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.
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).
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.
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.
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
wanswheelThe Pope had the entire Congress spellbound for half an hour.
They were probably in fear of lightning.
It'll get even more complicated if/when the government itself shuts down in the next couple weeks.
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.
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. 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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
So then are the railroads willing to stay shut down until 2025?
2025
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
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
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.
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...
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.
MidlandMike Euclid MidlandMike Euclid As I understand it, the enforcement is not the issue. In this case, the enforcement would be the fines, and the FRA has the power to decide whether fines will be levied or not. The law gives the FRA the power to control the fines, but the FRA does not have the power to change the law in any way. Extending the deadline would require changing the law, and so the FRA does not have the power to extend the deadline. As a matter of enforcement, the law could have been written to require all non-compliant operations to cease after the deadline, but they did not write it that way; probably because they realized how disruptive that would have been. But now the railroads have said they will shut down anyway if non-compliant, regardless of how disruptive it might be. It makes no difference if the FRA were to not issue fines. The position of the railroads is that even with no fines, the non-compliant operations would still be illegal. And they don’t want to break the law. Abiding by the law may seem like a moot point if there is no enforcement of it, but everybody has the right, if not the duty, to abide by the law. It is a moral principle if nothing else. But, in this case, it could also be a ploy to pressure Congress into extending the deadline. As a personal decision, most people would not cease a profitable business activity just because it is illegal; if the government did not intend to enforce the law. They would just go ahead and break the law, because there would be no consequence from it. You seem to have an "all or nothing" understanding of how law works, that does not seem to be based on any real life experience in the regulated community. I am not sure why you started a thread called "Solving the PTC Deadline Problem" if you did not want to consider others experience and knowledge that may be applicable to defining or solving the PTC deadline problem. The one thing you appear to have picked-up on is the possibility that the worst case scenario predictions by the FRA and railroads "could also be a ploy to pressure Congress into extending the deadline." Would you please explain why you say I have an "all or nothing" understanding of the how the law works? In her confirmation hearing, Sarah Feinberg repeatedly said that the law was black and white, and that she had to enforce it as it stands. Is that an "all or nothing" understanding of how the law works? And where have I ever indicated that I do not want to consider the experience of others as it pertains to defining or solving the PTC problem? If you have suggestions, let's hear them. You state that "Extending the deadline would require changing the law, and so the FRA does not have the power to extend the deadline." 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.
Euclid MidlandMike Euclid As I understand it, the enforcement is not the issue. In this case, the enforcement would be the fines, and the FRA has the power to decide whether fines will be levied or not. The law gives the FRA the power to control the fines, but the FRA does not have the power to change the law in any way. Extending the deadline would require changing the law, and so the FRA does not have the power to extend the deadline. As a matter of enforcement, the law could have been written to require all non-compliant operations to cease after the deadline, but they did not write it that way; probably because they realized how disruptive that would have been. But now the railroads have said they will shut down anyway if non-compliant, regardless of how disruptive it might be. It makes no difference if the FRA were to not issue fines. The position of the railroads is that even with no fines, the non-compliant operations would still be illegal. And they don’t want to break the law. Abiding by the law may seem like a moot point if there is no enforcement of it, but everybody has the right, if not the duty, to abide by the law. It is a moral principle if nothing else. But, in this case, it could also be a ploy to pressure Congress into extending the deadline. As a personal decision, most people would not cease a profitable business activity just because it is illegal; if the government did not intend to enforce the law. They would just go ahead and break the law, because there would be no consequence from it. You seem to have an "all or nothing" understanding of how law works, that does not seem to be based on any real life experience in the regulated community. I am not sure why you started a thread called "Solving the PTC Deadline Problem" if you did not want to consider others experience and knowledge that may be applicable to defining or solving the PTC deadline problem. The one thing you appear to have picked-up on is the possibility that the worst case scenario predictions by the FRA and railroads "could also be a ploy to pressure Congress into extending the deadline." Would you please explain why you say I have an "all or nothing" understanding of the how the law works? In her confirmation hearing, Sarah Feinberg repeatedly said that the law was black and white, and that she had to enforce it as it stands. Is that an "all or nothing" understanding of how the law works? And where have I ever indicated that I do not want to consider the experience of others as it pertains to defining or solving the PTC problem? If you have suggestions, let's hear them.
MidlandMike Euclid As I understand it, the enforcement is not the issue. In this case, the enforcement would be the fines, and the FRA has the power to decide whether fines will be levied or not. The law gives the FRA the power to control the fines, but the FRA does not have the power to change the law in any way. Extending the deadline would require changing the law, and so the FRA does not have the power to extend the deadline. As a matter of enforcement, the law could have been written to require all non-compliant operations to cease after the deadline, but they did not write it that way; probably because they realized how disruptive that would have been. But now the railroads have said they will shut down anyway if non-compliant, regardless of how disruptive it might be. It makes no difference if the FRA were to not issue fines. The position of the railroads is that even with no fines, the non-compliant operations would still be illegal. And they don’t want to break the law. Abiding by the law may seem like a moot point if there is no enforcement of it, but everybody has the right, if not the duty, to abide by the law. It is a moral principle if nothing else. But, in this case, it could also be a ploy to pressure Congress into extending the deadline. As a personal decision, most people would not cease a profitable business activity just because it is illegal; if the government did not intend to enforce the law. They would just go ahead and break the law, because there would be no consequence from it. You seem to have an "all or nothing" understanding of how law works, that does not seem to be based on any real life experience in the regulated community. I am not sure why you started a thread called "Solving the PTC Deadline Problem" if you did not want to consider others experience and knowledge that may be applicable to defining or solving the PTC deadline problem. The one thing you appear to have picked-up on is the possibility that the worst case scenario predictions by the FRA and railroads "could also be a ploy to pressure Congress into extending the deadline."
Euclid As I understand it, the enforcement is not the issue. In this case, the enforcement would be the fines, and the FRA has the power to decide whether fines will be levied or not. The law gives the FRA the power to control the fines, but the FRA does not have the power to change the law in any way. Extending the deadline would require changing the law, and so the FRA does not have the power to extend the deadline. As a matter of enforcement, the law could have been written to require all non-compliant operations to cease after the deadline, but they did not write it that way; probably because they realized how disruptive that would have been. But now the railroads have said they will shut down anyway if non-compliant, regardless of how disruptive it might be. It makes no difference if the FRA were to not issue fines. The position of the railroads is that even with no fines, the non-compliant operations would still be illegal. And they don’t want to break the law. Abiding by the law may seem like a moot point if there is no enforcement of it, but everybody has the right, if not the duty, to abide by the law. It is a moral principle if nothing else. But, in this case, it could also be a ploy to pressure Congress into extending the deadline. As a personal decision, most people would not cease a profitable business activity just because it is illegal; if the government did not intend to enforce the law. They would just go ahead and break the law, because there would be no consequence from it.
You seem to have an "all or nothing" understanding of how law works, that does not seem to be based on any real life experience in the regulated community. I am not sure why you started a thread called "Solving the PTC Deadline Problem" if you did not want to consider others experience and knowledge that may be applicable to defining or solving the PTC deadline problem.
The one thing you appear to have picked-up on is the possibility that the worst case scenario predictions by the FRA and railroads "could also be a ploy to pressure Congress into extending the deadline."
Would you please explain why you say I have an "all or nothing" understanding of the how the law works? In her confirmation hearing, Sarah Feinberg repeatedly said that the law was black and white, and that she had to enforce it as it stands. Is that an "all or nothing" understanding of how the law works?
And where have I ever indicated that I do not want to consider the experience of others as it pertains to defining or solving the PTC problem? If you have suggestions, let's hear them.
You state that "Extending the deadline would require changing the law, and so the FRA does not have the power to extend the deadline."
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
tommyboy https://www.aar.org/policy/positive-train-control Remember, like all industries, no railroad today has large numbers of staff sitting around with nothing to do that could quickly be put to work installing PTC. This is a huge job the carriers had to take on in addition to running the trains!
https://www.aar.org/policy/positive-train-control
Remember, like all industries, no railroad today has large numbers of staff sitting around with nothing to do that could quickly be put to work installing PTC. This is a huge job the carriers had to take on in addition to running the trains!
It is also a huge undertaking for the manufacturers of PTC equipment.
Euclid If PTC is as complicated and time consuming as they say it is, what is the chance that it can be completed in another three years?
Much greater than it will be completed on Dec. 31, 2015
The Association of American Railroads' PTC page (which I've linked to at least twice in this thread) has a chart that shows the industry-wide progress on installing PTC systems to date and the scheduled targets to have it fully installed and operational by 2020. To date the railroads are roughly 27% to completion, having already spent some $6.5 billion of the total $9.2 billion required for 100% compliance. Some of the big ticket items like wayside interface units and base station radios are about two-thirds complete. One of the most time consuming and labor intensive requirements -- installing the required equipment on locomotives -- is only about 30% complete or will be by year's end (6,949 units out of the required 22,000). So with a lot of the other infrastructure in place, next year the railroads expect to double the number of units equipped to almost 14,000 units or about 60% of the required total.
Here's the AAR link again:
I don't know about the federal government taking on the role of PTC-supplier but they are already providing financial assistance in the form of low-interest loans to certain commuter agencies. This was reported in the suburban New York newspaper Journal-News last month:
MTA spokesman Adam Lisberg said PTC is expected “to be fully installed and operational on both railroads [Long Island Rail Road and Metro-North] by 2018,” noting that the federal government recently approved a nearly $1 billion loan “to help us install on-board components for 1,455 rail cars as well as transponders along 588 route miles of track as quickly as possible.’’
The same article also quoted an FRA report that made it plain the FRA is well aware that many commuter agencies and freight railroads are not on target to meet the Dec. 31, 2015 deadline for PTC:Metro-North and the Long Island Rail Road are among a half dozen commuter rail lines that expect to begin testing accident avoidance equipment known as positive train controls by the end of 2016, according to a survey released Friday [August 7th] by the Federal Railroad Administration.
Metro-North and the Long Island Rail Road are among a half dozen commuter rail lines that expect to begin testing accident avoidance equipment known as positive train controls by the end of 2016, according to a survey released Friday [August 7th] by the Federal Railroad Administration.
The article also describes the FRA's approach to enforcement:
Federal rail regulators have renewed a warning that railroads that don’t have crash avoidance systems operating by the end of this year could face enforcement penalties...“FRA’s use of its enforcement tools will be targeted to maximize safety, save lives in the event of an accident and bring railroads into compliance,’’ the report said. “Certain enforcement actions, such as prohibiting service on specific routes, may potentially result in sustained and disruptive impacts on the movement of freight and passengers...[enforcement] tools include civil penalties or pursuit of injunctions and criminal penalties through the Justice Department.
http://www.lohud.com/story/news/transit/2015/08/10/metro-north-safety-equipment/31428443/
Norm48327 BaltACD You been tokeing on too much Colorado grass????? With multiple chasers of high proof adult beverages! You may be on to something there.
BaltACD You been tokeing on too much Colorado grass????? With multiple chasers of high proof adult beverages!
You may be on to something there.
Sadly, he's most likely stone cold sober.
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
BaltACDYou been tokeing on too much Colorado grass????? With multiple chasers of high proof adult beverages!
EuclidFor PTC, they tried a mandate and it didn’t work, so the next step is nationalization.
You been tokeing on too much Colorado grass????? With multiple chasers of high proof adult beverages!
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.