WASHINGTON — Amtrak’s CEO says the passenger railroad will not operate trains over track sections that are not compliant with positive train control laws. Amtrak CEO Richard Anderson is scheduled to testify before the U.S. House of Representat…
Where Amtrak runs over track that is owned by Commuter carrrier, such as Sun Rail who just let a contract for design, build, install and test of PTC this week - there could be issues at the end of the year.
The commuter carriers have been looking for the golden hen ever since the mandate was approved by Congress. There haven’t been any golden eggs found.
I sense layoffs.
Well, apparently there are $31 Billion in golden eggs sitting unrequested in low-interest RRIF loans in Washington D.C., so maybe the commuter agencies where just looking for a free handout instead of low-cost government loans(which are almost as good as free handouts from what I’ve seen).
One of the key remaining tasks is interoperability. The key to that is to get the data needed for the trip loaded at the trip start. First, I have to know which locomotive has to get the data. The foreign road has to supply that. Then I need to know where and when to send my data. Then the foreign road has to deliver the data to the right locomotive in time for the trip.
So, in the case of the Crescent, NS will have to send the route data and other info up to Amtrak so it can be loaded at Ivy City for the outbound power at WAS.
As I understand it, the frt RRs are only beginning to start playing with this. There are suggested standards, but…
One thing I don’t here being discussed is what Amtrak will do with and for CSX, NS and Conrail trains on the NEC and it’s branches.
As far as I know, the freight roads aren’t going to equip any part of their fleet with ACSES. I’m not even sure ACSES would function well in freight service…
There was talk of using the data radio network that Amtrak has - or will have - on it’s signals to provide for I-ETMS interoperability on the NEC, but I haven’t heard a peep about this anywhere.
This is a question Trains needs to ask Amtrak.
Interoperatability between Class 1 carriers has been the stumbling block as the carriers worked upon a PTC design that they all could use - with their relative variety of signal systems as well as their variety of dark territory control. Needless to say Amtrak’s diesel fleet will have to work with the Class 1 carriers PTC - I don’t know if the Amtrak diesels are equipped with ACSES to operate on the NEC, where electric locomotives are the normal power. (Back in the day PRR did use diesels when the catenary was disabled by snow storms.)
Amtrak’s ACSES works for them - but no body else. I don’t know what system Amtrak is or is intending to use on the trackage they own in Michigan.
Oh well…and what about the Amtrak fleet not properly equipped?
And in Chicago, Amtrak has two sets of locomitives with different PTC systems, one for the Michigan service and one for UP’s Illinois service. As i hear it they are not able to interoperate. Yet.
The Michigan system is called ITCS. The I is for incremental. It’s almost completely decentralized. Each location (signal, road Xing, etc.) talks directly to the train.
It was the brain child of Harmon Electronics (now part of GE-Harris) and grew out of their signal and cab signal supply business. They were quite the inovators in their day.
The Michigan trains are going to have to be dual equipped. I think the UP side is using I-ETMS…but I’m not sure.
I believe they are creeping up on it. It’s the interoperability and getting data from host roads to the Amtrak locomotives that’s going to be the tough task…
ACSES was the brain child of one particular Amtrak employee who thought coded track circuits and cab signalling were the alpha and omega of train control.
ACSES is really just the PRR cab signal system with another layer of signal indications with a second carrier frequency. (250 Hz?). Assorted bells and whistles are piled on top to get absolute stops, civil speeds and road worker protection.
In the short run, he might have been right. In the long run, I don’t think so. Way to much “stuff” to accomplish the whole PTC task.
Two interesting points of view with some history
But enough to accomplish very important parts of it, with the tacit understanding that other systems would fill in the holes, and perhaps come to substitute for some of the howitzer-swatting-a-fly excesses in certain areas.
And, looking at the discussion of ‘vital systems’ you posted (from Light and then Ditmeyer) – getting the functionality of greatest importance up quickly and at least temporarily avoiding ‘the better being the enemy of the good’ in getting the vital things workable?
I have not followed this issue, nor do I have much knowledge of the technical details.
But won’t some railroads say, “Amtrak won’t run on us? Yippee!!!”
???
The following memo was prepared for the members of the state of Vermont’s Vermont Rail Advisory Council to try to put both a Vermont and a national perspective on this issue. We next meet February 28 and based on Anderson’s threats have very little time to evolve a plan that will prevent the withdrawal of all Amtrak service in Vermont January 1, 2019. As noted below we are legally exempt from the PTC requirement, could not possibly now comply (both for financial and real-world reasons) and face a terrible dilemna.
Amtrak President Anderson’s threats to “suspend” services cut in multiple ways.
Main Lines with Operable PTC owned by Amtrak: All assumed to be in compliance by the end of 2018 and therefore Amtrak would continue to serve these segments. But this is basically just the Boston-Washington core of the Northeast Corridor and the Dearborn, MI to Niles, IN (Detroit-Chicago) line, plus a few miles of the Empire Service in the Albany, NY area. All other Amtrak trains run on the tracks of other freight or commuter railroads.
Main Lines with Operable PTC not owned by Amtrak: All should be fine–BUT–at present the only Class One Railroad that appears to be fully PTC ready by the end of 2018 is the BNSF system. But parts of BNSF over which Amtrak operates are PTC exempt. For example, the SW CHIEF route Chicago-Los Angeles will be compliant, except for several hundred miles (with no regular freight traffic) right in the middle of the line over Raton Pass–so this train line could end up being severed in the middle. UP, CSX, CP and NS are all working on the PTC installation issue, but some of their routes may not be ready until 2020. This was permitted under the existing law with a proper waiver. But Anderson now threatens to “suspend” Amtrak over any such segments at the end of this year. See the next section.
Main Lines with PTC under installation–but not ready b
Carl’s post raises some questions.
Does ATK President know what he is talking about? I kind of doubt it.
Is he bluffing? If so, who? The freight railroads would rightly celebrate the removal of ATK from their property, so he has negative leverage there. Congress? Another $2.5 billion for passenger trains here and there. Do not bet against the stupidity of congress, they have been pouring money down the ATK rat hole for 47 years!
Is he posturing for the NTSB in the context of the Dupont wreck, hoping that no one who cares remembers what he said? NTSB has been beating its PTC drum for deacdes and finally succeeded in imposing this huge waste on the industry. They are not going to back off with blood in the water.
Bring lots of popcorn!
Congress actually had provided 2.3 Billion in the current budget for safety/PTC loans/grants. DeFazio’s proposal for 2.5 B next year is certainly shaky, but any percent of it would help. Congress owes this to rail for such an extraordinary unfunded mandate.
The problem for the exempt lines is more intractable. Unless the FRA Regulations on PTC are changed such lines would not be eligible because they are adjudged not to need PTC.
This link leads to the testimony by Amtrak President Richard Anderson.
https://transportation.house.gov/uploadedfiles/2018-02-15_-_anderson_testimony.pdf
But Anderson’s ultimatum suggests Amtrak on its own initiative will compel PTC (or perhaps some less onerous equivilent) as a condition of continued use of such lines. This is a real Catch 22 for routes like the VERMONTER, ETHAN ALLEN, SW CHIEF, DOWNEASTER and possibly other parts of routes–as they have made no progress because they weren’t required/didn’t need to build it.
And again the SW CHIEF may not be the only main line at risk. How does the CP stand on full implementation between St. Paul and Chicago? The BNSF may have everything spiffy for the CALIFORNIA ZEPHYR Chicago to Denver, but how is the UP doing west of there? There is very little freight traffic left on the Moffat Route–especially west of Bond to Grand Jct. Was it exempted? If not will it be ready? Has the UP got the complex TEXAS EAGLE line cleared south of St. Louis? Freight is fairly scarce between STL and Poplar Bluff. Is that stretch exempt?
There are so many examples of this sort of thing. We know the CARDINAL was exempt Indianapolis to Crawfordsville, but what about Charlottesville-Clifton Forge over the Blue Ridge on the Buckingham Branch RR (the old C&O passenger route now used by freights only to a limited degree)?
This performance by Mr. Anderson to the House may have made Amtrak
There are three cases:
-
Where PTC is almost entirely in place and a waiver is required for the “gap”. Amtrak says they will ask themselves what additional protections need to be in place to continue operating. My guess is that they will find a way to keep operating. I wouldn’t lose any sleep over this one.
-
Where PTC is behind and no waiver is granted. That road can’t operate their PTC territory. Period. Can’t imagine this will have any impact on Amtrak at all. Consequences are rather grave for the host…
-
Places where Amtrak runs but PTC is not required. This could be the sticky one, but I’ll bet it’s all a tempest in a teapot. Why? Anderson said: “Third, there are areas over which we operate for which there is an FRA “Mainline Track Exclusion” in place exempting that segment from the PTC requirements based on the low levels of freight and passenger train traffic or the presence of low-speed operations, such as in yards and terminals. We are currently reviewing our policy on operating passenger trains on Exclusions to determine whether we have adequate safety mitigation practices in place for each territory and in certain areas, where signal systems are not in place, we will reconsider whether we operate at all.”
All this means is Amtrak wants to be sure safety is “adequate”. This could mean that they think everything is fine as is, or that some extra layer of safety is put in place.
For example, it could mean highrailing ahead of the train in dark territory (pretty simple for Whitehall to Rutland). Or, perhaps that absolute blocks are granted on top of any CTC authority, etc.
I think the “conspiracy theory” thinking that this is all a sneaky way to eliminate LD trains is just a whole trainload of BS. What it is, is Anderson telling Congress that safety in general, and PT