Amtrak: PTC Mandate, Progress System Wide

Nasadowsk wrote:So, would LZB be or not be compliant? It pretty much does the job and has been around since the AEM-7s started running....

If you talking about the German version, yes indeed LZB(continues signal control) its has over it's full track lengte cables installed. The cables provide the train computer with signal information, speed and location. The train can talk back to the "tracks mounted cables and correct its location with the appropriate info.

It's work really good, but its very expensive, so the only use today is the German high speed rail lines, and it would be replaced with the most crappiest system of the planet ERTMS level 2 and 3....

David Benton wrote:not so sure it is not possible. But I would have thought you would still have transponders to actually communicate /locate with the train. just they would send their data through the rail .
They can do some pretty amazing things with electronics now. They can locate faults/ shorts in cables 100 of metres long , just by sending a pulse through them.

I think the other way around. The track is an excellent way of locating the train. Sending codes from wayide through the rails that are shorted by the trains wheels. The wayside equipment can calculate the train's distance and speed (and even provide constant warning times for crossing protections so the fast Amtraks and slow freights trigger crossings with the same timed amount of warning instead of having gates come down way too early for freight trains).

Wayside radio systems can transmit more detail that cannot be transmitted through the rail. Alarms from crossing gate malfunctions, track restrictions, warrants, other messages. While cab signalling is currently transmitted via the rails it is a simple message. Not as complex as the data that can be sent via wayside radios.

Some systems rely on GPS. And while GPS can (with difficulty) be faked even when it is working one would need precise accuracy to tell the system which track of a multi-track railroad the train is on. Most likely a ground based correction system. I'd prefer to rely on track based detection systems, where available. But having a GPS input to assist in locating trains would be helpful.

Beyond safety, the main goals of PTC are to increase capacity and speed through rolling block protection, rather than fixed automatic block signals. I-ETMS and ACSES need to prove their worth safety-wise first though.

Some systems will have additional features "beyond safety". Mandated PTC does not require the add ons that some railroads will implement.

While they can use the tracks for local signals and controls, you can't use the tracks to send electric signals over long distances. It doesn't matter how large a conductor is, electricity takes around a 1,000 volts per mile to push that signal. The size of the conductor, in this case the track itself, allows more current flow. To have a train dispatcher be hi ndreds, if not up to a thousand miles away, you're going to need transformers along the way to step up the voltage of the signals. Since tracks are located at grade exposed to humans and other animal life, the voltages can't be too high on the tracks.

Shunting zones are usually isolated sections of tracks on opposite tracks, a train's wheels and axles providing the shunting path for the local signals, like a light switch at you home between two contacts. These sections of tracks for the shunts are isolated by insulators from the rest of the tracks. That's why crossing signals aren't actuated miles away from the crossing.

Additionally, mixing power and control signals on the same conductor (in this case tracks) isn't a great idea because noise and interference over long distances. There's a reason cat 5 wires for your Ethernet cables are shielded, even for distances as short as 6 feet.. Steel tracks rust away, and in different environments electrical catholic protection is needed. So there are already some low voltage, low current power electric currents in the ground near tracks anyways.

There's a reason why telephone companies are switching from microwave towers to glass fibers for communications recently. It's actually cheaper and easier to do so. In the not too distant past, railroads ran the signaling on many separated circuits and wires on telegraph (telephone) wires on poles above the ground, do you really believe they could have used the tracks themselves instead of using copper wires hung from wooden poles? They didn't, and you can't do so today. Other means of communications have replaced those wires on poles spaced 200-300 feet apart, but they haven't been using the tracks!

Trains Newswire

<Ominous sounding music>:

UPDATE: Amtrak CEO says passenger trains will not run over track without PTC or PTC waiver

WASHINGTON — If railroads that host Amtrak passenger trains fail to meet Congress’ statutory requirement to have positive train control installed Dec. 31, 2018, Amtrak’s president says the company will drop service on lines that don’t comply. The move would significantly disrupt passenger service on virtually every Amtrak route in the U.S.

At a House of Representatives’ Transportation and Infrastructure Committee hearing today, Amtrak CEO Richard Anderson testified that if any of the host railroad segments over which it operates “appear unlikely to achieve sufficient progress to apply for an alternate positive train control (implementation) schedule” by the end of 2018, “Amtrak will suspend operations until such time as the carriers become compliant with the law.”

DutchRailnut wrote:surprised your putting out political bait ?? if "the Donald" went back on the PTC mandate, he would leave federal government open to massive lawsuits, for being negligent on Safety.

Nope. Feres Doctrine. The Imperial Federal Government must give you permission to sue it.

As a lawyer I hesitate to agree with either of you.

1. The government is already open to lawsuits. They may not stick and/or may be dismissed, but do not take the existence or dismissal of the PTC mandate as an indicator of the ability for us to sue the government.

2. I'm not sure if the Feres doctrine applies here, it may be analogous but might not have that much impact. I really am not expert in this situation which is why I hesitate to agree - not because I disagree.

came across this today.

Amtrak is considering suspending service on tracks that don't have sophisticated speed controls by a Dec. 31 deadline, the railroad's top executive said Thursday, threatening to disrupt operations across the U.S. in a push to strengthen safety after a series of deadly wrecks.

http://www.wdbj7.com/content/news/Amtra ... 13213.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Will MI. and the NEC be the only place where Amtrak runs after December or we finally get the safety measures needed. More the likely congress will kick the can down the street again

The Feres Doctrine appears to only apply to active duty military personnel.

At a House of Representatives’ Transportation and Infrastructure Committee hearing today, Amtrak CEO Richard Anderson testified that if any of the host railroad segments over which it operates “appear unlikely to achieve sufficient progress to apply for an alternate positive train control (implementation) schedule” by the end of 2018, “Amtrak will suspend operations until such time as the carriers become compliant with the law.”

Point of order: If the host railroad does not either meet the 2018 PTC deadline or prove significant progress to earn an extension it would be illegal for Amtrak to operate their trains on those lines. Mr Anderson's threat is pointless.

It is nice of Mr Anderson to state that Amtrak will be following the law.

I recall parts of the Vermonter are still "dark territory" (and possibly sections of the Cardinal). Any western LDs still operating in the dark? I guess this could mean no more "rare mileage" Autumn Express as well.

Going back to source as the quote from Trains is misleading.
The actual testimony can be found here: https://transportation.house.gov/upload ... timony.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; (emphasis added)

First, there will be carriers that have made sufficient progress to apply to FRA for an alternative PTC implementation schedule under the law. In these instances, Amtrak’s equipment will be ready for PTC operation, but additional work, testing or approvals are still required by the host railroad before the system is considered functional. We believe a significant number of routes outside of the NEC will face this situation. The question we must ask ourselves is whether we continue to operate over such routes until PTC is turned on and if so, what additional safety protections are appropriate to reduce risks?

Second, there will be carriers over which we operate who appear unlikely to achieve sufficient progress to apply for an alternative PTC implementation schedule by year’s end. For any such route segments, Amtrak will suspend operations until such time as the carrier becomes compliant with the law.

Third, there are areas over which we operate for which there is an FRA “Mainline Track Exclusion” in place exempting that segment from the PTC requirements based on the low levels of freight and passenger train traffic or the presence of low-speed operations, such as in yards and terminals. We are currently reviewing our policy on operating passenger trains on Exclusions to determine whether we have adequate safety mitigation practices in place for each territory and in certain areas, where signal systems are not in place, we will reconsider whether we operate at all.

The first and third scenario pose the question of whether Amtrak will operate over tracks where they could legally operate without PTC. Mr Anderson questions whether Amtrak will operate over such trackage ... he does not (yet) state that Amtrak will not operate over such trackage.

Could a host railroad permanently shake Amtrak loose by making its tracks flunk PTC for a while?

I too was wondering about that. Some freight railroads probably want to shake Amtrak off, but whether they would use this as an opportunity to do so is uncertain. I'm not sure if Amtrak's threat is entirely wise in that respect, but I suppose they are trying to pressure Congress.