EuclidHowever the government apparently did not anticipate the reaction of shutting down in order to not break the law.
Clearly, Congress did not.
EuclidThe way to solve this problem is to impose the fines for operating in non-compliance; without making such operation illegal.
You have to change the law to make it "not illegal".
The FRA suggested that they be given the authority (that the law currently does not grant) to flex the deadline based on good faith effort by the railroads.
My hunch is the group that would flunk the "good faith effort" test would be the commuter roads.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
This https://www.fra.dot.gov/eLib/Details/L03718
is worth a good, long look. Lots of really solid info.
oltmanndMy hunch is the group that would flunk the "good faith effort" test would be the commuter roads.
MN and LIRR would flunk it, that's for sure. They had ACSES available since day 1. But at the same time, I would still hope that a rational cost/benefit analysis of the safety risk of operating with no PTC, as they have for something like 100 years on the PRR signal system, versus having more people on the roads in cars and busses, and allow LIRR and MN to operate, maybe contingent on the firing of the people responsible for their inexcusable delays in ACSES implementation.
What is the penalty for exceeding the speed of light? Reality be damned!
PTC equipment cannot be manufactured, tested, installed, tested, manpower trained in time for carriers to meet the Dec. 31, 2015 date - THAT IS REALITY. The carriers will take the actions necessary to protect their LEGAL obligations and their legal obligations are to NOT KNOWINGLY VIOLATE THE LAW, however they decide to do it.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
OBVIOUSLY you people CANNOT READ. I have reinterated twice based upon reports on CNN that the senate has passed a three year extention of the PTC deladline through 2018. Now it iup to the house to pass the bill this fall. THER WILL NO SHUTDOWN!!!!!
caldreamer OBVIOUSLY you people CANNOT READ. I have reinterated twice based upon reports on CNN that the senate has passed a three year extention of the PTC deladline through 2018. Now it iup to the house to pass the bill this fall. THER WILL NO SHUTDOWN!!!!!
Senate > ====<House
Johnny
It was stated in the reports on CNN that the house was expected to pass the bill and the president would sign it.
oltmannd Euclid However the government apparently did not anticipate the reaction of shutting down in order to not break the law. Clearly, Congress did not. Euclid The way to solve this problem is to impose the fines for operating in non-compliance; without making such operation illegal. You have to change the law to make it "not illegal".
Euclid However the government apparently did not anticipate the reaction of shutting down in order to not break the law.
Euclid The way to solve this problem is to impose the fines for operating in non-compliance; without making such operation illegal.
caldreamer It was stated in the reports on CNN that the house was expected to pass the bill and the president would sign it.
Tell you what - expect in one hand and crap in the other, and see which one gets full first.
Am I missing something here? I assume the reason the railroads are saying they will shut down, in whole or in parts, is to avoid the fines. If they didn't care about any fines, they would operate business as usual without PTC.
Plus how can a law tell them they have legal pemission to be noncompliant, but will still be fined after being told they don't have to be compliant? It would seem to me once a law says they don't have to be compliant at the deadline, it would remove the chance for fining them for noncompliance with the original law. Of course, I'm not a lawyer or politician.
I would think even if such a law was passed, the railroads would follow through on their shutdown plans.
Jeff
Euclid, from looking at the fines it looks like ~$30,000 per train operated per day. So figure that each of the Big 4 would operate 200 trains per day that would draw fines, so $6mil per day x 365 days per year= pretty hard to turn a profit by operating.
All of the congressmen I have talked to in the last 6 months or so were aware of the problems the PTC deadline would raise and were aware that congress (the House) would have to do something. The real risk is timing. Congress likes to go to the last minute, railroads will will pull the trigger on the shutdown a couple weeks in advance to have things set up before the deadline.
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
EuclidSo change the law so it is not illegal to operate, but levy fines if they do.
Uh! Fine them for doing something that was made legal? That surely would be setting a new legal precedent. Not likely to happen and be in compliance with the constitution.
Your logic defies logic.
Norm
There seems to be some magical-mystery-tour aspect of this PTC enforcement action discussion that is being lost in the procedural details.
Congress passed a law - for better or worse - that established a mandate to create and deploy a working PTC system by the end of 2015.
The FRA, which is the agency that would enforce the provisions of that law, says that it will do so, and impose the penalties for non-compliance that are included in that law. All this is simply atatutory enforcement, and what the FRA is saying is not 'posturing' - they point out there is no room for selective enforcement.
The railroads note that they will be unable to provide service for PIH and passenger traffic - services for which PTC is specifically mandated - after the end of December without violating Federal law. I am sure that the penalties are more important than the moral aspects of the breach, but the end result is the same.
Now, one place a 'line might be drawn' is that one of the principal railroad 'excuses' (I think it is better termed an 'explanation') for non-readiness is the sheer scale of expensive components and infrastructure, much of which has little actual 'safety' benefit. For instance, it's been commented on here that every switch needs sensors that reliably determine its position, and can relay that position to whatever back=end system is doing the fancy position and movement checking. Likewise, standards for things like the software-based radios were not finalized until after 2011, if I recall correctly, and manufacture, testing, debugging, and the inevitable bugs and rework of software issues all have to take place before the SBR components are applied to ALL the pool road locomotives.
If I understand correctly, this might be the conditional basis under which Congress issues its extension - but we've already seen with ECP that the technical issues themselves can be obfuscated either way with a certain amount of facility. I am not sure how many Congresspeople are able, even if willing, to drill down through the morass of positioning and spin to distinguish between what is necessary and what is expedient to extend.
I see this as the normal political dance surrounding this type of legislation - I believe there were examples of it following the Esch Act of 1920, which established a similar type of mandate for automatic train control (albeit not as sweeping, and with at least a premise of common sense in how it was to be rolled out, and how a market for the technology would develop). It might be remembered that just because the early attempts at ATC were de-prioritized in 1928 (the 'safety' focus then being shifted to grade crossings) did not relieve the railroads of responsibility to maintain their required ATC territories ... and that the 1920 law was the basis of the 1947 ICC order that imposed the 79 mph speed limit where some compliant form of ATC was not deployed.
What is happening is that Congress does not want to be the body that 'admits' that the effort to provide mandated PTC might have been excessively ambitious, or technically difficult, or excessively costly for railroads to implement, in the mandated (and somewhat arbitrarily determined) timeframe. The chief difficulty, I think, lies in a point that has been previously mentioned: if you send a message that it's OK to slip the deadline because things didn't get done, it sets the precedent that subsequent deadlines will also be variable. So what I expect is for Congress to extend the deadline, probably by no more than three years and hopefully with strict milestones for provision in those areas (probably most particularly on the commuter railroads that have been some of the 'worst' offenders) where 'safety' of the type provided by PTC is most significant.
dehusman The real risk is timing. Congress likes to go to the last minute, railroads will will pull the trigger on the shutdown a couple weeks in advance to have things set up before the deadline.
This is what I understand to be one of the primary purposes of the current 'round' of letters from the Class Is. What I expect is that the debate on the issue of extension will go down to 'a' wire -- so as not to make it appear that Congress is caving to a railroad industry that may be dragging its heels for other than the stated reasons -- but that wire will be early enough that most, if not all, of the traffic that would be embargoed at or close to its origin will be able to move to destination as desired.
A problem here, though, is non-NEC Amtrak passengers who are expecting to make reservations during the new year. If they have a reasonable supposition that the trains won't run ... and they will have to go through a rigmarole to get their money back ... expect to see Amtrak's advance sales plunge, and perhaps not recover quickly. I don't know enough about Amtrak's sales to predict when this would become obvious to politicians not watching for it, but it might be starting already. Conspiracy theorists already suspicious of ulterior motives in the Silver Star 'diner test' may find this another tailor-made opportunity to "help" ease Amtrak out of the LD markets, and there may even be some Congressional discussion on that point.
It's going to make a classical case study for government policy schools. Probably at least one thesis. I'm taking notes 'for later'.
Wizlish, your second paragraph mentions "they point out there is no room for selective enforcement". Really, we see it daily by this administration.
http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=(title:49%20section:20157%20edition:prelim)#20157_1
1) Congress knew from the start that there was a requirement to shut down.
2) Congress was unaware of the requirement to shut down.
3) Congress does not agree that there is a requirement to shut down.
According to a report in Bloomberg Business published four days ago,The Senate voted in July for an extension that requires having positive train control operational by no later than the end of 2018 in a transportation bill that needs approval from the House. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-09-09/buffett-s-bnsf-pressures-congress-to-extend-rail-safety-deadline
The Senate voted in July for an extension that requires having positive train control operational by no later than the end of 2018 in a transportation bill that needs approval from the House. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-09-09/buffett-s-bnsf-pressures-congress-to-extend-rail-safety-deadline
The House hearing is set for late October, the 29th I think, and it's not a done deal until it's done. I would guess at this point the deadline is almost certain to be extended. As for why the deadline needs to be extended, there are many technical issues with implementation, as Helena Williams, former president of the Long Island Rail Road (one of the commuter agencies that is not expected to be able to meet the deadline) said last year. Williams said PTC systems are not off-the-shelf technology, that the LIRR had to work closely with suppliers just to develop specs to be put out for bid. There is a lot of development being done. It has to be done right the first time.
tommyboyThe House hearing is set for late October, the 29th I think, and it's not a done deal until it's done. I would guess at this point the deadline is almost certain to be extended. As for why the deadline needs to be extended, there are many technical issues with implementation, as Helena Williams, former president of the Long Island Rail Road (one of the commuter agencies that is not expected to be able to meet the deadline) said last year. Williams said PTC systems are not off-the-shelf technology, that the LIRR had to work closely with suppliers just to develop specs to be put out for bid. There is a lot of development being done. It has to be done right the first time.
Heads need to roll at LIRR and MN. Not meeting the deadline is completely and totally inexcusable. I understand the freight railroads had to implement a technology that didn't exist in 2008, and that it's going to take some time to finish. They are working hard. All LIRR had to do was order ACSES and install it over the top of the cab signal system. Amtrak's been using it for 15 years, LIRR, MN, SEPTA, and all of NJT should have been using it by the early 2000's at the latest, since Amtrak had it deployed at that point to support the Acela operations, and they own their own lines.
wanswheelAre there ‘Rube Goldberg’ methods the railroads could use to prevent the four bad things their PTC systems must, by the law’s definition, be designed to prevent? “(3) Positive train control system.-The term "positive train control system" means a system designed to prevent train-to-train collisions, over-speed derailments, incursions into established work zone limits, and the movement of a train through a switch left in the wrong position.”
“(3) Positive train control system.-The term "positive train control system" means a system designed to prevent train-to-train collisions, over-speed derailments, incursions into established work zone limits, and the movement of a train through a switch left in the wrong position.”
This is an interesting question, and deserves more discussion than it's gotten.
Although there are ad hoc systems that would accomplish each of these four things individually, I don't think there is one that would do all four together without approximating if not exceeding the cost of a proper PTC system. Here is some of the reasoning:
Look at what is required for each of the four functions. We can then consider the overlap between the technical means:
a) Prevent train-to-train collisions
Probably the easiest ad hoc system would be an expanded version of the Canadian (QNS&L?) radio beacon system. This requires one beacon per locomotive and one receiver per crew. A modern version of this would use differential GPS through something like a SIRFstar core to broadcast precision location as well as relative proximity. Logically there would be beacon information from the FREDs also. Dispatchers get the fringe benefit that they know any train's position, speed, etc. just by receiving the output from the relevant beacons, and don't need to tie up train-radio bandwidth (or interfere with actual PTC or expen$ive 220-owned spectrum, etc.
Note that in order to have an ATC-like system that is an overlay on the signal system in use, you need the same level of equipment provision and maintenance mandated for PTC, and there is no point in going back to 'defined' blocks rather than CBTC unless you have a developmentally-retarded engineering staff, or prefer legacy operating rules. The mandate is to prevent collisions, not run trains safely clear of other trains. That's more than a semantic difference.
b) prevent overspeed (this is the same function for general speed control as for derailments for purposes of this discussion)
This is a pure locomotive issue, as it was in 'classic' ATS-with-overspeed. If the locomotive has either a speed recorder or GPS, monitor the speed signal. You will need some method to'telll' the locomotive where the speed restrictions are; probably the easiest as well as simplest approach in this brave 21st Century is to put them in a database of GIS data, and have the GPS core on the locomotive keep referring to this and recognize when entering or exiting a restriction. (I will discuss non-'permanent' slow orders along with civil, in a moment).
System can do one of two things: it can simulate the function of modern locomotive software (e.g., control train speed with throttle and DB like cruise control) or provide just penalty air or blended braking when an overspeed is detected. Amtrak 188 taught us something important: overspeed should not be forestalled 9or overridden) with one of the typical methods used in ATC, whether or not the system is automatic or manual. It is not technically difficult to provide anticipation when leaving a speed restriction, to have the engines spooled up, or in some cases to tolerate a nominal but physically safe increase in 'speed limit' to build up momentum or accommodate the effect of short grades, etc.
c) civil and work-zone control
Implies short-range radio, and a working receiver on the locomotive somewhere (in my father's ATC system it was in the individual engineer's handset). The work crew, or more specifically the person who would otherwise be flagging, is responsible to set the beacons and ensure they have adequate charge, place them and move them as needed, The radio beacons also include the lights and color flags, etc. that mark work limits. If there is different status for one or more tracks of a multiple-track main, that can be accommodated... but I tend to think that most work restrictions that are not actual slow orders would apply to any train transiting a given work zone. That has little bearing on the behavior of the enabling technology.
Note that the same style of beacon can be used to mark and signal more extensive slow orders, or can be put out when there are known emergency conditions developing (e.g. a progressive settlement due to poor drainage). Logically this can ALSO be provided by inserting codes in the GIS database I mentioned above, but there will certianly be circumstances where slow orders evolve while a train is running, and need to be communicated (and acknowledged for comprehension) long after anything but continuous data communications can be assured to have sent it via the network or cloud to the train.
Note that something not in "PTC" that I think badly ought to be, namely blue-flag control, is a simple expansion of this system with only some added code and programming.
d) switch position control
This can't be just on the linkage; it has to be on the position of the points, and note the physical status of the action of locking in addition to whether the switch mechanism is fully 'over.'
Note that this has nothing whatsoever to do with whether the switch is manual, interlocked, or power-thrown. It involves only determining the switch's position and reporting that reliably to remote location(s).
A good system will do so redundantly, if possible, meaning that if a wire is broken or there is transient radio interference, the information can still 'get through' as required via a diffferent modality. In some cases it may make sense for the power and data to be handled over a single set of cables, or via 'powerline modulation' on the wires that supply power to run the installation.
Perhaps the easiest way to accomplish this, although not immediately intuitive, is to provide overhead cameras and/or other sensors looking at the physical switch points, and then running sensor fusion if necessary and machine vision to determine which of the 'conditions' the switch is in. Care should be taken that the method used to detect that the switch is locked actually does so, and doesn't just show it was thrown most of the way or all the way.
Note that in the absence of either a system that 'knows' where the locomotives and trains are, or a system that reports switch positions on demand to engine crews as they need to know, or a system that does the job of a normal signal and shows how a signal is lined, the crew would have to trust that 'someone else' is watching that all the switches are properly lined and will tell them (probably via the radio or a data link) if there is a problem and what to do about it.
Here's the thing: if you want to do more than one of these functions, the 'common' aspects in something like computerized PTC begin to have more value. If you have to have all the switches 'instrumented', it makes sense for them to use the same data-radio setup (if not, perhaps the same antennae or frequency ranges) as the collision-avoidance system. If you have high-resolution GPS available on the locomotive for collision avoidance, why not use it to help with slow orders - and as a backup speed signal for the overspeed detection. The net cost of four separate Rube solutions, even the cheapest ones that get the mandate's purpose accomplished, will be far greater than a smart system with SDRs and proper integrated electronics and communications that accomplishes the tasks with very near certainty -- and can provide a much better UI or HMI than four systems each with its own display and UI requirements.
Now, there might be an advantage in a system that is not "PTC" but delivers some or all of the required results. For example, incorporating overspeed warning into an alerter is obvious and easy, but not if 'hacking the PTC bus' to get the pieces of information over to the separate device.
Euclid It is amazing that this mandate has existed since 2008, and only now are we hearing that it requires railroads to suspend service on non-compliant operations after the deadline. Although, in looking at the abstruse language of the law, it is not surprising that it would take seven years to understand it. Assuming that the railroads were not aware of the requirement to shut down, it raises the question of whether Congress was aware of it. I can see three explanations as follows: 1) Congress knew from the start that there was a requirement to shut down. 2) Congress was unaware of the requirement to shut down. 3) Congress does not agree that there is a requirement to shut down. If it is number three, it means that Congress disagrees with the railroad companies that are concluding that they must shut down non-complying operations after the deadline. If that is the case, how will Congress react to the plans to shut down being made by the railroads? How will they react if shutdowns are actually carried out, throwing the economy into crisis? If Congress disagrees that there is a requirement to shut down, I expect that Congress would view the shutdowns as holding the economy hostage as a pressure tactic to extort a deadline extension out of Congress. If so, Congress would probably view the recent letters from BNSF, UP, and CSX as a threat rather than an announcement of compliance.
Really, I don't think there is a requirement to shut down. (Shut down in part or in whole, depending on how the individual railroad law departments interpret the regulations.) That is a consequence of the law.
I'm sure congress expected that either the railroads would meet the deadline or if they didn't they would operate normally, paying any imposed fines the law allows. (They probably also have seen too many TV programs/movies where Gee-Whiz technology either exists or is whipped up within the time constraints of the program/movie. They probably thought that the railroads were dragging their feet. That if they missed the deadline, it would only be by a few weeks or months and only on small parts of the railroad network required to have PTC.) They probably didn't expect the railroads to protect themselves by shutting down in the face of the fines.
Many laws are passed with good intentions. Then the unintended consequences kick in and the laws end up doing more harm than good.
ALEXANDER WOODAll LIRR had to do was order ACSES and install it over the top of the cab signal system.
That was Helena Williams' point: the technology is not off-the-shelf, it can't be just 'ordered.' It has to be custom designed for each carrier. There is an immense amount of work that goes into designing positive train control systems and, unlike one-hundred years ago, most railroads (especially LIRR) no longer have the engineering staff available to do this. The work has to be bid out and there is a lengthy procurement process that must be followed. There has to be testing and it has not always gone smoothly. I've been following LIRR's efforts via the monthly meeting minutes they post on the MTA website and they have been working at implementing PTC for several years now. It's very complex.
My own feeling is, first, American railroads are genuinely committed to installing PTC systems. Second, there is no safety crisis that is pushing this. American railroads are among the safest in the world. I have no problem with the industry getting the deadline pushed back three years if that will ensure it is done right.
jeffhergert Euclid It is amazing that this mandate has existed since 2008, and only now are we hearing that it requires railroads to suspend service on non-compliant operations after the deadline. Although, in looking at the abstruse language of the law, it is not surprising that it would take seven years to understand it. Assuming that the railroads were not aware of the requirement to shut down, it raises the question of whether Congress was aware of it. I can see three explanations as follows: 1) Congress knew from the start that there was a requirement to shut down. 2) Congress was unaware of the requirement to shut down. 3) Congress does not agree that there is a requirement to shut down. If it is number three, it means that Congress disagrees with the railroad companies that are concluding that they must shut down non-complying operations after the deadline. If that is the case, how will Congress react to the plans to shut down being made by the railroads? How will they react if shutdowns are actually carried out, throwing the economy into crisis? If Congress disagrees that there is a requirement to shut down, I expect that Congress would view the shutdowns as holding the economy hostage as a pressure tactic to extort a deadline extension out of Congress. If so, Congress would probably view the recent letters from BNSF, UP, and CSX as a threat rather than an announcement of compliance. Really, I don't think there is a requirement to shut down. (Shut down in part or in whole, depending on how the individual railroad law departments interpret the regulations.) That is a consequence of the law. I'm sure congress expected that either the railroads would meet the deadline or if they didn't they would operate normally, paying any imposed fines the law allows. (They probably also have seen too many TV programs/movies where Gee-Whiz technology either exists or is whipped up within the time constraints of the program/movie. They probably thought that the railroads were dragging their feet. That if they missed the deadline, it would only be by a few weeks or months and only on small parts of the railroad network required to have PTC.) They probably didn't expect the railroads to protect themselves by shutting down in the face of the fines. Many laws are passed with good intentions. Then the unintended consequences kick in and the laws end up doing more harm than good. Jeff
I think that realistically the likelihood of an industry-wide shutdown is very remote. I suspect, especially with the Senate already having passed legislation to extend the deadline three years (and the House due to hold hearings next month), in part the railroads are using the specter of a nationwide shutdown as a way to put pressure on Congress. Anyone who was around in the 1970s knows the federal government does not like having the railroad industry shutdown, regardless of the issues involved. A shutdown does incredible damage to the national economy and must be avoided if at all possible.
Wizlish Although there are ad hoc systems that would accomplish each of these four things individually, I don't think there is one that would do all four together without approximating if not exceeding the cost of a proper PTC system.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.