posted
There are rumors swirling that most of the Class I railroads are planning to embargo passenger train traffic effective January 1, 2016 if Congress doesn't extend the 12/31/15 deadline for the installation of PTC on all rail lines that carry toxic inhalants or passenger trains. There are copies of letters from Union Pacific and from Norfolk Southern posted at other websites. Both letters are very similar: the railroads have worked very hard to install PTC but the process is complex and full functional installation won't be complete by the deadline. Therefore, if the deadline isn't extended, the railroads are planning to embargo all toxic inhalant cargo and passenger trains from their properties.
Hopefully Congress will find a way to extend the deadline without too much partisan bickering.
Posts: 831 | From: Seattle | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
1) Passenger trains will be "off the table". TIH, e.g. anhydrous amonia, might or might not.
2) An extension will be granted, or enacted, as case may be.
3) One more situation for more "government oversight" has now developed.
Await a response from one or both Smith Brothers.
Posts: 9976 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
"And she added that based on the information FRA has received from 32 of the 38 railroads it is tracking for PTC “enforcement purposes,” it has found that Class I railroads have: completed or partially completed installments on about 50 percent of locomotives that require PTC equipment; replaced about 50 percent of signals that need replacement and competed most of the required mapping for PTC tracks."
No information if all of the wayside and fixed trackside transponders, needed, will be ready. Also, the availability of 218-220 mHz in all areas applicable.
Richard
Posts: 1909 | From: Santa Rosa | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I saw a report yesterday that only 15% of the track miles required to have PTC will have PTC by the end of 2015 - and that's probably optimistic.
This just goes to show what an utter shambles PTC really is. When PTC was mandated, ERTMS was in operation in several countries around the world, and as of today it is deployed in about 40 countries on 55,000 miles of track. Because ERTMS is a common standard, an ERTMS fitted loco can run on any ERTMS equipped track in the world.
Meanwhile with PTC, there is more than one standard, meaning locos from railroad X won't run on neighboring railroad Y. It's late, there are numerous teething problems, and directly or indirectly it's costing you and me an absolute fortune.
There are three ERTMS levels, from basic to advanced. PTC barely meets the equivalent of level 1 (the most basic).
Can anybody say "Not invented here"?
-------------------- Geoff M. Posts: 2426 | From: Apple Valley, CA | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
CSX has now joined the party; safe assumption the other four Class I's (BNSF, KCS, GT, SOO) will not be far behind (KCS does not operate any passenger trains in the US, but likely handles TIH).
Certainly appears these letters were drawn from a single source of boilerplate.
Posts: 9976 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Richard, dual equipment in the cab basically. If Mexico extend their ERTMS network to the US border then US locos won't be able to enter Mexico any more because the US locos won't meet Mexican railroad standards - a potential situation I find quite amusing!
-------------------- Geoff M. Posts: 2426 | From: Apple Valley, CA | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not passenger train related, but do either UP or KCS operate their units into Mexico? Do they ever operate such as the lead unit?
FWIW, I have seen KCSM locomotives by here but only as trailing units.
Posts: 9976 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
KCS has either trackage rights or route sharing with BNSF on the historic Q from KC to Lincoln (route of the Pioneer Zephyr).
Posts: 1404 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
A search of Sen. Thune's (R-SD) site reveals discussion of PTC issues, but none regarding this potential embargo.
I'm willing to bet that the "other three" (KCS, SOO, GT) have also written similar letters to the Senator. However, two are the US subsidiaries of the Canadian roads with no longer any public identities and the third does not operate any passenger trains in the US, it is not surprising they have remained undercover.
Posts: 9976 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Under this plain reading of the RSIA, the deadline will impact all freight service, as opposed to only TIH-PIH and passenger trains, on the lines where PTC is not fully installed and implemented, which we noted in our recent “Fall Peak” letter to the Surface Transportation Board.
Simply put, BNSF is saying: We are embargoing any line where we need PTC but don't yet have it for any train originating at/after 010001(TZ)JAN2016.
posted
I wonder if Positive Train Control systems can hacked. If you scroll down to "side bar", in the following, you can open the PDF article by Steve Sweeney:
Also, in the Sweeney article, under "Getting PTC Right is Hard", he mentions that if outputs from multiple processors disagree it could cause the train to stop.
Richard
Posts: 1909 | From: Santa Rosa | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, PTC (and ERTMS) can be hacked, but more so in ways that cause things to shut down rather than cause it to give the equivalent of high greens to a train.
However, it is no worse than current "over the air" controls and indications between the dispatchers' offices and the wayside interlocking huts employed over much of the US and Canada. These aren't even encrypted and without going into detail on an open forum, it wouldn't be hard to ask the interlocking to do something other than what the dispatcher asked. Note the phrase "ask" - the interlocking still won't do anything unsafe, just undesirable, and the dispatcher would eventually notice.
My guess at how this overrun will be handled is that extensions will be granted on a case-by-case basis with RRs needing to meet specific dated deadlines and then no more.
-------------------- Geoff M. Posts: 2426 | From: Apple Valley, CA | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
