Trains.com

Class I railroads looking to shutdown all operations over looming PTC deadline

9459 views
157 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    September 2014
  • 24 posts
Posted by JOHN MEHRLING on Thursday, September 10, 2015 4:32 PM

Will the NEC and the Amtrak owned Mich. track be PTC equipped by 1/1/16?

If not, does the law apply equally to them or is a Federal agency exempt?

  • Member since
    March 2003
  • From: Central Iowa
  • 6,901 posts
Posted by jeffhergert on Thursday, September 10, 2015 4:20 PM

The UP's letter to the chemical industry, besides warning them of a possible embargo of certain loads, might also get that industry to lobby the Government for an extension or other relief.  If congress starts hearing from lobbyists from affected industries, maybe it might influence them to act.  Some members of congress may dismiss the railroad's talk of shutting down, in whole or in part, as just so much bluster.  Coming from a non-railroad source, they may take more notice of the consequences.  Or maybe not. 

Jeff

  • Member since
    December 2007
  • 1,307 posts
Posted by Falcon48 on Thursday, September 10, 2015 4:05 PM

dehusman

As I said weeks ago, the railroads are evaluating their contingency plans for what to do in case the deadline is not extended.  They will have their plans in place months before the deadline, they will communicate their plans well before the deadline.  none of this will be a surprise.

If they stop hauling RSSM it will turn the screws much faster.  Its not just TIH, its RSSM.  RSSM is TIH, explosives and radioactive materials.  When the water treatment plants can't get chlorine to make fresh water (TIH) or the military can't get ammunition (explosives), the pressure on congress will increase.

 

 

 

The PTC mandate is triggered by the handling of TIH or intercity/commuter passenger traffic, not explosives, radioactive materials, oil or other hazardous materials.  A line that handles the latter materials, but not TIH or the specified passenger traffic is not required to have PTC. One can argue about the logic of this, but that is what the law says.      

  • Member since
    October 2012
  • 225 posts
Posted by DS4-4-1000 on Thursday, September 10, 2015 2:05 PM

Euclid
 
DS4-4-1000
 
Euclid
Well then if all of the possible results are unthinkable, impossible, will never happen; then what will happen when the deadline arrives?
 

 

 
Possibly something similar to what occurred in 1969.  The cause was different, but the railroads shut down and after a few days the Nixon ordered everyone back to work and initiated a commission to resolve the problems.
 

 

 

Wasn't that a labor dispute where Nixon ordered the unions to work?  In the case of the PTC mandate, how could the president order the railroads to go back to work against a management decision to shut down in order to obey the law?

 

Yes that shutdown was a result of a series of very selective strikes.  But the president could in this case (with a lot of political backlash from Congress) suspend enforcement until such a time that the problems are resolved.
  • Member since
    January 2014
  • 8,221 posts
Posted by Euclid on Thursday, September 10, 2015 1:24 PM

dehusman

 

 
Euclid
1) Government extends the deadline. 2) Government takes over the railroads and operate them until PTC is complete.

 

Under what authority would the government "take over the railroads"?

 

I have no idea, but a lack of authority won’t be a problem. Authority grows on trees if nobody challenges it.
 
There is a concentration of unchallenged authority in the Executive Branch, and by comments toward the railroad industry, I sense that this is getting personal.  The government has placed the railroads into an impossible situation under the premise that it is their own fault for not getting the job done fast enough.  It is like being put into a box as punishment.  The contempt toward the industry is obvious.
 
In their letters, the BNSF and UP are clearly standing up to this mean spirited position that the government has placed them in.  But the Administration is going to take that pushback as a personal affront.
 
As this comes to a boil, the need for extending the deadline will become stronger, but so will the resistance to doing so.    
  • Member since
    January 2014
  • 8,221 posts
Posted by Euclid on Thursday, September 10, 2015 12:48 PM

DS4-4-1000
 
Euclid
Well then if all of the possible results are unthinkable, impossible, will never happen; then what will happen when the deadline arrives?
 

 

 
Possibly something similar to what occurred in 1969.  The cause was different, but the railroads shut down and after a few days the Nixon ordered everyone back to work and initiated a commission to resolve the problems.
 

Wasn't that a labor dispute where Nixon ordered the unions to work?  In the case of the PTC mandate, how could the president order the railroads to go back to work against a management decision to shut down in order to obey the law?

  • Member since
    July 2006
  • 9,610 posts
Posted by schlimm on Thursday, September 10, 2015 12:43 PM

Randy Stahl
Without income the railroads will default on equipment payments and trusts.

Not likely.  One example, the UPRR GAAP cash low for fiscal 2014 from the Form 10K:   "Cash provided by operating activities $ 7,385,000,000, i.e., over $7 billion.

C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan

  • Member since
    October 2012
  • 225 posts
Posted by DS4-4-1000 on Thursday, September 10, 2015 12:31 PM

Euclid
Well then if all of the possible results are unthinkable, impossible, will never happen; then what will happen when the deadline arrives?
 

 
Possibly something similar to what occurred in 1969.  The cause was different, but the railroads shut down and after a few days the Nixon ordered everyone back to work and initiated a commission to resolve the problems.
  • Member since
    January 2014
  • 8,221 posts
Posted by Euclid on Thursday, September 10, 2015 12:17 PM
Well then if all of the possible results are unthinkable, impossible, will never happen; then what will happen when the deadline arrives?
  • Member since
    January 2001
  • From: Atlanta
  • 11,971 posts
Posted by oltmannd on Thursday, September 10, 2015 12:14 PM

schlimm

Sorry Don, but you are confused.  The Transportation Technology Center in Pueblo is owned by USDOT.  TTCI (Incorporated) operates it:

 Welcome to Transportation Technology Center, Inc. (TTCI), a wholly owned subsidiary of the Association of American Railroads. TTCI is a world-class transportation research and testing organization, providing emerging technology solutions for the railway industry throughout North America and the world.

 

 

Thanks.  Had my acronyms wrong.  The facility is owned by DOT - leased to and operated by, AAR.

-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 Thursday, September 10, 2015 12:09 PM

Euclid
1)  Government extends the deadline.    2)  Government takes over the railroads and operate them until PTC is complete.

Both require legislation.  The second would require the government violate it's own laws.  That usually puts people in jail.

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

  • Member since
    January 2014
  • 8,221 posts
Posted by Euclid on Thursday, September 10, 2015 12:02 PM

schlimm

Yes.  However there are 2 1/2 months to an embargo, 3 1/2 to the deadline.  In this game of chicken,  I have confidence in the acumen of the top brass at the Big4 +2  and the AAR to work things out even if an obstructionist Congressional leadership does/can not.

In what way might they work things out?  What are their options?

  • Member since
    July 2006
  • 9,610 posts
Posted by schlimm on Thursday, September 10, 2015 11:58 AM

Murphy Siding

 

 
schlimm

 

 
beaulieu

If you read BNSF's letter, then you would see that they believe that any line required to have PTC could not be used to haul any traffic at all. BNSF believes that if a train operating over a line that is required to have PTC but doesn't have it has an accident, that would expose the company to the risk of greatly increased financial liabilities. Then there is the question of a railroad operating over another railroad via Trackage Rights where the other Railroad might choose the shutdown option. And then what happens over trackage that the Class I railroads have sold to Commuter Agencies like Metrolink. Do BNSF and UP have anyway to reach the Port of LA/LB without using some Metrolink trackage?

 

 

 

UP's opinion and statements differ from BNSF's.

 

 

 

  Perhaps, but as long as both railroads are intertwined in a nationwide system, what affects one railroad affects all railroads in the system.

 

Yes.  However there are 2 1/2 months to an embargo, 3 1/2 to the deadline.  In this game of chicken,  I have confidence in the acumen of the top brass at the Big4 +2  and the AAR to work things out even if an obstructionist Congressional leadership does/can not.

C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan

  • Member since
    May 2005
  • From: S.E. South Dakota
  • 13,569 posts
Posted by Murphy Siding on Thursday, September 10, 2015 11:43 AM

schlimm

 

 
beaulieu

If you read BNSF's letter, then you would see that they believe that any line required to have PTC could not be used to haul any traffic at all. BNSF believes that if a train operating over a line that is required to have PTC but doesn't have it has an accident, that would expose the company to the risk of greatly increased financial liabilities. Then there is the question of a railroad operating over another railroad via Trackage Rights where the other Railroad might choose the shutdown option. And then what happens over trackage that the Class I railroads have sold to Commuter Agencies like Metrolink. Do BNSF and UP have anyway to reach the Port of LA/LB without using some Metrolink trackage?

 

 

 

UP's opinion and statements differ from BNSF's.

 

  Perhaps, but as long as both railroads are intertwined in a nationwide system, what affects one railroad affects all railroads in the system.

Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.

  • Member since
    July 2006
  • 9,610 posts
Posted by schlimm on Thursday, September 10, 2015 11:30 AM

beaulieu

If you read BNSF's letter, then you would see that they believe that any line required to have PTC could not be used to haul any traffic at all. BNSF believes that if a train operating over a line that is required to have PTC but doesn't have it has an accident, that would expose the company to the risk of greatly increased financial liabilities. Then there is the question of a railroad operating over another railroad via Trackage Rights where the other Railroad might choose the shutdown option. And then what happens over trackage that the Class I railroads have sold to Commuter Agencies like Metrolink. Do BNSF and UP have anyway to reach the Port of LA/LB without using some Metrolink trackage?

 

UP's opinion and statements differ from BNSF's.

C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan

  • Member since
    November 2005
  • 4,190 posts
Posted by wanswheel on Thursday, September 10, 2015 10:52 AM

BNSF Railway

September 9, 2015

 

The Honorable John Thune

Chairman, Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation

United States Senate

Washington, DC 20510

 

Dear Senator Thune:

 

I write in response to your letter of August 28, 2015, regarding the potential consequences of a failure to extend the current December 31, 2015, Positive Train Control (PTC) implementation deadline contained in the Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (RSIA).

 

BNSF has invested over $1.5 billion in the testing, development, purchase, and installation of PTC components out of an estimated total exceeding $2 billion. PTC will be deployed on roughly half of our system; these lines host 80 percent of BNSF’s freight density. We expect to have a significant portion of the necessary PTC system implemented on the network by the current December 31, 2015, deadline, but after that date we still require ongoing installation and extensive testing, as discussed below.

 

PTC deployment is an unprecedented technical and operational challenge that requires the entire U.S. railroad network to develop, test and implement this new safety system, and avoid impacts to network capacity and fluidity as we do. Despite our strong commitment to this technology, BNSF has faced significant technical, regulatory and operational obstacles to meeting the PTC implementation deadline imposed by the RSIA and will not meet the RSIA deadline for deployment. As a result, BNSF believes that Congress must move the PTC deadline in order to achieve successful PTC implementation and to avoid potential significant and unnecessary congestion and shipper service impacts.

 

Challenges to PTC Deployment and Related Impacts on Train Operations

 

As should be expected in the development and implementation of any “Next Generation” technology, there have been significant challenges to nationwide, interoperable PTC deployment. First, fully functional, interoperable and production-ready PTC hardware or software did not exist in 2008. The development and production of PTC systems has been affected by the availability and reliability of hardware components, spectrum and software.

 

Second, as you know, one of the biggest impediments to PTC deployment was the more than a year period of time during which railroads were unable to obtain necessary Federal Communications Commission permits for radio tower and antennae construction. Third, as we deploy and test PTC on BNSF, we continue to experience technical issues related to software, component reliability and availability. In addition, construction and “cut-over” (or turning on) of PTC systems across subdivisions must be carefully timed, as it can impact network capacity.

 

The component and software challenges that our real world use of PTC in revenue service continue to uncover adverse impacts to train operations. For example, we are seeing the PTC system trigger unnecessary braking events in which trains are stopped with a full-service brake application. This means that significant work has to occur before the train can re-start. These kinds of delays are numerous and cumulatively consume railroad capacity. Our experience thus far shows that railroads will need a reasonable period of time to test PTC and “work the bugs out” after PTC is deployed to avoid significant service impacts.

 

Legal Considerations if PTC Deadline is Not Extended

 

BNSF has evaluated the competing statutory and regulatory requirements regarding operations on mandated lines where PTC has not been installed and operational as of January 1, 2016, and our legal analysis calls into question whether we legally may operate any freight or passenger service on such lines. There are several legal and policy reasons why BNSF believes this is so.

 

First, BNSF reads the RSIA and the Federal Railroad Administration’s (FRA) PTC implementing regulations as requiring PTC on lines that are part of the FRA-approved PTC Implementation Plan in order for any train to originate on such a line as of January 1, 2016. Under this plain reading of the RSIA, the deadline will impact all freight service, as opposed to only TIH-PIH and passenger trains, on the lines where PTC is not fully installed and implemented, which we noted in our recent “Fall Peak” letter to the Surface Transportation Board.

 

Second, BNSF recognizes that, in addition to the RSIA PTC requirement, it continues to have a common carrier obligation to provide service upon reasonable request pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 11101, but is concerned whether it can reconcile its duty to provide common carrier service on lines not in compliance with the PTC mandate as of January 1, 2016. BNSF believes that the common carrier obligation is tempered by reasonableness, and must be read as subject to the later-enacted RSIA safety rules, such as the requirement to have an interoperable PTC system. BNSF is concerned that it is not reasonable to operate in violation of a legal safety requirement in order to fulfill its common carrier obligation.

 

Third, BNSF, as a matter of law, corporate policy and principle, does not willfully violate safety statutes or regulations or ask our employees to do so. The announced enforcement policy by the FRA of imposing fines for non-performance puts BNSF in a position that will be difficult to reconcile with our aforementioned unwillingness to willfully violate safety laws or regulations. BNSF does not believe that it can pick and choose which safety rules must be followed. And even if a railroad, in theory, was ordered by a governmental entity to or simply was inclined to direct its employees to operate over lines where PTC is required but is not yet installed, another federal statute protects employees from acting to perform tasks in violation of law. (Specifically, 49 U.S.C. 20109(a)(2) protects employees who “refuse to violate or assist in the violation of any Federal law, rule, or regulation relating to railroad safety or security.”)

 

Fourth, in addition to the statutory PTC deadline, BNSF’s commuter contracts generally require that such service be operated in compliance with all applicable laws and regulations, which we believe would include the current mandate for PTC operation over certain rail lines. That is, BNSF may not be able to provide all existing commuter service to various agencies, such as Chicago, Seattle and Minnesota, as well as certain Amtrak lines. Thus, BNSF would be faced with the difficult choice of operating in violation of the PTC statute or risking breach of contract claims for not operating the service. This does not even take into account the potential social and economic costs to communities were BNSF to not operate commuter service.

 

Finally, were BNSF or any other railroad to attempt to operate over lines where PTC is not yet in place and an accident were to occur that is found to be PTC-preventable, the exposure to legal claims, including punitive damages, would pose a significant financial and reputational risk.

 

Consequences of Failing to Extend the PTC Deadline

 

As I have indicated above, BNSF has serious questions whether it should operate on subdivisions that have not been equipped with PTC in knowing violation of the federal law that mandated PTC as of January 1, 2016. Enormous congestion could result from efforts to re-route traffic that moves on the PTC lines, which are maintained to handle the most density, to lines on which PTC is not required. These are generally low-density territories where we do not have crews and maintenance resources positioned for those volumes. We have analyzed what train operations could continue if operations are halted on mandated subdivisions without PTC installed and believe that operations across our entire network will likely be compromised by congestion and effectively shut down. BNSF would do whatever is reasonably possible to mitigate this impact, but the consequences for the economy and for our company would be substantial.

 

Furthermore, if we knowingly operate in violation of the law on mandated portions of the network without PTC and FRA engaged in enforcement against BNSF, it’s unclear what kind of operational choices, and related network impacts, BNSF would face in order to minimize its exposure to enforcement and liability risk.

 

If Congress does not act to move the deadline and BNSF operations are out of compliance with the PTC statute and regulations, BNSF could be left with few acceptable options. You may be assured that we have, and will continue, to update Congress and our customers on whatever actions we believe we are compelled to take in that circumstance. We are developing potential communications to our customers and passenger rail tenants in the event that no extension is enacted by the end of October, as these stakeholders may need to make preparations or alternative plans well before the current December 31, 2015, deadline.

 

We appreciate the action that you and your colleagues in the Senate have taken to responsibly extend the PTC deadline, thereby ensuring that railroads can deploy reliable PTC as soon as possible. We remain hopeful that Congress will take appropriate action.

 

Sincerely,

 

Carl R. Ice

President & CEO

 

cc: The Honorable Bill Nelson

The Honorable Deb Fischer

The Honorable Cory Booker

The Honorable Anthony Foxx, United States Secretary of Transportation

The Honorable Sarah Feinberg, Acting Administrator, Federal Railroad Administration

The Honorable Daniel R. Elliott III, Chairman, Surface Transportation Board

The Honorable Ann D. Begeman, Vice Chairman, Surface Transportation Board

The Honorable Deb Miller, Board Member, Surface Transportation Board
  • Member since
    December 2001
  • From: NW Wisconsin
  • 3,857 posts
Posted by beaulieu on Thursday, September 10, 2015 10:27 AM

If you read BNSF's letter, then you would see that they believe that any line required to have PTC could not be used to haul any traffic at all. BNSF believes that if a train operating over a line that is required to have PTC but doesn't have it has an accident, that would expose the company to the risk of greatly increased financial liabilities. Then there is the question of a railroad operating over another railroad via Trackage Rights where the other Railroad might choose the shutdown option. And then what happens over trackage that the Class I railroads have sold to Commuter Agencies like Metrolink. Do BNSF and UP have anyway to reach the Port of LA/LB without using some Metrolink trackage?

  • Member since
    July 2006
  • 9,610 posts
Posted by schlimm on Thursday, September 10, 2015 8:53 AM

Euclid
Randy,
I do not think your characterization of the chaos is exaggerated at all. The law will require the suspension of service.  So the whole thing is in the hands of the government, and they have two choices for government action as follows: 
1)  Government extends the deadline.   
2)  Government takes over the railroads and operate them until PTC is complete.
 
Of course the rational choice is number one.  But there is something else at work here that makes choice number one seem uncertain.  I almost sense a sort of contempt by the Obama Administration toward the railroad industry.  I get the impression that the Administration does not trust certain sectors of corporate America, particularly the fossil fuel energy sector.  That is the industry that they see as fighting their favorite mission of fixing climate change.
They pick and choose with sectors to favor, and the railroads may not be one of them.  It’s just a hunch.  They may be leery of the railroads because of their involvement with oil trains.  Shoving an ECP brake mandate down the railroad’s throat seems indicative of that underlying contempt.  That may have been an expression mistrust of the railroad industry as to whether they will do the right thing for public safety.  The PTC mandate falls right in line with that same template.  An unyielding PTC dead line may be an expression of that same mistrust.
At this point in time, it is obvious that the industry is making a good faith effort to install PTC.  And it is obvious that they do not have enough time ahead of the deadline.  Why wouldn’t a reasonable government work with the industry to overcome this problem?  One reason might be that they don’t trust the industry to complete the task unless they hold their feet to the fire.  Instead of working with the industry in a sense of good will, there is an obvious stubbornness at work here in the refusal to grant more time.  The mandate and its deadline are being administered as though they are punishment for a misbehaving industry.      
So against that backdrop, consider choice number two above.  Considering the government attitude of distrust toward the railroads, the industry reaction of shutting down service will only heighten the sense that they are misbehaving and deserve even more punishment.  It will not matter that the railroads will only be doing what the government demands by shutting down.  The government will view it as further insubordination. 
It will also not matter that the government will botch the job of running the railroads.  In their stubborn arrogance, they will refuse to acknowledge that, and just press ahead at the expense of the economy and the welfare of the people.  Ironically, they are likely to inflict far more hardship on society than would a few train wrecks that PTC might prevent.    
 

Utter hysteria.  You choose to ignore the factual posts of folks like Jeff Hergert and prefer your chicken little mantra which is largely a product of an overactive imagination, with a helping of OCD and some paranoid anti-government delusions for seasoning.   

C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan

  • Member since
    August 2005
  • From: At the Crossroads of the West
  • 11,013 posts
Posted by Deggesty on Thursday, September 10, 2015 8:38 AM

dehusman

 

 
Euclid
1) Government extends the deadline. 2) Government takes over the railroads and operate them until PTC is complete.

 

Under what authority would the government "take over the railroads"?

 

Under what authority? Perhaps the same which had the government running the railroads about 100 years ago. 

Johnny

  • Member since
    September 2003
  • From: Omaha, NE
  • 10,621 posts
Posted by dehusman on Thursday, September 10, 2015 6:49 AM

As I said weeks ago, the railroads are evaluating their contingency plans for what to do in case the deadline is not extended.  They will have their plans in place months before the deadline, they will communicate their plans well before the deadline.  none of this will be a surprise.

If they stop hauling RSSM it will turn the screws much faster.  Its not just TIH, its RSSM.  RSSM is TIH, explosives and radioactive materials.  When the water treatment plants can't get chlorine to make fresh water (TIH) or the military can't get ammunition (explosives), the pressure on congress will increase.

Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com

  • Member since
    September 2003
  • From: Omaha, NE
  • 10,621 posts
Posted by dehusman on Thursday, September 10, 2015 6:42 AM

Euclid
1) Government extends the deadline. 2) Government takes over the railroads and operate them until PTC is complete.

Under what authority would the government "take over the railroads"?

Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com

  • Member since
    June 2004
  • From: roundhouse
  • 2,747 posts
Posted by Randy Stahl on Thursday, September 10, 2015 4:24 AM

ouibejamn
 
Randy Stahl
My 29 year career on the railroad is under threat , I've been an industry insider, have you ?

 

Every week on this and other sites,I hear from "insiders" how poorly run and effed up the railroads are, but it's always somebody else doing the effing, never them.  They are geniuses with 29, heck 39 years of experience, but never in a position to do anything but occupy a space for, oh say, 29 years.  Seriously (without rancor), what have you done? Heck start a new thread "Randy makes sense of railroading". See you over there.

 

Sans rancor.

If you have such low regard for rail employees why in gods name are you on a rail forum?

The locomotives don't fix and run themselves.

As far as what I've done , I WORKED those 29 years. Usually at the end of a tool of the trade like a spike mall, a throttle, a wrench or a test meter.

As a manager I keep my employees safe and still have the ability to pass on what I know to the next generation! The one thing I do have is experience, lots of it. Enough experience to know that an undesired full service brake application from a faulty PTC is nearly as dangerous as a collision.

 

Personally I don't think it will come down to the worst case scenario of route closures but one never knows anymore. In any case I'm glad I'm not a car owner or a chemical shipper !

 

  • Member since
    March 2003
  • From: Central Iowa
  • 6,901 posts
Posted by jeffhergert on Wednesday, September 9, 2015 10:51 PM

Here's a link to UP's Media page dealing with PTC.  There are a couple of pdf links on what they are planning should there not be any extension or other relief granted.  They aren't planning on shutting down whole routes completely that require PTC, just not accept TIH/PIH shipments or passenger trains.  Embargoes will be placed in advance of the PTC deadline to ensure there will be no such loads (or passenger trains) on the system when the ball drops. 

 http://www.uprr.com/newsinfo/media_kit/ptc/index.shtml

Jeff

  • Member since
    December 2007
  • From: Georgia USA SW of Atlanta
  • 11,919 posts
Posted by blue streak 1 on Wednesday, September 9, 2015 10:48 PM

UP is firing first shot publically.  They say they will have to embargo all new TIH by December 1st.  Makes sense as it might take that long to move all TIH to its final destination by Jan 1.  So congress cannot take its time into December but -------------  ???  Guess what  ??

http://www.up.com/customers/announcements/customernews/generalannouncements/CN2015-59.html

 

 

  • Member since
    January 2014
  • 8,221 posts
Posted by Euclid on Wednesday, September 9, 2015 9:12 PM
Randy,
I do not think your characterization of the chaos is exaggerated at all. The law will require the suspension of service.  So the whole thing is in the hands of the government, and they have two choices for government action as follows: 
1)  Government extends the deadline.   
2)  Government takes over the railroads and operate them until PTC is complete.
 
Of course the rational choice is number one.  But there is something else at work here that makes choice number one seem uncertain.  I almost sense a sort of contempt by the Obama Administration toward the railroad industry.  I get the impression that the Administration does not trust certain sectors of corporate America, particularly the fossil fuel energy sector.  That is the industry that they see as fighting their favorite mission of fixing climate change.
They pick and choose with sectors to favor, and the railroads may not be one of them.  It’s just a hunch.  They may be leery of the railroads because of their involvement with oil trains.  Shoving an ECP brake mandate down the railroad’s throat seems indicative of that underlying contempt.  That may have been an expression mistrust of the railroad industry as to whether they will do the right thing for public safety.  The PTC mandate falls right in line with that same template.  An unyielding PTC dead line may be an expression of that same mistrust.
At this point in time, it is obvious that the industry is making a good faith effort to install PTC.  And it is obvious that they do not have enough time ahead of the deadline.  Why wouldn’t a reasonable government work with the industry to overcome this problem?  One reason might be that they don’t trust the industry to complete the task unless they hold their feet to the fire.  Instead of working with the industry in a sense of good will, there is an obvious stubbornness at work here in the refusal to grant more time.  The mandate and its deadline are being administered as though they are punishment for a misbehaving industry.      
So against that backdrop, consider choice number two above.  Considering the government attitude of distrust toward the railroads, the industry reaction of shutting down service will only heighten the sense that they are misbehaving and deserve even more punishment.  It will not matter that the railroads will only be doing what the government demands by shutting down.  The government will view it as further insubordination. 
It will also not matter that the government will botch the job of running the railroads.  In their stubborn arrogance, they will refuse to acknowledge that, and just press ahead at the expense of the economy and the welfare of the people.  Ironically, they are likely to inflict far more hardship on society than would a few train wrecks that PTC might prevent.    
  • Member since
    November 2012
  • 105 posts
Posted by ouibejamn on Wednesday, September 9, 2015 8:59 PM

Randy Stahl
My 29 year career on the railroad is under threat , I've been an industry insider, have you ?

Every week on this and other sites,I hear from "insiders" how poorly run and effed up the railroads are, but it's always somebody else doing the effing, never them.  They are geniuses with 29, heck 39 years of experience, but never in a position to do anything but occupy a space for, oh say, 29 years.  Seriously (without rancor), what have you done? Heck start a new thread "Randy makes sense of railroading". See you over there.

  • Member since
    June 2004
  • From: roundhouse
  • 2,747 posts
Posted by Randy Stahl on Wednesday, September 9, 2015 8:33 PM

ouibejamn
 
Randy Stahl
If we thought the crash of 1929 was bad.. just watch this unfold if it goes South.

 

Wow, drama queen, much? 

 

Evidently I'm not the only "drama queen"

http://cs.trains.com/trn/b/fred-frailey/default.aspx

 

My 29 year career on the railroad is under threat , I've been an industry insider, have you ?

Obviously you have no clue how much PRIVATE capital is tied up in the railroads and what will happen to it. Think before you type !

  • Member since
    November 2012
  • 105 posts
Posted by ouibejamn on Wednesday, September 9, 2015 8:13 PM

Randy Stahl
If we thought the crash of 1929 was bad.. just watch this unfold if it goes South.

Wow, drama queen, much? 

The thing is about all this back and forth about PTC, is that come next year some of you are going to be wrong.  But one thing you will NOT hear is I WAS WRONG. Never going to happen, that's why all the goings on about a few errors in the recent Trains magzine issue ring very hollow.

  • Member since
    July 2006
  • 9,610 posts
Posted by schlimm on Wednesday, September 9, 2015 7:55 PM

Murphy Siding

 

 
schlimm

 

 
Murphy Siding
Could it be that it is as complicated as rocket science or nuclear physics and maybe you're the one that doesn't get it?  The railroads were told to spend their money to go and fix a problem that some politicians felt needed to be fixed, without a real clear cut plan.  If you had to spend your money on a major expense that ultimately affected your company's whole future, wouldn't you want to take your time and do it right?

 

If you choose to believe it is that complicated, that is your privilege.   If you choose to believe that purchase managers never make a mistake, that is also your privilege.  

 

 

 

  Fair enough.  If you choose to believe that nobody who ever worked for a railroad ever did anything right, that is your privilege.

 

 

And it is your right to repeatedly either make inane, distorted comments to those who voice any criticisms and facts or to be a sycophant for railroad management.

C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan

  • Member since
    June 2004
  • From: roundhouse
  • 2,747 posts
Posted by Randy Stahl on Wednesday, September 9, 2015 7:12 PM

If one major railroad closes the others will follow. Shortlines and regionals depend on interchange and the class ones depend on each other. The whole system of interchange will fall apart with just a few route closures. Re-routing cars to PTC compliant routes will cost big bucks in many cases, driving the customers either out of business or onto the public highways.

Freight cars will be stranded leaving car owners and lessors without usable assets. Many of the car lessors and owners are banks !!

 

Without income the railroads will default on equipment payments and trusts.

  Thousands of people will be out of work or switching careers to driving trucks.

 Ethenol, crude oil, chlorine and other hazmat will be on the highways in never before seen volumes or cost.

 

If we thought the crash of 1929 was bad.. just watch this unfold if it goes South.

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