tree68 Hey, Congress. We need one little law passed (or resolution, or whatever it takes). Doesn't need to be part of another law, or resolution, or anything else. Just a little ditty with the appropriate verbiage to extend the deadline. Might be all of one page - easy reading. Probably take five minutes in each house.
Hey, Congress. We need one little law passed (or resolution, or whatever it takes). Doesn't need to be part of another law, or resolution, or anything else.
Just a little ditty with the appropriate verbiage to extend the deadline. Might be all of one page - easy reading.
Probably take five minutes in each house.
Nothing takes 5 minutes in Congress. Can you imagine how long it would take for them to agree to a place to go for lunch?
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
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...
Congress has had a history of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
Don I appreciate the link you provided. Very interesting. A couple of quotes:
Our Lauren Gardner and Pro Agriculture’s Bill Tomson report that “lawmakers' preferred solution — sticking an extension into a long-term transportation bill — won't happen in time...Senate Commerce Chairman John Thune didn't dismiss adding an extension to a short-term highway and transit bill, which is due by the end of October. Thune said, "Because otherwise, if we don't get this addressed before the end of the year, we're going to have a pretty big disaster on our hands."...Railroads have tried hard in recent days to convey just how sizable that disaster would be.
Thune said, "Because otherwise, if we don't get this addressed before the end of the year, we're going to have a pretty big disaster on our hands."...Railroads have tried hard in recent days to convey just how sizable that disaster would be.
One way or another I guess we'll find out.
tommyboyAre we sure the bill to extend the PTC deadline to at least 2018 is part of a major transportation bill? My understanding is that it is not.
http://www.politico.com/tipsheets/morning-transportation/2015/09/150915-pro-morning-transpo-210209
It's a bit of a mess....
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
And that's a problem with Congress any more. They can't seem to act on a bill on its own merits - they have to try to load unpopular items in with popular items in hopes the unpopular stuff will pass along with the popular stuff.
Taken by itself, and on its own merits, extending PTC would seem to be a no-brainer, given what's been related here regarding the difficulties the project is facing. But, no...
tommyboy Are we sure the bill to extend the PTC deadline to at least 2018 is part of a major transportation bill? My understanding is that it is not. The bill the Senate passed, S. 650, introduced by Sen. Roy Blunt (R. MO), is specific to the Positive Train Control deadline...
Are we sure the bill to extend the PTC deadline to at least 2018 is part of a major transportation bill? My understanding is that it is not. The bill the Senate passed, S. 650, introduced by Sen. Roy Blunt (R. MO), is specific to the Positive Train Control deadline...
Apparently that bill was folded into the 1000 page transportation bill:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/24/us/senate-to-consider-delaying-rail-safety-mandate.html?_r=0
The bill also includes things like continuing the Export Import Bank, which is opposed by many in Congress. Plus Congress has many other critical bills in the final months of 2015.
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2015/0730/Senate-passes-transportation-bill
Are we sure the bill to extend the PTC deadline to at least 2018 is part of a major transportation bill? My understanding is that it is not. The bill the Senate passed, S. 650, introduced by Sen. Roy Blunt (R. MO), is specific to the Positive Train Control deadline. This is how the bill reads (in part):
- S. 650: Railroad Safety and Positive Train Control Extension Act- Revises the railroad safety risk reduction program. Extends from December 31, 2015, to December 31, 2020, the deadline for submission to the Secretary of Transportation by each Class I railroad carrier and each entity providing regularly scheduled intercity or commuter rail passenger transportation of a plan for implementing a positive train control (PTC) system on certain of its tracks.
Congress should provide a responsible deadline extension to 2018 to deploy all the necessary equipment and outfit the locomotive fleet. Then, an additional two years are needed for testing and validation that the nationwide system is properly working in all regions. The adjusted timeline would give railroads the critical time needed to test, approve and install the highly complex system necessary for the safe and correct use of this sophsticated technology.
The PTC "extension" passed by the Senate was to give the administration the ability to extend the deadline by up to 3 years. It was done at the request of the administration. That would be the appropriate place for it, as the FRA could work out a timetable with each RR for PTC initiation. Each side could sign consent agreements with stipulated penalties for missing the agreed upon deadlines. This would also get the legislatures off the hook. The problem is that the PTC issue was just a small part of the Senate bill which was a transportation package. They sent it to the House, but Congress has not passed a transportation bill in many years, choosing instead to pass continuing resolutions to keep current laws in effect.
One idea I would like to correct is, that there is a possibility that the railroad industry as a whole (or a big part of it) may still get PTC in place before the December 31, 2015 deadline. That's not going to happen. In discussing this on another message board two months ago, a member of Amtrak's engineering staff said, only three carriers are currently on schedule to be fully PTC-compliant by the year end deadline.
One is Amtrak:
We remain on schedule to complete the full activation of PTC in the Northeast Corridor—including Frankford Junction—in accordance with the federal deadline of December 31, 2015.
Another is southern California's MetroLink (which is already PTC-compliant and has been since this past June):
Metrolink launched Positive Train Control (PTC) in Revenue Service Demonstration (RSD) across the entire 341-mile network the agency owns earlier this month [June 2015]. With this latest accomplishment, Metrolink becomes the first railroad in the nation to have PTC running during regular service on all of its hosted lines and remains on track to become the nation’s first passenger rail system to have a fully operational, interoperable, and certified PTC system in place.
And Septa. From their website:
SEPTA is positioned to successfully implement PTC in compliance with the law, barring any unforeseen technical challenges or concerns that arise during testing.
http://www.septa.org/media/short/2015/07-08.html
If any other railroads or commuter agencies are predicting they will meet the federal deadline I'd be interested in knowing it, but I don't think there are any others.
tommyboyThat 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.
Lame. That's a valid argument for the freight railroads, where no system existed that would work for them at scale. For LIRR, maybe no one was actually making ACSES equipment in 2008, but the system existed, and it's proven to work. I see trains operating under it almost every day. Changing a few signal aspects for LIRR's bizarre non-standard signalling system, that, like everything else on the railroad, is arse-backwards, shouldn't be THAT hard.
If Congress simply is forced to back down and grant an extension, you can bet that they will not admit that the reason is to correct their own mistake. Instead, they will heap blame upon the industry for not complying with the mandate. Most of the public will gladly accept that explanation. So the railroad industry will be left with an extension and a huge black eye.
Congress, more specifically the House, will grant the extension. Nothing will happen that the public can detect. It will be a 15 sec update on the evening news, quickly followed by a 5 min piece on the latest bizzare quote from the Donald. The "public" won't understand or care. Life will go on. PTC will be delployed later rather than sooner.
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
tommyboy 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.
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.
I remember a single-pane comic in a pocket-sized book of such comics my brother had when I was a kid (60 years ago... just to put it in context). It was was of two men in pinstriped suits and fedora hats, carrying briefcases, walking away from the Capitol building... one says to the other:
"I'd sure hate to have to go out and make a living under the laws we just passed."
Semper Vaporo
Pkgs.
It seems, for the past decade or more, Congress has prided itself in writing unrealistic and in many cases unenforceable legislation. Congress (lobbyists) write the bills - they have no idea of the mechanics of applying and enforcing the legislation, let alone what needs to be done for one to comply.
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=(title:49%20section:20157%20edition:prelim)#20157_1
Wizlish, your second paragraph mentions "they point out there is no room for selective enforcement". Really, we see it daily by this administration.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.