Amtrak: PTC Mandate, Progress System Wide

I was provided a copy of the court filing privately by a friend. I can't link to it, or to a story about it, because there has been (inexplicably) something of a news blackout. But yes, it really happened.

And to add to Col. Perkowski's comments, FRA is entirely a safety regulatory agency. Regulation of rates and service is the responsibility of the STB, which makes FRA's issuance of both "metrics and standards" for train performance (on which they were supposed to "cooperate" with STB and Amtrak) and "guidelines" for agreements between states, railroads, and Amtrak is a bit strange. STB was given specific additional responsibilities in all those areas by PRIAA, and has so far not moved to take advantage of them.

That may be the other shoe waiting to drop, however. PRIIA specifically requires STB to develop performance standards for freight shipments. The data is available and could be collected as part of the Waybill Sample. The railroads aren't going to like that one bit. We'll see if that, too, ends up in court.

The whole thing is, pardon the expression, a train wreck waiting to happen (or, given that one court action has already been filed, happening in slow motion). I've been saying since 2008 that there needs to be a new paradigm for public-private cooperation in the railroad industry. It doesn't look like we'll get there anytime soon, or without the involvement of many lawyers and judges.

Is there a link to these "metrics and standards" that have got the Class I's all up in a huff?

John_Perkowski wrote:I will readily admit I have no love for this Administration. They are writing...

No doubt about your sympathies. I'm just pointing out that the zeal you once exhibited in keeping the board free of political diatribes appears to extend only to viewpoints you don't agree with.

John_Perkowski wrote: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.

Perhaps we should cut military pensions and veterans' medical coverage...such socialism.

Be my guest. Sooner or later our Nation is going to have to address debt, and if we do not lay all entitlements on the table, we're going to be exceedingly limited.

Meanwhile, Amtrak will be an easy target.

Why would they require the PTC be visible to both crew members? Isn't the whole point to take the human factor out of the loop? PTC would be just as safe if it wasn't visible to ANYONE, there would just be a lot more penalty brake applications. Oh well, the higher the cost the more likely congress is to re-consider the whole situation. I pitty the folks who think this will actually benefit passenger rail as the cost of PTC will get cause railroads to fight tooth and nail to keep trains off their property. In the end the economics will prevail, the only question will be if the policy makers choose to stay irrational.

funnily enough , i was reading a 2006 trains magazine last nite , where Don Philips pointed out that Amtraks subsidy was smaller then the margin of error in the overall national budget .

A serious question, but first, I will notably and noticably refrain from the politics as I've engaged in such in the past. Everyone knows where I stand, and I have admiration and respect for the opinions as well as for the train knowledge for some who disagree with my politics, and prefer to keep them as friends, having developed that respect over these last few years. Certainly Col Perkowski and Mssr Norman (whose writing style I have taken to emulating, out of flattery) are capable of defending themselves.

Now, the serious question: I understand that PTC is an unfunded mandate, and thus, the push-back. But what is this with the metrics for freight performance? To me, this is entirely different than some of the minimum performance standards recently placed on the airline industry where consumer abuse was involved. Other than safety restrictions placed on the trucking industry (e.g. weight/load, other safety such as braking, and hours of work), are such performance metrics such as "timely delivery" placed on that industry, including FedEx and UPS? It seems to me the market dictates that.

The development of "metrics and standards" by FRA (in consultation with STB and Amtrak) was mandated by Section 207 of the PRIIA Act, which also gave STB power to hear complaints about poor handling of passenger trains by the "host" railroads. The metrics and standards were promulgated by FRA, not STB, which I find a bit odd, since STB regulates rates and service, while FRA's oversight is limited to safety. I'm also surprised the railroads chose to challenge the metrics, because the statutory language is clear. If STB is to serve a role in hearing service complaints, well then, there has to be a way to measure service quality.

There are other things railroads could (and still may) challenge in PRIIA, in the PTC regulations, and in the "service guidelines" for high speed rail recently released by FRA. Coming down the pike is a bill to reauthorize STB that may (and presently, in draft form) does contain a mandate for the development of "metrics and standards" for freight service. Railroads will probably challenge those too, if the legislation becaomes law.

As I said earlier, government and railroads are going to have to figure out a new paradigm for working together. Based on history so far, it's going to be a tough slog.

The AAR frequently cites their recently released (2008?) study showing that unless multiple billions of public dollars are invested in the national freight rail system, the system will likely become severely gridlocked by 2030. Those public dollars are going to come with conditions and restrictions. It seems that the public wants a system that operates safely and offers access to passenger trains. If the freights want to walk away from the public money, then they can consult their own AAR report to see what the consequences of that action would be.

So far, it doesn't look like the various governments and the railroads have learned how to negotiate properly with one another. The railroads look like sports franchise owners trying blackmail a community into building a new stadium and the federal government/USDOT are looking like small time building inspectors that haven't a clue about what they are supposed to be overseeing. I can't blame the railroads from balking at the HSR standards, but in the case of PTC, it's needed and it's coming. Of course there's going to be friction and resistance, this is a major change in the industry. Let's just hope everybody can figure out a way to work together.

John_Perkowski wrote: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.

[redacted]. The facts tell us that the deficit exploded under Bush (and in *boom times* too).

I have respect for Mr. Perkowski in the areas in which he has shown that he deserves it. I have no respect for Mr. Perkowski's failure to understand economics, finance, or political or economic history, and I suggest that he should not talk about subjects he doesn't have the first clue about.

NellieBly wrote: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)

This one could actually be changed. But it makes very little difference to the implementation in the long run. The trackside equipment is still going to have to go in.

and the Chlorine Institute's request that "business benefits" be considered in the cost/benefit analysis) may end up in court.

I don't see that this one is going to make any difference at all even if they *do* get a reconsideration. The long-term trend is toward the elimination of liquid chlorine shipping, period -- even when you figure in "business benefits" it's not worth it if you figure in health risks. Chlorine will be shipped only in less dangerous compounds in the future.

I don't see that this one is going to make any difference at all even if they *do* get a reconsideration. The long-term trend is toward the elimination of liquid chlorine shipping, period -- even when you figure in "business benefits" it's not worth it if you figure in health risks. Chlorine will be shipped only in less dangerous compounds in the future.

The current FRA regulations go beyond what the laws says in an effort to prevent roundabout routing of TIH loads, however if those loads disappear passenger rail will become the sole PTC albatross. If congress or the FRA were to exempt the "two-a-day" passenger lines from the requirement that would do a lot to blunt this regulatory disaster. On the other hand it could also be used as an excuse to simply kill Amtrak LD service by a future administration. Either way the commuter railroads will still be facing several billion in PTC costs, but I am sure they can invent several new peak periods to cover things ::rolls::

If there is any good news to those tea party wackos it is that something like PTC, which is both a big government regulation and will cost loads of tax dollars, is right in their bullseye of what is bad legislation. Furthermore I think the initial law promised some number of billion dollars (1? 5?) to pay for the thing and killing it could help with other spending under the pay-go rules.

BTW has anyone ever read the ITCS rules in the Amtrak Michigan Line timetable? They can best be summarized as "101 Ways Your Train can Get Dropped to Restricted Speed" and are way more restrictive under failure than CSS/ACSES where one can just get rule 556 and go. This ruleset predates the PTC mandate so that's not the problem, but in regards to this technology it seems that the FRA has either become infested by a group of "someone please think of the children" paranoids or a bunch of trucking/airline industry plants that are trying to destroy rail as a reliable form of transport.

Jersey_Mike wrote:
BTW has anyone ever read the ITCS rules in the Amtrak Michigan Line timetable? They can best be summarized as "101 Ways Your Train can Get Dropped to Restricted Speed" and are way more restrictive under failure than CSS/ACSES where one can just get rule 556 and go. This ruleset predates the PTC mandate so that's not the problem, but in regards to this technology it seems that the FRA

Well, others have said that the FRA attitude towards safety regulation is about 100 years out of date.

ATS should be implemented: Europe, China, and Russia are all "just doing it". But whether the FRA is capable of writing appropriate rules, I don't know. The rules should allow for off-the-shelf ERTMS/ETCS systems to qualify; if they don't, they're clearly misdesigned.

ATS should be implemented: Europe, China, and Russia are all "just doing it". But whether the FRA is capable of writing appropriate rules, I don't know. The rules should allow for off-the-shelf ERTMS/ETCS systems to qualify; if they don't, they're clearly misdesigned.

Off the shelf crap is still crap. The problem isn't that we aren't using ETCS (which BTW is running into all sorts of deployment and cost problems with the local rail authorities dragging their feet as much as possible in face of the EU "mandate"), but A) wireless systems aren't reliable, B) when they fail the FRA imposes overly conservative fallback procedures and C) even if they work properly the system will slow trains down compared to current safe operations. Road vehicles have managed to get both faster and safer and airplanes weren't slowed down by TCAS, but the way things are headed trains will be creeping along like the NYC Subway. It's the CSX philosophy of lowered expectations applied nationwide and another handicap for rail.

PTC needs to be thought of as enhancing safety, not assuring safety. It should err on the side of the engineer only enforcing against blatantly unsafe situations even if that means that sometimes speed restrictions are slightly exceeded or stop signals slightly passed. If the system goes down the crew should seamlessly continue on using traditional operating methods to avoid delay.