A tech blog's take on Positive Train Control

[CHamilton]

From The Verge, which usually covers the computer/tech industry.

Regulators and railways spar over Positive Train Control, a controversial safety system that won't arrive in time

Positive Train Control (PTC) is a system designed to make trains safer and better organized. It uses GPS to take over controls from the engineer if he inadvertently loses control or finds himself heading in the direction of another train; it also makes sure trains are running when and where they’re supposed to. Ideally, dispatchers in centralized locations all over the country already take care of those tasks — but they’ve got a lot of trains to manage and a lot of miles to cover, so, in theory, PTC will help those dispatchers do their jobs better and more efficiently.

It also might make their jobs redundant, but that’s just one potential problem among many.

BTW, we heard at the All Aboard Washington meeting from D.J. Mitchell, BNSF Asst. Vice President for Passenger Operations, who said that BNSF will meet the 2015 deadline for installing PTC.

 

[Ryan]

This is what it boils down to for me:

Yes, I think the railroads should be as safe as possible," he said. "But it’s insane to force railroads to spend billions in private capital on this project when less than 40 people have died in the last decade in [u.S.] rail collisions while 40,000 people get killed on the highways every year.

Humans are terrible at dealing with risk placing way too much enphasis on low probability "scary" events and ignoring far more common risks that don't have the scare factor. This is the kind of foolish waste of resources that results (see also: TSA).
Edit: Even the "simple" editor "helpfully" insists on moving the closing tag to the end of the second paragraph. Looks like I was finally able to beat it into submission.

 

[Paulus]

Of course, if you have positive train control, you can get rid of the crash-worthiness protection nonsense that the FRA currently has and reform the regulations for lower weight (and thus faster and cheaper) while adopting a crash avoidance design regime.

 

[Ryan]

PTC isn't going to do anything to avoid grade crossing incidents, so things like the hideous nose on the new Talgo are still going to be required.

 

[Paulus]

PTC isn't going to do anything to avoid grade crossing incidents, so things like the hideous nose on the new Talgo are still going to be required.

From what I recall, the hideous nose is because the FRA does not like the idea of curved glass despite it working just fine on European Talgos.

 

[Peter KG6LSE]

Can some one Please beat some sense in to the FRA .....

that talgo DVT looks like a 80s Winnebago .... Ulgly!!!!

 

[battalion51]

PTC isn't going to do anything to avoid grade crossing incidents, so things like the hideous nose on the new Talgo are still going to be required.

From what I recall, the hideous nose is because the FRA does not like the idea of curved glass despite it working just fine on European Talgos.

Actually if you take a look at the Trains Magazine article (which is available in PDF on ODOT's website) the issue stems from Amtrak's desire to have a second seat available that has a relatively equal view to that of the Engineer. While the Cascades do run with a single Engineer this is necessary for situations where there is a Student Engineer, Qualifying Engineer, or if circumstances warrant the Conductor to ride the head end.

 

[jis]

PTC isn't going to do anything to avoid grade crossing incidents, so things like the hideous nose on the new Talgo are still going to be required.

The FRA collision post requirements are as much for grade crossing accidents as anything else. Incidentally the European HSRs also have such collision post requirements. Where FRA has failed in the past is integrating crash energy management into the equation. They seem to be coming around.
PTC is not really going to reduce the need for collision protection hardware whether it be the historical brute force or the more enlightened combination of collision posts and crash energy management.

PTC will also not make trains automatically start running at 90mph. People who are thinking thusly are kidding themselves.

 

[Nathanael]

PTC will also not make trains automatically start running at 90mph. People who are thinking thusly are kidding themselves.

Aaaand why won't it? I think you're kidding yourself.

From http://trn.trains.com/en/Railroad%20Reference/ABCs%20of%20Railroading/2006/05/Track%20classifications.aspx:

Class 5: 80 mph for freight, 90 mph for passenger. This is the standard for most high-speed track in the U.S. Examples are UP's main line between Council Bluffs, Iowa, and North Platte, Nebr.; and BNSF between Fullerton and San Diego, Calif., used mostly by Amtrak's Pacific Surfliner trains to San Diego.

On lines which already have Class 5 track, and which are geometrically suitable for 90 mph running -- and admittedly this is a short list -- what's preventing 90 mph running? The 79 mph rule about signal systems. Nothing more nothing less. (Grade crossing rules don't kick in until 110 mph.) Yes, PTC will give you 90 mph running on these lines. The only question is how many lines like this there are. (Probably not a lot.)

Will this cause a significant reduction in overall running times? Probably not; rearranging schedules for that is a more difficult problem, and there's a strong incentive to have the passenger trains run at the same average speed as the freight trains. However, will it allow passenger trains to run at 90 mph to "catch up" when they are delayed at station stops? Almost certainly.

 

[Ryan]

Someone's got to pay the bill to retime all the signals for the higher speed, no?

 

[Nathanael]

BTW, we heard at the All Aboard Washington meeting from D.J. Mitchell, BNSF Asst. Vice President for Passenger Operations, who said that BNSF will meet the 2015 deadline for installing PTC.

Good for BNSF.

The "problems" with PTC amount largely to an attempt to cheap out; track circuits, treadles, axle counters, and cab signals are old, tested technology and are not outrageously expensive. The GPS business is an attempt to cheap out, and one which could have been predicted not to work on double-track or sidings, simply due to the low resolution of GPS.

(Huh. Now I wonder if the low resolution of GPS is the *real* reason for the bizarre demands made by some railroads that parallel tracks be placed 50 feet away.)

Now, is it "worth it"? Well, yes, in terms of public relations. It's simply a fact that people care more about accidents which are considered to be "out of their control" than ones considered to be "in their control", hence the much higher tolerance for car crashes than for plane crashes. This may be irrational, but it's part of human nature, so you just have to deal with it.

 

[Nathanael]

Someone's got to pay the bill to retime all the signals for the higher speed, no?

Sort of. But in a cab signal system, then basically, no, unless you've done a really poor implementation. Essentially, it should only allow the higher speed if you have enough vacant blocks ahead of you.

 

[Nathanael]

Someone's got to pay the bill to retime all the signals for the higher speed, no?

Sort of. But in a cab signal system, then basically, no, unless you've done a really poor implementation. Essentially, it should only allow the higher speed if you have enough vacant blocks ahead of you.

Um, and FWIW, the PTC mandate is basically a signal system replacement mandate (which is why it's expensive). While there would be problems trying to retrofit an old mechanical signal system.... there's no particular reason to build a crippled signal system design if you're *replacing the signal system*.

 

[Ryan]

Sorry, I wasn't clear there - was talking about grade crossings.

 

[jis]

PTC will also not make trains automatically start running at 90mph. People who are thinking thusly are kidding themselves.

Aaaand why won't it? I think you're kidding yourself.
From http://trn.trains.com/en/Railroad Reference/ABCs of Railroading/2006/05/Track classifications.aspx:

Class 5: 80 mph for freight, 90 mph for passenger. This is the standard for most high-speed track in the U.S. Examples are UP's main line between Council Bluffs, Iowa, and North Platte, Nebr.; and BNSF between Fullerton and San Diego, Calif., used mostly by Amtrak's Pacific Surfliner trains to San Diego.

On lines which already have Class 5 track, and which are geometrically suitable for 90 mph running -- and admittedly this is a short list -- what's preventing 90 mph running? The 79 mph rule about signal systems. Nothing more nothing less. (Grade crossing rules don't kick in until 110 mph.) Yes, PTC will give you 90 mph running on these lines. The only question is how many lines like this there are. (Probably not a lot.)

Will this cause a significant reduction in overall running times? Probably not; rearranging schedules for that is a more difficult problem, and there's a strong incentive to have the passenger trains run at the same average speed as the freight trains. However, will it allow passenger trains to run at 90 mph to "catch up" when they are delayed at station stops? Almost certainly.

It will cost more trackage charge to operate at a higher speed. If one comes up with the money it will happen. Not otherwise. it is not a case of just reading FRA track standard rules. There are business issues involved. But as I said keep believing. No harm done.

 

[jis]

Someone's got to pay the bill to retime all the signals for the higher speed, no?

Sort of. But in a cab signal system, then basically, no, unless you've done a really poor implementation. Essentially, it should only allow the higher speed if you have enough vacant blocks ahead of you.

Um, and FWIW, the PTC mandate is basically a signal system replacement mandate (which is why it's expensive). While there would be problems trying to retrofit an old mechanical signal system.... there's no particular reason to build a crippled signal system design if you're *replacing the signal system*.

In general PTC as is being implemented is an overlay. Not a replacement signal system, at least the way it is being impemented by most. The law does not say how the requirements are to be met. It only specifies the requirements.

 

[Anderson]

In some cases, there are likely track condition issues...but let's not forget that there were a lot of lines running 90MPH or better back before the Naperville fiasco. Granted, some of those lines are out of service and others have been downgraded (since the freight speeds don't do that much for the freight lines anymore), but some (such as the A-line) might still have chunks that are either in the appropriate shape to run those trains or that could be put in better shape with relatively little work/cost.

 

[George Harris]

On lines which already have Class 5 track, and which are geometrically suitable for 90 mph running -- and admittedly this is a short list -- what's preventing 90 mph running? The 79 mph rule about signal systems. Nothing more nothing less. (Grade crossing rules don't kick in until 110 mph.) Yes, PTC will give you 90 mph running on these lines. The only question is how many lines like this there are. (Probably not a lot.)
Will this cause a significant reduction in overall running times? Probably not; rearranging schedules for that is a more difficult problem, and there's a strong incentive to have the passenger trains run at the same average speed as the freight trains. However, will it allow passenger trains to run at 90 mph to "catch up" when they are delayed at station stops? Almost certainly.

The reason that BNSF is allowing 90 mph for many miles of the route of the Southwest Chief is that these lines allowed 90 mph for passenger trains before Amtrak. For much of the railroad system where passenger trains currently operate the speed limit was either 79 mph or less. The railroads are under no obligation to automatically allow 90 mph on a line that was not there before Amtrak's existence just because they want it. There are numerous other issues such as grade crossing circuits, signal spacing, etc. that would require modificaton. The addition of PTC will not suddenly sweep the 79 mph aside and replace it with 90 mph. If Amtrak wants it, they had better have their checkbook open.

 

[MattW]

On lines which already have Class 5 track, and which are geometrically suitable for 90 mph running -- and admittedly this is a short list -- what's preventing 90 mph running? The 79 mph rule about signal systems. Nothing more nothing less. (Grade crossing rules don't kick in until 110 mph.) Yes, PTC will give you 90 mph running on these lines. The only question is how many lines like this there are. (Probably not a lot.)
Will this cause a significant reduction in overall running times? Probably not; rearranging schedules for that is a more difficult problem, and there's a strong incentive to have the passenger trains run at the same average speed as the freight trains. However, will it allow passenger trains to run at 90 mph to "catch up" when they are delayed at station stops? Almost certainly.

The reason that BNSF is allowing 90 mph for many miles of the route of the Southwest Chief is that these lines allowed 90 mph for passenger trains before Amtrak. For much of the railroad system where passenger trains currently operate the speed limit was either 79 mph or less. The railroads are under no obligation to automatically allow 90 mph on a line that was not there before Amtrak's existence just because they want it. There are numerous other issues such as grade crossing circuits, signal spacing, etc. that would require modificaton. The addition of PTC will not suddenly sweep the 79 mph aside and replace it with 90 mph. If Amtrak wants it, they had better have their checkbook open.

This is going to be very nit picky, but do you think that instead of 79, passenger speeds will be listed as 80 once PTC is in place? This is just a random point of curiosity that has no real meaning operationally of course, but I'm curious.

 

[RampWidget]

Now, is it "worth it"? Well, yes, in terms of public relations. It's simply a fact that people care more about accidents which are considered to be "out of their control" than ones considered to be "in their control", hence the much higher tolerance for car crashes than for plane crashes. This may be irrational, but it's part of human nature, so you just have to deal with it.

No, "irrational" is mandating that the four major players (BNSF, CSX, NS, & UP) spend almost two billion dollars apiece between 2010 and 2020 on a system that even the FRA admits has a lower cost/benefit ratio than other projects. $2B can buy a lot of signal upgrades, grade separations, more advanced locomotives, employee training and development, operations & safety research, four-quadrant crossing gates... the list goes on and on. Projects that already exist and give us (the public) the most bang for the buck are the ones that are "worth it." Oh, and never mind that the system didn't (and still doesn't) exist because it's stil being invented!

 

[Guest]

Oh, and never mind that the system didn't (and still doesn't) exist because it's stil being invented!

That's due to attempting to cheap out, as I said. There are perfectly good systems which do exist. And which are already implemented worldwide.

The main element of "PTC", namely speed enforcement, has been on the top-priority list for the NTSB and its predecessors since the 1940s. Or was it the 1930s? Having gotten away without implementing it for 70 years, and having killed people because of it, it's time for the laggard railroad companies to deal with their public service obligations and just do it.

Society's estimate of the value of a human life is, sorry to say, not uniform. We are generally willing to spend more to prevent a train crash due to speeding than to, say, prevent car crashes due to speeding. It is irrational. Deal with it. Public policy is based on human emotions. And people get angry when something like Chatsworth could have been prevented using technology from the 1940s, but wasn't due to cheaping out.

 

[George Harris]

On lines which already have Class 5 track, and which are geometrically suitable for 90 mph running -- and admittedly this is a short list -- what's preventing 90 mph running? The 79 mph rule about signal systems. Nothing more nothing less. (Grade crossing rules don't kick in until 110 mph.) Yes, PTC will give you 90 mph running on these lines. The only question is how many lines like this there are. (Probably not a lot.)
Will this cause a significant reduction in overall running times? Probably not; rearranging schedules for that is a more difficult problem, and there's a strong incentive to have the passenger trains run at the same average speed as the freight trains. However, will it allow passenger trains to run at 90 mph to "catch up" when they are delayed at station stops? Almost certainly.

The reason that BNSF is allowing 90 mph for many miles of the route of the Southwest Chief is that these lines allowed 90 mph for passenger trains before Amtrak. For much of the railroad system where passenger trains currently operate the speed limit was either 79 mph or less. The railroads are under no obligation to automatically allow 90 mph on a line that was not there before Amtrak's existence just because they want it. There are numerous other issues such as grade crossing circuits, signal spacing, etc. that would require modificaton. The addition of PTC will not suddenly sweep the 79 mph aside and replace it with 90 mph. If Amtrak wants it, they had better have their checkbook open.

This is going to be very nit picky, but do you think that instead of 79, passenger speeds will be listed as 80 once PTC is in place? This is just a random point of curiosity that has no real meaning operationally of course, but I'm curious.

They could. I would think it unlikely to be done, though.

 

[jis]

Now, is it "worth it"? Well, yes, in terms of public relations. It's simply a fact that people care more about accidents which are considered to be "out of their control" than ones considered to be "in their control", hence the much higher tolerance for car crashes than for plane crashes. This may be irrational, but it's part of human nature, so you just have to deal with it.

No, "irrational" is mandating that the four major players (BNSF, CSX, NS, & UP) spend almost two billion dollars apiece between 2010 and 2020 on a system that even the FRA admits has a lower cost/benefit ratio than other projects. $2B can buy a lot of signal upgrades, grade separations, more advanced locomotives, employee training and development, operations & safety research, four-quadrant crossing gates... the list goes on and on. Projects that already exist and give us (the public) the most bang for the buck are the ones that are "worth it." Oh, and never mind that the system didn't (and still doesn't) exist because it's stil being invented!

I generally agree with the overall thesis regarding net cost/benefit, however I have two minor disagreements, and a mundane observation:
1. $2B actually buys surprisingly little these days in the way of grade separation, specially in relatively urbanized areas, which is where they are needed the most.

2. Plenty of systems that meet the requirements set down by FRA exist and are in operation in various parts of the world. The question is how much it costs.

Considering that BNSF is on record saying that they will meet the 2015 deadline perhaps it is not such an unreachable goal afterall.

Frankly, my guess is that in ten years when things are in place and have become part of regular operations the excitement will die down and life will go on. In the bigger scheme of things $2 billion of 10 years is not that big a deal, really.

 

[Paulus]

No, "irrational" is mandating that the four major players (BNSF, CSX, NS, & UP) spend almost two billion dollars apiece between 2010 and 2020 on a system that even the FRA admits has a lower cost/benefit ratio than other projects. $2B can buy a lot of signal upgrades, grade separations, more advanced locomotives, employee training and development, operations & safety research, four-quadrant crossing gates... the list goes on and on. Projects that already exist and give us (the public) the most bang for the buck are the ones that are "worth it." Oh, and never mind that the system didn't (and still doesn't) exist because it's stil being invented!

That's a problem with "Not Invented Here Syndrome." FRA should've simply mandated ERTMS rather than leave implementation open ended. It's not like PTC is a terribly new concept, it's a century old in America, if not widely adopted during that time.

 

[TVRM610]

I'm not sure why people act like 90 mph running will never happen.... In addition to the Southwest Chief the Surfliners run at 90 for some stretches near San Diego, and the Lake Shore Limited runs at 100 on some portions of CSX. So we know of 3 places where it happens outside of state sponsored corridors such at the St. Louis and Michigain routes, and the NEC.

I'm not saying it will... But it seems once the signaling is in place, things can happen on some sections.