Amtrak: PTC Mandate, Progress System Wide

Amtrak PTC Info via amtrak.com

In the May 2010 Northeast Corridor Infrastructure Master Plan (178-page PDF)

I searched for "positive train control" in the PDF. In case some folks haven't looked at this document, it covers the following segments:

NEC - Washington to Boston
Branches:
New York to Schenectady (Empire Service)
Washington to Richmond
Philadelphia to Harrisburg (Keystone Service)
New Haven to Springfield (Springfield Service)

This Infrastructure Master Plan says that all of the various States, Commuter Agencies and Freight Railroads that run on the NEC, or have their track used by Amtrak on the Branches had input into this planning document.

Page ES-7:

A line item in Table 2 : NEC Infrastructure Capital Needs 2010-2030

Safety / Positive Train Control - $264,000,000

On page 31 and 32, the same table and some discussion of PTC - with mentions out of the $43B NEC plan, $264M is for PTC, with a comment that some additional costs are included in other signal system upgrades. Remember the plan is for a 20-year timeframe.

The NEC Master Plan was written before the final PTC rule was written, so no real details are mentioned.

Some costs broken down by geographic area are listed in Part III: Capital Program Summary by Segment

But no dates and details are given. Good background material, covering lots of ground. An updated one should appear later this year.

==================================================================

Amtrak ARRA Funded PTC Projects

Amtrak ARRA Funded Project Descriptions (165-page PDF)

==================================================================

Project #: PRJ29112113

Continue installation of the Advance Civil Speed Enforcement System (ACSES), between New Rochelle, NY and Washington D.C.; on the Harrisburg
line; on Springfield line; on Empire Line; and New Haven to Boston to provide Positive Train Control (PTC) on locomotives. PTC is technology that enforces positive stops without human intervention. The ACSES system includes transponders, encoders, wayside radios and Aspect Display Units
(ADU's). ADU's will provide engineers with distance to target speed for a speed restriction and other important data.

Project's estimated start and end dates: 01-Mar-09 to 17-Feb-11

FY2009 - 30 FTEs
FY2010 - 222 FTEs
FY2011 - 84 FTEs

Total funding for NORTH EAST - ACSES AND PTC INSTALLATION $35,300,000

==================================================================

Project #: PRJ29112131

Extend Incremental Train Control System (ITCS) on the Michigan Line in the state of Indiana and Michigan. This extension will be from MP150 to
MP143 on the East End of the Michigan Line and from MP215 to MP240 on the West End of the Michigan Line. Upgrades to intermediate signals and
crossings are also included in this project. Upgrades will ensure ineroperability with proposed freight Positive Train Control (PTC) which is technology that enforces positive stops without human intervention.

Project's estimated start and end dates: 01-Jun-09 to 31-Jan-11

FY2009 - 9 FTEs
FY2010 - 96 FTEs
FY2011 - 63 FTEs

Total funding for MICHIGAN LINE - ITCS INSTALLATION WAYSIDE $25,023,167

==================================================================

Project #: PRJ29112142

The scope of work is to develop new on board equipment for long distance trains that will be usable with the various Positive Train Control (PTC) schemes being implemented by the freight railroads.

Project's estimated start and end dates: 01-Oct-09 to 17-Feb-11

FY2009 - 0 FTEs
FY2010 - 25 FTEs
FY2011 - 17 FTEs

Total funding for POSITIVE TRAIN CTRL EQUIPMENT DEVELOPMENT/IMPLEMENTATION $5,000,000

==================================================================

The May 2010 issue of Amtrak Ink (20-page PDF) has a one-page article about PTC on page 9. It does disclose that GE Transportation Systems is building out the Michigan line, and Alstom is doing the design and layout of the PTC system on the NEC.

If I find some more info, I'll report it.

Gil, known as Bill somedays ...

Again, thanks for the Yeoman's work on this. Wish I had more time to do so myself. In any case, let's keep this thread to discussion of the system's available, what Amtrak prefers, costs, schedule, etc. etc.

Does anybody know what ptc System willbe used on the chi-stl route? Chi-Detroit route? And when the stems will be operable?

Thanks.

Thanks for all the work on Amtrak's plans for implementing ACSES. Amtrak qualified ACSES as a PTC technology with FRA a couple of years ago.

The four big Class Is, as noted, are all going for variants of Wabtec's ETMS, which will be interoperable. ETMS is quite similar to the BN ARES experiment of 25 years ago, which militates against the AAR arguments that it is "unproven technology". THere are still a lot of hurdles, however.

So Amtrak and commuter lines outside of the NEC will have to use the GPS-based ETMS. Metrolink is already well underway, with implementation scheduled for mid-2013.

The requirement for PTC is statutory, as of 12/31/15, and I would rate the chances of it being repealed or extended as slim to none. After all, there are still the 25 dead bodies resulting from that idiot Sanchez' head on collision with a freight, and there are several "PTC preventable" accidents every year on freight railroads and Amtrak. So I wouldn't bet on the mandate being lifted. And as for going to court...well, remember that Congress makes the laws, so unless the requirement is found unconstitutional (a non-starter, since the government is given explicit authority to "regulate interstate commerce"), the railroads had better have it up and running by the deadline.

NellieBly wrote:Thanks for all the work on Amtrak's plans for implementing ACSES. Amtrak qualified ACSES as a PTC technology with FRA a couple of years ago.

The four big Class Is, as noted, are all going for variants of Wabtec's ETMS, which will be interoperable. ETMS is quite similar to the BN ARES experiment of 25 years ago, which militates against the AAR arguments that it is "unproven technology". THere are still a lot of hurdles, however.

So Amtrak and commuter lines outside of the NEC will have to use the GPS-based ETMS. Metrolink is already well underway, with implementation scheduled for mid-2013.

The requirement for PTC is statutory, as of 12/31/15, and I would rate the chances of it being repealed or extended as slim to none. After all, there are still the 25 dead bodies resulting from that idiot Sanchez' head on collision with a freight, and there are several "PTC preventable" accidents every year on freight railroads and Amtrak. So I wouldn't bet on the mandate being lifted. And as for going to court...well, remember that Congress makes the laws, so unless the requirement is found unconstitutional (a non-starter, since the government is given explicit authority to "regulate interstate commerce"), the railroads had better have it up and running by the deadline.

True, and they've had several years now to lobby the crap out of Congress to repeal or amend the law to water it down to spit. If there's been no budge since then and no noticeable interest in citing this as Exhibit Q of excessive regulation and trying to shove rail down an unwilling throat...that political assist is probably not going to materialize at this point. There's more prominent ways to make a point than zeroing in on something very specific and arcane like this. That the Class I's have more or less made peace with it and haven't counterattacked with escalating publicity also means elected officials don't have enough brownie points to score with big biz donors for making repeal a cause.

There's still the issue of what kind of deferments will be available for those who physically can't meet 12/31/15. But it would almost be better to wait until the last second for ruling on that with so many RR's like the NEC member passenger and freight carriers in pretty solid shape for making the deadline in spite of their individual budget crises (MBTA northside and Pan Am excepted...they're both @#$%ed). Why give the ones who can safely make it an advance opening for procrastination?

I doubt thwere will be any waivers of compliance for the 12/31/2015 deadline, its fair to say that 5 years is enough leeway to get a signal system updated.

True, and they've had several years now to lobby the crap out of Congress to repeal or amend the law to water it down to spit. If there's been no budge since then and no noticeable interest in citing this as Exhibit Q of excessive regulation and trying to shove rail down an unwilling throat...that political assist is probably not going to materialize at this point. There's more prominent ways to make a point than zeroing in on something very specific and arcane like this. That the Class I's have more or less made peace with it and haven't counterattacked with escalating publicity also means elected officials don't have enough brownie points to score with big biz donors for making repeal a cause.

The repeal effort will come later rather than sooner so that A) the accident that spawned the kneejerk reaction will be long forgotten and B) the railroads can claim they made some a good faithed attempt to make the technology work. Nothing has changed the fact that the technology costs to much and it doesn't work well. With congress moving to block nutrition standards for school lunches and the house passing laws de-fund enforcement of the light bulb efficiency law and scores of other regulations they disagree, once the industry decides its time to act this massive boondoggle will be kicked to the curb so fast your head will spin. Have you not seen the constant drumbeat of press releases by Union Pacific and other railroads that say flat out that PTC will ruin our world class freight network? Don't confuse "lip service" with making peace. All it take is one committee chairman to attach a rider to some transportation funding bill. There doesn't need to be a fight, it will just happen.

Anyway we should all be writing our members of congress to urge a repeal of this mandate. Every dollar spent on PTC is a dollar not spent on other capitol projects of service improvements. It's a grossly inefficient way to "save lives" and will raise huge barriers for passenger rail expansion. If a public transit agency can't afford to comply they should just shut down in 2016 and make the gullible fools in Washington eat their own dog food. Of course the end of government run passenger services is probably something many there would cheer.

Jersey_Mike wrote:The repeal effort will come

I'll bet you there will be no repeal. How much do you want to bet?

My political predictions have been very reliable for the last 11 years.

When was the last time you saw an industry roll over and accept an 10 billion dollar hit that provides no advantage what so ever? The bottom line is that the technology doesn't work and its extremely expensive. Where do you think the public sector transit agencies are going to get the money if the Feds are unwilling to pay for it? You can't just magic this into existence. As the time gets closer the FRA will either do a soft fix or there will be a hard fix in congress. Congress has already cut the implementation funding it promised and the FRA has already issued waivers for some Amtrak routes and is now rolling back its requirement that PTC be installed on every main line. Railroads will be free to eject the TIH business onto trucks which would free them from the PTC requirement. So that's how the industry will wiggle out of it leaving the commuter railroads as the only entities affected.

Anyway if you want to see how great the technology is check out how the ETRMS install on the Welsh Cambrian Line is playing out. Cost so far is 400 million pounds for a single track rural main line and the result has been degraded performance and lots of delays...and that's just with DMUs.

Jersey_Mike wrote:When was the last time you saw an industry roll over and accept an 10 billion dollar hit that provides no advantage what so ever? The bottom line is that the technology doesn't work and its extremely expensive. Where do you think the public sector transit agencies are going to get the money if the Feds are unwilling to pay for it? You can't just magic this into existence. As the time gets closer the FRA will either do a soft fix or there will be a hard fix in congress. Congress has already cut the implementation funding it promised and the FRA has already issued waivers for some Amtrak routes and is now rolling back its requirement that PTC be installed on every main line. Railroads will be free to eject the TIH business onto trucks which would free them from the PTC requirement. So that's how the industry will wiggle out of it leaving the commuter railroads as the only entities affected.

Anyway if you want to see how great the technology is check out how the ETRMS install on the Welsh Cambrian Line is playing out. Cost so far is 400 million pounds for a single track rural main line and the result has been degraded performance and lots of delays...and that's just with DMUs.

Hello, ACSES? It's 10 years old, has been working great, and has improved NEC throughput. Yeah, there have been test failures with unproven tech. That's why they're unproven, and it's ill-advised to bank all on unproven. And it's why the competing systems that were floating out there are now more or less consolidating around two technologies: ETMS and ACSES.

At the glacial pace Congress moves, there IS such a thing as time becoming the enemy. Useless riders by grandstanding committee chairmen get attached to bills 10 times a day every day of the week that Congress is in session. 9 times out of 10 they never get out of committee. 6 times out of 10 the ones that do get out don't pass or get withdrawn when the leadership knows it doesn't have the votes or that somebody's making a filibuster bluff. This is why Congress can't pass anything to save its life. It's not possible to spring something at-will at the last possible second and ram it through unless a party runs the table on both houses and the Executive Branch. Even during Bush's first term-and-a-half that was rarely the case because the legislative body has so asphyxiated itself with filibusteral game of chicken. There is always a long, long runup you can see coming a mile away just by looking at the publicly-posted committee agendas.

That there's no easily discernible lobbying effort getting ramped up publicly and being whipped by escalating intensity of thinktank press releases means they are really running out of time to get a sizeable enough legislative cause going. Absolutely squat's going to get done the rest of this session. 1/5/2013 is the start of the next session. With party control a crapshoot and only predictable to the extent that whoever controls the House (the only place funding appropriations can originate) is going to have a much much narrower majority than right now. What exactly are the odds the next session unclogs the lawmaking pipes significantly? Not high. With the RR's 5 years into the mandate by 2013, nearly all the NEC member RR's pretty reliably in line to make the deadline, all of the highest-ridership commuter rail agencies covered, and some Class I's already underway with installations is there all that much left to fight for? Just the deferments, to the extent anybody in the gov't will care at that point about a motley assortment of lower-ridership passenger agencies, shortlines and Class II's/III's, and secondary divisions of Class I networks that are in no shape to make it. With the players then possibly content to flaunt the deadline and see if they get their bluff called. Once the densest mega-traffic routes with in-progress conversion are covered the aura of inevitability starts taking hold for the sprawl of the low-density network. We'll be there in under 2 fiscal years when the NEC commuter rails start laying those ACSES transponders on branchlines and the GPS units start getting switched on in cabs on the heaviest-load freight mains. It might be a distinct minority of the track miles, but it's a distinct majority of the traffic and revenue generation. Traffic density carries a lot more lobbying heft than route miles, unfortunately.

F-line to Dudley via Park wrote:There's still the issue of what kind of deferments will be available for those who physically can't meet 12/31/15. But it would almost be better to wait until the last second for ruling on that with so many RR's like the NEC member passenger and freight carriers in pretty solid shape for making the deadline in spite of their individual budget crises (MBTA northside and Pan Am excepted...they're both @#$%ed). Why give the ones who can safely make it an advance opening for procrastination?

As I understand it, Pan Am already has been granted a PTC waiver due to hosting not more than 12 passenger runs/day (and their required PTC implementation plan essentially said "we aren't going to do it"). They currently host 10, which if I read things correctly gives NNEPRA room to add one more round trip before running afoul of the rules. The flipside of that is that NNEPRA's planned "baseline" (with a lot of improvements to the PAR tracks) anticipates an eventual 7 R/T's, which would negate the waiver conditions.

Anyway, why in particular do you single out MBTA-North and Pan Am as being "@#$%ed"? Is it strictly budgetary, or are there other considerations on those lines that would make a PTC implementation uniquely difficult/expensive?

Jersey_Mike wrote:Railroads will be free to eject the TIH business onto trucks which would free them from the PTC requirement. So that's how the industry will wiggle out of it leaving the commuter railroads as the only entities affected.

TIH?

no waivers have been granted, not for PanAm or any other railroad.
If railroads with Cabsignal can't get waiver, do you really think a rinky dink operation like PanAm gets a waiver for their paperclip and bailing wire signal system ??
only waiver request under concideration is PATH, who's operation is not even concidered a railroad by many..

Well, "waiver" may not be the right term, in as much as the plan as submitted by Pan Am and accepted by the FRA asserted that they are exempt from the law/regulation as written (Class 2 RR's with, again, not more than 12 passenger trips/day aren't encompassed by the PTC requirement). Regulations.gov is down for the weekend so I can't find the actual documents.

markhb wrote:Anyway, why in particular do you single out MBTA-North and Pan Am as being "@#$%ed"? Is it strictly budgetary, or are there other considerations on those lines that would make a PTC implementation uniquely difficult/expensive?

Budget, and much moreso time. ~300 track miles on the northside, not a single cab signal, only a few pockets with track circuits and a lot of old ABS, one line still operated today by a near century-old manual tower. Fitchburg Line, the longest, is getting a full CTC replacement system right now but they cut the planned cab signals out of the budget. And that won't be done until 2013. Not a single schedule or funding plan exists for doing anything to the other lines, and the agency is mute on when it'll ever seek that assistance. Southside has a little over 600 of its 650 track miles cabbed, >150 of those NEC w/ACSES. They're in fine shape out of South Station, and also on the LSL all the way to Albany. Only a short infill project Boston-Framingham on the Worcester Line to cab up after CSX relocates out of Beacon Park yard. But it's not possible at the pace they're going to get everything in place north.* They're moving much too slowly to get it done, and they also have to deal with PAR's intransigence and their extremely slow and understaffed track gangs the T and Amtrak are borrowing for some of the ongoing track work (in MA, too, not just NH/ME). I think they'll be straining to get the Haverhill Line alone done, but will make it happen to save face from getting Amtrak dinged on Downeaster compliance. They may be able to get Fitchburg done if there's some money to re-add cab signals to the ongoing project, but the snail's pace the current project is going doesn't bode well for adding that much before the deadline. The rest they're fated to take a bath on because of the backlog and inability to speed up their construction schedules. Chronic problem at the agency.

PAR is being PAR. No surprise there. Nobody's going to have sympathy for them if they get slapped. They're willfully choosing to flout regulations, and they'll have to answer to their much bigger and no-bull**** partner NS if they too get rung up with sanctions over PAS territory. Vermonter should be OK, though. Current project does a fresh CTC wayside install on the Conn River Line just like the Fitchburg is getting, and there'll be a cab signal appropriation to add on the rest soon enough. NECR's also a very solid citizen that bends over backwards for the passenger carrier it hosts.


(*This is literally true, BTW. Lowell Line/Downeaster in Somerville is a shared ROW with the Green Line LRT extension that's now been delayed to a 2020 completion. Lowell Line tracks will be shifted and all wiring plant relocated, so first 5 miles physically can't be done by '15 with all signals needing to be yanked out again. That's a straightforward deferment, though, because of the construction dependency. I doubt the feds will have a problem with those 5 miles if they get everything BUT an actively dug construction zone done in time.)