CSSHEGEWISCH I do not believe that it is an unnecessary government intrusion to mandate a safe workplace or transportation system, whatever the mode.
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. 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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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".
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.)
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.
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.
RWM
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
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.
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.
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?
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.
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...
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.
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.
blhanel 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 Usually, because the incumbent is a known vs. the unknown challenger, and the incumbent has usually done a few good things for his constituents (AKA earmarks). And on most voters' radar, the subject issue doesn't show up. I know here in Iowa there's one long-time senator that I'd love to see get voted out- unfortunately I'm in the minority because so many people believe he's been good for our state.
Usually, because the incumbent is a known vs. the unknown challenger, and the incumbent has usually done a few good things for his constituents (AKA earmarks). And on most voters' radar, the subject issue doesn't show up. I know here in Iowa there's one long-time senator that I'd love to see get voted out- unfortunately I'm in the minority because so many people believe he's been good for our state.
Brian, I think I agree with you on that long time senator. Both of Iowa's senators have been around a long time, one of each political stripe. The one that I'm thinking of has voted for some bills that could potentionally adversely affect my job, directly and indirectly, so I voted for his opponent. (There were other reasons too that don't belong here.) I couldn't tell you the name of his opponent. I think I saw or heard maybe 2 or 3 campaign ads for him. It's like the political party decided not to waste money to try to unseat the incumbent because he is so popular.
Many polls show that as a whole, the American people have a low opinion of Congress as a whole. But when asked about their local congressperson, they give them higher marks. Kind of like "My representative is OK, it's just all the rest are bums." Of course one man's pork is another man's pork chop.
Jeff
Railway Man 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
Well, from my days as a Political Science major....
Absent any other controlling factor (legal problems for the candidate, co-ordinated attacks by interest groups, etc.) voters default to name recognition. Party affiliation is a factor, but not a strong one for many folks.
It would surprise me if a majority of voters even knew the name of the challenger for the seat of their congressman/congresswoman before they marked their ballot. It's very hard and expensive to break through the advertising clutter and explain why voters should make a change. Since the folks in the district have at least "heard" of their reprsentative, their "default vote" goes to that person.
One of our many problems is uniformed voters. People who have never set foot in an economics class think they know all about economics. This could be solved by making economics education more widespread.
In California they just voted to ammend their consitution to restrict commercial egg production to free range chickens. (That's basically what it amounts to). This will throw thousands of people out of work and force their employers to either shut down or move out of California. What it will not do is change the way chickens are treated. Eggs from non free range chickens will simply be shipped in from out of state.
A precisous few of the people voting on this constitutional amendment knew anything about raising chickens or egg production. But thousands will loose their livelyhoods now due to uniformed voters.
The lesson here for railroading, and most other areas, is to keep the government out of economic activities. Its involvement will only lead to people making uninformed decisions and further economic destruction.
With due respect to your opinion, I do not think the delivery of pork is as big a vote getter for the incumbent as the party loyalty factor. My US Congressman strongly opposes earmarks and thus far had never inserted any in budget bills. Our district consistently supports candidates of his party and makes his reelection fairly predictable.
"We have met the enemy and he is us." Pogo Possum "We have met the anemone... and he is Russ." Bucky Katt "Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future." Niels Bohr, Nobel laureate in physics
My thoughts on political promise's
Years ago, there was an old tale in the Marine Corps about a Lieutenant who inspected his men and told the 'gunny' that they smelled bad. The Lieutenant suggested that they change their underwear.The Gunny responded, "Aye, aye, sir, I'll see to it immediately!"He went into the tent and said, "The lieutenant thinks you guys smell bad, and wants you to change your underwear. Smith, you change with Jones. McCarthy, you change with Dzwill. Brown, you change with Schultz. Get to it."The moral: A candidate may promise 'change' in Washington, but don't count on things smelling any better.
http://www.trainboard.com/railimages/showgallery.php/cat/500/ppuser/4309
Brian (IA) http://blhanel.rrpicturearchives.net.
SALfanmudchicken 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.
Murphy Siding The December Trains Magazine asserts that we must push to have PTC in place before the 2015 Congressional mandate. Would PTC have averted the Metrolink accident?
The December Trains Magazine asserts that we must push to have PTC in place before the 2015 Congressional mandate. Would PTC have averted the Metrolink accident?
PTC most likely would have averted the accident.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
Railway Man wrote:If a train was to stall on a hill or because of locomotive failure, how would you bring in another locomotive or train to couple on to a stalled train on the mainline in PTC ?Exactly the same way you would do it with CTC, TWC, or DTC: You issue a joint authority to both trains, which requires both to operate at Restricted Speed (able to stop short of train, engine, stop signal, derail, open switch, men & equipment, keeping a watch out for broken rail, not to exceed 20 mph in any case). The PTC system will enforce the 20 mph speed limit; alternatively, you can set a parameter in the software at any lower speed you wish. If you wish, you can put a parameter in the software that finds the length of the stalled train off either the train sheet or a GPS transmitter in the EOT device, and limits the helper locomotive approaching it from the rear to any lower speed you wish when at any distance from the end of the train you wish.RWM
If a train was to stall on a hill or because of locomotive failure, how would you bring in another locomotive or train to couple on to a stalled train on the mainline in PTC ?
Exactly the same way you would do it with CTC, TWC, or DTC: You issue a joint authority to both trains, which requires both to operate at Restricted Speed (able to stop short of train, engine, stop signal, derail, open switch, men & equipment, keeping a watch out for broken rail, not to exceed 20 mph in any case). The PTC system will enforce the 20 mph speed limit; alternatively, you can set a parameter in the software at any lower speed you wish. If you wish, you can put a parameter in the software that finds the length of the stalled train off either the train sheet or a GPS transmitter in the EOT device, and limits the helper locomotive approaching it from the rear to any lower speed you wish when at any distance from the end of the train you wish.
greyhounds wrote: Railway Man wrote: 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.RWMRWM - dont' tell us, tell Dianne Feinstein. Not that she'd understand OR care. Also, please clue in the MSM. Not that they'd understand OR care either.
Railway Man wrote: 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.
RWM - dont' tell us, tell Dianne Feinstein. Not that she'd understand OR care. Also, please clue in the MSM. Not that they'd understand OR care either.
I didn't tell you that. The problem is hardly that recent. Our gobbledygook railroad safety policy dates to the 1800s and has become only more byzantine with time. Us voters have had thousands of opportunities for more than a century to change the way we want this country run and haven't lifted a finger to do so, which means either we like it just fine or we don't care. So which are we -- apathetic, stupid, or satisfied? I think the latter, because despite all our carping we return 90% or more the people who "screwed it up" right back to the same job, regardless of party, policy, or platform.
erikem wrote: Railway Man wrote: 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.Seven-nines????I'm curious as to what definition of reliability is used to derive that figure. If it is one false clear in 10E7 opportunities, that figure may be achievable (i.e. heavy use of fail-safe design). A broader definition of reliability would tend to imply an availability of seven-nines (down for 3 seconds per year), which would be difficult to believe - as that would require anticipating and correcting for a lot of very low probability failure modes.
Railway Man wrote: 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.
Seven-nines????
I'm curious as to what definition of reliability is used to derive that figure. If it is one false clear in 10E7 opportunities, that figure may be achievable (i.e. heavy use of fail-safe design). A broader definition of reliability would tend to imply an availability of seven-nines (down for 3 seconds per year), which would be difficult to believe - as that would require anticipating and correcting for a lot of very low probability failure modes.
It's the likelihood that a system error will lead to an unsafe condition instead of a fail-safe condition, or one in 10 million. At a minimum, CFR 49 236 Subpart H requires that a PTC system or any microprocessor based train-control system be proven to have no higher a rate of unsafe conditions as existing train control systems such as CTC.
Seven-nines reliability is not uncommon; for example, it is standard for life-safety critical radio communications such as digital microwave networks supporting 911 numbers. You can get nine-nines reliability too.
The biggest human factor accident cause is careless drivers at grade crossings .. PTC does nothing exept to prevent the rarest accidents of all , collisions.
Railway Man wrote: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.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.