Amtrak: PTC Mandate, Progress System Wide

Jishnu wrote:

jb9152 wrote: How about an engineer only? That is what is being discussed.

Interesting! So the theory is that the conductor is there to make sure that the engineer does not miss any signals, and once missing signals becomes very near impossible a conductor is not needed anymore? That may be plausible with the conductor in the cab, but how would that argument work when the conductor is in the train and not in the cab like on passenger trains? Or is it that the conductor in that case could be replaced by a OBS person who is paid less? And if so, if that is a plausible argument (I'm not suggesting it is but hypothetically if it were so) what would that have to do with PTC, why can't they do that now say on the NEC already? Just trying to figure out what the reasoning is. Thanks.

If you'll read back a few posts, you'll see that I pointed out that this is a freight initiative. Passenger trains will not be losing crew, as far as I know.

jb9152 wrote: If you'll read back a few posts, you'll see that I pointed out that this is a freight initiative. Passenger trains will not be losing crew, as far as I know.

OK got that. So the theory fro freight then is that the purpose served by the conductor is to reduce the chances of the engineer missing a signal? Is it also the case that a conductor is not believed to be useful in helping deal with an unusual occurrence like a train separation or such. The engineer will now walk the train to inspect it if something goes wrong?

Moderator's Note:

Please stick to Amtrak in your discussion of this topic, or I will move the kit'n'kboodle to the General Railroad operations forum.

Is Via Rail Canada any example? Did they abolish traditional conductors in some of their passenger trains?
Will P.T.C. help travel times (and thus equipment utilization) by making it easier and safer to have different speed limits for different kinds of trains? Could trains sometimes avoid slowing down for interlockings and junctions because the train could know in advance in more cases that it is going to use a high speed route? Some signals cannot display "Clear" because of a possible speed restriction ahead, sometimes just for freight trains!

Today, FRA denied various petitions for reconsideration of the PTC rulemaking. Some were likely frivolous, but at least two (the AAR challenge to FRA rules that all crewmembers must be able to see PTC information) and the Chlorine Institute's request that "business benefits" be considered in the cost/benefit analysis) may end up in court.

So if the PRIIA litigation doesn't delay HSR, this may. I'm feeling quite depressed about the future of transportation policy at the Federal level.

any link ??

NellieBly wrote:Today, FRA denied various petitions for reconsideration of the PTC rulemaking.

Wonder if that's the FRA's subtle way of saying that if the Class Is don't want to play nice with HSR, the FRA's going to not play nice either...

I think we are simply seeing the Socialist incumbents deciding that "takings are us": $20B from BP, the roadbed from the railroads, a few bil from the banks...

Meantime Amtrak limps along from year to year.

Rather than taking, if the Administration would work with industry to set conditions for "rising tides" success for all, we'd see appropriate paths to HSR and general Amtrak service.

Excellent point!

[quote="John_Perkowski"]I think we are simply seeing the Socialist incumbents deciding that "takings are us": $20B from BP, the roadbed from the railroads, a few bil from the banks...
quote]

While I have great respect for Col. Perkowski, this statement is quite simply nonsense. The federal government has been regulating railroad safety for nearly one hundred years. There is a well established process for imposing new regulations, part of which involves the opportunity for interested parties to challenge the proposed regulations. They often do, and they usually lose. If they win, the agency can start over again. The idea that this represents anything even remotely resembling "takings are us" is just not substantiated by the facts.

Again, this action by the industry, in conjunction with a shipper association, comes as no surprise whatever to me.

Lest we forget, RSIA '08, and its 'tack on' PRIIA '08, was enacted by the lame duck, or better described as the dying duck, Bush administration in exchange for a treaty (can't remember nature of such) that was solely controlled by the US Senate (advice and consent stuff, you know). The former Administration knew that none of the provisions within the Act would be implemented while they were still in office; all 'fallout' would inure to the incoming Obama administration (remember, the election really occurred on 9/15 and not on "that Tuesday in November').

Well now the rooster is coming home to crow, the responsible agency, the FRA, has now promulgated "standards' both with regards to Positive Train Control (PTC) under RSIA (Div A) and those for High Speed Rail under PRIIA (Div B). Suffice to say, neither the rails themselves nor their shippers are too happy about either.

Time for the lawyers to drop their meters.

I hold that PTC is not a "whether" but rather a "when" on any line handling an appreciable volume of passenger trains, i.e. any greater than an Amtrak one-a-day LD; Chatsworth sealed the deal on that one - and the Feddytrough will be dipped into for such. Now regarding other lines, which include any line that could be considered a "Main Line", HAZMAT notwithstanding, there is no assurance that public funding will be available for such - and somebody will pay - that means first a shipper but eventually that will be the consumer who "never uses the railroads'.

The problem with system wide PTC is that it will only keep trains from banging into each other, i.e. Chatsworth; it will do nothing to prevent negligent motor vehicle or maritime vessel operators (latter: Bayou Canot) from having trains bang into them, nor will it do anything to avoid the two major HAZMAT incidents, Weyauwega and Rockford, coming to mind that arose from faulty track maintenance.

So there are my thoughts on PTC; I recognize and respect that Ms. Bly has spent much of her railroad and periphery career developing plans to implement advanced Train Control systems; I spent much of my, albeit considerably shorter, railroad career toting up how much this stuff costs. Hence, this is why on this matter we find ourselves, not at opposite ENDS of the table, but rather at, say, adjoining corners.

Im still waiting for a link to his story.

John_Perkowski wrote:I think we are simply seeing the Socialist incumbents deciding that "takings are us": $20B from BP, the roadbed from the railroads, a few bil from the banks...

This strikes me as the kind of incendiary, and preposterous, sort of statement that the Col, when he was a moderator (and the Bush administration was incumbent), would have banned if anyone else had said it...

I will readily admit I have no love for this Administration. They are writing debt faster than our Chinese bankers can absorb it. One day, the Nation shall pay.

Amtrak is absolutely, positively, discretionary spending. If our Chinese bankers ever call the debt, Amtrak will probably be done. After all, it's easy to cut; it's less than a $2B dollar appropriation.

As far as regulation goes, we got rid of most service level mandates with the end of the ICC. FRA was mainly a safety agency, from most of the regulations I have seen. The railroads are responding. It's that simple. They are responding to a return of service level mandates. They are attacking now on every front, including safety, to respond to the service level mandates.