Railroad Forums 

  • PTC and Faster Passenger Rail

  • Discussion related to Amtrak also known as the National Railroad Passenger Corp.
Discussion related to Amtrak also known as the National Railroad Passenger Corp.

Moderators: GirlOnTheTrain, mtuandrew, Tadman

 #1562894  by RRspatch
 
Rockingham Racer wrote: Sat Feb 06, 2021 5:58 am There's a thread on Trainorders that states BNSF will do away with ATS.

And it's gone. Effective 02/15/21 Automatic Train Stop on BNSF is removed from service at locations where PTC is in effect.

Effective February 15, 2021, BNSF will retire Automatic Train Stop (ATS) on all PTC subdivisions equipped with IETMS, except for the BNSF La Junta Subdivision. BNSF Engineering field teams will proceed with disablement and
ultimate removal of all assets. This is currently estimated to take place over the next 90 to 180 days.
The following is BNSF’s multi-step ATS retirement plan:
1. Effective February 15, 2021, BNSF subdivision General Orders remove ATS references from the
timetables and increase maximum speeds on tracks running against the current of traffic where ATS was
in service.
2. Effective February 15, 2021, BNSF Multi-Sub Track Bulletin Form C will be issued outlining the
requirements during the removal period.

3. A new BNSF GCOR Rule 18.12, (Movements with Inoperative PTC System) will be adopted to ensure an
equivalent level of operational safety remains in place for trains operating without PTC protection. This
rule will require Passenger Trains operating with PTC in a non-ACTIVE state reduce to 79 MPH during
2021.
a. NOTE: The following I-ETMS system states will require the train to reduce speed to 79 MPH:
i. DISENGAGED
ii. CUT OUT
iii. FAILED
iv. INITIALIZING
4. As removals are completed, the BNSF Form C will be updated to reflect the completed subdivision.
The disablement timeline will result in a temporary condition where ATS inductors may or may not alert,
depending on the progress of removal. A BNSF multi-sub Track Bulletin Form C will govern train movements
experiencing this condition until assets are removed entirely from a subdivision. As a result, the engineer must
continue to acknowledge the ATS alerts during the disablement/removal period.
The BNSF La Junta Subdivision is not included in ATS retirement at this time. BNSF Glorietta and Raton
Subdivisions are non-PTC equipped subdivisions, therefore ATS operating rules will remain in effect. ATS
Departure Test and associated MAP 100 documentation requirements for Amtrak train(s) 3 and 4 will be
unchanged at this time.

Subdivisions effected -

Cajon, Needles, Seligman, Gallup, Boise City, Topeka, Emporia, Marceline.

Effective 02/15/21 at 0001 CT, ATS is retired on subdivisions listed. Passenger trains operating without the PTC system in an "active" state are restricted to 79 MPH. During the removal period, engineers of ATS-equipped trains may be required to acknowledge ATS alerts as if the system was in service. Train dispatcher notification of conditions related to ATS is not required.

The above information was posted to the Facebook "Rules Department" group.
 #1562920  by JimBoylan
 
Railjunkie wrote: Tue Feb 09, 2021 9:49 amThe systems are nothing more than safety overlays, is there more they can do I'm sure but for now the Fed says +79mph you need cab signals.
This change must have happened in the last 2 days, the Feb. 8, 2021 version of the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 49, Part 236.0 says you need Positive Train Control for 80 or more miles per hour:
(d)(1) Prior to December 31, 2015, where any train is permitted to operate at a speed of 80 or more miles per hour, an automatic cab signal, automatic train stop, or automatic train control system complying with the provisions of this part shall be installed, unless an FRA approved PTC system meeting the requirements of this part for the subject speed and other operating conditions, is installed.
(2) On and after December 31, 2015, where any train is permitted to operate at a speed of 80 or more miles per hour, a PTC system complying with the provisions of subpart I shall be installed and operational, unless FRA approval to continue to operate with an automatic cab signal, automatic train stop, or automatic train control system complying with the provisions of this part has been justified to, and approved by, the Associate Administrator.
You may have thought about part of Title 49, Part 236.1029 PTC system use and failures:
(b) En route failures. Except as provided in paragraphs (c) and (g) of this section, where a controlling locomotive that is operating in, or is to be operated within, a PTC-equipped track segment experiences PTC system failure or the PTC system is otherwise cut out while en route (i.e., after the train has departed its initial terminal), the train may only continue in accordance with all of the following:
(1) Except as provided in paragraph (b)(5) of this section, where no block signal system is in use, the train may proceed at a speed not to exceed 40 miles per hour; however, if the involved train is transporting one or more cars containing PIH materials, excluding those cars containing only a residue of PIH materials, the train may only proceed at a speed not to exceed 30 miles per hour.
(2) Where a block signal system is in place:
(i) A passenger train may proceed at a speed not to exceed 59 miles per hour;
(ii) A freight train transporting one or more cars containing PIH materials, excluding those cars containing only a residue of PIH materials, may proceed at a speed not to exceed 40 miles per hour; and
(iii) Any other freight train may proceed at a speed not to exceed 49 miles per hour.
(3) Where a cab signal system with an automatic train control system is in use, the train may proceed at a speed not to exceed 79 miles per hour.
That last sentence is for +59 mph up to 79mph, but you need Automatic Train Control in addition to Cab Signal System!
 #1562949  by lordsigma12345
 
I-ETMS can provide automatic train control like functionality - whether it satisfies the rules alone without the traditional ATC enforcing cab signals in not sure. I-ETMS when used in conjunction with cab signals will have the cab signal block aspect change points on the map and when it receives a cab code indication from the cab signal unit that entails a speed reduction it will produce a speed restriction beginning at the aspect change point on the map - so in essence it can enforce cab signals. In non cab territory where you have physical wayside block signals each block signal would ordinarily have a PTC data radio to indicate the status of the signal to the I-ETMS unit on the locomotive. As indicated by others I-ETMS does not replace the signal system.
 #1562987  by HammerJack
 
Sounds like 90mph passenger will still be permitted in places where PTC replaced ATC (and track was up to standards). Was there a cab signal system in place on these subdivisions where 79+ was authorized? Will I-ETMS fulfill the requirements for 79+?
 #1562991  by JimBoylan
 
The LAW passed by Congress says at 49 United States Code, Section 20157(i)(5)
The term “positive train control system” means a system designed to prevent train-to-train collisions, over-speed derailments, incursions into established work zone limits, and the movement of a train through a switch left in the wrong position.
It doesn't say "a system that requires that Cab Signals or anything else have to be used" to make these things happen. The Federal Railroad Administration's Regulations are similar, they don't say what you must use to build a Positive Train Control System, they only say what it must do, and how fast you can move with it, and with or without other safety aids if there is a problem.
Now, if you use a Positive Train Control System that requires Cab Signals to do what that law requires, THEN you'll need that accessory. You are free to get the Federal Railroad Administration to follow its own Regulations and approve a stand alone Positive Train Control System that you can use to run at whatever speeds track and other restrictions allow.
 #1563056  by bdawe
 
I suppose the follow question is then:

What places have Class 5 Track that host Amtrak trains, other than segments of th ex-ATSF?
 #1563070  by StLouSteve
 
Additional Class 5 hosting Amtrak other than ATSF or NEC:

My guesses:
Portions of the CHI to Detroit line
Portions of the CHI to STL line (now or shortly)
Small section of Empire line ALB to SDY
 #1563073  by Allouette
 
Albany to Hoffmans (just west of SDY) is under Amtrak lease and control, and has an MAS of 110, as does the Hudson River line above Poughkeepsie. Last I knew the ACSES installation was complete. The Michigan Line segments where MAS is above 90 are also Amtrak-owned. The St. Louis Line is UP-owned and is still "under development" for speeds above 90. Unless it has been changed out both Michigan and UP lines use ITCS instead of I-ETMS.

In addition to the NEC, Amtrak's Harrisburg Line and Springfield Line are also ACSES equipped with 110mph MAS.
 #1563083  by MattW
 
Some of CSX's A-Line particularly through South Georgia and Florida is class 5 to permit 70mph intermodal trains.
 #1563084  by bdawe
 
MattW wrote: Fri Feb 12, 2021 10:29 am Some of CSX's A-Line particularly through South Georgia and Florida is class 5 to permit 70mph intermodal trains.
I know that CSX cut train speeds down to 60 a few years back. I wonder if they ever raised the speed limits or changed the classification?
 #1563152  by west point
 
The Capitol corridor might be a candidate for higher speeds. UP is paid extra to maintain the tracks for the Amtrak trains and maybe UP can get the corridor certified for 90MPH in places?
 #1563173  by Allouette
 
Capitol Corridor does have a 90MPH MAS at least north of Emeryville. UP installed cab signals there during all of the track upgrades in the last couple of decades.
 #1563195  by bdawe
 
Allouette wrote: Sat Feb 13, 2021 7:12 am Capitol Corridor does have a 90MPH MAS at least north of Emeryville. UP installed cab signals there during all of the track upgrades in the last couple of decades.
This is the first I've heard of this, and I've never seen a CC train exceeding 80 on the track-a-train function.

This historical timetable speed limit for the Cal-P line was 95, the top speed of the old UP/SP City of SF's mountain geared power, however this did not survive the 79 mph rule
 #1563228  by electricron
 
I think many responders on this thread have forgotten why the FRA requires cab signals for trains going faster than 80 mph (79 mph whatever). Train engineers or drivers, and conductors often can not see the track side signals and some can not distinguish the colors of the track side signals at higher speeds. PTC is not an autonomous train control system as some are suggesting it is. It slams on the brakes when the engineer misses a signal, it does not slow the train down nor increase the speed of the train to the proper speed. The engineer is still driving the train, and cab signals allows him to know what is the proper speed to run the train.

Ever played an action packed video game with frames rates below 10 fps? That's what track side signals are to the engineer when the train is at high speed. Cab signaling was, is, and will be the correct way to signal high speed trains under human control.