Amtrak says it will not run trains on routes without PTC

[caravanman]

"So PTC would not have prevented this crash."

I expect that the systems in USA and the UK are different, but my understanding would be that the approaching Amtrak train would not obtain a clear (green) signal if another train was on the track section ahead. As the track was set for the freight train and the Amtrak train to collide, the PTC would have indicated a problem and stopped the Amtrak train in advance of the collision.

This is based on my understanding of how the UK systems work.

Ed.

 

[CCC1007]

"So PTC would not have prevented this crash."

I expect that the systems in USA and the UK are different, but my understanding would be that the approaching Amtrak train would not obtain a clear (green) signal if another train was on the track section ahead. As the track was set for the freight train and the Amtrak train to collide, the PTC would have indicated a problem and stopped the Amtrak train in advance of the collision.

This is based on my understanding of how the UK systems work.

Ed.

The signals were off to allow the cutover of the new electronics. The switch that was apparently reported lined for the main line wasn’t actually lined for the main.

 

[caravanman]

I understand that, but the point is simply that if PTC was there, in operation, it would have prevented the collision.

Ed

 

[Acela150]

It seems as though Amtrak is forgetting that Metro North is not on pace to meet the 12/31 deadline IINM.. But it's the NEC.. It gets a "pass" cause it makes money...

The main issue for me is that the Railroad has operated for hundreds of years with no PTC. And put PTC in place and it gives Anderson and the Board a cop out to end Amtrak service.

#FireAnderson #MakeAmtrakGreatAgain

 

[jis]

I understand that, but the point is simply that if PTC was there, in operation, it would have prevented the collision.

Ed

Yes,

And under the rules Anderson is hinting at, there would have been no service run through a signal suspension, so there would have been no crash when signal suspension was in force.

Now if the bus used as a substitute crashed into something that is a different matter, and there has been a lengthy discussion of that and the relatively probability etc. in a different place already.

It seems as though Amtrak is forgetting that Metro North is not on pace to meet the 12/31 deadline IINM.. But it's the NEC.. It gets a "pass" cause it makes money...

According to FRA's latest report, Metro North is not at risk of meeting the deadline. Quoting straight from FRA's latest press release on this matter:

[SIZE=10pt]The nine at-risk railroads are: New Mexico Rail Runner Express (Rio Metro), Capital Metropolitan Transportation Authority, New Jersey Transit, Altamont Corridor Express, Maryland Area Regional Commuter, Trinity Railway Express, South Florida Regional Transportation Authority, Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (Caltrain) and Central Florida Rail Corridor (SunRail). [/SIZE]

Of these as far as I am aware, both SFRTA and CFRC will be requesting alternate schedule, which they have to do before the end of September. I suspect now that Rio Metro got funding, they will probably be able to do so too. Incidentally CFRC is now fully funded for its PTC program. NJT will meet the requirements for alternate schedule, and will have hardware and training in place by deadline. Dunno about the rest of 'em.

I am still scratching my head to figure out what the exact rule is that they propose to follow. From the Trains article it would appear that it is all about segments that have obtained PTC exemption due to insufficient traffic.There is very little logic supporting such a position, but it has to be admitted that for many years there has been a lot of daylight between logic and Amtrak's actions on many issues.

Anderson in a statement several weeks back clearly stated that Amtrak will abide by any alternative schedule approved by the FRA for segments that are getting PTC installed, so this is not about segments that are getting alternative schedules approval from the FRA. Considering that Amtrak itself will most likely fail to complete all interoperability testing on all routes with most Class I railroads by Dec 31, it stands to reason that they have backed off on this part.

I am also wondering if that list of trains was provided by Amtrak or one put together by Trains and written up making it look like Amtrak said so, not that it matters a heck of a lot if the net final result is that.

BTW, Railway Age published the following Open Letter to Anderson, for what it may be worth...

https://www.railwayage.com/passenger/open-letter-to-richard-anderson/

 

[Amtrakfflyer]

Or put together and provided by the Trump administration. Mulvaney specifically. Keep the calls, emails and letters coming in.

 

[zephyr17]

I understand that, but the point is simply that if PTC was there, in operation, it would have prevented the collision.

Ed

The existing CTC would have prevented the collision had it been in operation at the time, assuming the crew were following signal indications. It was being operated as dark territory at the time of the collision and the switch status was misreported.

 

[Mystic River Dragon]

The Railway Age letter that jis posted a link to in post #30 is well-written and clearly thought out. I think it's one of the best collection of sensible ideas I've seen lately, without excess emotion getting in the way.

 

[Tennessee Traveler]

I know this goes against the thoughts of the Amtrak Apologists here, but IMHO, Amtrak wants to, and will, kill all LD routes in the next few years. Death by a thousand small cuts.

This Apologists has no comments to your IMHO.

 

[NativeSon5859]

The author should have put a note that reads “speculative” on the list of trains mentioned.

SWC situation is unfortunately different because of the Raton Pass issue. None of the other lines mentioned have that inherent problem, athough I think the Cardinal in its current form is clearly in danger.

 

[jis]

Maybe it was intentionally worded the way it was, since it would help sell a few more copies and stir up some bile

 

[GBNorman]

Somehow, I'd like to think that Amtrak has now become wise to the ways of Washington, and have assurance that the record FY18 funding level and more of same for FY19 no longer depends on maintenance of the present LD system. The enabling Amtrak legislation, RPSA70, does call for a national system, but that Amtrak operates regional corridors on both coast as well as in between, satisfies the definition of a national system. While of course, this definition falls short of the interconnected system that has been the conventional wisdom, nowhere does the letter of RPSA70 call for that.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

I know this goes against the thoughts of the Amtrak Apologists here, but IMHO, Amtrak wants to, and will, kill all LD routes in the next few years. Death by a thousand small cuts.

This Apologists has no comments to your IMHO.

 

[bretton88]

Some of these routes are not without alternatives. Vermont and Maine could try to seek other operators for their service if Amtrak won't operate them. My only question is whether such alternative options exist.

 

[Dutchrailnut]

no news here : see : https://www.railwayage.com/news/ceo-amtrak-wont-run-trains-non-ptc-track/

 

[jis]

Some of these routes are not without alternatives. Vermont and Maine could try to seek other operators for their service if Amtrak won't operate them. My only question is whether such alternative options exist.

While at it Vermont could also seek access to Albany Station and New York Penn Station using an operator other than Amtrak, and figure out how much insurance they will have to buy to use such access too..

Theoretically, I suppose the Downeaster folks could get MBTA to operate the Downeaster using MBTA equipment, since I doubt Amtrak would be in a mood to lease their equipment on those oh so PTC-unprotected tracks

 

[cpotisch]

I know this goes against the thoughts of the Amtrak Apologists here, but IMHO, Amtrak wants to, and will, kill all LD routes in the next few years. Death by a thousand small cuts.

Death by a thousand small cuts, many big cuts, and this proposed round of absolutely massive train off cuts. I am so happy with Amtrak right now.

 

[cpotisch]

So, Congress requires PTC, so Amtrak says no PTC, no Amtrak, even though Congress made exceptions for these areas. That is the law, amtrak will ignore that law.

But the law requiring F&B to pay for itsrlf, Amtrak insists on following.

Hypocrisy, party of one?

These routes aren't even required to have PTC. They are all, I believe, PTC exempt.

Yep. That's what makes this so unbelievably infuriating.

 

[cpotisch]

"So PTC would not have prevented this crash."

I expect that the systems in USA and the UK are different, but my understanding would be that the approaching Amtrak train would not obtain a clear (green) signal if another train was on the track section ahead. As the track was set for the freight train and the Amtrak train to collide, the PTC would have indicated a problem and stopped the Amtrak train in advance of the collision.

This is based on my understanding of how the UK systems work.

Ed.

Ah. Thank you.

 

[cpotisch]

I understand that, but the point is simply that if PTC was there, in operation, it would have prevented the collision.

Ed

The existing CTC would have prevented the collision had it been in operation at the time, assuming the crew were following signal indications. It was being operated as dark territory at the time of the collision and the switch status was misreported.

PTC doesn't work in dark territory or signal suspensions?

 

[cpotisch]

I know this goes against the thoughts of the Amtrak Apologists here, but IMHO, Amtrak wants to, and will, kill all LD routes in the next few years. Death by a thousand small cuts.

This Apologists has no comments to your IMHO.

Sorry, what do you mean?

 

[jis]

I understand that, but the point is simply that if PTC was there, in operation, it would have prevented the collision.

Ed

The existing CTC would have prevented the collision had it been in operation at the time, assuming the crew were following signal indications. It was being operated as dark territory at the time of the collision and the switch status was misreported.

PTC doesn't work in dark territory or signal suspensions?

PTC in most cases is an overlay on CTC or wherever other signal system is already in place anyway.

 

[Palmland]

It appears the Trains Newswire report has been updated with a response from Amtrak:

‘Amtrak spokesman Marc Magliari tells Trains News Wire, "where PTC is not implemented and operational, it is expected that nearly all carriers will qualify for an alternative PTC implementation schedule under law.

"For those carriers and routes operating under an extension or under an FRA-approved exemption, Amtrak is performing risk analyses and developing strategies for enhancing safety on a route-by-route basis to ensure that there is a single level of safety across the Amtrak network.

"For those very limited routes where a host may not achieve an alternative schedule by year’s end, Amtrak will suspend service and may seek alternative modes of service until such routes come into compliance."’

So it sounds to me that it really is just about the SWC.

 

[NativeSon5859]

It appears the Trains Newswire report has been updated with a response from Amtrak:

‘Amtrak spokesman Marc Magliari tells Trains News Wire, "where PTC is not implemented and operational, it is expected that nearly all carriers will qualify for an alternative PTC implementation schedule under law.

"For those carriers and routes operating under an extension or under an FRA-approved exemption, Amtrak is performing risk analyses and developing strategies for enhancing safety on a route-by-route basis to ensure that there is a single level of safety across the Amtrak network.

"For those very limited routes where a host may not achieve an alternative schedule by year’s end, Amtrak will suspend service and may seek alternative modes of service until such routes come into compliance."’

So it sounds to me that it really is just about the SWC.

That sounds reasonable to me.

Obviously, I’m not a fan of the entire SWC debacle, but hopefully this will put some fears to rest - for the time being.

 

[zephyr17]

The thing is the only part the SWC route that would not be under FRA exemption per current rules is Isleta-Lamy on NMRX. All the wailing by Amtrak about no PTC from wherever in Kansas (Dodge City? I know everything west of Newton is pretty lightly used, except Las Animas Jct-La Junta) to Lamy is an excuse, it all qualifies for an exemption. I still say they are trying to weaponize PTC and the SWC is a test case, and they didn't want to kick on the grants to otherwise keep the line maintained and improved to the point that BNSF has stated it would be willing to continue routine maintenance on it for 20 years (welded rail, modernized signalling). Not saying it is not a problem, the chain is only as strong as its weakest link, but it is certainly not the few hundred miles that Amtrak has been saying need PTC.

BTW, that means if they were serious about PTC being the reason for the bus bridge, it would mean they couldn't actually run the western stub into Albuquerque as they couldn't get onto NMRX at Isleta. They'd have to run the bus bridge to Belen (where I understand the platform situation is not useful for a train on the Transcon), or something. Stick a asphalt pad at Dalies and run buses, like Williams Jct? Truncate it at Gallup? You want to kill ridership, that would absolutely do it even more effectively, cut off convenient access for one of the biggest cities, and biggest traffic points, on the route.

Honestly, this sounds kind of similar to someone else, Anderson announcing some BS, then some lower level minion else walking it back, saying that what he said is not what he really meant.

Now that NMRX has gotten at least some grant money from the Feds for PTC, maybe they'll get a PTC adoption plan together and be able to get an FRA extension.

NMRX is the ONLY PTC problem. The Raton, Glorietta, and Isleta subdivisions aren't.