Clearfield wrote:25Hz wrote:Perhaps they could file for an exemption for that section of the line..?
I could be wrong, but I don't believe there are exemptions. PTC is a federal unfunded mandate designed to save lives and property, An exemption would invite disaster.
As far as I know now, NJT has no plans to put dual PTC equipment on their fleet. The needed hardware won't fit in the cab cars or the MU's, which for the freight side includes the PTC video interface screen the size of the video gauge screens on most newer freight locomotives. There is just no place to fit a screen like that in an MU cab or control car cab. But there are no plans to separate or add track between CP-Aldene or CP-Newark either. Countering any talk I heard about NJT getting a waiver, I now hear Conrail is putting both ACSES and PTC on that segment of the Lehigh Line, so that takes care of that.
jtaeffner wrote:was the woodbourne station re-built before or after the incident that instigated the ptc legislation? i i've always wondered why they built it on the old 1 track row instead of maybe realigning two track over a bit. it appears that within a few years both septa and csx might miss the ability to have a four track main through there.
Woodbourne station was rebuilt and opened in the fall of 2002. Long before that wreck.
PTC will indeed
not protect against rear end collisions
IF the last signal passed was a Restricting. I'm not sure how it will handle Stop and Proceed or Restricted Proceed signals on automatics; on NS, the same signal is simply Restricting as well.
PTC will enforce positive stops at Stop signals, work zones, and in DCS (or other dark territory), it will enforce a positive stop at the end of the given track authority. It will work independently of cab signals, which will also still have to be complied with.
bikentransit wrote:I personally don't care if trains are dispatched out of Kalamazoo, the fact remains service has degraded because of "separation", and its now not possible to increase/improve service because of this. How many more lines are going to be "separated" while politicians and SEPTA propaganda staff tell us its a good thing?
For all practical purposes, when this is all said and done, SEPTA will still have 2 tracks on the entire West Trenton Line as far as Yardley. The only single-track section would be from just west (south) of Yardley Station to West Trenton.
As for delays, it all depends on who retains control of CP-Wood and Trent interlockings. Let's assume SEPTA keeps control of Trent since they still will have to cross trains in and out of the yard. CSX will still suffer the delays we have now at that location due to waiting for MU's to pull in or out of the yard.
SEPTA: 1, CSX: 0
Now let's also assume SEPTA keeps control of CP-Wood, since the only freights crossing over the plant are Q190/191 and sometimes C746 to/from the Morrisville Line, as well as C770 to access BCIP. CSX through freights still would have to deal with calling SEPTA to get a light through their portion of the plant even though they would not be interfering with the MU's and sometimes, that takes a little bit as well.
SEPTA: 2, CSX: 0
As a result of the project, CSX now only has one track from CP-Nesh to Trent (where presumably, an interlocking would be installed beyond the MU yard to #1 track to give CSX a passing siding). That is a decrease in capacity, as a certain SEPTA dispatcher has been know to run two freights at the same time (one each way) between Wood and Trent between MU's, while others only deal with one at a time.
SEPTA: 2, CSX: -1
Now, if SEPTA gets Phase II money to shift the MU yard from the south side of the railroad to the north side, that would put an end to any issues at Trent, lock, stock, and barrel. But I can guarantee you that the nearby residents are going to howl bloody murder unless some major league sound barriers are put up. That is why the current mini-sound wall is up between the Runner and Yard 1 there; when Yard 1, 2, and 3 were lengthened, the residents howled at the potential additional noise of the MU's parked there overnight. The wall went up and a special instruction went in for trains parked on the Runner to have pantographs lowered except when the car inspectors were working the track (and now, except for Silverliner V's since I never see them with pans lowered).
SEPTA: 3, CSX: -1, Residents: -1
I'm on the second booklet of PTC familiarization that has been issued to us at CSX and let me say right now that it will not be as easy as getting in the engineer's seat and taking off... there is going to be a shipload of steps for the engineer to perform before departing each crew change point or originating terminal with this. If NJT had to equip with the freight system, they would have to schedule at least an additional 15 minutes layover time at each terminal to allow time to initialize the equipment alone.
With quick mention of the undercutting:
CSX still has to undercut a bit at Olney Avenue, Levick Street, Martins Mill/Old Soldiers, Oxford/Bleigh (thanks to city utility lines running exposed underneath the bridge that shouldn't have been placed there and got by Conrail, so I was told), and Southampton Road (not much, just a little). I am not certain, but I think the overhead bridge south of Langhorne will need to be undercut a few inches as well.
SEPTA catenary span wires
may still need to be raised from Newtown Junction to Olney station, the site of the former Crescent interlocking, and a couple of spans at Chelt interlocking, along with the entire stretch from Neshaminy to CP-Wood.
Cab signaling: CSX is not planning to install ACSES on any locomotives beyond the ones that already have it (and the few that do are scattered 6100/6200-series GP40-2/GP38-2S units mostly assigned to New England to handle local duties along Amtrak, Metro-North, and MBTA trackage. Two of the OCS F40PH units are ACSES-equipped as well.
Random ex-Conrail SD40-2, GP38-2, and GP40-2 units have cab signaling only, along with most of the ex-RF&P GP40-2 units. All the ex-Conrail SD60M/SD60I/SD80MAC and most ex-Conrail CW40-8 units retain their cab signals. All new locomotives (except the Gensets) purchased since 2000 have been cab signal equipped. But it is still not a big enough chunk of the fleet to be able to handle all the trains that run on the Trenton Line, as not all of them run through to the RF&P and need cab signaled leaders.
I have been on a number of NS locomotives on some assignments lately, and it seems they are only getting the freight PTC as well. As far as NS cab signal-equipped locomotives go, I know that all the C40-9W units from 9120 and higher, all the ES40DC, ES44AC, all the ex-Conrail power, the SD40E and SD60E rebuilds: all are cab signal equipped. They even added cab signals and LSL to their own SD70's so that the entire fleet of that model would be equipped. But no ACSES-equipped units in their fleet.