I've been staying out of this one for professional reasons, but this deserves comment:
oltmannd [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.
[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.
This law is what DETERMINES FRA scope and authority re actions involving mandated PTC.
The language in the first half of [103] does not deal with PTC explicitly at all, and if you were following the progress of the legislation up to 2008 you will know why it did not.
The second half of [103] looks only at implementation, and says the system a given railroad proposes to the Secretary (which of course means to the appropriate channel(s) in the bureaucracy) has to be implemented, and by logical extension operative if not operating, by the 2018 date.
Section [104] plugs the loophole that a given railroad might keep tweaking its implementation plan until close to 2008 and then come whining about cost overruns or changes in scope, or the kinds of issue that plagued NAJPTC, and claim they can't possibly meet the 2018 date. This is merely additional detail qualifying what was stated in [103], just as sections like [108] flesh out what was said in the first part of that section. It says that the PLAN for the complying PTC instantiation has to be finalized and submitted in all respects by the end of 2015; it does not require that any construction, testing, etc. must be completed by that date... leaving the three years for that construction, testing, etc.
Don, you usually know what you're talking about, so explain to me in a bit more detail where you see two different implementation dates in this.
RME
Another interesting question is why Google has been able to create a driverless automobile that maneuvers in two dimensions and avoids crashing into anything, but the railroads find it impossible to implement PTC along the single dimension of a track. Yes, these are substantially different problems. But is it clear that PTC is more difficult?
And if driverless motor vehicle technology eventually becomes widely accepted, will railroads find themselves competing against trucking companies whose payroll costs are zero?
A driverless automobile may maneuver rather well in two dimensions and not hit anything when it's the only moving vehicle, but the problem comes with doing this in traffic, where other vehicles are moving in a lot of different directions and not all of which are driverless.
Just because a concept can be built and shown to work doesn't mean it's practical.
OvermodDon, you usually know what you're talking about, so explain to me in a bit more detail where you see two different implementation dates in this.
It's pretty plain that I am confused on this one. So, the "completely implemented" date is 2018?
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
ecoli Another interesting question is why Google has been able to create a driverless automobile that maneuvers in two dimensions and avoids crashing into anything, but the railroads find it impossible to implement PTC along the single dimension of a track. Yes, these are substantially different problems. But is it clear that PTC is more difficult? And if driverless motor vehicle technology eventually becomes widely accepted, will railroads find themselves competing against trucking companies whose payroll costs are zero?
I would be like the government telling you that you have to buy a driverless google car in the next 5 years. What are the costs of the things?
What can be done, and what can be done economically are two different beasts.
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
The Google automatic car is about as goofy as the Segway scooter. What is coming to the private automobile is not self-driving. It is automatic toll charge per mile on all roads; coupled with automatic law enforcement of the driver. You will still be driving manually, but it will be like a police officer riding with you in the front seat in case you need a ticket.
BucyrusThe Google automatic car is about as goofy as the Segway scooter. What is coming to the private automobile is not self-driving. It is automatic toll charge per mile on all roads; coupled with automatic law enforcement of the driver. You will still be driving manually, but it will be like a police officer riding with you in the front seat in case you need a ticket.
"I am from the Government and I am here to help"
BucyrusWhat is coming to the private automobile is not self-driving. It is automatic toll charge per mile on all roads
When is this automatic toll charge for all roads coming? I have heard that one state, Virginia, is considering putting a toll on one road, I-95 but there is a strong public outcry against it.
PNWRMNM"I am from the Government and I am here to help"
In my state, New Jersey, recently our Governor Chris Christie was enraged because the Federal Government, while coming to help us recover from Sandy, wasn't coming fast enough to suit him.
John WRBucyrusWhat is coming to the private automobile is not self-driving. It is automatic toll charge per mile on all roads When is this automatic toll charge for all roads coming? I have heard that one state, Virginia, is considering putting a toll on one road, I-95 but there is a strong public outcry against it.
John,
What is propelling this forward is a loss in gas tax revenue due to fuel efficiency being increased. Therefore some states are looking at a new roadway tax that applies per mile driven rather than by per gallon of fuel consumed.
This requires a GPS device in your vehicle that records everywhere you drive to. The system then charges you a toll based on your GPS record of driving. The toll can vary according to how busy the road is or how much in demand it is. This will produce a highly managed sort of traffic flow.
This is right around the corner.
zugmann ecoli Another interesting question is why Google has been able to create a driverless automobile that maneuvers in two dimensions and avoids crashing into anything, but the railroads find it impossible to implement PTC along the single dimension of a track. Yes, these are substantially different problems. But is it clear that PTC is more difficult? And if driverless motor vehicle technology eventually becomes widely accepted, will railroads find themselves competing against trucking companies whose payroll costs are zero? I would be like the government telling you that you have to buy a driverless google car in the next 5 years. What are the costs of the things? What can be done, and what can be done economically are two different beasts.
The self-driving Google cars have logged thousands of miles on ordinary highways with human-driven vehicles around them. Each car requires about $150000 worth of extra equipment, although some of that cost is a laser radar component which might drop in price considerably in the near future. See:
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/driveon/post/2012/06/google-discloses-costs-of-its-driverless-car-tests/1#.USGVGlriqnc
So far, Google puts a human in each car to take control if necessary. I would reserve judgement about how much further the technology must develop before it can operate safely without a human attendant, but it's interesting that Google has lobbied Nevada to legalize its use without an attendant:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/11/science/11drive.html
The US Bureau of Labor Statistics says that the annual mean wage for freight trucking is about 41000, so the payback period for a $150000 investment doesn't seem unreasonably long:
http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes533032.htm
I have read accounts that suggest that the rails are investing in a level of PTC technology that meets the government mandate, but doesn't increase capacity. One hopes they're keeping an eye on the disruptive potential of the Google technology in the trucking industry.
ecoliI have read accounts that suggest that the rails are investing in a level of PTC technology that meets the government mandate, but doesn't increase capacity. One hopes they're keeping an eye on the disruptive potential of the Google technology in the trucking industry.
I could not see the point of driverless cars, but driverless commercial trucks makes lots of sense, especially when we all know that there will NEVER be driverless trains (unless they can develop a robot that can replace knuckles).
Bucyrus I could not see the point of driverless cars, but driverless commercial trucks makes lots of sense, especially when we all know that there will NEVER be driverless trains (unless they can develop a robot that can replace knuckles).
With an aging population, I can see several points.
Wow, this guy is a reporter?
Maybe he should go back to journalist school and re-do the part about fact checking,
He implies the engineer in the Graniteville accident was killed in the impact, when in fact, he died because he dismounted the locomotive and panicked, then ran through a cloud of chlorine trying to get away.
His running caused him to inhale a lethal amount of chlorine deep into his lungs.
The conductor, who was ex-military, assessed the situation, took his shirt off, soaked it in water, wrapped it around his mouth and nose, then walked away, through the same cloud, but slow enough so he did not inhale lung a full of the gas…his thinking saved his life, the engineer’s panic cost him his.
The rest of the report is just as full of inaccurate “facts” or facts designed to support the reporters personal opinion.
Note the “obese, diabetic high blood pressure and infected with HIV” description of the Metrolink engineer…as if his weight had anything what so ever to do with what happened.
That accident happened because the engineer broke several safety rules, not because he was fat or HIV positive.
That whole statement is simply to cause the reader to immediately dislike and condemn the engineer, before they have any of the facts surrounding the accident.
The entire article is biased, portraying the railroads as interested only in profit, and portraying the T&E employees as somewhat simpleminded sleep deprived automatons while the IT guys are presented as some type of savior…their laptops will save the day.
He did note, but glossed over the part where the IT guys states the cost to modify every signal shanty…$50,000.00 a shanty, with 38000 shanties…you do the math.
All of that to prevent 2% of the fatal accidents.
The other 98% don’t really count I guess, all we are doing is hitting the knuckleheads who run the gates or walk in the middle of the tracks.
You could build a lot of overpasses and close a lot of at grade crossings for that much cash.
This isn’t a “report”, it’s an op-ed piece designed to promote PTC.
23 17 46 11
The magazine, Popular Science, is not what it was when I began reading it in the forties. Back then, the people who wrote for the magazine did much better in reporting--and they knew how to construct sentences so that they were sentences and not simply groups of words.
He mentioned split shifts; it seems to me that an employee should endeavor to get a little rest in the four and a half hours he was off duty.
$50,000 x 38,000 = $1,900,000,000; that is a little more than I receive every month. I wonder when all the roads that would have to modify their bungalows would gross that much, much less net that much.
I agree with you, Ed, on all counts.
Johnny
Deggesty The magazine, Popular Science, is not what it was when I began reading it in the forties. Back then, the people who wrote for the magazine did much better in reporting--and they knew how to construct sentences so that they were sentences and not simply groups of words.
It was still a pretty decent rag up to ~1969, but started going downhill when they really started pushing the "What's New" section.
One of my favorite sections in PopSci was Martin Bunn's stories on Gus Wilson and the Model Garage, a lot of interesting nuggets in those stories. Alden Armagnac (sp?) was another great writer, his story on the SL-1 reactor accident was by far the most informative that I've read on that incident. Robert Gannon was a fairly good writer, but not in the same level as Alden.
- Erik
Erik. I, too, miss the "Model Garage;" when it was closed, I was not reading the magazine. Apparently Gus Wilson died, and there was no one who had his acumen to take his place.
erikemOne of my favorite sections in PopSci was Martin Bunn's stories on Gus Wilson and the Model Garage,
Erik,
The publisher of Popular Science or any popular magazine is in the business of selling the magazine to a wide audience. It is unlikely that the publisher does not know what readers will buy. That is not to say that you are in error. I think today's society lacks the direct knowledge of various technologies many people had in the 1960's and certainly in the 1940's. And I also think technology today is both more complicated in a real sense and less complicated in a user sense than it was back them. For example, in my current car (about 5 years old) I can no longer change the headlamp.
I wonder if this is good too but that's where our society is today. John
In my opinion, the "problem" with Popular Science is that it's gotten away from being about science, and scientific basis, to "oooooohh! Shiny!!" aspects of tech.
Which would not be so bad, except the 'backstory' to comprehend a lot of the nuts and bolts behind the shininess is either unknown to the authors, or would take too long (and perhaps require too much discipline on the readers' parts) to cover in an interesting story.
Note that I am NOT saying the modern readership is "dumber" or has "more ADD" or a 'shorter attention span" than older generations. On the other hand, much of modern culture is about quicker video downloads and snappy social-networking facileness, and many readers want to know WHAT it does, rather than WHY. And that is a terrible, terrible pity.
Of course, this is tied into my ancient jeremiad subject -- 'where are the Walter Lippmanns in todays media'? We have plenty of Arledges, plenty of Fallaci wannabees, even a couple of folks fit to shine Murrow's shoes ... but where are the Lippmanns? (And note that even that level was mocked by Heinlein et al.)...
Deggesty Erik. I, too, miss the "Model Garage;" when it was closed, I was not reading the magazine. Apparently Gus Wilson died, and there was no one who had his acumen to take his place.
Martin Bunn had been writing the series for 44 years when the last regular installment was published in the June 1969 issue. There were at least two stories after that, with the last one published in 1971 or 1972, so I think it was a matter of Martin hanging up the typewriter rather than passing away. The "Model Garage" series was supposedly the longest running fictional short story for American magazines.
PopSci did have quite a few RR related articles in the past, one of the more interesting ones published 1961-62 or so was the runaway locomotive on the Jersey Central and the successful attempt to stop it with another locomotive.
A large part of the problem is that technology has changed so much in the past 40 years.
While this sounds like a "well, duh!" moment, let me explain.
Forty years ago, the average backyard mechanic could still do a full tune-up of his car with just a timing light, dwell/tach, and the requisite tools. Now you have to have a computer, and even getting the the spark plugs can be a real challenge.
Likewise, an audiophile might well be able to explain exactly how his stereo amp (tube or transistor) worked - and it was constructed at such a scale that the operation could actually be pointed out on the chassis. Today it's all on a chip, and the controls might just be virtual sliders on a touchscreen.
Early IC's (integrated circuits, not the railroad) contained just one, or maybe a few circuits. Today they have millions. The same with memory. Nobody had heard of a gigabyte. Now you can carry a little do-dad in your pocket that has 16 of them.
All in all, we've gotten to the point where "and then a miracle occurs" is the easiest answer.
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...
When I was young I would go next door to my grandmother's house. She had difficulty climbing stairs. She would say to me "John. Go to the cellar and get me a scuttle of coal." First I would take out the ashes from her stove and then take the coal scuttle and go down stairs. When I got up she would have coffee and a sweet roll ready for me. If you said something like that to my now adult children they wouldn't understand what you meant.
Overmod In my opinion, the "problem" with Popular Science is that it's gotten away from being about science, and scientific basis, to "oooooohh! Shiny!!" aspects of tech.
I would argue that is not a problem with just Popular Science, but society as a whole.
I find the entire PTC mandate to be an enormass cost to the railroad industry with very little net possitive safety effect. We have, as a whole a very safe railroad system in this country. It is just an unfortuate fact that train wrecks, when they occur, make a spectacular mess. And as someone has previously stated, very few of these wrecks are as the result of a PTC preventable event. I have worked in the railroad industry for over 35 years, 32 as a locomotive engineer. What I have observed over the years is that rather than address the problem of a few bad apples, we tend to make more rules and restrictions. This is how we end up with manditory drug and alchohol testing, courtesy of a Conrail engineer known to be a problem. In the Metrolink case the underenforcement of cell phone restrictions appear to be a main cause. PTC is another huge response to problems that could be addressed on a railroad by railroad basis. Of course, then congress wouldn't look like heros and the FRA would be stymied in its attempt to dictate and moniter every facit of rail activity.
rfpjohn I find the entire PTC mandate to be an enormass cost to the railroad industry with very little net possitive safety effect. We have, as a whole a very safe railroad system in this country. It is just an unfortuate fact that train wrecks, when they occur, make a spectacular mess. And as someone has previously stated, very few of these wrecks are as the result of a PTC preventable event. I have worked in the railroad industry for over 35 years, 32 as a locomotive engineer. What I have observed over the years is that rather than address the problem of a few bad apples, we tend to make more rules and restrictions. This is how we end up with manditory drug and alchohol testing, courtesy of a Conrail engineer known to be a problem. In the Metrolink case the underenforcement of cell phone restrictions appear to be a main cause. PTC is another huge response to problems that could be addressed on a railroad by railroad basis. Of course, then congress wouldn't look like heros and the FRA would be stymied in its attempt to dictate and moniter every facit of rail activity.
[emphasis mine - zug]
One word: Graniteville.
Yes, there are isolated incidents, but I don't want to be that isolated crew. Without going into detail, I've even been in situations where PTC would have made a huge difference. Maybe the PTC mandate is too much, but I personally think there has been too much feet dragging on upgrading existing dark territory. But that's just my opinion.
I agree, Graniteville was a preventable accident, which PTC could have prevented, or at least slowed the collision. I'm not sure what restricted speed under PTC control converts to. I'd venture to guess 15mph maximum, not forgetting the most important "stopping within one half the range of vission". I'm kind of wandering here, but I guess with PTC in place, the crew of the through train which ran into the local would have had at least the warning that signaled territory gives you. I started my railroad career on dark railroad back in the days of 4/5 man crews. The conductors all had decades of experience as did most of the engineers. Railroad knowledge was acquired primarily from on the job training, i.e. getting yelled at alot by people who had tons of experience and were genuinly interested in getting the job done without a rookie killing himself or anyone else and gumming up the works. Nowadays with instant conductors, who are almost immediatly assigned a student to train, I fear we have lost much of the art of railroading. How much experience did the NS local crew have?
PTC is great in it's glittering generalities as presented by the media (and Congress for that matter). Like anything else in REAL LIFE, the devil is in the details and the details in the PTC mandate are near endless. Until gets put in play FOR REAL, we won't even uncover half the details.
Over the years I have been involved with myriad of operational change over in a number of areas of railroad operations. You can diligently work and think you have covered every possible happening that is germaine to the particular operation - within 8 hours of cut over - a raft of problems will be waiting for a solution. With PTC, the solution had better be a solution, as a mere 'work around' in such a system becomes a accident waiting to happen. As PTC gets implemented on additional territories - additional details will pop into the picture.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
One has to wonder, too, about the unanticipated failure, like a mouse chewing through a cable in a shelter or an errant backhoe operator digging up a cable. I'm sure that such eventualities have been considered, but Murphy's Law dictates that something that can happen will not have been considered (whodathunk?), and Gumperson's Law dictates that it will happen at the worst possible time.
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.
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.
I thin there is a misconception of what the first generation (the one they are working on deploying) can and can't do. Going by what I've read the first generation uses fixed points (block signals, mile posts, switches, etc) used either in signalled territory or movement authorities in ABS/dark territory. It won't have movable or "rolling " block capabilities, where the location of the preceding train changes and the system updates braking distances for a following train. That capability doesn't exist yet. Not in the US and I don't think anywhere else either. (I'm not sure that the rest of the world is really that much farther ahead of us in PTC development. Besides, many of the signal system vendors in the US are now global. Sometimes now owned by foriegn companies.)
It may not even prevent slow speed (within the parameters of restricted speed) rear end collisions like those that have happened within the last couple of years. And some of them resulted in fatalities.
We, the general public have become used to seeing the wonders of technology. We see the latest personal electronic gadgets or hear of the latest developments, both at home and in other countries. We see things on TV or in movies, things that have a kernal of reality and may actually be in development, and think those things or applications exist right now. Then when reality hits, we think it's because of the cost of something that technology isn't being adopted.
In one of the front columns of Trains (Technology column?) a couple months back there was an incident in territory where the PTC (or near PTC) system Amtrak uses overlayed on an existing signal system failed to detect an open hand throw switch. (It sounds like the signal system failed to detect the switch.) I was surprised that I didn't see (unless I missed them) any comments on here about that. Since the signal system didn't "see" the open switch, the PTC didn't "see" it either, allowing a train to go into a side track at an unsafe speed. So maybe PTC would've prevented Graniteville, and maybe it wouldn't have.
Jeff
I don't know what level, if any, GPS will be used in PTC. My consumer level GPS on my daily driver has a option to display the elevation in feet of the device. Personal observations of this function over time at the same locations shows a variation plus & minus 100 feet, as I have observed the same location (my driveway) have elevations between 300 & 500 feet and many of the 200 feet that are in between.
The Devil will be in the details.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.