Salt Lake City to stop operating one of its routes account of the costs of PTC.
https://www.railwayage.com/cs/27597/
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
I hope Anderson doesn’t mean what he said, but I chose not to be complacent. In his written testimony Dark Territory is described with respect to future operations on Page Four as probably won’t. On Page Seven some possible remedies are reviewed.
The problem for routes caught in this dilemma is the clock is ticking. If Anderson means what he said we have only to January 1 to do whatever is now required and which Amtrak has not specified.
The Vermont routes (and I suspect the other dark territory lines as well) were formally exempt as a result of a full FRA review. It’s late indeed to change the rules now.
I stand on being deeply concerned.
Carl Fowler
There are three cases:
1. Where PTC is almost entirely in place and a waiver is required for the "gap". Amtrak says they will ask themselves what additional protections need to be in place to continue operating. My guess is that they will find a way to keep operating. I wouldn't lose any sleep over this one.
2. Where PTC is behind and no waiver is granted. That road can't operate their PTC territory. Period. Can't imagine this will have any impact on Amtrak at all. Consequences are rather grave for the host....
3. Places where Amtrak runs but PTC is not required. This could be the sticky one, but I'll bet it's all a tempest in a teapot. Why? Anderson said: "Third, there are areas over which we operate for which there is an FRA “Mainline Track Exclusion” in place exempting that segment from the PTC requirements based on the low levels of freight and passenger train traffic or the presence of low-speed operations, such as in yards and terminals. We are currently reviewing our policy on operating passenger trains on Exclusions to determine whether we have adequate safety mitigation practices in place for each territory and in certain areas, where signal systems are not in place, we will reconsider whether we operate at all."
All this means is Amtrak wants to be sure safety is "adequate". This could mean that they think everything is fine as is, or that some extra layer of safety is put in place.
For example, it could mean highrailing ahead of the train in dark territory (pretty simple for Whitehall to Rutland). Or, perhaps that absolute blocks are granted on top of any CTC authority, etc.
I think the "conspiracy theory" thinking that this is all a sneaky way to eliminate LD trains is just a whole trainload of BS. What it is, is Anderson telling Congress that safety in general, and PTC in particular, are REALLY important to Amtrak what their approach toward safety will be. ...as it should be. (and should have been all along)
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Congress actually had provided 2.3 Billion in the current budget for safety/PTC loans/grants. DeFazio's proposal for 2.5 B next year is certainly shaky, but any percent of it would help. Congress owes this to rail for such an extraordinary unfunded mandate.
The problem for the exempt lines is more intractable. Unless the FRA Regulations on PTC are changed such lines would not be eligible because they are adjudged not to need PTC.
This link leads to the testimony by Amtrak President Richard Anderson. https://transportation.house.gov/uploadedfiles/2018-02-15_-_anderson_testimony.pdf
But Anderson's ultimatum suggests Amtrak on its own initiative will compel PTC (or perhaps some less onerous equivilent) as a condition of continued use of such lines. This is a real Catch 22 for routes like the VERMONTER, ETHAN ALLEN, SW CHIEF, DOWNEASTER and possibly other parts of routes--as they have made no progress because they weren't required/didn't need to build it.
And again the SW CHIEF may not be the only main line at risk. How does the CP stand on full implementation between St. Paul and Chicago? The BNSF may have everything spiffy for the CALIFORNIA ZEPHYR Chicago to Denver, but how is the UP doing west of there? There is very little freight traffic left on the Moffat Route--especially west of Bond to Grand Jct. Was it exempted? If not will it be ready? Has the UP got the complex TEXAS EAGLE line cleared south of St. Louis? Freight is fairly scarce between STL and Poplar Bluff. Is that stretch exempt?
There are so many examples of this sort of thing. We know the CARDINAL was exempt Indianapolis to Crawfordsville, but what about Charlottesville-Clifton Forge over the Blue Ridge on the Buckingham Branch RR (the old C&O passenger route now used by freights only to a limited degree)?
This performance by Mr. Anderson to the House may have made Amtrak look strong, but if the company keeps its word there will be Balkan Track (a train here/a train there--but nothing connects) as early as January next.
Carl's post raises some questions.
Does ATK President know what he is talking about? I kind of doubt it.
Is he bluffing? If so, who? The freight railroads would rightly celebrate the removal of ATK from their property, so he has negative leverage there. Congress? Another $2.5 billion for passenger trains here and there. Do not bet against the stupidity of congress, they have been pouring money down the ATK rat hole for 47 years!
Is he posturing for the NTSB in the context of the Dupont wreck, hoping that no one who cares remembers what he said? NTSB has been beating its PTC drum for deacdes and finally succeeded in imposing this huge waste on the industry. They are not going to back off with blood in the water.
Bring lots of popcorn!
The following memo was prepared for the members of the state of Vermont's Vermont Rail Advisory Council to try to put both a Vermont and a national perspective on this issue. We next meet February 28 and based on Anderson's threats have very little time to evolve a plan that will prevent the withdrawal of all Amtrak service in Vermont January 1, 2019. As noted below we are legally exempt from the PTC requirement, could not possibly now comply (both for financial and real-world reasons) and face a terrible dilemna.
Amtrak President Anderson's threats to "suspend" services cut in multiple ways.
Main Lines with Operable PTC owned by Amtrak: All assumed to be in compliance by the end of 2018 and therefore Amtrak would continue to serve these segments. But this is basically just the Boston-Washington core of the Northeast Corridor and the Dearborn, MI to Niles, IN (Detroit-Chicago) line, plus a few miles of the Empire Service in the Albany, NY area. All other Amtrak trains run on the tracks of other freight or commuter railroads.
Main Lines with Operable PTC not owned by Amtrak: All should be fine--BUT--at present the only Class One Railroad that appears to be fully PTC ready by the end of 2018 is the BNSF system. But parts of BNSF over which Amtrak operates are PTC exempt. For example, the SW CHIEF route Chicago-Los Angeles will be compliant, except for several hundred miles (with no regular freight traffic) right in the middle of the line over Raton Pass--so this train line could end up being severed in the middle. UP, CSX, CP and NS are all working on the PTC installation issue, but some of their routes may not be ready until 2020. This was permitted under the existing law with a proper waiver. But Anderson now threatens to "suspend" Amtrak over any such segments at the end of this year. See the next section.
Main Lines with PTC under installation--but not ready by the end of 2018: Amtrak is threatening to "Temporarily Suspend" service. This may include virtually the entire CSX and NS systems in the east, and the Canadian Pacific--which if true impacts the ETHAN ALLEN north of Schenectady to Whitehall and the ADIRONDACK--indeed it's not entirely clear but the entire Albany-Montreal CP route may be PTC exempt, and thus potentially could fall under Anderson's broader threat to abandon service over those portions permanently. The CSX delay situation could include all/parts of the Boston-Albany-Schenectady-Buffalo-Cleveland LAKESHORE/EMPIRE SERVICE route. The NS lines that may not be ready include the LAKESHORE route's west end Cleveland-Chicago. The ETHAN ALLEN connects to the LAKESHORE. Another NS route that may not be fully ready is the Washington-New Orleans part of the CRESCENT line--another ETHAN ALLEN connection. Other CSX routes threatened include the Richmond-Florida "Silver" services. These are also ETHAN ALLEN connections. This is a real issue for Vermont's train in terms of lost connecting revenue.
Lines legally exempted from PTC--but threatened with closure by Amtrak: These of course include all Vermont trains not only within Vermont, but also Massachusetts to Springfield on the VERMONTER route and the ETHAN ALLEN at least to Whitehall and potentially to Schenectady. Also under threat in New England (but not a Vermont connection) is the DOWNEASTER service to New Hampshire and Maine. Further afield the CARDINAL/HOOSIER STATE line is at risk, as is the center of the SOUTHWEST CHIEF line as noted above. But obviously we care most about the VERMONTER and the ETHAN ALLEN EXPRESS and neither would continue if Anderson proceeds as he infers he will.
I realize it will be challenging to oppose a safety improvement. But we know that we've operated safely the Vermont sponsored Amtrak trains since service began on May 1, 1995. Since that time there has been only one major accident--the October 2015 VERMONTER rock slide crash (which resulted in no deaths) and that accident would not have been stopped by PTC unless it had occurred right at a signal.
It will be critical to focus closely on this. We've (with Federal grants and direct rail company funds) put over $140,000,000 into improving/rebuilding the infrastructure to support our VERMONTER service north of Springfield, MA (including the "Knowledge Corridor" Massachusetts grants) just since 2008 and many more grant dollars went into upgrading the VRS line from Whitehall,NY thru Rutland north to Burlington for the ETHAN ALLEN. To be forced to "suspend" service, despite full compliance with the PTC (exemption) regulations, and with a long history of safe operations, would be ridiculous.
Amtrak is over-reacting to an awful sequence of events whose close proximity seems to have produced a far too strong reaction from them. Only the December 18, 2017 Dupont, WA wreck of CASCADES TALGO train 501 (which cost the lives of my friends Jim Hamre and Zack Willhoite) was a result of an Amtrak employee error. Even PTC would have had no effect on the Virginia/GOP train incident--which resulted from a truck on the tracks at a gated crossing. No system designed by man is perfect. Even with PTC employee training and conduct and proper maintenance and dispatching will remain the critical components of a true "safety culture".
The PTC regulations correctly exempted low volume routes from coverage. Vermont and its freight railroad operating partners, complied fully with Federal regulations still in effect in properly obtaining exemption from PTC on our lines. Amtrak is effectively proposing to penalize us for non-compliance with a standard that not apply to our routes. This is grossly unfair. The perfect here is clearly the enemy of the possible. Would we close I 89 because a bus might rear end a car?
Congressman Pete DeFazio (with some Republican support) is trying to get another $2,500,000,000 for PTC. Obviously this new funding is uncertain as to its outcome. But surely we should be encouraging our delegation to push for this if we are to face an after the fact demand to install PTC. This is the least they can do.
And we need Congressional support to stop Amtrak from "temporarily suspending" all services in Vermont. These are trains which Amtrak knows that once gone will never return. No one can truly believe that if train service (particularly in a rural region) is suspended for several years, that funds will not be reallocated in the interim in such a way that operations would ever be likely to resume. And such a suspension is unneeded if existing safety procedures are properly observed--as they most certainly have been on the Vermont train routes.
I appreciate and strongly applaud VTRANs for seeking more information, but respectfully submit that we have only until the end of this year under Anderson's timetable to take whatever actions are needed. We need a strategy and service plan now.
Member
Vermont Rail Advisory Council
Rail Passenger Association (NARP) Council Member for Vermont
I have not followed this issue, nor do I have much knowledge of the technical details.
But won’t some railroads say, “Amtrak won’t run on us? Yippee!!!!”
???
Still in training.
oltmanndIn the short run, he might have been right. In the long run, I don't think so. Way too much "stuff" to accomplish the whole PTC task.
But enough to accomplish very important parts of it, with the tacit understanding that other systems would fill in the holes, and perhaps come to substitute for some of the howitzer-swatting-a-fly excesses in certain areas.
And, looking at the discussion of 'vital systems' you posted (from Light and then Ditmeyer) -- getting the functionality of greatest importance up quickly and at least temporarily avoiding 'the better being the enemy of the good' in getting the vital things workable?
Two interesting points of view with some history
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:PH6JnS6lPF0J:www.railwayage.com/index.php/ptc/ptc-vs-legacy-train-control-redux.html&num=1&hl=en&gl=us&strip=1&vwsrc=0
BaltACDAmtrak's ACSES works for them - but no body else.
ACSES was the brain child of one particular Amtrak employee who thought coded track circuits and cab signalling were the alpha and omega of train control.
ACSES is really just the PRR cab signal system with another layer of signal indications with a second carrier frequency. (250 Hz?). Assorted bells and whistles are piled on top to get absolute stops, civil speeds and road worker protection.
In the short run, he might have been right. In the long run, I don't think so. Way to much "stuff" to accomplish the whole PTC task.
mudchicken Oh well...and what about the Amtrak fleet not properly equipped?
Oh well...and what about the Amtrak fleet not properly equipped?
I believe they are creeping up on it. It's the interoperability and getting data from host roads to the Amtrak locomotives that's going to be the tough task...
Electroliner 1935 And in Chicago, Amtrak has two sets of locomitives with different PTC systems, one for the Michigan service and one for UP's Illinois service. As i hear it they are not able to interoperate. Yet.
And in Chicago, Amtrak has two sets of locomitives with different PTC systems, one for the Michigan service and one for UP's Illinois service. As i hear it they are not able to interoperate. Yet.
The Michigan trains are going to have to be dual equipped. I think the UP side is using I-ETMS...but I'm not sure.
BaltACDI don't know what system Amtrak is or is intending to use on the trackage they own in Michigan.
The Michigan system is called ITCS. The I is for incremental. It's almost completely decentralized. Each location (signal, road Xing, etc.) talks directly to the train.
It was the brain child of Harmon Electronics (now part of GE-Harris) and grew out of their signal and cab signal supply business. They were quite the inovators in their day.
oltmanndOne thing I don't here being discussed is what Amtrak will do with and for CSX, NS and Conrail trains on the NEC and it's branches. As far as I know, the freight roads aren't going to equip any part of their fleet with ACSES. I'm not even sure ACSES would function well in freight service... There was talk of using the data radio network that Amtrak has - or will have - on it's signals to provide for I-ETMS interoperability on the NEC, but I haven't heard a peep about this anywhere. This is a question Trains needs to ask Amtrak.
As far as I know, the freight roads aren't going to equip any part of their fleet with ACSES. I'm not even sure ACSES would function well in freight service...
There was talk of using the data radio network that Amtrak has - or will have - on it's signals to provide for I-ETMS interoperability on the NEC, but I haven't heard a peep about this anywhere.
This is a question Trains needs to ask Amtrak.
Interoperatability between Class 1 carriers has been the stumbling block as the carriers worked upon a PTC design that they all could use - with their relative variety of signal systems as well as their variety of dark territory control. Needless to say Amtrak's diesel fleet will have to work with the Class 1 carriers PTC - I don't know if the Amtrak diesels are equipped with ACSES to operate on the NEC, where electric locomotives are the normal power. (Back in the day PRR did use diesels when the catenary was disabled by snow storms.)
Amtrak's ACSES works for them - but no body else. I don't know what system Amtrak is or is intending to use on the trackage they own in Michigan.
One thing I don't here being discussed is what Amtrak will do with and for CSX, NS and Conrail trains on the NEC and it's branches.
One of the key remaining tasks is interoperability. The key to that is to get the data needed for the trip loaded at the trip start. First, I have to know which locomotive has to get the data. The foreign road has to supply that. Then I need to know where and when to send my data. Then the foreign road has to deliver the data to the right locomotive in time for the trip.
So, in the case of the Crescent, NS will have to send the route data and other info up to Amtrak so it can be loaded at Ivy City for the outbound power at WAS.
As I understand it, the frt RRs are only beginning to start playing with this. There are suggested standards, but....
BaltACD Where Amtrak runs over track that is owned by Commuter carrrier, such as Sun Rail who just let a contract for design, build, install and test of PTC this week - there could be issues at the end of the year. The commuter carriers have been looking for the golden hen ever since the mandate was approved by Congress. There haven't been any golden eggs found.
Where Amtrak runs over track that is owned by Commuter carrrier, such as Sun Rail who just let a contract for design, build, install and test of PTC this week - there could be issues at the end of the year.
The commuter carriers have been looking for the golden hen ever since the mandate was approved by Congress. There haven't been any golden eggs found.
I sense layoffs.
WASHINGTON — Amtrak's CEO says the passenger railroad will not operate trains over track sections that are not compliant with positive train control laws. Amtrak CEO Richard Anderson is scheduled to testify before the U.S. House of Representat...
http://trn.trains.com/news/news-wire/2018/02/15-amtrak-ceo-says-passenger-trains-will-not-run-over-track-without-ptc-law-compliance
Brian Schmidt, Editor, Classic Trains magazine
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.