will swamp the network or not.
So, get a big bucket of popcorn, sit back, and enjoy the show!
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Euclid CSSHEGEWISCH Bucky claimed that the Congressional mandate had no teeth. If that is the case, that would mean that the actions proposed by the several Class I railroads were just attention-getting devices since the threat of fines by the FRA wasn't real. Paul, The mandate had teeth in legal terms. It still does. The threat of fines was real and legally established. When I say it had no teeth, I mean the threat of a shutdown prevented the deadline from being enforced even though it was legally enforceable. The threat of shutdown overrode the terms of the mandate, leaving Congress no choice but to cancel the current deadline.
CSSHEGEWISCH Bucky claimed that the Congressional mandate had no teeth. If that is the case, that would mean that the actions proposed by the several Class I railroads were just attention-getting devices since the threat of fines by the FRA wasn't real.
Bucky claimed that the Congressional mandate had no teeth. If that is the case, that would mean that the actions proposed by the several Class I railroads were just attention-getting devices since the threat of fines by the FRA wasn't real.
Imagine that, a political body responding to political pressures. How novel. Isn't that what the American political system is supposed to be all about?
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
A comparsion of the costs of PTC might be possible. Take Amtrak's yearly reports on how much the spent on the PRR portion of ACSES and divide it by the miles New Rochelle - WASH; PHL - Harrisburg and compare it to the costs by several freight RRs. New Haven - BOS was completed many years ago. Of course the New Haven - Springfield and NYP - SDY costs might need some computing.
Paul of Covington Oh, wait...
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 Euclid Obviously the PTC mandate was for a job that had a beginning and an end. Please define "end."
Euclid Obviously the PTC mandate was for a job that had a beginning and an end.
Please define "end."
Larry, think about the automatic air brake. Once Westinghouse perfected it in the late 1800's that was the "end."
Oh, wait...
_____________
"A stranger's just a friend you ain't met yet." --- Dave Gardner
tree68 Euclid Please define "end."
Euclid
Euclid is never ending!
EuclidObviously the PTC mandate was for a job that had a beginning and an end.
EuclidPTC will never reach a conclusion, but will forever be a work in progress.
Once PTC reaches full implementation, the technology will continue to develop. New methods of completing the same tasks will be found, equipment will be improved, and new requirements come to light after the next Chatsworth.
You are fixated on the mandate having no teeth, yet it did have teeth, and still does. Discretion being the better part of valor, those who could enforce the deadline chose instead to react to the reality of the situation and move the target.
As has already been pointed out, work was begun - and continues - on the implementation of PTC.
EuclidJeff, You say this: “They have gotten an extension only because they have been making an effort to install PTC.” I would say that is one way to look at it. The railroads have been making an effort and simply ran out of time. But the ultimate reason for the extension was that it was required to prevent the railroads from shutting down. There was no choice in the matter. Even if the railroads had not made a good effort to install PTC so far, they would have still gotten the extension because it was absolutely required by the threat of a shutdown. When I say that the mandate had no teeth because its deadline could not be enforced, what I do not know is when this became apparent to the railroads. They only began talking about it a couple months ago. Maybe most of the seven years so far, the railroads never considered that the not meeting the deadline would lead to an extension. So maybe they took the deadline seriously enough to be motivated to spend money on PTC. Or maybe the railroads would have just gone ahead and installed PTC because the government asked them to do it, and so there was no actual need for a deadline. But somewhere in the past, Congress must have concluded that the only way we would get PTC was if they mandated it. But whatever was thought about the mandate so far, going forward, all the players know that there is no deadline that will stand. So we will soon find out whether the railroads will make progress without a deadline. The underlying premise of a three year extension is that most of the work is done, and only three more years is needed. Yet, they appear to have gotten into the phase where new research and development is needed, and nobody can predict how long that will take. The cost overruns of the unpredictable R&D phase may require a lot more expenditure than what has been done over the last seven years. So it will be interesting to see how much progress is made going forward compared to what has been done so far. My guess is that with the uncertainty of progress during the R&D work, the rapidly changing state of the art, the feeding frenzy of developers and suppliers, and the lack of any meaningful deadline; PTC will never reach a conclusion, but will forever be a work in progress.
Although the statement, "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?" was never stated by John Duns Scotus or Aquinas or any other of the Scholasticist theologians, the sentiment seems to apply here.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
As is everything in life.
jeffhergert If the mandate had no teeth, and still has no teeth after the extension, than why are the railroads still installing PTC? If they think that one extension would lead to extensions indefinitely, wouldn't they cut back their PTC efforts? They have gotten an extension only because they have been making an effort to install PTC. An effort they could not meet in the deadline given. Had they just sat around thinking they could bluff the government into extending the deadline indefinitely, I'm sure they wouldn't have started putting big money into PTC. And I'm just as sure if the railroads had taken that attitude there would've been no extension granted. Jeff
If the mandate had no teeth, and still has no teeth after the extension, than why are the railroads still installing PTC? If they think that one extension would lead to extensions indefinitely, wouldn't they cut back their PTC efforts?
They have gotten an extension only because they have been making an effort to install PTC. An effort they could not meet in the deadline given. Had they just sat around thinking they could bluff the government into extending the deadline indefinitely, I'm sure they wouldn't have started putting big money into PTC. And I'm just as sure if the railroads had taken that attitude there would've been no extension granted.
Jeff
EuclidPerhaps I can make it clearer.
In less than 25,000 words? Doubtful.
Norm
Hard to make out what the point of Euclid's post was. It seems to me the original mandate, when passed as a law, was at best a guess for a deadline. It would have been better to give the FRA the authority to modify it without an Act of Congress. It did serve the useful purpose of getting the process of PTC implementation underway. Would that have happened without the law? Impossible to know.
An amazing amount of doublespeak there.
In summary, what's your point, in twenty-five words or less?
And why are you so adamant to make it?
tree68 Euclid The only catastrophe is the revelation that the mandate had no teeth. Poppycock. The mandate had teeth or there wouldn't have been a need to extend the deadline. As has been pointed out here numerous times by numerous people, it was found that the timeline was not realistic.
Euclid The only catastrophe is the revelation that the mandate had no teeth.
Poppycock. The mandate had teeth or there wouldn't have been a need to extend the deadline.
As has been pointed out here numerous times by numerous people, it was found that the timeline was not realistic.
EuclidThe only catastrophe is the revelation that the mandate had no teeth.
As has been pointed out here numerous times by numerous people, it was found that the timeline was not realistic. Given the amount of lobbying that took place in trying to get the deadline extended, I would opine that the new deadline represents a more realistic goal, and one the industry can attain, or at least come close.
If you have your car in the shop, and the mechanic promises it'll be ready by COB tomorrow, but then updates you that the part he needs won't be in until the next day, does that make him a dishonest person? Or is he just dealing with reality, as you would also need to do?
Euclid schlimm NKP, I and others were saying folks on here were the ones catastrophizing, not necessarily the railroads. The railroads were certainly leading the way in the catastrophizing. Catastrophy was their point. And it worked. Someone needs to explain how Congress was blindsided by the amazing turnabout with a mandate that was meaningless. How will the ECP brake mandate for oil trains be any different? It won't.
schlimm NKP, I and others were saying folks on here were the ones catastrophizing, not necessarily the railroads.
NKP, I and others were saying folks on here were the ones catastrophizing, not necessarily the railroads.
The railroads were certainly leading the way in the catastrophizing. Catastrophy was their point. And it worked. Someone needs to explain how Congress was blindsided by the amazing turnabout with a mandate that was meaningless.
How will the ECP brake mandate for oil trains be any different? It won't.
Moot point. There won't be any more oil trains by then...
zugmann Euclid Well if you would like an under-reaction, I conclude that the railroads would not have actually shut down as they threatened. Yes they would have. We even got operating bulletins (since cancelled) to that effect.
Euclid Well if you would like an under-reaction, I conclude that the railroads would not have actually shut down as they threatened.
Yes they would have. We even got operating bulletins (since cancelled) to that effect.
Johnny
EuclidWell if you would like an under-reaction, I conclude that the railroads would not have actually shut down as they threatened.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.
Well if you would like an under-reaction, I conclude that the railroads would not have actually shut down as they threatened.
The only catastrophy is the revelation that the mandate had no teeth.
schlimmThe railroads were using catastrophic threats to get an extension for a deadline they had agreed to.
Railroads learn well from their employees. You want a rule (or law) changed? Follow it without fail.
I would say posters on here, none of whom have any influence on the issue, were overreacting. The railroads were using catastrophic threats to get an extension for a deadline they had agreed to.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.