BaltACD schlimm tree68 schlimm It's less a matter of the technology than the tools therein. Getting locations for towers and necessary frequencies and bandwidth has been a major hurdle. There is also the need to build a system that will be seamless nationwide (and potentially internationally). Simply getting all vendors to speak the same language can be problematic. It can take two years to get a single frequency here north of the "A Line." The rails should take some responsibility for their choices for PTC. Nobody mandated they use the new untested products they chose. So what 'tested technology' existed the fulfilled the demands of PTC and was compatable with US operations.
schlimm tree68 schlimm It's less a matter of the technology than the tools therein. Getting locations for towers and necessary frequencies and bandwidth has been a major hurdle. There is also the need to build a system that will be seamless nationwide (and potentially internationally). Simply getting all vendors to speak the same language can be problematic. It can take two years to get a single frequency here north of the "A Line." The rails should take some responsibility for their choices for PTC. Nobody mandated they use the new untested products they chose.
tree68 schlimm It's less a matter of the technology than the tools therein. Getting locations for towers and necessary frequencies and bandwidth has been a major hurdle. There is also the need to build a system that will be seamless nationwide (and potentially internationally). Simply getting all vendors to speak the same language can be problematic. It can take two years to get a single frequency here north of the "A Line."
schlimm
It's less a matter of the technology than the tools therein. Getting locations for towers and necessary frequencies and bandwidth has been a major hurdle. There is also the need to build a system that will be seamless nationwide (and potentially internationally). Simply getting all vendors to speak the same language can be problematic.
It can take two years to get a single frequency here north of the "A Line."
The rails should take some responsibility for their choices for PTC. Nobody mandated they use the new untested products they chose.
So what 'tested technology' existed the fulfilled the demands of PTC and was compatable with US operations.
Ya a pretty ridiculous comment (as one of the "Tappet Brothers" once said "don't let the facts get in the way of an answer ". Two of the best aerospace electronics firms, GE Harris and Lockheed Martin couldn't produce a working system guess they just missed the tested technology part.
You are the railroader. Do the research for yourself.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Wizlish schlimm The moon landing was proposed in 1961 and fulfilled in 1969. The Manhattan Project managed to build operable nuclear weapons in 3 years. And if you adjust the Government-paid price for either of those projects to 2008 dollars, and ensure that the Government pays it without demur, you'll get your PTC on schedule. A bit different if you look at the history of privately-funded trips to the moon and development of nuclear fission/fusion for commercial profitability, don't you think?
schlimm The moon landing was proposed in 1961 and fulfilled in 1969. The Manhattan Project managed to build operable nuclear weapons in 3 years.
And if you adjust the Government-paid price for either of those projects to 2008 dollars, and ensure that the Government pays it without demur, you'll get your PTC on schedule.
A bit different if you look at the history of privately-funded trips to the moon and development of nuclear fission/fusion for commercial profitability, don't you think?
It's a comparative analogy: two highly complex projects vs this one.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
tree68 schlimm 2. 7 years is a long time, considering the working technology existed in part here and completely in Europe. It's less a matter of the technology than the tools therein. Getting locations for towers and necessary frequencies and bandwidth has been a major hurdle. There is also the need to build a system that will be seamless nationwide (and potentially internationally). Simply getting all vendors to speak the same language can be problematic. It can take two years to get a single frequency here north of the "A Line."
schlimm 2. 7 years is a long time, considering the working technology existed in part here and completely in Europe.
schlimm2. 7 years is a long time, considering the working technology existed in part here and completely in Europe.
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...
cx500 In 2008 Congress had no idea of the magnitude of what they were asking for. The railroads were a little better off, since they knew from numerous test installations of just a few of the components that are needed to fulfill the PTC mandate that it was going to be a massive challenge. I have no idea who picked the 2016 deadline date but it was likely not anyone close to the technical folks who would have to do the design and installation. Once the project was underway I'm sure the railroads found previously unforeseen aspects to challenge the design team. Of course other regulatory agencies inserted their own interference. Lots of things are "more easily said than done", and politicians are definitely past masters of that craft.
In 2008 Congress had no idea of the magnitude of what they were asking for. The railroads were a little better off, since they knew from numerous test installations of just a few of the components that are needed to fulfill the PTC mandate that it was going to be a massive challenge. I have no idea who picked the 2016 deadline date but it was likely not anyone close to the technical folks who would have to do the design and installation. Once the project was underway I'm sure the railroads found previously unforeseen aspects to challenge the design team. Of course other regulatory agencies inserted their own interference.
Lots of things are "more easily said than done", and politicians are definitely past masters of that craft.
1. The FRA should have been given more discretionary flexibility with deadlines.
2. 7 years is a long time, considering the working technology existed in part here and completely in Europe. The moon landing was proposed in 1961 and fulfilled in 1969. The Manhattan Project managed to build operable nuclear weapons in 3 years.
Deception, hell Congress cannot hit their backside with either hand. They are not, COLLECTIVELY, able to make rational decisions.
Euclid stated
"It would have been a big deception of the public if they knew all of that in 2008."
Why do you act surprized? Deception is just routine business for congress.
Anyone who has had to create instructions governing the actions of a work force knows first hand the term malicious compliance.
Appears that Congress never considered reality, just like a new hire supervisor that couldn't spell the word supervisor before being hired.
Euclid I was told today by Blumenthal’s office that Congress did not know all of that in 2008 because they did not contemplate the railroads threatening to shut down. I was told that this idea of a shutdown is solely the creation of the railroads in the last couple months, and that Congress disagrees with it.
Congress and it's thought processes, have a national approval rating below used car dealers. Congress hasn't THOUGHT about what it has been doing for the past decade or more.
1) It would be illegal to operate out of compliance with the PTC law.
2) It would increase their liability in case of accidents while operating out of compliance with the PTC law.
3) Their common carrier obligation is suspended if they are out of compliance with the PTC law.
1) Congress does not agree with the railroads’ conclusions about any of the three points listed above.
2) Congress sees no reason for the railroads to shut down if not compliant after the PTC deadline.
3) There is nothing in the PTC law that requires the railroads to shut down if not compliant after the PTC deadline.
4) Congress has not determined what enforcement action they will take if the railroads shut down.
5) Senator Blumenthal believes that the railroads are using their claim that they must shut down as a tactic to pressure Congress into granting a PTC extension because the railroads know that Congress will not want the economy to be damaged by a shutdown.
Deggesty Paul, perhaps you are right, though Houston Ed may have hit it--he can't help it. My thought was of the explanation why the upper berth is lower than the lower--Paul North and Jeff Hergert should catch on to this quickly.
Paul, perhaps you are right, though Houston Ed may have hit it--he can't help it. My thought was of the explanation why the upper berth is lower than the lower--Paul North and Jeff Hergert should catch on to this quickly.
A further footnote: the explanation of the price difference between upper and lower goes on and on and on.
Johnny
oltmannd You can't require a locomotive engineer to take a train in cab signal territory if the cab signal signal system on the locomotive isn't funcitoning. He's criminally liable if for all the bad things that may occur (remember Chase MD?). How are you going to force a locomotive engineer to take a non-compliant PTC train?
You can't require a locomotive engineer to take a train in cab signal territory if the cab signal signal system on the locomotive isn't funcitoning. He's criminally liable if for all the bad things that may occur (remember Chase MD?).
How are you going to force a locomotive engineer to take a non-compliant PTC train?
With my company's rules, Train Control must be tested and working at the Origin of the train (that is Origin of the train, not crew change location), there is a form on which the performance of the TC test is recorded for successive Enginemen to note if the engine was tested. If the Train Control stops working while the train is in route to it's destination, the Train Control may be cut out and the train can continue to operate on wayside signals. It must stop at Restricted Proceed signals and must get the Train Dispatchers permisson to enter that signal block.
While I have no idea how failure of PTC will be handled when PTC is implemented, there will have to be rules that will permit trains to continue to operate when having experienced PTC failure.
Euclid3) Their common carrier obligation is suspended if they are out of compliance with the PTC law.
The interpretation of the law w.r.t common carrier requirments belongs exclusively with the STB. If Congress thinks the STB is getting it wrong, they can only change the law. They have no standing to tell the STB they are doing it wrong.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Euclid4) Congress has not determined what enforcement action they will take if the railroads shut down.
Although this one is pretty funny, too. Congress doesn't do enforcement. Does Blumenthal need remedial Civics?
Euclid2) Congress sees no reason for the railroads to shut down if not compliant after the PTC deadline.
This one is the funniest. In effect, the RRs are free to violate this particular law? Maybe the Senator can provide a list of which laws the RRs are free to violate.
tree68 One has to wonder what his answer would have been if it had been a high-mucky-muck from a railroad that asked...
One has to wonder what his answer would have been if it had been a high-mucky-muck from a railroad that asked...
One also has to wonder why a mere railfan would be calling a senator's office for information on the PTC law. Could it professional interest for future reference?
Norm
Euclid I have spoken to the office of Senator Richard Blumenthal, and asked when the railroads and Congress first concluded that the railroads must shut down if not compliant after the PTC deadline. The railroads cite three reasons for this conclusion: 1) It would be illegal to operate out of compliance with the PTC law. 2) It would increase their liability in case of accidents while operating out of compliance with the PTC law. 3) Their common carrier obligation is suspended if they are out of compliance with the PTC law. I was told the following by Senator Blumenthal’s office: 1) Congress does not agree with the railroads’ conclusions about any of the three points listed above. 2) Congress sees no reason for the railroads to shut down if not compliant after the PTC deadline. 3) There is nothing in the PTC law that requires the railroads to shut down if not compliant after the PTC deadline. 4) Congress has not determined what enforcement action they will take if the railroads shut down. 5) Senator Blumenthal believes that the railroads are using their claim that they must shut down as a tactic to pressure Congress into granting a PTC extension because the railroads know that Congress will not want the economy to be damaged by a shutdown.
Senator Blumenthal is free to believe in the Easter Bunny, too.
Paul of CovingtonWe need a tongue-in-cheek emoticon. The closest I could find was the Hmm. Several times I have made tongue-in cheek comments and received serious answers.
Unfortunately, sometimes the tongue-in-cheek posts border on the realm of possibility, at least to some portion of the audience. I usually use the wink.
We need a tongue-in-cheek emoticon. The closest I could find was the Hmm. Several times I have made tongue-in cheek comments and received serious answers.
_____________
"A stranger's just a friend you ain't met yet." --- Dave Gardner
DeggestyRemember that the area where the rock fell is dark territory.
Dark territory or no, unless there was some method of detecting the rock slide, PTC would have been useless here.
As Deggesty notes, the area doesn't have a history of such slides.
PTC is not a "magic bullet." Which has already been noted, as well. But some people seem to think it is.
dehusman Paul of Covington Balt, are you claiming that PTC would NOT have prevented this accident? PTC wouldn't have done a single thing to prevent this derailment. PTC prevents trains from exceeding their main track authority or exceeding the authorized speed. The Vermonter accident has absolutely NOTHING to do with main track authority limits or excessive speed.
Paul of Covington Balt, are you claiming that PTC would NOT have prevented this accident?
Balt, are you claiming that PTC would NOT have prevented this accident?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.