Railway Man SALfan mudchicken If man builds it or conceives it, he still can most certainly still screw it up. The politicians had best go back to their caves and get their fires started, it's gonna be a long winter legislating common sense. First sentence: And some people have oceans of talent in screwing things up. Second sentence: Wait a minute - Politicians . . . . legislating common sense? (Roll tape of maniacal laughter) Most of them wouldn't know common sense if it bit them in the butt. So why do the voters overwhelmingly return incumbent politicians to office 90% of the time? Either we're the ones without common sense, or politicians are giving the voters exactly what they want. RWM
SALfan mudchicken If man builds it or conceives it, he still can most certainly still screw it up. The politicians had best go back to their caves and get their fires started, it's gonna be a long winter legislating common sense. First sentence: And some people have oceans of talent in screwing things up. Second sentence: Wait a minute - Politicians . . . . legislating common sense? (Roll tape of maniacal laughter) Most of them wouldn't know common sense if it bit them in the butt.
mudchicken If man builds it or conceives it, he still can most certainly still screw it up. The politicians had best go back to their caves and get their fires started, it's gonna be a long winter legislating common sense.
If man builds it or conceives it, he still can most certainly still screw it up. The politicians had best go back to their caves and get their fires started, it's gonna be a long winter legislating common sense.
First sentence: And some people have oceans of talent in screwing things up.
Second sentence: Wait a minute - Politicians . . . . legislating common sense? (Roll tape of maniacal laughter) Most of them wouldn't know common sense if it bit them in the butt.
So why do the voters overwhelmingly return incumbent politicians to office 90% of the time? Either we're the ones without common sense, or politicians are giving the voters exactly what they want.
RWM
At least in my case, in most elections there's no candidate that I want to vote FOR, so a decision must be made as to whom I least want to vote AGAINST. The recent election is a case in point. In the presidential race, I could hold my nose and vote for one of the candidates, but just could not stomach his opponent, no way no how. The Senatorial candidate I voted for is pure scum personally, but his opponent's politics are totally repugnant. Don't know anything about the person I voted for in the U.S. Representative's race, but one of the pressure groups virulently opposed to him I loathe, detest and despise, so if this group hated him I figured he couldn't be all bad.
Reason and political action often do not go hand in hand. Reaction based on emotion often manipulated by self interest is far more common.
Not knowing the particulars of PTC, is this system being rushed by political wonks to a result that will require expensive revision at a later date?
Comparing PTC to trunked radio (and presupposing that they will take similar paths), where I have some experience.
In the beginning, each of the vendors selling trunked radio systems built their own technology. Each is fine in it's own right, but they are totally incompatible.
Several years ago APCO developed the P-25 standard for trunking. While each vendor has managed to inject their own variations/enhancements, at the most basic level all P25 radios will communicate with each other when properly configured for the local system (frequencies vary).
As I understand it, there are several flavors of PTC ready to field. It's highly unlikely that they are compatible. Because they are available and deadlines are being set, they may very well be fielded as is.
The next step will be either all vendors/railroads deciding to settle on a specific technology (think VHS/Beta) or a joint standards body will develop a set of standards and all railroads will begin to migrate to that standard (as with P25). Either way, it's not going to happen overnight.
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...
Victrola1 Reason and political action often do not go hand in hand. Reaction based on emotion often manipulated by self interest is far more common. Not knowing the particulars of PTC, is this system being rushed by political wonks to a result that will require expensive revision at a later date?
The answer to your incisive question is yes, maybe, and no -- much depends on the implementation path chosen by each railroad, and how the FRA responds to the new law.
The "no, it's not a problem" part is as follows. Four of the U.S. Class I carriers (BNSF, CSX, NS, and UP) have agreed on a common technical system standard using identical hardware and software supplied by Wabtec, a system that has already achieved approval from the FRA, meets the requirements of HR2095, and is technologically mature. Metra (Chicago) is also already using the Wabtec system as well. CPR is in effect a proxy with its participation with UP on common operating standards on the Calgary/Lethbridge to Hinkle, Oregon, corridor, which happens to be where UP is deploying its first pilot PTC implementation (Hinkle-Spokane-Eastport).
The "maybe it's a problem" part is that passenger railroads that operate all or in part on these Class 1s will have to employ the same system at least while their trains are on these Class 1s so that the two railroads can share the same space at the same time. That said, passenger railroads, being part of the public sector, have difficulties sole-sourcing large contracts, and many of them are feeling extremely pressured by local politics to do something quickly. Suffice it to say that passenger railroads may end up all over the map in how they implement PTC.
The "yes, it's a problem" part is two-fold. Several passenger railroads will likely choose a modified wayside signal system that will end up being a short-term solution. The second part is that the 2015 implementation date in HR2095 is ambitious. In response to that, the FRA may write rules that either reach further than the current rule, 49 CFR 236 Subpart H, or create a step-wise adoption process that encourages some railroads to invest in ad hoc solutions in meeting initial steps that later requires them to abandon the initial investment when they try to meet the last step.
The four Class 1s, however, are all ahead of the curve, at least as the rules are now written by the FRA. The issues with HR2095 are not technical. The issues are as follows.
Railway Man The four Class 1s, however, are all ahead of the curve, at least as the rules are now written by the FRA. The issues with HR2095 are not technical. The issues are as follows. How Class II and III carriers deal with it. They were written out of the bill because this creates an obvious financial problem for them, but it doesn't mean they go away. The country is littered with passenger mileage on Class II and III carriers. How will PTC be paid for there? Who will pay? Who is in charge of the implementation, maintenance, and administration of the PTC on this little piece that a Class II or III happens to own? Will this require the rest of the short line to become PTC savvy or equipped (probably yes). How will they do that with their limited resources? Where will the $4-8 billion to pay for this come from? It will be diverted from something else. How will the 2015 deadline be met logistically? All the people with expertise in PTC implemetation in North America wouldn't fill one-fourth of an 80-seat commuter coach. How will the FRA cope in a timely manner will the flood of permitting review requests? RWM
Of course the $4.8 billion will be diverted from something else. It has to be. Niether the railroads nor the government have unlimited resources.
And therein lies the problem. While the socialist Don Phillips and the rest of the Trains staff are throwing laurels at the government's feet and proclaiming people "Heros" for mandating this thing, what's being overlooked is what will have to be set aside to spend the money on PTC. This is an allocatiion of scarce resources by emotional government fiat. Not good.
I'll admit I have only limited knowledge of the benifits (which leaves me off the commuter coach) but the presentation I attended regarding this matter was informative. It seems the accident prevention benifits of PTC are negligible. (Now I know I'll be accused of putting dollars before human life. But the fact is that there are not unlimited resources for anything, including protecting human lives. I know this sounds cold and heartless, but it's reality. Something is not going to be built because PTC is being installed, regardless of the consequences. Such is life by government mandate.)
The real benifits from PTC are from increasing rail line capacity. In that context its instalation should be an economic decision made on a case by case basis. Not by a national govenment mandate.
It's pretty well settled that the LA crash that brought this on was caused by improper conduct on the part of a passenger train engineer who was alone in the cab. A better idea than government mandated PTC? Don't allow single person operation of passenger trains - the UP freight involved in the crash had three crew members up front. Why would you allow passenger trains to operate with one person in the cab but require at least two on freights? More government nonsense.
And you could monitor the actions of passenger engineers through remote cameras. If that sounds intrusive, so is a $4.8 billion mandate with little or no promise of payback.
greyhounds Of course the $4.8 billion will be diverted from something else. It has to be. Niether the railroads nor the government have unlimited resources. And therein lies the problem. While the socialist Don Phillips and the rest of the Trains staff are throwing laurels at the government's feet and proclaiming people "Heros" for mandating this thing, what's being overlooked is what will have to be set aside to spend the money on PTC. This is an allocatiion of scarce resources by emotional government fiat. Not good. I'll admit I have only limited knowledge of the benifits (which leaves me off the commuter coach) but the presentation I attended regarding this matter was informative. It seems the accident prevention benifits of PTC are negligible. (Now I know I'll be accused of putting dollars before human life. But the fact is that there are not unlimited resources for anything, including protecting human lives. I know this sounds cold and heartless, but it's reality. Something is not going to be built because PTC is being installed, regardless of the consequences. Such is life by government mandate.)
The real benefits from PTC are from increasing rail line capacity. In that context its instalation should be an economic decision made on a case by case basis. Not by a national govenment mandate.
I apologize if I overstated the reallocation problem, which I sort of did. Not being privvy to the capital spending plans of all the Class 1s, I don't know if this is a huge deal or not. I think it probably is for the passenger railroads, though.
Railway ManSo why do the voters overwhelmingly return incumbent politicians to office 90% of the time? Either we're the ones without common sense, or politicians are giving the voters exactly what they want.
Part of the reason is gerrymandering, with districts being drawn specifically to re-elect the incumbents. It will be interesting to see what happens here in California when the legislative districts are re-drawn by by an entity other than the state legislature - some of the current districts are even uglier than the one that inspired the "Gerry-Mander".
I have absolutely no problem with adopting PTC if it makes economic sense to do so. If the benifits from accident prevention, fuel savings, etc. outweigh the cost, then let the PTC instalment begin. It's the same as buying insurance. But in the examples you've cited the losses were/are $1.5 billion and the expense is $4.8 billion. Are there better, less expensive, ways to lessen the losses. It doesn't make sense to spend 4.8 to save 1.5. I know there will be future losses that increase the 1.5, but it's 4.8 now vs. what how may years out.
What I object to is taking this out of the economic realm and mandating it. If it will produce benifits greater than its costs, then it's worth it. And it will be adopted without the need for a government mandate. If its benifits don't outweight its cost, then we can't aford it.
As to putting a camera on a engineer operating a passenger train with no one else in the cab; I agree it's intrusive. But, you wouldn't have to have someone monitor every move. You'd just look at randomly selected moments. Unless he/she wrecked the first time they sent a text message you'd have a high probability of catching them doing something wrong. Not perfect. Nothing is. But it would cut down on improper behavior. And you'd have a record. But it would be instrusive.
We sure didn't get a balanced discussion of this important issue in the December Trains. We got cheerleading for intrustion. I don't like that. I expect it from Phillips.
They used the classic media "Six V" template for slanting their coverage.
1) Victim, 2) Villain, 3) Vindicator, 4) Void, 5) Value, 6) Vehicle
1) Victim - the people who died and are put at risk
2) Villain - the railroads who put dollars ahead of people
3) Vindicator - "The Heros" of the Federal Government protecting us from the railroads
4) Void - the lack of economic knowledge and lack of rail operating procedures of most folks
5) Value - we should be protected and safe
6) Vehicle - Trains Magazine - to spread the word
They turned this into some kind of a drama instead of a rational decision process. But that's what modern media does.
The statute mandating PTC follows in a long line of occupational safety and other safety statutes that go back at least 100 years. The Safety Appliance Act of the early 1900's ordered the installation and positioning of various safety appliances on cars, such as ladders, grab irons, etc. State laws have mandated that trains stop at all crossings with other railroads unless they were provided with a signal system that prevented other trains from occupying that track. Until recently, Brighton Park was governed by such a statute.
I do not believe that it is an unnecessary government intrusion to mandate a safe workplace or transportation system, whatever the mode.
greyhounds I have absolutely no problem with adopting PTC if it makes economic sense to do so. If the benifits from accident prevention, fuel savings, etc. outweigh the cost, then let the PTC instalment begin. It's the same as buying insurance. But in the examples you've cited the losses were/are $1.5 billion and the expense is $4.8 billion. Are there better, less expensive, ways to lessen the losses. It doesn't make sense to spend 4.8 to save 1.5. I know there will be future losses that increase the 1.5, but it's 4.8 now vs. what how may years out. What I object to is taking this out of the economic realm and mandating it. If it will produce benifits greater than its costs, then it's worth it. And it will be adopted without the need for a government mandate. If its benifits don't outweight its cost, then we can't aford it. As to putting a camera on a engineer operating a passenger train with no one else in the cab; I agree it's intrusive. But, you wouldn't have to have someone monitor every move. You'd just look at randomly selected moments. Unless he/she wrecked the first time they sent a text message you'd have a high probability of catching them doing something wrong. Not perfect. Nothing is. But it would cut down on improper behavior. And you'd have a record. But it would be instrusive. We sure didn't get a balanced discussion of this important issue in the December Trains. We got cheerleading for intrustion. I don't like that. I expect it from Phillips. They used the classic media "Six V" template for slanting their coverage. 1) Victim, 2) Villain, 3) Vindicator, 4) Void, 5) Value, 6) Vehicle 1) Victim - the people who died and are put at risk 2) Villain - the railroads who put dollars ahead of people 3) Vindicator - "The Heros" of the Federal Government protecting us from the railroads 4) Void - the lack of economic knowledge and lack of rail operating procedures of most folks 5) Value - we should be protected and safe 6) Vehicle - Trains Magazine - to spread the word They turned this into some kind of a drama instead of a rational decision process. But that's what modern media does.
Would you also include the FAA's mandating the adoption of cockpit collision avoidance systems on all commercial aircraft as part of your argument? How long would the airlines have taken to re-equip their fleets if it hadn't been a requirement?
After all commercial airliner mid -air collisions were statistically very rare even before the systems were installed...
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
CSSHEGEWISCH I do not believe that it is an unnecessary government intrusion to mandate a safe workplace or transportation system, whatever the mode.
The problem with this is defining what "safe" is. It is impossible and impractical to mandate the total absence of risk.
As an example, the tragic deaths and injuries of the Chatsworth head on could have been reduced or prevented by limiting the trains to 10 MPH operation. However, the costs of such a drastic safety measure would be too great so the trains were operated at higher speeds. In addition, these safety costs would have been borne directly by the passengers (their time is worth money) making the system far too costly for them to use. In essence, the safety of lower speeds was traded off to reduce the costs. That may sound cold and heartless, but it is reality.
I don't see today's North American railroad operations as being "unsafe". What the PTC mandate is attempting to do is to make things "safer" by reducing, but not eliminating, risk. The issue is whether than reduction is worth the $4.8 billion required to install the system. From what I know, the reduction in accidents will not, in any way, pay for the PTC system. But the costs of the PTC system are "off the books" to everybody but the railroads - so it's easy for politicians to order someone else to spend money to achieve the goal.
This could be acceptable, except for the fact that that $4.8 million has to come from somewhere else And the imperial congress has absolutely no idea what is going to be foregone in order to get PTC. There are not unlimited resources and choices have to be made. Simply mandating huge expenditures of other people's money based on emotions is a poor way to allocate scarce resources.
Now, I'm being told that PTC will pay for itself in terms of things like fuel savings. If that's the case, then there is absolutely no need to mandate it. If it will pay for itself the $4.8 billion will be retuned and not be wasted.
greyhounds I have absolutely no problem with adopting PTC if it makes economic sense to do so. If the benifits from accident prevention, fuel savings, etc. outweigh the cost, then let the PTC instalment begin. It's the same as buying insurance. But in the examples you've cited the losses were/are $1.5 billion and the expense is $4.8 billion. Are there better, less expensive, ways to lessen the losses. It doesn't make sense to spend 4.8 to save 1.5. I know there will be future losses that increase the 1.5, but it's 4.8 now vs. what how may years out. What I object to is taking this out of the economic realm and mandating it. If it will produce benifits greater than its costs, then it's worth it. And it will be adopted without the need for a government mandate. If its benifits don't outweight its cost, then we can't aford it. [clip] We sure didn't get a balanced discussion of this important issue in the December Trains. We got cheerleading for intrustion. I don't like that. I expect it from Phillips. They used the classic media "Six V" template for slanting their coverage. 1) Victim, 2) Villain, 3) Vindicator, 4) Void, 5) Value, 6) Vehicle 1) Victim - the people who died and are put at risk 2) Villain - the railroads who put dollars ahead of people 3) Vindicator - "The Heros" of the Federal Government protecting us from the railroads 4) Void - the lack of economic knowledge and lack of rail operating procedures of most folks 5) Value - we should be protected and safe 6) Vehicle - Trains Magazine - to spread the word They turned this into some kind of a drama instead of a rational decision process. But that's what modern media does.
[clip]
Greyhounds -
Your responses above raise several valid points (as usual). So that they don't go unrebutted - at least briefly, with my limited time today - here are my responses:
1) PTC appears to be economically justified. I found a study today entitled "QUANTIFICATION OF THE BUSINESS BENEFITS OF POSITIVE TRAIN CONTROL", Prepared for the Federal Railroad Administration, Revised March 15, 2004, by ZETA-TECH Associates (Cherry Hill, NJ), 129 pgs. (approx. 416 KB in size), at:
http://www.tsd.org/papers/FRA%20PTC%20final%20report%2003-16-04.pdf
Real briefly, this study concluded* that the cost of the 2 competing PTC systems (identified as "PTC A" and "PTC B") would range between $1.3 billion and $4.4 billion. However, the "Estimated Annual PTC Benefits" (pages 9 - 11) would be savings with an estimated total ranging from $937,000 to $3.8 billion, for such items as:
- Line Capacity - Avoided Investment, and Avoided Maintenance;
- Precision Dispatch - Equipment Ownership;
- Work Order Report - Car Ownership;
- Loco Diagnostics - Loco Maintenance, and Loco Road Failure;
- Fuel; and,
- Shipper Benefits.
Those savings would result in an Internal Rate of Return (IRR") ranging from 24 % to 160 % annually (based on a cost of money of 7% over 20 years, as more fully explained therein).
* - Executive Summary, pp. 10 - 13.
Notably, the study noted that these economic benefits did not include the savings from avoided collisions and the resultant damages, and that the FRA was preparing that estimate separately (pg. 8, bottom) - see also my next comment. I haven't yet found that study or its results;
2) I suspect that the typical annual savings of damages would not be as much as the $1.5 billion mentioned above. Instead, that seems to be something of an "out-lier" or exceptionally high data point, that probably should be excluded as an anomaly or a "one-of" occurrence, mainly due to the Chatsworth wreck alone. However, I don't have any objective basis to support another figure - hence my interest in the FRA study (above). There are a fair number of train collision incidents each year, and damages typically seem to be in the range of the low 6 figures (several hundred thousand dollars) to the low 7 figures ($1 million plus).
Just as speculation for the moment, to get a handle on this: The FRA study referenced above (at page 5, middle) noted that "the Rail Safety Advisory Committee (RSAC)2, which identified nearly a thousand “PPAs” (PTC preventable accidents) on U.S. railroads over a 12-year period". That works out to about 80 such accidents per year (about 7 per month, or 1.5 per week on average). If the resulting damages are, say, typically around $0.5 million each - then that would total about $40 million per year. For the total annual costs from this to approach the $1.5 billion above, both of those estimated figures - the frequency and severity - would together have to be between 1 - 2 orders of magnitude low (i.e., by a factor of around 30 or 40, which would then be $1.2 billion to 1.6 billion), which I think is unlikely. That would mean, for example, that there are as many as 20 collisions a month (250 a year), each with damages in the $ 5 million range, or equivalent combinations - I don't think so.
Anyway, the FRA study (above) also noted that "[the RSAC] determined the savings to be realized from each avoided accident. The RSAC finding was that avoidance of these PPAs was not, by itself, sufficient (from a strictly economic point of view) to justify an investment in PTC." [emphasis added];
3) Even when expenditures make economic sense, businesses aren't always motivated do do so, for a variety of reasons. In such instances, a government mandate might be justified or even necessary, just to break the logjam, so to speak. In those cases, the government is acting more as a referee, traffic cop, stern parent, etc., than as an economic regulator. Often, the industries are just as happy to have the government make the decision, so as to keep the playing field level among competitors. There are others on this forum who can probably explain those problems better than me, but those reasons might include such things as:
- competing but technically incompatible systems, such as appears to be the case with PTC (think the Beta vs. VHS debate for video cassette recorders);
- systems that won't work well unless everybody implements them at the same time - think air brakes, or the Janney / knuckle coupler - the "After you, Alphonse" problem;
- the "I spend the money, but someone else gets most of the benefits, unless they are compelled to put up their share of the investment, too." The classic example of this was roller bearings on freight cars - why should the owning railroad spend that money, when the cars spend most of their time on other railroads ? Now that we're down to 7 big Class I's (from what ? 50 or so back in the 1950's and 1960's when this was an issue ?), and the managements seem more astute, it's probably less of a "dilution" problem. It also seems to me that this is related somehow to the "Tragedy of the Commons" kind of problem, but I can't expound on that analogy clearly right now;
- Probably other justifications. Anyone else want to chime in and support me here ?
4) I liked your "classic media "Six V" template" comment and explanation. I hadn't heard of or seen that before, but a lot of what I find annoying about the local newspapers - "the tragedy/ hard-luck story/ injustice of the week" syndrome - seems to fit that pattern.
Your thoughts and responses ?
- Paul North.
Paul_D_North_Jr Greyhounds - Your responses above raise several valid points (as usual). So that they don't go unrebutted - at least briefly, with my limited time today - here are my responses: 1) PTC appears to be economically justified. I found a study today entitled "QUANTIFICATION OF THE BUSINESS BENEFITS OF POSITIVE TRAIN CONTROL", Prepared for the Federal Railroad Administration, Revised March 15, 2004, by ZETA-TECH Associates (Cherry Hill, NJ), 129 pgs. (approx. 416 KB in size), at: http://www.tsd.org/papers/FRA%20PTC%20final%20report%2003-16-04.pdf Real briefly, this study concluded* that the cost of the 2 competing PTC systems (identified as "PTC A" and "PTC B") would range between $1.3 billion and $4.4 billion. However, the "Estimated Annual PTC Benefits" (pages 9 - 11) would be savings with an estimated total ranging from $937,000 to $3.8 billion, for such items as: - Line Capacity - Avoided Investment, and Avoided Maintenance; - Precision Dispatch - Equipment Ownership; - Work Order Report - Car Ownership; - Loco Diagnostics - Loco Maintenance, and Loco Road Failure; - Fuel; and, - Shipper Benefits. Those savings would result in an Internal Rate of Return (IRR") ranging from 24 % to 160 % annually (based on a cost of money of 7% over 20 years, as more fully explained therein). * - Executive Summary, pp. 10 - 13. Notably, the study noted that these economic benefits did not include the savings from avoided collisions and the resultant damages, and that the FRA was preparing that estimate separately (pg. 8, bottom) - see also my next comment. I haven't yet found that study or its results; 2) I suspect that the typical annual savings of damages would not be as much as the $1.5 billion mentioned above. Instead, that seems to be something of an "out-lier" or exceptionally high data point, that probably should be excluded as an anomaly or a "one-of" occurrence, mainly due to the Chatsworth wreck alone. However, I don't have any objective basis to support another figure - hence my interest in the FRA study (above). There are a fair number of train collision incidents each year, and damages typically seem to be in the range of the low 6 figures (several hundred thousand dollars) to the low 7 figures ($1 million plus). Just as speculation for the moment, to get a handle on this: The FRA study referenced above (at page 5, middle) noted that "the Rail Safety Advisory Committee (RSAC)2, which identified nearly a thousand “PPAs” (PTC preventable accidents) on U.S. railroads over a 12-year period". That works out to about 80 such accidents per year (about 7 per month, or 1.5 per week on average). If the resulting damages are, say, typically around $0.5 million each - then that would total about $40 million per year. For the total annual costs from this to approach the $1.5 billion above, both of those estimated figures - the frequency and severity - would together have to be between 1 - 2 orders of magnitude low (i.e., by a factor of around 30 or 40, which would then be $1.2 billion to 1.6 billion), which I think is unlikely. That would mean, for example, that there are as many as 20 collisions a month (250 a year), each with damages in the $ 5 million range, or equivalent combinations - I don't think so. Anyway, the FRA study (above) also noted that "[the RSAC] determined the savings to be realized from each avoided accident. The RSAC finding was that avoidance of these PPAs was not, by itself, sufficient (from a strictly economic point of view) to justify an investment in PTC." [emphasis added]; 3) Even when expenditures make economic sense, businesses aren't always motivated do do so, for a variety of reasons. In such instances, a government mandate might be justified or even necessary, just to break the logjam, so to speak. In those cases, the government is acting more as a referee, traffic cop, stern parent, etc., than as an economic regulator. Often, the industries are just as happy to have the government make the decision, so as to keep the playing field level among competitors. There are others on this forum who can probably explain those problems better than me, but those reasons might include such things as: - competing but technically incompatible systems, such as appears to be the case with PTC (think the Beta vs. VHS debate for video cassette recorders); - systems that won't work well unless everybody implements them at the same time - think air brakes, or the Janney / knuckle coupler - the "After you, Alphonse" problem; - the "I spend the money, but someone else gets most of the benefits, unless they are compelled to put up their share of the investment, too." The classic example of this was roller bearings on freight cars - why should the owning railroad spend that money, when the cars spend most of their time on other railroads ? Now that we're down to 7 big Class I's (from what ? 50 or so back in the 1950's and 1960's when this was an issue ?), and the managements seem more astute, it's probably less of a "dilution" problem. It also seems to me that this is related somehow to the "Tragedy of the Commons" kind of problem, but I can't expound on that analogy clearly right now; - Probably other justifications. Anyone else want to chime in and support me here ? 4) I liked your "classic media "Six V" template" comment and explanation. I hadn't heard of or seen that before, but a lot of what I find annoying about the local newspapers - "the tragedy/ hard-luck story/ injustice of the week" syndrome - seems to fit that pattern. Your thoughts and responses ? - Paul North.
Well, I think you could have, in the Spirit of Thanksgiving, left my response unrebutted. Peace, harmoney, good will, etc. would have prevailed. BUT NO! YOU HAD TO VIOLATE "The Spirit of Thanksgiving!" BY REBUTTING. Well I'm not going to sit here and let you violate Thanksgiving - so I must rebutt your rebuttal.
First, I can't take credit for the "Six V" media template. I've spent a lot of time over the past two decades dealing with activist groups and their willing allies in the MSM. The "Six V" concept was from a book written by a PR type who dealt with these groups and stories. The activists and media are mutually dependant on each other. The activists feed sensational stories to the media. The media needs these stories to sell its product. Truth, honesty and balance are often casulties.
The use of "Six V'" isn't limited to local media. People working in local media go on to work in national media. They don't change their stripes. Don Phillips writing on PTC is a "Six V" story.
I gave the book away - but if I find a reference to its title and author, I'll provide same.
PTC installation is not at all like roller bearings or air brakes,
With roller bearings one railroad company incurred the expense while other railroad companies got most of the benifits. This is not the case with PTC. If the UP were to install a PTC system on its high volume Chicago-North Platte line, the benifits in terms of things like increased capacity and fuel savings would all go the the UP. PTC would never go "off line" as the roller bearing cars did. PTC benifits are linked directly to PTC expenditures. There is no need to install PTC universally. If can be installed on some lines and not installed on others. Mandating PTC on UP's Milwaukee-Twin Cities line is just a plain waste of scarce resources.
With air brakes the need was for universal application. Every car had to have a compatible air brake system. This is not the case with PTC. You can put it in some places and leave it out in other places. Mandating where it goes, instead of applying it where it is needed is, again, a waste of scarce resources.
As to Zeta-Tech, that's where I learned that PTC was not economically justifiable in terms of accident prevention. Randy Reesor of Zeta-Tech gave a presentation on PTC at Northwestern. Randy and I had been students there at the same time in the last centruy, so I knew him.
He gave the presentation just after the UP had two trains run together head on in New Mexico. I told him how great it would be if these incidents could be prevented with PTC. He then told me PTC can not be ecnomically justified based on accident prevention. (Again, I'm not disregarding the loss of life in these accidents. But you can't spend unlimited money on anything.)
It's this other stuff, such as capacity improvements and fuel savings, that have to justify it. And those benifits will only accrue on certain route segments. It would be applied where needed under normal circumstances. As it stands now, we've got a national mandate from an Imperial Congress to waste money.
I believe I have read every economic analysis published to date on PTC -- a few of which I have authored, co-authored, reviewed, or contributed to. Economic justifications that have been cited, and my take on them, are:
Universality of PTC is a real benefit because it enable locomotive utilization to remain at its current high level. Non-universality would significantly decrease utilization because it would require PTC-equipped locomotive leaders on all PTC-equipped sections, as well as stranded value in equipped locomotives off running on non-PTC sections. It would be a serious economic setback for the industry after its 50-year effort to create a universal locomotive fleet like the universal car fleet it has benefitted from for approximately 110 years.I am greatly relieved that Congress passed HR2095 and President Bush signed it, as it
PTC may not improve overall safety that much...if crews come to rely on it and then pay less attention. Look at anti lock brakes (for cars) when they first came in. Insurance companies discovered that accidents didn't go down because drivers, knowing they have anti lock brakes...took more chances and paid less attention in bad weather. They figured the technology would kick so why not drive faster? Icy roads?..no big deal..I've got anti lock brakes.
UlrichPTC may not improve overall safety that much...if crews come to rely on it and then pay less attention. Look at anti lock brakes (for cars) when they first came in. Insurance companies discovered that accidents didn't go down because drivers, knowing they have anti lock brakes...took more chances and paid less attention in bad weather. They figured the technology would kick so why not drive faster? Icy roads?..no big deal..I've got anti lock brakes.
PTC will very much reduce the incidence of train-to-train collisions, overspeed derailments, open-switch run-throughs on main tracks, and work-zone violations, because it takes the human single-point failure out of the equation. You may be correct that overall safety may not be improved as much as anticipated because operating and maintenance-of-way personnel come to rely upon the system to protect them, but you'd have to explain to me specifically how that would happen.
I don't think the analogy of antilock brakes is applicable as one is a positive system (PTC) which takes from the operator control of the vehicle when it determines a collision or overspeed might occur, and the other is a tool which knows nothing about the likelihood of a collision or the existence of an overspeed condition and continues to leave the decisions of speed 100% in the hands of the operator. All it does is make sure the vehicle doesn't loose adhesion when it brakes -- it does not decide when to brake. If autos had a proximity or speed-sensing system that took speed and steering control away from the operator, that could be analagous.
Railway Man Universality of PTC is a real benefit because it enable locomotive utilization to remain at its current high level. Non-universality would significantly decrease utilization because it would require PTC-equipped locomotive leaders on all PTC-equipped sections, as well as stranded value in equipped locomotives off running on non-PTC sections. It would be a serious economic setback for the industry after its 50-year effort to create a universal locomotive fleet like the universal car fleet it has benefitted from for approximately 110 years.I am greatly relieved that Congress passed HR2095 and President Bush signed it, as it gives the commuter agencies the mandate they needed to make the case to their boards who are often not knowledgable of railroading to spend the money to implement PTC instead of on something that had local political appeal but little value like a new station in a neighborhood with no significant ridership, or new paint scheme or whatever; eliminates foot-dragging by any railroad that is stuck in the 19th century in its thinking or congenitally incapable of working with other railroads addresses a serious defect in the business case for the entire industry that put all at risk but for the recalcitrance or cheapness of a few (imagine a Graniteville next to an elementary school in session); gives the progressive railroads the mandate they need to enforce a common standard onto all the railroads, for the good of the industry gives the FRA the mandate it needs to improve its regulatory review process and speed up the review of implementation of PTC, as opposed to the lack of authority it had earlier which resulted in very lengthy review process as the FRA groped toward trying to guess what Congress' intent might be in the future; gives progressive thinkers at railroads the mandate they need to move their companies out of old ways of doing business and into better ways of doing business; gives railroad managements the mandate they need to take to their boards to convince them to shake loose the money and authority to make change and improve the railroad, and improve revenues, market share, profit, and safety. RWM
I find this disturbing. According to #7 above, rail managements need a government mandate to do their job. (I know, many of you carrying union cards are shaking your heads "Yes" on reading this.)
The problem I'm citing with government mandated PTC is that the huge investment needed will not face the usual justification process. Nor will it be subject to competition from other capital projects that have the potential to produce greater benifits.
Normally, almost all capital expenditures must be justified by processes comparing the projected costs with the projected benifits. That isn't happening here. (Exceptions are absolute necessities, such as something that if not done would shut down the railroad. If a main line bridge is damaged it needs to be replaced or the railroad can't run. PTC isn't like such a bridge. The railroad can run quite well without PTC.)
As part of its job, management should be identifying such projects and working through the justification process for each one. Those projects that meet requirements are approved as the financial situation allows. According to #7 above, this isn't happening, and won't happen without government mandate. I don't believe that. There have been, and are, huge capital projects that, unlike PTC, have been put though this analysis and implamented. UP's triple tracking in Nebraska and Kate Shelley Bridge replacement are examples. So are the BNSFF double and triple tracking.
Government mandated PTC will preclude such projects. There is only so much money to spend. Important and benificial projects will not get done because the money hase been diverted by mandate, without the benifit of any analysis, to expensive universal PTC instalation.
As to the unquantified PTC benifits cited above, they all come with costs. And example is the "Universal Locomotive Fleet". While there are benifits from such a fleet, these benifits are not priceless. You can assign PTC equiped locomotives to PTC equiped routes. That assignment has a real cost. To "do it right" you've got to compare that cost with the cost of universal PTC. That isn't being done.
As to the claim that this will allow "Progressive" thinkers to move ahead; that's real subjective. Nobody is right all the time and someone who says "Why should we do this?" is asking a question that needs to be answered. "Because it's a government mandate" is a shortcut answer that avoids economic justification.
In any event, it's all moot. We're going to get universal PTC. What we'll give up to get it has not been considered.
One final consideration. What effect will this have on investment in the railroad industry? Who would willingly put their money in an industry where huge capital expenditures are mandated by the government and not evaluated on economic terms?
As usual the government comes along with its $500,000 mousetrap...PTC sounds like a very expensive and sophisticated solution to a fairly simple problem. How hard can it be to keep trains from colliding, speeding etc? a) they run on TRACKS...b) they move at fairly slow speeds...c) we already have really simple technology that can be used that wouldn't involve massive change on the scale of PTC. We've got to stop throwing millions and billions of dollars at studies and at space shuttle solutions to simple problems.
UlrichAs usual the government comes along with its $500,000 mousetrap...PTC sounds like a very expensive and sophisticated solution to a fairly simple problem. How hard can it be to keep trains from colliding, speeding etc? a) they run on TRACKS...b) they move at fairly slow speeds...c) we already have really simple technology that can be used that wouldn't involve massive change on the scale of PTC. We've got to stop throwing millions and billions of dollars at studies and at space shuttle solutions to simple problems.
Please explain what the simple technology is that does what PTC does.
I think I already cited that PTC costs 10% as much as CTC; saves 5-30% on fuel -- which CTC can't ever do; and prevents billion-dollar wrecks. What specifically do you find disappointing with this? If the issue is that it took the government to mandate this, this is no longer a discussion about railroads, it's a discussion about politics and ideology.
greyhoundsOne final consideration. What effect will this have on investment in the railroad industry? Who would willingly put their money in an industry where huge capital expenditures are mandated by the government and not evaluated on economic terms?
Warren Buffet, for one. Seen all the puts he has sold on BNSF and UP lately?
But more seriously, I do comprehend your political perspective on what you feel is the proper role of government in the marketplace, economic regulation, safety regulation, and the public welfare.
not disappointed with the outcome Railwayman...but I find it hard to believe that PTC is the simpliest and most cost effective solution. It would be interesting to see the statistics on wrecks and how much they cost...By comparison, highway fatalities are around 41,000 a year in the US alone. How many people die in train related wrecks every year? Train wrecks make the headlines...car accidents..not so much..
Two r
Ulrichnot disappointed with the outcome Railwayman...but I find it hard to believe that PTC is the simpliest and most cost effective solution. It would be interesting to see the statistics on wrecks and how much they cost...By comparison, highway fatalities are around 41,000 a year in the US alone. How many people die in train related wrecks every year? Train wrecks make the headlines...car accidents..not so much..
Two recent specific wrecks and their costs, that are wrecks of the type that PTC is designed to prevent: Chatsworth - $1.0 billion and counting; Graniteville, $0.5 billion and counting. Those are direct costs, not indirect costs.
Then why hasn't PTC been implemented yet? What's stopping the big four from going ahead with it? PTC has been on the table for about 20 years now...
UlrichThen why hasn't PTC been implemented yet? What's stopping the big four from going ahead with it? PTC has been on the table for about 20 years now...
Thanks RWM
You're welcome!
Now I have to go shopping.
Railway Man Blue Streak -- you can go buy this morning all the PTC hardware and software you need, off the shelf, plug-and-play, ready-to-run, works with seven-nines (99.99999%) reliability, for any system from a dark single-track railroad to a multiple-main track CTC high-speed passenger and freight railroad, and get it delivered and installed in a matter of months. Technical feasibility is not the issue here. Economics isn't even the issue here. U.S. politics, U.S. law, and the U.S. regulatory system is the issue here. The FRA has been charged by Congress (and Congress charged by the voters) with creating an impossibility -- a regulatory framework that is 100% perfect for all people at all times and upsets no one ever. We have precisely the system the U.S. voters want to have, and when the system doesn't work they blame everyone other than themselves. We have met the enemy and he is us -- the voters. Those guys in Washington are just a bunch of hired hands that we put there; we voted for them. We got what we wanted. RWM
Blue Streak -- you can go buy this morning all the PTC hardware and software you need, off the shelf, plug-and-play, ready-to-run, works with seven-nines (99.99999%) reliability, for any system from a dark single-track railroad to a multiple-main track CTC high-speed passenger and freight railroad, and get it delivered and installed in a matter of months.
Technical feasibility is not the issue here. Economics isn't even the issue here. U.S. politics, U.S. law, and the U.S. regulatory system is the issue here. The FRA has been charged by Congress (and Congress charged by the voters) with creating an impossibility -- a regulatory framework that is 100% perfect for all people at all times and upsets no one ever.
We have precisely the system the U.S. voters want to have, and when the system doesn't work they blame everyone other than themselves. We have met the enemy and he is us -- the voters. Those guys in Washington are just a bunch of hired hands that we put there; we voted for them. We got what we wanted.
Falcon48I suspect that many in the rail industry would be most interested in where you can go today and purchase all of the hardware and software you need to install a PTC system. Prototype systems have only recently begun to be tested on some freight railroads. Obstacles have been development of systems that recognize the different braking potentialities of different types of trains (for example, freight vs passengers) and development of controlling algorythms for freight trains, which is a far more difficult proposition than controlling passenger trains (for one thing, freight trains don't have graduated brake release capability). I suspect what you may be thinking of are the systems which have been developed for control of passenger trains, or some of the older train control systems such as ATC (which will not comply with the PTC mandate of the new legislation). Another major problem is getting the communications bandwidth necessary to support modern PTC systems, which will be a particularly difficult issue in urban areas with commuter service
I suspect that many in the rail industry would be most interested in where you can go today and purchase all of the hardware and software you need to install a PTC system. Prototype systems have only recently begun to be tested on some freight railroads. Obstacles have been development of systems that recognize the different braking potentialities of different types of trains (for example, freight vs passengers) and development of controlling algorythms for freight trains, which is a far more difficult proposition than controlling passenger trains (for one thing, freight trains don't have graduated brake release capability). I suspect what you may be thinking of are the systems which have been developed for control of passenger trains, or some of the older train control systems such as ATC (which will not comply with the PTC mandate of the new legislation). Another major problem is getting the communications bandwidth necessary to support modern PTC systems, which will be a particularly difficult issue in urban areas with commuter service
Who is this "many"? Not the people I work with. Alternatively, you could call BNSF, NS, and UP, and ask them, since they've all signed long-term contracts for a mature sytem. BNSF already has its pilot system up and running and FRA approved, and is now installing on two additional districts. Or, PM me, tell me your bona-fides, and I'll gladly give you the contact information for the vendor that I purchased an off-the-shelf system from in 2006, which is now in service.
I don't have any experience in transit applications. My experience in PTC is in 100% FRA-regulated freight railways, or 90%-10% passenger, or FRA-like railways.
The communication bandwidth issue was resolved with the migration to the 220 MHz standard.
We didn't have any difficulties with the braking algorithms. It was really pretty straightforward. Of course, we weren't trying to do anything fancy, either.
One question from a railfan perspective that may have been covered, but I missed. Will the implementation of PTC mean that wayside signals will all go dark? I, for one, look at the signals to determine the likelyhood of a train coming by soon (when the scanner batteries go dead).
How will this affect ATCS monitoring?
For the rest of us - and from the "public domain" - here are some excerpts from a BNSF "News Release" at:
http://www.bnsf.com/media/news/articles/2008/10/2008-10-08b.html
BNSF Ready to Implement Positive Train Control
"BNSF Railway began development of its Electronic Train Management System (ETMS) in 2003 as a partnership with Wabtec Railway Electronics and has been testing ETMS in revenue service since 2006."
"ETMS is a PTC technology that has been proven to protect against the consequences of human error during extensive testing on BNSF. . . . "
"BNSF has successfully tested ETMS on a 135-mile stretch of track in Illinois and is continuing to test it between Fort Worth, Texas, and Oklahoma City. ETMS has passed every test during more than 1,600 train trips made so far. ETMS has stopped every train that it should have stopped, and has not stopped any train that it should not have stopped." [emphasis added - PDN]
There are a few more details in the News Release - refer to it if you want to know more. See also another News Release with the following headline and dateline at: http://www.bnsf.com/media/news/articles/2008/10/2008-10-08a.html
Those cities ought to tell you that it was UP, BNSF, and NS that agreed on this - again, see the News Release itself if you want more details.
Notably, for this discussion the first News Release also says:
"BNSF Railway today announced that it is prepared to implement Positive Train Control (PTC) technology by Dec. 31, 2015, as mandated by the Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008, and that it can have the wayside devices necessary to implement PTC in place in the Los Angeles Basin by the end of 2012." [emphasis added - PDN.]
A "class act" there - the "can-do" culture of many of the constituent roads is still alive, I see. So it looks like the remaining challenges here were mainly financial and institutional, not technical. Any other objections, or are we going to get on with it now ?
Edit: Here's the link to the Wabtec web page for ETMS (note that I have no known interest - financial or otherwise - in Wabtec or any of its affiliates):
http://www.wabtec.com/railroad/etms.asp
RWM - Thanks again for your extensive and insightful (perhaps "inciteful" in some instances ?) explanation and commentary on some of the nuances and implications of all this.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.