posted
So the RRs get their extension - but at least have to supply annual reports (well... theoretically only two) indicating their progress, meaning they have some sort of compulsion to stick to the plan or suffer a "Strongly Worded Letter".
Thankfully not as weak as it could have been, but sadly not as strong as it could have been either.
-------------------- Geoff M. Posts: 2426 | From: Apple Valley, CA | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
The Late Randy Resor (rresor), who I knew face to face, was an advocate for PTC and had often shared with me well before RSIA 08 was enacted, that the technology was in place to control trains much as if they were a 1:1 Lionel. I suppose why the industry did not move forth by their own initiative, was "why should we; we pay a guy $100K a year to do that stuff for us".
Unfortunately, Chatsworth, Goodwell, Spuyten Duyvil, Frankford Jct, et al. have shown "they don't".
For myself, I formerly held that industry position, but after the noted incidents - all of which occurring post RSIA, or prompting such - my view has changed.
Finally Randy, I hope you're reading this topic "up there".
Posts: 9976 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
77 preventable deaths in 11 years should be enough to make anybody think that it's worth doing. Or are clean-ups, lawsuits, lost business and the like cheaper than installing PTC?
After a crash in the UK when ATP was still deemed too expensive, a system called TPWS was developed. Incredibly simple: about 300-400 yards before a signal were two grids in the track, an arming device and a trigger device. The distance apart is related to the linespeed, gradient, and distance from the signal. When a train goes over the arming device, it starts a timer. If it goes over the trigger before the fixed time runs out, the brakes (or "breaks" (sic) if you're a NYT journo) apply. Another pair of arming and trigger devices are at the signal itself, right next to each other. It's not perfect, does not aim to stop trains before a red signal, but reduces the chance of a collision by 80% at a fraction of the cost of full blown ATP (or PTC or ERTMS). Labeled as a "stop gap" solution. Not that I'm advocating that as a solution: after all, PTC is on the way.
-------------------- Geoff M. Posts: 2426 | From: Apple Valley, CA | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Does anyone know about PTC on the route of the SWC over Raton? It appears the old ATS devices and nearby ATS sign is maintained - or at least freshly painted. Will Amtrak use that?
Posts: 2397 | From: Camden, SC | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think ATS is PTC-compliant, Palmland. For Amtrak to run over Raton it will have to be fitted with PTC - but I suppose one saving is that the ATS can be removed as it will be surplus to requirements.
-------------------- Geoff M. Posts: 2426 | From: Apple Valley, CA | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
May I be permitted to reprint in its entirety a message that I posted at an earlier topic yet I believe equally relevant here:
First the disclaimer: although my "CV" holds eleven years experience within the railroad industry, none of such includes technical aspects.
Positive Train Control, lest we forget, was Congressional reaction to Chatsworth within Rail Safety Improvement Act 2008. It, along with its "tack on" PRIIA 08, was enacted by a Lame Duck administration, who, along with the legislators who passed it, I doubt knew much about the provisions within such. The "old saw" of "you'll have to vote for it to find out what's in it" was certainly applicable here.
What did President Bush care; he was just "kicking the can down the road" to an incoming administration! He's "outta there" before anything within the Act was to be implemented.
With this being said, I think the industry figured "it'll just go away". I think that at the outset, the industry's reaction was, if ever implemented, it would simply cover passenger trains where operated in any volume (the Amtrak "one a day' exempt). If that comes to pass, well that is what T/P's pockets are for (oh and T/P; that's IRSese for Taxpayer). But as the FRA began drafting Regulations representing their interpretation of the Act, it became evident that HAZMAT in practically any volume would be brought in. The industry's "now we believe" moment came when the realization that all lines handling freight above a very low level of volume were within the scope of the Regs.
I of course defer to those well informed on the technical aspects such as Messrs. Harris and Mayo. I also note Richard's submission of Oscar Wilde's quotation of what makes bureaucracies go round and round.
All told, since Chatsworth, there has been, just off my head, Red Oak, Goodwell, and Frankford Jct - all of which had fatalities and would have been avoided had PTC, as presently defined, been active.
For the industry, freight and passenger, there appears 'no way out" other than to comply.
Posts: 9976 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
