Replying to Positive Train Control

So, why is Via allowed to do 100+mph where Amtrak is only allowed to do 79mph under virtually identical conditions?

The answer is mostly political, after the Chase MD wreck the hammer came down on Amtrak, arguably the 79mph ruling was an overreaction to a very rare occurence. Via escaped the trickle down effect.

Except the 79mph speed limit long predates the Chase, MD, wreck. The 79mph limit dates to the 1940s (I believe in response to a Chicago-area wreck) while the Chase, MD, incident occurred in the 1980s.

I'm no expert on the history or scope of the 79mph rule but there were lots of trains doing well over 79mph long after the 1940's into at least the 1960's and not all of them ran on ATC territory, the Santa Fe, Super Chief to name just one.

The higher than 79mph were running on ATS territory as they do even today - and still continue to with 90mph operation on tracks so equipped. Some were possibly running on Cab signaled with enforcement territory too. Quite a bit of that cab signaling survives minus the enforcement. The regulation does not require ATC (whatever that might mean). AFAIR Either ATS or Cab Signal with signal speed enforcement but no stop enforcement is enough to operate above 79mph. To operate over 125mph one requires civil speed and stop enforcement over and above signal speed enforcement in cab signaled territory, and just ATS without the additional enforcements are also not enough for higher speeds. AFAIR there are no operations at higher than 90mph at present which does not have cab signaling with signal speed enforcement.

Eric is correct. The Chase accident has nothing to do with 79mph limit. Its origins are back in the 40s.Also the regulation is not specific to Amtrak. It applies to everything that runs on FRA governed rails in the US.

The net change from Chase had to do with the requirement for Engineers to get licensed, and also some of the alcohol and drug test stuff. In addition rules regarding what equipment must be operational on engines before they are allowed to operate on higher speed territory even if the locomotive itself is not capable of operating at such speeds i.e. have fully operational cab signal with enforcement rather than just a warning whistle that can be taped over etc.

I'm no expert on the history or scope of the 79mph rule but there were lots of trains doing well over 79mph long after the 1940's into at least the 1960's and not all of them ran on ATC territory, the Santa Fe, Super Chief to name just one.

I am certainly no expert either, but wasn't the Super Chief running with ATC? The same system still used today on the SWC.

So, why is Via allowed to do 100+mph where Amtrak is only allowed to do 79mph under virtually identical conditions?

The answer is mostly political, after the Chase MD wreck the hammer came down on Amtrak, arguably the 79mph ruling was an overreaction to a very rare occurence. Via escaped the trickle down effect.

Except the 79mph speed limit long predates the Chase, MD, wreck. The 79mph limit dates to the 1940s (I believe in response to a Chicago-area wreck) while the Chase, MD, incident occurred in the 1980s.

I'm no expert on the history or scope of the 79mph rule but there were lots of trains doing well over 79mph long after the 1940's into at least the 1960's and not all of them ran on ATC territory, the Santa Fe, Super Chief to name just one.

So, why is Via allowed to do 100+mph where Amtrak is only allowed to do 79mph under virtually identical conditions?

To state the obvious: It is a different country with their own set of laws.

The law in the US that gives us the 79 mph and 59 mph limits has nothing to do with the ability of the equipment to move between the countries and everything to do with the US congress making laws to regulate things they do not understand.

The Canadian's legislature saw no need to impose this sort of regulation.

Before the passage of the law giving us these restrictions in the US there were some lines that allowed as much as 90 mph with no signals at all.

I would argue that the record of performance of the railroads in Canada without these constraints is a very good arguement for their elimination, and against imposing even more stringent and expensive to obey regulations.

So, why is Via allowed to do 100+mph where Amtrak is only allowed to do 79mph under virtually identical conditions?

The answer is mostly political, after the Chase MD wreck the hammer came down on Amtrak, arguably the 79mph ruling was an overreaction to a very rare occurence. Via escaped the trickle down effect.

Except the 79mph speed limit long predates the Chase, MD, wreck. The 79mph limit dates to the 1940s (I believe in response to a Chicago-area wreck) while the Chase, MD, incident occurred in the 1980s.

In the US, actually, the US plus Canada plus Mexico, there has been through running of equipment between railroad companies almost from the beginning and through running of power which requires compatibility of control systems at least to as far back as the beginning of diesel operation, and that is not mentioning such things as trackage rights arrangements, some of which go back at least 160 years. Since, until recently, all or almost all European operations were contained within national borders and for the most part on unified national systems, the whole issue of interoperability is a relatively new concept.

If you want to make your brain hurt and go into spasms, get your hands on the Technical Specification for Interoperability and try to understand any part of it.

CN and CP have owned subsidiary companies in the US for over a century. Back in the day, companies such as Grand Trunk, Grand Trunk Western, Central Vermont, Duluth Winnipeg & Pacific, Soo Line, Aroostok Valley and several others were Canadian-owned. Steam power from the US subsidiaries operated in Canada frequently but usually not for long periods to avoid customs charges. Canadian power also operated through. Some CP steam that operated on through to Buffalo from Toronto were equipped with ATC for operation on the NYC. NYC's famous Hudsons were frequent visitors to CP's John St. roundhouse in Toronto.

And of course, US lines had lots of trackage and subsidiaries in Canada too, Canada Southern / Michigan Central, TH&B (CP/NYC), Wabash (N&W) PM (C&O/CSX) NP/GN (BNSF) D&H were some examples of these.

I see there is quite a debate here on PTC and its use.

I'm from Michigan and I know it has been tested/used on the Wolverine route near where I live. I'll be taking the Lakeshore Limited to the east coast this summer. Is it in use in any part of that route as of now? Should I be concerned if it isn't? I know a lot of that route is owned by freight...?

Thank you!

While it is more difficult to compare Europe to the US, Canada can most certainly be compared. I ride Via Rail frequently and have no fear of accidents even though 80-100mph operation, without any type of automatic train control is common. Rail travel accident risk for passengers is very low, getting into your car however...

Via Rail runs mostly US style equipment, F-40's, P-42's, Budd stainless steel and LRC coaches. The Quebec-Montreal-Toronto-Windsor, corridor is comparable in almost all aspects to heavier US passenger lines in terms of freight traffic, track standards / maintenance, numerous grade crossing, etc. There are many places in this corridor where Via trains exceed 90mph and often hit 100mph. Almost all this trackage is bi-directional, CTC and yet no ATC, PTC.

So, why is Via allowed to do 100+mph where Amtrak is only allowed to do 79mph under virtually identical conditions?

The answer is mostly political, after the Chase MD wreck the hammer came down on Amtrak, arguably the 79mph ruling was an overreaction to a very rare occurence. Via escaped the trickle down effect. Operationally, Via also uses two qualified locomotive engineers in the cab of all trains, one of whom acts as the Conductor so there is no Conductor, assistant Conductor, Trainaman, Brakeman etc. present in the passenger cars excepting a backup move where the Conductor would have to leave the locomotive to ride the tail end.

With the recent Via wreck at Burlington, ON, the outlook on PTC for Via may change. The Transport Canada report will be intersting. A lot is riding on whether this accident was signal malfunction or human error. There were two hoggers in the cab plus a third engineer trainee who had many years experience as a freight brakeman/conductor. Personally, I find it hard to believe all three experienced guys missed a signal and unfortunately, all three were killed when the loco hit a 15mph crossover at over 60mph and slammed into a trackside building.

Gord

Europeans are still working on a single standard coupler to replace the chain and hook coupler. So far they have failed to muster the political will to make it happen.

Why I used to say to some of the European guys I was working with at the time, try to join the 20th century before you lose the chance.

For those that wonder: Here it is: Act of March 2, 1893 (45 U.S.C. 1-7), An Act to Promote the Safety of Employees and Travelers upon Railroads by Compelling Common Carriers Engaged in Interstate Commerce to Equip Their Cars with Automatic Couplers and Continuous Brakes and Their Locomotives with Driving-wheel Brakes, and for Other Purposes

Section 2: need automatic couplers that can be uncoupled without man. On January 1, 1898, it will be unlawful for a common carrier used for interstate commerce to haul or permit to be hauled any car that is not equipped with couplers coupling automatically by impact and which can be uncoupled without a man going between the ends of the cars.

Other sections of the act related to brakes, grab irons, and setting of uniform coupler heights

Europeans are still working on a single standard coupler to replace the chain and hook coupler. So far they have failed to muster the political will to make it happen.

In the US, actually, the US plus Canada plus Mexico, there has been through running of equipment between railroad companies almost from the beginning and through running of power which requires compatibility of control systems at least to as far back as the beginning of diesel operation, and that is not mentioning such things as trackage rights arrangements, some of which go back at least 160 years. Since, until recently, all or almost all European operations were contained within national borders and for the most part on unified national systems, the whole issue of interoperability is a relatively new concept.

If you want to make your brain hurt and go into spasms, get your hands on the Technical Specification for Interoperability and try to understand any part of it.