Amtrak says it will not run trains on routes without PTC

[Devil's Advocate]

We already have a precedent for this. When signaled territory becomes inoperable it fails to dark territory rules. I would imagine the same thing happens with PTC.

 

[fredmcain]

We already have a precedent for this. When signaled territory becomes inoperable it fails to dark territory rules. I would imagine the same thing happens with PTC.

Well, I would imagine that, too, but do we know that for sure?

Regards,

FMC

 

[cpotisch]

We already have a precedent for this. When signaled territory becomes inoperable it fails to dark territory rules. I would imagine the same thing happens with PTC.

Well, I would imagine that, too, but do we know that for sure?

Regards,

FMC

There's no indication that this wouldn't be the case, so I would say we do know this for sure.

 

[RPC]

What would happen on the rails if PTC were to "crash" or if there was some kind of an outage even at the local level? That is not an unreasonable assumption to make, is it? I mean everything made by man can act up.

So, what would they do? Would the trains have to stop and wait 'till it comes back online? Or, is there a provision for this like there is when there is a conventional signal outage whereas trains may operate at restricted speed? Just what are the provisions for an outage?

Regards,

Fred M. Cain

I'm not Jishnu, but I can report that while waiting for my my son's train (on SEPTA,) it was delayed by a dead PTC transponder and had to proceed at 20MPH until it reached the next transponder. So procedures are in place for loss of PTC.

 

[zephyr17]

We already have a precedent for this. When signaled territory becomes inoperable it fails to dark territory rules. I would imagine the same thing happens with PTC.

That is not true, it doesn't "automatically" drop to dark territory rules. It "automatically" drops to having to move at restricted speed (able to stop within half range of vision), and having to receive dispatcher permission to move past each dark absolute signal ("flagging signals").

The CTC territory can be changed to unsignalled territory rules by issuing a general order. This is really only done for planned maintenance, as was the case in the recent wreck on CSX.

 

[zephyr17]

What would happen on the rails if PTC were to "crash" or if there was some kind of an outage even at the local level? That is not an unreasonable assumption to make, is it? I mean everything made by man can act up.

So, what would they do? Would the trains have to stop and wait 'till it comes back online? Or, is there a provision for this like there is when there is a conventional signal outage whereas trains may operate at restricted speed? Just what are the provisions for an outage?

Regards,

Fred M. Cain

I'm not Jishnu, but I can report that while waiting for my my son's train (on SEPTA,) it was delayed by a dead PTC transponder and had to proceed at 20MPH until it reached the next transponder. So procedures are in place for loss of PTC.

Sounds similar to rules when CTC fails ("proceed at restricted speed").

 

[Devil's Advocate]

We already have a precedent for this. When signaled territory becomes inoperable it fails to dark territory rules. I would imagine the same thing happens with PTC.

That is not true, it doesn't "automatically" drop to dark territory rules. It "automatically" drops to having to move at restricted speed (able to stop within half range of vision), and having to receive dispatcher permission to move past each dark absolute signal ("flagging signals"). The CTC territory can be changed to unsignalled territory rules by issuing a general order. This is really only done for planned maintenance, as was the case in the recent wreck on CSX.

When a signal is found dead or otherwise inoperable it is read as being the most restrictive indication possible. Since that interpretation will seize up the affected areas dark rules are implemented as a workaround. CSX has suffered numerous situations where environmental damage and power outages have left the signaling system inoperable for extended periods. In order to keep their railroad operating they used dark territory rules to maintain service. The new post-PTC rules will likely be even more restrictive than before, especially with regard to HZMT, but otherwise the overall workaround process should be similar. If there was no sanctioned workaround for priority freight moves during scheduled maintenance and unscheduled disruptions then the major railroads and industry lobbying groups would have fought tooth and nail until an exception was made.

 

[jis]

Just remember full PTC can fail without the underlying signaling system failing, e.g. ACSES fails without enforced cab signal failing. The rules for such would be specific to the PTC technology in use and the failure mode. No single answer fitting all situations possibly.

 

[railiner]

While there are the legal remedies for working around signal and PTC failures, the question is...how would Anderson accept that? Would he insist that it is not 'safe' to operate, until full PTC is restored? Just throwing that out there...I have no idea what's his take on that.....

 

[jis]

According to Amtrak mere absence of PTC won’t cause trains not to run come Jan 1 ...

https://www.railpassengers.org/happening-now/news/blog/amtrak-to-congress-trains-will-run-on-january-1/

 

[Triley]

According to Amtrak mere absence of PTC won’t cause trains not to run come Jan 1 ...

https://www.railpassengers.org/happening-now/news/blog/amtrak-to-congress-trains-will-run-on-january-1/

But no body wanted to believe trains would still be moving on the 1st of 2019...

 

[Amtrakfflyer]

Amtrak didnt say trains would run. More to the efffect of current routes will be maintained. SWC with a bus will still cover CHI-LAX. This isnt over yet. Expect Anderson to double down. Sending Scott Napersak to Congress was a calculated move as well. Anderson and Gardner burned all their credibility and made news with their horrible tone deaf handling of the SWC stakeholders meeting in June.

 

[NativeSon5859]

Sorry but to me it sure sounds like the trains will be running post-1/1. Again, the SWC is in a different situation. I hope some deal can be reached so that line can remain intact. But there won’t be massive train offs.

 

[Amtrakfflyer]

Agreed but expect more funny business. All stakeholders need to stay vigilant.

 

[jis]

There will be some hysterical moaning that will go on distracting from the serious work that is needed to protect and enhance the system. Indeed maybe the likes of Anderson are counting on such. Using Agent Provocateurs to discredit people you wish to ignore is a well known technique.

 

[fredmcain]

Well, group, am I beginning to sense some back-pedalling on the part of Amtrak's management? See here:

https://www.progressiverailroading.com/ptc/news/Amtrak-to-seek-PTC-extension-will-operate-current-routes-after-Jan-1--55612

Or if that does not work for you try here: https://tinyurl.com/y945qltd.

Many, many, many thanks to all of you who have written letters and complained either to the Amtrak board or you Congressman. *BUT* it ain't quite over yet so I'm still holding my breath on this one.

Best regards,

Fred M. Cain

 

[cpotisch]

Sorry but to me it sure sounds like the trains will be running post-1/1. Again, the SWC is in a different situation. I hope some deal can be reached so that line can remain intact. But there won’t be massive train offs.

It seems that way, but we still shouldn't get cocky or overly confident that these routes are definitely safe. Things can still go unexpectedly and it's best to be wary of that.

 

[cpotisch]

Well, group, am I beginning to sense some back-pedalling on the part of Amtrak's management? See here:

https://www.progressiverailroading.com/ptc/news/Amtrak-to-seek-PTC-extension-will-operate-current-routes-after-Jan-1--55612

Or if that does not work for you try here: https://tinyurl.com/y945qltd.

Many, many, many thanks to all of you who have written letters and complained either to the Amtrak board or you Congressman. *BUT* it ain't quite over yet so I'm still holding my breath on this one.

Best regards,

Fred M. Cain

Yeah, that first one doesn't work. I don't know why extraneous characters keep ending up in your links, but I would just use tinyurl for now.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

Amtrak didnt say trains would run. More to the efffect of current routes will be maintained. SWC with a bus will still cover CHI-LAX. This isnt over yet. Expect Anderson to double down. Sending Scott Napersak to Congress was a calculated move as well. Anderson and Gardner burned all their credibility and made news with their horrible tone deaf handling of the SWC stakeholders meeting in June.

I read it the same way you did. In Scot Naparstek's own words he says...

While this risk analysis process and mitigation plan development is still underway, let me be clear that Amtraks goal is to continue to operate all of our services over all of our current routes come January 1, 2019. Exactly how we accomplish this will vary across our network, based on the specifics of each route, but I want to assure the Committee that, at this time, we believe we will have strategies in place that will permit us to continue operations until operational PTC or PTC-equivalency is achieved for all of our network.

Link: https://transportation.house.gov/uploadedfiles/2018-09-13_-_naparstek_testimony.pdf

Sorry but to me it sure sounds like the trains will be running post-1/1. Again, the SWC is in a different situation. I hope some deal can be reached so that line can remain intact. But there wont be massive train offs.

You're sorry that "the trains" will be running and that "train offs" won't be massive? Good thing we dodged that straw man I guess.

 

[bretton88]

This really isn't very different from what Amtrak has been saying before, just more specific. Amtrak has always said they will do a safety management system on non PTC routes, not necessarily train-offs. So not much difference in that. The only change here is a possible back tracking on the SWC.

 

[Thirdrail7]

All the wailing by Amtrak about no PTC from wherever in Kansas (Dodge City? I know everything west of Newton is pretty lightly used, except Las Animas Jct-La Junta) to Lamy is an excuse, it all qualifies for an exemption. I still say they are trying to weaponize PTC and the SWC is a test case, and they didn't want to kick on the grants to otherwise keep the line maintained and improved to the point that BNSF has stated it would be willing to continue routine maintenance on it for 20 years (welded rail, modernized signalling). Not saying it is not a problem, the chain is only as strong as its weakest link, but it is certainly not the few hundred miles that Amtrak has been saying need PTC.

Well, it looks like track maintenance will be the excuse since the feds are offering to pony up funds for PTC. I posted this in the SWC News thread but it may fit here as well.

FRA: PTC round two grants total $46.3 million

https://www.railwayage.com/cs/ptc/fra-ptc-round-two-grants-total-46-3-million/?RAchannel=safety

The awards will fund many aspects of PTC system implementation for intercity passenger or commuter rail and freight rail transportation, including back office PTC systems; wayside, communications, and onboard PTC system equipment; personnel training; PTC system testing; and interoperability.

FRA awarded grants in the approximate amounts below to the following programs and entities:

CO – PTC Installation for the Amtrak Southwest Chief on BNSF Railway Through Colorado and Kansas (Up to $9,157,600); Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT). This rural project from CDOT, in collaboration with the Kansas Department of Transportation (KDOT) and BNSFincludes the design, installation, and testing of I-ETMS PTC wayside technology on approximately 179 miles of a predominantly single-track route between Dodge City, Kan., and Las Animas, Colo.

NM – New Mexico Rail Runner Express PTC/Wi-Fi Integration Project (Up to $2,496,842); Rio Metro Regional Transit District (Rio Metro). This rural project will restore the New Mexico Rail Runner Express (NMRX) system’s Wi-Fi network from an end-of-life, proprietary WiMAX system to a cross-compatible Long-Term Evolution (LTE) system, providing a redundant path of communication for its I-ETMS PTC system. The project will install 26 towers along the 96 miles of the NMRX system between Belen, N.M. and Santa Fe, N.M., including approximately 74 miles of the Albuquerque Subdivision and 22 miles of the Santa Fe Subdivision. Nine NMRX cab cars, 13 coach cars, and 15 NMRX stations will be equipped with the Wi-Fi technology necessary for its PTC system.