Amtrak: PTC Mandate, Progress System Wide

[Jersey_Mike]

they start out 'worst case', but they quickly learn the actual braking profile of the train and adapt their responses to it.

I guess they have precipitation detectors, leafy rail detectors, grade detectors and a little internal model of the grade profile currently covered by the length train.

This PTC legislation is a symptom of the inability of humans to properly perceive risk. We are suckers for the exotic, new headline grabbing risks that rarely happen and completely ignore the every day risks like truck accidents on our nations highways. Instead of buying PTC to save 5 lives per year the 8 billion should be spent in capacity improvements to get trucks off the highways.

[jb9152]

I guess they have precipitation detectors, leafy rail detectors, grade detectors and a little internal model of the grade profile currently covered by the length train.

They don't have to incorporate detectors - they continuously measure the braking performance of the train as it operates (remember, it's not ATO - the engineer still runs the train; PTC cuts in only when it detects that the train is exceeding a safe operating regime), and the "default" braking model is adjusted accordingly. They do have the track profile, including temporary speed restrictions, work zone limits, etc., stored on board and at the control center.

This PTC legislation is a symptom of the inability of humans to properly perceive risk. We are suckers for the exotic, new headline grabbing risks that rarely happen and completely ignore the every day risks like truck accidents on our nations highways. Instead of buying PTC to save 5 lives per year the 8 billion should be spent in capacity improvements to get trucks off the highways.

You're singing my tune. But now that it's law we have to comply.

[JimBoylan]

Postby Jersey_Mike on Mon Dec 15, 2008 6:23 pm
Do you actually think that someone is going to employ a system where the weight of each car is plugged into the computer before the train sets off?

We're already providing that information for loaded cars on the Waybill, so that hump yards can make cars of different weights couple gently. The empty weights of cars, and many more specifications, are in the Uniform Machine Language Equipment Register, which the hump or Positive Train Control computer could be made to access. This kind of information, and much more, is already available for a computer in the locomotive cab to digest, so the crew can know the contents of the cars, and how hard it might be to stop their train.

[NellieBly]

Okay, Jersey Mike, with regard to train braking performance with PTC, a few points:

1) Every train has a consist, and if it's not an accurate consist, it's potentially a violation of FRA regulations. And anyway, any wayside AEI reader will give you an accurate consist.

2) Weight of cars is known, because empty car weights are in UMLER (refer to Boylan post) and loads are listed on the waybill. This information is computerized, and has been available as a printout for the train conductor since at least the 1980s. Nobody has to enter a thing into the computer, because the information is already there.

3)Most railroads (probably all Class Is) mapped their lines using GPS some years ago. So a complete three-D route profile is available: grade and curvature, plus speed limits, grade crossings, signal locations, bridges, tunnels, etc.

4) Since the on-board computer uses GPS location (in addition to odometer wheels and fiber-optic gyroscopes (very cheap), it knows exactly where the head end of the train is, and since it has consist detail, it also knows not only the train's length but its precise position on the railroad. It can actually handle a full service application as well as an experienced engineer. I saw it done, up on Minnesota's Iron Range, with a 22,000 ton, 180 car taconite train -- in 1988.

5) The 1988 demonstration was with 8087 processors, a 4800 baud data link, and limited computer memory. Computers have improved A LOT since then. But BN's ARES worked just fine. BN didn't implement it systemwide because there were those who wanted to wait for the hardware and software to get better and cheaper -- and they have.

BN concluded the (successful) ARES demonstration in 1991. That's almost two decades ago. What have the railroads been waiting for, an engraved invitation (or Federal money)?

[tarheelman]

What have the railroads been waiting for, an engraved invitation (or Federal money)?

My guess is the latter.

[jb9152]

What have the railroads been waiting for, an engraved invitation (or Federal money)?

What they've been waiting for is a compelling reason to implement. They have not seen it, even now. The current compelling reason is an unfunded government mandate, no matter how you feel about the technology - and I agree, there are a lot of upsides to it, not the least of which is safety. But trains are not an unsafe method of transport.

What has been missing is a compelling economic reason for the railroads to implement. What I think is probably going to happen is that the economic benefit of PTC will be seen in smaller crews. But expect a HUGE fight from labor organizations on that front...

[Gilbert B Norman]

Mr JB, crews?

Absent a 144,000 mile 1:1 Lionel set, it is pretty hard to reduce crew consist below the two (Engineer and Conductor) on today's through freights.

[Jishnu]

What has been missing is a compelling economic reason for the railroads to implement. What I think is probably going to happen is that the economic benefit of PTC will be seen in smaller crews. But expect a HUGE fight from labor organizations on that front...

Actually I doubt anyone knows for sure whether there is a economic reason or not. Afterall, all projections are done based on some model that someone constructed. Often such models inadvertently incorporate features that cause results to come out the way the makers of the model want them to. The only way to get impartial assessment is to carry out well designed experiments, which themselves cost money, so they are typically not done. In such situations it is probably not too bad that such an experiment will now be forced by the new law. Afterall, no one is saying that this will bankrupt anyone, and it appears that in the worst case it will come out an economic wash with an increased safety.

I don't believe that there will be any per-train crew reduction possible. What might show up as a gain is in the form is somewhat better throughput on existing infrastructure, thus reducing overall cost of transporting an unit of freight and somewhat better utilization of infrastrcture that has already been paid for. Of course if and to what extent this will come to pass can only be discovered by actually operating one or two significant routes under the new safety regime for a period of time.

[jb9152]

Mr JB, crews?

Absent a 144,000 mile 1:1 Lionel set, it is pretty hard to reduce crew consist below the two (Engineer and Conductor) on today's through freights.

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

[Gilbert B Norman]

Yikes, Mr. JB

While i have not been employed within the railroad industry in now 27 years, I like to think that I remain abreast of major industry affairs. While I was aware of Engineer only crew consists in Yard service, this is my first knowledge that any carrier was progressing the scope of the matter to include Road service.

Does this ever have the makings of an inter-nicene war amongst the RLO's.

http://www.utugca.org/news/pdf/Response ... aganda.pdf

[jb9152]

It absolutely does. Mind you, I'm in the passenger business - we're not looking at reducing crews at all. PTC will be a net loss for us, from a purely economic standpoint.

The private freight roads, though, have a bottom line interest in achieving SOME payback for the cost of having to bear this significant financial burden (which will not, at this point, be augmented by Federal money - they've proposed $50 million annually across the *entire* industry - that's almost a bad joke). One person crews are being looked at as the best way to recoup some of that cost at this point. There are other cost benefits to PTC in efficiency, etc., as discussed, but the biggie is crew size reduction.

[Gilbert B Norman]

What else can I say beyond that the guy who retired the day I took my physical and hired on as a MILW Management Trainee during June 1970, thought the absolute rock bottom minimum crew consist was Engineer, Fireman, Head Brake, Conductor, and Rear Brake.

O tempora O mores.

[Jishnu]

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.

[JimBoylan]

during June 1970, thought the absolute rock bottom minimum crew consist was Engineer, Fireman, Head Brake, Conductor, and Rear Brake.

So, P.T.C. or equivalent improvements eliminate flagmen?

[Gilbert B Norman]

Firemen in freight service were eliminated by phase out pursuant to November 27, 1972 Agreement betweeb NCCC (NRLC back then) and U2 . "Brakies' occurred after I left the industry during 1981, but there was a Local Agreement on my property to eliminate one of two Brakemen agreed to during 1978.

Regarding Amtrak passenger crew consists, Amtrak was mandated by RPSA 70 to honor existing labor agreements of the roads over which trains were operated. Thus the normal passenger crew consist of railroad employed Engineer, Fireman, Head Brake, Conductor, Rear Brake prevailed until assumption of T&E occurred starting during 1983 and Amtrak negotiated their own Agreements with BLE and U2, which in some cases permit a consist of Engineer and Conductor only.

Finally, let us not loose sight that the implementation of PTC under RSIA 08 will not happen overnight; 2015 is target date IIRC. However, I must wonder if Amtrak at that time will seek an Engineer-only Engine crew for runs of any length instead of the existing six hour "cap" after which an Assistant presently must be assigned.