Trains.com

Railroad Reregulation ...and Some New Stuff As Well

9469 views
61 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Tuesday, April 30, 2013 7:46 PM

jeffhergert

Bucyrus

  So part of the mandate orders research and development, which by its very nature is impossible to deliver on a schedule, or deliver at a predicable cost.   

    

I think the mandate came about because enough people in the right positions believe that PTC is available right now, today and has been available for some time.  That the only reason the railroads have not already adopted PTC is only because they don't want to spend the money.

Since PTC in some form has been looked at since at least the 1980s and some vendors, railroads in other countries and transit systems have or claim to have PTC like capabilities, I can see where people could think this.  Especially if the people's only knowledge comes from "experts" with an agenda or short media clips of said experts.  It doesn't help when TV shows and movies purportedly set in current times show technologies that are still more sci-fi than reality.  We've come along way, but sometimes not as far as we think.

Jeff   

 

Jeff,

I think you have perfectly described the situation.

People with authority make a knee jerk decision with only a simplistic understanding of what they are mandating, egged on by a bunch of special interests who stand to gain by the mandate, and are doing their best to create the perception that PTC is a sure fire solution, ready to go. 

And in these days of fashionable, corporation hating, it is very easy to sell the idea that this public safety improvement is being held up only by the greed of the railroad companies who don’t want to spend money to save lives because it adds nothing to their bottom line.

I know how projects can get underestimated, and this could be a real humdinger. 

 

  • Member since
    August 2005
  • From: At the Crossroads of the West
  • 11,013 posts
Posted by Deggesty on Tuesday, April 30, 2013 11:12 PM

Yes, RME, my question was serious. Thank you for providing one specific example which brought attention to the matter

Also, your mentioning the Coast Line's desire to run at 100 mph on single track led me to look at the schedule of the South Wind  between Montgomery and Waycross (single track and dark) in January of 1941 and in November of 1947: The earlier times were out of Montgomery (CT) at 12:40 am and into Waycross (ET) (314.7 miles) at 7:55 am, and out of Waycross at 2:40 am and into Montgomery at 7:55 am. The later times were out of Montgomery at 11:40 pm and in to Waycross at 7:10 am, and out of Waycross at 1:43 am and into Montgomery at 7:15 am.

Not at all germane to this discussion was the time given to turn the three coach streamliners in Miami: two hours from arrval to departure.

Johnny

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