Railroad Forums 

Discussion related to commuter rail and transit operators in California past and present including Los Angeles Metrolink and Metro Subway and Light Rail, San Diego Coaster, Sprinter and MTS Trolley, Altamont Commuter Express (Stockton), Caltrain and MUNI (San Francisco), Sacramento RTD Light Rail, and others...

Moderator: lensovet

 #595637  by ecouter
 
Union Pacific Initiates Aggressive Positive Train Control Implementation Plan for Commuter Lines in the Los Angeles Area By 2012

Omaha, Neb., October 08, 2008 – Union Pacific Corporation (NYSE: UNP) announced today that it has developed an implementation plan that should deliver Positive Train Control (PTC) technology to UP rail lines shared with commuter lines in the LA region in the year 2012.

"UP has begun testing our version of PTC, called VTMS, across 456 miles of track. This testing will allow us to further validate hardware and software technology requirements to implement it across our network," said Dennis Duffy, Union Pacific executive vice president-Operations. "A metropolitan area such as LA presents unique operational and technical requirements such as the high volume of radio spectrum needed and shared lines between freight and passenger trains."

Story on UP Website
 #596204  by lensovet
 
ecouter wrote:Union Pacific Initiates Aggressive Positive Train Control Implementation Plan for Commuter Lines in the Los Angeles Area By 2012

Omaha, Neb., October 08, 2008 – Union Pacific Corporation (NYSE: UNP) announced today that it has developed an implementation plan that should deliver Positive Train Control (PTC) technology to UP rail lines shared with commuter lines in the LA region in the year 2012.

"UP has begun testing our version of PTC, called VTMS, across 456 miles of track. This testing will allow us to further validate hardware and software technology requirements to implement it across our network," said Dennis Duffy, Union Pacific executive vice president-Operations. "A metropolitan area such as LA presents unique operational and technical requirements such as the high volume of radio spectrum needed and shared lines between freight and passenger trains."

Story on UP Website
imho this is bad.

before anyone does any implementing, there needs to be a nationwide standard set for what kind of PTS is needed. already, they are saying that they will implement something different from what is in use on most miles of track – ACES on the northeast corridor. the nightmare that this can create for procurement of rolling stock is serious.
 #596234  by ecouter
 
Hmmmm, well ... "nightmare" seems a little extreme here. There is precedent for not having a national standard for things like this. I mean, how many varieties of ACS and ATS are there out there now?

The technology for PTC is still in development. How can you have a standard before a reliable system is available? I'm just asking.
 #596242  by lensovet
 
how is it a precedent?

it's a nightmare because it means that either (a) locomotive/cab control manufacturers will have to implement multiple systems for locomotives that travel across the country, or (b) locomotives will have to be switched each time they enter a different PTS territory. it's also a financial burden as commuter systems from different regions of the country would be unable to bundle their orders due to the need for implementation of different PTS systems on board.

you can have trial runs of different systems to test which is best. however, the way to do that is *not* to have UP install one system on a large part of their track, only to realize that it sucks. that's just a waste of money. not only that, i'm sure their attitude once they put it in place is that "hey look, it's PTS, we've done our job" regardless of how flawed the system is and they would be extremely reluctant to replace it with something better.

imho, here's a valid standard to use: which system has had the last "faults" per mile of track over a significant period of time? my guess would be that ACSES is the one, but i might as well be wrong.
 #596345  by ecouter
 
Yeah, well, maybe.

From what I know of the UP system that is under development, it will be much more sophisticated than ACSES. If I said any more than that I would endanger my regular paycheck, if you get my drift.

There are some very smart people involved in the project. Of course, that doesn't necessarily mean it's the best approach for the industry-wide application of PTC.
 #598685  by neroden
 
CSX, UP and NS are apparently all using variants on BNSF's system, and all four agreed to make sure that they were intercompatible.

http://www.topix.com/com/unp/2008/10/up ... -standards

http://articles.directorym.net/Positive ... 14606.html

METRA is using another variation on the same system.

So they've kind of standardized. On a system which BNSF has basically got working, but with some problems, and never at high speed, and which nobody else has really got working at all.

That leaves ACSES and ITCS, both used by Amtrak in different places. These are the only two systems which have actually been used in revenue service on fast lines. Which is rather an advantage I think, but apparently the Class Is don't.

So locomotives would have to be equipped with three systems, in general. At least there aren't any other systems being developed -- except for the Ohio Central's completely different system.
 #598827  by jb9152
 
neroden wrote:So they've kind of standardized. On a system which BNSF has basically got working, but with some problems, and never at high speed, and which nobody else has really got working at all.

That leaves ACSES and ITCS, both used by Amtrak in different places. These are the only two systems which have actually been used in revenue service on fast lines. Which is rather an advantage I think, but apparently the Class Is don't.
The issue there is that the Class Is are not interested in increasing speed and throughput, necessarily. They're more concerned with the economic benefits of going to one-person train crews by leveraging the technology and ancillary benefits of PTC.