Do Railroad Managers Secretly Favor PTC?

[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

[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.    

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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.