You do like to dream, don’t you?
23 17 46 11
edblysard Jeff pointed out something I have posted in several of these PTC threads…. While the government seems to think we are all inattentive and pretty useless at what we do, how many thousand train starts will happen in the next 24 hours that don’t result in a collision of any type? And, out of all of those train starts, the odds are fantastically good that every one of them will get where they are going without hitting anything at all, not an automobile, or a trespasser or another train.
Jeff pointed out something I have posted in several of these PTC threads….
While the government seems to think we are all inattentive and pretty useless at what we do, how many thousand train starts will happen in the next 24 hours that don’t result in a collision of any type?
And, out of all of those train starts, the odds are fantastically good that every one of them will get where they are going without hitting anything at all, not an automobile, or a trespasser or another train.
tree68 oltmannd We should really call it "PTS" - Predictive Train Stop. I'm sure most of us here, and most in the industry, would agree. OTOH, the folks who are calling for this probably like the term "control," as it offers the illusion that there is something (not someone) running the train that will prevent it from "causing harm." "Predictive Train Stop" may not give them that deceptive "warm and fuzzy." They (the public and the press) may even assign magical powers to PTC that it does not (nor is it intended to) have. I can see the stories after the first incident involving a PTC train in PTC territory - "We thought that this system had the train under control and would prevent such incidents!"
oltmannd We should really call it "PTS" - Predictive Train Stop.
We should really call it "PTS" - Predictive Train Stop.
I'm sure most of us here, and most in the industry, would agree. OTOH, the folks who are calling for this probably like the term "control," as it offers the illusion that there is something (not someone) running the train that will prevent it from "causing harm."
"Predictive Train Stop" may not give them that deceptive "warm and fuzzy." They (the public and the press) may even assign magical powers to PTC that it does not (nor is it intended to) have.
I can see the stories after the first incident involving a PTC train in PTC territory - "We thought that this system had the train under control and would prevent such incidents!"
I think the "positive" is the key word for the warm and fuzzy feelings. Positive means it won't let anything bad happen.
We've already had an incident in territory with Amtrak's form of PTC. Remember that open switch that appeared in Trains (News & Photos, January 2013 page 12) a couple months back? Now one could argue that it wasn't the failure of the PTC itself, but a failure in a related component. Still, I think most people would think that we were told with PTC incidents (like running into an open switch) couldn't happen, but one did. So is it really an improvement?
I think once PTC is up and running, it actually could compromise safety in some respects. It will work most of the time, so much that people will depend on it all the time. Then when it (or a vital component ) fails, the person who is supposed to take over may not immediately notice the problem. Being only an observer or otherwise "out of the loop" for a long time, they may not know the proper steps to take.
I suppose that as long as the number of any incidents in PTC territory falls under the bean counter's acceptable threshold, it will be OK.
Jeff
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...
OvermodWe really need a different acronym for it. Getting rid of 'A for automatic' was a good first step, but amending at least the semantics of 'positive' meaning 'assured by the system at all times' is really necessary before the legions of semi-idiot programmers will design proper systems.
We should really call it "PTS" - Predictive Train Stop. All it will do is make sure you stay under the braking curve from current location and speed to the "brick wall" at the end of your movement authority. I don't know, but I imagine it will have some sort of user interface like the Conrail LSL system - which gives the engineer time and/or distance to penalty brake application based on on current conditions. Engineer only loses control of the braking system if he fails to stay under the braking curve.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
henry6This article could be a propaganda piece to make PTC look bad.
Are you kidding? The article goes to the end of the earth to make PTC look good.
I cannot find one shred of references on the Internet that is critical of PTC on any level.
BaltACD The catastrophic incidents that have had have pointed up the fact that the operators attention is not as 'sharp' as it would need to be to discern a system failure and take actions in time to prevent the collision. PTC will engender the same wandering attention as the system will be expected to be the fail safe for the operator. If it is made by man - it will fail, at some point in time! No matter how 'fool proof' you try to make a system - there will be one or more fools that out fool your testing fool and create a catastrophic occurence.
The catastrophic incidents that have had have pointed up the fact that the operators attention is not as 'sharp' as it would need to be to discern a system failure and take actions in time to prevent the collision. PTC will engender the same wandering attention as the system will be expected to be the fail safe for the operator.
If it is made by man - it will fail, at some point in time! No matter how 'fool proof' you try to make a system - there will be one or more fools that out fool your testing fool and create a catastrophic occurence.
One of the hysterical things about the 'current' UI for PTC, and I specifically include the traditional kind of 'vigilance control' in this, is precisely that it substitutes robot compliance for proper awareness and attention. (About what I would expect from Democrats... but I digress).
One significant issue is that if anything 'goes wrong' -- and there are, as indicated, large numbers of ways any brittle 'foolproof' system can fail -- the "user" will be expected to (1) comprehend how the system has failed, and (2) take 'correct' action to avoid trouble. In my very long history of looking at critical-systems design, any system that 'assumes command' from an operator is an accident waiting, even begging, to happen.
We really need a different acronym for it. Getting rid of 'A for automatic' was a good first step, but amending at least the semantics of 'positive' meaning 'assured by the system at all times' is really necessary before the legions of semi-idiot programmers will design proper systems.
I consider that a proper train-"control" system is advisory rather than minatory -- it helps and prompts people to work better, rather than either requiring actions to 'prove' the people are not asleep or shirking responsibility somehow, or to take all necessary actions should an emergency situation arise.
Of course there are times that a PTC system will control speed or stop trains where humans would not 'catch' the issue in sufficient time. Vehicles on grade crossings is one example; mistakenly-set switches is another. (That is one reason behind the horrifying implementation statistics for switches in the FRA report -- but we might remember that not all switches are 'equal' in producing high-speed danger to trains).
It's equally important, wherever possible, to prevent distracting operators. I had some trouble explaining why Craig Faust couldn't figure out what was happening during the TMI 1 incident ... until I found out he had an over-120-decibel horn that could not be turned off going in the control room. This is of a piece with those vigilance controls that badger people into anticipating the light instead of keeping their attention where it belongs. And it doesn't matter how sweetly you present a chime or an attractive female voice instead of a *** buzzer -- if it's modal, requiring some Pavlovian learned response, it's probably wrong.
Perhaps the take-home message is that very little, if any, of the installed equipment for the current 'flavor' of mandated PTC cannot be run in an advisory mode. It just isn't the way a normal RTFM programmer likes to have to think...
jeffhergert Bucyrus It is easy to conclude that the PTC mandate was necessary because the railroads have not installed PTC voluntarily. However, they cannot implement something until after it has been developed, and the development of PTC is not yet complete. So there is no basis to conclude that the railroads have been remiss, negligent, or careless in not yet installing PTC. The PTC mandate is more than just an order to install PTC. More significantly, it is a mandate to develop PTC, using the forced implementation on the operating railroads as a development laboratory, at the railroads’ cost. And as is the case of all research and development, the total cost has no known limit. And like all massive projects, the more you spend, the harder it is to back out of it. And also, like all massive projects, proponents lowball the initial estimates because they know that once the project moves forward, it becomes harder and harder to back out of it. I think one reason it was "easy" to mandate PTC is that so many think that PTC is already available, ready for deployment. Reading comments on various PTC discussions, not just here, it seems many are under the impression that the only reason railroads haven't installed PTC was because they just didn't want to spend the money. After all, the industry has been looking at PTC in one form or another for close to 30 years. There are claims that PTC or something similar is already in use, either in other countries or in the US on mass transit systems. Maybe some or all of these claims are true, but that doesn't mean that what's in use for a particular system will automatically work on the US freight railroad system. It probably doesn't help when railroads say they have a hard time making a business case for PTC. Most people take that to mean they just don't want to spend the money. Not the fact that a major news worthy accident is more the exception than the rule. It may come as a surprise to many, including some that have participated on these forums at times, but most of us railroaders, while not infallible (no one is) are pretty reliable. Jeff
Bucyrus It is easy to conclude that the PTC mandate was necessary because the railroads have not installed PTC voluntarily. However, they cannot implement something until after it has been developed, and the development of PTC is not yet complete. So there is no basis to conclude that the railroads have been remiss, negligent, or careless in not yet installing PTC. The PTC mandate is more than just an order to install PTC. More significantly, it is a mandate to develop PTC, using the forced implementation on the operating railroads as a development laboratory, at the railroads’ cost. And as is the case of all research and development, the total cost has no known limit. And like all massive projects, the more you spend, the harder it is to back out of it. And also, like all massive projects, proponents lowball the initial estimates because they know that once the project moves forward, it becomes harder and harder to back out of it.
It is easy to conclude that the PTC mandate was necessary because the railroads have not installed PTC voluntarily. However, they cannot implement something until after it has been developed, and the development of PTC is not yet complete. So there is no basis to conclude that the railroads have been remiss, negligent, or careless in not yet installing PTC.
The PTC mandate is more than just an order to install PTC. More significantly, it is a mandate to develop PTC, using the forced implementation on the operating railroads as a development laboratory, at the railroads’ cost. And as is the case of all research and development, the total cost has no known limit. And like all massive projects, the more you spend, the harder it is to back out of it.
And also, like all massive projects, proponents lowball the initial estimates because they know that once the project moves forward, it becomes harder and harder to back out of it.
I think one reason it was "easy" to mandate PTC is that so many think that PTC is already available, ready for deployment. Reading comments on various PTC discussions, not just here, it seems many are under the impression that the only reason railroads haven't installed PTC was because they just didn't want to spend the money. After all, the industry has been looking at PTC in one form or another for close to 30 years. There are claims that PTC or something similar is already in use, either in other countries or in the US on mass transit systems. Maybe some or all of these claims are true, but that doesn't mean that what's in use for a particular system will automatically work on the US freight railroad system.
It probably doesn't help when railroads say they have a hard time making a business case for PTC. Most people take that to mean they just don't want to spend the money. Not the fact that a major news worthy accident is more the exception than the rule. It may come as a surprise to many, including some that have participated on these forums at times, but most of us railroaders, while not infallible (no one is) are pretty reliable.
A brief, fact-based article on the PTC process: http://news.hntb.com/images/bulk_media_upload/docs/FINAL_PositiveTrainControl_2_0711_(2)_0.pdf
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
EMD#1 PTC will prevent head on collisions and collisions with on track equipment but there is still a possibility of a rear end collision unless PTC is installed in EOT devices. That is unless rules are changed prohibiting trains from passing a restrictive signal indication. Tim
PTC will prevent head on collisions and collisions with on track equipment but there is still a possibility of a rear end collision unless PTC is installed in EOT devices. That is unless rules are changed prohibiting trains from passing a restrictive signal indication.
Tim
The more reliance that is placed into technology to prevent catastrophe - the less human attention gets focused on preventing that same catastrophe. WMATA has run their system in 'automatic', where their signal and computer systems control the operation of their trains, with the 'operator' being along to supervise and 'take over when a system failure is noted'. The catastrophic incidents that have had have pointed up the fact that the operators attention is not as 'sharp' as it would need to be to discern a system failure and take actions in time to prevent the collision. PTC will engender the same wandering attention as the system will be expected to be the fail safe for the operator.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Bucyrus And without a mandate, a better solution would have no doubt been implemented in due course.
And without a mandate, a better solution would have no doubt been implemented in due course.
Dan
EMD#1 PTC will prevent head on collisions and collisions with on track equipment...
PTC will prevent head on collisions and collisions with on track equipment...
Never say never. They have't revoked Murphy's Law yet...
Not sure if it was mentioned but PTC will not be implemented on all lines, only routes with passenger trains and lines transporting a specific amount of toxic inhalation hazards. TIH cars traveling over lighter main lines which can be rerouted to lines where PTC will be mandatory will do so.
The railroads are doing well under deregulation, so they are ready for harvest; a sitting duck for reregulation. The railroads know this, so they have to bite the bullet and go along to get along. So when Congress tells the railroads to jump, the railroads jump.
ecoli But that gives me only 6 more months. UP is giving themselves an extra two years. :-)
But that gives me only 6 more months. UP is giving themselves an extra two years. :-)
Send 4 copies.
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
zugmann ecoli As for UP proclaiming that it won't meet the statutory deadline, can I tell the IRS that I won't be able to file my tax return on time, and offer UP as evidence of why they should cut me slack? IRS Form 4868.
ecoli As for UP proclaiming that it won't meet the statutory deadline, can I tell the IRS that I won't be able to file my tax return on time, and offer UP as evidence of why they should cut me slack?
As for UP proclaiming that it won't meet the statutory deadline, can I tell the IRS that I won't be able to file my tax return on time, and offer UP as evidence of why they should cut me slack?
IRS Form 4868.
At some point, mandating undesigned, unmanufacturered and unproven technology and reality come together. Rarely on the original timeline of the mandate.
ecoli Bucyrus Why have the railroads not voluntarily adopted PTC prior to this current mandate? Have they simply refused to invest in something that is necessary; or have they refused to invest because it is not necessary? If it is the former explanation, does that mean that Congress knows more about the safety issues and need for PTC than the railroads do? Or is Congress simply forcing something onto the railroad industry that is unnecessary? With something as big as the PTC mandate, there is an obvious commercial agenda of the PTC industry besides just preventing accidents. I wonder if that agenda pushed Congress to force a mandate on the industry that is not necessary. It wouldn't be the first time safety had to be forced upon the railroad industry. Consider the air brake, which was opposed by management because it would cost money, and by labor because it would eliminate jobs. If only PTC were as ready for adoption as the air brake was. As for the theory that it's a conspiracy by the PTC industry in conjunction with the dad-burn gummint, compare the total revenues of the railroads versus the total expenditures expected to flow to PTC suppliers, and consider which side had more resources to devote to lobbying, had the two decided to do battle. If one likes railroads, then instead of looking for every possible reason why PTC is impractical, will fail, and shouldn't be required, one should be hoping that it will succeed and will be implemented in a fashion that improves productivity.
Bucyrus Why have the railroads not voluntarily adopted PTC prior to this current mandate? Have they simply refused to invest in something that is necessary; or have they refused to invest because it is not necessary? If it is the former explanation, does that mean that Congress knows more about the safety issues and need for PTC than the railroads do? Or is Congress simply forcing something onto the railroad industry that is unnecessary? With something as big as the PTC mandate, there is an obvious commercial agenda of the PTC industry besides just preventing accidents. I wonder if that agenda pushed Congress to force a mandate on the industry that is not necessary.
Why have the railroads not voluntarily adopted PTC prior to this current mandate? Have they simply refused to invest in something that is necessary; or have they refused to invest because it is not necessary?
If it is the former explanation, does that mean that Congress knows more about the safety issues and need for PTC than the railroads do? Or is Congress simply forcing something onto the railroad industry that is unnecessary?
With something as big as the PTC mandate, there is an obvious commercial agenda of the PTC industry besides just preventing accidents. I wonder if that agenda pushed Congress to force a mandate on the industry that is not necessary.
It wouldn't be the first time safety had to be forced upon the railroad industry. Consider the air brake, which was opposed by management because it would cost money, and by labor because it would eliminate jobs. If only PTC were as ready for adoption as the air brake was.
As for the theory that it's a conspiracy by the PTC industry in conjunction with the dad-burn gummint, compare the total revenues of the railroads versus the total expenditures expected to flow to PTC suppliers, and consider which side had more resources to devote to lobbying, had the two decided to do battle.
If one likes railroads, then instead of looking for every possible reason why PTC is impractical, will fail, and shouldn't be required, one should be hoping that it will succeed and will be implemented in a fashion that improves productivity.
Yes I agree that the PTC mandate is similar to the air brake and automatic coupler with regard to a government set deadline. Maybe that is all it really amounts to. Maybe the PTC mandate is perfectly analogous to the air brake and coupler mandate. I really don’t know the answer.
But by mentioning the economic interest of the supplier, I am not suggesting that entire impetus for the PTC mandate was some deep conspiracy between suppliers and government. All I am saying that it would be foolish to believe that the only motive for something this massive is to save lives or save money for the railroads. Lots of backs get scratched when you spend money by the billions.
Even during the era of the coupler and air brake mandates, railroads were besieged with inventors trying to get their idea adopted. Railroads would be great customers for any mechanical improvement if it made sense to them. It is still that way, and to make this gigantic sale to the railroad industry with the aid of a government mandate is a very big deal in several different ways.
I would like to know more about the scale and terms of this PTC mandate compared to that of the coupler and air brake mandates. Maybe somebody here can shed some light on that. What was the cost of those early mandates, and how does that convert to today’s dollars for comparison to the price of the PTC mandate?
In any case, what we think or say about it is not going to make it succeed or fail. I think it pays to look at it critically. This type of forced action could very well cause damage. I am confident that the railroad industry would have moved in the right direction on their own volition. And I am sure their course of train control development would have been straight and efficient. Mandating this with so many engineering and system unknowns seems like a recipe for a course of development that will twist and turn.
If one likes railroads, then instead of looking for every possible reason why PTC is impractical, will fail, and shouldn't be required, one should be hoping that it will succeed and will be implemented in a fashion that improves productivity. Because the trucking industry is getting its productivity-improving technology developed for it, for free, by the world's largest internet search engine company. One could just hope that self-driving vehicle technology will fall on its face, but relying on the opposing team to mess up is not always a winning strategy.
Inter-operability: as I recall, there were at least two different ATS systems, differing in how the signal was picked up by the locomotive; what worked on one road could not work on another road which used another system. And, we have the difficulties with protecting detour movements over roads such as the former C&NW.
Incidentally, the Southern had ATS (the same system that the Southern used elsewhere) installed on a stretch of track that had no fast Southern trains--between Haleyville and Jasper, Alabama, which was used by the IC on its way into Birmingham; I have never known if the M&O and SLSF track also used by the IC on this route had ATS.
Johnny
Deggesty As I see the matter, it will be necessary to have one system nation-wide so that power can continued to be run through. Am I right?
As I see the matter, it will be necessary to have one system nation-wide so that power can continued to be run through. Am I right?
That is what inter-operatability is all about. What works on the UP must work everywhere else and vice versa. And that is where the complexity resides.
I don’t see any virtue in a deadline. There has to be a deadline only because the action is mandated. Without a deadline there can be no mandate.
edblysard I would think that with the almost light speed advancements in the technology of communications coupled with ability to cheaply send/, receive and process data, had nothing been mandated, you could have expected the carriers to move towards a simplified version of PTC within a decade, simply because it would be available in off the shelf hardware. The cost of real time accurate GPS would be of little consequence to the carriers, the ability to “phone” a locomotive and find out all the information you could need, from how the locomotive is doing in terms of maintenance needs, where exactly it is and where it is going and how fast it is going there coupled to a mainframe and good dispatchers would almost guarantee the same if not better performance than what the current mandated PTC offers. A computer can only follow the program it is running, any variables outside of that program are beyond the computer’s ability to manipulate. But, give a good dispatcher accurate time/location, direction and speed of travel, well, a good dispatcher can take actions to adapt to the variables, nullify them, or take advantage of them…with the right information, he or she can wring out every last foot of usable track of a district safely and efficiently.
I would think that with the almost light speed advancements in the technology of communications coupled with ability to cheaply send/, receive and process data, had nothing been mandated, you could have expected the carriers to move towards a simplified version of PTC within a decade, simply because it would be available in off the shelf hardware.
The cost of real time accurate GPS would be of little consequence to the carriers, the ability to “phone” a locomotive and find out all the information you could need, from how the locomotive is doing in terms of maintenance needs, where exactly it is and where it is going and how fast it is going there coupled to a mainframe and good dispatchers would almost guarantee the same if not better performance than what the current mandated PTC offers.
A computer can only follow the program it is running, any variables outside of that program are beyond the computer’s ability to manipulate.
But, give a good dispatcher accurate time/location, direction and speed of travel, well, a good dispatcher can take actions to adapt to the variables, nullify them, or take advantage of them…with the right information, he or she can wring out every last foot of usable track of a district safely and efficiently.
I hope that most of the contributors to this thread have read (though not all may have yet received the issue) page 19 in the May issue of Trains, where it is reported that the UP does not expect to have PTC operative before 2017-18, because of various problems.
Deadline is pretty optimistic (for lack of a better word), but I understand why one was implemented. It shows resolve, it shows determination, it shows "heck we are going to do something, and not have 56,000 more studies about doing something!"
We (as a people) complain when there's 56,000 studies and nothing gets done. Now when there's a deadline, we complain that there WEREN'T 56,000 studies done.
Interesting times ahead. That's all I know.
tree68 I would opine that the railroads are not publicly opposed to PTC because it would not be in their best interest to do so. And because the outcome of the implementation may be seen as beneficial. From where I sit, the problem is in the deadline. The railroads recently told congress that they don't believe they can meet that deadline - but not that implementation is impossible. Given that the technology, equipment, and standards are essentially being created on the fly, I certainly expect teething problems. Beyond that, though, I have to wonder how long it will be before our old friend Murphy (not the siding) will invoke his law and despite a perfectly functioning PTC system, some disaster will occur because of a situation that no one had envisioned.
I would opine that the railroads are not publicly opposed to PTC because it would not be in their best interest to do so. And because the outcome of the implementation may be seen as beneficial.
From where I sit, the problem is in the deadline. The railroads recently told congress that they don't believe they can meet that deadline - but not that implementation is impossible.
Given that the technology, equipment, and standards are essentially being created on the fly, I certainly expect teething problems.
Beyond that, though, I have to wonder how long it will be before our old friend Murphy (not the siding) will invoke his law and despite a perfectly functioning PTC system, some disaster will occur because of a situation that no one had envisioned.
Bucyrus However, I cannot find one shred of information that indicates that the railroads are opposed to PTC or even question its cost effectiveness. Are the railroad just playing possum in the hope that they can minimize their damage?
However, I cannot find one shred of information that indicates that the railroads are opposed to PTC or even question its cost effectiveness.
Are the railroad just playing possum in the hope that they can minimize their damage?
Mandating PTC as a requirement for railroads seems like a big deal, especially if it is something that the railroads have looked at, but rejected for not being the most cost effective solution to the problem. I would expect a reaction from them.
The predicted cost of the mandate is high, but surely there will be massive cost overrun. The presumed cost could easily double by the time the work is complete. And there will be even more cost in getting the bugs worked out of such a complex and unproven system. This project, given its national scope, the fact that it is mandate of a system that has not even been developed yet, and a mandate with a deadline, and a mandate on an industry with deep pockets-- all of that taken together has “boondoggle” written all over it.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.