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....
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
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.
oltmannd 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.
Well yes, I agree. And I would say that a part of their rationale was that if it saves one life, it is worth it; or as you put it, an argument that fails at the boundaries.
Yes, the ATC does stop you. There are three overspeed settings. 60 for clear, 45 for approach-medium or limited and 25 for approach or restricting (red in the cab). The red for restricting does not relieve you from complying with the rule; able to stop within one-half the range of vision, able to stop short of train, obstruction or switch improperly lined, looking out for broken rail, not to exceed 15mph.
rfpjohn Yes, the ATC does stop you. There are three overspeed settings. 60 for clear, 45 for approach-medium or limited and 25 for approach or restricting (red in the cab). The red for restricting does not relieve you from complying with the rule; able to stop within one-half the range of vision, able to stop short of train, obstruction or switch improperly lined, looking out for broken rail, not to exceed 15mph.
Yes the RF&P has had it 'forever'. However, because of equipment failure, it frequently gets cut out enroute. Which leads to the biggest question about PTC- what procedures are going to be implemented when PTC equipment on the lead locomotive fails? And they WILL FAIL!
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
oltmannd 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.
Under some cab signal systems, you can acknowledge the change to a more restrictive indication and keep on going. There is no speed component requiring any reduced speed because of a less permissive cab signal aspect.
My opinion to an earlier question as to why the railroads haven't fought harder against PTC. I think had they been able to go to one person crews, like they tried negotiating for a couple of contracts back, I think they would be fighting tooth and nail against it. Until they get the right political climate, they aren't going to push for single person crews. Even though they know on it's own that PTC won't save them much money from a safety angle, they realize it will give them an argument before an arbitration board that the second person is redundant because of technology.
That and also I agree the railroads bigger worry right now is the renewed push for forced reciprocal switching/open access. They don't want to use any political good will fighting what is sold to the public as a "safety" issue.
BaltACD 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! However, because of equipment failure, it frequently gets cut out enroute.
However, because of equipment failure, it frequently gets cut out enroute.
Wow. In Conrail days, cab signal failure was "hardly ever". ...and CSX inherited Conrail's locomotive cab signal guy.
zugmannIn case we run out of the blue stuff for the toilets?
YOU GET BLUE STUFF???
WoW! That IS a good railroad you work for!
(NYCT: bring you own toilet paper, and a flame thrower if you want a clean place to sit)
jeffhergertConductors 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?
1) The conductor needs to actually be awake. In these accidents both the engineer and the conductor were asleep.
2) On the conductor's side of the cab, he should record by pressing a button the aspect of each signal they pass, and when the conductor's alerter sounds, he must enter the next MILE POST number within x number of seconds depending upon the speed of the train.
If the conductor is awake, he can help keep the train moving, if he is asleep he cannot come complaining to me that he got killed in a wreck.
For as controversial as the PTC mandate seems to be, I don’t find much criticism of it. If the railroads oppose it, they are awfully quiet about it. The article from with the quote in the first post was taken was a piece by George Will warning about the danger and cost of overreaching regulation.
Other than that article, there was a report by the FRA that sought to justify why the deadline cannot be met. That report was by far the most critical analysis of the incredible array of problems facing the execution of the mandate. In just reading between the lines, I expect a spectacular cost overrun in addition to the delay and failing cost/benefit analysis.
jeffhergertIt'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.
On NYCT, passing a red signal puts the train BIE. Is this good enough? Ask the soul of the MM who fell asleep and for whom the stopping distance was not great enough.
NTSB did a report on this accident: the signals have been working perfectly for 100 years, but in those 100 years the cars got heavier, and they shifted to composition brake shoes. The stopping characteristics of the train was changed. The signals were not changed. The NYCT response was to slow all trains down.
They blamed the problems on the signal system and said the whole signals system needs to be replaced. It will be so replaced with CBTC systems. But the problem was of course not the signals and higher speeds could have been maintained with better braking. LION would (and has) recommended track brakes that would be used only in an emergency application. It is a simply yard job to do this, and does not requite taking tracks out of service to make the changes. But apparently NYCT does not always listen to the LION.
On your railroad: The signal blocks are much longer, a mile or more, and they should be sufficient to stop a train. The big boys on the high iron scoff at NYCT's mechanical trippers, but we are glad that we have them. They seem to be the correct solution for this railroad. You solutions may vary.
Alix a radar set at each restricting signal: Train to fast, radio controls but it BIE. WIll it work 100%? well nobody thinks that it will. Will it save lives. YES. Is that enough? Check with your bean counters. See how many beans your safety is worth.
466lex 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
AS owner of railroad, I do not care (too much) about people who walk or drive in front of my trains: I cannot stop them. But that first category: THOSE ARE MY PEOPLE and I fer darn sure do not want them to be injured or killed on my railroad. Not if there is something that I can do about it.
Besides, any work I put into PTC will translate into the possibility of automatic train control.
jeffhergertUnder some cab signal systems, you can acknowledge the change to a more restrictive indication and keep on going. There is no speed component requiring any reduced speed because of a less permissive cab signal aspect.
NYCT has the dreaded "WHEEL DETECTOR". Not the kind you have on your railroad. It is a single lunar lamp that has 3 aspects.
1) OFF: Itdoes not care what you are doing.
2) ON: Approach at and maintain designated train speed until the WD zone ends.
3) FLASHING: YOU ARE TOO FAST: and if you do not attain the correct speed instantly, I will STOP you BIE!
If NYCT can do it, any railroad can do it and some probably will.
Most transit authorities have the advantage of a fairly uniform equipment fleet and performance characteristics don't vary widely from train to train. What works for a transit operation (trippers and two consecutive red signals) probably won't work for a full-size rail operation with a variety of trains with different speeds and handling.
Yup! This is so. But a red signal is a red signal. If you pass it then you were asleep and your train should be stopped. How you do this is your affair, but we have a model for you to look at.
Don't the lunar lights usuallly have a lighted speed limit on NYCTA?
Saving Lives is not good enough? Insurance company's liability policy's usually asses 1,000,000 a person for insurance. If a Amtrak or commuter train collide and 20 people die that's 20,000,000. If a freight trains derails and a boxcar lands on someones car or house thats a a big chunk of change there too. Add to the fact that class one railroads are running naked self insured paying out of there own pocket one big accident could bankrupts the whole company....Look at the wreck of the Washingtonian in Altoona PA in the 1960s
There are Lunar Lights, and then there are Lunar Lights. They are not the same, and it depends on where they are and how they are displayed.
A Red over Lunar is one kind of a speed control, approach it at the correct speed and expect it to clear for you. If you pick up speed after passing it, there is nothing it can do to you.
There is a YELLOW over lighted number which is another speed control. (I THINK One is grade time, the other is station time, but it could be simply that the red over lunar is the new way of doing Yellow over number.)
A WD signal (Wheel Detector) is a single lunar aspect displayed closer to the track level, and is not located on a regular signal head. It is not displayed with other colors. The Placard reads "WD" below that there is a number representing allowed speed. It works as described above. At the end of the controlled zone there is an "END WD" placard. If you try to pick up speed again before you pass the END placard, it will trip you.
Bucyrus For as controversial as the PTC mandate seems to be, I don’t find much criticism of it. If the railroads oppose it, they are awfully quiet about it. The article from with the quote in the first post was taken was a piece by George Will warning about the danger and cost of overreaching regulation. Other than that article, there was a report by the FRA that sought to justify why the deadline cannot be met. That report was by far the most critical analysis of the incredible array of problems facing the execution of the mandate. In just reading between the lines, I expect a spectacular cost overrun in addition to the delay and failing cost/benefit analysis.
Just one of many:
Wick Moorman (NS) from here: http://www.nscorp.com/nscorphtml/pdf/rarroty_jan2011.pdf
"I firmly believe that there are lines where we can do other things,
in terms of operational practices or maybe less expensive technology,that will give us the same risk reduction that PTC will.PTC certainly accomplishes certain things, in terms of reducingaccidents, but there are a lot of accidents where it doesn’t doanything. PTC would not have prevented a significant numberof the TIH releases that have occurred, so why not take a lookat all of this rather than push a technology on us that is notreally quite proven for the primetime, in terms of running a railroad,and is $22 in costs for every dollar in benefit? And that’snot the odds you want when you make these kinds of investments.I don’t know what’s going to be possible legislatively,and it would obviously require legislation."
You don't have to hunt too hard to find similar quotes from others.
The RRs aren't fighting hard for two reasons. One is they don't think the battle is winnable. Congress would have to back down and that would make them look bad. They don't like to look bad - ever. Second is the saving of political capital for more important fights.
The RRs think this is a waste of capital, but sometimes you have to "eat a bug".
BroadwayLionYup! This is so. But a red signal is a red signal. If you pass it then you were asleep and your train should be stopped. How you do this is your affair, but we have a model for you to look at.
That would be a reactive system like ATS. PTC will stop you BEFORE you go by the red signal.
BonasSaving Lives is not good enough? Insurance company's liability policy's usually asses 1,000,000 a person for insurance. If a Amtrak or commuter train collide and 20 people die that's 20,000,000. If a freight trains derails and a boxcar lands on someones car or house thats a a big chunk of change there too. Add to the fact that class one railroads are running naked self insured paying out of there own pocket one big accident could bankrupts the whole company....Look at the wreck of the Washingtonian in Altoona PA in the 1960s
Graniteville did not bankrupt NS. Not even close. And it was horrendous.
in terms of operational practices or maybe less expensive technology,that will give us the same risk reduction that PTC will."
My question is this: Did they do those 'other things" and if not, what was preventing them from doing so prior to the passing of the PTC mandate?
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Actually it doesn't fail that often. We had alot more failures when we were running the old former Conrail 8700's (SD60's). They were pretty miserable hogs by the time we got them. The old RF&P system hardly ever failed, but the old Amtrak SDP40's,F40's and P30's were very sensitive. We normally would just cut out the overspeed on them as soon as we got on board. This allowed you to merely acknowledge a signal downgrade and brake in a normal fashion. Couldn't get away with that nowadays!
It is true that ATC does not prevent one from gliding past a stop signal, but given the indication in the cab,unless your a completely unqualified moron, your not going to do that! You can drive your car off an open draw bridge, if you choose to ignore the warning lights and gates.
schlimmMy question is this: Did they do those 'other things"
In terms of train control, not much.
schlimmand if not, what was preventing them from doing so prior to the passing of the PTC mandate?
Nothing, and doing something - or having a plan for something - might have headed PTC off. They basically messed around with PTC-like trials, expanded cab signalling in a very few spots and that was it. But, you have to remember, capital money was, and is, tight so it would have been borderline irresponsible to spend it on something with no payback to the RR.
Of course, now, they have to pay that, and a whole lot more.
The problem, if you will, with PTC is that it's a "feel good" thing. As has been noted, nobody wants to be on record from something that will make operations safer.
Although, as already discussed, the benefits will be marginal. If Graniteville had occurred due to an axle failure, f'rinstinstance, PTC wouldn't have made any difference. but the incident would have occurred, with all the loss of life and other ramifications.
The recent "not-quite-cornfield" meet in the midwest is another example of a non-PTC event.
And the bridge failure in Canada.
But it's rarely in good form to oppose something that provides safety, or the illusion thereof. "Think of the children!"
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...
PTC TODAY - is not a installable product. It is still in development and testing. Remember, it will have to interact with ALL railroad signal systems and they are not alike, they aren't even alike on the same carriers as the legacy systems of the fallen flag carriers were all different.
oltmannd 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."
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."
I had to read the quote by Cass Sunstein a few times to understand exactly where he was coming from. On the face of it, it almost seems like he is admitting to a mistake in that the PTC benefit does not justify the cost. That appears to be reinforced by his seemingly apologetic qualifier, “There aren’t a lot like that” (meaning regulations that do not have a supportive cost/benefit ratio).
That interpretation makes sense in light of the fact that Sunstein was the administrator of Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, a federal office that measured the cost/benefit of regulations. That mission implies that a supportive cost/benefit analysis matters and is required.
So, it seems strange that Sunstein so casually dismisses the fact that the cost of PTC exceeds its benefit. What is strange is that if he is not admitting a mistake, then the mission of achieving a supportive cost/benefit ratio is not actually an objective of the office that Sunstein administered.
Then Sunstein goes on to say that the Department of Transportation had to issue the PTC mandate as a matter of law. What he does not explain is the obvious question of why the DOT had to issue the mandate.
So we are left with the conclusion that anything can be mandated if it saves lives, and the formula for application is entirely whimsical. How many lives could be saved on U.S. highways if the speed limit were mandated at 30 mph?
Here is the full article that contains the quote:
http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20130602/COLUMNIST/306029997/2398/OPINION?p=2&tc=pg
Bucyrus I had to read the quote by Cass Sunstein a few times to understand exactly where he was coming from. On the face of it, it almost seems like he is admitting to a mistake in that the PTC benefit does not justify the cost. That appears to be reinforced by his seemingly apologetic qualifier, “There aren’t a lot like that” (meaning regulations that do not have a supportive cost/benefit ratio). That interpretation makes sense in light of the fact that Sunstein was the administrator of Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, a federal office that measured the cost/benefit of regulations. That mission implies that a supportive cost/benefit analysis matters and is required. So, it seems strange that Sunstein so casually dismisses the fact that the cost of PTC exceeds its benefit. What is strange is that if he is not admitting a mistake, then the mission of achieving a supportive cost/benefit ratio is not actually an objective of the office that Sunstein administered. Then Sunstein goes on to say that the Department of Transportation had to issue the PTC mandate as a matter of law. What he does not explain is the obvious question of why the DOT had to issue the mandate. So we are left with the conclusion that anything can be mandated if it saves lives, and the formula for application is entirely whimsical. How many lives could be saved on U.S. highways if the speed limit were mandated at 30 mph?
Yes. The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs analyzes regulations, not laws. Regulations are generally the administration of laws - the details of how the law is implemented. This can include areas where the law is silent. e.g. the DOT likely could have mandated PTC on their own had there been no law.
So, the PTC regulations flunk the cost - benefit test, but the point is moot to the Administration because the law is so specific. The point of failure here is Congress, not DOT, so Sunstien has no "mistake" to admit!
oltmanndSo, the PTC regulations flunk the cost - benefit test, but the point is moot to the Administration because the law is so specific. The point of failure here is Congress, not DOT, so Sunstien has no "mistake" to admit!
Well fine, but when I suggested that Sunstein was admitting a mistake, I did not mean to say that he made the mistake. I am only referring to the sense that Sunstein was conveying that the mandate was a mistake. My point was that there can be no mistake when the government can mandate anything it wants to. I think that was Sunstein’s point as well. It is not a moot point.
oltmannd BroadwayLionYup! This is so. But a red signal is a red signal. If you pass it then you were asleep and your train should be stopped. How you do this is your affair, but we have a model for you to look at. That would be a reactive system like ATS. PTC will stop you BEFORE you go by the red signal.
Not all red signals require stopping before passing them. PTC may not require stopping before passing those types of red signals either, as long as the train is operated under certain parameters. I think that is why it has been said PTC wouldn't have prevented some of the recent rear end collisions. Some were fatal, but still at restricted (the high side) speed.
Some ATS, like cab signals, can be acknowledged and allows a train or engine to pass a red signal. Without a mechanism to pass red signals, without stopping for permissive reds or after stopping for absolute reds, there would be times (not often, but more often than bystanders may realize) when nothing would be able to move.
jeffhergertNot all red signals require stopping before passing them. PTC may not require stopping before passing those types of red signals either, as long as the train is operated under certain parameters. I think that is why it has been said PTC wouldn't have prevented some of the recent rear end collisions. Some were fatal, but still at restricted (the high side) speed.
On NYCT you STOP at all RED signals. If you fail to stop you will be tripped.
Red over Lunar indicates approach at correct speed and EXPECT the signal to clear.
If it does not clear, you will be tripped.
I guess what you are trying to say is railroads should run like a transit system, that way elevator operators can be engineers too?
23 17 46 11
jeffhergertNot all red signals require stopping before passing them. PTC may not require stopping before passing those types of red signals either,
Absolutely! The ONLY thing PTC will do is keep a train from exceeding it's movement authority. That's all. If the engineer does not operate the train "under" the braking curve while approaching the limit of the movement authority, PTC will apply the brakes and stop the train.
NYCT is not a Class 1 Railroad. It has it's own rules for it's own house. Those rules CANNOT be applied to Class 1 operations.
edblysard I guess what you are trying to say is railroads should run like a transit system, that way elevator operators can be engineers too?
Post of the day award.
zugmann edblysard I guess what you are trying to say is railroads should run like a transit system, that way elevator operators can be engineers too? Post of the day award.
Not at all. But do not disdain the experience of others. You cannot use 'our' system, and we cannot use your system, but 'we' safely transport many millions of people every day. And it *is* a railroad.
Yes, it is a railroad. But the operating skills required of a subway motorman are considerably different than those required of a locomotive engineer handling a long heavy freight over varying terrain. Not to say one is better than the other, I have always been impressed by a skilled transit (or commuter rail) operator who can wheel into the platform, time after time, and make a perfect spot without standing everyone on their heads, but, a freight train is a whole different animal. I know we are all having automation shoved down our throats (or otherwise administered) but from personal experience, it lacks finesse. Take the human element out of railroading, and we might as well be watching a conveyor belt. I am fortunate in having had 36 years doing what I've always wanted to do. Working with a whole galaxy of characters. Some of them were masters of the craft, others never quite got it, but we were all railroaders.
Not distain, but curiosity.
You keep using the term “we” in your postings….is that the royal “we” or the specific and inclusive “we” which implies you are part of the work force that runs the NYCT?
Yes, NYCT is a railroad, but one designed specifically to move people, with totally specific rules and operating practices designed for that, and that alone.
It’s not a freight railroad by any means.
Besides the fact that they both use rails, locomotives and the word “train”, the similarities pretty much end there.
Applying transit rules to freight trains is impractical.
I would suggest you get a copy of both current volumes of the GCOR and the Norac rule books maybe even the CROR, (Canadian rule book) and read them through, several times.
Using a “trip switch” to place a freight train into a penalty brake application can cause more dangerous problems that you can imagine.
Oh, by the way, Zugman, rpfjohn, myself and a few others here move millions of tons of freight a day.
I move hundreds of cars daily full of the most dangerous chemicals known, every day for the last 16 years, and never spilled a drop.
oltmannd Yes. The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs analyzes regulations, not laws. Regulations are generally the administration of laws - the details of how the law is implemented. This can include areas where the law is silent. e.g. the DOT likely could have mandated PTC on their own had there been no law. So, the PTC regulations flunk the cost - benefit test, but the point is moot to the Administration because the law is so specific. The point of failure here is Congress, not DOT, so Sunstien has no "mistake" to admit!
Keep in mind that laws and regulations where the benefits are correlated with and exceed the costs are kind of self-policing, and perhaps not really needed - enlightened, informed, and reasonable persons should follow the desired action on their own in such instances, unless there is something in the system or organization that prevents them from receiving the benefits of their costs.
In such instances of "externalities", where person A incurs the costs but person B receives the benefits, a law might be necessary to redress that imbalance to achieve the desired actions, viewing the two persons as a system or 'society' as a whole, where the sum of A's costs + B's benefits is enough greater than zero.
Another scenario is that where the person bearing the costs does not have the long-range vision or interest, or perhaps is subject to 'lowest common denominator' competitive pressures, which discourage him from adopting the desired action, unless all of his competitors are forced to do so, too. Examples in the railroad field include the Janney coupler and air brake laws, and roller bearing adoption; elsewhere, anti-pollution laws mandating proper disposal and truck safety equipment laws are examples.
Lastly are scenarios where the benefits will not likely ever exceed the costs, but the desired action is nevertheless deemed desirable by those in charge. Economically rational people would not make such choices of the basis of cost-benefit alone as it is usually measured - but there is usually some more important societal or social goal that makes the desired action seem worthwhile. PTC seems to be of this kind, based on the cited quote. Whether it is or not is a point that perhaps could be debated for a long time . . .
- Paul North.
Remember that the NTSB had been pushing fot PTC for years, being their number 1 recommendation for many years. Chatsworth was just the event that got the ear of the Congress.
oltmannd schlimm My question is this: Did they do those 'other things" In terms of train control, not much. schlimm and if not, what was preventing them from doing so prior to the passing of the PTC mandate? Nothing, and doing something - or having a plan for something - might have headed PTC off. They basically messed around with PTC-like trials, expanded cab signalling in a very few spots and that was it. But, you have to remember, capital money was, and is, tight so it would have been borderline irresponsible to spend it on something with no payback to the RR. Of course, now, they have to pay that, and a whole lot more.
schlimm My question is this: Did they do those 'other things"
schlimm and if not, what was preventing them from doing so prior to the passing of the PTC mandate?
Bluntly, by dragging their collective feet on this, the railroads left Congress no politically acceptable choice but to act. The industry hadn't done much, and the NTSB had been pushing for PTC for years. The proof is in the performance, and the continuing string [EDIT] of several freight rail, Amtrak, commuter rail, and transit agency collisions [EDIT] a each year that supposedly could have been prevented by PTC - but hadn't been, by any method - likely convinced Congress that the industry wasn't going to do anything without a mandate. The supposedly neutral NTSB rooting for PTC in the background made it easier for Congress to do that, too.
Finally, keep in mind that although it seems to us now that the PTC costs greatly exceed the benefits, the industry is only one Toxic Inhalation Hazard (TIH) tank car or container shipment [EDIT] away from being involved in a wreck and leak that could lead to a massive disaster involving hundreds of lives and $Billions in damages, with areas left uninhabitable, etc. (Compare with the ConRail trestle collapse and leaks in Paulsboro, NJ, a few months ago, or a Graniteville occurring in a dense urban area, such as at a rail junction in downtown Atlanta.) Against that possibility, a cost-benefit criteria seems an insufficient basis on which to formulate public policy and laws that affect public safety; is the TSA preventing more terrorist airplane hijackings cost-effective ?
Remember that he NTSB had pushed for PTC for years. Chatsworth simply was the event that got their recommendation into the ear of congress. Of course, they never actually have to pay for their recommendations, leaving that bag in the hands of others.
edblysardYou keep using the term “we” in your postings….is that the royal “we” or the specific and inclusive “we” which implies you are part of the work force that runs the NYCT?
LIONS use the royal "we". Him never owned or worked on the railroad. But the LION takes a proprietorial stance on his beloved NYCT. Him has built an HO scale subway system, him calls it "The Route of the Broadway LION". It is the largest subway layout in the state of North Dakota. (Probably the largest NYCT layout west of the Mississippi.)
LION has many friends there, and a collection of roll signs, brake handles, cutting keys and even a complete set of keys for the current fleet of equipment. Him has built a full size representation of a GRS Model-5 interlocking machine to run his railroad. Him is currently working on the signal system. Has a few bugs to chase away yet. Trains are automatic. LION controls the railroad from the tower.
It keeps the LION amused.
edblysardI would suggest you get a copy of both current volumes of the GCOR and the Norac rule books maybe even the CROR, (Canadian rule book) and read them through, several times.
LION has GCOR, leastwise an older copy thereof. LION leave train handling to you. Him stand by wayside with camera in hand. LION hears that NORAC is going away. Neither LIRR nor MNCR use that rule book. NJT is stuck with it since they run on AMTK owned track, even LIRR must use it west of Harold tower.
LION gets some of his information from retired BNSF conductor, him says he sees where management is trying to automate the mane line. Railroad has given demonstration of GPS ability to blow horn at each intersection. Him says they are mapping out the control applications used on the trains so they can be programed into system to run trains. Sometimes LION thinks him full of hot beans, that is eating the cool aide put out by the railroad in attempt to leverage bargains with union. LION knows not, but will see what he sees when he sees it.
BUT LION sees distributed power. LION knows that distributed power makes train handling easier. If LION can automate toy subway train, smarter people can automate other trains, or so the LION expects. Maybe LION is all wet and should go back to zoo for tasty wildebeest, but LION will also give opinions here. May be strong opinions, LIONS can be that way, LIONS can give bad ideas (bad LION), but even bad ideas make good discussions, and from bad ideas LIONS can discover new ideas to play with.
Gotta keep open mind. Sometimes the wind blows right on through. But a closed mind is a dead mind, and LION does not want that.
BroadwayLion edblysardI would suggest you get a copy of both current volumes of the GCOR and the Norac rule books maybe even the CROR, (Canadian rule book) and read them through, several times. LION has GCOR, leastwise an older copy thereof. LION leave train handling to you. Him stand by wayside with camera in hand. LION hears that NORAC is going away. Neither LIRR nor MNCR use that rule book. NJT is stuck with it since they run on AMTK owned track, even LIRR must use it west of Harold tower. LION gets some of his information from retired BNSF conductor, him says he sees where management is trying to automate the mane line. Railroad has given demonstration of GPS ability to blow horn at each intersection. Him says they are mapping out the control applications used on the trains so they can be programed into system to run trains. Sometimes LION thinks him full of hot beans, that is eating the cool aide put out by the railroad in attempt to leverage bargains with union. LION knows not, but will see what he sees when he sees it. BUT LION sees distributed power. LION knows that distributed power makes train handling easier. If LION can automate toy subway train, smarter people can automate other trains, or so the LION expects. Maybe LION is all wet and should go back to zoo for tasty wildebeest, but LION will also give opinions here. May be strong opinions, LIONS can be that way, LIONS can give bad ideas (bad LION), but even bad ideas make good discussions, and from bad ideas LIONS can discover new ideas to play with. Gotta keep open mind. Sometimes the wind blows right on through. But a closed mind is a dead mind, and LION does not want that. ROAR
Can the Lion fix a burst air hose and a couple of broken knuckle caused by it 1 mile from the middle of nowhere at O Dark Thiry - with the ambiant at -30 and 30 MPH wind added in - with a crewless train.
BaltACDCan the Lion fix a burst air hose and a couple of broken knuckle caused by it 1 mile from the middle of nowhere at O Dark Thiry - with the ambiant at -30 and 30 MPH wind added in - with a crewless train.
LION cannot do this. Sometimes it is not safe for you to do that out here either. You got a mile long train in the middle of the night, with 12-18" of snow swirling around the tracks and temps down in the -20s. Yo are going to walk through the drifts looking for the problem, then have to walk back to the locomotive to get a 100# coupler and carry that back to the place where you need it.
NOT SAFE TO DO THAT!
Yup. that is hard work, and sometimes YOU should not be out there either.
BroadwayLion LION cannot do this. Sometimes it is not safe for you to do that out here either. You got a mile long train in the middle of the night, with 12-18" of snow swirling around the tracks and temps down in the -20s. Yo are going to walk through the drifts looking for the problem, then have to walk back to the locomotive to get a 100# coupler and carry that back to the place where you need it. NOT SAFE TO DO THAT! Yup. that is hard work, and sometimes YOU should not be out there either. ROAR
A train that is not moving is a virtual derailment - the line is blocked and nothing else will move until the stopped train moves. Railroaders get trains moving, while lions stay home in bed.
BroadwayLionLION gets some of his information from retired BNSF conductor, him says he sees where management is trying to automate the mane line. Railroad has given demonstration of GPS ability to blow horn at each intersection. Him says they are mapping out the control applications used on the trains so they can be programed into system to run trains. ROAR
LION,
You should ask your conductor friend how the BNSF will replace knuckles and air hoses without any crew on the train. That seems to be an insurmoutable problem.
BucyrusYou should ask your conductor friend how the BNSF will replace knuckles and air hoses without any crew on the train. That seems to be an insurmoutable problem.
LION knows not the answer. He (conductor-friend) was presuming that they would just send a "brakeman" or something with the train. Just to mind things and not to operate it. He thought they were trying to break the union (some people can be so paranoid) LION knows not the answers, but you can bet that they (whoever "they" are) looking at these things. They do not need pilots on aircraft any more, but they still use them on airliners.
BroadwayLionThey do not need pilots on aircraft any more, but they still use them on airliners.
Then why do they operate the planes on take-offs and landings? Union rules? Why does the military bother with pilots on their aircraft (except the drones)? For fun? Union rules?
BroadwayLion BaltACDCan the Lion fix a burst air hose and a couple of broken knuckle caused by it 1 mile from the middle of nowhere at O Dark Thiry - with the ambiant at -30 and 30 MPH wind added in - with a crewless train. LION cannot do this. Sometimes it is not safe for you to do that out here either. You got a mile long train in the middle of the night, with 12-18" of snow swirling around the tracks and temps down in the -20s. Yo are going to walk through the drifts looking for the problem, then have to walk back to the locomotive to get a 100# coupler and carry that back to the place where you need it. NOT SAFE TO DO THAT! Yup. that is hard work, and sometimes YOU should not be out there either. ROAR
So then what do we do? Let the train sit out there by itself in 3 pieces until the weather warms up?
Just build a new track around it?
As the saying goes: What comes next?
Zugmann loves how all these experts assume road trains just go from A to B with no work in between. Oh yeah, and when you reach "B", the work is done. No yarding the train or anything.
zugmann BaltACDCan the Lion fix a burst air hose and a couple of broken knuckle caused by it 1 mile from the middle of nowhere at O Dark Thiry - with the ambiant at -30 and 30 MPH wind added in - with a crewless train. As the saying goes: What comes next? They will probably have to hire the services of some independent, roving, knuckle and hose contractors.
They will probably have to hire the services of some independent, roving, knuckle and hose contractors.
zugmann So then what do we do? Let the train sit out there by itself in 3 pieces until the weather warms up? Just build a new track around it? As the saying goes: What comes next? Zugmann loves how all these experts assume road trains just go from A to B with no work in between. Oh yeah, and when you reach "B", the work is done. No yarding the train or anything.
Seriously What else do you expect from someone who thinks his little subway model is real, talks in the imperial we and 3rd person and pretends he is a lion?
schlimm Seriously What else do you expect from someone who thinks his little subway model is real, talks in the imperial we and 3rd person and pretends he is a lion?
Zugmann doesn't know.
Bucyrus As the saying goes: What comes next? They will probably have to hire the services of some independent, roving, knuckle and hose contractors.
Which might work - IF, so many miles of track were not accessable - except by rail!
BaltACD BucyrusAs the saying goes: What comes next? They will probably have to hire the services of some independent, roving, knuckle and hose contractors. Which might work - IF, so many miles of track were not accessable - except by rail!
BucyrusAs the saying goes: What comes next? They will probably have to hire the services of some independent, roving, knuckle and hose contractors.
The knuckle & hose contractors will have trucks that carry special rubber track vehicles that can run alongside the track at a brisk speed, starting from the nearest crossing.
They'll probably hire PTI vans, which will wander off into the darkness and find a place for the minimum wage driver to hide and sleep.
Bucyrus The knuckle & hose contractors will have trucks that carry special rubber track vehicles that can run alongside the track at a brisk speed, starting from the nearest crossing.
Screw that. Give them helicopters. Or jet packs.
zugmann Give them helicopters. Or jet packs.
Give them helicopters. Or jet packs.
Isn't there a Canadian line that's already doing that? One man crew, only way to bring in help is by air.
zugmann Bucyrus The knuckle & hose contractors will have trucks that carry special rubber track vehicles that can run alongside the track at a brisk speed, starting from the nearest crossing. Screw that. Give them helicopters. Or jet packs.
Ohhh, jet packs, yeah!
Ever since the first “Lost in Space” season aired way back in the day, I have always wanted one…I know they are useless, don’t fly far or long, but still….yeah!
The UP already has people at based at some terminals that are sent out to help trains in distress. On the former CNW side they are called MICs (Mechanic In Charge), on the former UP side they are called Foreman Generals. They are can make minor mechanical repairs, car or locomotive.
Usually for minor problems, you have to be fairly close to a terminal to have them sent out. For more serious problems they might sent them out further. The really serious problems get the full-fledged car men who are better equipped.
Most of the time it seems when they do send out the MIC/Foreman General, the conductor has already rectified the problem. At least they can give the condr a ride back to the head end.
edblysard Ohhh, jet packs, yeah! Ever since the first “Lost in Space” season aired way back in the day, I have always wanted one…I know they are useless, don’t fly far or long, but still….yeah!
It was the third episode that first featured the jet pack - though I was intrigued by the jet/rocket platforms on Johnny Quest episode about a year earlier (which were loosely based on a ducted prop flying platform developed for the Army)... Tis scary to think that Bill Mumy will be turning 60 early next year.
- Erik
-
They will improve the metalergy of couplers (llike Roles Royce rear axles) so they NEVER break, and brakes will be controlled electronically with a radio receiver in each freight car so there will be no need for hoses (air-tanks pressurized at terminals) and THEN we will have automatic operaion.
tree68 zugmann Give them helicopters. Or jet packs. Isn't there a Canadian line that's already doing that? One man crew, only way to bring in help is by air.
erikem edblysard Ohhh, jet packs, yeah! Ever since the first “Lost in Space” season aired way back in the day, I have always wanted one…I know they are useless, don’t fly far or long, but still….yeah! It was the third episode that first featured the jet pack - though I was intrigued by the jet/rocket platforms on Johnny Quest episode about a year earlier (which were loosely based on a ducted prop flying platform developed for the Army)... Tis scary to think that Bill Mumy will be turning 60 early next year. - Erik -
Yeah,
Johnny Quest had the coolest stuff out there.
Will Robinson is 60?
That means Penny is….OMG!
zugmannZugmann loves how all these experts assume road trains just go from A to B with no work in between. Oh yeah, and when you reach "B", the work is done. No yarding the train or anything.
LION is not expert, but him likes to talk. Talking LIONS are not bad. When they stop talking they start stalking, and Wildebeests try to make themselves scarce.
When LION posts something "funny" him is probably looking for an answer. OK, then! What *do* you do when your train is split in two, the night is dark, the snow is deep, the winds are fierce (the only kinds of winds that we have in North Dakota) and the temperatures are twenty degrees below zero.
No doubt about it, the coupler is broken 3500 feet back. What is a conductor to do? How can he carry a 70 - 100 pound knuckle back through the drifts. Sometimes even Superman must wait for help.
BaltACDA train that is not moving is a virtual derailment - the line is blocked and nothing else will move until the stopped train moves. Railroaders get trains moving, while lions stay home in bed.
Solution of LION.
1) Pull the train that he has out of there, Park it on next siding
2) go back to broken half with new coupler, fix and pull it to the siding.
3) can put train back together again.
BroadwayLion BaltACDA train that is not moving is a virtual derailment - the line is blocked and nothing else will move until the stopped train moves. Railroaders get trains moving, while lions stay home in bed. Solution of LION. 1) Pull the train that he has out of there, Park it on next siding 2) go back to broken half with new coupler, fix and pull it to the siding. 3) can put train back together again. ROAR
1. Engineer drops off knuckle from engine. (Assuming extra knuckles available on engine.)
2. Pulls head end of train, with conductor riding rear car up to knuckle.
3. Conductor stops rear car at knuckle.
4. If rear car the one with the broken one, could replace right away.
5. If head car of rear section needs knuckle replaced, conductor places knuckle on rear car (Almost all cars have at least a crossover platform where a knuckle could ride.) and shoves back to train. Repairs knuckle.
Optional 5A. Repeats 1 through 5 because engineer dropped off wrong knuckle.
6. Recouple train and air hose. Cut the air in and hope EOT shows air all the way through. If not, more problems.
The key element would be comparison between the probabilistic assessments of the range of likely costs of:
To a limited extent, the intellectual issue and analysis seems similar to the decision of spending the money to prevent an asteroid from striking the Earth and annihilating us all - very small risk of a huge loss, vs. a certainty of high expenses to perhaps prevent it.
Paul_D_North_Jr The key element would be comparison between the probabilistic assessments of the range of likely costs of: Being pro-active and installing the then-Best Available Technology (ATC, ATS, etc.) on all of the many lines that are now required, and perhaps having to upgrade it a few times and ultimately replace it with PTC - though on a more measured pace - at some time in the future; vs. The mad rush that we have now, with a 22:1 (negative) cost / benefit ratio. To a limited extent, the intellectual issue and analysis seems similar to the decision of spending the money to prevent an asteroid from striking the Earth and annihilating us all - very small risk of a huge loss, vs. a certainty of high expenses to perhaps prevent it.
LION once took a course in economics 101. It is not about money. It is about compliance with a perceived need expressed by a government agency. Politicians are a few steps lower than reporters, but they do know one thing: How to get elected, ergo, what flies with the public and what does not.
Railroad will listen to government on this, because 1) public relations is a good thing, 2) smoother operation of railroad is good thing. 3) keeping employees alive is a good thing, 4) good union and labor relations is a good thing, --(And just what does the union want on this issue)-- and 5) reinvestment of funds in infrastructure rides well with the public and with stockholders, and besides it is tax deductible.
It is a win-win situation to do it with irrelevant costs on the other side. Besides, half of the infrastructure is there already (signals) and signals can be upgraded and the expense written off to PTC installation, and it is one more step on the road to full automation of some trains.
Mr. Lion, most of the same points could be said about a requirement to install fire sprinklers in your home, or a business, or a social club, etc. Suppose the cost would be $11,000 for each $500 of benefits, such as fire insurance premium savings, and/ or the avoided future costs of fire damage. More scaled up, having to spend $2.2 million for each $100,000 of savings in potential fire damage - when the house itself is worth only $300,000. How would you - or anyone else - feel about that ?
Why didn't they fight it more? Maybe they didn't really want to?
Something that has been mentioned in passing but not really developed (unless I missed it while quickly scanning the thread-note to self: don't open 7 page threads when you're getting ready to go to work.)...RR's have been resarching PTC for years and probably have confidence in the system. With the capital costs involved and the long term payback required, everyone is hesitant to be first to commit to something so vast and expensive. But, with a pending industrywide mandate, no one is going to be any worse off for their installation nor worse off for not making the investment while their competitor(s) did. It's like electrification. Even the most limited initial installation is going to tie up a lot of capital. If everyone makes the same move at the same time, no one is relatively at greater risk and everyone gets to share the benefits.
Paul_D_North_Jr Mr. Lion, most of the same points could be said about a requirement to install fire sprinklers in your home, or a business, or a social club, etc. Suppose the cost would be $11,000 for each $500 of benefits, such as fire insurance premium savings, and/ or the avoided future costs of fire damage. More scaled up, having to spend $2.2 million for each $100,000 of savings in potential fire damage - when the house itself is worth only $300,000. How would you - or anyone else - feel about that ? - Paul North.
WE *did* install fire sprinklers in most of our buildings. We like the idea very much. Ours is a complicated installation since some floors/wings in this building is not heated. We are glad to have them, the price was within our means, and we sleep a lot better at night.
The "Old Guest House" was torn down rather than to bring it into compliance. It was not worth putting any money into it.
LION (being an old NYC building superintendent) *likes* the idea of fire sprinklers. I look at floods, hurricanes and tornadoes, and I say "The Building must be able to protect the people in it."
Paul_D_North_JrTo a limited extent, the intellectual issue and analysis seems similar to the decision of spending the money to prevent an asteroid from striking the Earth and annihilating us all - very small risk of a huge loss, vs. a certainty of high expenses to perhaps prevent it.
That would be true if the reality were so small a probability. The question actually is: How many train collisions have occurred in the past 10 years that could have been prevented by PTC? Somebody might know,(I believe about 8 in the past 30 months) but I am certain it was many more than the zero incidence of "huge asteroids striking the earth and annihilating us all."
Actually, we get hit all the time, only so far they are tiny bits and pieces of leftovers….
In galactic terms, Shoemaker Levy was just next door, and some of the pieces there were 1 +/- mile in dia.
Back in Sept. 2012, it got whacked again, so the zero incident probability you suggest is getting less likely…what we really need is PAT, Positive Asteroid Control….or maybe we can call it PAD, Positive Asteroid Deflection…
Maybe we could use Creative Repositioning of Asteroid Path….kinda like PTC, sounds great, you can hide it under a lot of paper, but it really smells bad.
Actually, the phrase in question, from Paul North, was "Huge asteroids striking the earth and annihilating us all" but I guess that got lost in your sea of sarcasm. But the real point (which the railroaders seem to be in denial of), is there are many collisions, many of which are preventable by PTC. Why the fear? Thinking this leads to remote or auto pilot trains on the road? Nowhere else that has advanced train control has moved in that direction.
http://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/2013/scott_city_mo/Chaffee_MO_10-Day_Preliminary%20Report_20130607.pdf
BroadwayLionLION once took a course in economics 101. It is not about money. It is about compliance with a perceived need expressed by a government agency. Politicians are a few steps lower than reporters, but they do know one thing: How to get elected, ergo, what flies with the public and what does not. Railroad will listen to government on this, because 1) public relations is a good thing, 2) smoother operation of railroad is good thing. 3) keeping employees alive is a good thing, 4) good union and labor relations is a good thing, --(And just what does the union want on this issue)-- and 5) reinvestment of funds in infrastructure rides well with the public and with stockholders, and besides it is tax deductible. It is a win-win situation to do it with irrelevant costs on the other side. Besides, half of the infrastructure is there already (signals) and signals can be upgraded and the expense written off to PTC installation, and it is one more step on the road to full automation of some trains. ROAR
From the present day perspective, PTC seems like an item that will one day be completed, like building a bridge or skyscraper. But in reality, PTC may not be a single item. Instead it may be a process that has no final objective or ending. Even from our present day view, the presumed endpoint is unknown. There is a deadline, but it seems obvious that it cannot be met. As far as I know, no new deadline has been set.
Extending the deadline will give more time to get the job done, but it also gives more time for the art to evolve. Portions of the system may be obsolete before it is finished. The installation may have a hard time keeping up with the advancing technology. Cost overrun is likely to be huge, and that will pose the prospect of making radical changes in direction in the ever-evolving installation.
So, I don’t think PTC will be like an item that is one day finished. It will be like a process that is ever becoming. And somewhere along the road of that process is full automation. And the road probably does not even end there. The entire railroad system is likely to evolve rapidly in many different ways that will include big changes in operation.
Here is a good article and conversation about the PTC controversy:
http://www.theverge.com/2013/4/15/4226264/positive-train-control-controversy
Quote from the article makes a good point about deaths in train wrecks versus deaths in car accidents:
It’s difficult, however, to argue against a technology that could save lives. A passenger on a derailed train in 2003 recently told the Chicago Tribune, "I think somebody’s life is a lot more important than dollars."
But Banks isn’t so sure.
"Yes, I think the railroads should be as safe as possible," he said. "But it’s insane to force railroads to spend billions in private capital on this project when less than 40 people have died in the last decade in [U.S.] rail collisions while nearly 40,000 people get killed on the highways every year."
Found this on the British experience:
The Ladbrooke Grove crash(1999, 31 killed, 520 injured) prompted the roll-out of TPWS acorss the network, which brings trains to a halt if they try and pass a signal at danger (or pass certain point too fast). TPWS doesn’t guarantee the train will stop before the signal – it may stop in the area beyond the signal (UK signals are always some distance in front of the area they protect, so that small over runs pose no safety risk). Every fatal train accident in the UK since 1999 has been caused by track problems rather than signalling issues.
UK: for the period 1991 to 2009, (includes the pre-Ladbrooke period of 9 years) one fatality for every 10.96 bn pass-km
UK: for 2000-2009, (since TPWS) the figure is one fatality for every 36.66 billion passenger-km.
US: for 1990-2010 one death per 3.4 billion passenger-km.
Two lessons: 1. Highly publicized accidents with a considerable loss of life have prompted government action elsewhere. 2. Our death rate is very high by comparison.
In thinking about PTC leading to automated operation, I went back and reviewed another thread from last year about crewless running. It has become one of the prominent references on the topic when you do a Google search.
However, I am puzzled by something. Why are many of the posts in this thread out of sequential order? When reading the thread the way it is displayed, comments quoted in some posts are quoted before the comments were actually made.
The dates of the posts clearly show that they are listed out of order in the thread. As a reference resource, its scrambled sequence makes much of it meaningless. Why have the posts gotten out of sequence?
Look at it here:
http://cs.trains.com/trn/f/111/t/203077.aspx?sort=DESC&pi332=1
As others have posted -- IMHO the NTSB warned the RRs that they were pushing PTC long before the Ca collision. But they ignored the calls and instead of expanding cab signaling, ATC, & ATS dropped them when the ICC & later the FRA allowed dropping. IC is an example.
So they are unfortunately having to pay the price.;
blue streak 1 As others have posted -- IMHO the NTSB warned the RRs that they were pushing PTC long before the Ca collision. But they ignored the calls and instead of expanding cab signaling, ATC, & ATS dropped them when the ICC & later the FRA allowed dropping. IC is an example. So they are unfortunately having to pay the price.;
Paul_D_North_Jr ...same points could be said about a requirement to install fire sprinklers in your home, or a business, or a social club, etc. Suppose the cost would be $11,000 for each $500 of benefits, such as fire insurance premium savings, and/ or the avoided future costs of fire damage. More scaled up, having to spend $2.2 million for each $100,000 of savings in potential fire damage - when the house itself is worth only $300,000. How would you - or anyone else - feel about that ?
...same points could be said about a requirement to install fire sprinklers in your home, or a business, or a social club, etc. Suppose the cost would be $11,000 for each $500 of benefits, such as fire insurance premium savings, and/ or the avoided future costs of fire damage. More scaled up, having to spend $2.2 million for each $100,000 of savings in potential fire damage - when the house itself is worth only $300,000. How would you - or anyone else - feel about that ?
Oddly, the biggest opponents of the sprinkler requirement are the building trades organizations. It's been opined that they'd rather see the house burn down (as new construction is wont to do) so they can build a new one...
That would be like the car builders (Greenbrier, et al), locomotive builders, and track construction companies coming out against PTC, because it might mean less business for them.
schlimm blue streak 1 As others have posted -- IMHO the NTSB warned the RRs that they were pushing PTC long before the Ca collision. But they ignored the calls and instead of expanding cab signaling, ATC, & ATS dropped them when the ICC & later the FRA allowed dropping. IC is an example. So they are unfortunately having to pay the price.; Shortsightedness at its worst.
Perhaps they stopped listening because the NTSB/FRA had been droning on so long about it, it was falling on deaf ears.
While the NTSB has been pushing things analogus to PTC for years, it is really only within the last decade that the carriers financial situation has warrented there being a mandate. Prior to 2000, while the carriers showed profits, they were not solid 'bankable' profits as there were concessions made from both the maintenance and investment sides of the business to insure that the stockholders were getting a return.
In today's financial world, the carriers are earning solid profits while putting record amounts into maintenance and plant enhancement projects. With that kind of financial footing, the carriers did not possess much of a 'financial defense' against the mandate, and they knew it and thus there was limited complaining about the mandate.
There's a pretty good and good-sized article about this whole subject - written around the context of SEPTA and the other commuter carriers - in yesterday's (Tuesday, 18 June 2013) Wall Street Journal, starting 'below the fold' on page A-1 and continuing on page A-12 (I believe). It has a photo of the Bridgeport viaduct/ trestle (apparently in the Norristown area - the article doesn't say whether it's on the High Speed Line [ex=P&W interurban], or the Regional Rail line [ex-Reading RR] ) that SEPTA says it will have to close next month because of a lack of money to both install PTC and maintain existing infrastructure - a bridge, in this case. The article is titled "Rail Safety and the Value of a Life" by Ted Mann, and an on-line version appears to be 'datelined' as June 17, 2013. Unfortunately, it appears to be available on-line only to subscribers (which I'm not, either), so for those who are interested I suggest the nearest public library.
blue streak 1 blue streak 1 As others have posted -- IMHO the NTSB warned the RRs that they were pushing PTC long before the Ca collision. But they ignored the calls and instead of expanding cab signaling, ATC, & ATS dropped them when the ICC & later the FRA allowed dropping. IC is an example. So they are unfortunately having to pay the price.; As a follow up -- before the Chatworth accident was any RR other han NS planning or actually expanding any of the mentioned upgrades ? We know NS is putting cab signaling on at least one route and maybe more ? Any other RRs? Metrolink has added ATS on all their tracks after Chatsworth.
Prior to the Chatsworth incident, CSX was working on what they termed CBTC - Communications Based Train Control. A real world 'test bed' had been implemented on the Blue Ridge Sub (former Clinchfield) and was involved in day to day testing.
Some of the elements of CBTC remain existant in PTC as it is currently being developed.
schlimm Actually, the phrase in question, from Paul North, was "Huge asteroids striking the earth and annihilating us all" but I guess that got lost in your sea of sarcasm. But the real point (which the railroaders seem to be in denial of), is there are many collisions, many of which are preventable by PTC. Why the fear? Thinking this leads to remote or auto pilot trains on the road? Nowhere else that has advanced train control has moved in that direction. http://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/2013/scott_city_mo/Chaffee_MO_10-Day_Preliminary%20Report_20130607.pdf
From March, 2011 to march 2013, there have been 15 head on collisions, not all involving train on train collisions, of that group only 7 were train on train, 4 due to failure to observe restricted speed, 3 due to a improperly lined switch.
The rest involved Hi rail trucks exceeding track authority, blind shoves on main track, and what the FRA termed “other” motor vehicle exceeding authority, 1 still under investigation.
So we are basically looking at 7 collisions that might have been prevented by PTC.
7 out of how many thousands of train starts in that same 3 year period.
Bet if you looked, you would find that there are more aircraft running into each other on run way incursions than trains running into other trains.
Total
Total Year Counts
YTD Counts Jan -Mar
% Change Over Time
Accs
Pct of Total
2010
2011
2012
2013
2010to 2012
2011to 2012
To Mar 20122013
-----GRAND TOTAL.......
15
100.0
3
5
6
1
20.0
-66.7
H607 Failure to comply with restricted speed
4
26.7
.
2
H702 Switch improperly lined
H021 Fail to apply car hnd brks -rr emp
6.7
H221 Automatic block or interlocking signal d
H306 Shoving movement, absence of man
H402 Motor car/on-trk rules, fail to comply
H404 Fail to comply with trn order, etc.
H499 Other main track authority causes
M504 Fail by non-rr empto control spd of car
M505 Cause under investigation
Railroaders are not in denial….we simply work with this stuff every day, and have a good grasp on what will work and what will not.
PTC is one of the not too bright ideas…the money could be better spent and obtain much better results in other areas of our industry.
edblysard From March, 2011 to march 2013, there have been 15 head on collisions, not all involving train on train collisions, of that group only 7 were train on train, 4 due to failure to observe restricted speed, 3 due to a improperly lined switch. The rest involved Hi rail trucks exceeding track authority, blind shoves on main track, and what the FRA termed “other” motor vehicle exceeding authority, 1 still under investigation. So we are basically looking at 7 collisions that might have been prevented by PTC.
Head on collisions? Who said that's all we can look at? Running into the side of another train or the rear of another train also count and could also be prevented.
Bucyrus 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. 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?
Predicting costs and benefits is doable, but it is important to understand the constraints. This is especially true for predictions going out more than a couple of years.
The key to predicting costs and benefits is to begin with an appropriate database. Another key is to use the appropriate statistical modeling techniques. If the database is shallow and/or the statistical techniques are inappropriate, the results will be wrong. Every statistical technique (method) has inherent weaknesses. If the researches don't understand them, they are likely to generate the wrong outcome.
Each year for grins I read the President's (OMB) proposed federal budget. I read all of the summary tables, as well as the support schedules for transportation, at a minimum, and a significant portion of the narrative.. I also read the Social Security and Medicare Trustee's annual reports. These documents contain projections for 10 years or more. From one year to another the projections, especially those for more than five years, can swing as much as 20 per cent. And that is just over one year.
When someone predicts the costs and benefits of a proposed project as a number, it would only be accurate coincidentally. An honest researcher projects a range of numbers, together with the parameters baked into his or her statistical model.
Bottom line? View all statistical projections (costs and benefits) with a skeptical eye.
schlimm Head on collisions? Who said that's all we can look at? Running into the side of another train or the rear of another train also count and could also be prevented.
Of course, "cornfield meets" are the grandaddy of all collisions. I suspect that Ed's point is that such catastrophic events are extremely rare, when considering the number of operations that occur on railroads during a given period.
F'rinstance, just considering the line that runs through my area, there were approximately 3000 train starts over a typical two year period (and maybe more). That 15 collisions, applied only to this line, means that .5% percent of the trains would have been involved in such a collision, or one in 200. Raise that number to 30,000 and 15 starts to become a relatively insignificant number. If you raise that to 3000 starts a day and you have over two million starts - still with just 15 collisions.
That's one incident in 133,333.
To my knowledge, there were no purely rail adverse events on this line during that period, even including derailments. Pedestrians aren't covered by PTC.
The last major incident on the line - the Fort Drum runaways - would not have been prevented by PTC - there was no locomotive or EOT involved. Just two "dark" cars.
oltmannd 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?
"
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?
One of the Congressmen in the PTC hearing yesterday quoted Will quoting Sunstein.
Sam1,
I can see how the probable benefit could be predicted by statistical models that project the future based on the past. But I would say that it would be far more difficult to predict the cost.
Predicting the cost would be largely a matter of speculation and luck. The principle of a mandate and deadline injects a wildcard into the normal free market economics. The fact that it has already been established and accepted that the cost will exceed the benefit is evidence of that wildcard.
But perhaps another way of looking at the unpredictability of cost is that it naturally results from the undefined endpoint of the objective and scope of the project.
Bucyrus Sam1, I can see how the probable benefit could be predicted by statistical models that project the future based on the past. But I would say that it would be far more difficult to predict the cost. Predicting the cost would be largely a matter of speculation and luck. The principle of a mandate and deadline injects a wildcard into the normal free market economics. The fact that it has already been established and accepted that the cost will exceed the benefit is evidence of that wildcard. But perhaps another way of looking at the unpredictability of cost is that it naturally results from the undefined endpoint of the objective and scope of the project.
Predicting cost and benefits, especially for more than a year or two, is dicey. Most of the corporate planners and regulators that I worked with acknowledged that coming up with an accurate prediction for costs and benefits for more than a year or two is more about playing to the audience than recognizing the constraints associated with accounting and finance predictions.
All I'm getting out of this thread is that my next train might get hit by an asteroid while I'm changing a knuckle in a snowbank.
Do you have to carry the knuckle uphill, barefoot in the snow?
edblysard Do you have to carry the knuckle uphill, barefoot in the snow?
Of course .. you expect me to wear pumps ?
The fact that the cost exceeds the benefit of this PTC mandate naturally opens the door to criticism. And since nobody wants criticism, I have to believe that the cost estimate has been made to be as low as possible. In reality, I expect the cost to be unlimited because the work will go on forever. The mandate deadline time frame will be subdivided in order to cope with the impossibility of meeting it in one fell swoop.
Subdividing the timeframe will amount to subdividing the mandate, and this process will continue ad infinitum. Mandates will have children. But the key point is that the whole process will be compulsory upon the railroads, leaving them no choice but to pay for it. That is one big reason why the process will never end.
Randy Stahl All I'm getting out of this thread is that my next train might get hit by an asteroid while I'm changing a knuckle in a snowbank.
Snowbanks have knuckles?
Randy Stahl edblysard Do you have to carry the knuckle uphill, barefoot in the snow? Of course .. you expect me to wear pumps ?
Now I know, you were a ground pounder/switchman at one time, thats the answer I was expecting!
Randy Stahl Of course .. you expect me to wear pumps ?
Only if you have the legs for it.
tree68 Randy Stahl All I'm getting out of this thread is that my next train might get hit by an asteroid while I'm changing a knuckle in a snowbank. Snowbanks have knuckles?
Yes, snow banks have knuckles.. we find them with the snow plows. Makes quite a racket.
Once again certain folks make a thread ridiculous because they don't like the topic.
schlimm Once again certain folks make a thread ridiculous because they don't like the topic.
That's ridiculous!
Hi-heels....
Any argument carried far enough will end up in Semantics--Hartz's law of rhetoric Emerald. Leemer and Southern The route of the Sceptre Express Barry
I just started my blog site...more stuff to come...
http://modeltrainswithmusic.blogspot.ca/
Well... out of all the people that are writing there are only a few that are directly impacted by the proposed PTC implementation. Of course anyone traveling by rail may or may not feel safer , but it is us, the railway mechanical and operating people that will be responsible for the installation, operation and maintenence or these systems. Over the years I have worked on any number of mandated safety systems that were deemed imperative for safe operation and I take my job very seriously. I have installed 100s of mandated event recorders, 100s of mandated crew alert systems, 100s of mandated ditch lights and 100s of other mandated modifications to enable legal operation of our locomotive fleet in the US and Canada. Since I am the one doing the actual work and testing on these devices and or mods ,I have a perspective that no one else has. I have seen other mandated mods and systems that never quite worked out. No matter what happens with PTC, regardless if I agree with it or not, I will install them, I will maintain them and I will do my job !
So .. before you dismiss someone as a troll or a trouble maker, or of even wrecking a thread with humour.. know the source.
Randy Stahl
Randy Stahl So .. before you dismiss someone as a troll or a trouble maker, or of even wrecking a thread with humour.. know the source. Randy Stahl
I wasn't referring to your comments, since your other posts were very fact-based. I am not sure if PTC was the right answer, but pretty clearly it was a response to a real problem that was not being addressed proactively. And that is what generally ends up happening when you aren't proactive: someone else makes you do something(that might not be so good) to address the problem because you stalled. [excuse the pun! but the readers should know "Stahl" means "steel"]
Well, the LION does own a railroad, 14 miles of 1:87 scale trains. With these credentials, shall I challenge the NTSB, or the FRA, or the BNSF, or any other letters that may have fallen out of a can of soup?
Well, Yes, I guess I will.
PTC is an "idea", not a protocol or a physical contrivance. People are promoting an idea, without any uniform protocols or hardware to point to, to praise, or complain about. NYCT does have PTC and for them it works, but I can not really see that working out on the high iron. (Be it steel or otherwise)
LION does not engage in high finances, transportation, or even reality, or so it would seem. But ideas... The LION as them by the hundred. And if you need more, I have more where those came from.
So... PTC as an IDEA... It has already happened. But what shall it do, what it will look like, what equipment is required, this is all fungible. But LION sees it grown along side of and concurrent with AUTOMATION. And that is the ELEPHANT in the room. Automation cannot happen with out train control, positive or otherwise. But LIRR and MNCR have had great experience with cab signals, indeed LIRR's cab signals are tied to their positive train control. MNCR has regular signal aspects inside the cab, and the wayside block signals have mostly gone away. LIRR has signal aspects tied to the speedometer, a lamp over every 10 mph on the scale. It tells the engine what speed to do now. I suppose that if he does not control the train in accordance with this display, the machine will do it for him.
Another aspect of PTC as an IDEA, is crew safety. Sleep, inattentivity, and vision issues are things that limit the life expectancy of train crews. Does it fulfill this idea. Well, yes and no. IT will prevent some accidents but not others. We do not put a money value on life or injury, that is far too political for a LION to deal with. But him cannot see killing people off for no good reason. (even if they are tasty).
Some people LIKE the 'idea" but have no idea what it really entails, others look at the dark side of the "idea" and try to oppose it. If I owned a real rail road, I'd IGNORE it and put my attention into automated train control. THAT is, according to LION, where the issue has to go. But then unions do not *like* that idea. Me thinks they should be the FIRST to get on board the project, if for no other reason than to protect their (employees) interests.
LION would like to hear more discussion on this topic/ Him makes outrageous proposal because him wants to hear discussion, not because him thinks him is right.
schlimm Randy Stahl So .. before you dismiss someone as a troll or a trouble maker, or of even wrecking a thread with humour.. know the source. Randy Stahl I wasn't referring to your comments, since your other posts were very fact-based. I am not sure if PTC was the right answer, but pretty clearly it was a response to a real problem that was not being addressed proactively. And that is what generally ends up happening when you aren't proactive: someone else makes you do something(that might not be so good) to address the problem because you stalled. [excuse the pun! but the readers should know "Stahl" means "steel"]
Tis easy for a governmental body to mandate a unperfected technology when the governmental body is not responsible for funding that mandate or perfecting the technology. Article I recently saw (sorry no link) states that the FCC still has not allocated the radio bands that will be required to operate the system. So one side of the government says do it, and another side holds up required tools for doing it. Only in the US of A.
zugmann Randy Stahl Of course .. you expect me to wear pumps ? Only if you have the legs for it.
Well.. if you like varicose veins perhaps we should meet.
Randy Stahl Well... out of all the people that are writing there are only a few that are directly impacted by the proposed PTC implementation.
Well... out of all the people that are writing there are only a few that are directly impacted by the proposed PTC implementation.
It's not likely that our tourist line will see PTC in the foreseeable future - but we can't rule it out entirely. We do run over a portion of a shortline, which could have an effect on our operations.
And, as I noted in another thread, part of the PTC issue is "What's Next?"
As for the weak humor - my kids always knew never to hand me a straight line... Didn't intend to detract from the discussion.
tree68 Randy Stahl Well... out of all the people that are writing there are only a few that are directly impacted by the proposed PTC implementation. It's not likely that our tourist line will see PTC in the foreseeable future - but we can't rule it out entirely. We do run over a portion of a shortline, which could have an effect on our operations. And, as I noted in another thread, part of the PTC issue is "What's Next?" As for the weak humor - my kids always knew never to hand me a straight line... Didn't intend to detract from the discussion.
Loop holes, get your loop holes.
Although with passengers on a tourist operation may complicate things, I was reading (I believe in Railway Age) that there was a provision for short lines that had trackage rights over other railroads. If the short line otherwise didn't meet the requirements to install PTC, they could get a waiver to operate without it over trackage of another railroad where PTC installation was required. I think there was a limit to how far the distance could be, something like 20 or 25 miles. (It's kind of like some of the exceptions we have that allow non-equipped CCS/ATC engines to operate in select, specific areas in CCS/ATC territories.)
Of course those waivers and exemptions will only last until one of those non-equipped trains runs into another train in PTC territory.
BaltACD schlimm Randy Stahl So .. before you dismiss someone as a troll or a trouble maker, or of even wrecking a thread with humour.. know the source. Randy Stahl I wasn't referring to your comments, since your other posts were very fact-based. I am not sure if PTC was the right answer, but pretty clearly it was a response to a real problem that was not being addressed proactively. And that is what generally ends up happening when you aren't proactive: someone else makes you do something(that might not be so good) to address the problem because you stalled. [excuse the pun! but the readers should know "Stahl" means "steel"] Tis easy for a governmental body to mandate a unperfected technology when the governmental body is not responsible for funding that mandate or perfecting the technology. Article I recently saw (sorry no link) states that the FCC still has not allocated the radio bands that will be required to operate the system. So one side of the government says do it, and another side holds up required tools for doing it. Only in the US of A.
One carrier has seen fit to produce a pamphlet to their employees to explain the elements of PTC that is still in development
One can only imagine the rule book that will be required to implement this.
And the FRA thinks a cell phone is dangerous and distracting?
edblysard And the FRA thinks a cell phone is dangerous and distracting?
This keeps your mind on the railroad, a cell phone takes your mind someplace else.
BaltACD, thanks much for sharing that ! Very informative.
Bonas Look at the wreck of the Washingtonian in Altoona PA in the 1960s
Look at the wreck of the Washingtonian in Altoona PA in the 1960s
I am from Altoona. I lived there from 1939 to 1964. Where can I find information regarding this wreck? Thanks!
Paul_D_North_Jr BaltACD, thanks much for sharing that ! Very informative. - Paul North.
I second that! Very informative.
I don't know whether the perceived benefits of PTC will justify the costs. Many if not most of the government mandated safety policies, procedures, and practices for the airlines have resulted in a safer system than might otherwise have been the case.
If the airlines and railroads are to be positively controlled, the nation should apply the same standards to truckers, barge operators, etc. If I remember correctly, truckers are responsible for more than 5,000 fatalities a year.
PTC for truckers. Now that would keep the programmers and equipment manufactures employed for at least a couple of weeks. Don't you think?
Sam1 PTC for truckers. Now that would keep the programmers and equipment manufactures employed for at least a couple of weeks. Don't you think?
The trucking companies can already keep track of a lot of what's going on with their trucks via satellite. Where they are, how fast they are going, vehicle performance,etc.
A mechanic in a name-brand Diesel shop once told that they were on the phone with the fleet manager about a problem with a truck that had been brought in. They started the truck sans key while on the phone and the fleet manager immediately wanted to know who had started "his" truck...
A speed overlay would be virtually impossible to maintain since so many agencies would have to collaborate in gathering the information and keeping it up to date (construction zones set up for a few hours, f'rinstance). Add to that the granularity needed in some areas (ie, service roads paralleling Interstate highways - two different speeds) and the whole thing becomes even more problematic.
We won't even discuss including traffic control devices. Integrating them would be a nightmare.
On the other hand, another common problem for trucks is low clearances, which overlay would be a lot easier to create and maintain. Some states are already doing that, albeit in paper form or on their transportation department web pages.
Ridicule the PTC mandate as you wish, but without the government mandate of the ASA in the 1890's, maybe freight railroads would still lack automatic couplers and Westinghouse brakes? The rails adopted the brake system quickly on passenger trains, but 20 years later, had done nothing, until the mandate. Would you enjoy those work conditions?
schlimm Ridicule the PTC mandate as you wish, but without the government mandate of the ASA in the 1890's, maybe freight railroads would still lack automatic couplers and Westinghouse brakes? The rails adopted the brake system quickly on passenger trains, but 20 years later, had done nothing, until the mandate. Would you enjoy those work conditions?
Since you asked, Don:
I know nothing about PTC costs or technology. However, I have spent some time studying the politics of the budgetary process. That could explain the unwillingness of railroad managers to publically oppose PTC. In American where many people are inclined to make instant judgments with little or no knowledge it could sound like opposition to PTC is opposition to safety. There are costs to making politically incorrect statements and that fact theat the statements are true does not reduce the costs. So railroad managers might be reluctant to speak out for that reason. After all, there is no dishonesty in simply no addressing an issue.
I would like to know what you think of my idea.
John
Murphy SidingRidicule the opinions and logic of others as you wish, but was the mandate for ASA as big an unknown as PTC, and proportionaly as big of an added expense as PTC?
Murphy: I don't know the figures on that, but the objections raised, especially for air brakes were that the equipment was expensive at the time and they had to re-equip 100's of thousands of rail cars and locomotives. Also it was hard to mix re-equipped and non-equipped cars in the same train. So even though the brake was available for 20 years, the rails stalled.
As I see it, the resistance to airbrakes was mostly a cost issue- the railroads didn't want to spend the money. PTC looks to have two major hurdles- cost and implementaion. The railroads of way back when just didn't feel they needed to spend the money on airbrakes. In essence, employee safety wasn't high on their priority list. It seems like the railroads of today (and/or their investor wonders) seem to be asking if the benefits warrant the costs. A theme that keeps popping up is the implementaion. It's the big What if? . What if the politicians, in trying to make themselves look good to the public, mandate railroads spending huge sums of capital on a system that might not even work? Would the same politicians admit they made a mistake, or simply require more systems and more (of someone else's) money be spent to fix the fix?
Cab signals seem to be a pretty solid technology.
GPS is a very solid technology. A farm tractor being steered by GPS can lay down more even rows than a farmer can do without it. If a farmer can afford it on his tractor, a railroad can certainly afford it on his locomotive.
Every single freight car has an RFID transponder on it giving its identification each time it passes a detector. Reverse the detector, put the receiver on the locomotive and the transponder on the signal masts so that it transmits the aspect of each signal to the locomotive.
It is all kids' stuff now. And CHEAP too. There is no reason not to embrace it in full.
As there were over 1 million cars and locomotives to re-equip in a shorter time with compatibility issues as well in 1900, implementation and cost were the objections then, too. The arguments against couplers were the same as PTC now (the air brakes had already been proven on passenger cars for up to 20 years).
schlimm As there were over 1 million cars and locomotives to re-equip in a shorter time with compatibility issues as well in 1900, implementation and cost were the objections then, too. The arguments against couplers were the same as PTC now (the air brakes had already been proven on passenger cars for up to 20 years).
All of the cars (at least those that matter) already have RFID or whatever it is.
Millions of trucks on the roadways have GPS. FARMERS use GPS to plant their crops for pity sake, How many TRACTORS are there?
It is NOW old technology and fairly cheap too. As soon as it is cheaper than an engine crew, I am sure that the railroad will let you know about it.
When adopting automatic brakes couplers was the issue, the railroads didn't care about the 1000's of yearly accidents with hand and fingers lost to the old link and pin. Cost benefit analysis of the day showed them adoption cost more than the losses in manpower. railroad unions started in the 1860's but were still weak. Wages averaged $1.00 per day and 70 percent of all train crews could expect injury within five years of service. In 1893, over 18,343 railroad workers were injured and 1,657 were killed. One of the first victories for labor was the ASA. Now it seems different. Looks like labor agrees with management, perhaps because they fear job losses more than concerns about safety. Times change!
Management and Union must both be mutually concerned about two things: SAFETY, and PERFORMANCE.
They should be attending weekly or monthly meetings TOGETHER to keep the railroad the best it can be. LION has never understood the adversarial relationship between labor and management, but him does know that it goes back 3000 years, and so does not expect wonderful things of the relationship.
Workers wants emolument, and Management wants performance. It's a match made in Altoona.
BroadwayLion Every single freight car has an RFID transponder on it giving its identification each time it passes a detector. Reverse the detector, put the receiver on the locomotive and the transponder on the signal masts so that it transmits the aspect of each signal to the locomotive.
Signal aspect is but one tiny part of PTC, as I understand it. What makes PTC PTC, instead of one of the myraid other methods of controlling train movement, is the two-way communication between the locomotive and the infrastructure - which includes not only signals, but permanent and temporary speed restrictions, work limits, crossings, what-have-you.
Because the overlay, as it's called, has all of that information and is constantly relating the location of the train with the territory, it can be predictive. RFID transponders on signal masts cannot.
Using two-way communication also means that the entire profile of the railroad doesn't have to be loaded on the locomotive - it's being fed real-time.
Yes. LIONS are full of ideas. Some are just no darn good. But him does not know that until you tell him, and then he will think of a new idea. LION was reacting in part to a post on the Subway Forum where DRN, an engineer for MNCR was holding forth on cab signals and some learned information or track resistances and losses over distances as they affected his cab signals.
So in his post here, LION sought to bypass track impertinences with some other form of communication to the train. If a wayside signal sent so and such a message to the train transponder and if the engineer did not act on it, then the train could try to wake him up, or else begin braking.
LION will let rocket scientists design the system, and the engineers and conductors can find out if it will work for them, in the meanwhile, have you seen this "Train-Plane"?
BroadwayLion Management and Union must both be mutually concerned about two things: SAFETY, and PERFORMANCE. They should be attending weekly or monthly meetings TOGETHER to keep the railroad the best it can be. LION has never understood the adversarial relationship between labor and management, but him does know that it goes back 3000 years, and so does not expect wonderful things of the relationship. Workers wants emolument, and Management wants performance. It's a match made in Altoona. ROAR
On my carrier (and I expect all the other Class 1 carriers) there are monthly and sometimes more frequent safety meetings between senior Division management and representatives of each of the crafts where safety issues are discussed. Many of the items discussed get acted upon.
The adversarial relationship between management & employees stems from Managements bias that all employees are out to screw over the company for additional pay and the employees bias that all management wants to do is 'trap' them in a rule violation so they can be fired. The truth is somewhere in between. Safety is paramount for both (though with the 'outlawing' of many formerly accepted practices), the employees percieve that performance (and their quit) are being sacrificed.
blue streak 1 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.
With respect to cost/benefit, I believe FRA itself has determined that PTC has a negative cost benefit ratio (although that's off the top of my head). But it doesn't matter, since it's a statutory mandate.
The big question is whether the railroads will be forced to deploy PTC before they have a reliable system. When Congress was considering the PTC, NTSB created the impression that the system was developed and all that was needed was a statutory mandate to force the railroads to deploy it. The fact is that the system mandated by the 2008 legislation did not exist, and still does not exist in a form ready for widespread deployment (there are also issues with whether the radio spectrum needed to support the system will be available). To my mind, the worst thing you can do is to deploy a "safety" system that is not ready for deployment, but that seems to be where we are heading.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.