Western Railroad Discussion > U.P. Won’t Make 2018 PTC Deadline

Union Pacific announces it won’t make 2018 PTC deadline.

The Sacramento Bee has the story.

http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/article199110499.html

Posted from iPhone

I'm disappointed that the efficient private sector can't seem to make deadlines.

reindeerflame Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm disappointed that the efficient private sector
> can't seem to make deadlines.

Well a big part of the delay was the FCC bottlenecking the approvals for the installation of the PTC antennas for a couple years. Hard to get anything done when the federal government won't give you the permits to do the work.

Ted Curphey
Ontario, OR

Right you are Ted. Also let’s not forget that it took FRA two years (2008. -2010) to publish the system requirements.

By reading the UP statement I can’t see they will be far off. Field installation, the hardest and most expensive part,is essentially complete.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/08/18 15:16 by RollinB.

Not only the above, it was an unfunded mandate placed on the railroads to spend billions of dollars whether it was needed elsewhere or not.

LOL big surprise

Posted from iPhone

Will there be a similar system placed on the quadcopters so the MOP, MYO, RVP and the rest
of those nice people can avoid air to air collisions?

Out

Tying this thread to an earlier thread about UP service issues.

https://www.trainorders.com/discussion/read.php?1,4481983

Lance Fritz has been in the press recently discussing problems with PTC. He’s quoted as saying "makes a train stop where it's not supposed to stop." We hear about and observe these undesired emergency applications from observations In the field. He also commented that trains are running 5% slower and spending 12% more time in terminals last quarter. These are issues that will be easily ironed out or is traffic simply not going to move like it did before PTC? Sounds like more than a regulatory issue.

Sphogger



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/08/18 16:24 by sphogger.

As soon as the deadline for implementation was extended
to 2018, UP immediately cut off the mechanics and electricians
who had been assigned solely to installing PTC gear on
locomotives. As a result, they fell way behind in equipping
and testing the locomotive fleet.

That didn't help.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/08/18 19:20 by Realist.

sphogger Wrote:
He also commented that
> trains are running 5% slower and spending 12% more
> time in terminals last quarter. These are issues
> that will be easily ironed out or is traffic
> simply not going to move like it did before PTC?
> Sounds like more than a regulatory issue.

Comparing those train velocity and terminal time changes to what other railroads have actually experienced during PTC implementation challenges the credibility of those assertions. Step on and step off crew changes time +12% could very well be. All terminal dwell time up 12% attributable to PTC login procedures? C'mon man! Same with trains running 5% slower. Are we really saying PTC and not train size is the culprit? But, as Hunter Harrison proved, Wall Street analysts will swallow almost anything.

Unfunded mandate? Can anyone think of any federal regulation on railroads that was funded??
Airbrakes
remove footboards
remove roof walks
cast iron wheels
roller bearings
12 hour law.
boiler inspections
and many others I am sure..
RB

up833 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Unfunded mandate? Can anyone think of any federal
> regulation on railroads that was funded??
> Airbrakes
> remove footboards
> remove roof walks
> cast iron wheels
> roller bearings
> 12 hour law.
> boiler inspections
> and many others I am sure..
> RB

Apples and Oranges. Those were all doable with a clear goal. With PTC, the goal (system being infallible) is unobtainable without grave costs and of which the actual rules and regulations and technology had to be first developed before you can implement.

RollinB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> sphogger Wrote:
> He also commented that
> > trains are running 5% slower and spending 12%
> more
> > time in terminals last quarter. These are
> issues
> > that will be easily ironed out or is traffic
> > simply not going to move like it did before PTC?
>
> > Sounds like more than a regulatory issue.
>
> Comparing those train velocity and terminal time
> changes to what other railroads have actually
> experienced during PTC implementation challenges
> the credibility of those assertions. Step on and
> step off crew changes time +12% could very well
> be. All terminal dwell time up 12% attributable
> to PTC login procedures? C'mon man! Same with
> trains running 5% slower. Are we really saying
> PTC and not train size is the culprit? But, as
> Hunter Harrison proved, Wall Street analysts will
> swallow almost anything.

Some things to consider;

The login time often isn't the problem. Most engineers can run through it in minutes. It's the problems occured while attempting to log in that can cause extra delays during crew changes.

Trains are running slower due to PTC. 5% seems reasonable. Longer trains certainly may add to that number, but I've found that the longer the train I'm on, the less stopping I do.

RollinB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> sphogger Wrote:
> He also commented that
> > trains are running 5% slower and spending 12%
> more
> > time in terminals last quarter. These are
> issues
> > that will be easily ironed out or is traffic
> > simply not going to move like it did before PTC?
>
> > Sounds like more than a regulatory issue.
>
> Comparing those train velocity and terminal time
> changes to what other railroads have actually
> experienced during PTC implementation challenges
> the credibility of those assertions. Step on and
> step off crew changes time +12% could very well
> be. All terminal dwell time up 12% attributable
> to PTC login procedures? C'mon man! Same with
> trains running 5% slower. Are we really saying
> PTC and not train size is the culprit? But, as
> Hunter Harrison proved, Wall Street analysts will
> swallow almost anything.

Exactly! UP finding excuses for poor operating execution and performance.

As far as having PTC implemented, I might be wrong about this, but I think I've heard where BNSF WILL be ready... Comparable railroads, but one that puts more resources back into it's railroad???

portlander Wrote:

> Some things to consider;
>
> The login time often isn't the problem. Most
> engineers can run through it in minutes. It's the
> problems occured while attempting to log in that
> can cause extra delays during crew changes.

Understand the crew changes and will stipulate to that. However, not buying 12% higher terminal delay across the system being attributed to PTC cutover.
>
> Trains are running slower due to PTC. 5% seems
> reasonable. Longer trains certainly may add to
> that number, but I've found that the longer the
> train I'm on, the less stopping I do.

Train speed did not drop on BNSF because of PTC. Good thing, too, with Transcon subdivisions operating 90 to 100 trains per day.

RollinB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> portlander Wrote:
>
> > Some things to consider;
> >
> > The login time often isn't the problem. Most
> > engineers can run through it in minutes. It's
> the
> > problems occured while attempting to log in
> that
> > can cause extra delays during crew changes.
>
> Understand the crew changes and will stipulate to
> that. However, not buying 12% higher terminal
> delay across the system being attributed to PTC
> cutover.
> >
> > Trains are running slower due to PTC. 5% seems
> > reasonable. Longer trains certainly may add to
> > that number, but I've found that the longer the
> > train I'm on, the less stopping I do.
>
> Train speed did not drop on BNSF because of PTC.
> Good thing, too, with Transcon subdivisions
> operating 90 to 100 trains per day.

How would PTC anywhere cause train speed to measurably drop? The speed limits remain the same right? Were trains consistently speeding prior to implementation and now have to observe posted limits?

The 12% delay is probably more due to the lack of power available for trains. I can log into PTC in about 5 minutes. As realist said the UP cut off a large portion of the Signal and Mechanical people responsible for PTC after they got the extension. If the train does go into penalty it takes only a few minutes to recover and get back on the move albeit at restricted speed till I get out of the block. Building trains that barely fit into sidings makes it hard to get in because PTC does not want to allow you to get right up on the signal. The other delay in the yard is the new rule of testing the alerter before departure when Air testing, DPU trains take more time to recover from PC than conventional trains do. UP trying to deflect the true cost of project 55.

smudgepot Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> RollinB Wrote:

> > Train speed did not drop on BNSF because of PTC.
>
> > Good thing, too, with Transcon subdivisions
> > operating 90 to 100 trains per day.
>
> How would PTC anywhere cause train speed to
> measurably drop? The speed limits remain the same
> right? Were trains consistently speeding prior to
> implementation and now have to observe posted
> limits?

I rode test trips of Sounder trains. BNSF supplies the crews. The Sounder didn't lose any time except a few seconds at station that had a signal at the end of the platform - had to creep up on it. The engineer explained that once engineers get used to it and don't try to slow in anticipation so that they don't get a warning, they run pretty much as they used to.

TAW

Also, don't forget any train leaving an originating terminal must have a working PTC unit in the lead. Can't tell how many times crews have had to move units in a consist because they could not get the lead locomotive to initialize PTC. Once on the road if PTC fails they make get permission to cut it out from the dispatcher.

Valleyman

RollinB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> portlander Wrote:
>
> > Some things to consider;
> >
> > The login time often isn't the problem. Most
> > engineers can run through it in minutes. It's
> the
> > problems occured while attempting to log in
> that
> > can cause extra delays during crew changes.
>
> Understand the crew changes and will stipulate to
> that. However, not buying 12% higher terminal
> delay across the system being attributed to PTC
> cutover.
> >
> > Trains are running slower due to PTC. 5% seems
> > reasonable. Longer trains certainly may add to
> > that number, but I've found that the longer the
> > train I'm on, the less stopping I do.
>
> Train speed did not drop on BNSF because of PTC.
> Good thing, too, with Transcon subdivisions
> operating 90 to 100 trains per day.


I agree, no way that PTC has added 12% to terminal delays. I would believe that 11.9999% of that is congestion from a bad plan.

However, there is no doubt that PTC has made a hit on velocity. I've been on the trains. Every rail here has been as well. There is no way to run a train like the days of old.