SEPTA spending 100 million for PTC

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/20120 ... sions.html

SEPTA will spend $100 million for a new, federally mandated train-control system designed to prevent the kind of collision that killed 25 people and injured more than 130 in Los Angeles in 2008.

"We won't have one bridge, or substation, or station until we get this paid for," Diggs said. "It just means we won't do a lot of other things."

Do not get started on how there are better things SEPTA can spend this money on. They have no choice but to install the system.

Hopefully that will be remedied in the upcoming transportation funding bill. Associations of rail passengers could make an impact by calling members of congress and letting them know its something that can be cut that will actually improve service!

At least it will prevent any more classic Reading substations from being replaced for a while and will hopefully derail their smart card plans as well.

Is it true SEPTA will be going with ACSES as their PTC system? I thought I had read somewhere that pretty much all the commuter roads in the Northeast we're conforming to ACSES since Amtrak started that ball rolling.

If that's the case, am I dreaming in that maybe SEPTA's horrid Rule 562 railroad may actually be fixed in the process to run halfway decent?

wagz wrote:Is it true SEPTA will be going with ACSES as their PTC system? I thought I had read somewhere that pretty much all the commuter roads in the Northeast we're conforming to ACSES since Amtrak started that ball rolling.

If that's the case, am I dreaming in that maybe SEPTA's horrid Rule 562 railroad may actually be fixed in the process to run halfway decent?

LOL

Didn't SEPTA upgrade their signals on the branch lines? I thought Doylestown was done recently. Are these new signals not compliant with what the feds want, or do they just need to add in these PTC components?

bikentransit wrote:Didn't SEPTA upgrade their signals on the branch lines? I thought Doylestown was done recently. Are these new signals not compliant with what the feds want, or do they just need to add in these PTC components?

PTC is a more stringent system and will be installed an an overlay on top of the existing systems.

BTW, PTC CANNOT prevent low speed collisions.

Ok thanks Clearfield for the additional info. I wasn't sure what was deployed over the last few years. I'm curious why they kept deploying the new signals knowing PTC was coming down the line (sorry for the pun!)

Hey! Another quick question, since the Silverliner V cars are brand new, are they going to be compliant with the new system, or at least easier to upgrade?

bikentransit wrote:Hey! Another quick question, since the Silverliner V cars are brand new, are they going to be compliant with the new system, or at least easier to upgrade?

Doesn't all of SEPTA's equipment (including the Vs) have to work with ACSES to run on the NEC?

The Acses system that is in place at Amtrak works very well and so it only makes sense that other railroads use the same system. Acses enforces all temporary and permanent speed restrictions and the main selling point is that it prevents stop signal violations. As clearfield stated, it does not prevent slow speed collisions. Even if you have a cab signal failure and have to run without can signals, the Acses system is still fully functional. Personally I think this PTC mandate is ridiculous. It's an extreme waste of money and the government should pay for this if they want it so bad. As it currently stands right now, only Amtrak trains on th NEC are required to have Acses. Once the mandate goes into effect, then everything will have to have it.

bikentransit wrote:Ok thanks Clearfield for the additional info. I wasn't sure what was deployed over the last few years. I'm curious why they kept deploying the new signals knowing PTC was coming down the line (sorry for the pun!)

Because PTC can be used as an overlay on top of whatever you have in place.

Amtrak67 of America wrote:Personally I think this PTC mandate is ridiculous. It's an extreme waste of money and the government should pay for this if they want it so bad.

The government's decision to require PTC is a knee-jerk reaction to the California collision.

Not only is it another unfunded mandate, but it diverts funding away from other capital projects like bridge repairs, bridge replacements, substation work, etc....

PTC will make the system somewhat safer.

I'd hate to see a structurally deficient bridge fail or an SFC meltdown so that rail traffic can be 'somewhat' safer.

Clearfield wrote:

bikentransit wrote:Didn't SEPTA upgrade their signals on the branch lines? I thought Doylestown was done recently. Are these new signals not compliant with what the feds want, or do they just need to add in these PTC components?

PTC is a more stringent system and will be installed an an overlay on top of the existing systems.

BTW, PTC CANNOT prevent low speed collisions.

It will also result in capacity loss as it is currently conceived.

Wait a minute! Didn't SEPTA buy PTC years ago?