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 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.
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?
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
schlimm 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? When goats, milk and Oreo cookies enter the discussion, usually that means the natives are getting nervous. When Eleanor enters, the white flag of surrender has been raised.
No. I think one needs the fusee's first.
Then Eleanor...
Any argument carried far enough will end up in Semantics--Hartz's law of rhetoric Emerald. Leemer and Southern The route of the Sceptre Express Barry
I just started my blog site...more stuff to come...
http://modeltrainswithmusic.blogspot.ca/
schlimm When goats, milk and Oreo cookies enter the discussion, usually that means the natives are getting nervous. When Eleanor enters, the white flag of surrender has been raised.
I guess we can officially add Schlimm making comments about natives to the same list as goats and Eleanor. Congratulations.
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
zugmann BroadwayLion tree68PTC 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 tree68PTC 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
tree68PTC 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?
And Amtrak with their Engineer only in the cab runs.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
BroadwayLion zugmannSo 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
zugmannSo 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.
Class 1 railroads (and all the others that conduct business) have the need for the Conductor to be on the ground to protect the lead end of a shove and in many cases that shove must pass one or more signals to to complete the move.
Technology, when implemented on the railroads as in other aspects of real life, make some things easier and make a number of other things more difficult. Technology is a double edged sword that can cut both ways.
The Lion needs to get some time in the REAL world of railroading, it doesn't work anything like the New York subway system.
Ahh ... Another "technology miracle recipe".
Take one part PTC (which still hasn't "left the oven and landed on the table") and add one part "further technology of the same sophistication".
You have lost sight of (or possibly you really don't know) the reality involved with PTC. It is a concept which is being converted into working technology.
What you are offering is the classic technology layer cake.
Automation in some form of running with no onboard personnel is a big picture milestone. When you look at that big breakthrough there seems to be a hundred little details in the present picture that would make crewless running impossible. But this crewless automation will not come about in a vacuum while all the other operational details stay the same. The whole picture will evolve. Lots of little changes will need to be made that have nothing directly to do with crewless running.
Ultimately PTC may provide so much improvement in track utilization that there will be an increased number of trains that are smaller and more specialized, thus eliminating much of the mixed freight consists that require setouts and pickups along the way.
PTC may be just one station on a road to a radical new era of automation and equipment utilization.
Under no circumstances are the natives restless or nervous.
In fact, the natives are getting a little chuckle at how seriously the non-natives are taking something that will have zero effect on their daily lives, and how blithely they assume to know how things work and how things are done in a world they have never experienced firsthand.
Reading a book or watching a bunch of videos may give a theoretical education, but nothing will replace firsthand experience.
This native in fact, already knows that by the time PTC is in full use, he will be retired.
If, and I stress if, there ever comes a point where mainline trains are run without a crew, again I will be retired, most likely deceased quite some time,
If by some odd twist, trains and switching is somehow automated in the very near future, I also possess enough seniority that the carrier I work for will have to buy out my job and offer me compensation for any missed RRRB payments.
PTC will have no real world effect on me, but on Zug, and a lot of others, it will have a tremendous impact, causing a lot of extra work load, new and more complex safety rules, investment by their carriers in a lot of hardware and software, which is an expense most of us who do this for a living think could be spent better in other safety related areas, with better returns overall, like unified across the board training schools for new hires that teach every single one of them the exact same procedures and rules….a unified code of operating rules for all carrier regardless of region.
Digitalized communication systems not only for dispatchers but conductors and engineers would be great.
Here we are attempting to implement PTC, while oddly enough, I can take my super cheap cell phone, (free with my plan) and at a push of the button, I can talk clearly with my nephew in Boston, while my brand new $749.00 Kenwood handheld radio sometime can’t reach my engineer 120 cars away.
As for the Janney coupler, it was opposed more by the T&E guys than management, they assumed the new couplers would take jobs away, (that was not the case, it increased traffic and therefore jobs) and air brakes faced the same resistance, brakemen though their jobs would vanish, which some did.
And yes, from management’s point of view, it was cheaper to pay for a funeral and give the widow a few hundred bucks than re-equip an entire fleet of railcars, but keep in mind this was, at that point in history, the normal way of doing business, any business, not just railroading.
You rarely hear of any outrage over the conditions in the mill works in the northern states and foundries in the midwest, where kids as young as 11 left school to work 16 hour days feeding looms, separators, threshers and gins, stamping presses and such, losing legs and arms, fingers and being blinded and killed , but there it is, life was cheap and safety was a back burner affair.
You are applying and comparing the moral and business attitudes of over a century ago towards today’s modern industry, not a worthwhile endeavor.
And comparing the automotive industry to railroading in your manner is frivolous, the automotive building industry is consumer/sales driven retail industry, controlled in a large part by consumer tastes and fads.
You imply that most railroads’ management (and employees) are closed minded and have to be forced to accept or adopt new technologies, and that in itself is a narrow minded assumption.
Take CTC…SP and Santa Fe tried it, discovered it worked, and went whole hog deploying it, the benefits were immediate, the cost was easily covered by the increase in profits, the technology was readily available and relatively in-expensive to implement and within a decade, every class 1 had some form of CTC.
You do realize where and how the telecommunication company Sprint came from, yes?
Think about this…
Telegraphy, beneficial to both the telegraph company and railroads, amongst others, no mandate.
CTC, no mandate required.
PRR’s “Trainphone”…no mandate,
ABS on virtually every class 1 and class 2 system, no mandate.
Cab signals, no mandate.
ATS, no mandate.
Disc brakes on certain railroad passenger cars, no mandate, available and in use pre WWII..
GCOR and Norac, no mandate.
All the above are business/market driven decisions that increased safety, increased efficiency and increased profits, saved lives, both in the industry proper and the public in general, none required a mandate.
Railroads, as Jeff pointed out, have been working on PTC for decades, running prototype systems, trying to find the correct combination of hardware and software to make it work.
Ever changing traffic patterns and the business model itself have made this a herculean task.
PTC has to work, and has to work every single time, 100%.
On top of that, it has to be adaptable over a wide, very wide range of operations.
While today’s technology is fantastic compared to only ten years ago, it is not fail-safe, not even close.
Granted, my granddaughters will grow up in a world where knobs and button are “old school” and touch screen on everything is the norm, the technology required isn’t there yet, because PTC will have to be bullet proof to survive railroading.
What will be rolled out is a stop-gap system, designed and put in place to meet the bare minimum of the mandate.
Mr. Bernier hit the nail on the head…railroad management realized they had two expensive and drawn out political battles ahead of them, the PTC mandate and re-regulation, both with long term long range effects on the entire industry and its business and on profits.
They choose to concede to the lesser of two evils in order to focus on what they see as the one battle that can easily bankrupt the industry.
Now, as far as the “natives” comment is concerned….
I don’t know what Schlimn does for a living, I assume from the quality of his writing he has the benefit of a higher education, and I am sure whatever field he practices in, I might have a general knowledge of it, but I also am quite sure that under no circumstances would I ever be inclined to tell him how to go about his job, or tell him his chosen profession must change because I think it should.
I also would never offer up an insult toward him, or his co-workers.
The reason of course is because I have no real world experience in whatever that field might be, and am most likely ignorant of the subtleties involved and the skills required to do his job, and because I prefer to be civil in my discussion, even when I disagree with someone.
Oddly, because there is a big, active fan base for railroading, those who participate in the rail fan hobby seem to feel free to offer their opinion on just about every aspect of the industry, which is a good thing.
Opinions generate good natured, open and honest discussions, which lead to the exchanged of knowledge, which in turn benefits everyone involved.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion, and even if I disagree with their opinion, I will be the first in line to defend their right to have and hold such an opinion.
I might also be the first in line to debate that opinion, but I debate the opinion, not the one who holds it.
Most of us try and refrain from insults, even the oblique ones such as this.
I had thought you were above such, but your comment, well it speaks for itself.
There is an excellent Russian word, very descriptive of such a comment, Nekulturny.
You sir, are simply being rude.
23 17 46 11
edblysardMr. Bernier hit the nail on the head…railroad management realized they had two expensive and drawn out political battles ahead of them, the PTC mandate and re-regulation, both with long term long range effects on the entire industry and its business and on profits. They choose to concede to the lesser of two evils in order to focus on what they see as the one battle that can easily bankrupt the industry.
I can see reasons to doubt that the total explanation or even part of the explanation for railroad companies not voicing strong opposition to the mandate is that they are saving their energy to fight bigger battles such as reregulation. That explanation does make some sense, but I see other compelling explanations as well. For one thing, I would say that PTC is one form of reregulation. For the time being at least, it seems to be the biggest form of reregulation on the table.
So maybe railroads are not saving their ammunition for any upcoming battles, including PTC. Maybe they will not fight subsequent forms of reregulation in addition to not fighting PTC. Maybe they just won’t fight any battles with the government. Maybe they see this period as being highly regulatory, and they feel it is better not to oppose anything until they get a more favorable political climate. Fighting or logic will not win a battle with those who are born to regulate.
Railroad companies may also be thinking about the PTC deadline and how events will unfold as that deadline draws near and obviously cannot be met. That alone could present the need to fight a battle. Maybe railroad companies are saving their strength for the battle of how to reformulate the mandate deadline. Without a deadline, the mandate is not a mandate. Maybe they will begin their fight against PTC only after everyone agrees that the deadline cannot be met.
You last paragraph makes a lot of valid points, and may be a large part of the reason they keeping quite.
EB:
So do you Schlimm, so do you.
zugmann schlimm When goats, milk and Oreo cookies enter the discussion, usually that means the natives are getting nervous. When Eleanor enters, the white flag of surrender has been raised. I guess we can officially add Schlimm making comments about natives to the same list as goats and Eleanor. Congratulations.
I think the fusee's come first ...then Eleanor.
As for the 'natives getting restless' comment...well...let us put it this way...remember 'fun'?
Or...is this the forum where fun came to die?
Zugman: I gave an accurate account of how and why automatic couplers and brakes became part of the safety equipment you and Ed "enjoy" today. The parallel of the ASA and PTC is obvious, except today, labor seems opposed, while then it was in the forefront of advocacy, Ed's contrafactual comment about some workers notwithstanding. As for another line of reasoning, that there really aren't many collisions, that one sounds like a kid who just totaled the family car saying, "But dad, it's only one crash after driving the car 283 times!" Some of us who are not trainmen wonder why the opposition, if not for fear of train automation and job loss? If that is true, wouldn't it be wiser to say so with the hope of garnering public support for manned locomotives post-PTC, since the law is not going to be repealed?
schlimm Zugman: I gave an accurate account of how and why automatic couplers and brakes became part of the safety equipment you and Ed "enjoy" today. The parallel of the ASA and PTC is obvious, except today, labor seems opposed, while then it was in the forefront of advocacy, Ed's contrafactual comment about some workers notwithstanding. As for another line of reasoning, that there really aren't many collisions, that one sounds like a kid who just totaled the family car saying, "But dad, it's only one crash after driving the car 283 times!" Some of us who are not trainmen wonder why the opposition, if not for fear of train automation and job loss? If that is true, wouldn't it be wiser to say so with the hope of garnering public support for manned locomotives post-PTC, since the law is not going to be repealed?
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
Well excuse me!!
And Ed gave an accurate account on his post below. Your opinion isn't worth more or less. That is all.
schlimm Well excuse me!!
Who is Thurston Howell?
zugmann schlimm Well excuse me!! Who is Thurston Howell?
Do RR mgrs secretly favor PTC?
That's an easy one.
NO.
They are both secretly and publicly against it.
Why?
There isn't a single RR manager thinking "Gee, I'm glad they're making us to this. It will really pay off one day!"
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Murphy SidingAn obscure reference to 1960's TV culture. He the millionaire in Gilligan's Island
They had TV? In the 60s?
Rocky Jones, Space Ranger!
I do not suppose I watch more than a few hours of television a year.
LIONS look for answers while others look for objections. But objections are an important part of the process, for you cannot find a solution if you do not know the problem.Maybe LION propose an answer where there is no question. People think LION is out in left field. We, doh! Left field *is* where the Wildebeests are. You cannot catch one if you do not go there.
So LION will continue to post answers where there are no questions, and others will continue to object to the LION and his solutions, but smarter beasts than the LION are working on these problems, and they may come up with a solution that you object to, but once they have spent their money on their solution, it is not going to go away.
My father worked at NBC television in NYC. An audio engineer back in the days when some people did not know that audio = sound. (BTW: Television has audio men to keep the sound engineers' union out of the television studio.) Anyway, as you may suppose, the 1950s and 1960s technologies had to give way to something new. And what NBC installed in its studios was not at all to the liking of the engineers, but it was done, and you have to get on with what you have.
Then it came time to redo the studio that was used by Kraft Music Hall. The engineers wanted no part of the NBC solution, and so they went to Kraft, with their plan. And Kraft went to NBC and simply said "Build This." --- It was built. No questions asked!
Management sometimes gets its advice from the vendors of solutions. My friends. Do not drag your feet on this. PTC is a safety issue for your members and good PR for the company. Get out the and design the criteria that YOU want to use in your locomotive. YOU go out and contact the designers and get them to work on the solutions that you want.
After 50 years in model railroading I FINALLY got the models that I have always wanted. (Model Subway Trains) Some modelers got together with Trainworld, and designed the equipment that they wanted, Trainworld contracted with Life-Like to make the equipment, and now I have affordable subway trains in 1:87 scale. These modelers also refined the project as the years went on.
YOU MUST do this with PTC, Cab Signals, and any sort of automation that may come down the road. Pick your fights. Let the automated unit trains run with just a care-taker on board, YOU already know that you cannot run mixed freight automatically, that you still need boots on the ground to switch the cars, and to do so safely in urban areas, which after all is where the trains must go to. And preventing accidents and deaths is in the companies best interests.
WORK to be the solution not the problem
/soapbox
The Route of the Broadway Lion The Largest Subway Layout in North Dakota.
Here there be cats. LIONS with CAMERAS
Just to add a little clarity to this thread, I came up with a list of possible positions held by the railroad industry in regard to the PTC mandate:
1) Railroads oppose the mandate because they cannot meet the deadline.
2) Railroads oppose the mandate because it is onerous, ham fisted, overly costly, and not the smartest execution of safety improvements.
3) Railroads oppose the mandate because they have their own technological approach to PTC that they intended to use, but cannot because it is eclipsed by the mandate.
4) Railroads do not oppose the mandate, but nearly everyone assumes they do.
5) Railroads oppose the mandate because they are greedy capitalists who could not care less about death and injury, and do not want to waste a dime trying to prevent it.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All of these except for item #4 have been put forth on this forum, and in many other references.
Item #1 is the theme of the FRA response as detailed in their stunning report to Congress.
Items #2 and #3 are widespread viewpoints.
Item #4 is my personal opinion, and I have not heard it offered by anybody in any public venue. It is the topic of this thread where I detailed it in the original post.
Item #5 is also a widespread viewpoint, and I would say that it represents about half of the press coverage on the Internet. It has even been offered here by at least one of the railroaders. In my opinion, it meshes with the worldview that holds that railroads will treat the public unfairly unless the public is protected by heavy government regulation.
Labor, at least the BLET, is not opposed to PTC. They have called for it to be deployed.
Jeff
jeffhergert Labor, at least the BLET, is not opposed to PTC. They have called for it to be deployed. Jeff
Thank you.
jeffhergert schlimm Zugman: I gave an accurate account of how and why automatic couplers and brakes became part of the safety equipment you and Ed "enjoy" today. The parallel of the ASA and PTC is obvious, except today, labor seems opposed, while then it was in the forefront of advocacy, Ed's contrafactual comment about some workers notwithstanding. As for another line of reasoning, that there really aren't many collisions, that one sounds like a kid who just totaled the family car saying, "But dad, it's only one crash after driving the car 283 times!" Some of us who are not trainmen wonder why the opposition, if not for fear of train automation and job loss? If that is true, wouldn't it be wiser to say so with the hope of garnering public support for manned locomotives post-PTC, since the law is not going to be repealed? Labor, at least the BLET, is not opposed to PTC. They have called for it to be deployed. Jeff
Murphy Siding jeffhergert schlimm Zugman: I gave an accurate account of how and why automatic couplers and brakes became part of the safety equipment you and Ed "enjoy" today. The parallel of the ASA and PTC is obvious, except today, labor seems opposed, while then it was in the forefront of advocacy, Ed's contrafactual comment about some workers notwithstanding. As for another line of reasoning, that there really aren't many collisions, that one sounds like a kid who just totaled the family car saying, "But dad, it's only one crash after driving the car 283 times!" Some of us who are not trainmen wonder why the opposition, if not for fear of train automation and job loss? If that is true, wouldn't it be wiser to say so with the hope of garnering public support for manned locomotives post-PTC, since the law is not going to be repealed? Labor, at least the BLET, is not opposed to PTC. They have called for it to be deployed. Jeff What reason do they give for supporting it?
Safety. After all, PTC is supposed to be a crash avoidance system. We talk about PTC and partial or total train automation as if it's the same thing. It isn't, although PTC would be a necessary component for automation. I think when the NTSB, and even the BLET (I don't know what the position is of the UTU on PTC, I assume they also are for it.), talk about the need for PTC they are looking at it's simplest, basic purpose. A system that is supposed to keep one train from running into another/overrunning it's authority.
The NTSB doesn't care whether trains are run by human or computer, it's beyond the scope of their agency. They only concern themselves about the safety aspect. I imagine the unions feel they can either fight or mitigate any possible job losses that PTC and/or further automation might cause.
jeffhergert Murphy Siding jeffhergert schlimm Zugman: I gave an accurate account of how and why automatic couplers and brakes became part of the safety equipment you and Ed "enjoy" today. The parallel of the ASA and PTC is obvious, except today, labor seems opposed, while then it was in the forefront of advocacy, Ed's contrafactual comment about some workers notwithstanding. As for another line of reasoning, that there really aren't many collisions, that one sounds like a kid who just totaled the family car saying, "But dad, it's only one crash after driving the car 283 times!" Some of us who are not trainmen wonder why the opposition, if not for fear of train automation and job loss? If that is true, wouldn't it be wiser to say so with the hope of garnering public support for manned locomotives post-PTC, since the law is not going to be repealed? Labor, at least the BLET, is not opposed to PTC. They have called for it to be deployed. Jeff What reason do they give for supporting it? Safety. After all, PTC is supposed to be a crash avoidance system. We talk about PTC and partial or total train automation as if it's the same thing. It isn't, although PTC would be a necessary component for automation. I think when the NTSB, and even the BLET (I don't know what the position is of the UTU on PTC, I assume they also are for it.), talk about the need for PTC they are looking at it's simplest, basic purpose. A system that is supposed to keep one train from running into another/overrunning it's authority. The NTSB doesn't care whether trains are run by human or computer, it's beyond the scope of their agency. They only concern themselves about the safety aspect. I imagine the unions feel they can either fight or mitigate any possible job losses that PTC and/or further automation might cause. Jeff
I think it is logical to consider PTC as only being a crash avoidance system, but will the project unfold logically? It has been kicked off by pure emotion. My thoughts about PTC evolving into automation is that it is the basic essential foundation of automation.
But beyond that, I think the dynamics of the mandate pushing such a large scale endeavor is likely to create a monster with unstoppable inertia. Part of that unstoppable inertia will be the endless gravy train of mandate-driven developer work by outside contractors coupled with a very wealthy customer.
With this dynamic driving the project, the end point objective is likely to become obscured as the project takes on a life of its own. So I see it going right past being a crash avoidance system and continuing into the next natural extensions of scope.
Bucyrus 4) Railroads do not oppose the mandate, but nearly everyone assumes they do. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- All of these except for item #4 have been put forth on this forum, and in many other references. Item #4 is my personal opinion, and I have not heard it offered by anybody in any public venue. It is the topic of this thread where I detailed it in the original post.
I think that, along with some of the other appliances mentioned, this is closest to the mark. Railroads have been researching PTC for some years as a way to increase sfaety capacity and efficiency but no one wants to make the first move. One mistake (wrong system, wrong timing, etc.) can turn years worth of capital investment into lost money. At least with the mandate, everyone is starting from the same place. I think the closest parrallel is electrification. Whoever does it first at the right time will reap a pretty good return. Whoever is too soon or too slow or guesses the wrong system ends up behind an 8 ball they might not get out from behind for a long time. While the present PTC systems all need real world experience, I think most RR management is satisfied that they are workable enough now to try. The mandate removes a lot of financial risk to do it.
One must also consider the reaction (public, and otherwise) when the first incident occurs on a fully PTC'd stretch of track. I'm sure some people are hearing "prevent incidents" and are not considering that there are incidents that can occur even with PTC in place.
Will the industry then be faced with another mandate to ensure that other such incidents are less likely to occur?
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...
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.