oltmannd MidlandMike ... The following is example of FRA's ability to effectivly extend a deadline where NS was late in filing some required safety reports (from FRA FY2014 Enforcement Report): "Norfolk Southern Railway Company Compliance Agreement On October 3, 2012, FRA entered into a Compliance Agreement (Agreement) with Norfolk Southern Railway Company (NS) addressing NS’s failure to report highway-rail grade crossing accidents/incidents, highway-user casualties, and trespasser casualties properly. The Agreement covered a two-year period with the option to extend the Agreement subject to NS’s performance. FRA identified these issues during its statutorily mandated 2012 audit of NS’s compliance with FRA’s accident/incident reporting regulations (49 C.F.R. part 225) and secondary audit that same year. The Agreement required NS to (1) late-report all of the unreported highway-rail grade crossing accidents/incidents, highway-user casualties, and trespasser casualties identified by the audit team; (2) correct any previously submitted reports identified by FRA as defective; and (3) provide a more detailed Action Plan subject to FRA’s review and approval within 60 days, establishing the specific steps that NS would take to resolve the identified reporting issues along with a timeframe for the implementation of the changes. Further the agreement required, following FRA’s approval of the Action Plan, that NS submit monthly updates to FRA addressing the actions it had taken. FRA had on-going discussions with NS senior management regarding its corrective actions and any new issues that arose (such as properly identifying the longitude and latitude on certain forms). Based upon its performance and subsequent audit findings, FRA opted not to extend the Agreement, which concluded in October 2014." Sarah Feinburg would not have to change the law, she could use available enforcement tools to bring the railroads back into compliance. My two posts previous to the above already talked about Consent Agreements/Decrees, so you already have heard my suggestions. CFR is regulations written by the administration. The PTC deadline is "hard coded" in the law. The FRA can't grant extensions.
MidlandMike ... The following is example of FRA's ability to effectivly extend a deadline where NS was late in filing some required safety reports (from FRA FY2014 Enforcement Report): "Norfolk Southern Railway Company Compliance Agreement On October 3, 2012, FRA entered into a Compliance Agreement (Agreement) with Norfolk Southern Railway Company (NS) addressing NS’s failure to report highway-rail grade crossing accidents/incidents, highway-user casualties, and trespasser casualties properly. The Agreement covered a two-year period with the option to extend the Agreement subject to NS’s performance. FRA identified these issues during its statutorily mandated 2012 audit of NS’s compliance with FRA’s accident/incident reporting regulations (49 C.F.R. part 225) and secondary audit that same year. The Agreement required NS to (1) late-report all of the unreported highway-rail grade crossing accidents/incidents, highway-user casualties, and trespasser casualties identified by the audit team; (2) correct any previously submitted reports identified by FRA as defective; and (3) provide a more detailed Action Plan subject to FRA’s review and approval within 60 days, establishing the specific steps that NS would take to resolve the identified reporting issues along with a timeframe for the implementation of the changes. Further the agreement required, following FRA’s approval of the Action Plan, that NS submit monthly updates to FRA addressing the actions it had taken. FRA had on-going discussions with NS senior management regarding its corrective actions and any new issues that arose (such as properly identifying the longitude and latitude on certain forms). Based upon its performance and subsequent audit findings, FRA opted not to extend the Agreement, which concluded in October 2014." Sarah Feinburg would not have to change the law, she could use available enforcement tools to bring the railroads back into compliance. My two posts previous to the above already talked about Consent Agreements/Decrees, so you already have heard my suggestions.
...
The following is example of FRA's ability to effectivly extend a deadline where NS was late in filing some required safety reports (from FRA FY2014 Enforcement Report):
"Norfolk Southern Railway Company Compliance Agreement On October 3, 2012, FRA entered into a Compliance Agreement (Agreement) with Norfolk Southern Railway Company (NS) addressing NS’s failure to report highway-rail grade crossing accidents/incidents, highway-user casualties, and trespasser casualties properly. The Agreement covered a two-year period with the option to extend the Agreement subject to NS’s performance. FRA identified these issues during its statutorily mandated 2012 audit of NS’s compliance with FRA’s accident/incident reporting regulations (49 C.F.R. part 225) and secondary audit that same year. The Agreement required NS to (1) late-report all of the unreported highway-rail grade crossing accidents/incidents, highway-user casualties, and trespasser casualties identified by the audit team; (2) correct any previously submitted reports identified by FRA as defective; and (3) provide a more detailed Action Plan subject to FRA’s review and approval within 60 days, establishing the specific steps that NS would take to resolve the identified reporting issues along with a timeframe for the implementation of the changes. Further the agreement required, following FRA’s approval of the Action Plan, that NS submit monthly updates to FRA addressing the actions it had taken. FRA had on-going discussions with NS senior management regarding its corrective actions and any new issues that arose (such as properly identifying the longitude and latitude on certain forms). Based upon its performance and subsequent audit findings, FRA opted not to extend the Agreement, which concluded in October 2014."
Sarah Feinburg would not have to change the law, she could use available enforcement tools to bring the railroads back into compliance.
My two posts previous to the above already talked about Consent Agreements/Decrees, so you already have heard my suggestions.
CFR is regulations written by the administration. The PTC deadline is "hard coded" in the law. The FRA can't grant extensions.
I am not sure of the full scope of FRA's Compliance Agreement procedure, nevertheless, they may refer cases to the Attorney General, and the DOJ can negotiate Consent Decrees. The Consent Decree can set a schedule to acheve a legal remedy. Please note I used the qualifier that they only change the "effective" deadline. Some railroads said the would bring suit if the FRA fined them, but before the suit would reach court, the judge would want to know if they first tried to resolve the case thru administrative law, such as a consent decree.
Obviously this would still be a legal mess, and could be challenged by third parties. As I said before, it would be much easier if Congress just passed the present bill to give the administration the ability to extend the deadlines as a more routine regulatory procedure.
Sarah Feinberg spoke before Congress this past June and testified as to the FRA policy towards railroads that failed to meet the PTC deadline either in part or in whole. I'm poviding a link below to the hearing. The page it links to contains links to the testimony of the participants.
Feinberg said in part:
[DOT] requested these new authorities to allow FRA to review, approve, and require interim safety measures for individual railroads that may fail to meet the PTC deadline (such as allowing portions of PTC to be turned on for certain segments rather than waiting for an entire system to be completed; the goal of these interim safety requirements is to ensure adequate safety for railroads that miss the PTC deadline).
One of the steps FRA would take would be:
Grant FRA authority over PTC systems and their operation under controlled conditions before final system certification is complete. This would allow for the incremental use of PTC systems as they are progressively rolled out and simultaneously increase operating safety because railroads could “turn on” portions of PTC on certain segments of track prior to turning on the technology for the entire system...
A QB in the NFL likened the fans understanding of the NFL compared to those who are actually playing the game to a kindergartner questioning a college graduate about the intracacies of his degree field.
Ms. Feinberg's demonstrated understanding of PTC and what is involved in it's successful implementation is akin to that of said kindergartner.
CSX has published info about thier first 'production' implementation of PTC for revenue service testing. Real world, day in day out testing will highlight any number of issues, issues that must be solved for the particular implementation and will hopefully benefit future implementations. If there is one thing I have learned in 50 years of railroading, THERE IS NO ONE SIZE FITS ALL, when it comes to railroad operations.
Published on 9/22/2015 4:35 PM Category: Front Page Spotlights The CSX Positive Train Control (PTC) team achieved a pivotal milestone on Monday, August 31, when the company initiated revenue service demonstration of its new PTC system on the Wilmington Subdivision in North Carolina. Four general merchandise trains and one local are now operating on a daily basis using all of the components of the PTC system on that subdivision. “This demonstration is the culmination of nearly seven years of tireless work by the PTC team,” said Frank Lonegro, executive vice president and chief financial officer and the executive responsible for leading CSX’s PTC efforts. “This is a very proud moment for everyone on the team, and an important step toward achieving full deployment of the system across more than 14,000 miles of the CSX network,” Lonegro said. The Wilmington sub is approximately 100 miles long, between Hamlet and Wilmington, N.C. It includes signaled and non-signaled track, as well as the longest stretch of straight track – 78.9 miles – in the U.S. Installing PTC on non-signaled territory meant that each active switch on the subdivision had to be equipped with a wayside interface unit, which transmits information to approaching locomotives about the status of the switch. Starting the demonstration is a tremendous accomplishment for the transportation and engineering employees in Hamlet, too. All conductors and engineers who operate on the subdivision need to be trained on PTC, and more than 270 completed that training in advance of the start of the demonstration. Florence Division transportation managers and train dispatchers also were briefed, and training will continue to support expansion of the demonstration on additional subdivisions. All Class 1 railroads are mandated by the Rail Safety Improvement Act (RSIA) of 2008 to install an interoperable PTC system on subdivisions that carry regularly scheduled passenger trains or toxic-by-inhalation (TIH) chemicals, as well as on locomotives that operate on passenger tracks. Since passage of the RSIA, independently and in collaboration with the other railroads, vendors and suppliers, CSX has invested more than $1.3 billion to create the safety-overlay system which will monitor train movements and provide train braking in certain circumstances. In essence, PTC is designed to prevent four types of human-factor incidents: certain train-to-train collisions, derailments caused by excessive speed, unauthorized incursions by trains onto sections of track where maintenance or construction activities are taking place, and movement of a train through a track switch left in the wrong position. The system does this by gauging upcoming signals, authorities, switches, operating conditions, locomotive position and speed. If it senses risk, the system provides a warning of a need for action by the engineer. If the engineer fails to act, the PTC system will engage locomotive brakes and bring train to full stop. For CSX, PTC must be installed across roughly two-thirds of the company’s 21,000 mile network and on 3,900 locomotives. Installation includes multiple upgrades and technological systems, including new locomotive computers, new signals, new base stations to transmit signals between the PTC computer and locomotives, GIS mapping of the entire CSX network, and back-end software development, testing and implementation. Lonegro said, “We hope every CSX employee is proud of this accomplishment. It demonstrates our continued commitment to safety across our network, and reinforces our position as a leader in the industry.” Industry is seeking an extension of the existing December 31, 2015, deadline for PTC deployment, and CSX has taken a leadership role in informing Congress about the harsh impacts that will be felt across the U.S. economy if the current deadline is not extended.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Congress writes laws, SCotUS interperts laws. Many of the laws Congress writes are found Unconstitutional and therefore inviolation of the supreme laws of the land and thus illegal. Congress can SAY anything they want - they can't 'enforce' what the say.
BaltACD Congress writes laws, SCotUS interperts laws. Many of the laws Congress writes are found Unconstitutional and therefore inviolation of the supreme laws of the land and thus illegal. Congress can SAY anything they want - they can't 'enforce' what the say.
EuclidIf Congress disagrees with the railroads’ interpretation of the law, and if the railroads shut down on 1/1/16; how quickly could this be settled in court?
It depends on whether ENOUGH brakes were set to hold the train.
Norm
Euclid BaltACD Congress writes laws, SCotUS interperts laws. Many of the laws Congress writes are found Unconstitutional and therefore inviolation of the supreme laws of the land and thus illegal. Congress can SAY anything they want - they can't 'enforce' what the say. If Congress disagrees with the railroads’ interpretation of the law, and if the railroads shut down on 1/1/16; how quickly could this be settled in court?
2025
BaltACD Euclid BaltACD Congress writes laws, SCotUS interperts laws. Many of the laws Congress writes are found Unconstitutional and therefore inviolation of the supreme laws of the land and thus illegal. Congress can SAY anything they want - they can't 'enforce' what the say. If Congress disagrees with the railroads’ interpretation of the law, and if the railroads shut down on 1/1/16; how quickly could this be settled in court?
So then are the railroads willing to stay shut down until 2025?
Euclid ... ONE POSSIBLE SCENARIO: Congress refuses to extend the deadline. They also make a legal determination that the railroads are subject to the common carrier obligation despite the lack of compliance with the PTC law. The railroads disagree with this legal interpretation by Congress, but neither side can prove their case without the long range process of going to court. ...
The Senate has passed a couple of bills with PTC extension riders. The House (a committee?) has scheduled a PTC hearing in late October. The problem is that they have failed to pass much critical legislation so far, and there is little time for PTC, which is way down on their priority list. If they can't get to the PTC extension, then they certainly won't have time for new legislation to give the railroads some literal new meaning of common carrier status. Also, a conservative congress would have no inclination to force a business to perform an activity they don't want to do, especially if it conflicts with another law. If congress has not passed some form of deadline extension by early December, when the RRs start to embargo further TIH acceptance, I think they will feel more compelled to act soon afterwards.
MidlandMike Euclid ... ONE POSSIBLE SCENARIO: Congress refuses to extend the deadline. They also make a legal determination that the railroads are subject to the common carrier obligation despite the lack of compliance with the PTC law. The railroads disagree with this legal interpretation by Congress, but neither side can prove their case without the long range process of going to court. ... The Senate has passed a couple of bills with PTC extension riders. The House (a committee?) has scheduled a PTC hearing in late October. The problem is that they have failed to pass much critical legislation so far, and there is little time for PTC, which is way down on their priority list. If they can't get to the PTC extension, then they certainly won't have time for new legislation to give the railroads some literal new meaning of common carrier status.
The Senate has passed a couple of bills with PTC extension riders. The House (a committee?) has scheduled a PTC hearing in late October. The problem is that they have failed to pass much critical legislation so far, and there is little time for PTC, which is way down on their priority list. If they can't get to the PTC extension, then they certainly won't have time for new legislation to give the railroads some literal new meaning of common carrier status.
I have not ruled out the possibility that Congress will grant an extension. I am just looking at a possible motive for Congress to not grant an extension, and what would happen if they don’t grant one. This could become somewhat personal if Congress believes they are being bullied by the railroads. It would appear that Congress had no intention of granting an extension before the railroads were talking about shutting down. So they might tend to resist being shoved into granting an extension.
When I said in my possible scenario, “They also make a legal determination that the railroads are subject to the common carrier obligation despite the lack of compliance with the PTC law,” I did not mean that they would produce new legislation to give the railroads some literal new meaning of common carrier status, as you say.
All I meant is that Congress might not agree that the railroads will be exempt from their common carrier obligation because of being non-PTC compliant after the deadline. I am sure that this would be an extremely complex legal point on which all legal experts might not agree. My only point is that if Congress feels they are being bullied by the threat of what they perceive as an illegal shutdown, they might not grant an extension. If they don’t grant an extension, and if the railroads go ahead and shut down on 1/1/16; then what? Either side will believe it is the other side’s fault.
It'll get even more complicated if/when the government itself shuts down in the next couple weeks.
1) Congress will not extend the PTC deadline.
2) The railroads will not shut down as they have said they will.
3) The FRA will be very lenient and issue few, if any, fines.
wanswheelThe Pope had the entire Congress spellbound for half an hour.
They were probably in fear of lightning.
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
Euclid These are my predictions: 1) Congress will not extend the PTC deadline. 2) The railroads will not shut down as they have said they will. 3) The FRA will be very lenient and issue few, if any, fines.
Let's meet back here Jan. 1st.
Euclid I have not ruled out the possibility that Congress will grant an extension. I am just looking at a possible motive for Congress to not grant an extension, and what would happen if they don’t grant one. This could become somewhat personal if Congress believes they are being bullied by the railroads. It would appear that Congress had no intention of granting an extension before the railroads were talking about shutting down. So they might tend to resist being shoved into granting an extension. When I said in my possible scenario, “They also make a legal determination that the railroads are subject to the common carrier obligation despite the lack of compliance with the PTC law,” I did not mean that they would produce new legislation to give the railroads some literal new meaning of common carrier status, as you say. All I meant is that Congress might not agree that the railroads will be exempt from their common carrier obligation because of being non-PTC compliant after the deadline. I am sure that this would be an extremely complex legal point on which all legal experts might not agree. My only point is that if Congress feels they are being bullied by the threat of what they perceive as an illegal shutdown, they might not grant an extension. If they don’t grant an extension, and if the railroads go ahead and shut down on 1/1/16; then what? Either side will believe it is the other side’s fault.
Congress has been discussing an extension at least since March, and the Senate passed an extension, before BNSF announced about a month ago they would shut down.
I presumed you were talking about legislation (to redefine common carrier status) because that's what congress does. It is up to the administration to interpret how the law should be enforced, and STB(?) has already said that the common carrier status is not absolute in the face of conflicting laws such as PTC.
The PTC law was passed by a democratic Congress, so I am sure that the republican Congress will have no problem tweaking the law to make it more user friendly. The main problem is that they have a lot of other priorities, and little time for all their pet projects.
The administration has already asked for an amendment to give them the leeway to extend deadlines, which is what the Senate passed. However, if they don't get the cover that an extension law would give, they may effectivly extend the deadlines anyway, such as they did with the employer mandate on the ACA (ObamaCare).
MidlandMike Euclid I have not ruled out the possibility that Congress will grant an extension. I am just looking at a possible motive for Congress to not grant an extension, and what would happen if they don’t grant one. This could become somewhat personal if Congress believes they are being bullied by the railroads. It would appear that Congress had no intention of granting an extension before the railroads were talking about shutting down. So they might tend to resist being shoved into granting an extension. When I said in my possible scenario, “They also make a legal determination that the railroads are subject to the common carrier obligation despite the lack of compliance with the PTC law,” I did not mean that they would produce new legislation to give the railroads some literal new meaning of common carrier status, as you say. All I meant is that Congress might not agree that the railroads will be exempt from their common carrier obligation because of being non-PTC compliant after the deadline. I am sure that this would be an extremely complex legal point on which all legal experts might not agree. My only point is that if Congress feels they are being bullied by the threat of what they perceive as an illegal shutdown, they might not grant an extension. If they don’t grant an extension, and if the railroads go ahead and shut down on 1/1/16; then what? Either side will believe it is the other side’s fault. Congress has been discussing an extension at least since March, and the Senate passed an extension, before BNSF announced about a month ago they would shut down. I presumed you were talking about legislation (to redefine common carrier status) because that's what congress does. It is up to the administration to interpret how the law should be enforced, and STB(?) has already said that the common carrier status is not absolute in the face of conflicting laws such as PTC. The PTC law was passed by a democratic Congress, so I am sure that the republican Congress will have no problem tweaking the law to make it more user friendly. The main problem is that they have a lot of other priorities, and little time for all their pet projects. The administration has already asked for an amendment to give them the leeway to extend deadlines, which is what the Senate passed. However, if they don't get the cover that an extension law would give, they may effectivly extend the deadlines anyway, such as they did with the employer mandate on the ACA (ObamaCare).
I suspect most members of Congress have a very limited interest in the issue of PTC: there are a few other things going on that require their attention. Syria, ISIS, the economy, domestic terrorism, campaign finance, the federal budget, just to name a few. I also suspect it is naive not to think that railroad industry lobbyists (and yes, they have them), have been in contact with selected legislators. That behind-the-scenes the industry is keeping some key members of Congress up-to-speed.
I also don't see any evidence that either side is truly antagonistic to the other. In fact, from what I have seen the railroads and Congress seem quite cordial in their dealings. That's probably a good thing too. Of course certain members of Congress probably can't seem too concerned with granting the industry an extension lest an oppponent in the upcoming elections accuse them of being too partial to railroad corporations and not concerned enough with public safety.
We'll see what happens.
meet again Jan. 1 or even earlier.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Boehner resignation how will it affect this problem??
Ed Ellis posted this over on Facebook.
good summary on the Positive Train Control extension from the Senate Commerce Committee
http://www.commerce.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=21debeed-48fd-4b77-94e9-f8df9bba875c
I'm guessing that is Ed Ellis of Iowa Pacific?
At any rate, thanks very much for posting the link. It looks fascinating, especially the letters from various railroads and commuter agencies. I look forward to going through them.
However, I found this to be a very illuminating comment by the Senate Commerce Committee:
As a practical matter Congress needs to pass an extension by the end of October to prevent freight and commuter rail disruption. To do this, Congress may have to pass the PTC extension in the DRIVE Act as a stand-alone bill.
So it is possible for the House to vote on (and hopefully pass!) the PTC extension by itself without voting on or approving the entire bill. That's good to know and I suspect that is what will happen.
Euclid ... You mentioned that the Administration asked for the authority to extend the deadline. Have they been given that authority? If so, why haven’t they extended the deadline? ... It seems evident to me that Congress overall does not quite want to give an extension. Obviously they feel like they have the right, the duty, and the necessity to inflict financial pain on the railroads to spur them on in the quest to complete PTC. Perhaps the fines are just an empty threat to spur them on, but even so, it is an indication of a belief that the railroads need to be pushed. This mindset of keeping up the pressure is inconsistent with the idea of granting an extension and thereby losing the push for three years.
Giving the administraion the ability to extend PTC deadlines was the basis of (part of) the bill that the Senate passed, but has yet to be acted on by the House.
There has been a steady drumbeat from the republican Congress for smaller government and less regulation, so I have no idea why you say "Obviously they feel like they have the right, the duty, and the necessity to inflict financial pain on the railroads to spur them on in the quest to complete PTC."
For those thinking that a shutdown might be lengthy due to congress wanting the railroads to loose revenue need to consider a basic fact. Most propane (to heat many houses) moves by rail, how will the public react as their homes get cold in January. Most chlorine used to treat drinking water moves by rail. How will the public react when many municipal water systems issue boil orders due to a shortage of chlorine. The public will demand action NOW. But I'm afraid that with the change in leadership in the house this issue will not get the attention it deserves and as usual we will get into crisis mode. BTW my retired railroad regulatory lawyer friend tells me the common carrier obligation goes away if it requires the carrier to do something illegal.
FRA rhymes with ‘car’ in Massachusetts.
BuslistFor those thinking that a shutdown might be lengthy due to congress wanting the railroads to loose revenue need to consider a basic fact.
I don't know of anybody here who has said that a shutdown might be lengthy because congress wants the railroads to loose revenue. Can you please explain?
wanswheelFRA rhymes with ‘car’ in Massachusetts.
Yeah, the message would be more effective if whoever made that had actually had a real person read it. Personally, I think that at the very last minute they will pass an extension after much public jabbing at each other.
Euclid Buslist For those thinking that a shutdown might be lengthy due to congress wanting the railroads to loose revenue need to consider a basic fact. I don't know of anybody here who has said that a shutdown might be lengthy because congress wants the railroads to loose revenue. Can you please explain?
Buslist For those thinking that a shutdown might be lengthy due to congress wanting the railroads to loose revenue need to consider a basic fact.
someone in another forum said
"In my previous post, I was talking about a case where Congress fails to grant an extension by the deadline, and the railroads shut down a large amount of operations as they have announced they will do. I can see how fuel and crews would be cheaper during a shutdown, as you say, but what about the loss of revenue? How long could the railroads stand that loss? In other words, what will the railroads do if Congress persists in not extending the deadline after it passes?"
Why would they refuse to pass it if they didn't think that the loss of revenue wasn't a way to get the railroads running again?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.