Solving the PTC Deadline Problem

[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?

[BaltACD]

tree68

wanswheel

Vermonter derailment news with a PTC spin

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/national/economy/article37877517.html

More like a PTC story with a Vermonter derailment mention.

With McClatchy trying to spin PTC as being the magic bullet that will stop every railroad accident everywhere - even where it is not mandated.

[tree68]

wanswheel

Vermonter derailment news with a PTC spin

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/national/economy/article37877517.html

More like a PTC story with a Vermonter derailment mention.

[wanswheel]

Vermonter derailment news with a PTC spin

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/national/economy/article37877517.html

[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.

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

I've been diagnosed with this from time to time so I think it's more likely to be a form of pedantry.

[schlimm]

edblysard

 

 

Norm48327

 

Euclid

 

cx500

The only way out is to amend the law and that can only be done by the elected members.  Assuming that happens, you cannot claim "this deadline will not be enforced".  The present deadline will no longer exist so there is nothing to enforce, or not enforce, until 2019. 

 

 

You say that by extending the current deadline, it will be voided, and replaced by a new deadline.  So by voiding the current deadline, there will be no deadline to enforce.  Therefore you say that it is incorrect for me to say that the current deadline is unenforceable. 

I don’t see any practical difference between extending a current deadline versus cancelling the current deadline and replacing it with a new deadline.  In either case, it is being done because, as you say, the consequences of enforcing the deadline would be disastrous.

So I will modify my claim that the current deadline is unenforceable as follows:  If the current deadline is enforced, the consequences will be disastrous.  Therefore, to avoid the disastrous consequences, the current deadline will be voided.  It will then be replaced by a new three-year deadline which likewise will be disastrous if enforced, and therefore must be voided before it arrives.      

 

 

 

 

Sounds like someone running for office. Lots of doublespeak there.

 

 

 

 

I think it might be a written form of Tourette's.

 

 

OCD

[edblysard]

Norm48327

 

Euclid

 

cx500

The only way out is to amend the law and that can only be done by the elected members.  Assuming that happens, you cannot claim "this deadline will not be enforced".  The present deadline will no longer exist so there is nothing to enforce, or not enforce, until 2019. 

 

 

You say that by extending the current deadline, it will be voided, and replaced by a new deadline.  So by voiding the current deadline, there will be no deadline to enforce.  Therefore you say that it is incorrect for me to say that the current deadline is unenforceable. 

I don’t see any practical difference between extending a current deadline versus cancelling the current deadline and replacing it with a new deadline.  In either case, it is being done because, as you say, the consequences of enforcing the deadline would be disastrous.

So I will modify my claim that the current deadline is unenforceable as follows:  If the current deadline is enforced, the consequences will be disastrous.  Therefore, to avoid the disastrous consequences, the current deadline will be voided.  It will then be replaced by a new three-year deadline which likewise will be disastrous if enforced, and therefore must be voided before it arrives.      

 

 

 

 

Sounds like someone running for office. Lots of doublespeak there.

 

I think it might be a written form of Tourette's.

[MidlandMike]

Euclid

 

 

tree68

 

The current deadline is certainly enforceable.  There is nothing to stop the feds from enforcing it except the potential consequences, and those are economic, not legal.  ...

 

 

 

 

 

 

That is true.  We don't yet know what they will decide between now and 12/31/15. 

I agree with your point that the consequences of enforcement are economic and not legal.  ...

 

Actually NS (there may be others) is mounting a legal defense if the PTC deadline is enforced rather than extended.  The GAO and other government agencies have already said that the deadline can not possibly be met.  So at this time, enforcing the deadline would seem arbitrary and capricious.  Of course neither side would want to go to court since it is hard to predict who will win/lose.  Both sides want to avoid a showdown to avoid a big legal mess, in addition to the economic consequences.

[Norm48327]

Murphy Siding

Norm- With all due respect, since euclid started this thread, it seems only fair that euclid should be able add to it without being graded, even if it does make him sound like... um... how he sounds. Stick out tongue

Objection noted.

[Murphy Siding]

Norm48327

  

 

 

 

 

Sounds like someone running for office. Lots of doublespeak there.

 

  Norm- With all due respect, since euclid started this thread, it seems only fair that euclid should be able add to it without being graded, even if it does make him sound like... um... how he sounds.

[Euclid]

tree68

 

Euclid

I don’t see any practical difference between extending a current deadline versus cancelling the current deadline and replacing it with a new deadline.  

 

 

That's because there isn't.  Either way, the new deadline is whatever is set.  Or deadlines, if they exercise common sense and work with the railroads and supporting industries to establish realistic goals based on facts, not hyperbole.

The current deadline is certainly enforceable.  There is nothing to stop the feds from enforcing it except the potential consequences, and those are economic, not legal.

If the feds have the will to force the issue, then perhaps they also have the will to face the consequences.

 

 

That is true.  We don't yet know what they will decide between now and 12/31/15. 

I agree with your point that the consequences of enforcement are economic and not legal.  Certainly the legal means of enforcement is fully in place and workable.  My main point is that the economic case for enforcement, in effect, finds the deadline unenforceable because enforcing it is not worth the economic cost. 

Regarding your quote of me:  I agree that there is not any difference between extending a deadline or canceling it and replacing it.  It has been suggested there is a difference, however. 

[Norm48327]

Euclid

 

cx500

The only way out is to amend the law and that can only be done by the elected members.  Assuming that happens, you cannot claim "this deadline will not be enforced".  The present deadline will no longer exist so there is nothing to enforce, or not enforce, until 2019. 

 

 

You say that by extending the current deadline, it will be voided, and replaced by a new deadline.  So by voiding the current deadline, there will be no deadline to enforce.  Therefore you say that it is incorrect for me to say that the current deadline is unenforceable. 

I don’t see any practical difference between extending a current deadline versus cancelling the current deadline and replacing it with a new deadline.  In either case, it is being done because, as you say, the consequences of enforcing the deadline would be disastrous.

So I will modify my claim that the current deadline is unenforceable as follows:  If the current deadline is enforced, the consequences will be disastrous.  Therefore, to avoid the disastrous consequences, the current deadline will be voided.  It will then be replaced by a new three-year deadline which likewise will be disastrous if enforced, and therefore must be voided before it arrives.      

 

Sounds like someone running for office. Lots of doublespeak there.

[tree68]

Euclid

I don’t see any practical difference between extending a current deadline versus cancelling the current deadline and replacing it with a new deadline.  

That's because there isn't.  Either way, the new deadline is whatever is set.  Or deadlines, if they exercise common sense and work with the railroads and supporting industries to establish realistic goals based on facts, not hyperbole.

The current deadline is certainly enforceable.  There is nothing to stop the feds from enforcing it except the potential consequences, and those are economic, not legal.

If the feds have the will to force the issue, then perhaps they also have the will to face the consequences.

 

[Euclid]

cx500

The only way out is to amend the law and that can only be done by the elected members.  Assuming that happens, you cannot claim "this deadline will not be enforced".  The present deadline will no longer exist so there is nothing to enforce, or not enforce, until 2019. 

You say that by extending the current deadline, it will be voided, and replaced by a new deadline.  So by voiding the current deadline, there will be no deadline to enforce.  Therefore you say that it is incorrect for me to say that the current deadline is unenforceable. 

I don’t see any practical difference between extending a current deadline versus cancelling the current deadline and replacing it with a new deadline.  In either case, it is being done because, as you say, the consequences of enforcing the deadline would be disastrous.

So I will modify my claim that the current deadline is unenforceable as follows:  If the current deadline is enforced, the consequences will be disastrous.  Therefore, to avoid the disastrous consequences, the current deadline will be voided.  It will then be replaced by a new three-year deadline which likewise will be disastrous if enforced, and therefore must be voided before it arrives.      

[MikeF90]

oltmannd

One of the good things in the bill is it allows the FRA to grant phased implementation.  That will help the RRs get the system deployed smoothly.  Broke/fix items, processes, and OTJ training can be worked out in small chunks instead of having to have one, big "ON/OFF" switch.

A big Amen to that. Too bad the congress critters who sponsored RSIA didn't have a clue about that 'technology stuff'. Oh that's right, written by lawyers.

BTW the AAR has provided a countdown clock as a reminder.

[oltmannd]

One of the good things in the bill is it allows the FRA to grant phased implementation.  That will help the RRs get the system deployed smoothly.  Broke/fix items, processes, and OTJ training can be worked out in small chunks instead of having to have one, big "ON/OFF" switch.

[cx500]

The deadline is enforceable, although the consequences would be disastrous.  That is what all the railroads have been saying.  The FRA apparently was intending to enforce it, although it seems the head may have expected that the rails would simply pay the fines she levied and continue operating.  Instead, the railroads planned to be law abiding citizens and suspend operations until such time as it was possible to have a completed PTC network in place.  Ethically and legally that is the correct approach.

For many reasons, of course, it would be unwise to enforce the deadline of Dec 31 2015.  That defined date is the current law, and bureaucrats have no power to override what the three branches of government have decreed.  While they have occasionally been known to quietly look the other way, with something this prominent that would be nearly impossible, especially for the two to three years needed.  The only way out is to amend the law and that can only be done by the elected members.  Assuming that happens, you cannot claim "this deadline will not be enforced".  The present deadline will no longer exist so there is nothing to enforce, or not enforce, until 2019.

The proposed 3 year extension will still be a challenge for the railroads.  The first installations are only just coming on line for real world testing.  I am certain there will be bugs and glitches that nobody expected, given the complexity of the systems.  Any weakness will, sooner or later, have unfortunate consequences.  They must be found and corrected before PTC becomes the primary means of overseeing train movements.   Year One of the three will be focussed on this phase.  Once proven, installations elsewhere should go faster if manpower remains available.

[ramrod]

Electroliner 1935

Debate over? http://trn.trains.com/news/news-wire/2015/09/30-ptc-bill-makes-houseI'm  

Electroliner 1935

Debate over? http://trn.trains.com/news/news-wire/2015/09/30-ptc-bill-makes-houseI'm  

Electroliner 1935

Posted by Buslist on Wednesday, September 30, 2015 6:06 PM

Debate over?

http://trn.trains.com/news/news-wire/2015/09/30-ptc-bill-makes-houseI'm

 

Link doesn't work. Delete the l'm at the end of the URL or go to trains news wire 

 

[quote user="Electroliner 1935"]

Posted by Buslist on Wednesday, September 30, 2015 6:06 PM

Debate over?

http://trn.trains.com/news/news-wire/2015/09/30-ptc-bill-makes-houseI'm

 

Heres the Newswire report:

• Home
• /
• News
• /
• News Wire
• /
• House introduces new PTC bill

11

 

 

House introduces new PTC bill

By Bill Stephens | September 30, 2015

RELATED TOPICS: POSITIVE TRAIN CONTROL | CLASS 1 FREIGHT RAILROADS | REGULATION

 

WASHINGTON – Hoping to avert a national transportation crisis, leaders of the U.S. House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee today introduced a bill that would give railroads three more years to implement positive train control.

Without an extension of the current PTC deadline, railroads would have to virtually shut down on Jan. 1, 2016 or face stiff fines from the Federal Railroad Administration if they operate on lines where PTC is required but not yet operational. 

Railroads have said they cannot meet the Dec. 31, 2015 deadline, a position that was backed up earlier this month by a U.S. Government Accountability Office report that recommended that Congress give railroads more time.

“Completion of the positive train control mandate by the end of the year is not achievable, and extending the deadline is essential to preventing significant disruptions of both passenger and freight rail service across the country,” says U.S. Rep. Bill Shuster, R-Pa., who chairs the transportation and infrastructure committee. “Railroads must implement this important but complicated safety technology in a responsible manner, but we must give them the necessary time to do so.”

The Senate passed a PTC extension earlier this year as part of larger legislation. As standalone legislation, the bill should be able to move through the House more quickly. But it would then have to go on to the Senate for approval. 

“We anticipate this being on the House floor next week,” Jim Billimoria, communications director for the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, tells News Wire.

Railroads say that to avoid disruption to the shipping of toxic-by-inhalation hazard chemicals, such as chlorine, Congress needs to pass a PTC deadline extension legislation by the end of October.

The measure filed today, dubbed the Positive Train Control Enforcement and Implementation Act of 2015, would give freight and passenger railroads until the end of 2018 to deploy PTC. It also would give the transportation secretary some leeway to extend the deadline beyond 2018 if railroads can show they continue to experience difficulties installing PTC. Railroads would be required to complete progress reports on their implementation efforts.

The Association of American Railroads released a statement in support of the measure late Wednesday morning.

The full text of the bill is available on the house committee's website

 

The debate's not over, at least in congress.

The House stand alone bill seems to be an implementation of the GAO report. It will probably be voted on in the coming week.Then it's the Senate's turn to bat. Since the Senate has already approved a simple 3 year extension, and tied it to theOmnibus Transportation Bill, the senate Transportation Committee will most likely produce a Senate stand alone version of the extension and get that passed by the full Senate in 10 days or so. I think there will be some redistance to the extension, especially by Sen. Shumer and Sen. Blumenthal who will try to covince the public that the Big, Bad Railroads are solely at fault for failing to meet the deadline. (That's purely my opinion.) Since the House bill gives the Secretary of Transportation the sole authority to grant limited extension to indiviual railroads on specific grounds, not FRA, and sets up an extensive system of reports,and maintains the penalties for failing to meet the extended deadlines, it will maintain the pressure on the railroads to complete the implementation of PTC.

Once the Senate and the House pass their separate bills a Conferene Committee will be appointed to recocile the differeces in the two bills and boththe Senate and House will vote on the recociled bill. I belive there has probaly already been some serious tlks between the Charmen of the two Committees that have jurisdiction over transportation. If the two housesboth pass the reconciled bill by the eend of October, the President will have a little over 20 legislative days to sign he bill into law or veto it. It's a pretty tight schedule, but it looks like the ways are greased. We shall see. BTW now is the time towrte your Senators and Congressperson. Just make sure your letter sounds personal, not written by a flck from some advocsy group. (Those are tallid in a group separate from the obvious personal letters and are mostly ignored>Also don't use e-mail or social meia. nothing beats a personal letter. (Advice from my daughter-in-law who worked for Members of Congress as a Correspondence Aide for over 30 years, answering the mail.)

[MidlandMike]

Euclid, no analogy is perfect, and in the case of the Badger, a shutdown would not have been a national economic crisis, but it would have been the end of the Badger and the ferry company.  Neither side wanted to go to court, and the agreement they came to was basically settling out of court.

The intent of the PTC law was to get PTC installed in a timely manner.  They just picked too short a time period for such a complicated project (according to the FRA, GAO, Executive Office, Congressional Transportation Committees, and of course the RRs).  I don't think most of Congress wants to micromanage the incremental roll-out of PTC, and they will probably be glad to hand that chore off to FRA.  FRA has access to the Attorney General and administrative courts to keep pressure on the RRs to make diligent progress.

[Euclid]

MidlandMike

 

Euclid

 

Hey, I am just giving my opinions and making some observations.  I have no stake in the outcome.  If you want to believe in the most rosy scenario, that’s fine with me.  But I am under no obligation to prove otherwise to you.  I have stated my reasoning.  The rest is up to you.

You say that the solution is more reasonable deadlines.  How reasonable do they have to be?  If they can’t be enforced, what is the point of having a deadline?  

You say that with reasonable deadlines, some railroads will move faster than others.  What if, on the whole, they all slow way down because they think that is reasonable?   

You say the railroads have spent $6 billion so far, and ask if I think they will quit if the deadline is extended.  I have no idea what they would do going forward if this deadline is extended.  If the only acceptable deadline is what the railroads feel is reasonable, why have a deadline?  Without a deadline, you don’t have a mandate.  Would the railroads have spent that $6 billion without the mandate?    

I am not dodging your question about who opposes extending PTC in Congress.  I don’t know the answer, and I don’t care.  I certainly would not predict the outcome based on what the answer appears to be.  If there is enough support, there will be an extension.  I have never ruled that out.

 

 

 

 

Your whole point rests on your statement: "If they can’t be enforced, what is the point of having a deadline?"

As I have replied a number of times, the extended deadlines are enforceable, and these cases occur all the time.  I have first-hand knowledge of this from my career in the highly regulated oil industry.  I have seen where companies have missed extended deadlines, and were fined and/or had their operations shut down.  I would not bore everyone with oil industry examples, so I referenced a transportation example with railfan interest, as it is about the former C&O steam carferry Badger.  This steamship had a 2012 deadline to stop discharging coal ash into Lake Michigan under environmental law.  They had tried to convert to LNG but found it unfeasible, and had no way to operate without continuing to dump ash after the deadline.  In 2013 the company and the EPA entered into a Consent Decree allowing them to continue dumping ash while they constructed an ash collection system until the end of 2014 new deadline.  The company installed a first of its kind lake steamer ash collection system, which was working by its first 2015 season sailing.  The company tried to get out of the installation, with the help of congressmen and other officials, but eventually realized they could not get around the EPA.

http://www3.epa.gov/region05/water/npdestek/badger/

 

 

Midland Mike,

I say the deadline is not enforceable, and you say it is enforceable.  I don’t think there is any disagreement because we are talking about two different points, although both of them involve enforcement.  I agree with you if your point is that the legal mechanism for enforcement is in place and can be used any time.  

My point in saying that it is not enforceable is that, while the enforcement mechanism is in place, the consequences of using the enforcement mechanism are not acceptable to the enforcers.  In other words, they cannot enforce the deadline because it will cause economic havoc. 

The clearest evidence that this is true is the fact that this deadline will not be enforced (assuming that this new law passes).

The deadline is unenforceable in the practical sense because the choice of enforcing the deadline was suddenly eliminated by the prospect of a shutdown, which made the consequences of enforcement unacceptable.    

Losing that choice is a unique circumstance that does not apply in the case of the examples that you cite where deadlines were enforced.  It does not apply in Tree’s example of an IRS extension.  But it does apply in this case of the PTC deadline. 

In this case, there was effectively a shift in power to where the railroads acquired more power than congress.  Suddenly the railroads are in the driver’s seat, and Congress is out of it.  That has never happened with the IRS. 

It is laughable to hear Congress say that they will give one extension, but no more.  It’s like an overly lenient parent telling a misbehaving child to not do it again.  Obviously Congress will grant as many extensions as are needed.  They don’t have any choice.   

Congress has lost control of the PTC mandate.  The only way they will get control is to take over and do it themselves.  That way, they would be back in the driver’s seat.  They would not need mandates, deadlines, and extensions because there would be nobody else accountable.

It sounds like going forward, the FRA will be working closely with the individual railroads on a case by case basis, monitoring their progress and intensions, and tailoring their timetable to their progress.     

[Deggesty]

I wonder what someone does with the horsehide after flaying the horse.

[Norm48327]

tree68

Which is not much different from the ramblings back in one of the oil train threads concerning securement tests...

YEP! And I was just wondering what his next soapbox will be. Rest assured he will find something to rant and ramble about ad nauseum.

[tree68]

MidlandMike

Your whole point rests on your statement: "If they can’t be enforced, what is the point of having a deadline?"

Which is not much different from the ramblings back in one of the oil train threads concerning securement tests...

[MidlandMike]

Euclid

 

Hey, I am just giving my opinions and making some observations.  I have no stake in the outcome.  If you want to believe in the most rosy scenario, that’s fine with me.  But I am under no obligation to prove otherwise to you.  I have stated my reasoning.  The rest is up to you.

You say that the solution is more reasonable deadlines.  How reasonable do they have to be?  If they can’t be enforced, what is the point of having a deadline?  

You say that with reasonable deadlines, some railroads will move faster than others.  What if, on the whole, they all slow way down because they think that is reasonable?   

You say the railroads have spent $6 billion so far, and ask if I think they will quit if the deadline is extended.  I have no idea what they would do going forward if this deadline is extended.  If the only acceptable deadline is what the railroads feel is reasonable, why have a deadline?  Without a deadline, you don’t have a mandate.  Would the railroads have spent that $6 billion without the mandate?    

I am not dodging your question about who opposes extending PTC in Congress.  I don’t know the answer, and I don’t care.  I certainly would not predict the outcome based on what the answer appears to be.  If there is enough support, there will be an extension.  I have never ruled that out.

 

Your whole point rests on your statement: "If they can’t be enforced, what is the point of having a deadline?"

As I have replied a number of times, the extended deadlines are enforceable, and these cases occur all the time.  I have first-hand knowledge of this from my career in the highly regulated oil industry.  I have seen where companies have missed extended deadlines, and were fined and/or had their operations shut down.  I would not bore everyone with oil industry examples, so I referenced a transportation example with railfan interest, as it is about the former C&O steam carferry Badger.  This steamship had a 2012 deadline to stop discharging coal ash into Lake Michigan under environmental law.  They had tried to convert to LNG but found it unfeasible, and had no way to operate without continuing to dump ash after the deadline.  In 2013 the company and the EPA entered into a Consent Decree allowing them to continue dumping ash while they constructed an ash collection system until the end of 2014 new deadline.  The company installed a first of its kind lake steamer ash collection system, which was working by its first 2015 season sailing.  The company tried to get out of the installation, with the help of congressmen and other officials, but eventually realized they could not get around the EPA.

http://www3.epa.gov/region05/water/npdestek/badger/

 

[Buslist]

Here's the bill 

http://transportation.house.gov/uploadedfiles/ptc_extension.pdfI'm

[blue streak 1]

It certainly is revealing how when both the left and right get flack from their supporters how quickly the House acts on legislation.  Now we still have to see if the Senate will co-operate or will the documented hostility of each to the other dominate for a while.

May have to call my Senators.. 

Not sure but is the house version more flexible than the Senate's version in their transportation act ?

 

[wanswheel]

http://www.railwayage.com/index.php/blogs/william-vantuono/hr-3651-ptc-relief.html

[Euclid]

Electroliner 1935

Posted by Buslist on Wednesday, September 30, 2015 6:06 PMDebate over?http://trn.trains.com/news/news-wire/2015/09/30-ptc-bill-makes-houseI'm Link doesn't work. Delete the l'm at the end of the URL or go to trains news wire 

Wanswheel posted this on the previous page.  The debate may be over depending on what it means:

Click here to read the Positive Train Control Enforcement and Implementation Act of 2015.