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
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.
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
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.
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.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
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.
The Route of the Broadway Lion The Largest Subway Layout in North Dakota.
Here there be cats. LIONS with CAMERAS
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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"
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.
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 ?
- 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 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!
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 . . .
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.
23 17 46 11
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.
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.
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?
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.
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
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.
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.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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."
Here is the full article that contains the quote:
http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20130602/COLUMNIST/306029997/2398/OPINION?p=2&tc=pg
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.
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...
schlimmMy question is this: Did they do those 'other things"
schlimmand if not, what was preventing them from doing so prior to the passing of the PTC mandate?
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.
"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."
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
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.
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.
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
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".
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.