Eastern Railroad Discussion > PTC and Trip Optimizer from the Horse's Mouth

:

I am going to try this again since something went amis when I tried to edit this post the first time. The answers to my questions were from an NS engineer acquaintance and are in bold.

"A retired NS railroader friend says that on the NS mainlines the train is controlled by computer and the engineer only starts the trains, blows the horn when needed and stops the train. A reply at Trainorders seems to suggest that things have not advanced that far and this would not be part of "PTC" but rather "Trip Optimizer”."

 PTC has an "Auto-Run” function that can run the train.  Trip Optimizer has an “Auto-Control” function that can run the train.  I don’t know why there are redundant systems to run the train.  An engineer has to start the train, then Auto-Run or Auto-Control function will ask to take over.   I still have to blow the horn, but the system will start to blow the horn if I should forget.  It does not have a whistle pattern for a crossing, it just starts with one long blow until I start using the horn handle.   The system can slow the train down for speed restrictions.  If the system finds that it can not slow down in time, it informs the engineer to go to manual mode to slow the train down (throws the responsibility back on the engineer).  The system can not bring the train to a stop in the siding to meet a train.  The engineer still has to do that. The system in place is not yet reliable.  PTC usually has software errors or communication errors (the system communicates with the wayside signals), thus it can causes the train to go into enforcement (sets the air and stops the train).  Then the PTC Help Desk is notified and they look at the record (everything is recorded).  Usually they will tell the engineer to cut the PTC out, and run without it.  They seemed to have corrected many of the communication errors, but the software errors are still there.  The Trip Optimizer seems to be a more reliable system.  I have not had as many problems with it.  I have not found the Auto-Run function with the PTC on many engines.  

:
"Also, there have been some posts on the internet that the "shit" is about to hit the fan and railroaders have had it and a national strike is probably coming. Any truth to that?"

 The NS contract for engineers ends after this year.  I know they are currently in negotiations, but don’t know of any of the details.  The chances of a strike are slim because of all the procedures the Union and Carrier have to go through before a strike.  Even if a strike was called, the President would form an Presidential Emergency Board (PEB) and require the strikers to go back to work. 

:
"Are you worried about your career with the amount of time you have worked on the railroad?"

 I am not worried.  I have over x (redacted by me)  years on the railroad, and I think I will be able to retire from there.  
Yes, I think they will be successful.  They will use the current technologies (PTC, Trip Optimizer, better wayside detectors, etc.) to justify going to one person.  I think they will make a push next year to go to one person.


Victor A. Baird
http://www.erstwhilepublications.com  



Edited 10 time(s). Last edit at 10/08/19 20:39 by wabash2800.

Vic, interesting.

A substantial number of trains I hear preparing to depart Toledo after recrewing are first talking with the Help Desk about trains that arrived with PTC cut out, they per policy tried to get it going but some sort of problem blocked them, so should they again cut it out for their trip? Sometimes these trains take siginficant delays (10 minutes and up) waiting for a response and then for instructions.

PTC does not have an "automatic" function that runs the train. This is incorrect.

dispr Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> PTC does not have an "automatic" function that
> runs the train. This is incorrect.

There are two auto control systems in current use. Trip Optimizer is GE's proprietary system, and can run in either stand alone, or PTC-integrated versions (depending if the locomotive is set up to do so). LEADER Auto Control is integrated through the PTC system, and is far less refined (read, more problematic) than Trip Optimizer.

You are correct, that neither is an included feature of the I-ETMS PTC system. They are both separate software platforms that can be interfaced into PTC, but function separately.

Many of us here use both PTC and the "Energy Management" software frequently, and agree that the "word" from the OP contains some inaccuracies.

Posted from Android

It should be noted that both systems, Trip Optimizer and Leader auto control system work on CLEAR signal indications ONLY.  With less than clear indications, the engineer has to take over.  The engineer has to take over if auto control is fixing to have an overspeed event or a predictive overspeed event.  PTC will enforce auto control if the engineer does not intervene in time.  In this case, increasingly,  the engineer is grilled for the enforcement - not the offending computer program.  The engineer has to take control if the PTC mapping is flawed. The engineer has to take over when the auto control system suddenly drops out.  The NS engineers are on constant alert for system flaws, enforcements, and rough handling.  The time consuming setup and updates are done by the engineers.  NS engineers understand these systems are mandated, and NS engineers understand what it's like working for NS.  The systems are still flawed, distracting, and time consuming.  If anything, these systems are an argument FOR having two crew members in the cab to monitor the systems and do all the required reporting on the radio  at track speed back to all the help desks and dispatchers.  

As for BLET contract negotiations, we believe there will be no serious talks until the 2020 elections are over. During this period the existing agreement remains in effect.

Please clarify what you mean about the "word". 

Thanks
Victor A. Baird
http://www.erstwhilepublications.com

bioyans Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>  and agree that
> the "word" from the OP contains some inaccuracies.

PTC is designed to stop a train before it exceeds the authority under which it is operating.

Where an engineer has been instructed to stop at a particular landmark (such as a hold out location without a dispatcher controlled signal) PTC will not stop the train. But it will stop the train at an absolute signal. Trying to use PTC to control the train under the same instructions that the engineer follows (such as stopping short of a road crossing where trains hold out ahead of a controlled point) would require additional data that isn't in the system.

If there is a work zone where trains are required to stop PTC will stop the train before entering the work zone (unless cleared to proceed) and will follow any restrictions created by that work zone. That functionallity could theoretically be used to stop a train at an unsignalled point - but it is not used.

The biggest misnomer is PTC making the train go, PTC is designed to stop trains, not make them go. There can be other automation that will make the train go, but that automation is not PTC. It is as if you are looking at the train crew and saying the conductor makes the train move. They do not. Only the engineer can make the train move (given the permission of the conductor and dispatcher).

"PTC will enforce auto control if the engineer does not intervene in time.  In this case, increasingly,  the engineer is grilled for the enforcement - not the offending computer program.  The engineer has to take control if the PTC mapping is flawed." 

They can't even get it right on a simulator, let alone in the field.  Last year I did my annual check "ride" on a simulator.  At one point the PTC screen jumped five miles ahead of where the simulator was.  I was able to pause it and contacted a supervisor.  I was told to "keep going".  Several miles further, the mismatch dropped to four miles, then a couple miles later to three, etc. 

Coming out of the yard here, PTC tells us we're restricted to 10 when signal indication and rule allows 30.  A couple hundred feet further through the interlocking it tells us we're good for 50 - when by signal indication and rule we're allowed, you guessed it, 30.  It's a pain in the rear and contributes to situational overload.  Existing cab signal apparatus would have accomplished most of the same thing. 

wabash2800 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Please clarify what you mean about the "word". 
>
> Thanks
> Victor A. Baird
> http://www.erstwhilepublications.com
>
> bioyans Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >  and agree that
> > the "word" from the OP contains some
> inaccuracies.

The testimonial from your engineer friend that you've provided here. As someone who has sat through presentations on this stuff, and uses it every day, there are a lot of false assumptions and inaccurate conclusions about PTC, both from fans and employees, floating around out there.

Posted from Android

So, can we say that the situation is complicated enough that even an engineer with over 20 years of service and one that actually uses the software and no doubt has had presentations and training can not know all the specifics? Does that in itself say something about what a Cluster this whole thing is?

Victor A. Baird
http://www.erstwhilepublications.com


bioyans Wrote:
--
> The testimonial from your engineer friend that
> you've provided here. As someone who has sat
> through presentations on this stuff, and uses it
> every day, there are a lot of false assumptions
> and inaccurate conclusions about PTC, both from
> fans and employees, floating around out there.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 10/11/19 17:57 by wabash2800.

wabash2800 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So, can we say that the situation is complicated
> enough that even an engineer with over 20 years of
> service and one that actually uses the software
> and no doubt has had presentations and training
> can not know all the specifics? Does that in
> itself say something about what a Cluster this
> whole thing is?

You could say that. When I can't even get a consistent answer from supervisors on what situations need to be reported, and which ones don't, it shows how messed up things are.

Posted from Android

wabash2800 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So, can we say that the situation is complicated
> enough that even an engineer with over 20 years of
> service and one that actually uses the software
> and no doubt has had presentations and training
> can not know all the specifics? Does that in
> itself say something about what a Cluster this
> whole thing is?

TRUE.  A 4 hour class on setting up PTC three years ago and some read it yourself booklets and circulars do not prepare you for the real thing wherein dispatchers , yard towers, and  road foremen desks, implore you in short order as to "why aren't you moving ?", "who have you contacted", and "why didn't you do that?".  The people on the help desks can be smug, condesending, and conflicting in their answers.  It is a lot to learn, a lot to retain,  a lot to monitor,  and a lot to be held responsible for.  In real time and in the real world you - the NS engineer are responsible and accountable for continuous control of the train - whether through monitoring or actual control.  It makes your miss your tuxedo paint F units and RS-3's.