The Wiki entry is OK from my point of view, that is, if you know what it's supposed to do you can read it and understand it. Beats me if it makes any sense from a non-expert point of view.
One major error is that it says that PTC provides reactive braking in case of authority excursion or overspeed. Actually it's predictive. That's the key advantage, along with much lower cost and higher reliability than cab signals or ATC/ATS.
RWM
fast wrote: What kind of a system is the PTC?Can it put a train in emergency if it runs a red signal?Can it reduce the train speed or put the train in emergency if it is speeding?Can it in one way or another monitor if the engineer is actually controlling the train, or if he is fallen asleep, having a heart attack, and in that case have the train in emergency and the dispatcher alerted?In my opinion, if it could do those three with 99.9999% accuracy, it should be installed on every major rail line ASAP.
What kind of a system is the PTC?
Can it put a train in emergency if it runs a red signal?
Can it reduce the train speed or put the train in emergency if it is speeding?
Can it in one way or another monitor if the engineer is actually controlling the train, or if he is fallen asleep, having a heart attack, and in that case have the train in emergency and the dispatcher alerted?
In my opinion, if it could do those three with 99.9999% accuracy, it should be installed on every major rail line ASAP.
Wikipedia's take:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_Train_Control
As always, consider the source, although this seems to be pretty much on the mark.
And what is it with putting a train into emergency? That's a last resort and fraught with danger. The action of choice is a full service application, so as to bring the train to an orderly, controlled stop.
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...
What is PTC? Political train control?
(I'll scurry away now...)
mudchicken wrote: 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.
Thank you RWM.
(you could have have PTC, ATS, cab signals etc. and still something like this would happen....and then would come all the complaints about train delay caused by guess what?)
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.
The issue seems to be that PTC is being viewed by many (not just political leaders) as the silver bullet that will eliminate human error. It's also expected that the railroads, transit agencies and other operators will eat the cost of development and installation without passing it along to their customers. Absolute safety will be impossible to attain as long as the human factor is involved.
after having been in the flying business for 20+ years a few thoughts on PTC are in order. The FAA first came out with the TCAS (traffic collision avoidance system) proposals in about 1985. First implemented about 1990 TCAS I had about 5 versions in two years. Then TCAS II about 9 through 2000. TCAS III is on version 7.2? now and just now has enough bugs worked out to implement on helicopter operations. Lets see--- 23 years. and boy do I believe in TCAS now. But even though research is ongoing it will probably take more than 4 years. RWM is so right that it will take a lot of work. Even though some software from TCAS might work in PTC - GPS is not accurate enough for application here. TCAS works on measuring radar transponder time, distance, altitude, and relative location of all other aircraft. On RRs train length needs to be accounted for, Switch positions for every switch on your route, including dark territory as well, a need for open coding so all systems whatever the RR will work together, multiple tracks, Other RRs running next to your track, track geometry, slow orders, work zones, etc. Bet RWM can list two dozen more. And PTC eventually on all RR lines!
The point is------it will take time. During the interim maybe more visible signals, more double track, straighten curves, 2nd man, other items spoken of.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.