BaltACD,
I see what you are saying. The systems could give trains enough time to stop, but is that really the solution? Many detected reasons to stop will disappear long before the train arrives. It really amounts to trying to solve the wrong problem.
I don't think one could even begin to count the "close calls" that occur on the nations railroads in a day. In so far as PTC involvement in grade crossing safety, I believe it will only have an effect on trains holding a false activation or activation failure message. This message, as relayed from the dispatcher, will be in the system, which will then ensure that the order is complied with. It amazes me how much time and money are dumped into crossing safety projects when 99.9% of the time it is willful violation of the protection in place! The one that strikes me as a misplaced effort is the double gate protection. I've actually seen a car beyond the gate for their direction of travel, stop on the track when the second gate came down to block their exit from the crossing! The poor woman just sat there as we blew through on the other track which, fortunately, she was not fouling.
BaltACD If technology is implemented that stops trains when there is a vehicle 'blocking' a crossing I can see a new game - Stop the Train. And laugh all the way home.
If technology is implemented that stops trains when there is a vehicle 'blocking' a crossing I can see a new game - Stop the Train. And laugh all the way home.
zardoz BaltACD If technology is implemented that stops trains when there is a vehicle 'blocking' a crossing I can see a new game - Stop the Train. And laugh all the way home. Exactly! The desire to implement such a system would be among the dumbest ideas I have ever heard; although since the government is involved, anything is possible. $800 hammer, anyone?
This is already occuring in conjunction with thefts. The perps cause the train to stop in a remote area, and while the crew is trying to figure out what happened to their mile-long train, the thieves are cleaning out the container of their choice (reportedly down to a specific container with a specific product).
Such a system would make it just that much easier to do. No trying to shoot out a brake line.
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...
The centerpiece of all official warning to drivers about grade crossings is the statement that trains take a long distance to stop. While that it true, it is also mostly irrelevant to grade crossing collisions. If a train is a half mile from the crossing, anything that it might attempt to stop for will be clear of the crossing by the time gets there. The stopping distance of the train is simply not the problem.
But nevertheless, the irrelevant point is made over and over again by the authorities as though it were the primary issue. Therefore, it is not surprising that PTC will be directed to make crossings safer by solving the imaginary problem of inadequate stopping distance.
So, in short, once again the federal gov't acts rashly in a kneejerk reaction to some event and passes a not-even-half-baked law, in this case requiring PTC by December 2015. Not unlike rushing the un-Affordable Care through the House and Senate, only to find out 3 years later what a true disaster it is.
It wasn't knee-jerk. But I think we found the tipping point. We've had cab signals/ATS/LSL/PTC in some form or another for over 100 years. But the railroads just didn't seem that interested in implementing the technology, so they had their hand forced. We've had enough major incidents in dark territory, or from stop signal violations that it was only a matter of time.
Will PTC solve it all? I doubt it. Will it help? I'm sure. Is it worth the cost? Time will tell. But there is no way to expect the railroads to continue to be able to run away from emerging technology on the signal front.
And I'll pass on any comments about the non-railroad related health care bill.
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
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.
Given that zugman actually works for a railroad operating a locomotive, I believe, it seems to me his opinion on PTC carries a lot more weight behind it than outsiders' opinions. Since it coincides with the historical record, warts and all (the record's not zugman's) it also seems less factually compromised by a recurrent ideological bias seen in so many postings on this and other topics.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
schlimm Given that zugman actually works for a railroad operating a locomotive, I believe, it seems to me his opinion on PTC carries a lot more weight behind it than outsiders' opinions.
Given that zugman actually works for a railroad operating a locomotive, I believe, it seems to me his opinion on PTC carries a lot more weight behind it than outsiders' opinions.
Gee, I was only asking a question. Does that constitute an ideological bias?
Are all the so-called “insiders” in favor of adding PTC? If so, then why is a mandate needed?
MikeInPlano So, in short, once again the federal gov't acts rashly in a kneejerk reaction to some event and passes a not-even-half-baked law, in this case requiring PTC by December 2015. Not unlike rushing the un-Affordable Care through the House and Senate, only to find out 3 years later what a true disaster it is.
Why not stick with more appropriate actions that are railroad-related? Compare this particularly with the language in the Esch Act of 1920, which mandated ATC as one of the quid pro quos of relinquishing Federal control of the railroads? Or the ICC order of 1947 that mandated enforcement of the Esch Act terms for trains over 79 mph -- and made it stick -- to get around part of the significant need for a workable ATC/PTC system for railroads that did not need high-speed safety?
You might also compare this 'rash ... knee-jerk reaction' to the rather lamentable history of air brake and knuckle coupler implementation in the late 1800s... and later ... and later...
I can see your point about mandating safety technology in a 'rush' -- but let's face it, the time has long come for coherent anticollision implementation. And I do not really expect major implementation by the three-year deadline, any more than there was major implementation for the couplers and brakes and systemic ATC -- you will see the deadline extended in three-year intervals, with benchmarks to be met but also with what was referred to in the '60s and then again in the '80s as 'mid-course corrections.
Happily, the issue that caused the initial demise of ATC deployment after 1928 (greater emphasis on crossing safety issues) is being incorporated in the system design of PTC this time 'round. This represents a good example of technological synergy: it is comparatively easy to implement crossing alert if you have PTC instantiated, and comparatively easy to implement some 'flavors' of PTC if you have one of the current generation of crossing-alert systems.
Personally, I see most of the actual difficulties with PTC being the scale on which the implementation is to be made (and only slightly less, that it is essentially an unfunded mandate). The necessary tech issues are all solved ... although I have to admit that some elements of the systems developed recently, NAJPTC in particular, show "postwar technology" at its wacky worst...
zugmann It wasn't knee-jerk. But I think we found the tipping point. We've had cab signals/ATS/LSL/PTC in some form or another for over 100 years. But the railroads just didn't seem that interested in implementing the technology, so they had their hand forced. We've had enough major incidents in dark territory, or from stop signal violations that it was only a matter of time. Will PTC solve it all? I doubt it. Will it help? I'm sure. Is it worth the cost? Time will tell. But there is no way to expect the railroads to continue to be able to run away from emerging technology on the signal front.
The RRs were looking at this sort of thing for a while, but always wound up on the short end of the ROI stick - so development pretty much slowed to a crawl.
It's not a complete train wreck that they are being forced to do it. What's bad is the timetable. It's too rapid and has to occur all at once. A slower, phased approach would have been more palatable and lower risk.
One thing the proponents tout and the RRs discount is the tangential benefits from having PTC equipment on the trains. I think those applications, like fuel consumption optimized operation, will have a good ROI since the hardware is already paid for. It's probably why the RRs didn't fight too hard against PTC. It's a huge investment.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
BucyrusWith 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.
Do you actually think that there is a PTC-industrial complex that has successfully lobbied the Congress and the Administration to implement a grand plan that shoves footballs of indiscriminate money into corporate coffers?
I find it FAR more likely that it follows the hoary old model of Government interventionism that follows the .. well, the usual excuse for Government knee-jerk reaction. Several bad wrecks + a pack of 'let's spend money like water' Democrats = just the kind of massive get-em-out-by-Friday response we are seeing. And hey, if they can do it with OPM, so much the merrier...
I wouldn't be surprised if there was some industrial "interference" on behalf of PTC, although all of the other factors mentioned undoubtedly stand higher on the list.
We deal with it in the fire service on a regular basis. An advisory body, whose standards carry a lot of weight, seems to come out with all too many "revisions" that somehow force fire departments to replace otherwise servicable equipment, or add thousands of dollars worth of "enhancements" to new apparatus and equipment purchases. Oddly, the manufacturers are major players in that process.
The legal system is a major player as well, as any accident that involves a piece of equipment 'governed' by a standard will invariably result in close scrutiny of that equipment to see if it meets the standard or not - regardless of whether complying with the standard would have made a difference...
Overmod BucyrusWith 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. Do you actually think that there is a PTC-industrial complex that has successfully lobbied the Congress and the Administration to implement a grand plan that shoves footballs of indiscriminate money into corporate coffers?
Well of course there is. How could you miss it? I don't think it has a name like PTC-Industrial Complex, but the effect is simple business strategy.
However, I am not sure what you mean by a grand plan "that shoves footballs of indiscriminate money into corporate coffers."
Bucyrus However, I am not sure what you mean by a grand plan "that shoves footballs of indiscriminate money into corporate coffers."
That would be like the only approved hook for our fire service "bailout" systems being sold by suppliers for $80+, when it's available retail from the manufacturer for half that...
It's a well-known axiom in the fire service that all you have to do is put "fire department" in front of an item and the price magically goes up. I'd imagine PTC will be little different...
Well just going back a couple posts, Overmod said this:
“Do you actually think that there is a PTC-industrial complex that has successfully lobbied the Congress and the Administration to implement a grand plan that shoves footballs of indiscriminate money into corporate coffers?”
I was not sure what corporate coffers he was talking about. Obviously, he must have meant the coffers of the PTC suppliers.
So to answer his question, I say YES I do think that there is a PTC industrial complex (or collective interest) that has successfully lobbied the Congress and the Administration to mandate PTC on behalf of the profit interest of the PTC industrial complex.
That has nothing to do with whether or not PTC is worthwhile. It may indeed by worthwhile. Or it may only be 75% worthwhile, and the lobbying by the PTC industry provided the other 25% of the impetus to get Congress to mandate PTC.
So I did not mean to suggest that the entire mandate for PTC was a product only of the PTC lobby, if that is what Overmod meant.
If PTC were a off the shelf product that the carriers could go out, buy and install that is one thing. That is not the case! PTC is being designed 'on the fly' and has been since the mandate was published. PTC and it's requirement of inter-operability is a tall, tall order.
Signal systems that the carriers use run the gamut of manufacturers that have been in the business for the past 100 years or more. Signal systems were installed on each carrier on a subdivision by subdivision basis as both traffic volumes and finances required and/or permitted; as such each new installation would use 'state of the art' products when installed - and as each installation came along the state of the art moved accordingly - throw on top of that, that these legacy systems were installed over the 100+ Class I carriers that used to exist and each Chief Signal Engineer on each property beleived he had the 'latest greatest ideas' on how his signal systems should be designed and implemented. One more twist, each of those Chief Signal Engineers would change on each property from time to time, normally with the incoming person believing that he had to change the standards that had been established by his predecessor. What I am saying, in short, is - THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO STANDARDIZATION IN LEGACY SIGNAL SYSTEMS that today's Class I carriers. The fact that they work, day in, day out is a testament to the skills and perserverance of all the field level signal personnel in comprehending and working with ages old wiring diagrams that have been changed over the years.
With the implementation of PTC - what works on Amtrk must also work on NS, on KCS, on UP, on BNSF and on CSX as well as CN & CP and any other Short Line carriers have have lines that must be updated to PTC standards because of the commodities they handle. My understanding is 'the interoperatability standards have yet to be finalized', without finalized standards, production equipment can't be manufactured, sold and installed. The carriers are doing all they can to be ready to install the actual PTC hardware when it becomes a production item.
PTC is the federal govenment mandating the spending of approximately $19 BILLION in private capital by the carriers to facilitate compliance with equipment that did not exist at the time the legislation was passed.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
I wonder how much it will really cost in the end. Is it fair to surmise that that the mandate is forcing railroads to do something that they should have done voluntarily? In other words, is PTC the right thing to do despite the fact that railroads have not done it?
Bucyrus schlimm Given that zugman actually works for a railroad operating a locomotive, I believe, it seems to me his opinion on PTC carries a lot more weight behind it than outsiders' opinions. Since it coincides with the historical record, warts and all (the record's not zugman's) it also seems less factually compromised by a recurrent ideological bias seen in so many postings on this and other topics. Gee, I was only asking a question. Does that constitute an ideological bias? Are all the so-called “insiders” in favor of adding PTC? If so, then why is a mandate needed?
schlimm Given that zugman actually works for a railroad operating a locomotive, I believe, it seems to me his opinion on PTC carries a lot more weight behind it than outsiders' opinions. Since it coincides with the historical record, warts and all (the record's not zugman's) it also seems less factually compromised by a recurrent ideological bias seen in so many postings on this and other topics.
schlimmI was referring to the poster who brought up healthcare. Sorry I was not more explicit.
Oh, okay. Thanks for clarifying that.
Bucyrus I wonder how much it will really cost in the end. Is it fair to surmise that that the mandate is forcing railroads to do something that they should have done voluntarily? In other words, is PTC the right thing to do despite the fact that railroads have not done it?
It will be a long time, if ever, before it will be determined that expenditure of $19B on PTC was the most safety that could be purchased. That there were not other investments that the carriers could have done with that money that would have had a even larger safety return.
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.
23 17 46 11
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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 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.
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?
Johnny
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.
And without a mandate, a better solution would have no doubt been implemented in due course.
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?
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.
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.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.