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.
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.
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
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.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
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"?
The Route of the Broadway Lion The Largest Subway Layout in North Dakota.
Here there be cats. LIONS with CAMERAS
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.
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.
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...
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!
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
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).
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.
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.
It is all kids' stuff now. And CHEAP too. There is no reason not to embrace it in full.
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?
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
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.
oltmanndSo, why didn't the RRs fight against it harder? I have a couple of thoughts. What are yours?
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
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?
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?
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?
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.
Paul_D_North_Jr BaltACD, thanks much for sharing that ! Very informative. - Paul North.
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.
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!
edblysard And the FRA thinks a cell phone is dangerous and distracting?
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.
23 17 46 11
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.
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.
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"]
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
Jeff
zugmann Randy Stahl Of course .. you expect me to wear pumps ? Only if you have the legs for it.
Randy Stahl Of course .. you expect me to wear pumps ?
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.
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 Once again certain folks make a thread ridiculous because they don't like the topic.
Once again certain folks make a thread ridiculous because they don't like the topic.
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 !
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.