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.
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.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
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!
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!
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.
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.
Jeff
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)
ROAR
The Route of the Broadway Lion The Largest Subway Layout in North Dakota.
Here there be cats. LIONS with CAMERAS
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
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.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.