Murphy SidingDid you hear about the man who found out that most fatal accidents happened within 25 miles from home, so he moved?
Thought about that old saw as I was writing my post, but decided against including it... Always good for a chuckle, though.
I suppose a corrollary for that would be the fellow who got pulled over for doing 50 in a 35 MPH zone because he heard that most fatal accidents occur at speeds under 45...
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 In fact, before that time, highway safety folks liked to point out at most fatal traffic accidents occurred at speeds under 45 MPH. And within 25 miles of home. You don't hear those claims much any more.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
Also 1974 was the time when the large steel land yachts were being replaced with compact cars that offered less protection.
tree68It's not hard to argue that the 55 MPH speed limit, in and of itself, saved few lives. In fact, before that time, highway safety folks liked to point out at most fatal traffic accidents occurred at speeds under 45 MPH. And within 25 miles of home. You don't hear those claims much any more.
The claim of within 25 miles from home is still being made - with the interstate and expressways that have been built - there are many opportunities to be legally above 45 MPH easily within 25 miles of a person's home.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
jeffhergertI think the article is saying the numbers have been getting better before the implementation of PTC. PTC has only been in effect at best a couple of years. A year by year comparison is needed.
Indeed.
In 1974, the national highway speed limit was reduced to 55 MPH.
In 1974, a ten year downward trend in highway deaths per mile ended. The curve flattened, then started upward again. That's based on raw numbers provided by highway safety folks. The same table appeared regularly in that particular publication, and there was no agenda attached. It covered back until around 1950.
It should be noted that the number of deaths dropped significantly about that time - but it was the age of the gas shortage and all that encompassed. Far fewer miles were driven.
It's not hard to argue that the 55 MPH speed limit, in and of itself, saved few lives. In fact, before that time, highway safety folks liked to point out at most fatal traffic accidents occurred at speeds under 45 MPH. And within 25 miles of home. You don't hear those claims much any more.
Shadow the Cats owner Here alone at my job it's about a million a year to comply with the demands of the government agencies I deal with in actual dollars spent to keep the wheels rolling. That's money to our outside log auditor chemtrec assorted paperwork I have to file and so forth. The more regulations I have to deal with the higher the costs.
Here alone at my job it's about a million a year to comply with the demands of the government agencies I deal with in actual dollars spent to keep the wheels rolling. That's money to our outside log auditor chemtrec assorted paperwork I have to file and so forth. The more regulations I have to deal with the higher the costs.
Shadow the Cats owner I asked a few railroaders I know plus based it off it off of what our added costs have been for ELD compliance and installs along with costs for maintaince for EPA regulations that were forced upon us over the last decade. Trust me the number may seem made up but it's closer to the truth than the FRA is willing to admit what PTC has actually cost the railroads in money. The FMCSA said ELD's were going to lower accident rates and lower the cost of insurance for OTR trucks after one year. We have seen an increase in both so we know the truth behind the governments numbers. The FRA will flat out lie to the media to say this is the greatest thing since the knuckle coupler yet the people in the field know the truth.
I asked a few railroaders I know plus based it off it off of what our added costs have been for ELD compliance and installs along with costs for maintaince for EPA regulations that were forced upon us over the last decade. Trust me the number may seem made up but it's closer to the truth than the FRA is willing to admit what PTC has actually cost the railroads in money. The FMCSA said ELD's were going to lower accident rates and lower the cost of insurance for OTR trucks after one year. We have seen an increase in both so we know the truth behind the governments numbers. The FRA will flat out lie to the media to say this is the greatest thing since the knuckle coupler yet the people in the field know the truth.
Shadow the Cats ownerShadow the Cats owner wrote the following post 12 hours ago: That figure is for the PTC systems alone let alone the signal upgrades most railroads made lost productivity and delayed trains extra overtime for crews of all types.
So you simply made up the $25 billion figure.
charlie hebdo To listen to many of the railroaders, current and retired on here, PTC is a huge waste. Oh? "While the goal of PTC is increasing railroad safety, railroad safety has improved since Congress mandated PTC, transportation statistics numbers reveal. In 2008, there were 2,481 accidents excluding those at grade crossings, including 1,789 derailments and 192 collisions. That number declined to 1,836 accidents in 2018, including 1,327 derailments and 86 collisions. There were 318 injuries and 27 fatalities in 2008. Those numbers declined to 193 injures in 2018 and eight fatalities, numbers show." Collisions down over 56%.
To listen to many of the railroaders, current and retired on here, PTC is a huge waste. Oh?
"While the goal of PTC is increasing railroad safety, railroad safety has improved since Congress mandated PTC, transportation statistics numbers reveal. In 2008, there were 2,481 accidents excluding those at grade crossings, including 1,789 derailments and 192 collisions. That number declined to 1,836 accidents in 2018, including 1,327 derailments and 86 collisions. There were 318 injuries and 27 fatalities in 2008. Those numbers declined to 193 injures in 2018 and eight fatalities, numbers show."
Collisions down over 56%.
I think the article is saying the numbers have been getting better before the implementation of PTC. PTC has only been in effect at best a couple of years. A year by year comparison is needed.
I haven't heard anyone who uses PTC say they didn't like it. There are a few things it does, or actually doesn't do, that some (including myself) don't like. Some may be addressed in future versions. Some probably won't.
And while most like it, I haven't heard anyone say they felt safer with it. Some think our ATC is safer.
Jeff
That figure is for the PTC systems alone let alone the signal upgrades most railroads made lost productivity and delayed trains extra overtime for crews of all types. Just because the first line is one thing doesn't mean it's the full amount. When you're buying a house do you only have to pay for the house or are you also paying for the property taxes insurance upkeep and utilities included in ownership of the house. They now have to maintain those systems and that is costing more money. Nothing the government ever mandated is free for the businesses that have to comply with the demands on them. It's called regulatory compliance and it costs hundreds of billions of dollars Nationwide to do.
Shadow the Cats owner It cost them what around 25 Billion dollars out of their own pocket to do so not one dime came from the government to do it.
You might try reading the original post. You engage once again in inaccuracies, but hey, you must know from watching the BNSF trains go by. I seriously doubt if commuter rails and Amtrak spent $14 billion.
$10.6 billion
"As of Dec. 31, 2018, the nation’s Class I railroads spent $10.6 billion on development and deployment on PTC systems on their networks, according to the Association of American Railroads."
charlie hebdo Too bad idiots on here forced Volker to leave. He could set you straight. Various countries already have the equivalent of PTC. They have a much heavier traffic density and a lot of passnger rail, including HSR (something we seem incapapble of achieving) with very few crashes, collisions derailments, etc. Ditto with Japan, China, et al.. And Europe has to deal with multiple countries' systems, and a considerable number of private operators lately. This version is just trying to have a single system. I wouldn't put much stock in an article/editorial written in a rag put out by a lobbyist group.
Too bad idiots on here forced Volker to leave. He could set you straight. Various countries already have the equivalent of PTC. They have a much heavier traffic density and a lot of passnger rail, including HSR (something we seem incapapble of achieving) with very few crashes, collisions derailments, etc. Ditto with Japan, China, et al.. And Europe has to deal with multiple countries' systems, and a considerable number of private operators lately. This version is just trying to have a single system. I wouldn't put much stock in an article/editorial written in a rag put out by a lobbyist group.
Especially if it doesn't support one's position.
Uh Charlie over in Europe they had one huge advantage. The Governments funded all installs of what they are running and not one of them is as complex as what the FRA and USDOT mandated be installed here in the USA. The USA regulators demanded from scratch a system that is GPS based interchangeable interoperable with 100 percent reliablity. They also want one that can tell what postion every single switch on the mainline is in plus will stop a train if it overruns its authority to go someplace that is not ATS based. Then decided that the US Railroads had to pay to devolop and install it all plus for the first IIRC 6 years not even giving them the frequencies needed for the stuff to even work properly until the FCC killed analog cell phone signals.
So yeah it was a piece of cake for the Railroads to get this done in less than 10 years. It cost them what around 25 Billion dollars out of their own pocket to do so not one dime came from the government to do it. Ask Mudchicken how extensive the surveys alone have been for PTC installs. The BNSF near me rather than try and make the old SF searchlight signals installed in the early 90's work with their PTC system redid every mile of signals on the Chicago to KC mainline in less than 1 year with NEW fiber optic lines and signals to make the PTC install easier for them.
The PTC install is going as well as the ELD and current HOS would work best for livestock hauling in the OTR industry. Guess which branch of OTR trucking so far has been given an unexpiring waiver for the ELD mandate. If you said livestock and farm field trucks give yourself a cupie doll. Just that one segment of the industry is enough that they are being forced to redo the whole HOS regulations for the industry for ELD complications.
charlie hebdo The rails apparently thought it would be cheaper to overlay a new, unproven sustem on existing ones. Using any one of several systems available from elsewhere already proven sucessful for years would have been cheaper and much quicker. Bad initial choices and planning almost always lead to bad outcomes. If you folks tried to pitch your claims to NASA, you'd be laughed off the facility.
The rails apparently thought it would be cheaper to overlay a new, unproven sustem on existing ones. Using any one of several systems available from elsewhere already proven sucessful for years would have been cheaper and much quicker. Bad initial choices and planning almost always lead to bad outcomes.
If you folks tried to pitch your claims to NASA, you'd be laughed off the facility.
Yes, PTC seems to be going so much better in Europe.
https://www.enotrans.org/article/ptc-implementation-worse-europe/
charlie hebdoIf you folks tried to pitch your claims to NASA, you'd be laughed off the facility.
Nobody is saying that NASA didn't have a formidable challenge, much of which they did have to invent their way through.
What we're saying is that they had a single launch point, a set goal, and a single landing point, all of which could be clearly defined.
They also didn't have an arbitrarily set completion date (beyond JFK's "end of the decade.")
Regarding existing systems - they still would have had to deal with problems like real estate and frequency allocations. Not to mention the arbitrarily set requirements for that system.
NASA only had to deal with the physics of their undertaking with the full support of the government ($$$$$$$$). PTC had to deal with politics and governmental obstruction in a number of areas and private investment in the design and integration of all the technologies that are a part of PTC.
The 'laws of physics' are not a moving target - understanding them can be difficult but they don't change (the understanding can change as the more we come to know, the more we find out we don't know).
The politics of PTC is a continually rapidly moving target - trying to understand the nuances of the politics would drive engineers to the drunk tank. If there is anything worse than engineers arguing about some minuate of an approach to a problem - it is engineers arguing politics - no formula that the know and understand can be applied to politics and political outcomes.
With all the high tech our society currently possesses it has been almost 50 years since man last set foot on the Moon. We now have private companies trying to master space travel, they are still learning what NASA knew in 1969-1972 when the USA & NASA did put men on the Moon.
charlie hebdoAll I can say is I'm glad you weren't in charge of the space program. What an attitude!
In hindsight - Balt is absolutely right.
While they had to invent things to do what they wanted to do - they had one job. Fortunately, they generally got it right.
And much of what they did is making PTC possible. In the 1960's, PTC would simply not have been possible in any form resembling what is being implemented.
charlie hebdo BaltACD It was probably easier to land man on the Moon and return him to the Earth - as a single objective mission it was easier.
BaltACD It was probably easier to land man on the Moon and return him to the Earth - as a single objective mission it was easier.
You must not be an engineer, chuck. Nor had to deal with bureaucracy to get things done.
I agree with Balt... lots easier to get the Space Program on track (no pun intended)... no environmental impact statements to file for the landing place or the towers for radio communication between the earth and moon.. No dealing with different owners of the land necessary to install the required apparatus. The whole U.S. population at least somewhat knowledgeable of the program and what needed to be done and backed it at some level. A whole lot less bureaucracy to deal with to get the money or to get very few permits necessary for operation.
It wasn't until Congress started to cut funding around the time of the Space Shuttle (requiring it to be built with mostly off-the-shelf components... "no new technology". What a nightmare it was trying to get all those components from different systems to all to work together!) that Space exploration started being slowed and made a whole lot more difficult.
Semper Vaporo
Pkgs.
BaltACDIt was probably easier to land man on the Moon and return him to the Earth - as a single objective mission it was easier.
All I can say is I'm glad you weren't in charge of the space program. What an attitude!
Remember that your smart phone has a more powerful processor than those used in the spacecraft, and probably on the ground at the time, for that matter.
I worked with an IBM mainframe (4361?)that had less storage space in a roomful of disk drives than I can carry around in my pocket in a thumbdrive. And my smartphone has more RAM.
Balt mentions signal systems. With the mergers that have take place, any one carrier may have several signal systems running.
One major hold-up for PTC has been frequency allocation, as many of the frequencies were already assigned. Negotiation to acquire any frequency is generally complicated and time-consuming, to say the least.
charlie hebdoOn May 25, 1961, President John F. Kennedy announced the dramatic and ambitious goal of sending an American safely to the Moon before the end of the decade. This goal was achieved on July 20, 1969, when Apollo 11 commander Neil Armstrong stepped off the Lunar Module's ladder and onto the Moon's surface. Eight years and one month, PTC? Ten years, two dealines passed and still counting. So I guess the old phrase "it ain't rocket science" applies, but conversely?
PTC? Ten years, two dealines passed and still counting. So I guess the old phrase "it ain't rocket science" applies, but conversely?
Landing man on the Moon was a 'simple' Physics/Mechanical equation that had to be done without ensuring block separation among 10 or 15 competing vehicles heading to the Moon at relatively the same time.
While it was 238K +/- miles to the Moon, there didn't need to be any form of protection provided for opposing or overtaking vehicles on the same trajectory.
The technology that was invented in order to facilitate the trip to the Moon was undertaken with government R&D dollars that would lead to corporate profits as the technology was developed into products for both the Moon mission and sales to consumers and industry.
PTC had to be invented and merge a multitude of various technologies into a 'fail safe' system to be interoperatable with the equipment of multiple carriers in multiple situations across the nation. None of the Class 1 carriers was starting with a 'homoginized' signal system. Every carriers signal systems had been designed and installed with 'state of the art' equipment, as it could be afforded, from the time the electric track circuit was perfected to the time of computerized CADS - with every iteration of technology between the two still existing somewhre on someone's property.
It was probably easier to land man on the Moon and return him to the Earth - as a single objective mission it was easier.
On May 25, 1961, President John F. Kennedy announced the dramatic and ambitious goal of sending an American safely to the Moon before the end of the decade. This goal was achieved on July 20, 1969, when Apollo 11 commander Neil Armstrong stepped off the Lunar Module's ladder and onto the Moon's surface. Eight years and one month,
PTC? Ten years, two deadlines passed and still counting. So I guess the old phrase "it ain't rocket science" applies, but conversely?
The nation’s railroads continue to work toward completion of positive train control installation. While the process seems like it might be inching along, railroads have made significant strides in the past two years installing the complex safe...
http://trn.trains.com/news/news-wire/2019/04/15-positive-train-control-class-i-railroad-installation-of-the-safety-technology-by-the-numbers
Brian Schmidt, Editor, Classic Trains magazine
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.