Trains.com

PTC quote

18266 views
165 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Monday, June 3, 2013 3:58 PM

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, 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.

  • Member since
    December 2007
  • From: Georgia USA SW of Atlanta
  • 11,919 posts
Posted by blue streak 1 on Monday, June 3, 2013 3:45 PM

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.

  • Member since
    December 2007
  • From: Southeast Michigan
  • 2,983 posts
Posted by Norm48327 on Monday, June 3, 2013 3:42 PM

It will prevent head-on/rear-end & T-bone collisions.

It won't prevent dreails or crossing accidents.

How about 'positive driver control'?

Norm


  • Member since
    January 2002
  • From: Canterlot
  • 9,575 posts
Posted by zugmann on Monday, June 3, 2013 3:34 PM

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'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

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Monday, June 3, 2013 3:33 PM

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.

  • Member since
    July 2006
  • From: North Dakota
  • 9,592 posts
Posted by BroadwayLion on Monday, June 3, 2013 3:28 PM

Bucyrus
Could 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.

ROAR

The Route of the Broadway Lion The Largest Subway Layout in North Dakota.

Here there be cats.                                LIONS with CAMERAS

  • Member since
    January 2002
  • From: Canterlot
  • 9,575 posts
Posted by zugmann on Monday, June 3, 2013 3:22 PM

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?

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

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Monday, June 3, 2013 3:20 PM

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?

  • Member since
    January 2002
  • From: Canterlot
  • 9,575 posts
Posted by zugmann on Monday, June 3, 2013 3:19 PM

BroadwayLion

 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

  • Member since
    July 2006
  • From: North Dakota
  • 9,592 posts
Posted by BroadwayLion on Monday, June 3, 2013 3:11 PM

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

The Route of the Broadway Lion The Largest Subway Layout in North Dakota.

Here there be cats.                                LIONS with CAMERAS

  • Member since
    January 2001
  • From: Atlanta
  • 11,971 posts
Posted by oltmannd on Monday, June 3, 2013 3:04 PM

mudchicken
GPS 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....

-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/

  • Member since
    January 2001
  • From: Atlanta
  • 11,971 posts
Posted by oltmannd on Monday, June 3, 2013 3:02 PM

Bucyrus
How 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.

Bucyrus
How 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.  

Bucyrus
Why is it a statutory requirement if the cost exceeds the benefit?

None.  The law is what it is.

Bucyrus
What is the measured quantification of the benefit?

The standards of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs are used.  

-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Monday, June 3, 2013 2:43 PM

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?

 

  • Member since
    July 2006
  • From: North Dakota
  • 9,592 posts
Posted by BroadwayLion on Monday, June 3, 2013 2:22 PM

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

  • Member since
    December 2001
  • From: Denver / La Junta
  • 10,820 posts
Posted by mudchicken on Monday, June 3, 2013 1:07 PM

oltmannd

oltmannd
So, 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....

Agreed: Further that by not wanting to lose their federal exemption. (and give the Open Access and local law nutcases free range to interfere with the industry - The Chemical Rate/ Liability Case issue stuff fits right in.) Saying "no" to a perceived public safety issue would not be prudent and so what Question, if they all fail together there is "no foul" due to the state of technology. GPS 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..

Mudchicken Nothing is worth taking the risk of losing a life over. Come home tonight in the same condition that you left home this morning in. Safety begins with ME.... cinscocom-west
  • Member since
    January 2001
  • From: Atlanta
  • 11,971 posts
Posted by oltmannd on Monday, June 3, 2013 1:01 PM

oltmannd
So, 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/

  • Member since
    January 2001
  • From: Atlanta
  • 11,971 posts
PTC quote
Posted by oltmannd on Monday, June 3, 2013 12:56 PM

From a recent G. Will column:

"

Before returning to Harvard Law School, Cass Sunstein was Barack Obama’s administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, measuring the benefits of regulations against their costs. Testifying to a House subcommittee on Jan. 26, 2011, Sunstein was asked if he could identify an administration regulation whose ―benefits have not justified the cost.‖ He replied:
―There is only one big one that comes to mind. It is called Positive Train Control, and it is a statutory requirement, and the Department of Transportation had to issue it as a matter of law even though the monetizable benefits are lower than the monetizable costs. There aren’t a lot like that.‖
Concerning Sunstein’s sanguine"

So, why didn't the RRs fight against it harder?  I have a couple of thoughts.  What are yours?

-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/

Join our Community!

Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.

Search the Community

Newsletter Sign-Up

By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy