WASHINGTON — The Federal Railroad Administration has told Union Pacific it doesn’t need waivers in 2019 to operate non-PTC-equipped steam locomotives Nos. 844 and 4014 on three excursions covering 11,111 miles, according to letters betwee…
After reading the letter, if I understand it correctly, it sounds like they have until 2023 to figure out how to get the steam locomotives equipped for PTC. Am I understanding that right?
What I don’t understand is why some big steam operators like Union Pacific, or the Steam Railroading Institute, or the Friends of 261, or the folks from Fort Wayne haven’t contacted their congressmen or senators (they MUST know some) to have legislation passed exempting steam locomotives from PTC.
The engineer in a steam locomotive’s not alone, he’s at least got a fireman with him calling the signals, or a host railroad pilot advising him, and in all likelyhood cab guests. He’s not going to fall asleep or lose concentration with an “audience” watching his every move.
PTC’s just not needed in a steam locomotive cab.
Surely someone can get the ball rolling on this.
The only date I see is December 31, 2020. That’s when their current extension expires. As of last January, a PTC leader is required at the originating station for trains that will run in PTC territory. (Trains that suffer an in-route failure may continue without PTC.) Before that, although PTC was in use, it was still OK to use a non-equipped leader out of an originating terminal.
I can only guess that UP, because it upped the requirement for PTC leaders, thought a separate, specific waiver from the FRA was needed. And that FRA looks at the current extension as a waiver, so one specifically addressing the steam engines isn’t needed.
Jeff
According to my files, ATRRM (now HRA) first advised the tourist/excursion rail industry of this rule and how it would affect mainline (including steam) excursions on PTC equipped lines on January 7, 2012. Specifically, ATRRM advised that, under the PTC rule then in effect, tourist/excursion operations exceeding 20 miles in length on a general system PTC line would have to be equipped for PTC by December 31, 2020. On February 29, 2016, ATRRM advised the industry that, under a revised FRA rule published the same date (in response to statutory changes made by Congress), the new compliance date for tourist/excursion operations exceeding 20 miles on PTC lines was now 12-31-2023.
Bottom line. The industry is aware (or should have been aware) of this issue and its potential imact on mainline steam operations since 2012.
I’ll be real interested in how electronic PTC mechanisms will control the throttle on steam engines when making a penalty brake application - additionally will the PTC electronic displays have cab space priority over Steam and Air gagues on the locomotive backhead. Will also be interesting to see how well the electronics of the PTC equipment stand up to the heat and dirt that define steam engines.
I am not saying it can’t be done, however I have recurring visions of Rube Goldberg at work.
BALT. As well what is the electrical load? Will there be a need for additional generating capacity and what kind of back up ? Electrical or mechanical connected to an axel generator?
Speculation. Maybe throttle control by a electromagnetic valve that would close if current is lost? Would need a bypass plumbing.
Question how did AT&SF and UP handle it with their ATS / ATC.?
We keep having to go over this for some reason – how do you suppose this got done on all those mandated ATS systems in the post-Esch-Act 1920s?
Now, it does have to be said that many of these were decidedly on the primitive side, depending on the fact that the brakes can easily source the equivalent of tens of thousands of horsepower vs. what the steam can produce in the cylinders even at full running cutoff. But even the provision of servo centering of the valve gear as part of penalty actuation isn’t rocket science even with straight relay logic, and the addition of something as simple as a Franklin Precision or Throttle-Master air throttle makes the issue trivial even if you retain the grapevine linkage … incidentally the T1 Trust 5550 is specifically designed to take native PTC not just for “penalty” applications but for continuous speed control, so the work has been done.
Probably not – but why would they?
A perhaps better question is whether, in a given installation, they would be permanently mounted at all. Note that the screen displays and controls are not relevant to the functioning of the system as a ‘penalty’ assurance of safety; you could easily make the necessary “controls” to look exactly like, say, historical inductor ATC forestaller levers and the like. On the other hand, it’s simple to provide innocuous bracketry and properly environment-protected connectors to