and may be outdated in favor of Satilite GPS and Cell based systems. PTC is in fact already 20 or more something years old...I mean this tech dates back to 1987 when I was in grade school way before cell phones and the wide spread use ofthe internet
"The reason behind the lack of economic justification is that the majority of accidents are minor and FRA crash worthiness standards help mitigate the potential loss of life or release of hazardous chemicals. For example, in the 20 years between 1987 and 2007, there were only two PTC-preventable accidents with major loss of life in the United States (16 deaths in the Chase, Maryland wreck (1987) and 11 in the Silver Spring, Maryland wreck (1996)), and in each case, the causes of the accidents were addressed through changes to operating rules."
I think it would be extremely helpful here to know what you're quoting.
David Lassen I think it would be extremely helpful here to know what you're quoting.
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...
David LassenI think it would be extremely helpful here to know what you're quoting.
I believe he's gotten it from a Wiki article on 'Positive Train Control':
There is some controversy as to whether PTC makes sense in the form mandated by Congress. Not only is the cost of nationwide PTC installation expected to be as much as US$6–22 billion,[17] there are questions as to the reliability and maturity of the technology for all forms of mainline freight trains and high density environments.[18] The PTC requirement could also impose startup barriers to new passenger rail or freight services that would trigger millions of dollars in additional PTC costs. The unfunded mandate also ties the hands of the FRA to adopt a more nuanced or flexible approach to the adoption of PTC technology where it makes the most sense or where it is technically most feasible.[17] While the FRA Rail Safety Advisory Committee identified several thousand "PPAs" (PTC preventable accidents) on U.S. railroads over a 12-year period, cost analysis determined that the accumulated savings to be realized from all of the accidents was not sufficient to cover the cost of PTC across the Class I railroads. Therefore, PTC was not economically justified at that time.[19] The FRA concurred with this cost assessment in its 2009 PTC rulemaking document. The reason behind the lack of economic justification is that the majority of accidents are minor and FRA crash worthiness standards help mitigate the potential loss of life or release of hazardous chemicals. For example, in the 20 years between 1987 and 2007, there were only two PTC-preventable accidents with major loss of life in the United States (16 deaths in the Chase, Maryland wreck (1987) and 11 in the Silver Spring, Maryland wreck (1996)), and in each case, the causes of the accidents were addressed through changes to operating rules. The cost of implementing PTC on up to 25 commuter rail services in the United States has been estimated at over $2 billion and because of these costs, several services are having to cancel or reduce repairs, capital improvements, and service. Other services simply do not have the funds available for PTC and have deferred action assuming some change from Congress. Railroads that operate lines equipped with cab signalling and existing Automatic Train Control systems have argued that their proven track record of safety, which goes back decades, is being discounted because ATC is not as aggressive as PTC in all cases.[20]
There is some controversy as to whether PTC makes sense in the form mandated by Congress. Not only is the cost of nationwide PTC installation expected to be as much as US$6–22 billion,[17] there are questions as to the reliability and maturity of the technology for all forms of mainline freight trains and high density environments.[18] The PTC requirement could also impose startup barriers to new passenger rail or freight services that would trigger millions of dollars in additional PTC costs. The unfunded mandate also ties the hands of the FRA to adopt a more nuanced or flexible approach to the adoption of PTC technology where it makes the most sense or where it is technically most feasible.[17]
While the FRA Rail Safety Advisory Committee identified several thousand "PPAs" (PTC preventable accidents) on U.S. railroads over a 12-year period, cost analysis determined that the accumulated savings to be realized from all of the accidents was not sufficient to cover the cost of PTC across the Class I railroads. Therefore, PTC was not economically justified at that time.[19] The FRA concurred with this cost assessment in its 2009 PTC rulemaking document.
The reason behind the lack of economic justification is that the majority of accidents are minor and FRA crash worthiness standards help mitigate the potential loss of life or release of hazardous chemicals. For example, in the 20 years between 1987 and 2007, there were only two PTC-preventable accidents with major loss of life in the United States (16 deaths in the Chase, Maryland wreck (1987) and 11 in the Silver Spring, Maryland wreck (1996)), and in each case, the causes of the accidents were addressed through changes to operating rules.
The cost of implementing PTC on up to 25 commuter rail services in the United States has been estimated at over $2 billion and because of these costs, several services are having to cancel or reduce repairs, capital improvements, and service. Other services simply do not have the funds available for PTC and have deferred action assuming some change from Congress. Railroads that operate lines equipped with cab signalling and existing Automatic Train Control systems have argued that their proven track record of safety, which goes back decades, is being discounted because ATC is not as aggressive as PTC in all cases.[20]
I can provide the references in a quote if those would be helpful here. But I don't think much if any of this material will be a surprise to posters here.
PTC does involve GPS and satalites. The concept of PTC and some systems may go back 30 or more years, but that's not to say current PTC is the same as those earlier systems. And PTC 30 years from now will probably be different that current technology.
Yes, most railroad incidents are minor. Major accidents happen, but usually not very often. It's easy to say this collision probably would've been prevented by PTC. It's harder to definitely say PTC did prevent this or that collision from happening. That's why it's hard to justify the cost of the system. A PTC braking event does not necessarily mean that a life-or-death situation was in the offing.
Jeff
And as the Amtrak - CSX incident at Cayce, SC demonstrated, the installation of PTC equipment can CAUSE incidents.
Yes, that actual accident was a MAN FAILURE incident, however, signals would not have been suspended and TWC operation authorized if it were not for the changes necessary to install PTC.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
In August 2017, I purchased a new Subaru Legacy with Eye-Sight for my daugher, the Eye-Sight system acts as a co-piolet via two cameras mounted on either side of the rear-view mirrows plus sensors in the bumper (to learn more just Google Subaru.) It was a safty purchase from a Dad. Ok, what does this have to do with PTC? Well, if Subaru can design, program, deliver the capabilty for guided cruise control and auto braking in emergency (both forward and reverse) why can't GE, EMD (or whatever they are called now) and the RR install a similar system on the locomotives? You have the Engineer and Conductor eyes and ears (yes, two points of failure), PTC (where am I), and add auto Engineer who is always looking out for danger? If Subaru can bring it to the mass market, what is holding back applying the Eye-Sight like technology as an additional layor of protection?
I am just saying as my Subaru Outback alarms and brakes while backing into the bushes (ya, Dad got a 2018 Subaru too, it was cheaper when you get two.)
seppburgh2In August 2017, I purchased a new Subaru Legacy with Eye-Sight for my daugher, the Eye-Sight system acts as a co-piolet via two cameras mounted on either side of the rear-view mirrows plus sensors in the bumper (to learn more just Google Subaru.) It was a safty purchase from a Dad. Ok, what does this have to do with PTC? Well, if Subaru can design, program, deliver the capabilty for guided cruise control and auto braking in emergency (both forward and reverse) why can't GE, EMD (or whatever they are called now) and the RR install a similar system on the locomotives? You have the Engineer and Conductor eyes and ears (yes, two points of failure), PTC (where am I), and add auto Engineer who is always looking out for danger? If Subaru can bring it to the mass market, what is holding back applying the Eye-Sight like technology as an additional layor of protection? I am just saying as my Subaru Outback alarms and brakes while backing into the bushes (ya, Dad got a 2018 Subaru too, it was cheaper when you get two.)
Automobiles are 'line of sight' vehicle. Trains are not! By the time something becomes visuall evident in the operation of a train, it is way too late to take any form of preventive actions.
CandOforprogress2For example, in the 20 years between 1987 and 2007, there were only two PTC-preventable accidents with major loss of life in the United States
Perhaps if your daughter/son/father/mother/brother were one of those 27, you might feel differently about the cost.
Perhaps if railroad employment did not require huge investments and restrictions of lifestyle, and if railroad officials were not suck jerks to have to work under, the railroads could hire and keep a better grade of employee rather that these yutzes that keep screwing up and getting people killed.
(Disclaimer: In no way am I even hinting that the majority of railroad employees are dysfunctional, but as in so many things, "A few bad apples....")
I had to put up with those types for over 20 years; sure made for a long and sometimes scary day.
I suspect that in time PTC will be optimized to the point that folks will wonder how they ever lived without it. New features may be introduced, other features may prove to be of little or no use and eventually phased out.
That might even apply to management from an economic standpoint.
I believe it's been argued that if PTC made sense from an economic standpoint, it would have been implemented some time ago.
For now, it's still an evolving technology that's been forced upon the railroads.
tree68I suspect that in time PTC will be optimized to the point that folks will wonder how they ever lived without it. New features may be introduced, other features may prove to be of little or no use and eventually phased out. That might even apply to management from an economic standpoint. I believe it's been argued that if PTC made sense from an economic standpoint, it would have been implemented some time ago. For now, it's still an evolving technology that's been forced upon the railroads.
PTC is not being installed on ALL lines. Large percentages of Class 1 carrier miles will still be operating without PTC, so the Class 1's will still know how to railroad without PTC.
zardoz Perhaps if railroad employment did not require huge investments and restrictions of lifestyle, and if railroad officials were not suck jerks to have to work under, the railroads could hire and keep a better grade of employee...
Perhaps if railroad employment did not require huge investments and restrictions of lifestyle, and if railroad officials were not suck jerks to have to work under, the railroads could hire and keep a better grade of employee...
And when they do manage to hire some good people, they lay off as many as possible at the first sign of traffic dropping.
The ones who return when recalled a year later are those who have not been able to hold down a different job in the interim...
Greetings from Alberta
-an Articulate Malcontent
tree68 I suspect that in time PTC will be optimized to the point that folks will wonder how they ever lived without it. New features may be introduced, other features may prove to be of little or no use and eventually phased out. That might even apply to management from an economic standpoint. I believe it's been argued that if PTC made sense from an economic standpoint, it would have been implemented some time ago. For now, it's still an evolving technology that's been forced upon the railroads.
If the railroads had:
1.) Continued down the path with ATCS and managed to have a plan to roll it out over a couple decades
or
2.) Expanded the use of cab signalling and train stop
3.) Helped develop and expand the use of ITCS
they wouldn't have been in the position of having PTC law crammed down their throat and having to choose the "mostly baked" but expensive I-ETMS system from WABTEC.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
PTC: Prelude To Crew-less
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.