Do Railroad Managers Secretly Favor PTC?

[Anonymous]

On the surface, PTC is just a way to prevent crashes by taking the human element out of part of the decisions making process.  But when you think about it, there is really no reason to limit automation to just that part of the process.  Automation can drive the train and switch the cars. 

Further technology of the same sophistication as PTC will be able to analyze the entire train consist including individual car weight, car type, and arrangement of cars in the consist.   It will compare these train factors to route geometry and weather conditions, and control the power and braking for the best economy and performance.  That will save money.  Reducing or eliminating crews will save money.  Automation will save money.   

But no railroad manager can come out in favor of this brave new world because it will trigger union and labor resistance and animosity.   And no single railroad would dare to move ahead because the cost would put them at a disadvantage with their competition.  Nobody can afford to go first. 

So, enter the government mandate for PTC.  On the surface, there is good reason to complain about it just because it is a mandate and nobody wants to be told how to run their business.  But are the complaints just for show?  Is it possible that managers actually welcome the opportunity to enter the road to full automation while escaping blame from the unions by saying that the government has forced them into it?  Do they welcome the fact that the government mandate keeps the playing field level by forcing their competition into simultaneously bearing the same expense for the upgrade?

This theory might help explain why railroad managers have been so tepid in their criticism of the mandate.  They might actually support it, and their mild protests may be only a show for labor and the unions.   

[henry6]

Air brakes, automatic couplers, signal system, interlockings, steel as opposed to cast iron,  steel as opposed to wood.  Just a few of the items that follow this blueprint. 

And not mentioned, while PTC is pushed for passenger train safety, railroad management  must also understand that a derailment costs them money in damages to plant and equipment, lost cargo, and time lost in not being able to operate their railroad.  They are short sighted as long as the status quo remains together.

[Murphy Siding]

henry6

Air brakes, automatic couplers, signal system, interlockings, steel as opposed to cast iron,  steel as opposed to wood.  Just a few of the items that follow this blueprint. 

And not mentioned, while PTC is pushed for passenger train safety, railroad management  must also understand that a derailment costs them money in damages to plant and equipment, lost cargo, and time lost in not being able to operate their railroad.  They are short sighted as long as the status quo remains together.

      Perhaps they are *short sighted*  because they are being forced to implement some very expensive technology that some bureaucrats and politicians are pushing, because it makes themselves  look good ? 

     Imagine that the government forced you to install a force field around your own personal car.  This force field would save lives, simply because so many more people are injured with cars than with trains.  Therefore, it sounds like a good deal for everyone-right?  Except, that the force field technology isn't quite there.  No one knows if the force field technology is compatible with your car's technology. .  The cost for the force field is expensive, yet unknown.  The force field cost might continue to climb.  In fact, it may never end.

      Would you be considered *short sided, if you didn't jump at the chance to get on the automobile force field wagon?

[edblysard]

Ok, somewhere around here I have a link to the miracle department at Apple……

Darn, I left it in the side pocket of my jet pack.

Well,  there is always Microsoft Train Driver.

[Anonymous]

I am a little confused.  The points that you two (Henry and Murphy) have made are certainly one way of looking at the PTC debate.  One says railroads are short sighted and negligent for fighting PTC.  The counterpoint is that PTC is an undeveloped boondoggle being foisted on the railroads.

But that exchange of ideas has nothing whatsoever to do with the point I was making in the top post.   What I am talking about is a whole new way of looking at the mandate and the reaction to it.    

[jrbernier]

  I did not see much of a 'fight' about implementing PTC - It was a congressional mandate.  I think most railroads like the concept of PTC, it was the initial cost that has kept the system from being implemented.  Besides, most railroads would rather pool their congressional  favors to assist in fighting off 're-regulation'.

Jim

[schlimm]

henry6

Air brakes, automatic couplers, signal system, interlockings, steel as opposed to cast iron,  steel as opposed to wood.  Just a few of the items that follow this blueprint. 

And not mentioned, while PTC is pushed for passenger train safety, railroad management  must also understand that a derailment costs them money in damages to plant and equipment, lost cargo, and time lost in not being able to operate their railroad.  They are short sighted as long as the status quo remains together.

In re the Janney coupler, there might be a lesson to be learned:  In 1893, satisfied that an automatic coupler could meet the demands of commercial railroad operations and, at the same time, be manipulated safely, Congress passed the safety Appliance Act.   Its success in promoting switchyard safety was stunning. Between 1877 and 1887, approximately 38% of all railworker accidents involved coupling. That percentage fell as the railroads began to replace link and pin couplers with automatic couplers. By 1902, only two years after the SAA's effective date, coupling accidents constituted only 4% of all employee accidents. Coupler-related accidents dropped from nearly 11,000 in 1892 to just over 2,000 in 1902, even though the number of railroad employees steadily increased during that decade.

In re automatic air brakes "the Westinghouse" the same:  

"The rapid application of air brakes to passenger trains contrasts sharp-ly with the diffusion of  Westinghouse's invention through the freight branch of the American railroad industry. Air brakes eventually became standard appliances in freight as well as passenger service, but they gained this status only after considerable delay. As many as twenty years after Westinghouse introduced the air brake, few railroads had equipped their freight trains with the device.

While many railroads responded unenthusiastically to the quick-action air brake, public interest in the device increased rapidly. Humanitarian reformers concerned with the safety of railroad workers campaigned for legislation requiring railroads to equip freight trains with continuous brakes and automatic couplers. Three months later the ICC received a similar request signed by over ten thousand members of the Brother-hood of Railroad Brakemen, a recently formed union that enabled brakemen for the first time to voice their grievances collectively. These petition drives attracted considerable
attention, and the campaign for railroad safety rapidly acquired the support of a public that harbored strong opposition to the power of the railroads. Faced with this public pressure, in 1890 Congress began holding hearings on several bills that proposed federal laws on railroad safety equipment. Most
railroads openly opposed such legislation and claimed that they would adopt the safety appliances without interference from Congress. Even a few superintendents of motive power from railroads that had ordered large numbers of air brakes testified against the pro-posed laws. The railroads soon
recognized, however, that the growing public support for legislation dwarfed any opposition they could muster. By the time of the 1892 presidential campaign, when the candidates from both major parties advocated safety legislation, most railroad managers testifying at the hearings concentrated on
assuring that the eventual law designated desirable standards for equipment. Railroads succeeded in this aim, and the Safety Appliance Act that became law in 1893 effectively required the railroads to meet MCBA standards for continuous brakes and automatic couplers by 1898."  

from: Air Brakes for Freight Trains: Technological Innovation in the American Railroad Industry, 1869-1900 STEVEN W. USSELMAN

 

So, without the SAA, the railroads would not have adopted either advance on their own, or at best, dragged their heels more years.

[Anonymous]

jrbernier

I did not see much of a 'fight' about implementing PTC - It was a congressional mandate.  I think most railroads like the concept of PTC, it was the initial cost that has kept the system from being implemented.  Besides, most railroads would rather pool their congressional  favors to assist in fighting off 're-regulation'.

Jim

Jim,

The railroads reserving their strength to fight off re-regulation is the tradtional explanation for the railroads not protesting the PTC mandate.  It would be a matter of "choozing your battles."  It does make sense.   

However, as I mentioned in the first post, I have concluded that the railroads are actually in favor of the mandate, but are afraid to say so because they don't want to have to explain why they are in favor of it.  They don't want to say that they see the silver lining of full automation in the mandate because that would get the unions to oppose the mandate.    

[henry6]

Murphy Siding

henry6

Air brakes, automatic couplers, signal system, interlockings, steel as opposed to cast iron,  steel as opposed to wood.  Just a few of the items that follow this blueprint. 

And not mentioned, while PTC is pushed for passenger train safety, railroad management  must also understand that a derailment costs them money in damages to plant and equipment, lost cargo, and time lost in not being able to operate their railroad.  They are short sighted as long as the status quo remains together.

      Perhaps they are *short sighted*  because they are being forced to implement some very expensive technology that some bureaucrats and politicians are pushing, because it makes themselves  look good ? 

     Imagine that the government forced you to install a force field around your own personal car.  This force field would save lives, simply because so many more people are injured with cars than with trains.  Therefore, it sounds like a good deal for everyone-right?  Except, that the force field technology isn't quite there.  No one knows if the force field technology is compatible with your car's technology. .  The cost for the force field is expensive, yet unknown.  The force field cost might continue to climb.  In fact, it may never end.

      Would you be considered *short sided, if you didn't jump at the chance to get on the automobile force field wagon?

Murph..your argument does not hold water.  We've got airbags, seatbelts, kids seats (and in the rear seat) and other things all foisted on us by government agencies.

Bucyrus...my point supports your hypothisis that management secretely like PTC but have to show a macho stance to the penny counters on Wall St.  They know that accidents are expensive in terms of dollars and cents as well as lives, if not more cognizant of the money than the manpower.  They can't sell safety to the bean counters and stockholders even if they can prove the savings in time lost in opreating the railroad and loss of equpment and damage to infrastructure.  But if the government says they've got to do it, they can tell that to the beanie babies and stockholders and that there is nothing they can do about it.  Meanwhile they know the will have fewer accidents, less time lost, and more money to the bottom line.

 

[Anonymous]

henry6

They can't sell safety to the bean counters and stockholders even if they can prove the savings in time lost in opreating the railroad and loss of equpment and damage to infrastructure.  But if the government says they've got to do it, they can tell that to the beanie babies and stockholders and that there is nothing they can do about it.  Meanwhile they know the will have fewer accidents, less time lost, and more money to the bottom line.

Why can't the railroads sell safety to the bean counters and investors if having fewer accidents will make more money, as you say?

[schlimm]

henry6

Murph..your argument does not hold water.  We've got airbags, seatbelts, kids seats (and in the rear seat) and other things all foisted on us by government agencies.

And add automatic couplers and air brakes to that list.  

[zugmann]

Bucyrus

This theory might help explain why railroad managers have been so tepid in their criticism of the mandate.  They might actually support it, and their mild protests may be only a show for labor and the unions.   

Managers make no shows for labors or unions for other issues; so why would PTC be any different?

[tree68]

I think the "What's next?" aspect is probably a significant player. 

And the return on investment is what the bean counters want. 

Railroad brakemen were a dime a dozen, with more always waiting at the door.  As a bean counter, one would have to look at what installing safety appliances will cost versus other costs.  At the time, workman's comp was not a player.  If a brakeman died, he was simply replaced - the railroad wasn't out much, if anything.   The cost (emotional and financial) to the brakemen's families isn't an item on the annual report.

Switchmen were in essentially the same boat.

Remember the Pinto - Ford felt it was cheaper to pay the lawsuits/settlements than to fix the problem - more money in the investor's pockets.   Public outcry forced them to deal with the issue. 

So it may be with PTC - while an accident is definitely expensive, are the costs of those accidents greater than the cost of PTC?  Preventing another Graniteville is in everyone's best interest on a public perception basis, but taken in aggregate, what was the cost to the railroad compared to the bottom line?

From the beancounter's standpoint, anything that will reduce manpower costs (usually the biggest component of operations) would be a plus.  Would reducing crews to an observer vs engineer & conductor provide savings that would offset the cost of PTC?  There are certainly arguments for maintaining a two member crew, but at one time there were arguments for five member crews...

As for railroad managers - I would suppose it depends on the level you're at.  Low and middle level managers would probably keep their feelings to themselves.  High level managers are going to take their cue from the top levels of management - the folks who pay attention to what the beancounters have to say.  And they're going to toe the party line.

[Anonymous]

zugmann

Bucyrus

This theory might help explain why railroad managers have been so tepid in their criticism of the mandate.  They might actually support it, and their mild protests may be only a show for labor and the unions.   

Managers make no shows for labors or unions for other issues; so why would PTC be any different?

Well what I mean is that if managers said they were for PTC, they would have to explain why.  That is because everyone expects them to be against it.  The only plausible reason that I can see for managers to be for PTC is that it is the road to full automation. 

But if they say they are for it due to that reason, it puts them on a collision course with the unions.  So they must leave the world believing that they oppose PTC, and they do that by mildly protesting it. 

[Norm48327]

Bucyrus

henry6

They can't sell safety to the bean counters and stockholders even if they can prove the savings in time lost in opreating the railroad and loss of equpment and damage to infrastructure.  But if the government says they've got to do it, they can tell that to the beanie babies and stockholders and that there is nothing they can do about it.  Meanwhile they know the will have fewer accidents, less time lost, and more money to the bottom line.

Why can't the railroads sell safety to the bean counters and investors if having fewer accidents will make more money, as you say?

You have to understand their mentality. They have their place, but every time one becomes CEO a corporation usually loses money because they are too concerned about saving money. It happened big time in the auto industry. Then the stockholders got wise and elected engineers or MBA's as their CEO's.

[jeffhergert]

Bucyrus

  

But no railroad manager can come out in favor of this brave new world because it will trigger union and labor resistance and animosity.   And no single railroad would dare to move ahead because the cost would put them at a disadvantage with their competition.  Nobody can afford to go first. 

   

What do you think they've been trying to develop for the last 30+ years?  BN and Rockwell worked on that system (ARES?) up on their lines in the iron ore country of northern Minnesota in the 1980s.  There was an article in Trains (early/mid 1990s?) about UP testing some automatic operation on the coal line.  If the railroads could deploy a fully automated system, one that would work on a general system (trains of various types, length, weight, etc) instead of single purpose railroad (transit, mine to power plant operation, etc) they would.  That they haven't just means they haven't reached a system that has reached a level of reliability that they feel comfortable with.  It's not from lack of want or trying. 

Railroads worried about union opposition?  That's funny.  A few contracts back they made the initial moves on going to single person crews, with or with out a collision avoidance system.  (When Dick Davidson was still CEO at UP, he made the statement in the Omaha paper that the UP with it's cab signal system across Nebraska was ready for single person crews.  One train could plow into another at 70mph with UP's cab signals, as long as the aspect changes were acknowledged, but it's safe enough for a single person crew.)  The two unions that represent the train and enginemen set aside their differences to fight it on a united front.  The result was for the time being, instead of going after a single person crew they've focused on reducing their costs on health insurance.  Eventually, with the right political climate, they will go after a single person crew.  (At a union meeting before the last presidential election, it was said that a member of the carrier's negotiating team said that the focus on the next round of contract talks depended on who won the presidency.  If the Democratic incumbent won, the focus would be on more health care give backs.  If the Republican challenger won, the focus would be on going to single person crews.)  PTC will give them ammunition in their argument that a second person on the engine is redundant.  I'm guessing to the railroad's way of thinking, that would be one of the few immediate benefits of spending a large sum of money, going to a single person crew sooner rather than later.

With GE's Trip Optimizer and NYAB's enhanced Leader (supposed to come out this year, current Leader only gives "prompts" and the engineer has to manually move throttle/dynamic brake handles) system, where the computer controls throttle and dynamic brake usage, we are getting close to automatic operation already.  So far, both systems are what is called a "clear block" system.  That is, they don't recognize what's ahead of them.  They operate as if they are on clear signals.  The engineer has to override them for restrictive signals and limits of authority.  Primarily right now they are for fuel conservation efforts.  (Some of our hottest Z trains get track bulletins NOT to use the Trip Optimizer and operate only in manual mode.  Since I haven't used that yet, I guess it must use the most fuel efficient method to slow down or speed up, not the quickest.)  Once they can tie in PTC or something like it so these automation systems can "see" what's ahead of them, you can be sure it will be used.  It may not lead to crewless trains right away, maybe never.  But, it will allow that remaining person to go from an operating role to that of an observer;  only taking over when something fails.  You can be sure the railroads will say that the requirements for a person to fill that role will be less than that of current engineers, so the pay and benefits should be less, too.

As I've said before, I think had the railroads been able to get contracts allowing them single person crews a few years ago, I think they would be fighting PTC a lot harder than they are.  Because about the only near term benefit will probably be reduction in crew size.  The promises of other benefits, such as enhanced capacity, are probably still a long way off.  

Jeff 

                

[Murphy Siding]

henry6

 

 

Murph..your argument does not hold water.  We've got airbags, seatbelts, kids seats (and in the rear seat) and other things all foisted on us by government agencies.

 

 

  Yes, we have seatbelts and kid seats, neither of which was a huge, unknown added cost, without knowing if they'd really work.

     You bring up a good point about air bags.  The auto industry was against their implementation, saying they were a huge added expense, without any definate proof that they would save lives.   There used to be a series of ads on television, showing people whose lives had been saved by airbags.  Now, you can find all kinds of information that suggests that airbags have killed more people than they've saved- there's a note that says "don't let children sit in the front seat", and an option to turn off the airbag on the passenger's side. 

      Could the gazillion dollars spent on airbags have been better used in safety somewhere else in the auto industry?  Probably.  Could the unkown gazillion dollars being mandated for PTC be used in safety somewhere else in the railroad industry?  Probably.  Will PTC keep trucks and cars from being hit by trains? Nope.

[blue streak 1]

If management at a RR actuaolly favored PTC how could they say so.  What would most stockholders say about that sunk cost ?  Can anyone imagine hunter Harrison coming out for PTC ?  That holding company that has all the CP stock would cashier him almost immediately ?

[John WR]

blue streak 1

If management at a RR actuaolly favored PTC how could they say so.

Streak,  

Am I mistaken in believing you see a political issue here as well as a safety issue?  I can see a political issue.  

On this website we are free to say what we believe.  A railroad manager, however, has to be aware of stockholders' opinions.  Even a small but articulate minority can cause him a lot of grief for saying something they disagree with.  So I can understand why a railroad manager might want to keep his opinions to himself and avoid making public statements about them.  

John

[tree68]

Murphy Siding

You bring up a good point about air bags. 

I have pictures, taken no later than 1970, of crash sled tests of airbags.  Dad worked at GM's Proving Grounds, source of said images.

But the discussion reminds me of another automotive safety "problem" where the solution proved to be worse than the problem.

Someone decided that something had to be done about the "killer A post" - the one at the edge of the windshield (the B post is behind the front doors, the C post frames the rear window).

When engineers added enough padding to the pillar to meet what they felt was the requirement, the driver had a major vision block in the form of the A post.  Considering that I have "lost" pedestrians behind the A post, it's not hard to see what making it wider would cause.

Air brakes and couplers have changed little since their inception.  Technological improvements notwithstanding, one can couple onto a 100 year old car, then connect and use the air brakes.  And I would opine that the cost "per", adjusted for inflation, is little different than wat it was in 1890.

PTC is having trouble making units compatible across platforms, and relying on technologies that haven't been developed yet.

[BroadwayLion]

tree68

PTC is having trouble making units compatible across platforms, and relying on technologies that haven't been developed yet.

Correct, BUT...

The first implementation are on captive rail lines in Australia. They can make it work. The next slice is someone over here makes an automatic train that can run on non-automated US tracks with minimal adjustments to signals, etc. One train, two trains, three trains, all trains.

It WILL come.Have patience with your patience. Even the unions will get behind it for safety reasons, even if they will eventually loose one or two jobs per train.

LION would put TWO alerters in the cab. One for the engineer and one for the conductor. The conductor will have to log on his computer screen each and every signal as it comes into view and if it is not CLEAR then he must name it to the engineer. The engineer must log the more restrictive signals himself or the train will begin a brake application.

Keep them both awake and they will stay alive.

ROAR

[zugmann]

BroadwayLion

tree68

PTC is having trouble making units compatible across platforms, and relying on technologies that haven't been developed yet.

Correct, BUT...

The first implementation are on captive rail lines in Australia. They can make it work. The next slice is someone over here makes an automatic train that can run on non-automated US tracks with minimal adjustments to signals, etc. One train, two trains, three trains, all trains.

It WILL come.Have patience with your patience. Even the unions will get behind it for safety reasons, even if they will eventually loose one or two jobs per train.

LION would put TWO alerters in the cab. One for the engineer and one for the conductor. The conductor will have to log on his computer screen each and every signal as it comes into view and if it is not CLEAR then he must name it to the engineer. The engineer must log the more restrictive signals himself or the train will begin a brake application.

Keep them both awake and they will stay alive.

ROAR

So what happens when the engineer has to run solo due to the conductor needing to be on the ground? 

[BroadwayLion]

zugmann

So what happens when the engineer has to run solo due to the conductor needing to be on the ground? 

It the conductor is on the ground, they are not going anywhere, they are going to work where they are. They will not be passing signals, and the conductor will not need to push his buttons.

If there is a problem, you bring it to the supervisor, who takes it to the superintendent who takes it to whoever, and they rework the device until it does what it needs to do.

The equipment is supposed to make your life easier (and longer) and not put obstacles in your way.

If you need to, take the issue to the union, and let them work things out with the railroad.

ROAR

[edblysard]

Zug,

I am sure glad you never have to go past a signal while your conductor is on the ground.

Sadly, I must be doing it wrong, my engineer has to go past one all the time, often two of them, guess I need to get some expert advice from the model railroader folks on how to do it properly.

[BroadwayLion]

edblysard

Sadly, I must be doing it wrong, my engineer has to go past one all the time, often two of them, guess I need to get some expert advice from the model railroader folks on how to do it properly.

Ed, Ed, Ed! If you are working a siding, a town, a yard or something, you are not going to fall asleep, You are going to be worrying about many things. You will be watching your ground crew and the signals that they are giving.

But once you are up in that cozy cab with the purr of the engines, and the clack of the wheels, six hours of effort begin to lull you into a sense of security that simply does not exist out there. LION can curl up on a sunny spot by the rail fan window and watch the tracks go by. Him can sleep until the steward rings the dinner bell, you up front have not that luxury. You gotta stay awake and alert and watch for them signals. Sleep is easy... so easy... LION would think you would like all of the help you can get up there on the flight deck.

ROAR

[zugmann]

BroadwayLion

zugmann

So what happens when the engineer has to run solo due to the conductor needing to be on the ground? 

It the conductor is on the ground, they are not going anywhere, they are going to work where they are. They will not be passing signals, and the conductor will not need to push his buttons.

If there is a problem, you bring it to the supervisor, who takes it to the superintendent who takes it to whoever, and they rework the device until it does what it needs to do.

The equipment is supposed to make your life easier (and longer) and not put obstacles in your way.

If you need to, take the issue to the union, and let them work things out with the railroad.

ROAR

So when the conductor has to make a pickup and set-off along the mainline, at a signaled interlocking, then gets driven ahead to meet the locomotives (so as not to block the mainline for any longer than necessary), then who pushes the button?

[zugmann]

edblysard

Zug,

I am sure glad you never have to go past a signal while your conductor is on the ground.

Sadly, I must be doing it wrong, my engineer has to go past one all the time, often two of them, guess I need to get some expert advice from the model railroader folks on how to do it properly.

We must be doing it wrong, too Ed. I think we better just shut up and defer to the experts on here.

[blownout cylinder]

edblysard

Zug,

I am sure glad you never have to go past a signal while your conductor is on the ground.

Sadly, I must be doing it wrong, my engineer has to go past one all the time, often two of them, guess I need to get some expert advice from the model railroader folks on how to do it properly.

Is there fog involved?

With cookie eating goats out in the pasture?

[edblysard]

Often.....

[Randy Stahl]

We operate with single man crews. Add a remote for pickups and setouts enroute. Like it or not , I believe this is the future.

 

Randy