Passenger Trains > FRA: PTC will not be ready by 2015 deadline

Guess what?

The FRA...does not expect Positive Train Control to be in place and
operational by the Congressional deadline:

> Based on the findings gathered as a result of this report, FRA
> believes that the majority of railroads will not be able to complete
> PTC implementation by the 2015 deadline.

source:

FRA Report to Congress, at:

http://images.politico.com/global/2012/08/fra_ptc.html

Amtrak's ITCS (Michigan) and ACSES (NE Corridor) are acknowledged as being already operational but
they are unsatisfactory by the 2015 standards because they are not able to interoperate with other
PTC systems, as required by the Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/15/12 00:23 by GenePoon.

and this is supppose to be a surprise huh ... non standardization will be the downfall of the system being delayed for operation not just 2015 but for years after that

It seems most of the problems this is attempting to solve have been Hazmat related and commuter rail related. I wonder if the task would be simpler if it were limited to lines used by more than three passenger trains each way per day, or routes with at least some minimal limit of hazmat shipments rather than any at all of either?

abyler Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It seems most of the problems this is attempting
> to solve have been Hazmat related and commuter
> rail related. I wonder if the task would be
> simpler if it were limited to lines used by more
> than three passenger trains each way per day, or
> routes with at least some minimal limit of hazmat
> shipments rather than any at all of either?

==================================================

I don't doubt it, but Congress, as usual, prefers the shotgun approach to the
use of brains.

PTC may have been conceived as a passenger train issue after the cellphone-texting
idiot killed all those people at Chatsworth, but as soon as hazmat was dragged into
the mix, it became a bandwagon that Congresspersons from districts where Amtrak is
totally irrelevant could jump onto and get themselves another campaign issue.

The good news about the abilities of the present Congress in in this AM's Philly Inquirer which says that 10% of all US people think Congress is doing a good job.

(This is not a paid political commercial by a rich PAC group!)

GenePoon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I don't doubt it, but Congress, as usual, prefers
> the shotgun approach to the
> use of brains.

Is there anyone in Congress that actually has a systems engineering background?

Ray

stone23 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The good news about the abilities of the present
> Congress in in this AM's Philly Inquirer which
> says that 10% of all US people think Congress is
> doing a good job.
>
> (This is not a paid political commercial by a rich
> PAC group!)


Congress has never gotten high scores from the American Public.

Broken System.

Ray_Murphy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> GenePoon Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> Is there anyone in Congress that actually has a
> systems engineering background?
>
> Ray


Mostly lawyers...

The best Congress IMO is one that does the least. New rules and regulations cost jobs and rarely accomplish what they intended to leading to still more rules and regulations. PTC is a good example of a knee-jerk, one-size fits all response. Regulations on burning coal are another that impact RR's negatively. On the other hand, RR safety is driven as much by lawsuit avoidance as by regulations.

GenePoon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I don't doubt it, but Congress, as usual, prefers
> the shotgun approach to the
> use of brains.


That's why it shouldn't take an act of Congress to get industry to adopt common-sense safety systems on their own. I am convinced that a late 1920s-era cab signal system (with speed enforcement, which admittedly is a newer technology that's only about fifty or sixty years old) would have either completely prevented the Chatsworth disaster or, worst case, would have resulted in a slow-speed impact.

At any point over the previous EIGHTY years the railroad could have voluntarily implemented some form of this technology on the line where that fateful wreck took place. But, instead, it took an act of Congress to get them to do it--just like it did with air brakes and automatic couplers at the turn of the last century.

As congress sez (without forethought), By gawd we will have PTC now!!??
Shoot from the Hip..and wonder why the guy died...

hazegray Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ray_Murphy Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > GenePoon Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > Is there anyone in Congress that actually has a
> > systems engineering background?
> >
> > Ray
>
>
> Mostly lawyers...


And that explains why things always take forever to get passed when the bill shows up at their front doorstep!

Ray_Murphy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> GenePoon Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I don't doubt it, but Congress, as usual,
> prefers
> > the shotgun approach to the
> > use of brains.
>
> Is there anyone in Congress that actually has a
> systems engineering background?
>
> Ray

Lautenburg was one of the founders of Automatic Data Processing, the payroll systems firm. He's one of the few members from either party who have held jobs in the private sector for more than a term or two between elections.

It's interesting to find Mr. Poon making incorrect statements. In fact, FRA has certified both ACSES and ITCS as compliant with the PTC regulations. Yes, they do count.

Compatability is an issue for the freight railroads, not for those two Amtrak installations. There is nothing in the FRA regs (all 300+ pages of them, all of which I've read -- and some of which I helped write) that requires interoperability. It's logical for the freight railroads to insist on it, since they swap locomotives frequently, but it's not required.

One railroad and one commuter rail operator (BNSF and Metrolink) will beat the deadline. Metrolink is shooting for full installation by summer 2013, and BNSF will be "live" by 2014. It will be interesting to watch the other railroads flounder. and see how accommodating Congress chooses to be. THere could be some large fines involved.

I've heard the phrase "malicious compliance" applied to the actions of some of the Class Is regarding PTC.

Which Metrolink? The one in So Cal, or one eleswhere?

It wasn't the current congress that forced this on the railroads!

qnyla Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It wasn't the current congress that forced this on
> the railroads!

Its more than a little unfortunate that Congress has always had the Plasuable Dynability of "that was last year, that wasn't the current Congress". True, it was exactly the same people, with perhaps three exceptions, and they were working for exactly the same cause (putting money in their own pockets, increasing their personal power). But that was "the last Congress, there is nothing we can do about it now."

Of course they COULD do something about it. But that would mean taking responsibility for their own actions, and that is Unamerican in the exteme. Much better to blame it on someone else. And if that doesn't work (or won't be profitable enough) sue.

lwilton Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> qnyla Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > It wasn't the current congress that forced this
> on
> > the railroads!
>
> Its more than a little unfortunate that Congress
> has always had the Plasuable Dynability of "that
> was last year, that wasn't the current Congress".
> True, it was exactly the same people, with perhaps
> three exceptions, and they were working for
> exactly the same cause (putting money in their own
> pockets, increasing their personal power). But
> that was "the last Congress, there is nothing we
> can do about it now."
>
> Of course they COULD do something about it. But
> that would mean taking responsibility for their
> own actions, and that is Unamerican in the exteme.
> Much better to blame it on someone else. And if
> that doesn't work (or won't be profitable enough)
> sue.

Congress often passes sloppy legislation, sometimes running to a thousand pages in the passed law. Because so many parts of the law are inserted to get this person's vote, or that caucus's vote, parts are often inconsistent.

The Dodd-Frank bill, for example, is now three years old, but less than half the actual regulations have been written. The IRS has to write some rules, the Treasury and Department of Labor are writing others, and the law is inconsistent. Lobbyists and former Congressional staffers differ in their "what we really meant was" and those statements don't agree with each other.

shoretower Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ...
>
> Compatability is an issue for the freight
> railroads, not for those two Amtrak installations.
> There is nothing in the FRA regs (all 300+ pages
> of them, all of which I've read -- and some of
> which I helped write) that requires
> interoperability. It's logical for the freight
> railroads to insist on it, since they swap
> locomotives frequently, but it's not required.
>
> ...

Why would Amtrak not insist on compatibility as well since the vast majority of their system is on the freight railroads? How many PTC systems will Amtrak's GE locos need onboard if each of the freight railroad systems are not compatible?

Jay

garr Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> shoretower Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > ...
> >
> > Compatability is an issue for the freight
> > railroads, not for those two Amtrak
> installations.
> > There is nothing in the FRA regs (all 300+
> pages
> > of them, all of which I've read -- and some of
> > which I helped write) that requires
> > interoperability. It's logical for the freight
> > railroads to insist on it, since they swap
> > locomotives frequently, but it's not required.
> >
> > ...
>
> Why would Amtrak not insist on compatibility as
> well since the vast majority of their system is on
> the freight railroads? How many PTC systems will
> Amtrak's GE locos need onboard if each of the
> freight railroad systems are not compatible?
>
> Jay

Amtrak's ITCS and ACSES systems predated the PTC mandate. ACSES manufactured by Alstom Signalling was offered to the freight railroads but the rejected it as too expensive for their needs, instead they chose Wabtec's V-ETMS system which BNSF and Wabtec have been developing for about 10 years now. In turn Wabtec's system is a development of the older Rockwell Collins' LARS system which BN tried out in the 1980's. Obviously part of the reason that BNSF will have some PTC up and running by 2014 is because they have had a near PTC system in testing for a long time. One of, if not the biggest delaying factor is developing, testing, and certifying suitable braking algorithms for freight trains. Metrolink doesn't have that problem, that is why they can have their system up and running sooner.