41 replies to this topic

[printman2000]

Was wondering about the PTC mandate. Is it only required to have PTC where passenger trains run? Or do freight railroads have to install everywhere?

The article (http://amarillo.com/...9m-project-plan) mentions BNSF putting in PTC around Amarillo which would be the reroute of the SWC if that ever happens.

Positive train control upgrades are ongoing across the Texas Panhandle this year, with the focus being on tracks from Amarillo going east to the Oklahoma state line, through such towns as Pampa and Canadian, Faust said.

Would they have to install PTC on the Raton route?

[Anderson]

My understanding based on some of the talk about the Downeaster is that at the very least, once-daily service wouldn't require PTC. With that said, when I asked about the mandate, Wick Moorman stated point blank that Norfolk Southern isn't going to have things done in time...and that they're worried about it it becoming a complete nightmare.

[jis]

Pull up FRA 49 CFR 236 and go to Subpart I which is all about PTC, to see what the regulation says.

Of specific interest relative to the question of exclusions would be sections 236.1019, 236.1020 and 236.1021.

The bottom line is, if the SWC is the only train running on the Raton Line and it can be temporally separated from everything else including an opposing SWC in the section in question then PTC will not be required. So there may be a few lesser hoops to jump through to get the temporal separation taken care of. If they are running on time temporal separation should not be a problem. But if the westbound is late beyond a threshold, it could end up delaying an on time eastbound to meet the temporal separation requirements.

Edited by jis, 25 May 2012 - 10:03 AM.

[RampWidget]

Was wondering about the PTC mandate. Is it only required to have PTC where passenger trains run? Or do freight railroads have to install everywhere?

The article (http://amarillo.com/...9m-project-plan) mentions BNSF putting in PTC around Amarillo which would be the reroute of the SWC if that ever happens.

Positive train control upgrades are ongoing across the Texas Panhandle this year, with the focus being on tracks from Amarillo going east to the Oklahoma state line, through such towns as Pampa and Canadian, Faust said.

Would they have to install PTC on the Raton route?

As far as the original PTC requirement for freight railroads, the specification is any passenger route, any freight route of five million gross tons or more annually, or any freight route that carries one or more loads of poison/toxic inhalation hazard (PIH/TIH). As mentioned in other posts there are several detailed exceptions, both existing and in the works. FRA has also announced some changes to the requirements regarding PTC installation on those lines that are not expected to carry passenger trains or PIH/TIH after the 2015 PTC deadline.

[jis]

You can see the modifications announced in March 2012 in 49 CFR Part 236 [Docket No. FRA-2011-0028, Notice No. 3] (PDF)

Edited by jis, 25 May 2012 - 11:36 AM.

[Swadian Hardcore]

Hope this works out well for Amtrak. I just hate it when improvements get delayed over and over again.

[RampWidget]

Hope this works out well for Amtrak. I just hate it when improvements get delayed over and over again.

The delays are at least in part attributable to the fact that PTC is having to be "invented" by the railroads and vendors as they go along. It's not off-the-shelf hardware or software. Even the interoperability standards had to be negotiated from scratch. It's no wonder, as Anderson mentioned in an earlier post, that NS chairman Moorman terms implementation a "nightmare."

[George Harris]

This whole PTC thing is a knee jerk "we gotta do something" reaction to the Chatsworth collision, and amounts to a ten dollar solution to a ten cent problem. Its cost will drive traffic off the rails, and particularly cause all the railroad companies to strenuously oppose addition of any passenger service anywhere. If it sounds like I regard this thing as a bad idea, yes I do. There may be a case for it on high volume lines, but the limits required are equivalent to requiring divided limited access highways for traffic volumes of a few hundred cars a day because you had one bad head end collision. It is not the best use of the money for improvements in safety or operations. Greater safety would be achieved by spending the money of grade separations, for starters.

[RampWidget]

This whole PTC thing is a knee jerk "we gotta do something" reaction to the Chatsworth collision, and amounts to a ten dollar solution to a ten cent problem. Its cost will drive traffic off the rails, and particularly cause all the railroad companies to strenuously oppose addition of any passenger service anywhere. If it sounds like I regard this thing as a bad idea, yes I do. There may be a case for it on high volume lines, but the limits required are equivalent to requiring divided limited access highways for traffic volumes of a few hundred cars a day because you had one bad head end collision. It is not the best use of the money for improvements in safety or operations. Greater safety would be achieved by spending the money of grade separations, for starters.

George, nicely stated. The Association of American Railroads, among others, has put the benefit to cost ratio of PTC around $1 for every $20 spent. Most people's first reaction, understandably, is 'we shouldn't put a price on safety'. But the argument can and should be made, as you point out, that there may be better safety-related things to spend money on. Particularly when we are talking about five billion dollars.

[Ziv]

I am not really up to speed on the intricacies of PTC, I had thought that it was an expensive unfunded mandate, but I also thought that it would allow the average speed of our LD railroads to increase a bit. I think the Empire Builder averaged about 50 mph on my last trip, the Capital Limited around 44 mph and the Sunset Limited was just 41 mph. I have read that the SWC and the CZ both average around 55 mph, per wiki. Will PTC have any real affect on these average speeds or will the increase in the top speeds not be available over enough of the total trip to make a noticeable difference?
Would double tracking areas that are now single tracks help more? Or triple tracking the busy areas that are now double tracked? If double tracking would work better, where could we get the money from?
It seems like the European Inter City trains like the West Coast Main Line in the UK have a top speed of 125 mph and the WCML has an average speed of 80+ mph.(I came up with 88.6 mph, can that be right?) Admittedly, it is only 399 miles long but considering the population density of the UK that is pretty impressive. Other IC trains are around 80 mph though, not quite as fast as the WCML.
If PTC and double tracking (where feasible and where funding can be found) are implemented, could we see LD trains in the US increase their average speeds to 60 mph? Or perhaps even to 70 mph for trains like the SWC and the CZ and possibly, the EB? Or are there simply too many areas that have limited speed potential due to curves or freight crowding to allow American trains to even come close to European IC trains?
Sorry for the tyro questions, I had thought that PTC alone would make a big difference and am sorry to see that it may not have as large an effect as I had supposed.

[jis]

Just installing PTC is not going to increase the speed of anything. If the underlying track is Class 4 (freight max speed 60mph) then passenger speed will remain limited to 79mph. If the underlying track is Class 5, i.e. freight can travel faster than 60mph, then with some additional work to re-time crossings etc. passenger train max speed could be raised to 90mph. Beyond that is all additional money and bickering.

[Crescent ATN & TCL]

Ideally we should look to Europe and Asia for PTC. Almost all EU countries have PTC installed on their entire networks and these systems are all inter-operable. The TGV, Eurostar, ICE, and Thayls all operate on different PTC systems in international service and these systems have been in use since TGV's first appeared. The system used in The UK on Network Rail has been around since the 1970s after it replaced an older system that was first installed in the early 1900s. Why can we take one of these systems and adapt it for use in America? There's no need to re-invent the wheel to install PTC.

Track-wise I think we should focus on upgrading incrementally. We need to stop trying to build high speed rail as a stand alone system. Most countries upgraded existing infrastructure and built the highspeed lines out in the rural areas and used the existing network to reach them. We should focus on reducing bottlenecks and raising average speed. Average speed is much more important than top speed, it doesn't matter if a train runs 150, 200, 220 for some portion of a route if it doesn't result in high average speed. Running 110 consistently is better than hitting 150 sporadically for short periods. Amtrak should aim for a 70-80 mph average and freight should go for a 60 mph average. True high speed rail with top speeds of 220mph and averages over 100mph can wait until we get a good functional national network in place.

I also think we should start work on nationwide electrification. We should be reaching a point where it makes economic sense. Designing a standardized system that can handle double stack containers and 125-150 mph passenger trains should be the primary focus. I also think it would be a good idea to look into dual powered passenger and freight locomotives to use during the transition. Converting diesels to electrics by replacing prime movers with transformers and other electrical hardware would be another idea to look into.

Edited by Crescent ATN & TCL, 26 May 2012 - 09:56 AM.

[jis]

Ideally we should look to Europe and Asia for PTC. Almost all EU countries have PTC installed on their entire networks and these systems are all inter-operable. The TGV, Eurostar, ICE, and Thayls all operate on different PTC systems in international service and these systems have been in use since TGV's first appeared. The system used in The UK on Network Rail has been around since the 1970s after it replaced an older system that was first installed in the early 1900s. Why can we take one of these systems and adapt it for use in America? There's no need to re-invent the wheel to install PTC.

I feel I need to correct some mistkaen impressions that are being created here.

At least UK does not have PTC except on HSR-1, which has TVM430 (and possibly one or two other segments with very recent installations - i.e. post 2005). UK regulations do not require PTC for operation at 125mph. TWS is enough per UK regulations. Also the PTC systems used on HSR lines are not available on the upgraded Classi lines. Those still run with the traditional cab signaling systems.

Most Europe classic lines have cab signals, many also with ATS, but not necessarily PTC. And each EU country's classic cab signal system is different. That is why international sets carry upto six different signaling system interfaces on them. They are each a veritable museum of signaling and train control system, on board segments. So it is a long stretch to claim that "all EU countries have PTC installed on their entire network". It is an even further stretch to claim that "all those systems are interoperable".

Also it is worth remembering that they operate under different regulations that in some cases are less stringent than FRA's.

Asia has very little PTC installed outside of new HSRs, and some dense suburban and subway systems, so I don't know what is there to look for there regarding PTC.

TVM430 and ERTMS are not interoperable in the normal sense of the term. Trains need to carry both equipment to operate on routes that require different systems on different segments. Or alternatively a route needs to be equipped with both, like LGV Est is.

Track-wise I think we should focus on upgrading incrementally. We need to stop trying to build high speed rail as a stand alone system. Most countries upgraded existing infrastructure and built the highspeed lines out in the rural areas and used the existing network to reach them. We should focus on reducing bottlenecks and raising average speed. Average speed is much more important than top speed, it doesn't matter if a train runs 150, 200, 220 for some portion of a route if it doesn't result in high average speed. Running 110 consistently is better than hitting 150 sporadically for short periods. Amtrak should aim for a 70-80 mph average and freight should go for a 60 mph average.

The freight part won't happen because on many many routes freight has max speed of 60mph, and on the fewer higher speed routes it is 70mph. There is no commercial incentive to raise speeds beyond that, since running at higher speeds requires more energy, the cost of which is going up considerably of late, and the difference in running time is inconsequential in terms of additional revenue opportunities as perceived by the railroads.

When one is dealing with existing rights of way, one cannot wish away its existing shape, which restricts speeds on considerable portions of them. Given that, what one needs to do is figure out an optimum speed profile to achieve best start to stop schedule times and go for achieving that, instead of working with preconceived notions like "running consistently at 110mph rather than 150mph sporadically", since consistent 110mph running may not be achievable in the track profile available. What Amtrak is trying to do on the NEC is an example of trying toget the shortest running time given the realities of the RoW profile and existing traffic conditions.

[Crescent ATN & TCL]

Ideally we should look to Europe and Asia for PTC. Almost all EU countries have PTC installed on their entire networks and these systems are all inter-operable. The TGV, Eurostar, ICE, and Thayls all operate on different PTC systems in international service and these systems have been in use since TGV's first appeared. The system used in The UK on Network Rail has been around since the 1970s after it replaced an older system that was first installed in the early 1900s. Why can we take one of these systems and adapt it for use in America? There's no need to re-invent the wheel to install PTC.

I feel I need to correct some mistkaen impressions that are being created here.

At least UK does not have PTC except on HSR-1, which has TVM430 (and possibly one or two other segments with very recent installations - i.e. post 2005). UK regulations do not require PTC for operation at 125mph. TWS is enough per UK regulations. Also the PTC systems used on HSR lines are not available on the upgraded Classi lines. Those still run with the traditional cab signaling systems.

Most Europe classic lines have cab signals, many also with ATS, but not necessarily PTC. And each EU country's classic cab signal system is different. That is why international sets carry upto six different signaling system interfaces on them. They are each a veritable museum of signaling and train control system, on board segments. So it is a long stretch to claim that "all EU countries have PTC installed on their entire network". It is an even further stretch to claim that "all those systems are interoperable".

Also it is worth remembering that they operate under different regulations that in some cases are less stringent than FRA's.

Asia has very little PTC installed outside of new HSRs, and some dense suburban and subway systems, so I don't know what is there to look for there regarding PTC.

TVM430 and ERTMS are not interoperable in the normal sense of the term. Trains need to carry both equipment to operate on routes that require different systems on different segments. Or alternatively a route needs to be equipped with both, like LGV Est is.

I understand there is a difference between ATC, ATS, Cab Signals, and PTC. I was trying to make the point that some sort of train control exists on most route miles in Europe and Asia and that it would be prudent to take the best of those systems in designing our version of PTC rather than starting from scratch as we seem to be doing. I think going with a hardware system similar to TVM 430 would be best, transponders x feet/miles along the route with spacing being determined by expected maximum trains per hour. Additional transponders could be placed to enforce permanent speed restrictions such as in curves. If all of these transponders are linked via track circuits you would essentially have signals that communicate with each other, the trains and way side devices such as crossing gates, switches, detectors, RFID readers, etc. If dispatchers could control the transponders to issue temporary speed restrictions all requirements of the PTC mandate would be met.

Most importantly we should focus on interoperability. A train should be able to go anywhere in the national network just like you can drive your car anywhere on the highway system.

Edited by Crescent ATN & TCL, 26 May 2012 - 11:01 AM.

[Crescent ATN & TCL]

Track-wise I think we should focus on upgrading incrementally. We need to stop trying to build high speed rail as a stand alone system. Most countries upgraded existing infrastructure and built the highspeed lines out in the rural areas and used the existing network to reach them. We should focus on reducing bottlenecks and raising average speed. Average speed is much more important than top speed, it doesn't matter if a train runs 150, 200, 220 for some portion of a route if it doesn't result in high average speed. Running 110 consistently is better than hitting 150 sporadically for short periods. Amtrak should aim for a 70-80 mph average and freight should go for a 60 mph average.

The freight part won't happen because on many many routes freight has max speed of 60mph, and on the fewer higher speed routes it is 70mph. There is no commercial incentive to raise speeds beyond that, since running at higher speeds requires more energy, the cost of which is going up considerably of late, and the difference in running time is inconsequential in terms of additional revenue opportunities as perceived by the railroads.

When one is dealing with existing rights of way, one cannot wish away its existing shape, which restricts speeds on considerable portions of them. Given that, what one needs to do is figure out an optimum speed profile to achieve best start to stop schedule times and go for achieving that, instead of working with preconceived notions like "running consistently at 110mph rather than 150mph sporadically", since consistent 110mph running may not be achievable in the track profile available. What Amtrak is trying to do on the NEC is an example of trying toget the shortest running time given the realities of the RoW profile and existing traffic conditions.

With this I'm trying to say we have gotten lost in high speed fever and are focusing too much on top speed, and building something new instead of trying to get the most of what we have. Amtrak seems to be lost in trying to get higher top speeds by hitting 150mph... or their new goal of 160mph, rather than doing the hard job of fixing the major bottlenecks and problems. Its easier for them to upgrade a straight away to get 150-160 for a short period than to say redo the Baltimore tunnels which would do much more for average speed than going 10-30 mph faster for a few miles to say they hit X mph. It would not surprise me in the least for one of the new higher speed lines out of Chicago to out pace the Acela in average speed even though they will top out at 110mph.

[AlanB]

Just installing PTC is not going to increase the speed of anything. If the underlying track is Class 4 (freight max speed 60mph) then passenger speed will remain limited to 79mph. If the underlying track is Class 5, i.e. freight can travel faster than 60mph, then with some additional work to re-time crossings etc. passenger train max speed could be raised to 90mph. Beyond that is all additional money and bickering.

Actually, Class 4 track permits passenger trains to operate at 80 MPH. It's the lack of PTC that requires them to operate at 79 MPH.

So having PTC would allow Amtrak to travel a whopping 1 MPH faster than it currently does.

[printman2000]

So BNSF currently uses ATC, correct? Will they stop using that once PTC is installed? Will Amtrak still get to run 90 on the SWC?

[jis]

BNSF uses inductor based ATS.

Since PTC is a more capable protection system than ATS I would not expect any speed reduction as a result of changeover to PTC.

Edited by jis, 26 May 2012 - 12:52 PM.

[George Harris]

I think what several of us are trying to say here is that PTC will do somewhere between next to nothing and absolutely nothing at all to increase speed / decrease run time. It may even decrease it in that money spent to install and operate PTC will not be available to keep up track or make other improvements. Do not forget the supply of money is not infinite. Anyone getting all enthused about the improved run times due to PTC needs to take a couple of deep breaths and relax. Even though lines that permit 70 mph for their top freights have to have track conditions that permit 90 mph passenger speed limits does not mean that they will nor even if they do it will make much if any difference. A change in top speed will require a change in circuits for all grade crossing protection, not cheap. While running 100 miles at 90 mph instead of 79 mph saves 9 minutes 16 seconds, which sounds like a lot, it really is not the case for most routes because you cannot run your whole route at the higher speed. There are reduced speed curves, meets and passes, stops, etc. that will all still be there. For example, on the route of the Crescent, there is so little in the way of lengthy segments of the route that permit the current maximum of 79 mph. if those parts of the 79 mph limits that could be raised to 90 mph were raised to 90 mph, and it would not be all of them, it is doubtful that as much as 15 minutes could be squeezed out of the entire Washington DC to New Orleans distance. (For example, even though Atlanta to Birmingham has a 79 mph speed limit, thanks to curves the length of line permitting 79 mph is zero.)

To go above 90 mph also entails a number of other requirements beyond PTC.

Note what jis has said about the European systems. "a veritable museum of signaling and train control systems" is somewhat polite in many instances. Their operating costs on a train mile basis are higher, and in some cases far higher, than those in the US.

"Also it is worth remembering that they operate under different regulations that in some cases are less stringent than FRA's." is another statement that can hardly be overemphasized. They have there own problems. We just do not hear about them, primarily for two reasons. First, railroad problems in Europe are not news here. Second, some tend to be treated as national embarassments and kept as quiet as they can be even there. The constant criticisms of our own country that we get here are simply not done in most other countries.

When talking about "museum of signaling and train control systems" that used by BNSF on the ex-AT&SF lines may well fall into that category also. While I do not know all the reasons why they keep it functional, I would suspect that part are maybe even most of the reason is that they are much more honorable about holding up their end of the bargain than other companies have been. For example, ICRR took out their system in Illinois that permitted the City of New Orleans to run 90 mph, if not 100 mph.

If we want to improve Amtrak run time, complete second track sections on UP's Sunset route to as far east as Sierra Blanca TX, re-double track much of the ex-ACL line to Forida, work to raise speed limts in low speed urban areas in many locations, some additional and longer sidings and higher speed turnouts into and out of them.