Putting on the PTC pressure
A week ago, positive train control was a technology all but unheard of to those outside of the rail industry. Today, it's a hot topic in the media, being cited as a way the crash could have been prevented. The news has put the heat on the Federal Railroad Administration. If such a technology that would automatically stop a train if it comes too close to another exists, why isn't it installed wherever it's needed, people wonder?
In a press conference held Monday, FRA Administrator Joseph Boardman explained that the technology, which currently is being tested through nine projects in 16 states, isn't yet ready to be implemented on the nation's more than 100,000 track miles. For one, the various train-control systems on the market aren't necessarily interoperable with one another, and they need to be adapted to stop trains of different size and weights, Boardman said. In addition, railroads must secure radio frequencies for the systems.
And then there's the matter of cost.
"What are we talking, like, millions?" asked one press conference attendee.
Try billions. Freight railroads would have to install the systems on thousands of locomotives. Commuter railroads that share track with freight railroads would have to do the same. And while transit agencies have far fewer locomotives than a Class I, they also have far fewer dollars to spend.
In light of rising costs, and declining revenue and state and local dollars, transit agencies are struggling just to maintain fares and service levels. Let's use Metrolink as an example: The agency is funded by the transportation agencies from the counties it operates in. Since the state has made it a habit to transfer transportation dollars to the general fund to overcome budget deficits, those county agencies are struggling — and so, in turn, is Metrolink.
In spite of ever-present budget woes, the agency currently is focusing on what, at least up until last Friday, was safety priority No. 1: upgrading all crossings on its Ventura County and Antelope Valley lines, a program prompted by the January 2005 Metrolink accident that was caused by a driver that parked his truck on the tracks in Glendale, Calif.
Installing PTC would involve spending millions and millions of dollars that the agency — all transit agencies, for that matter — simply does not have.
"Can you really put a cost on something that can save lives?" a newspaper reporter asked on Monday.
It depends on who you ask. But railroads, transit authorities, federal agencies and legislators can make finding a way to pay for those safety upgrades a higher priority. Pretty soon, they might be forced to. This week, two California senators introduced a bill that would require railroads and transit agencies to install PTC on "high risk" lines by the end of 2012 and all other major lines, by 2014's end. It could be the final nudge that's needed to finally implement the nationwide, affordable, inter-operable train-control system that railroads have been searching for for more than 25 years.
Posted by: 
Angela Cotey | Date posted: 9/18/2008
Comments
Posted by Larry Kaufman on 9/18/2008 3:26:58 PM
A good discussion of PTC, Angela. The members of Congress who have rushed to introduce legislation mandating the installation of PTC are in full pander mode. They have put arbitrary compliance dates into their draft bills without having the foggiest notion whether the technology can be adopted and installation completed by those deadlines. This is standard procedure for members of Congress, who never have to face the consequences of sometimes rash action. Also, PTC is predictive rather than reactive. As a locomotive must stop before passing a "stop" signal, the system must be able to determine at the preceding signal that the engineer will ignore the "stop." The system also has to know the weight and length of the train and calculate instantly the proper application of brakes so the stop occurs at the proper point. I have faith in technology and am quite confident this will be resolved. But I'd be surprised if either Sen. Boxer or Sen. Feinstein is yet aware that these issues exist.
Posted by Paul Stangas on 9/19/2008 10:13:05 AM
Yes our politicians are reactive and lack any real knowledge or understanding of the issue or technology. And of course the reporters ask that inane, irrelevant question, "can you put a price on lives saved?" Well the unfortunate reality is we do it all the time, in every activity or mode of travel. The reporter also shows his/her ignorance. The better question is what is the best way to save lives and reduce injuries, what measures would save the most lives at least cost? And the answer to that may be grade crossing protection, or planned improvements or upgraded train control systems selected routes. To simply mandate a new (and unproven) technology to be applied everywhere, without even asking the question; what risks does the new technology entail (has it ever occurred to anyone that the new system may not be any safer or may generate new unknown hazards?) just shows a complete lack of judgement.
Posted by A railroader who remembers things. on 9/19/2008 10:30:53 AM
The knee-jerk reaction to the recent tragedy in Chatsworth, California, "Install PTC" is indicative of a political solution to a technical issue. It has been done before. Since 1948 a federal requirement has been on the books that all tracks on which trains operate at 80 mph or more must be equipped with an "improved signal system". Each Class I railroad was ordered to install some system on at least one territory that it operated, if they had not done so already. (Some systems dated to before World War II.) This resulted in the slowing of passenger operations in many areas from 90 or even 100 mph. to the current "norm" of obeying a 79 mph speed limit, because relatively little of the rail network was actually equipped. There are exceptions. The old Pennsylvania Railroad, together with the Union Switch and Signal Company developed the continuous cab signal system that is in use today on lines such a NS's Harrisburg to Cleveland main lines. It evolved into the system that Amtrak has in service on the Northeast Corridor (with more signal indications possible and a feature that applies the brakes to trains that do not comply with the appropriate speeds for the signals shown). Other railroads adopted different systems, some that gave a signal indication in the locomotive cab and some that were basically the old transit line "trip device". (A trip device would apply, or "trip", the emergency brakes if the train passed a red signal. The first ones were a lever that was raised to catch a piece of the air brake line under the first car of a subway and separate it.) These were generally called train stop. Most of the simple systems were installed on single territories of a single railroad. For example, the old Lackawanna Railroad installed its simplified version of cab signals on the west end of the railroad into Buffalo, NY. That saved them from needing to equip all of the commuter trains in the New York City area where the majority of their trains ran. When the Lackawanna first started operating over the old Erie Railroad between Binghamton, NY and Corning, NY, they also needed to equip their locomotives for the Erie's train stop system. This piecemeal approach and lack of interoperability was the primary reason that most of these installations have been removed over the years. At some time, the old Southern Pacific System (the railroad that owned the line in Chatsworth when "improved signal systems" were mandated) had some part of its railroad equipped with some sort of an improved signal system, although I have never been able to determine where. It probably was installed and removed within ten or fifteen years because it impeded the use of locomotives in an efficient manner. Besides, by the 1950's the Southern Pacific no longer cared if its passenger trains operated at 100 mph., 79 mph. or 40 mph. They wanted to get rid of them. Then, too, none of these systems techically meets the existing specifications for a PTC. They would need to be replaced, unless the FRA adjusted the PTC definition. Has Congress considered the monies that it must provide just to allow Amtrak to continue to operate in the Northeast Corridor if the PTC legislation goes forward as-is? What is the sage saying? Those who do not learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past.
Posted by PeterCooper on 9/19/2008 12:42:34 PM
Are all those people that are criticizing the transit industry''s safty record willing to pay more for their tickets? Maybe they should stop wasting money sueing the tranist agency because they got their coat stuck in the doors! Or stop leaving their cigarette butts all over the stations - station cleanup and litigation are major hidden costs. Of the 220 people on that train 25 were killed. Compaire that to slamming in the the ground at 300 mph from 30,000 feet!
Posted by Donald Lynch on 9/19/2008 1:04:27 PM
What about the fireman on the comuter train? The Railroads reduce down all the employees that made the trains safe and this is what you get. Cut off train crews and save a few dollars...get a train wreck as a result and pay claims thousands of times more. This is not good management and doesn't make sense in anyone's book. Donald Lynch NARVRE legis Rep Unit 66 Wildwood, Fl.
Posted by John Herlick on 9/19/2008 2:46:32 PM
Comment on putting a fireman on the train to avoid the Chatsworth collision. I worked for the RR indudstry for 39 years and was involved with safety issues for most of that time. I have also reviewed the ICC accident reports going back to the early years of the last century. I can tell you there have been many accidents involving trains running stop signals when there have been two or even more crew members in the cab. I can believe there have been accidents when a full switch crew (five people) were in then cab when their engine ran a red signal protecting an open drawbridge and ended up in the drink. There was a head-on collision in the LA area a few years ago what a train with a conductor and engineer ran a red signal.
Posted by Larry Kaufman on 9/19/2008 4:11:12 PM
John Herlick is absolutely correct. In addition to the accidents he sites, one should remember the head-on collision near Kelso, Washington, some years ago, in which a BN and a UP train collided. As both crews were killed, I don't believe there ever was a final determination of how it happened, but it was believed by most who studied the wreck that the BN crew had fallen asleep. A second - or other number - person in the cab clearly is no guarantee of anything. On a related issue, the railroads can't wait to go to one-person crews. I believe they will not be able to do that until they provide PTC covering every inch of track and every train that they will want to operate with just one person in the crew.
Posted by Ray on 9/20/2008 3:48:39 PM
Senator Boxer's proposal is the starting point. There is no way that is adopted as it is. But this tragedy puts rail safety, be it PTC or other alternatives, on the table and starts the discussion. It will boil down to costs. Passenger or freight rail will never be able to, or want to implement any nationwide initiative. How big of an investment in the rail infrastructure is the federal government going to commit to and how are they going to structure it.
Posted by USDOT employee on 9/22/2008 10:28:42 AM
Larry and Paul, I agree with you partially. At some level, I suppose, PTC is "unproven" (although I saw a successful demonstration on BN more than 20 years ago). However, I do disagree about cost. Much of the existing signal equipment on the roughly 65,000 miles of signaled track is obsolete and is currently being replaced. It is likely that installing PTC will be *less* costly than simply replacing the current signal equipment with more of the same, and of course PTC offers greatly increased functionality as well as a much higher level of safety. I'm amazed that, with the first tests of PTC having occurred about 25 years ago, the industry has not moved more quickly to embrace this technology.
Posted by Lester Newton on 9/22/2008 11:12:05 AM
Positive Train Control is not new, like systems were used clear back in the 60's. Automatic train control was in-use on the Chicago & Northwestern Railroad a long time ago, but if we're having Railroad Employees who are violating Rules, Will PTC make any difference? I doubt it!
Posted by former Feinstein admirer on 9/22/2008 11:42:08 AM
Yes, the words jerk and knee come to mind. She said in a press release...... "And it should be totally unacceptable to the American people that we have rail systems in which two trains going in opposite directions share a single track" rewrite that a little... .. we have highway systems in which two vehicles going in opposite directions share a single road... On the day of the Chatsworth accident, over 100 people died on the highways, and on the next day, and the next until over 40,000 will die this year. That seems to be totally ACCEPTABLE to congressional members, based on the number of press releases concerning this matter. I wonder if this call for funding PTC is another tactic to stop funding Amtrak?
Posted by Larry Kaufman on 9/22/2008 12:50:23 PM
I think you have to make a distinction between the PTC that exists today and the PTC that the freight railroads would like to have. The former, under various names (BNSF's is ETMS for Electronic Train Management System)is about ready to be rolled out on much more of the BNSF system, but it provides "only" a safety value, without enabling the railroad to reduce spacing between trains and the kind of things that would increase capacity and thereby justify the cost. Speaking only for myself, I suspect that until there is a real economic benefit for the railroads, they will continue the research that is underway and if the federal government insists on making them install current generation systems, they may be able to make a case that if the public wants it the public should pay for it. While it is standard phraseology to say that "even on fatality is one too many," the fact is that businesses in numerous industries put value on lives every day and make capital investments based on cost-benefit assessments. On this one, I repeat, I have no "inside" information and am speaking only for myself.
Posted by kc chasek on 9/22/2008 1:17:31 PM
Lawmakers and the general public have no idea how unsafe this Positive Train Control is! This is a means to nobody being on board a train and being run only by a computer which is what the rail industry wants! The public will be the ones paying dearly when a computer that is running the train that is carrying spent nuclear waste crashes into a pickup and derails killing thousands instead of the tens that died in the most recent crash involving metrolink. I am an engineer of eleven years in western Nebrasa and have seen countless near miss accidents that crews have averted that a computer would not. You people "Politicians and News Agencies" have no idea what you are asking for, I gaurantee there will be far bigger stories in the future when computers are running the trains though!
Posted by Mark Lowry on 9/22/2008 3:07:42 PM
How about starting with a mandate for two crew members in the headend of every train. That can be implemented right now. The railroads are busy trying to reduce all trains to one crew member for profit sake! That is a recipe for disaster. PTC or other systems should be an overlay to the two person crew. Until our government manages money as if it is their own, funding will be a major issue. Freight railroads are posting record profits now with a down market. Ask yourself: Would I fly on an airplane with one pilot in the cockpit? How about on a train? If that one crew member blacks out or?, you the passenger are on your own. Go for the obvious fix now and back it up with other safety systems down the road. Government will back this idea if they are protecting the public, not big business.
Posted by JOHN PINTO on 9/22/2008 3:58:01 PM
Administrator Boardman is to be commended for his forthright comments on the subject of PTC. It would have been more enlighting had he cited the millions of dollars FRA, ARR, Lockheed Martin and others have expended in recent years on development and testing of an inter-operable, open-archictecture PTC system only to be thwarted in the 11th hour by two major roadblocks to move forward on final stage testing. The first was the current administration''s steadfast resistance to fund projects that might benefit passenger rail (Amrtak in particular)and second the selfish, cavalier, attitude of some of the Class 1''s to go-it-alone; i.e. Larry Kaufman''s noting ETMS on BN. BN & NS were at least willing to try something rather than wait for all to fall into line and agree on a single unified approach. ARR worked diligently to craft a consensus of support among its members, most of whom in private will admit to the need for a workable solution but not state so publicly for fear that their respective companies might have to commit serious capital dollars to testing and installation. "If the government wants it let the government pay" seems to have been the message. This not an issue with a political solution. All stakeholders need to step to the plate or more time, dollars and lives will be be needlessly expended.
Posted by Larry Kaufman on 9/22/2008 4:32:01 PM
All you locomotive engineers who "demand" that there be two people in the cab, effective immediately, are overlooking the FACT that there are two people in the locomotive cab of freight trains now. You also ignore the FACT that there have been innumerable collisions of trains that each had two people in the cab. I suggest you get past your union rhetoric and deal with reality. Real PTC, when it is perfected (and it will be) and installed, will stop trains before they run through signals. What may have existed on the old C&NW or other roads, was not PTC as is being developed today. Cab control or train-stop or whatever you want to call it was about as sophisticated as the dead man's switch. It was reactive (stopping the train after a violation), while PTC stops it before a violation. That's one thing that makes it difficult.
Posted by Larry Kaufman on 9/22/2008 4:40:01 PM
Thank you, former Feinstein admirer, for pointing out how killing 100 people a day on the highways, most because of their own stupidity, is beneath the concern of Sen. Feinstein, especially whan she can pander on PTC for railroads. Like so many in Congress, she and Boxer would impose a deadline on the railroads without the foggiest notion of whether such a deadline even can be met. This is like the legislation following 9/11 in which Congress set a deadline for 100% screening of all containers before they enter the US. That deadline cannot be met either, but I'll wager every member of Congress who voted for it and is running for reelection is busily telling his/her constituents how he/she has made America safer. As the scuzzy 527 political commercials like to say: Call Diane Feinstein and tell her to stop posturing about rail safety and to do something worthwhile.
Posted by Dave Bearse on 9/23/2008 10:07:21 PM
The USDOT does assign a cost to a fatality in evaluating the cost effectiveness of transportation safety improvements. I think it's currently on the order of $4M.
Posted by commuter on 9/24/2008 11:21:17 AM
Two persons in the cab: MARC Silver Spring accident had all three crew members in the cab at the time of the accident, the assistant conductor was in the cab from the start of the run. Please note NTSB's comment in their final report: �Nevertheless, no actions were taken by the conductor and assistant conductor to counteract the actions of the engineer as required by rule 34C. This occurred even though the conductor and assistant conductor were competent, experienced personnel, which calls into question whether it is reasonable to rely on the vigilance of a person to compensate for the error of another person in the same circumstances.�
Posted by Mike on 9/25/2008 4:32:20 PM
I have worked in the Canadian signal & communication field for over 30 years and believe it or not, we had to have a major passenger accident occur before the government here made steps to signalize dark territories where we were running trains at over 75 mph! So to think we will see PTC in Canada in the near future is a pipe dream...also like a reader stated...once the signal proceeding the stop signal is ignored then it is highly unlikley the engineer will be able stop his train at the stop signal. That is why positive train control is so important, it will override the engineers control and stop the train before it piles into another train...can it be fully 100% fail proof...I doubt it...but it certainly would be a higher level of safety then crossing your fingers in dark territory!
Posted by Andy on 9/29/2008 11:00:13 AM
PTC could be the end of anyone in the Lead Locomotive. 3 in the cab is a distraction. All Locomotives should have an RSC feature, this feature will stop the train if no action is taken by the engineer, it times out and puts on the trains brakes. The speed of the train dictates the frequency time to reset the RSC. In cases where there are 2 or more in the lead unit when an accident happens it is more than likley fatigue related and no alerter (RSC) was present. I am a 20 Year Railway Conductor.
Posted by Ben on 9/29/2008 5:59:10 PM
I agree with the cost hurtle of implementing a full PTC system. One would have to take into account hardware and software as well as training of the system. In addition the interoperability between Class I''s and shortline is a major concern. The railroad industry is a unique business in that we work together because we share track but maintain our business competitiveness. Instead of focusing on such a large task of PTC look into other Collision Avoidance Systems that can be upgraded to PTC. Lower cost, I am quite certain and easier access to obtain the hardware and software as well as few training hours. The main focus of congress should be about frequency. The cellular, wifi, or wimax just not cutting it because of the range, reliability and continue monthly cost. But if allocating certain bandwidth to just the railroad would open doors, it would be the railroad itself to determine the level of information output to each other. Both Progressive Railroading and Railway Age have written about different PTC system but only touch on the communication link a little bit. Most of the PTC is based on cellular, however BNSF uses low band extended line of sight technology. It seems to be working for them since they are the farthest along on the development and approval rating by FRA, according to the numerous article by the trade mags. I think PTC is here and we can implement, but for those who are cash strapped then push the industry to look at stage development compatibility of PTC.
Posted by Gandy Dancer on 10/1/2008 12:01:06 PM
The Metrolink accident occurred because of a rule violation by the engineer, and possibly the conductor. As previously stated, a 2nd person in the cab may have helped or hindered. How about increased efficiency testing and a more physical field presence by management to ensure rule enforcement?
Posted by JRH on 10/1/2008 12:53:56 PM
There was a system that was put in place back in 2000 on the North East Corridor that is called ACSES or Advanced Civil Speed Enforcement System that has been working and saving lives for years.
Posted by Larry Kaufman on 10/1/2008 12:59:59 PM
There have been several posts at this blogsite arguing for a second person in the cab, for more supervisors who would enforce rules observations, etc. These, unfortunately, are the traditional approach to problems in the railroad industry. Arbitrary staffing and rules enforcement have been tried in the past and at various railroads. They have failed. People make mistakes. It's just that simple. I'm sure the engineer of the Metrolink train didn't intend to kill himself and his passengers by running head-on into the UP freight that apparently was where it was supposed to be. People always will make mistakes -- because they are human. That is why this is a good time for railroads and government to seek some different approaches and apply them. It is not a good time for members of Congress in FPM - that's "full pander mode" for those unfamiliar with the jargon, to legislate wholesale adoption of technology that has not yet been proven. All that does is allow the legislator to tell his/her consituents that he/she made the world safe, whether he/she did or not. I didn't see any real money being committed by Congress for the acceleration of R&D of PTC technology. Until Senators Boxer and Feinstine put some money where their mouths are they are only pandering.
Posted by Bill on 10/1/2008 3:56:01 PM
To my old friend Larry Kaufman and others who have not spent much time behind the control stand of a train. Thousands of dedicated locomotive engineers and trainmen go to work every day and every night and hour or two after the phone rings, too many times before or after the train line-up predicted they would be called to work. None of them go to work planning to run into another train, killing themselves or others. Railroading is a 24/7 business that doesn't alway take into account the performance capacity of train operating crews. The recent tragidy reminds us that it is important for everyone - the pulbic, the railroads, the regulators, the unions, and the employees that are out there making it work, day and night, deserve the protection of the best technologies we can possibly afford. Let's find a way to make it work, rather than make excuses for why we cannot afford to implement it (PTC).
Posted by Larry Kaufman on 10/2/2008 9:11:24 AM
"Bill," and I think I know who you are, said exactly what should be said about fatigue, technology and rail safety. I couldn't have said it any better -- and didn't.
Posted by MICHAEL WILLIS on 10/7/2008 10:38:50 PM
Tired of hearing ''DRILL-DRILL-DRILL'' to solve the petroleum predicament? Lets all get aboard and yell ''RAIL-RAIL-RAIL''! Spend the trillion dollars that goes to import more ''OIL-OIL-OIL'' on US railway infrastructure, passenger & freight stations, US built ELECTRIC locomotives, freight, US MAIL, & passenger cars.
Posted by former Feinstein admirer on 10/8/2008 12:50:06 PM
Progressive Railroading 10/08/2008 "National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) Acting Chairman Mark Rosenker recently cited the safety-improving benefits of PTC during a speech at the International Railroad Safety Conference in Denver." "In addition to PTC, Rosenker identified electronically controlled pneumatic brakes; acoustic bearing, wheel impact and truck performance detectors; and intelligent transportation systems as other promising, safety-enhancing technologies." I''m thinking Mr. Rosenker reads TRAINS Magazine. And that''s a good thing.
Posted by Larry Kaufman on 10/10/2008 5:11:42 PM
Having known Mark Rosenker for more than 25 years, I doubt that he reads Trains. I doubt that he reads Progressive Railroading, either, although it would provide him with more rail safety information and technology knews than would Trains. More than likely, his staff provided him with the comments he made. I would hope that high government officials get their information directly from the parties involved than from the news media, no matter how much I may enjoy PR. If the chairman of the NTSB did not know about PTC, ECP, etc., that would be really troubling.
