The lengthy article can be found at this link:
http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2013-01/how-to-prevent-americas-next-train-crash
Remarkably, the writer of this column either failed to locate, or located but chose not to use, this significant report of the Federal Railroad Administration:
“Report to Congress: Positive Train Control Implementation Status, Issues, and Impacts”
August 2012
Notably, from the Executive Summary of the FRA Report:
“…this effort is hampered by the novel nature of the issues. PTC implementation, on the scale required by the RSIA, has never been attempted anywhere in the world.”
and
“However, since FRA approved the PTCIPs, both freight and passenger railroads have encountered significant technical and programmatic issues that make accomplishment of these plans questionable. Given the current state of development and availability of the required hardware and software, along with deployment considerations, most railroads will likely not be able to complete full RSIA-required implementation of PTC by December 31, 2015. Partial deployment of PTC can likely be achieved; however, the extent of which is dependent upon successful resolution of known technical and programmatic issues and any new emergent issues.” [Emphasis added]
Read the entire report here:
http://www.fra.dot.gov/eLib/Details/L03718
Further from the Executive Summary:
“Although the initial PTC Implementation Plans (PTCIP) submitted by the applicable railroads to the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) for approval stated they would complete implementation by the 2015 deadline, all of the plans were based on the assumption that there would be no technical or programmatic issues in the design, development, integration, deployment, and testing of the PTC systems they adopted. However, since FRA approved the PTCIPs, both freight and passenger railroads have encountered significant technical and programmatic issues that make accomplishment of these plans questionable. Given the current state of development and availability of the required hardware and software, along with deployment considerations, most railroads will likely not be able to complete full RSIA-required implementation of PTC by December 31, 2015. Partial deployment of PTC can likely be achieved; however, the extent of which is dependent upon successful resolution of known technical and programmatic issues and any new emergent issues.
“The technical obstacles that have been identified to date fall into seven different categories:
Communications Spectrum Availability
Radio Availability
Design Specification Availability
Back Office Server and Dispatch System Availability
Track Database Verification
Installation Engineering
Reliability and Availability
“The programmatic obstacles fall into two categories:
Budgeting and Contracting
Stakeholder Availability
“To date, railroads have raised and expended more than $1.5 billion of private capital to try and resolve these issues. The Federal Government has distributed $50 million through the Railroad Safety Technology Grant Program. Solutions to these issues have either not been identified or cannot be implemented by the current December 31, 2015, deadline.” [Emphasis added]
Read the entire report and weep. The complexity of this endeavor, with the incumbent “vital” (essentially absolutely failsafe) technological requirements if even the marginal economic benefits are to be realized, virtually assures the failure of the project.
If the (worthy) objective of saving lives were to be optimized by Congressional diktat to expend $15 billion on railroad infrastructure, then surely PTC would rank well below isolation of railroad right-of-way to avoid collisions of trains with trespassers and motor vehicles.
Time to dust off the Urgent Deficiency Act of Oct 22 1913!
The signal people I know have been shaking their heads for a long time. A one time fix for a one size fits all solution is not out there and then there is the crushing cost of compliance for the shortlines.
(I don't want to be on the locomotive when the GIS to GPS software gets confused and wants to "recalculate".....and you are dealing with the absolutes that congress ASSUMED could be met. Stop the railroad every time it frequently wants to "recalulate" ?)
I am hearing that some shortlines will be forced to buy newer second and third generation locomotives just to have a prayer of a chance of having working equipment where they need it with their interchange partners.
Sounds like some other issues that have been coming up of late.
Oh, there's a problem? Why, we'll just pass a law and it'll go away!
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...
Part of the problem is that Class 1's, especially those without passenger service or low traffic levels to begin with, don't want Positive Train Control. Some don't like the price, others don't see a need for it on their railroads or application. This article could be a propaganda piece to make PTC look bad.
RIDEWITHMEHENRY is the name for our almost monthly day of riding trains and transit in either the NYCity or Philadelphia areas including all commuter lines, Amtrak, subways, light rail and trolleys, bus and ferries when warranted. No fees, just let us know you want to join the ride and pay your fares. Ask to be on our email list or find us on FB as RIDEWITHMEHENRY (all caps) to get descriptions of each outing.
I have no knowledge about PTC but a question that others might know answers to. Some other industrial countries have had systems that are the equivalent of PTC. Why couldn't those systems have been modified and used here to avoid some of the problems described above?
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Railroads in other countries have a lighter loading gauge than we do, trains are not as heavy, etc. because we build to withstand accidents and collisions. Other countries' use avoidance signal systems to keep trains from colliding (like PTC).
henry6... This article could be a propaganda piece to make PTC look bad. {emphasis added}
tree68 Sounds like some other issues that have been coming up of late. Oh, there's a problem? Why, we'll just pass a law and it'll go away!
I've said it before - we've had cab signals for almost 100 years, signal enforcement devices for ages, yet many railroads weren't even thinking about adding them to lines. PTC was only a matter of time in coming.
It's been fun. But it isn't much fun anymore. Signing off for now.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.t fun any
PTC has proven itself on railroads in other countries...but here we have a different loading gauge and philosophy about how to run a railroad. We look at "collateral" damage as part of the system.
henry6 PTC has proven itself on railroads in other countries...but here we have a different loading gauge and philosophy about how to run a railroad. We look at "collateral" damage as part of the system.
Well, you have to. What roads get guardrails or traffic lights? Same thing. Human life has a price.
PTC does more than save lives, it saves equipment and property and business and operations. If you don't have collisions you don't kill or injure people, you don't damage or destroy equipment, you don't stop doing business by not being able to operate for long periods of time. . PTC also allows for more frequent traffic depending on the system.
Loading gauges, etc. have nothing to do with a positive control system to avoid collisions. The system and software that are proven to work elsewhere should be able to work here with some adjustments. Much better to buy a proven system with the bugs worked out. Look back at the fiasco with implementing a new air traffic control computer system that was obsolete before it was installed.
To implement or not to implement has an economic factor, and that is what drives a lot of decisions. And we're seeing that acknowledged with this issue.
While human lives are virtually impossible to put a price on, all the other economic factors do have a definite price. If the cost of PTC were clearly less than the losses it would prevent, I'm sure the railroads would be jumping at the opportunity to install the system.
And if the saving of lives is indeed our primary goal, let's put some of that money into grade crossing separations, ROW isolation, and other such initiatives - places we know there is a problem but where the resources apparently don't exist to remedy them.
Even after 100 years, we still don't have a universal signal system across the country. And they want a universal system it two years? Using a technology that is apparently unproven in the aggregate?
It's kinda like the Diesel regen systems. We're trying to get fire apparatus exempted from the automatic shutdown portions of the system, because, gee, how good would it be to have a fire engine shut down to regen in the middle of fighting the fire at your house?
Oh, for a phased implementation! If only it had be 10% of track mileage a year for 5 years instead of 100% in 2015!
The two most likely outcomes for 2015 are the entire rail network grinds to a halt because of equipment, communication, hardware and software bugs OR the FRA grants an extension. Full, working implementation is not likely.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
http://www.pbworld.com/pdfs/publications/pb_network/pbnetwork73.pdf
Many interesting articles, but particularly relevant here pages 23-30.
Don,
Does the FRA have the legal authority to authorize phased implementation, or would congress have to address and fix their mistake?
The whole thing is a waste or scarce resources that would be better invested elsewhere in my opinion.
Mac
Nothing quite like Congress voting to spend other peoples money on a unfunded madate to implement uninvented interoperable technology all across the country by a specific near term date as a knee jerk reaction to a single individual's failure to do the job he was hired to do.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
BaltACD Nothing quite like Congress voting to spend other peoples money on a unfunded madate to implement uninvented interoperable technology all across the country by a specific near term date as a knee jerk reaction to a single individual's failure to do the job he was hired to do.
I don't think it was just that one incident. But that incident is the straw on the camel's back. Look how many miles of dark territory we still have. And not just industrial tracks or branch lines.
henry6 PTC does more than save lives, it saves equipment and property and business and operations. If you don't have collisions you don't kill or injure people, you don't damage or destroy equipment, you don't stop doing business by not being able to operate for long periods of time. . PTC also allows for more frequent traffic depending on the system.
You can buy a lot of equipment for the cost of PTC.
I
schlimm Loading gauges, etc. have nothing to do with a positive control system to avoid collisions. The system and software that are proven to work elsewhere should be able to work here with some adjustments. Much better to buy a proven system with the bugs worked out. Look back at the fiasco with implementing a new air traffic control computer system that was obsolete before it was installed.
It does have something to do with it. As has been stated in these threads and posts and to me directly by manager of an international locomotive and car builder, America's heavy loading gauge prevents a lot of things from happening. We here have concentrated on heavier and more bolstered equipment to withstand collisions and derailments rather than installing enhanced and sophisticated signal and traffic control systems which keep trains from colliding.
henry6 Ischlimm Loading gauges, etc. have nothing to do with a positive control system to avoid collisions. The system and software that are proven to work elsewhere should be able to work here with some adjustments. Much better to buy a proven system with the bugs worked out. Look back at the fiasco with implementing a new air traffic control computer system that was obsolete before it was installed. It does have something to do with it. As has been stated in these threads and posts and to me directly by manager of an international locomotive and car builder, America's heavy loading gauge prevents a lot of things from happening. We here have concentrated on heavier and more bolstered equipment to withstand collisions and derailments rather than installing enhanced and sophisticated signal and traffic control systems which keep trains from colliding.
European lightweight construction held up so well in a sheep collision.
watch?v=LhplyPl14HA
Darn hardheaded sheep….
23 17 46 11
On the 26th of April in 2008 at about 9 p.m. an ICE High Speed Train with 135 passengers aboard dashed at more than 200 km/h into a large flock of sheep near Fulda/Germany. The unfortunate animals had gone astray only a few meters into a tunnel. The ICE needed about 1 km to stop and the entire train derailed. One of the reasons for its derailing was that many sheep were squashed under the wheels. No human being died, only forty of them were injured, most merely slightly.
schlimmOne of the reasons for its derailing was that many sheep were squashed under the wheels.
That reminds me of Frank Norris's The Octopus and the Cyclopian monster.
a. Would PTC have really prevented the accident at Graniteville--are all switches, even in dark territory to be tied into the system?
b. It seems to me that the people in Congress had no idea as to the immensity of what they have decreed. How many know anything about actual railroad operation?
Johnny
Deggesty a. Would PTC have really prevented the accident at Graniteville--are all switches, even in dark territory to be tied into the system? b. It seems to me that the people in Congress had no idea as to the immensity of what they have decreed. How many know anything about actual railroad operation?
b. Maybe they were shocked at how much dark territory still exists?
My understanding is that even in dark territory, the switches will be tied into the PTC system.
Whether that would prevent an accident is, I think debatable. I say this because some recent articles (within the last year or so) have said that the first generation of PTC that's going to be deployed wouldn't have prevented some low speed collisions that have happened, like the one on the BNSF in southwest Iowa that was discussed on the forum. Even low speed collisions can be deadly.
I think that people in general, including those who you might think ought to know better, have seen to many movies, TV shows etc, that make it seem like our technology is much more advanced than it really is. That things that may be possible in 5 or 10 years is already here, that any possible obstacles are easily taken care of. That anyone who says maybe we aren't ready for something or that obstacles aren't as easily overcame as the "conventional wisdom" states is just stonewalling because they don't really want to spend the money on the technology.
Jeff
Deggesty b. It seems to me that the people in Congress had no idea as to the immensity of what they have decreed. How many know anything about actual railroad operation?
Congress very rarely, if ever, has any understanding of the imensity of the consequences of their actions.
PNWRMNM Don, Does the FRA have the legal authority to authorize phased implementation, or would congress have to address and fix their mistake? The whole thing is a waste or scarce resources that would be better invested elsewhere in my opinion. Mac
I think they have a lot of latitude In Dec, the exempted some trackage that has only a trickle of TIH traffic from implementation.
Looks like there are two dates in the law.
(Sec. 103) Directs the Secretary to require each Class I railroad carrier, a railroad carrier that has inadequate safety performance, or a railroad that provides intercity passenger or commuter rail passenger transportation to develop, submit for Secretary approval, and if approved implement a railroad safety risk reduction program, including risk mitigation, technology implementation, and fatigue management plans, to reduce the rate of railroad accidents and injuries.
Requires the Secretary to ensure that railroad carriers required to submit a technology implementation plan with a schedule for implementing a positive train control system comply with that schedule and implement such system by December 31, 2018.
(Sec. 104) Requires each Class I railroad carrier and each entity providing intercity or commuter rail passenger transportation to develop and submit for Secretary approval a plan for implementing a positive train control system by December 31, 2015.
Grants the Secretary authority to assess civil penalties for violation of related requirements.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:HR02095:@@@D&summ2=m&
Looks like law has plan by 2015 and implement by 2018, but it seems FRA rule requires implement by 2015.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.