Norm48327 Euclid For those objectives, PTC is the perfect target for nationalization. And it would likely set back implementation 20 years and with huge cost overuns. The federal government isn't noted for getting things done expediently.
Euclid For those objectives, PTC is the perfect target for nationalization.
And it would likely set back implementation 20 years and with huge cost overuns. The federal government isn't noted for getting things done expediently.
EuclidFor those objectives, PTC is the perfect target for nationalization.
Norm
Euclid For PTC, they tried a mandate and it didn’t work, so the next step is nationalization.
Can you find a single policy writer or congress critter that shares the same thought?
It's been fun. But it isn't much fun anymore. Signing off for now.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.t fun any
dehusman Euclid In the larger perspective, I suspect that the Obama Administration is considering nationalizing the PTC installation under the premise that the job is too big for the railroads. The government could mobilize the forces .... ... and and provide the nearly unlimited funding that it will take to provide public PTC (PPTC). There is no budget for it, the government doesn't have the expertise, the government doesn't have the manpower, the government does have the organizational structure, the government doesn't have the infrastructure and even if they did nationalize it they would STILL have to work with the same component deliver schedules from the vendors, they would still have to have a similar installation schedule, they would still have the same testing protocol. There has been no, none, zero, zippo discussion of any form of nationalization from any person actually involved with the process. The only person discussing it is you.
Euclid In the larger perspective, I suspect that the Obama Administration is considering nationalizing the PTC installation under the premise that the job is too big for the railroads.
The government could mobilize the forces ....
... and and provide the nearly unlimited funding that it will take to provide public PTC (PPTC).
There is no budget for it, the government doesn't have the expertise, the government doesn't have the manpower, the government does have the organizational structure, the government doesn't have the infrastructure and even if they did nationalize it they would STILL have to work with the same component deliver schedules from the vendors, they would still have to have a similar installation schedule, they would still have the same testing protocol.
There has been no, none, zero, zippo discussion of any form of nationalization from any person actually involved with the process.
The only person discussing it is you.
No, none, zero, zippo discussion of any form of nationalization from any person actually involved with the process? I think you exaggerate.
EuclidIn the larger perspective, I suspect that the Obama Administration is considering nationalizing the PTC installation under the premise that the job is too big for the railroads.
The only person considering that is you.
Pray tell where is the government hiding the 20,000+ signal, mechanical and IT personnell that it would take to implement PTC. Where are all the people hiding with the expertise to interface PTC with all the different railroad information and signal systems, ally of which have different software from different vendors written in different languages?
Where in the US budget is the billion dollars a year it would take to fund the development?
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
The concern the railroads seem to have is, as spelled out by CSX, is not so much the problem of "breaking the law" but the increased liability they would face. Specifically, if there was a serious accident on a line being operated in defiance of the PTC deadline. CSX CEO Michael Ward has said if that happened the road would be looking at potentially "huge liability."
I'm not a railroader but having been in private industry for a number of years I agree. I think unless and until the law is amended the railroads would be well-advised not to operate after Dec. 31, 2015 on lines that require but don't have PTC. From a liability standpoint that would be very risky.
Euclid Suspending enforcement is a prerogative of the FRA, but doing so would not suspend or change the law. On the contrary, enforcement measures and discretion could be changed by changing the law; but the law cannot be changed by suspending or changing enforcement. ...
Technically they would not suspend enforcement, but they would use different enforcement tools available to regulatory agencies. When the police stop your car for a burned out tail light, they don't usually impound your car, or even give you a ticket. They often give you a warning, with a deadline to fix the tail light, the fine suspended unless you miss the deadline. As I have mentioned before, regulators may use administrative law instruments such as consent agreements/decrees with a schedule to achieve compliance with appropriate deadlines, and stipulated penalties for missing deadlines. Of course, it would be better if the senate language (less than a page) to extend the PTC ddeadline was approved, which would codify a procedure similar to the above, but as a regulatory procedure rather than an enforcement procedure.
For those of us old enough to have who lived through the 1970s there is a precedent for a President using his powers to keep the trains rolling. President Nixon did it at least twice I think, both times when Penn Central was about to shutdown. Once it was when PC was about to willingly take a strike in order to force some work rule changes and the second time was when PC was out of money and threatening to shut down.
On the latter occasion I recall the PC's bankruptcy trustee telling Congress that, "Our employees will not continue to work once they are no longer being paid and, realistically, I don't see why they should."
dehusmanThe railroads and the FRA have been discussing the need for an extension and the implications of not having an extension for years.
That certainly seems to be the case. One of the most contenious issues has been with the required bandwidth to put in PTC. The railroads have had serious difficulties acquiring adequate frequencies and have been criticizing Congress and the FRA for several years for doing little to help the railroads acquire it (or pay for it). This is from the AAR website (and has been up for a while):
To support interoperability, the rail industry is adopting the use of 220 MHz radio channels as a common means of wireless data communication. Specific allocation of channels for PTC has not occurred and railroads have had a difficult time acquiring the necessary amount of spectrum on the open market, particularly in metropolitan areas.
https://www.aar.org/policy/positive-train-control
The AAR also issued a press release Wednesday citing a recent Goverment Accounting Office (GAO) report that supports the rail industry's contention that the December 31, 2015 deadline is not realistic:
The GAO review examined the rail industry's PTC implementation progress and challenges, and identified the complexities associated with developing, installing and testing the technology. "The GAO report reinforces the freight rail industry's contention that PTC is an extremely complex technology that requires more time to install and safely test," Hamberger said. "Freight rail operators have always contended that the Congressionally mandated 2015 deadline for having PTC fully functional and being used coast to coast by passenger and freight rail alike was not realistic.
"The GAO report reinforces the freight rail industry's contention that PTC is an extremely complex technology that requires more time to install and safely test," Hamberger said. "Freight rail operators have always contended that the Congressionally mandated 2015 deadline for having PTC fully functional and being used coast to coast by passenger and freight rail alike was not realistic.
If this conversation was taking place on December 19th -- instead of September 19th -- I'd be worried. There's still plenty of time to resolve this.
wanswheel The law would stand unchanged by an FRA decision not to enforce it. The decision needs to be an executive order to disregard the deadline provision, citing the President’s duty to maintain orderly commerce for the good of the country.
wanswheel All right, the railroads’ fear of lawsuits is not exaggerated and certainly engineers can’t be breaking the law. The law has to be changed. But if it isn’t, wouldn’t a government decision to suspend enforcement effectively suspend the law as well, for purposes of using it to sue a railroad or its employee?
diningcar BS, just change the law. Why is this so fifficult?????
BS, just change the law. Why is this so fifficult?????
It's Congress and they make everything fifficult, which is even worse than difficult!
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
dehusman Euclid I do believe that the FRA was indeed blindsided by the sudden development that the railroads intend to shut down because the law requires it. You tend to think everything is a "surprise" to other groups because its a surprise to you. The railroads and the FRA have been discussing the need for an extension and the implications of not having an extension for years. The vast majority of people who work for the FRA have worked for the railroads. Even if they didn't talk, the FRA would have an idea of how railroads think and would know what the options the railroads would have. There is no advantage to the railroads or the FRA to engage in "gotcha".
Euclid I do believe that the FRA was indeed blindsided by the sudden development that the railroads intend to shut down because the law requires it.
You tend to think everything is a "surprise" to other groups because its a surprise to you. The railroads and the FRA have been discussing the need for an extension and the implications of not having an extension for years. The vast majority of people who work for the FRA have worked for the railroads. Even if they didn't talk, the FRA would have an idea of how railroads think and would know what the options the railroads would have. There is no advantage to the railroads or the FRA to engage in "gotcha".
It has nothing to do with me. I am not sure to what extent the FRA was blindsided. It may be more accurate to say that Congress was. In any case, while the government and railroads may have been discussing this for years, the government is in the hot seat now, and I doubt they would be there had they seen it coming.
I have no idea what you mean when you say there is no advantage to the railroads or the FRA to engage in "gothcha."
EuclidI do believe that the FRA was indeed blindsided by the sudden development that the railroads intend to shut down because the law requires it.
wanswheel Railroads crave revenue more than they fear lawsuits.
I don't think so. Fear of lawsuits is pretty large...
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Euclid wanswheel There’s no question the fines are at the discretion of the Secretary of Transportation, in the language of the law. “The Secretary is authorized to assess civil penalties…” Without the fines, obeying to the letter the 2008 law just to prove it’s their policy would be senseless. In the immortal words of Deep Throat, follow the money. Railroads crave revenue more than they fear lawsuits. Well, there are three possible reasons to shut down non-compliant operations after the deadline. 1) To avoid the fines. 2) To avoid the extra liability in case of an accident with non-compliant operations. 3) To avoid breaking the law. Railroads have cited all three reasons for their intent to shut down. Are you saying that waiving the fines would be sufficient to convince the railroads to not shut down? If that were sufficient, what are they waiting for? Obama has said that he is in favor of extending the deadline because it cannot be met. If the FRA has the sole discretion as to whether to levy fines, but will announce an intent to not levy fines; why would railroads go ahead and operate under the default presumption that they will be fined?
wanswheel There’s no question the fines are at the discretion of the Secretary of Transportation, in the language of the law. “The Secretary is authorized to assess civil penalties…” Without the fines, obeying to the letter the 2008 law just to prove it’s their policy would be senseless. In the immortal words of Deep Throat, follow the money. Railroads crave revenue more than they fear lawsuits.
1) To avoid the fines.
2) To avoid the extra liability in case of an accident with non-compliant operations.
3) To avoid breaking the law.
#1 is the smallest problem. It's #2 and #3 that are the real sticking points.
Think of the position you'd put an engineer in telling him to take a non-PTC equipped train out on "day one". Locomotive engineers can be liable for their negligence in an accident. Managment can't order people to break the law.
The legal deadline has to be extended somehow and the "fine" has to become some sort of non-compliance fee or tax, or a fine for "lack of progress".
wanswheel In the absence of an extension it’s still entirely up to the President whether railroads will be fined or not. There's no way he's so dumb he's going to allow a railroad crisis to ruin his last year in office.
Randy,
I do believe that the FRA was indeed blindsided by the sudden development that the railroads intend to shut down because the law requires it. The FRA was looking at the law too narrowly and focused only on the fact that the law allows fines. The FRA thought that had the railroads in a box, but the sudden prospect of the mandate forcing a shutdown has placed the FRA into the same box they have the railroads in.
The FRA is staffed with more than just Sara. Does she not speak to her staff ?
Why bother this political appointee who has absolutely no clue with these questions?
You, both houses of Congress wrote the law. So instead why not say to her that we will fix it and relieve you of any stress. If we did that you, political appointee, may go on with more simple things.
I cannot imagine the FRA being that stupid not being able to predict possible outcome. Blind sided by the possibility ?? WTF !
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.