Trains.com

Provocative PTC Article in Popular Science Magazine

28575 views
170 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    January 2009
  • 79 posts
Posted by ecoli on Saturday, March 30, 2013 1:04 PM

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. 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.

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?

  • Member since
    January 2002
  • From: Canterlot
  • 9,575 posts
Posted by zugmann on Saturday, March 30, 2013 1:11 PM

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.

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

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Saturday, March 30, 2013 3:58 PM

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.

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.   

  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: US
  • 25,292 posts
Posted by BaltACD on Saturday, March 30, 2013 3:58 PM

At some point, mandating undesigned, unmanufacturered and unproven technology and reality come together.  Rarely on the original timeline of the mandate.

Never too old to have a happy childhood!

              

  • Member since
    January 2009
  • 79 posts
Posted by ecoli on Saturday, March 30, 2013 5:03 PM

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.

But that gives me only 6 more months. UP is giving themselves an extra two years. :-)

  • Member since
    January 2002
  • From: Canterlot
  • 9,575 posts
Posted by zugmann on Saturday, March 30, 2013 5:15 PM

ecoli

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

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Saturday, March 30, 2013 5:19 PM

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.   

  • Member since
    May 2007
  • 201 posts
Posted by EMD#1 on Tuesday, April 2, 2013 1:13 PM

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.

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

  • Member since
    December 2001
  • From: Northern New York
  • 25,023 posts
Posted by tree68 on Tuesday, April 2, 2013 11:34 PM

EMD#1

PTC will prevent head on collisions and collisions with on track equipment...

Never say never.  They have't revoked Murphy's Law yet...

LarryWhistling
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...

  • Member since
    December 2005
  • From: MP 175.1 CN Neenah Sub
  • 4,917 posts
Posted by CNW 6000 on Wednesday, April 3, 2013 10:11 AM

Bucyrus

And without a mandate, a better solution would have no doubt been implemented in due course.   

I think this sums things up pretty well. 

Dan

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Wednesday, April 3, 2013 3:10 PM

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.    

  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: US
  • 25,292 posts
Posted by BaltACD on Wednesday, April 3, 2013 4:31 PM

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

d

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.

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.

Never too old to have a happy childhood!

              

  • Member since
    March 2003
  • From: Central Iowa
  • 6,901 posts
Posted by jeffhergert on Wednesday, April 3, 2013 6:48 PM

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

 

 

    

 

  • Member since
    July 2006
  • 9,610 posts
Posted by schlimm on Wednesday, April 3, 2013 8:05 PM

C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan

  • Member since
    March 2002
  • 9,265 posts
Posted by edblysard on Thursday, April 4, 2013 7:02 AM

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

 

 

    

 

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.

23 17 46 11

  • Member since
    September 2003
  • 21,669 posts
Posted by Overmod on Thursday, April 4, 2013 11:03 AM

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.

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...

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, April 4, 2013 11:28 AM

henry6
This 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.   

  • Member since
    January 2001
  • From: Atlanta
  • 11,971 posts
Posted by oltmannd on Thursday, April 4, 2013 11:34 AM

Overmod
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.

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/

  • Member since
    December 2001
  • From: Northern New York
  • 25,023 posts
Posted by tree68 on Thursday, April 4, 2013 3:15 PM

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!"

LarryWhistling
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...

  • Member since
    March 2003
  • From: Central Iowa
  • 6,901 posts
Posted by jeffhergert on Thursday, April 4, 2013 7:03 PM

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!"

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  

  • Member since
    January 2003
  • From: Kenosha, WI
  • 6,567 posts
Posted by zardoz on Thursday, April 4, 2013 7:44 PM

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.

We should be so fortunate to have a government that would itself meet the standards it expects others to abide by.

  • Member since
    March 2002
  • 9,265 posts
Posted by edblysard on Friday, April 5, 2013 4:36 PM

You do like to dream, don’t you?Surprise

23 17 46 11

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Friday, April 5, 2013 5:21 PM

So where are the articles and references that describe the current PTC state of the art, and how much further research and development is needed to make it practical for application?  It seems like an obvious and critical question, and yet nobody seems to be asking it, let alone answering it.  

If I Google “Positive Train Control” criticism, I get a link where the railroads are criticized for being sluggish in advancing their PTC programs.

  • Member since
    August 2006
  • 655 posts
Posted by 466lex on Friday, April 5, 2013 6:57 PM

The FRA delivered a Report to Congress in August, 2012 which, without using inflammatory language, is quietly damning of the entire PTC effort.  I cited this report in my original posting, but it seems to have been largely overlooked in the discussion.  Here is the link again, and I urge a careful and complete reading to get the "flavor".

http://www.fra.dot.gov/eLib/Details/L03718

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Friday, April 5, 2013 7:46 PM

466LEX,

Thanks for pointing that out.  I have gone back to the first link several times, but overlooked the second link and your exerpts.  I will check that out carefully.  It looks very detailed and informative. 

  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: US
  • 25,292 posts
Posted by BaltACD on Friday, April 5, 2013 8:56 PM

466lex

The FRA delivered a Report to Congress in August, 2012 which, without using inflammatory language, is quietly damning of the entire PTC effort.  I cited this report in my original posting, but it seems to have been largely overlooked in the discussion.  Here is the link again, and I urge a careful and complete reading to get the "flavor".

http://www.fra.dot.gov/eLib/Details/L03718

The Executive Summary states things rather clearly.

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

Never too old to have a happy childhood!

              

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Saturday, April 6, 2013 10:31 AM

A much better approach than this impossible mandate would be for the government to create a publically funded U.S Bureau of PTC Development (USBPTCD).  They are always anxious to fund research in the public interest.  Who better to perform this complicated task at the lowest possible cost?

Then once the government perfects PTC ready for implementation, the railroads will be required to implement it.  Wouldn’t this be the most streamlined approach to this complex matter?    

  • Member since
    March 2002
  • 9,265 posts
Posted by edblysard on Saturday, April 6, 2013 5:05 PM

OMG, not a committee….

That means it will be 10 years or so before anything gets done, and it still won’t work ….

Hey, wait a minute, a committee and bureau would be an excellent idea!

23 17 46 11

  • Member since
    January 2002
  • From: Canterlot
  • 9,575 posts
Posted by zugmann on Saturday, April 6, 2013 5:10 PM

edblysard

OMG, not a committee….

That means it will be 10 years or so before anything gets done, and it still won’t work ….

Hey, wait a minute, a committee and bureau would be an excellent idea!

Where can I send my resume?

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

  • Member since
    March 2002
  • 9,265 posts
Posted by edblysard on Saturday, April 6, 2013 8:34 PM

Bucyrus

A much better approach than this impossible mandate would be for the government to create a publically funded U.S Bureau of PTC Development (USBPTCD).  They are always anxious to fund research in the public interest.  Who better to perform this complicated task at the lowest possible cost?

Then once the government perfects PTC ready for implementation, the railroads will be required to implement it.  Wouldn’t this be the most streamlined approach to this complex matter?    

We need to know when and where you are starting the bureau, and where to send our resumes…

Do we get badges in those neato flip wallets?

I like badges....

23 17 46 11

Join our Community!

Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.

Search the Community

Newsletter Sign-Up

By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy