Euclid Well then if all of the possible results are unthinkable, impossible, will never happen; then what will happen when the deadline arrives?
Randy StahlWithout 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
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?
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"?
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"?
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?
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.
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 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
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?
Gore enough oxes and when they bellow, congress will move. The Koch Brothers will pull their strings as will other political sponsors and congress will find a way to claim that "In the cause of saving JOBs andthe ECOMOMY" they will extend the deadline. All while uttering many other pious platitudes. Two major RR's have started the ball rolling and Congress has two and a half months to sputter and harumpf but I would bet a sizable amount that just as the Republicans woke up to the results of shutting down government, congress doesn't want to really shut down the railroads. It will be fun/painful to watch the brinksmanship and blustering that is coming.
Under the heading "be careful what you wish for," the possibility that an extension will come with strings attached...
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...
For our legal eagles. Could a court order suspending the PTC mandate, or ordering the RRs to operate ignoring the PTC mandate or other such item suspend enforcement and any court action against RRs ?
Can we suspect that some NIMBY(s), RR hater, etc might try to appeal any such order but probably not the FRA ? Try to claim court order infringes upon their sleep ?
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?
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?
Further, if a rail line currently handles "trigger traffic" on a line, but the railroad ceases to handle this traffic on the line prior to 12-31-15 and follows the procedures in 49 CFR 236.1005(b)(4) for excluding the line from the PTC baseline, the railroad is not required to have PTC on the line. In this case, the railroad should be able to lawfully handle other traffic on the line after 12-31-15. My speculation is that this is probably what UP intends to do, although I obviously don't know this as a fact.
The "Metrolink issue" is an interesting one, and I don't have an easy answer for it. On the one hand, the obligation to install PTC, where it is required, is on the "host railroad", defined in the FRA PTC rule as "a railroad that has effective operating control of a segment of track". That would be Metrolink, not the tenant freight roads. On the other hand, the tenant roads may violate the FRA rule by operating non-equipped trains contrary to the FRA approved PTC plan applicable to the track. I'd have to do further research to resolve this.
jeffhergert 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
MATTHEW HASKETT She has no idea how this will affect the railroads and the US economy.
She has no idea how this will affect the railroads and the US economy.
I'm very sure that she does. You may want to believe otherwise, but not every one in government is down to you level.
Ken G Price My N-Scale Layout
Digitrax Super Empire Builder Radio System. South Valley Texas Railroad. SVTRR
N-Scale out west. 1996-1998 or so! UP, SP, Missouri Pacific, C&NW.
Electroliner 1935 Gore enough oxes and when they bellow, congress will move. The Koch Brothers will pull their strings as will other political sponsors and congress will find a way to claim that "In the cause of saving JOBs andthe ECOMOMY" they will extend the deadline. All while uttering many other pious platitudes. Two major RR's have started the ball rolling and Congress has two and a half months to sputter and harumpf but I would bet a sizable amount that just as the Republicans woke up to the results of shutting down government, congress doesn't want to really shut down the railroads. It will be fun/painful to watch the brinksmanship and blustering that is coming.
I believe that you have figured it out!
I'm just struggling to sort out the probable outcomes should an extension not be granted.
Any way you view it, methinks Amtrak is screwed outside the Northeast Corridor and the Flordia services. Would I be incorrect in thinking that there are a number of railroad executives who might see this as an unqualified positive? . I don't think there is much squirm room on passenger trains - were there to be an accident with fatalities on an excepted section of line for any reason, the fallout would be politically explosive. Besides - half of the Amtrak lines centering on Chicago shut down in winter anyhow... I have to think that restricted haz-mat loads will be allowed on non-PTC-equipped designated lines, with a bunch of restrictions regarding speed, etc. No problem - just let the loads pile up at your major yards for a few days, put 'em all on one train heading for another major yard evey 3-4 days, and run it under whatever newly-discovered "safe method" is established. You could also just route them via your non-signaled secondary lines - that would certainly be safer than on CTC equipped lines without PTC, from which we have now been saved. Shipper's in-transit inventory will just double or triple (which everyone knows doesn't really cost anyone money - unless you're an accountant :P) - if you need your chlorine at the water treatment plant in a hurry, just put it on a truck - far safer than letting it run on non-PTC lines. The sad part is that 90% of the people outside the rail industry wouldn't see the sarcasm involved above.
It's useful to take a step back and remember that this PTC mandate was an over-reaction to one accident involving an engineer who was driving distracted. Whereas we've enjoyed 180 years now of railroading with, yes, the accidents and loss of life that accompany any human enterprise but, overall, a remarkable record of safety, especially in the modern era.
PTC: A solution looking for a problem.
wanswheel Letter from CSX CEO Michael J. Ward http://static.politico.com/56/9a/940e046d4737bd07f04a6e6eb8a2/csx-letter-to-senate-commerce.pdf
Johnny
Falcon48 BNSF is certainly correct that IF a line is required to have PTC, then the railroad is in violation of the law if it hauls ANY traffic over the line after 12-31-15. But - and this is the important "but" discussed in my earlier note - a line isn't required to have PTC if it doesn't handle TIH (sometimes called PIH) or intercity/commuter passenger service (I'll call these two types of traffic "trigger traffic" for short, although that's not a term used in the PTC law or regulations). If a line doesn't handle "trigger traffic", it isn't required to have PTC, and there is no liability for continuing to operate the line for other kinds of traffic.
BNSF is certainly correct that IF a line is required to have PTC, then the railroad is in violation of the law if it hauls ANY traffic over the line after 12-31-15. But - and this is the important "but" discussed in my earlier note - a line isn't required to have PTC if it doesn't handle TIH (sometimes called PIH) or intercity/commuter passenger service (I'll call these two types of traffic "trigger traffic" for short, although that's not a term used in the PTC law or regulations). If a line doesn't handle "trigger traffic", it isn't required to have PTC, and there is no liability for continuing to operate the line for other kinds of traffic.
I would like to point out that the FRA can and has refused to reclassify some line segments as not requiring PTC, the submission was based on TIH traffic falling to minimal levels. It is also possible that the FRA could claim to be overwhelmed by the volume of exemptions being requested or just plain sit on the requests to put pressure on Congress for a different resolution to the problem.
While all this conjecture can be fun, this thread reminds me of something I read recently:
"If a problem can be solved, it will be. If it can not be solved, there is no use worrying about it." ... Dalai Lama
_____________
"A stranger's just a friend you ain't met yet." --- Dave Gardner
Paul of Covington While all this conjecture can be fun, this thread reminds me of something I read recently: "If a problem can be solved, it will be. If it can not be solved, there is no use worrying about it." ... Dalai Lama
dakotafred It's useful to take a step back and remember that this PTC mandate was an over-reaction to one accident involving an engineer who was driving distracted. Whereas we've enjoyed 180 years now of railroading with, yes, the accidents and loss of life that accompany any human enterprise but, overall, a remarkable record of safety, especially in the modern era. PTC: A solution looking for a problem.
This was NOT an over-reaction. This was a long-due requirement that the railroads ignored for years or decades, and unfortunately, a lot of people had to die in the process for this to be implemented. If the railroads had successfully self-regulated, PTC would have been standard 15 or 20 years ago.
All that being said, given the current mandate situtation, most of the railroads are going full tilt trying to get this implemented. As far as I know, several of the eastern commuter railroads, including LIRR, aren't going to make the deadline, and they have ZERO excuse whatsoever, since ACSES, while not appropriate for the freight railroads, has been around and working since 1999 for the NEC-connected operations, and yet MN and LIRR refused to put it in under the federal mandate came along, and then dragged their feet more after the mandate. Some heads need to roll at any NEC commuter railroad that's not 100% PTC compliant on Jan 1.
I really hope that Congress understands what an incredible disaster this would be if we pass December without an extension in place. People will absolutely die in highway crashes, for one. Power will probably become unreliable in much of the country after the week or two or three of stockpiled coal runs out. The highways are going to be a parking lot, particularly in NYC and Chicago. Ironically, while LA will see a huge upswing in truck traffic, Metrolink is already PTC-compliant, so the most car-clogged place in the US will still have commuter trains.
Unfortunately, DC won't see the affect nearly as much as other cities, since it mostly uses the Metro, and has small commuter rail operations, with the MARC Penn Line likely to be PTC-compliant (I believe that section already has ACSES), and it's not really in a through freight route to anywhere that competes with intermodal or anything else.
Even if we pass Dec 1 without a resolution, the month of December is going to be chaos for the railroads, as they will have to start preparing to embargo traffic, all the while handling massive tonnages of coal, steelmaking materials, and other non-truckable materials that industries want to stockpile, all the while being in intermodal season, and not being able to do much actual work on PTC or anything else due to the glut of December Z-trains that zip around their networks (especially BNSF) moving an endless stream of UPS and FedEX boxes and trailers loaded with chrimstime stuff.
At the same time, starting on Jan 1, while the US economy is crashing and burning, the highways are clogged beyond imagination, and there are tons of highway crashes, pretty much every person in the US who is licesned to drive a semi will be making bank.
schlimm The UP was in the forefront of developing PTC here.
Actually not the case. The forefront of PTC was ATCS which was a CN initiative which was intended to bring radio based signals to formally dark territory. UP had little involvement until the Northwest Project intended to demonstrate interoperability between UP and BNSF. BNSF really carried the ball from here not UP.
wanswheelThis deadline appears to have been selected with no analysis or feasibility inquiry.
This.
And this is why even those railroads making a definite effort to meet the mandate (if not the deadline) will not be able to meet the deadline.
Dakguy201Ms. Feinberg is a political operative whose background is a staffer for former Senate Leader Tom Dashle, former White House Chief of Staff Rahn Emanuel and Secretary of Transportation Anthony Foxx. As a matter of law, her position "shall be an individual with professional experience in railroad safety, hazardous materials safety, or other transportation safety." It is unclear to me just where she might have attained such experience.
Both elegantly and eloguently stated.
ChuckAllen, TX
C'mon, Balt. How about a little decorum here, if you will. The proper term, I believe, is Agricultural Slag.
ALEXANDER WOOD dakotafred It's useful to take a step back and remember that this PTC mandate was an over-reaction to one accident involving an engineer who was driving distracted. Whereas we've enjoyed 180 years now of railroading with, yes, the accidents and loss of life that accompany any human enterprise but, overall, a remarkable record of safety, especially in the modern era. PTC: A solution looking for a problem. This was NOT an over-reaction. This was a long-due requirement that the railroads ignored for years or decades, and unfortunately, a lot of people had to die in the process for this to be implemented. If the railroads had successfully self-regulated, PTC would have been standard 15 or 20 years ago ... People will absolutely die in highway crashes ...
This was NOT an over-reaction. This was a long-due requirement that the railroads ignored for years or decades, and unfortunately, a lot of people had to die in the process for this to be implemented. If the railroads had successfully self-regulated, PTC would have been standard 15 or 20 years ago ... People will absolutely die in highway crashes ...
So, where is the PTC for highways, where 35,000 die each year, and for the airlines for that matter?
Railroad deaths have been miniscule; when they've occurred, it's usually because of the failure of imperfect human beings who, God bless them, do right 99.9 percent of the time.
Civilian -- non-railroad -- casualties, like the California passengers who died and inspired PTC, probably made mistakes in their own jobs that had serious consequences. Where was the PTC for their line of work?
PTC is an unattractive bit of political grandstanding by Congress that is pure economic waste and a smear on the people operating our trains.
Would that Congress did one-tenth as good a job as our railroaders.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.