Trains.com

News Wire: FRA: UP doesn't need waiver to run steam 11,000 miles in 2019

2136 views
8 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
Moderator
  • Member since
    January 2011
  • From: Wisconsin
  • 1,532 posts
Posted by Brian Schmidt on Thursday, February 28, 2019 10:44 AM

WASHINGTON — The Federal Railroad Administration has told Union Pacific it doesn’t need waivers in 2019 to operate non-PTC-equipped steam locomotives Nos. 844 and 4014 on three excursions covering 11,111 miles, according to letters betwee...

http://trn.trains.com/news/news-wire/2019/02/28-fra-says-up-doesnt-need-wavier-to-run-steam-11000-miles-in-2019

Brian Schmidt, Editor, Classic Trains magazine

  • Member since
    January 2015
  • 2,678 posts
Posted by kgbw49 on Saturday, March 2, 2019 8:03 PM

After reading the letter, if I understand it correctly, it sounds like they have until 2023 to figure out how to get the steam locomotives equipped for PTC. Am I understanding that right?

  • Member since
    January 2019
  • From: Henrico, VA
  • 9,728 posts
Posted by Flintlock76 on Thursday, March 7, 2019 1:06 PM

What I don't understand is why some big steam operators like Union Pacific, or the Steam Railroading Institute, or the Friends of 261, or the folks from Fort Wayne haven't contacted their congressmen or senators (they MUST know some) to have legislation passed exempting steam locomotives from PTC.

The engineer in a steam locomotive's not alone, he's at least got a fireman with him calling the signals, or a host railroad pilot advising him, and in all likelyhood cab guests.  He's not going to fall asleep or lose concentration with an "audience" watching his every move. 

PTC's just not needed in a steam locomotive cab.  

Surely someone can get the ball rolling on this.

  • Member since
    December 2007
  • 1,307 posts
Posted by Falcon48 on Thursday, March 7, 2019 7:17 PM

kgbw49

After reading the letter, if I understand it correctly, it sounds like they have until 2023 to figure out how to get the steam locomotives equipped for PTC. Am I understanding that right?

 

YES

 

  • Member since
    March 2003
  • From: Central Iowa
  • 6,901 posts
Posted by jeffhergert on Thursday, March 7, 2019 7:33 PM

The only date I see is December 31, 2020.  That's when their current extension expires.  As of last January, a PTC leader is required at the originating station for trains that will run in PTC territory.  (Trains that suffer an in-route failure may continue without PTC.)  Before that, although PTC was in use, it was still OK to use a non-equipped leader out of an originating terminal.

I can only guess that UP, because it upped the requirement for PTC leaders, thought a separate, specific waiver from the FRA was needed.  And that FRA looks at the current extension as a waiver, so one specifically addressing the steam engines isn't needed.

Jeff

  • Member since
    December 2007
  • 1,307 posts
Posted by Falcon48 on Thursday, March 7, 2019 7:39 PM

Flintlock76

What I don't understand is why some big steam operators like Union Pacific, or the Steam Railroading Institute, or the Friends of 261, or the folks from Fort Wayne haven't contacted their congressmen or senators (they MUST know some) to have legislation passed exempting steam locomotives from PTC.

The engineer in a steam locomotive's not alone, he's at least got a fireman with him calling the signals, or a host railroad pilot advising him, and in all likelyhood cab guests.  He's not going to fall asleep or lose concentration with an "audience.

PTC's just not needed in a steam locomotive cab.  

Surely someone can get the ball rolling on this.

 

  According to my files, ATRRM (now HRA) first advised the tourist/excursion rail industry of this rule and how it would affect mainline (including steam) excursions on PTC equipped lines on January 7, 2012.  Specifically, ATRRM advised that, under the PTC rule then in effect, tourist/excursion operations exceeding 20 miles in length on a general system PTC line would have to be equipped for PTC by December 31, 2020.  On February 29, 2016, ATRRM advised the industry that, under a revised FRA rule published the same date (in response to statutory changes made by Congress), the new compliance date for tourist/excursion operations exceeding 20 miles on PTC lines was now 12-31-2023.

Bottom line.  The industry is aware (or should have been aware) of this issue and its potential imact on mainline steam operations since 2012.  

 

  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: US
  • 25,292 posts
Posted by BaltACD on Thursday, March 7, 2019 8:04 PM

I'll be real interested in how electronic PTC mechanisms will control the throttle on steam engines when making a penalty brake application - additionally will the PTC electronic displays have cab space priority over Steam and Air gagues on the locomotive backhead.  Will also be interesting to see how well the electronics of the PTC equipment stand up to the heat and dirt that define steam engines.

I am not saying it can't be done, however I have recurring visions of Rube Goldberg at work.

Never too old to have a happy childhood!

              

  • Member since
    December 2007
  • From: Georgia USA SW of Atlanta
  • 11,919 posts
Posted by blue streak 1 on Thursday, March 7, 2019 8:42 PM

BALT.   As well what is the electrical load?  Will there be a need for additional generating capacity and what kind of back up ?  Electrical or mechanical connected to an axel generator?

Speculation.  Maybe throttle control by a electromagnetic valve that would close if current is lost?  Would need a bypass plumbing.

Question how did AT&SF and UP handle it with their ATS / ATC.?

  • Member since
    September 2003
  • 21,669 posts
Posted by Overmod on Friday, March 8, 2019 7:23 AM

BaltACD
I'll be real interested in how electronic PTC mechanisms will control the throttle on steam engines when making a penalty brake application...

We keep having to go over this for some reason -- how do you suppose this got done on all those mandated ATS systems in the post-Esch-Act 1920s?

Now, it does have to be said that many of these were decidedly on the primitive side, depending on the fact that the brakes can easily source the equivalent of tens of thousands of horsepower vs. what the steam can produce in the cylinders even at full running cutoff.  But even the provision of servo centering of the valve gear as part of penalty actuation isn't rocket science even with straight relay logic, and the addition of something as simple as a Franklin Precision or Throttle-Master air throttle makes the issue trivial even if you retain the grapevine linkage ... incidentally the T1 Trust 5550 is specifically designed to take native PTC not just for "penalty" applications but for continuous speed control, so the work has been done.

... additionally will the PTC electronic displays have cab space priority over Steam and Air gauges on the locomotive backhead.

Probably not -- but why would they? 

A perhaps better question is whether, in a given installation, they would be permanently mounted at all.  Note that the screen displays and controls are not relevant to the functioning of the system as a 'penalty' assurance of safety; you could easily make the necessary "controls" to look exactly like, say, historical inductor ATC forestaller levers and the like.  On the other hand, it's simple to provide innocuous bracketry and properly environment-protected connectors to install any degree of command-and-control equipment for any particular service or run.

 

Will also be interesting to see how well the electronics of the PTC equipment stand up to the heat and dirt that define steam engines.

The heat and dirt are simple -- OTS industrial enclosures handle that stuff.  Far more concerning is the pervasive 'humidity' and the caustic pH-11 stuff that goes along with it.  Among other things, slightly thicker Parylene goes a long way toward making periodic maintenance opening of the necessary enclosures less troublesome for the equipment, as does thoroughgoing potting and connector implementation.  Trust me when I say there is a very long and reasonably effective history of environment-proofing critical electronics; these applications to 'historic' steam power aren't limited either by shoestring operating economics or cut-a-corner daily revenue maximization strategies (insert PSR acronyms du jour and mandatory Mantle Ridge digs as appropriate)

 

I am not saying it can't be done, however I have recurring visions of Rube Goldberg at work.

 I also expect to see some Rube Goldberg attempts.  Some of which will doubtless fail and have to be (perhaps expen$ively) redesigned and replaced.  I continue to argue for development and construction of a 'universal' system that can have components applied relatively quickly to any restored steam locomotive to 'ready' it for PTC operation, and modular and perhaps self-configuring elements installed only at 'run time'.  Perhaps provided on a rental basis by one of the historical organizations or even a short-line organization (also diesel-compatible, remember) to minimize the absolute cost and 'outsource' much of the fancy electronics, which isn't the usual forte of steam restoration people in general.
 
It isn't rocket science to do it right, even though the 2008 mandate, as written by well-meaning fools, is at least 400% more complicated than it should have been to achieve with actual technical systems.

Join our Community!

Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.

Search the Community

Newsletter Sign-Up

By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy