Trains.com

Solving the PTC Deadline Problem

20608 views
346 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    November 2005
  • 4,190 posts
Posted by wanswheel on Wednesday, October 28, 2015 2:36 PM

Excerpt from Associated Press, Oct. 28

Congress passed a bill Wednesday that delays for at least three years the mandate for railroads to put long-sought safety technology in place, and extends the government's authority to spend money on transportation programs.

Federal accident investigators say the technology, known as positive train control or PTC, would have prevented an Amtrak derailment in Philadelphia last May that killed eight people and injured about 200 others had it been working. Amtrak had installed the technology on tracks were the crash occurred, but it hadn't yet been tested and so wasn't turned on.

The Senate passed the bill by a voice vote with little debate. The House passed the measure the previous day. It now goes to the White House, where President Barack Obama is expected to sign it into law.

Railroads have already had seven years to install PTC, but most aren't expected to meet the end-of-year deadline to put it into operation on all tracks that carry passenger trains or are used to haul liquids that turn into toxic gas if spilled. As a result, railroads and companies that ship freight by rail have been strongly urging Congress to provide a delay.

The bill gives railroads until Dec. 31, 2018, to install the expensive technology, and they can seek a waiver for up to another two years if needed.

  • Member since
    September 2003
  • From: Omaha, NE
  • 10,621 posts
Posted by dehusman on Tuesday, October 27, 2015 3:12 PM

It now has to move to the Senate, they need to vote on it and pass it and Obama sign it by Oct 29th to avoid shutting off Federal Highway funds.

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

  • Member since
    November 2005
  • 4,190 posts
Posted by wanswheel on Tuesday, October 27, 2015 1:25 PM
The House passed the highway bill which would extend the PTC deadline.
  • Member since
    November 2005
  • 4,190 posts
Posted by wanswheel on Tuesday, October 27, 2015 10:24 AM
  • Member since
    July 2006
  • 9,610 posts
Posted by schlimm on Monday, October 26, 2015 12:33 PM

erikem

 

 
zugmann

 This whole notion of not hauling TIH or passengers is absurd.

 

 

What's not absud is the RR's wanting revenues to reasonably cover the costs of hauling TIH or passengers. In the case of insurance, it might be worthwhile requiring the shippers or customers to pay for insurance. The insurance compnay may then adjust the rates based on the RR's (or whatever transportation method used) safety record, which would then incentivise the shipper to pay more for better safety in transit.

 

With regard to liability insurance for TIH, it may not be as simple as you suggest.  If a train derails and destroys a large area in a town (as in the Decatur IL accident), should the TIH manufacturer be liable?  Doubtful.

Fees for Amtrak track usage are renegotiated every X years.  

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

  • Member since
    November 2005
  • 4,190 posts
Posted by wanswheel on Monday, October 26, 2015 11:50 AM
It seems this really is the crucial week something will happen.
Excerpt from Wall Street Journal, Oct. 26
The U.S. House is trying to deal with two big transportation deadlines in one bill. Republican and Democratic leaders of the chamber’s transportation committee put together a three-week extension of the highway programs set to expire on Thursday. That sets up a likely vote on Tuesday for the latest in a series of short-term bills that push off consideration of a long-term plan for transportation spending and policies. It’s more than just a routine extension, though, because the bill includes a big win for the railroad industry. Lawmakers included a three-year extension of the rail safety technology mandate that was due to hit at the end of the year—and bring chaos to rail operations that are not ready to put Positive Train Control into place.
  • Member since
    December 2005
  • From: Cardiff, CA
  • 2,930 posts
Posted by erikem on Sunday, October 25, 2015 11:12 PM

zugmann

 This whole notion of not hauling TIH or passengers is absurd.

What's not absud is the RR's wanting revenues to reasonably cover the costs of hauling TIH or passengers. In the case of insurance, it might be worthwhile requiring the shippers or customers to pay for insurance. The insurance compnay may then adjust the rates based on the RR's (or whatever transportation method used) safety record, which would then incentivise the shipper to pay more for better safety in transit.

  • Member since
    January 2002
  • From: Canterlot
  • 9,575 posts
Posted by zugmann on Sunday, October 25, 2015 10:25 PM

greyhounds

 Because lumber, UPS packages, washing machines, iron ore, etc. involve far less risk than TIH/PIH and don't destroy line capacity with virtually no revenue (as Amtrak does).

 

Risks vs. rewards, I guess.  Must be something to handling the bad stuff.  I've seen a lot of money pumped into the chemical coast of NJ, and for other refineries.  

 

Are you telling me lumber cars will make up the difference?   And if one company doesn't haul the nasty stuff, I'm sure the next will pick it up (once this PTC stuff gets sorted). 

 RRs are in the business of hauling stuff safely.  If those in charge aren't able to do it (or too pansy enough to try), then I think they need to find a new job.  The stuff needs hauled, whether some like it or not.

 This whole notion of not hauling TIH or passengers is absurd.

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

  • Member since
    August 2003
  • From: Antioch, IL
  • 4,371 posts
Posted by greyhounds on Sunday, October 25, 2015 9:24 PM

zugmann
Why stop there?  Stop running anyhting, period.  No risks that way.

Because lumber, UPS packages, washing machines, iron ore, etc. involve far less risk than TIH/PIH and don't destroy line capacity with virtually no revenue (as Amtrak does).

"By many measures, the U.S. freight rail system is the safest, most efficient and cost effective in the world." - Federal Railroad Administration, October, 2009. I'm just your average, everyday, uncivilized howling "anti-government" critic of mass government expenditures for "High Speed Rail" in the US. And I'm gosh darn proud of that.
  • Member since
    January 2002
  • From: Canterlot
  • 9,575 posts
Posted by zugmann on Sunday, October 25, 2015 9:18 PM

Why stop there?  Stop running anyhting, period.  No risks that way.

 

 

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

  • Member since
    August 2003
  • From: Antioch, IL
  • 4,371 posts
Posted by greyhounds on Sunday, October 25, 2015 8:59 PM

I respectfully suggest that everyone consider the idea that our nation's railroads will be quite happy to get rid of TIH/PIH business.  They cannot buy enough insurance to cover the risks.  This is because insurance companies, even acting through reinsurance to spread the risks, cannot afford to cover the potential risks.  

I also respectfully suggest consideration of the concept that eliminating those stupid capacity destroying Amtrak trains will be a blessing.

No TIH, no Amtrak, no problem.

"By many measures, the U.S. freight rail system is the safest, most efficient and cost effective in the world." - Federal Railroad Administration, October, 2009. I'm just your average, everyday, uncivilized howling "anti-government" critic of mass government expenditures for "High Speed Rail" in the US. And I'm gosh darn proud of that.
  • Member since
    September 2011
  • 6,449 posts
Posted by MidlandMike on Saturday, October 24, 2015 7:23 PM

Paul_D_North_Jr

 

To keep this at least somewhat rail-related: Was there myself "a few years back", returning from a couple of Wisconsin Central excursions over the old Duluth, South Shore & Atlantic (later the orginal Soo) from Marquette in Michigan's above-the-bridge (Mackinac Straits) "Yooper" territory.  Saturday's trip went west to Baraga and back; Sunday's went east to Newberry and back. 

 

I also was on those ex-DSS&A trips in 1992.  Sadly the line from the LS&I jct near Negaunee to Munising Jct was torn up shortly thereafter.

  • Member since
    October 2006
  • From: Allentown, PA
  • 9,810 posts
Posted by Paul_D_North_Jr on Saturday, October 24, 2015 10:23 AM

Norm48327
Paul_D_North_Jr

Mischief Well - Hell*, Michigan might freeze over in a couple months, too.

* N 42 26.070' W 83 59.166'

- Paul North. 

Been there and had lunch at the Dam Site Inn. It's a favorite ride for motorcyclists. The whole burg has a devilish sense of humor about it's name and capitalizes on it. Devil

To keep this at least somewhat rail-related: Was there myself "a few years back", returning from a couple of Wisconsin Central excursions over the old Duluth, South Shore & Atlantic (later the orginal Soo) from Marquette in Michigan's above-the-bridge (Mackinac Straits) "Yooper" territory.  Saturday's trip went west to Baraga and back; Sunday's went east to Newberry and back. 

I got there about dusk, so my photos are none too good, and I'm sure a lot has changed since then.  But the photo I like best was of the old tall circular gas station sign with the name of the town on it and surrounded by painted flames - and directly underneath it was one of those large outdoor insulated chests that are used to store and sell bagged ice !

- Paul North.    

"This Fascinating Railroad Business" (title of 1943 book by Robert Selph Henry of the AAR)
  • Member since
    July 2006
  • 9,610 posts
Posted by schlimm on Friday, October 23, 2015 7:53 PM

Hell, Michigan is about 15 miles NW of Ann Arbor.

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

  • Member since
    March 2003
  • From: Central Iowa
  • 6,901 posts
Posted by jeffhergert on Friday, October 23, 2015 7:43 PM

Wizlish
 
jeffhergert
I checked the forecast for Norway. Hell might freeze over next week.

 

In case anyone misses the Believe-It-Or-Not reference (Mr. North did not):

 

I first became aware of Hell, Norway many years ago from Reader's Digest.  It was something submitted to the "Humor in uniform" column.  Someone had submitted a note posted on a bulletin board outside the base office handling re-enlistments.  Something to the effect that, "The temperature in Hell, Norway was 25 degrees (f) yesterday.  Sgt X would like to see all those who said they would re-enlist when Hell froze over."

Jeff

  • Member since
    November 2013
  • 1,097 posts
Posted by Buslist on Friday, October 23, 2015 1:16 PM

rockymidlandrr

Hmmm, I know I'm jumping in on this a lil late, but with my carrier alone the PTC problem would of been solved years ago if they would of focused on installing PTC instead of inward facing camera's on all locomotives.  

 

 

Kind of hard to do as the hardware wasn't available in the quanties needed.

  • Member since
    October 2005
  • 206 posts
Posted by rockymidlandrr on Friday, October 23, 2015 12:02 PM

Hmmm, I know I'm jumping in on this a lil late, but with my carrier alone the PTC problem would of been solved years ago if they would of focused on installing PTC instead of inward facing camera's on all locomotives.  

Still building the Rocky Midland RR Through, Over, and Around the Rockies
  • Member since
    December 2007
  • From: Southeast Michigan
  • 2,983 posts
Posted by Norm48327 on Friday, October 23, 2015 4:34 AM

Paul_D_North_Jr

Mischief Well - Hell*, Michigan might freeze over in a couple months, too.

* N 42 26.070' W 83 59.166'

- Paul North. 

 

Been there and had lunch at the Dam Site Inn. It's a favorite ride for motorcyclists. The whole burg has a devilish sense of humor about it's name and capitalizes on it. Devil

Norm


  • Member since
    October 2014
  • 1,644 posts
Posted by Wizlish on Friday, October 23, 2015 3:36 AM

jeffhergert
I checked the forecast for Norway. Hell might freeze over next week.

In case anyone misses the Believe-It-Or-Not reference (Mr. North did not):

  • Member since
    October 2006
  • From: Allentown, PA
  • 9,810 posts
Posted by Paul_D_North_Jr on Thursday, October 22, 2015 9:23 PM

Mischief Well - Hell*, Michigan might freeze over in a couple months, too.

* N 42 26.070' W 83 59.166'

- Paul North. 

"This Fascinating Railroad Business" (title of 1943 book by Robert Selph Henry of the AAR)
  • Member since
    March 2003
  • From: Central Iowa
  • 6,901 posts
Posted by jeffhergert on Thursday, October 22, 2015 1:34 PM

Norm48327
 
MidlandMike
By the end of your post, you seem to have had all your questions answered, or answered them yourself, so I presume you had no further questions.

 

Are you also expecting Hades to freeze over? Whistling

 

I checked the forcast for Norway.  Hell might freeze over next week.Smile, Wink & Grin

A couple of observations on my part about the original deadline.  First, there were and are some systems (ARES on the BN, if you missed a post awhile back) here and overseas that are similar to PTC.  Although to the layman they all might seem to be interchangeble (one size fits all) and ready to go "off the shelf," the reality is different.  Even in apples to apples, a Red Delicious is not a Granny Smith.  If someone (congress) thinks it's ready to go, it's easy to order it be done. 

Second, concerning the difference in time lines between the next gen of ATC (air, not RR ATC) and PTC, the government is paying for one but not the other.  It's really easy to tell someone else they have to have it by a certain date when you aren't going to pay for it. 

Jeff

  • Member since
    December 2007
  • From: Southeast Michigan
  • 2,983 posts
Posted by Norm48327 on Thursday, October 22, 2015 8:02 AM

MidlandMike
By the end of your post, you seem to have had all your questions answered, or answered them yourself, so I presume you had no further questions.

Are you also expecting Hades to freeze over? Whistling

Norm


  • Member since
    January 2001
  • From: Atlanta
  • 11,971 posts
Posted by oltmannd on Thursday, October 22, 2015 5:36 AM

blue streak 1

Another complication.

NS' release says they will not accept TIH and other items after Dec 1 on their system.  As well they will not accept interchange traffic after Dec 1.

Does that mean that the traffic originating much earlier than Dec 1 by the other RRs sending traffic to NS will have to reject that traffic ?

Since all RRs seem to be holding to the DEC 1st deadline could it be traffic starting as early as Nov 1 that is connecting to NS / and maybe other RRs will be refused ? Any bets ?

 

 

About the worst case from release to interchange would be about a week.

So, if you release your TIH shipment by Novemeber 20, it should get where it's going.  The RR will still move it to destination after Dec 1, they just won't tender any new loads.  They also won't take any empties back because those are TIH, too. All the cars will have to be off RR property by Jan 1 because of physical hain of custody requirements.

I wonder if there will be a mini-surge or TIH in the first part of November.

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

  • Member since
    July 2006
  • 9,610 posts
Posted by schlimm on Wednesday, October 21, 2015 10:23 PM

blue streak 1

Another complication.

NS' release says they will not accept TIH and other items after Dec 1 on their system.  As well they will not accept interchange traffic after Dec 1.

Does that mean that the traffic originating much earlier than Dec 1 by the other RRs sending traffic to NS will have to reject that traffic ?

Since all RRs seem to be holding to the DEC 1st deadline could it be traffic starting as early as Nov 1 that is connecting to NS / and maybe other RRs will be refused ? Any bets ?

 

 

If the rails need a two-month embargo, that would not speak well for their operation.  Dec. 1 is Dec. 1.

 

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

  • Member since
    September 2011
  • 6,449 posts
Posted by MidlandMike on Wednesday, October 21, 2015 9:56 PM

Euclid
Thanks Larry.  That answers my questions.  As I expected, the case by case extension does not apply to the basic three year extension.  Instead, it applies to the additional extension of up to two years after the initial three year extension runs its course. 
The reason I wanted clarification is that I interpreted Midland Mike’s comment to mean that the basic three year extension would be on a case by case basis since that is the extension that would be the issue of Obama stepping in to defuse the shutdown crisis.  Also, he made no distinction between the initial three year extension and the following two one year extensions.  In any case, he was referring to what the Senate sent to the House, and not to Representative Shuster’s bill. 
 

By the end of your post, you seem to have had all your questions answered, or answered them yourself, so I presume you had no further questions.

  • Member since
    December 2007
  • From: Georgia USA SW of Atlanta
  • 11,919 posts
Posted by blue streak 1 on Wednesday, October 21, 2015 9:52 PM

Another complication.

NS' release says they will not accept TIH and other items after Dec 1 on their system.  As well they will not accept interchange traffic after Dec 1.

Does that mean that the traffic originating much earlier than Dec 1 by the other RRs sending traffic to NS will have to reject that traffic ?

Since all RRs seem to be holding to the DEC 1st deadline could it be traffic starting as early as Nov 1 that is connecting to NS / and maybe other RRs will be refused ? Any bets ?

 

  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: US
  • 25,292 posts
Posted by BaltACD on Wednesday, October 21, 2015 4:17 PM

Never too old to have a happy childhood!

              

  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: US
  • 25,292 posts
Posted by BaltACD on Wednesday, October 21, 2015 4:02 PM

tree68
BaltACD

Methinks the primary difference is that the ATC plan wasn't a knee-jerk reaction to a single incident.  I'm going to give Congress (and the feds) a little credit here and suggest that had the concept been presented as an upgrade to rail safety like the ATC plan undoubtedly was for flight, and all the variables were considered at the time of passage, the timeline would have been more realistic.

My gut feeling - Congress viewed ATC as being a technological nightmare.  Railroads - my God they are so 19th Century!  There can't be any technological challenges in what we are mandating in PTC.  Jerking knees short circuit brain waves.

Never too old to have a happy childhood!

              

  • Member since
    December 2001
  • From: Northern New York
  • 25,021 posts
Posted by tree68 on Wednesday, October 21, 2015 3:31 PM

BaltACD
What I find interesting is the Congress in 2008 decreed implementation by Dec. 31, 2015 - when their plans for upgrading the Air Traffic Control System was concieved 5 years earlier and has a anticipated completion date well beyond 2015.

Methinks the primary difference is that the ATC plan wasn't a knee-jerk reaction to a single incident.  I'm going to give Congress (and the feds) a little credit here and suggest that had the concept been presented as an upgrade to rail safety like the ATC plan undoubtedly was for flight, and all the variables were considered at the time of passage, the timeline would have been more realistic.

LarryWhistling
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...

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