Positive Train Control - Fred Frailey - TRAINS

Ms. Nellie Bly and other proponents of Positive Train Control will be less than happy when first glancing at April TRAINS cover and even less so when reviewing the Fred Frailey column to which it refers.

Mr. Frailey sets forth a position I have personally held that PTC was born by legislation, namely RSIA '08, signed by a lame-duck president, and initiated by a congress desperate to 'show the folks back home we're doing something about Chatsworth", yet without any sense of accountability to what was being forced upon the industry. There is an active topic here at this forum originated by Ms. Bly that addresses PTC within the passenger train environment, yet Mr. Frailey's column is focused on the consequences to the industry as a whole. It is one thing to impose PTC upon operators of passenger trains - they have the public dole to pick up the tab and most anywhere passenger trains are operated in any volume, systems that qualify as "PTC" are operational (major exception is of course the "one a day" frequency of Amtrak Long Distance trains). But the Class I freight system has only the shippers for whom to pick up the tab and because of the "oligopsony" nature of the industry, i.e. few very large buyers and few very large providers of a service, if there is to be resistance from shippers, the cost of this system could well be borne by the industry's stakeholders, i.e. shareholders, debt-holders, vendors, and employees.

However, Mr. Frailey correctly points out how the industry balked at the installation of Centralized Train Control (CTC) and that the first 'breakthrough' of a system first installed during 1927 did not occur until Al Pearlman applied same to the entire New York Central Water Level Route during the later '50's. The Northeast Corridor only became controlled by CTC during the Amtrak era as both the PRR and the NYNH&H resisted such installation. So he holds that the initial industry resistance could wear down in time - but not likely by the legislated 2015 "PTC-Day".

Let the discussion begin.

Some of us who still hold a deep interest in the lost art of rail dispatching and traffic control are familiar with "Train Dispatcher", a simulation-based game/model which can be customized to re-create just about any stretch of railroad, at any time. The "attraction" has developed a small, but dedicated, Yahoo group.

http://www.softrail.com/traindis3for.html

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dispatchcentral/

Mr. Frailey himself has designed and contributed two very realistic and challenging series of territories, incuding one for the CSX Richmond-Jacksonville 'A' Line. This particular project was completed not far removed from the time CSX reportedly experimented with various dispatching priorities on this segment.

As a perusal of the Yahoo postings will attest, the possibility of a program to examine and systematize the process of a dispatcher's thinking has been attempted on several fronts, and an examination of the parameters used on Mr. Frailey's Richmond-Rocky Mount simulation shows a 5 MPH differential between the two main tracks; this would allow a software designer to vary the priorities of a "dispatching algorithm" considerably, and might account for the position taken by CSX a few years ago that better passenger timekeeping is possible, but would carry a high price tag in terms of interference with other traffic.

My point in submitting this post is merely to emphasize that the freight railroads view imposition of operational standards by regulators who sometimes are more concerned with the shifting winds of politics than with the realities of higher cost as a very serious issue, The growth in population, coupled with a steady and very substantial reduction in railroad employment since World War II means that only a much smaller percentage of the population has a grasp of how the industry operates, and this correspondinglty increases the potential for misguided interference.

2nd trick op wrote:My point in submitting this post is merely to emphasize that the freight railroads view imposition of operational standards by regulators who sometimes are more concerned with the shifting winds of politics than with the realities of higher cost as a very serious issue, .

An exact parallel to the feds advocating to build extensive additional electric transmission and solar and wind generation. Such would have to be heavily subsidized by ratepayers, taxpayers or both. The result if implemented per some of the rhetoric would be a less reliable bulk power system with the delivered cost of electricity being several times that of today. Neither the PTC as proposed nor the electric grid / generation as proposed is beneficial to most of the respective industry players, workforce, economy or consumers generally. Somewhere between that and the status quo is a reasonable level of each.

Mr.Sanchez, you sure left the industry with a little price tag when you breathed your last at Chatsworth;

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-09-0 ... aste-.html

Brief passage:

• Crash-avoidance technology being imposed on U.S. railroads will be a “terrible waste of money,” and President Barack Obama should junk the idea, Union Pacific Corp. (UNP) Chief Executive Officer Jim Young said.
  
  Forcing adoption of the systems at carriers such as Union Pacific, the biggest in the U.S. by sales, could strand goods on tracks and in terminals, Young said yesterday in an interview at Bloomberg’s headquarters in New York. The technology “is not proven to work,” he said.
  
  The Obama administration decided last month to scale back a Federal Railroad Administration rule on so-called positive train control technology, which is designed to automatically apply brakes when engineers miss a signal. Amending the rollout was part of a regulatory overhaul intended to save U.S. business $10 billion over five years.

Even considering the favorable "primer" article appearing in October TRAINS regarding PTC, it still seems to me that the provision within RSIA 08 mandating PTC, was "reactive' legislation. It is foregone that anywhere passenger trains are operated in any volume, there will be if not already there PTC. Hey, that what the public till is for.

But I still must question how PTC would have minimized the HAZMAT incidents occurring at Weyauwega and Rockford; what will PTC do to rectify improperly maintained trackage? Regarding Amtrak Long Distance trains, what would PTC have done to alleviate the recent incidents at Benkleman and Trinity?

However, let me concede that it appears PTC would have avoided Red Oak.

Again as noted passengers got the Feddytill; but how will shippers react to having to "pop' for same. While I doubt if such will result in a massive diversion of traffic from rails to highway as the economics for over the road trucking in direct competition with rails are no longer there, it could result in an overseas shipper making the decision to use PANAMAX vessels and the East Coast maritime ports resulting in a shorter rail line haul than the industry presently enjoys on shipments routed through West Coast ports.

At this time I must continue to ask the same I have since RSIA 08 was enacted (by a lame duck president who hardly knew or cared what he was signing) "what benefit will this bring the industry?"

disclaimer: author holds long position UNP

Gilbert B Norman wrote:At this time I must continue to ask the same I have since RSIA 08 was enacted (by a lame duck president who hardly knew or cared what he was signing) "what benefit will this bring the industry?"

If the current resident wants to put "pushed to reduce railroad safety" on his resume and legacy that is fine. As for PTC, it is something that the railroads should have done before the incidents this past decade. They just put it off and still want to put it off ... preferring to use their profits to pay for the lives lost and damage done.

Perhaps if we already had PTC the industry could be working toward the next level of safety. It reminds me of a child that is pushed to do their homework. It seems the industry is spending time, effort and money complaining that could have gone toward getting it done.

OK volks, now we have Tuskwilla on the table:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/loca ... 9614.story

Brief passage:

• The entire town of Tiskilwa was evacuated early this morning after a freight train derailed and several tanker cars containing ethanol exploded, according to fire officials and area residents.
  
  There were no reports of injuries, but access was blocked off to Tiskilwa, a town of about 800 people south of Princeton and about 115 miles west of Chicago.
  
  "It's a mess," said Mike McComber, owner of the Indian Valley Inn, a restaurant bar where many town residents were taking refuge. "A quarter- to a half-mile of cars derailed. Many of them are on fire.
  
  "Everytime one of them explodes, it sounds like a bomb is going off. Three have gone off so far."
  
  At least six cars of the 112-car train caught fire, according to Capt. Steve Haywood of the Ottawa Fire Department. Aerial shots showed the tanker cars heaped together and burning. The fire had not been brought under control by 7:25 a.m., he said, and firefighters will probably let the fire burn out.
  
  Bureau County sheriff’s police went door-to-door to advise people of the mandatory evacuation, officials said.

The incident clearly involves HAZMAT, and with the disruption that has already occurred, Iowa Interstate's insurance coverage could get 'blown' and thus endanger what has certainly been a 'success story' in the railroad industry's renaissance.

Obviously, it is much too early to tell whether or not there is foundation for so doing , but no doubt the PTC cheerleaders will be adding Tiskilwa to their repertoire. I continue to ask how would have an active PTC system avoided the HAZMAT related incidents at both Weyauwega and Rockford?

No question whatever Chatsworth would have been avoided with PTC, but other recent Amtrak incidents at Berwick, Benkelman, and Trinity (NTSB findings still a good ways off regarding any), it is doubtful that PTC would have avoided any of such. However, I will acknowledge that Red Oak (BNSF freight 'rear ender') would have been.

The debate will continue.

Well, it certainly looks as if there has been a "big one" that PTC would have minimized or avoided:

Associated Press courtesy Chicago Tribune

Brief passage:

• VALPARAISO, Ind.— Officials say two people were taken to a hospital with non-life-threatening injuries after three freight trains derailed in northwest Indiana.
  
  Porter County Sheriff's Department......says the crash happened about 2:15 p.m. when one train pulling mostly empty tankers of ethanol was stopped on the tracks and a second train rear-ended it. He says a third train on parallel tracks then came up and struck the derailed cars....

I'm not certain which CSX line is involved, but I would think it is the B&O main (last passenger train; Amtrak Three Rivers).

Gilbert B Norman wrote:I'm not certain which CSX line is involved, but I would think it is the B&O main (last passenger train; Amtrak Three Rivers).

You are correct, sir!

I suspect CSX will be rerouting trains on the NS line through Elkhart and Butler while they clear this up. It is a smoldering mess at the moment. If it had happened 11 (or so) miles west it would be a bigger story. Out in the country there isn't a lot to disrupt.