Jump to content




Help Support AmtrakTrains.com by donating using the link above or becoming a Supporting Member.

Photo

Amtrak CEO says passenger trains may not run over track without PTC


  • Please log in to reply
55 replies to this topic

#41 DSS&A

DSS&A

    Lead Service Attendant

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 241 posts

Posted 20 February 2018 - 07:59 AM

Here is a link to a new Railway Age article on the true status of PTC compared to political "grandstanding".

https://www.railwaya...s-really-going/

#42 neroden

neroden

    Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,665 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Location:Ithaca, NY
  • Interests:Please feel free to moderate my posts

Posted 20 February 2018 - 08:37 AM

That article is a pretty pathetic piece of pro-freight-railroad propaganda.  The private railroads blew off the 2015 deadline, but more importantly they blew off the *1940s* ICC recommendation and decades of NTSB recommendations.  The fact that they're finally, tardily, getting to the multiply-extended deadline is not impressive. And he talks to UP, which is doing OK, but not to CSX, which is likely to blow the next deadline too.

 

The writer's an idiot.  He's letting his own biases color his article.  There's also no information new to me in the article, and it leaves me even more disgusted with CSX.


Edited by neroden, 20 February 2018 - 08:37 AM.

--Nathanael--

Please feel free to moderate my posts.

#43 jis

jis

    Engineer

  • Gathering Team Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,207 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Space Coast, Florida, Area code 3-2-1
  • Interests:Trains, Planes and Travel

Posted 20 February 2018 - 09:07 AM

I actually found the article quite informative and specific, being I suppose not as all knowing as some others here ;)

 

BTW, it is not at all clear that the Canadians can be forced to abide by US law and FRA/NTSB directives. Canadians actually allow 100mph operation under track warrant in dark territory appropriately certified by the appropriate Canadian authorities. I doubt that Anderson will try to create an international incident. He is basically just saying that he will follow the law and if needed apply some judicious additional precaution in cooperation with the local authorities and laws.

 

Looks like at least one passenger service is ending apparently due to PTC, though it is not exactly clear what "safety rules" is being referred to in the article.

 

http://www.standard....fety-rules.html

 

So never says never I guess.

 

My suspicion is that UTA operates under PTC compliant E-ATC on its own tracks and has no intention to add I-ETMS, to its equipment or extending E-ATC for the pleasure of using UP tracks for just one stop carrying 35 passengers each day.

 

Also BTW CSX has all its locomotives equipped and 97% of its employees trained as of 3Q 2017, has its plan conditionally certified by the FRA and expects to have way more than 50% of its route miles under I-ETMS by December 2018 ( the requirement for getting waiver to 2020 on the rest). It is actually way ahead of NS as far as that goes. ;) This from the FRA PTC Dashboard.

 

Also incidentally, NS does not plan to have I-ETMS fully in service on the Water Level Route between Toledo and Chicago before 2020. It will of course have a waiver for that period.


Edited by jis, 20 February 2018 - 02:21 PM.


#44 jis

jis

    Engineer

  • Gathering Team Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,207 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Space Coast, Florida, Area code 3-2-1
  • Interests:Trains, Planes and Travel

Posted 20 February 2018 - 04:54 PM

Here is a nice article on PTC:

 

http://trn.trains.co...c1114.pdf?la=en



#45 John Bobinyec

John Bobinyec

    Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,533 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:CYN

Posted 20 February 2018 - 07:27 PM

Here is a nice article on PTC:

 

http://trn.trains.co...c1114.pdf?la=en

 

From the article:

 

 

“They way over-designed it. They put in additional functionality that isn’t required in the FRA regulations,” Ron Lindsey says. Lindsey is an independent railroad consultant and the architect of an early PTC system who says PTC wiring for intermediate signals is pointless since the signals will become redundant."

 

I don't think that's true.  It is my understanding that PTC knows where the front of the train is (locomotive, cab car), but not the rear.  So a train following another one can't rely on PTC to stop the movement the way automatic signals do.  Sure the dispatcher can set up restricted authority limits for the following train, but that'll never be as efficient as automatic block signals.

 

jb


LDS Been On:

 

Old: Phoebe Snow (EL), Montrealer (AT), Laurentian (D&H)

RBBB: St. Petersburg - W. Palm Beach, Lakeland - Atlanta, Baltimore - NYC, Rochester, NY - Hartford, Albuquerque - Salt Lake City, Denver - Chicago

Modern: Ocean (VIA), Silver Star, Capitol Limited, Texas Eagle, Autotrain, Carolinian, Southwest Chief, California Zephyr, Lake Shore Limited

 


#46 Lonestar648

Lonestar648

    Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,631 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 20 February 2018 - 09:31 PM

I was reading Fred Frailey's blog on the Train's web page:"Au revoir, AMTRAK! Its Official!"  Basically, the PTC line drawn in the sand is blessing for the Host Railroads in that they have an excuse to delay  PTC until 2020 to get rid of AMTRAK.

   

http://cs.trains.com...icial-word.aspx



#47 west point

west point

    Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,519 posts

Posted 20 February 2018 - 10:31 PM

CSX has installed PTC at intermediate signals on our sub subdivisions around here.



#48 John Bobinyec

John Bobinyec

    Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,533 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:CYN

Posted 21 February 2018 - 09:19 AM

 

My suspicion is that UTA operates under PTC compliant E-ATC on its own tracks and has no intention to add I-ETMS, to its equipment or extending E-ATC for the pleasure of using UP tracks for just one stop carrying 35 passengers each day.

 

 

That seems stupid.  I wonder why UTA didn't go with the same system that UP is using.

 

jb


LDS Been On:

 

Old: Phoebe Snow (EL), Montrealer (AT), Laurentian (D&H)

RBBB: St. Petersburg - W. Palm Beach, Lakeland - Atlanta, Baltimore - NYC, Rochester, NY - Hartford, Albuquerque - Salt Lake City, Denver - Chicago

Modern: Ocean (VIA), Silver Star, Capitol Limited, Texas Eagle, Autotrain, Carolinian, Southwest Chief, California Zephyr, Lake Shore Limited

 


#49 jis

jis

    Engineer

  • Gathering Team Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,207 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Space Coast, Florida, Area code 3-2-1
  • Interests:Trains, Planes and Travel

Posted 21 February 2018 - 09:42 AM

First because it did not exist when UTA set their system up, and possibly also because they generally do not use UP tracks. Their system (tracks and dispatching) is completely separate from UP since they wanted to have the freedom to operate possibly non-FRA compliant equipment if needed. Turns out that eventually they did not go there.

 

There are several agencies that use variants of E-ATC, including Class IIs like FECR/Brightline as their implementation of PTC.

 

California HSR will also not be using I-ETMS because it does not scale to 200mph. They will most likely be using some variant of ERTMS L2. Somewhat the same reason that Amtrak uses ACSES and not the then non-existent I-ETMS.I suspect Texas HSR will also not use I-ETMS.

 

Actually there are two segments of the NEC where both ACSES and I-ETMS (NS variant) is deployed as I understand it, to allow run through of NS freight (e.g. from Perryville to Bayview yard).

 

Of course that is small potatoes compared to what exists on the LGV Est in France which has parallel deployment of TVM-430 and ERTMS L2 for operation at upto 200mph.

 

BTW, did you know that I-ETMS by itself only knows where the head end of the train is but has no idea where the tail end of the train is? It requires an underlying train integrity system to provide that information, whether it be track circuit or axle counter at block boundaries or whatever.


Edited by jis, 21 February 2018 - 09:43 AM.


#50 neroden

neroden

    Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,665 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Location:Ithaca, NY
  • Interests:Please feel free to moderate my posts

Posted 24 February 2018 - 09:07 AM

Looks like at least one passenger service is ending apparently due to PTC, though it is not exactly clear what "safety rules" is being referred to in the article.
 
http://www.standard....fety-rules.html

This is IMO really not much to do with PTC. As is made very clear in the article, this is due to Union Pacific owning this stretch of tracks, and Union Pacific having a bad attitude towards passenger service. The issues with the Pleasant View station has been ongoing since its opening, with an unacceptable schedule, high costs, and low ridership due to Union Pacific attitude; PTC merely provides an excuse.

UTA is now dead set on getting its own right-of-way and tracks for *all* operations (they already have them for most operations), as they say in the article. And they're quite right. The only long-term solution is to get rid of private freight operator ownership of tracks, as has already been done in most of the world. Toronto figured this out a decade back and has been spending billions getting their GO Transit tracks out of the grasp of CN.

The Class I freights really shot themselves in the foot by choosing the I-ETMS system, which is essentially defective and will have to be replaced with something ERTMS-like eventually. I have approximately zero respect for the competence of most of their managements. I could run most of those companies better.

Also incidentally, NS does not plan to have I-ETMS fully in service on the Water Level Route between Toledo and Chicago before 2020. It will of course have a waiver for that period.


Buy. The. Tracks.

Edited by neroden, 24 February 2018 - 09:08 AM.

--Nathanael--

Please feel free to moderate my posts.

#51 neroden

neroden

    Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,665 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Location:Ithaca, NY
  • Interests:Please feel free to moderate my posts

Posted 24 February 2018 - 09:12 AM

Fred Frailey's article is funny, but he doesn't understand the politics (or pretends not to for humor purposes).
 

Hello, my name is James Foote. I am chief executive of CSX. I regret to say that PTC will not be installed between Washington and Rocky Mount, N.C., nor between Buffalo and Rochester, N.Y., by the end of December, 2018.


The next one:

Hello, my name is Andrew Cuomo. I must inform you of an emergency order seizing the tracks from Buffalo to Schenectady by eminent domain, for vital state security purposes. We trust you will comply with the state police. Amtrak will manage these tracks and install PTC. We are sorry you were not able to manage these tracks properly, but we are happy to take the problem off your hands as it is a vital matter of state security. Of course we'll still allow some of your freight trains to operate, if you pay for access and we can fit them between our essential state needs. We can discuss payment for the track seizure in 2025 in the courts. See you!


In practice, nobody at CSX would dare to threaten to stop Empire Corridor service; it leads to Senators and Governors coming down on their heads.

Edited by neroden, 24 February 2018 - 09:16 AM.

--Nathanael--

Please feel free to moderate my posts.

#52 jis

jis

    Engineer

  • Gathering Team Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,207 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Space Coast, Florida, Area code 3-2-1
  • Interests:Trains, Planes and Travel

Posted 15 May 2018 - 01:38 PM

End of 1Q18 PTC deployment status:

 

https://www.fra.dot....progress/2018q1

 

Incidentally, it is NS that will not complete PTC deployment on the Water Level Route before Dec 31, 2018. CSX is actually in relatively good shape.


  • daybeers likes this

#53 PRR 60

PRR 60

    Engineer

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,074 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 15 May 2018 - 01:44 PM

Here the same info in nice, little progress circles.

 

FRA PTC Dashboard 2018 Qtr 1


  • daybeers likes this

#54 jis

jis

    Engineer

  • Gathering Team Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,207 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Space Coast, Florida, Area code 3-2-1
  • Interests:Trains, Planes and Travel

Posted 15 May 2018 - 02:07 PM

Here the same info in nice, little progress circles.

 

FRA PTC Dashboard 2018 Qtr 1

The graphical dashboard appears to be not consistent with the tabular stuff. I cannot exactly tell for sure what is represented in each so it might merely be my misunderstanding. The info as represented is clearly not he same. It is at least a very different view which is hard to reconcile.



#55 Thirdrail7

Thirdrail7

    Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,173 posts

Posted 16 May 2018 - 04:39 PM

I'm very interesting in seeing if Congress will grant an extension. I'm willing to bet they will.


Edited by Thirdrail7, 16 May 2018 - 04:39 PM.

They say laughter is the best medicine. Obviously they never posted on AU.


#56 jis

jis

    Engineer

  • Gathering Team Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,207 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Space Coast, Florida, Area code 3-2-1
  • Interests:Trains, Planes and Travel

Posted 16 May 2018 - 05:06 PM

Apparently NS will meet all requirements to apply for Alternative Schedule, which will be upto the FRA to decide. Congress need not be involved in that one at least.

I am now told by Senator Nelson’s legislative assistant on the transportation committee that both SFRC and CFRC will meet requirements for Alternative Schedule too.
  • pennyk likes this




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users