Amtrak: PTC Mandate, Progress System Wide

[Kat123]

I read in the Amtrak PTC Annual Progress Report on PTC (2014) that Parsons was contracted to design the I-ETMS portion of a dual ACSES/ I-ETMS system on the NEC.

Do Amtrak locomotives need I-ETMS onboard,or is it only wayside equiment for other operators?

And who is Parsons - Are they big in the PTC market?

[Backshophoss]

I-ETMS and ACSES are 2 different PTC setups,I-ETMS is a heavy user of Cell phone based tech,needing more towers
to work properly,and seems to be the way the Freight(Host)RR's are going to for PTC.
ACSES uses Transponders mounted between the Rails.
The P40/42's need to carry both systems to be able to lead on and off the NEC.
The Chargers will need to carry both systems as well if they are built.
There are at present 2 "known" areas that need to work with both systems CRSA/NJT RVL route,
and PAR/Amtrak/MBTA for part of the Downeaster route on the PAR's Freight Main.
There are parts of the Mi and Il routes that are already rigged for I-ETMS for +100 mph running online.

Parsons-Brinkhoff is a well known design/consulting firm used by Amtrak.

[Kat123]

So Amtrak locomotives, that run not on the NEC but on e.g. CSX or BNSF tracks, carry also both systems? Or only I-ETMS?

That is interesting - I assumed that it is Parsons (https://www.parsons.com/markets/infrast ... ntrol.aspx" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;) not Parsons Brinckerhoff - or is it the same company?

[Backshophoss]

Most of the commuter services along the NEC are installing ACSES hardware and control systems on their trackage
motive power and Cab cars/MU's as needed,the Chicago Metra system may have 3 flavors of I-ETMS,BNSF and UP are installing
their "flavor" of I-ETMS on their lines,with METRA doing the install on their ex-RI and ex-MILW routes.
The largest west coast commuter system (SCAX)Metrolink has their PTC setup online, the rest of the commuter operations
will follow what the surrounding RR uses for I-ETMS.
There is a requirement that All on board PTC systems will play nice on an other PTC "flavors" used by
the Host RR's(ie: a BNSF on board PTC gear will work on UP's wayside PTC gear,and so on.....).
So Amtrak's onboard hardware should work on NS,CSX,BNSF,and UP PTC wayside gear.
This is still being sorted out by the entire Industry for now..........

[deathtopumpkins]

That is interesting - I assumed that it is Parsons (https://www.parsons.com/markets/infrast ... ntrol.aspx" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;) not Parsons Brinckerhoff - or is it the same company?

Different company. It can be very confusing sometimes.

[ApproachMedium]

i-ETMS does not come in "flavors" i-ETMS is a Wabtec patented system. Alstom markets the ACSES system as a turnkey solution also. They were one of the key developers behind making the system work for Amtrak. These are the only two major systems available for the US market. ITCS is what was used on the michigan line, and is NOT i-ETMS and is NOT considered a standard in PTC component systems as it does not work as well as ACSES or maintain the features that i-ETMS will provide.

Amtrak only needs the i-ETMS system installed on the diesels. Currently a select few have the newest ACSES II and 9 aspect cab signal installed. They are not required to have the ACSES system installed and previously only had 10 units available with ACSES. Now with more ACSES required, that number will increase but at $150k for a complete 9 aspect+acses I doubt it will go to all 250 some amtrak diesels. The reason that amtrak needs a way to combine ACSES and i-ETMS is on the section of the NEC that they share with NS they are going to make both systems work in conjunction via wayside, so that NS does not need to maintain a fleet of ACSES compatible diesels. Instead, the section of railroad they maintain trackage rights on will have all of the i-ETMS wayside components to operate their trains. So NS will only need cab signal on their diesels and their already installed i-ETMS system. And amtrak will only need cabs and acses.

[Kat123]

But it is Parsons Brinckerhoff who is contracted or Parsons? Since I found the article on the Parsons' website and nothing on Parsons Brinckerhoff's website, I assume Parsons is doing it - right?
Sorry, really confusing.

[Backshophoss]

With any PTC setup,while there's a "Standard Template" to follow,you have to figure each Host RR will find a way
to tweak the "Standard Template" to fit their field conditions and radio/data freqs assigned to the RR ,hence the term"flavors"
BNSF,UP,NS,CSX,CP,and CN(US operations)will (hopefully) work on everybody else's setup,but the odds are as the systems
go online,Lead units of another RR will glitch away from the"Home" RR setup untill all the "bugs" are fixed or "worked around"

I suspect when MN fires up their ACSES setup on the New Haven Line,there will be some tweaking needed between
Amtrak and MN units in the beginning.

[ApproachMedium]

There wont be any tweaking between amtrak and MN units. MN bought Alstoms ACSES. It uses the same radio frequencies and same transponders, same wayside and onboard equipment. Amtrak stuff will roll right out over their territory with no issues. The only time different channels should exists is places where railroads run along side of each other but are separate and not really connected. Chicago would be a place with this issue. Again, the same onboard systems operate between all the railroads using i-ETMS so the only difference is making sure those radio channels communicate without bothering each other. Not between other railroads.

There is no tweaking really involved on a locomotive itself. it either receives the data, or it doesnt. If a UP engine is going to get data on UP railroad, its going to get it on BNSF too as long as the BNSF wayside stuff is set up properly. This stuff really isnt that big of a deal. I worked on the locomotive side of it for 3 years. The hardest part is properly implementing the wayside equipment. The onboard systems are fairly simple.

[RRspatch]

With any PTC setup,while there's a "Standard Template" to follow,you have to figure each Host RR will find a way
to tweak the "Standard Template" to fit their field conditions and radio/data freqs assigned to the RR ,hence the term"flavors"
BNSF,UP,NS,CSX,CP,and CN(US operations)will (hopefully) work on everybody else's setup,but the odds are as the systems
go online,Lead units of another RR will glitch away from the"Home" RR setup untill all the "bugs" are fixed or "worked around"

I suspect when MN fires up their ACSES setup on the New Haven Line,there will be some tweaking needed between
Amtrak and MN units in the beginning.

Actually that seems to be exactly what's happening. Had a UP detour train a while ago with UP power. I asked the engineer if it was PTC equipped and he replied yes. Told him the setup the PTC and let me know when he was ready to depart. He called me back a few minutes later and told me he couldn't get the PTC to initialize and that he would have to run with it cut out. After the train departed I called the PTC desk to report the UP locomotive as having a PTC failure. The person the the PTC desk replied that the BNSF PTC system was not YET set up for "foreign" power. This was back in February. Next time I have a UP locomotive in the lead that's PTC equipped I'll see if the engineer can initialize the system.

Supposedly the PTC system used by the freight railroads is supposed to be interoperable across all railroads.

[ApproachMedium]

The reason its not set up for "foreign" power is because the i-ETMS system needs to have data programmed in it for every locomotive that will be operated over the territory. So if BNSF doesnt have all of the UP locomotive numbers programmed into their system with all of the braking and power data they cant go. Its not because of a difference in PTC systems.

And the reason Amtrak and MN will not have a problem with this is because ACSES works a bit different in how it handles locomotive and train data.

[JimBoylan]

Are you hinting that Amtrak and Metro North can receive the necessary information direct from the locomotive, either automatically or upon manual request, while Burlington Northern - Santa Fe's system requires manual data entry? And that it is not able to use a central or universal database of locomotive characteristics, like the Association of American Railroads' Uniform Machine Language Equipment Register?

[nomis]

My take of it is that ASCES assumes a passenger train operates with a certain MAS and has a semi-uniform brakeing profile and all trains (acela, regional, commuter diesel, emu, etc.) will fit the "profile". The cookie-cutter approach makes plug and play very easy across Metro North + Amtrak territories.

Mainline freight considerations would not fit that cookie cutter mold, and i-ETMS relies on info from individual locomotives, and cars (weight, length, loading profile, etc.) to compute actions for the freight consist as a whole.

[JimBoylan]

There must be more that we don't know, because freight trains of various kinds also run on parts of Amtrak and Metro North.

[F-line to Dudley via Park]

Yes, and freights do run on ACSES. CSX and Norfolk Southern have lots of power equipped with ACSES. CSX and P&W up on the Shoreline have been using it for 15 years.

It's a sub-optimal way for them to operate because the passenger-optimized braking profile forces restrictions, but fine for the majority of NEC freight that are just odds-and-sods locals of minor consequence. Once you get into overlap with mission-critical freight main -level traffic, that's when they need to co-install I-ETMS so the freights can run "un-constipated." In those cases passenger-optimized ACSES handles only the passenger traffic and freight-optimizes I-ETMS handles only the freight traffic, with the systems integration squaring the braking profile differences. There are several commuter rail lines in the northeast that'll need to have dual installations because of major overlapping Class I freight traffic, but it's a very very small % of the total ACSES track miles that'll need it. I don't think any of the NEC, Keystone, Springfield Line, or Hudson Line need co-installs.