There, I said it out loud.
Let me know what you think: http://cs.trains.com/trn/b/staff/archive/2015/03/06/positive-train-control-extension-probably-not.aspx
Steve SweeneyDigital Editor, Hobby
Have the Native American's approved all the radio installations?Have standards been set for inter-operatability between carriers?Have standards been set for the manufacturers to be able to build the necessary equipment in volumes sufficient to comply?
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
A highly political and contentious subject to be sure. The politicians want the public to think they are doing something so they can get reelected. The railroads need relief from an onerous piece of legislation, and in the final analysis, the consumer will be forced to pay the bill.
As for passage of SB 650, anything originating at the Republican's desks stands little chance of getting approved by the current administration.
BaltACD brings into focus other obstacles to be overcome. Will all parties agree to the necessary concessions? Not likely. The brick wall seems insurmountable at this point.
Norm
So .. do we close the routes that are not complete by the deadline? Would almost serve them right IMHO
Norm,
I agree with your points on this. I have not looked into this, but if the deadline cannot be extended, and the railroads can't meet it; then what?
Euclid Norm, I agree with your points on this. I have not looked into this, but if the deadline cannot be extended, and the railroads can't meet it; then what?
Same thing they do in football: PUNT! Seriously though, I guess we'll just have to cross that bridge when the water goes down.
In reference to putting together and implementing the PTC system in the time limit set out by congress I can say from a professional point of view that its impossilbe.
As a background to my discussion below let me briefly tell you of my professional qualifications. I was in the infromation technology industry for forty five years before I retired. I started out as computer operator trainee and worked my way up to various management positions in all phases of the industry (operations, programming, networking, security, procutement and communications).
With such a background I will point out that:
1. The programs necessary jto perform the tasks to control the PTC system would hard, but not impossible to write. They would be very complex and creating a test structure that would include all possible senarios that the PTC system might encounter would be a nightmare. This would be bad enough except the each of the railroads are doing this on there own. The is no combined team to ccreate one system that all of the railroads would use. Thsi would include the programs on the mainframe computers of the railroads, the programs in the control systems of the engines. Thsi would require a major rewritiing of the engine computer systems. The engines that do not have computers would have to have them installed. These programs would have to be able to automatically control the locomotives engine and brake systems when the engineer or conductor does not rea cto to an unsafe condition.
I2. There is no coordiantion among the railroads to use one type of equipment to be able to communicate between railroads. There are multiple vendors offering their own version of the PTC hardware which creates the problem of ensuring that the system will work perfectly all of the time.
3. Although the frequencey that will be used by the PTC system to communicate between the railroads, and the trains has been set. It is a logistical and financial nightmare to produce, test and install the towers and equipment necessary to get the PTC system up and running in the time set by Congress.
I have probably left a few things out, but you can get the idea of how complex this system is going to be.
caldreamer In reference to putting together and implementing the PTC system in the time limit set out by congress I can say from a professional point of view that its impossilbe.
It must be remembered that PTC was sold to congress by the NTSB has something that was available and ready to go right now. That the only reason the railroads hadn't deployed it was because they didn't want to spend money.
Jeff
Since when has the NTSB been known for desiging computer programs, telecommunications equipment, locomotive controls or having any number of other skilled professions that PTC requires?
Is PTC possible? Yes. Is it quick and easy? No.
Modeling the Cleveland and Pittsburgh during the PennCentral era starting on the Cleveland lakefront and ending in Mingo junction
Euclid As I understand it, part of what the PTC mandate calls for has not even been developed yet, so the mandate includes research and development. R&D is fundamentally prone to cost overrun. So when you put a Federal mandate on research and development you have a recipe for runaway cost.
And what funcitionality is that? Strange given FRA's OK to Metrolink to turn on PTC on one of their lines.
Buslist Euclid As I understand it, part of what the PTC mandate calls for has not even been developed yet, so the mandate includes research and development. R&D is fundamentally prone to cost overrun. So when you put a Federal mandate on research and development you have a recipe for runaway cost. And what funcitionality is that? Strange given FRA's OK to Metrolink to turn on PTC on one of their lines.
I don't know the details, but I am referring to a paper that was published by the FRA a few years ago. I have it here if I can find it. It gave a lot of details to show the overall complexity of the PTC implementation, including the fact that some of the technology had not been developed yet.
Buslist Euclid And what funcitionality is that? Strange given FRA's OK to Metrolink to turn on PTC on one of their lines.
Euclid
One line is not the whole system. The FRA has authorized a number of specific real world test environments. Test environments are far from full implementation.
Sorry to interject this thought, but it must be said. This is the same government that has paid to create a system for computerized, national healthcare system(ACA) Since 20101 its costs have tripled to +$35 B. See Link @ http://www.medicalrecords.com/physicians/electronic-medical-records-deadline Demanded(seperately) that the EMR system must be adopted by healthcare professionals in 2015. See link @ http://www.medicalrecords.com/physicians/electronic-medical-records-deadline
And my favorite; The Veteran's healthcare System. It operates with an arcane data system. It (The VA's IT system) is unable to 'talk' between Service Branches. This simply means that there are extra months added for a Veteran [excerbted, If the Vet has no 'hard copy' medical information, as proof of a service connected injury]
Similarly; The POSITIVE TRAIN CONTROL system mandated by Congress as The Rail Safety Improvement Act (RISA) of 2008. See link @ https://www.aar.org/policy/positive-train-control
"PTC: Railroads, suppliers still have a ways to go to meet the 2015 positive train control mandate" see article linked from 2010 @ http://www.progressiverailroading.com/ptc/article/PTC-Railroads-suppliers-still-have-a-ways-to-go-to-meet-the-2015-positive-train-control-mandate--24053
Then one moves forward to March 2013: Progressive Railroading, again:
"Class I railroads rate the state of positive train control"
http://www.progressiverailroading.com/ptc/article/Class-I-railroads-rate-the-state-of-positive-train-control--35442
FTL:[snipped]"...The technical obstacles cited by railroads include the availability of communications spectrum; radios; design specifications; back office servers and dispatch systems; track database verifications; installation engineering; and system reliability. Programmatic issues include budgeting and contracting, and stakeholder availability.
PTC isn't one complete system, it's a "system of systems," says Frank Lonegro, who on Jan. 1 became CSX Corp.'s vice president of mechanical after serving as president of CSX Technology for five years.
"There are 30 moving parts, and most of them didn't exist. Maybe three did when all this started," he says. "The clear answer as to whether this all can be completed in time is, 'No.'".." [snipped]
Even from the perspective of a couple of years out from the Congressional mandated operational date of December 2015. PTC seems to have been ordained to be "dead on arrival", even when it was passed into Law. A victim of politicians with overly large ideas, ambitious plans, and Fairygodmother complex,[ not to mention a sesnse of seeming to Have to do something for their constituants ] but no magic wand.... [my2c]
[quote user="Steve Sweeney"]
Railroad safety is important to everyone. Cutting the funding for AMTRAK's Positive Train Control (PTC) system means that some aamerican citzens will surly die in railroad accidents that the PTC would have avoided.
WASHINGTON — The Amtrak train that derailed in Philadelphia on Tuesday night was equipped with an automatic speed control system that officials say could have prevented the wreck, which killed eight passengers and injured hundreds. But the system, which was tantalizingly close to being operational, was delayed by budgetary shortfalls, technical hurdles and bureaucratic rules, officials said Thursday.
In 2008, Congress ordered the installation of what are known as positive train control systems, which can detect an out-of-control, speeding train and automatically slow it down. But because lawmakers failed to provide the railroads access to the wireless frequencies required to make the system work, Amtrak was forced to negotiate for airwaves owned by private companies that are often used in mobile broadband.
Officials said Amtrak had made installation of the congressionally mandated safety system a priority and was ahead of most other railroads around the country.
But the railroad struggled for four years to buy the rights to airwaves in the Northeast Corridor that would have allowed them to turn the system on.
Railroad safety is important to everyone. The GOP cut the funding to complete Amtrak's Positive Train Control (PTC) system and Americans died. This week the GOP cut the funding again which means means that some more Americans will surely die in railroad accidents that the PTC system would prevent. Another demonstration of the GOP's lack of political will to govern this country
We know that the GOP has been willing let some of Americans die for lack of affordable healthcare. Now we know that the GOP is also willing to let Americans die for lack of a PTC system on our railroads. The GOP is wrong on this and they have are wrong on the ACA Medicaid expansion. They are usually wrong on everything. Why does anyone vote for or listen to these fools?
It is independent of if and when a statory extension is granted. It is not physically possible to meet the deadline given the supply chain etc. So what do we do? shut down the offending properties?
So what happens on Jan 1 2016 ? Amtrak shut down except for the NEC only if Amtrak's ACSES is approved for full use ? Freight RRs shut down all non PTC lines. As this poster can see very nasty political and court battles could happen on Jan 1st. Unintended consequences.
Not all freight lines need PTC. Only those that handle passenger trains and certain levels and/or types of hazmat. Maybe they will tell Amtrak and those hazmat shippers, "Sorry, can't service you because we don't have PTC operational."
I would guess that even if congress doesn't issue an extension, the FRA/USDOT will figure out a way to interpret the law to allow for individual waivers to be granted for those lines not equipped. Possibly only allowing the targeted trains (passenger and those with certain hazmat) to move only under absolute block rules on unequipped routes.
Since there are no industry standards for PTC and no sign that the Anti-Trust folks in the DOJ have given their blessing to any effort to develop them, even if some or all of the affected RRs do implement their in-house PTC, what will have been gained? AMTRAK is a horrible example. They have developed a system for the NE Corridor, but will that system work for AMTRAK trains operating on other RRs? While there are Members of Commerce who would be very happy to see all of AMTRAK shut down except for the NE Corridot there are many others who would not be happy. IMHO, when Congress realizes what the unforseen cosquences of the Law will do to the economy. they will hold hearings and then grant an extension.
DAN TAMSKY When electric suburban trains began to run over the San Francisco – Oakland Bay Bridge in January 1939, an “automatic cab signal” system was installed. The following paragraph is from the railroad enthusiast newsletter The Western Railroader booklet “IER ‘The Big Red Cars:’” [On the bridge passenger trains] “Were under automatic cab signals. When operating in this train control territory the engineer received a permissive speed indication of 11, 17, 25, or 35 miles per hour, depending on the traffic ahead. When the train speed equaled the cab signal indication a white light appeared. If the train exceeded by 1-1/2 miles [MPH] or more the permitted speed, a speed warning whistle sounded; and if the engineer did not shut off the power and apply the brakes within 2-1/2 seconds the power would be shut off automatically and the brakes applied in emergency. On leaving train control territory an “NS” indication appeared on the indicator showing that the train is operating in non – automatic signal territory…” The first installation of automatic cab signaling on the Southern Pacific was about nine years earlier, in 1930. A similar system was in place on the Pennsylvania Railroad between Philadelphia and Trenton before 1947. Given the advances in automation and electronics since World War II, why has this type of system not been improved and universally installed? "Overnight?" Does 85 years count as "overnight?" It just doesn't sound like it was a priority, doesn't it? When railroad bureaucracies or government bureaucracies want something to happen, surprising things can happen. If they don't care or don't want to do something, 85 years can be "overnight."
There is some thought that if the RRs had been a bit more proactive and installed cab signal with ATC (speed control, as you describe) - at least on the more heavily trafficed lines, the PTC stuff might not have happened.
The biggest difference between ATC and PTC is that ATC is reactive - the system doesn't do anything until some authority has been violated. PTC is proactive. It prevents the violation.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
jeffhergert Not all freight lines need PTC. Only those that handle passenger trains and certain levels and/or types of hazmat. Maybe they will tell Amtrak and those hazmat shippers, "Sorry, can't service you because we don't have PTC operational." I would guess that even if congress doesn't issue an extension, the FRA/USDOT will figure out a way to interpret the law to allow for individual waivers to be granted for those lines not equipped. Possibly only allowing the targeted trains (passenger and those with certain hazmat) to move only under absolute block rules on unequipped routes. Jeff
The problem is the law is written so that the lines requiring PTC are already set in stone regardless of the lack of any future hazmat or Amtrak traffic. The RRs would be non-compliant even if they didnt' turn a single wheel.
ramrod Since there are no industry standards for PTC and no sign that the Anti-Trust folks in the DOJ have given their blessing to any effort to develop them, even if some or all of the affected RRs do implement their in-house PTC, what will have been gained? AMTRAK is a horrible example. They have developed a system for the NE Corridor, but will that system work for AMTRAK trains operating on other RRs? While there are Members of Commerce who would be very happy to see all of AMTRAK shut down except for the NE Corridot there are many others who would not be happy. IMHO, when Congress realizes what the unforseen cosquences of the Law will do to the economy. they will hold hearings and then grant an extension.
Get real please. There are industry standards. A committee was established within days after the law was passed in 08 to insure interoperability of the systems. That's why the industry has jointly decided to use the 220MH spectrum for the radio, that's why the industry formed PTC220 LLC to acquire the spectrum, that's why the industry purchased the Radio manufacturer. Unfortunately 3 systems have evolved, the Michigan (GE) system that was already in place that has now spread to Illinois, the Alstom system based on the 9 aspect cab signal system on the NEC that was already in place but required some enhancements to meet the full PTC functionality and the WABTEC used everywhere else.
The DOJ has nothing to do with it. The interchange standards only apply to rolling stock in free interchange (a railroad is free to do what ever it wants on equipment that stays on its property) since locomotives are interchanged (run throughs) the PTC equipment on board is of interest. Did the DOJ approve the 27 Pin MU connector, of Westinghouse air brakes or the right hand coupler?
Amtrak equipment is really not a issue as the electric locomotives and Acelia train sets can't operate off the corridor so no need to equip them with a second system. Most of the diesels operate almost entirely on the freight railroads so equip them with the freight system. There will be a few diesels that operate on both the corridor (or MN) and on a freight that may require dual systems ( as will freight locomotives that operate on the corridor)
Buslist ramrod Since there are no industry standards for PTC and no sign that the Anti-Trust folks in the DOJ have given their blessing to any effort to develop them, even if some or all of the affected RRs do implement their in-house PTC, what will have been gained? AMTRAK is a horrible example. They have developed a system for the NE Corridor, but will that system work for AMTRAK trains operating on other RRs? While there are Members of Commerce who would be very happy to see all of AMTRAK shut down except for the NE Corridot there are many others who would not be happy. IMHO, when Congress realizes what the unforseen cosquences of the Law will do to the economy. they will hold hearings and then grant an extension. Get real please. There are industry standards. A committee was established within days after the law was passed in 08 to insure interoperability of the systems. That's why the industry has jointly decided to use the 220MH spectrum for the radio, that's why the industry formed PTC220 LLC to acquire the spectrum, that's why the industry purchased the Radio manufacturer. Unfortunately 3 systems have evolved, the Michigan (GE) system that was already in place that has now spread to Illinois, the Alstom system based on the 9 aspect cab signal system on the NEC that was already in place but required some enhancements to meet the full PTC functionality and the WABTEC used everywhere else.
I always thought it was a shame Harmon/GE couldn't get their ITCS system up to speed a bit quicker. Might have made a good alternative to WABTEC.
ACSES is a silly, overcomplicated mess.
oltmannd I always thought it was a shame Harmon/GE couldn't get their ITCS system up to speed a bit quicker. Might have made a good alternative to WABTEC. ACSES is a silly, overcomplicated mess.
The problem with the GE system is that it's distributed and not office centric. This makes it almost impossible to deliver those often claimed business benefits of PTC. The current rollout of the WABTEC system doesn't but can eventually be upgraded to do so, the GE system is where it's at, really no upgrade path.
oltmannd The problem is the law is written so that the lines requiring PTC are already set in stone regardless of the lack of any future hazmat or Amtrak traffic. The RRs would be non-compliant even if they didnt' turn a single wheel.
Actually I don't think the law was written that way but the FRA rule making was. It froze in time traffic patterns of 2008 even though there were new hazmat routing requirements going in place in 2010. As I recall the AAR filed suit on this one and won.
BuslistActually I don't think the law was written that way but the FRA rule making was
I stand corrected! (Thanks..)
oltmannd jeffhergert Not all freight lines need PTC. Only those that handle passenger trains and certain levels and/or types of hazmat. Maybe they will tell Amtrak and those hazmat shippers, "Sorry, can't service you because we don't have PTC operational." I would guess that even if congress doesn't issue an extension, the FRA/USDOT will figure out a way to interpret the law to allow for individual waivers to be granted for those lines not equipped. Possibly only allowing the targeted trains (passenger and those with certain hazmat) to move only under absolute block rules on unequipped routes. Jeff The problem is the law is written so that the lines requiring PTC are already set in stone regardless of the lack of any future hazmat or Amtrak traffic. The RRs would be non-compliant even if they didnt' turn a single wheel.
You are probably correct. I was just thinking about the law passed by Congress setting up the monthly hourly (total and limbo times) cap, 48 or 72 hours off after so many continuous days of work, requiring 10 hours undisturbed rest, etc. The way I read the law, any time you did anything at the requirement of the railroad (running a train, deadheading, rules classes, etc.) it counted towards those caps. The way the FRA interpreted and implemented the law was different. Some things count fully towards all, some things partially.
Either the copy of the law posted on our bulletin board was wrong, or the FRA got creative in their interpretations. If it was the latter, that "stone" may be more like sandstone rather than granite.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.