From a recent G. Will column:
"
Before returning to Harvard Law School, Cass Sunstein was Barack Obama’s administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, measuring the benefits of regulations against their costs. Testifying to a House subcommittee on Jan. 26, 2011, Sunstein was asked if he could identify an administration regulation whose ―benefits have not justified the cost.‖ He replied:―There is only one big one that comes to mind. It is called Positive Train Control, and it is a statutory requirement, and the Department of Transportation had to issue it as a matter of law even though the monetizable benefits are lower than the monetizable costs. There aren’t a lot like that.‖Concerning Sunstein’s sanguine"
So, why didn't the RRs fight against it harder? I have a couple of thoughts. What are yours?
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
oltmanndSo, why didn't the RRs fight against it harder? I have a couple of thoughts. What are yours?
How about, that at the end of the day, the equipment needed for PTC will benefit the RRs in other ways such as train handling advice to save fuel, easily increase capacity in dark territory, provide platform for "intelligent" trains (see p 20 of July Trains). Perhaps the current hassle and cost really isn't so bad in the net. The RRs may be "banking" their political capital for the re-regulation wars....
oltmannd oltmanndSo, why didn't the RRs fight against it harder? I have a couple of thoughts. What are yours? The RRs may be "banking" their political capital for the re-regulation wars....
The RRs may be "banking" their political capital for the re-regulation wars....
LION has positive train control on his layout.
If one train runs into the back of another one it positively stops!
ROAR
The Route of the Broadway Lion The Largest Subway Layout in North Dakota.
Here there be cats. LIONS with CAMERAS
oltmannd It is called Positive Train Control, and it is a statutory requirement, and the Department of Transportation had to issue it as a matter of law even though the monetizable benefits are lower than the monetizable costs.
It is called Positive Train Control, and it is a statutory requirement, and the Department of Transportation had to issue it as a matter of law even though the monetizable benefits are lower than the monetizable costs.
How does one predict what the benefit will be without knowing the cost of the accidents that would have occurred without PTC?
How does one predict what the cost will be when the R&D has not been entirely completed?
Why is it a statutory requirement if the cost exceeds the benefit?
What is the measured quantification of the benefit?
BucyrusHow does one predict what the benefit will be without knowing the cost of the accidents that would have occurred without PTC?
Probability using historical data. Very doable.
BucyrusHow does one predict what the cost will be when the R&D has not been entirely completed?
Comparable efforts. This is not a moon shot. Also very doable.
BucyrusWhy is it a statutory requirement if the cost exceeds the benefit?
None. The law is what it is.
BucyrusWhat is the measured quantification of the benefit?
The standards of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs are used.
mudchickenGPS and computers (black box technology) are not quite the panacea that the uninformed think it is. Just listed to somebody complain about interuptions to their XM- radio in a garage and just managed to stifle a big guffaw..
Sorry, your safety critical system just had to reboot!
All I can think about was all the heartache and pain Conrail went through with Harmon just to get a functioning Ultracab to the market....
Is PTC going to stop many accidents? Yes.
Will it stop all accidents? No.
Will crews still fall asleep? Yes
BUT, wouldn't you rather be stopped by this than by running into a train in front of you?
Every little bit helps.Having it does not allow crews to go to sleep.
But LION thinks that both the Conductor AND the Engineer should have their own alerters. They cannot reset each others alerter.
LION thinks they should have a kitchen with a fridge full of diet Dr. Pepper and ham sandwiches.
It seems that many conductors are also qualified as engineers, they should both have a full set of controls.
BroadwayLion a fridge full of diet Dr. Pepper
a fridge full of diet Dr. Pepper
In case we run out of the blue stuff for the toilets?
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
BroadwayLion Is PTC going to stop many accidents? Yes.
Could the money spent on PTC stop more accidents than PTC if the money were spent on a systems other than PTC?
Bucyrus BroadwayLion Is PTC going to stop many accidents? Yes. Could the money spent on PTC stop more accidents than PTC if the money were spent on a systems other than PTC?
What kind of systems?
BucyrusCould the money spent on PTC stop more accidents than PTC if the money were spent on a systems other than PTC?
Yes, it will. After all it is just a step along the way to full automation of the main lines.
zugmann Bucyrus BroadwayLion Is PTC going to stop many accidents? Yes. Could the money spent on PTC stop more accidents than PTC if the money were spent on a systems other than PTC? What kind of systems?
I don't know. Let's say any kind of systems. I am just asking whether PTC gives the biggest bang for the buck compared to other approaches for preventing accidents.
Bucyrus I don't know. Let's say any kind of systems. I am just asking whether PTC gives the biggest bang for the buck compared to other approaches for preventing accidents.
Can a question like that be answered?
It will prevent head-on/rear-end & T-bone collisions.
It won't prevent dreails or crossing accidents.
How about 'positive driver control'?
Norm
Was the law vague enough that FRA did not have to issue such draconian REGs ? I have often thought that a modified version of ATS would work almost as well. ATS could be a 4 aspect system: --- Clear, approach , restricting, stop. ? That way the many signal aspects that are displayed on various RR line side signals could be still used. ?
As another poster said " GPS " is not the end all. I am worried that if for some reason GPS goes down or cannot provide precise location information. Location requires at least 5 sattelites in view and a prediction that it will be available at destination time ( airline requirement ). If it goes down for any length of time people will die --- probably not RRs if they still have lineside signals.
zugmann BucyrusI don't know. Let's say any kind of systems. I am just asking whether PTC gives the biggest bang for the buck compared to other approaches for preventing accidents.Can a question like that be answered?
BucyrusI don't know. Let's say any kind of systems. I am just asking whether PTC gives the biggest bang for the buck compared to other approaches for preventing accidents.
Yes, I think it can be answered by anybody who knows the answer. I think I recall reading somewhere about somebody making the claim that the money could be more effective if spent on measures other than the mandated PTC proscription. So I thought I would ask here.
Thoughts not even worth 2 cents- It's a big ol' poker game. The railroads took the hand they were dealt, and played it the best way they knew how. Fighting it would have made them appear to be against safety. So, they bit the bullet, knowing, they they'll be in a better bargaining position when: They need to raise rates to cover new expenses due to new equipment requirements Re-regulation pops up again. Open access & bottlenecks pop up again A similar weight is proposed to be around the neck of the railroads' competition- trucks.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
Do the railroad companies oppose PTC just because it does not have enough benefit to justify the cost? Maybe the reason they don’t speak out against it is because they are not against it.
Maybe this is just a version of “seatbelt law” for the railroads. There are a lot of people who will insist if it saves just one life, it is worth it. That is their cost/benefit analysis.
BroadwayLion Is PTC going to stop many accidents? Yes. Will it stop all accidents? No. Will crews still fall asleep? Yes BUT, wouldn't you rather be stopped by this than by running into a train in front of you? Every little bit helps.Having it does not allow crews to go to sleep. But LION thinks that both the Conductor AND the Engineer should have their own alerters. They cannot reset each others alerter. LION thinks they should have a kitchen with a fridge full of diet Dr. Pepper and ham sandwiches. It seems that many conductors are also qualified as engineers, they should both have a full set of controls. ROAR
It's been reported that some of the fairly recent rear end collisions would not have been prevented by the first generation of PTC that is going to be deployed because they happened in restricted speed circumstances.
Conductors have available to them an Emergency Brake Valve handle. They can use it anytime they feel they need to. (I had a student engineer whom I once threatened to pull the air on him if he didn't approach the next signal, on a blind curve, prepared to stop short of it.) What more does the conductor need?
Jeff
You mean like fencing, grade Xing elimination, education, better sleep/wake cycles for employees, and more RR police?
Yes, but those things stop many, small disasters, not the very few, big, spectacular wrecks.
Bucyrus Do the railroad companies oppose PTC just because it does not have enough benefit to justify the cost? Maybe the reason they don’t speak out against it is because they are not against it. Maybe this is just a version of “seatbelt law” for the railroads. There are a lot of people who will insist if it saves just one life, it is worth it. That is their cost/benefit analysis.
Should we divert the entire GDP of the country to save "just one life"? That argument fails at the boundaries (both of them).
The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs assigns a value to a life when figuring out whether the cost is worth the benefit.
zugmann Bucyrus I don't know. Let's say any kind of systems. I am just asking whether PTC gives the biggest bang for the buck compared to other approaches for preventing accidents. Can a question like that be answered?
Yes. But, I would take it back up one level. Are we trying to prevent train to train accidents or are we trying to improve over all safety - meaning reduce injury and death?
But, even if you mean "reduce train to train accidents", you would likely get better bang for the buck with reactive train stop system or cab signal/ATC system. It might get you 80% of the way to the goal for 20% of the cost.
When was the last time you heard of a big wreck in NS cab signal territory or Amtrak NEC, or ATSF trains stop territory that PTC could have prevented?
BucyrusThere are a lot of people who will insist if it saves just one life, it is worth it. That is their cost/benefit analysis.
And they would be as wrong as someone who asserts 2+2 =5
oltmannd Bucyrus Do the railroad companies oppose PTC just because it does not have enough benefit to justify the cost? Maybe the reason they don’t speak out against it is because they are not against it. Maybe this is just a version of “seatbelt law” for the railroads. There are a lot of people who will insist if it saves just one life, it is worth it. That is their cost/benefit analysis. Should we divert the entire GDP of the country to save "just one life"? That argument fails at the boundaries (both of them).
Sure the argument fails at the boundaries, but it has apparently won the day in the case of PTC. We all agree that the benefit exceeds the cost. So if not for arguments that fail at the boundaries, how else to explain why we have the mandate?
oltmannd BucyrusCould the money spent on PTC stop more accidents than PTC if the money were spent on a systems other than PTC? You mean like fencing, grade Xing elimination, education, better sleep/wake cycles for employees, and more RR police?
No, I was referring to things like the following that you mentioned in another post:
"But, even if you mean "reduce train to train accidents", you would likely get better bang for the buck with reactive train stop system or cab signal/ATC system. It might get you 80% of the way to the goal for 20% of the cost.
When was the last time you heard of a big wreck in NS cab signal territory or Amtrak NEC, or ATSF trains stop territory that PTC could have prevented?"
Just give me cab signals and let me run the train. It's a fantastic tool, you never forget what you're running on. Cab signals also improve train velocity, as when you are following a train, cab signals will upgrade midblock as the preceding movement clears the block. Open a switch, the cab signal drops. Broken rail? You carry a restricting in the cab till you pass it. R.F.&P. has had it in place since 1927!
Just to stimulate discussion of alternative strategies to PTC for saving lives in railroad industry- related accidents:
According to FRA in 2012: 706 total fatalities
Of these: 9 were the result of train accidents
233 were the result of rail/highway crossing accidents
437 were the result of trespassing
Or, if one prefers, look at 2008, the year of the Chatsworth accident:
803 total fatalities
Of these: 27 were the result of train accidents
290 were the result of rail/highway crossing accidents
456 were the result of trespassing
Consider a mandate to invest $10 billion to reduce railroad-related fatalities. Simply in terms of the size of the problem indicated by fatality counts, the top priority would clearly be reduction in deaths due to trespassing. Reduction in crossing deaths would be second, and train accident death reductions would be a very distant third.
But, of course, the cost of strategies to reduce deaths in each of these categories would need to be considered. Perhaps $10 billion invested in PTC to eliminate 9 (or 27) deaths per year is relatively inexpensive compared to reducing trespass and crossing deaths.
I believe some simple round-number analysis would indicate that further, detailed study should have been undertaken before enacting the PTC mandate:
$10 billion invested in grade separation of rail and highway crossings @ $5 million per crossing would eliminate virtually all risk of fatalities at the 2,000 most high-risk crossings in the country. Predicted lives saved annually? Probably more than 9 or 27, in my opinion, but this could have been rigorously estimated. (Or, perhaps more thorough protection by means of full-gate protection, etc. would be an attractive alternative in many cases.) Study, study, analyze, analyze.
$10 billion invested in high-quality fencing of railroad yards and right-of-way in urban and suburban areas @ $1 million per mile would provide 10,000 miles of protection from unauthorized intrusion. I understand … maintenance, patrolling, etc., etc. But study, study, analyze, analyze. Predicted lives saved annually? As above.
Do some of both? Optimize.
BucyrusSo if not for arguments that fail at the boundaries, how else to explain why we have the mandate?
Congress passed a knee-jerk, bad law. They've done it before. They'll do it again.
rfpjohn Just give me cab signals and let me run the train. It's a fantastic tool, you never forget what you're running on. Cab signals also improve train velocity, as when you are following a train, cab signals will upgrade midblock as the preceding movement clears the block. Open a switch, the cab signal drops. Broken rail? You carry a restricting in the cab till you pass it. R.F.&P. has had it in place since 1927!
And if you don't acknowledge, your train stops.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.