Sixty minutes,the CBS newsmagazine is suppose to air segment on the progress of p t c according to my tv guide.....7:00 pm.....est. March 3 rd
Original Post
Replies sorted oldest to newest
How many errors will this have......
I wonder if it will include such tidbits as NJT leasing exSepta electrics to show as PTC equipped engines on the books, but not actually running them?
I can only speak from my experience, the implementation of PTC has been nothing short of frustrating. It is not a tool, but rather a hindrance riddled with glitches because of rushing to get it up and running. Most of the other guys down here love it, but that's not surprising since those are also the same people who admit how much they hate their jobs and would probably jump for joy at the positions of conductor or engineer becoming a thing of the past from automation...
People love it ?
It has a few plus sides,but the amount of times that the PTC help desk is toned up every night I'm at work is annoying.
Granted the system is getting better ,and it was created for a good reason but it's beyond me how people could love it,yuck !
This had to be one of the most egregious hack jobs CBS has ever broadcast.
They fail to mention the technology essentially did not exist at the time Congress mandated it. They did not mention that Congress did not allocate a single dime to the railroads to offset the cost. They glossed over regulatory hurdles such as the excruciatingly long process to obtain permits for transmission towers among other issues. And in what was probably their biggest omission; they failed to note that strict enforcement of the original deadline would have crippled the economy and endangered the public water supply when chemicals necessary for water treatment could not have been moved by rail.
As Rich has often said; journalism is dead. Tonight; CBS proved his point.
Curt
Curt: CBS 60 minutes takes feedback. You might want to forward your comments.
IMO Mike CT.
Excellent suggestion Mike! I just submitted my comments to CBS.
Curt
I Wasn't real impressed with the section on PTC either, especially since CBS couldn't get any "comment" from CSX. The "report" tended to give the viewer the impression that the "poor" Conductor and Engineer were fired over the event with the misaligned switch in the deadly Amtrak crash, yet he really didn't do anything wrong.
mackb4 posted:People love it ?
It has a few plus sides,but the amount of times that the PTC help desk is toned up every night I'm at work is annoying.
Granted the system is getting better ,and it was created for a good reason but it's beyond me how people could love it,yuck !
Yep. Guys have bought into this totally false and dangerous line of "PTC will keep you from getting fired". Yeah, let it enforce you on a speed restriction and see what happens if you don't have a **** good excuse as to why it enforced you. The other argument I hear all the time is that it takes the guess work out of calling a work authority in multi-track territory approaching an interlocking where you'll be taking another track. It's like...not that hard to ask for "all tracks" or bring it down until you can make sure you know what track you're being sent down. It's not rocket science, fellas.
It's pretty annoying because we also run under cab signals and PTC doesn't play well with cab signals (likely because my employer didn't want to spend the extra time and effort to solve issues between the two). For example, if I pass a wayside displaying an approach, and the cab signal upgrades in the middle of the block, PTC will hold me to 30 mph, and try to get me to stop at the next signal until I get within that 1700'-ish window up to the signal...even if I have a clear in the cab and can visually see the clear wayside out of the window.
Similarly, I pulled up and stopped at an intermediate signal displaying "approach" so I wouldn't block a crossing. As soon as I stopped, PTC throws up a restricted speed fence even though I never downgraded below a clear in the cab, or passed the approach signal (an intermediate, again). When the wayside popped up to a clear, PTC held me to restricted speed all the way to the next absolute signal. All with clear signals in the cab, and on the waysides. This has happened to me several times. When I asked a PTC guy about it, he told me PTC is designed so that the most restrictive aspect governs, as a fail safe. It didn't matter to him that the signal never passed anything less than a clear...
Jeffrey Sessa posted:mackb4 posted:People love it ?
It has a few plus sides,but the amount of times that the PTC help desk is toned up every night I'm at work is annoying.
Granted the system is getting better ,and it was created for a good reason but it's beyond me how people could love it,yuck !
Yep. Guys have bought into this totally false and dangerous line of "PTC will keep you from getting fired". Yeah, let it enforce you on a speed restriction and see what happens if you don't have a **** good excuse as to why it enforced you. The other argument I hear all the time is that it takes the guess work out of calling a work authority in multi-track territory approaching an interlocking where you'll be taking another track. It's like...not that hard to ask for "all tracks" or bring it down until you can make sure you know what track you're being sent down. It's not rocket science, fellas.
It's pretty annoying because we also run under cab signals and PTC doesn't play well with cab signals (likely because my employer didn't want to spend the extra time and effort to solve issues between the two). For example, if I pass a wayside displaying an approach, and the cab signal upgrades in the middle of the block, PTC will hold me to 30 mph, and try to get me to stop at the next signal until I get within that 1700'-ish window up to the signal...even if I have a clear in the cab and can visually see the clear wayside out of the window.
Similarly, I pulled up and stopped at an intermediate signal displaying "approach" so I wouldn't block a crossing. As soon as I stopped, PTC throws up a restricted speed fence even though I never downgraded below a clear in the cab, or passed the approach signal (an intermediate, again). When the wayside popped up to a clear, PTC held me to restricted speed all the way to the next absolute signal. All with clear signals in the cab, and on the waysides. This has happened to me several times. When I asked a PTC guy about it, he told me PTC is designed so that the most restrictive aspect governs, as a fail safe. It didn't matter to him that the signal never passed anything less than a clear...
What we have here is a failure to communicate electronicly.
This segment was a perfect match for the junk science in the previous.
Jon 
It will be interesting to see if CBS 60 Minutes, (Lesley Stahl), replies to Curt. 
Maybe it's because I'm somewhat more knowledgeable about the subject from an interested "non industry" person, but I agree wit JUNIATA GUY 100%, that had to rank as one of the worst 60 MINUTES pieces ever.
LOTS of missing information and terribly one sided journalism grandstanding in my opinion.
Seriously guys? I work in the broadcast media and see this all the time. Just extrapolate what you saw last night to every story on every network and you get a better idea of just how "informed" you are...
Jon
Mike CT posted:It will be interesting to see if CBS 60 Minutes, (Lesley Stahl), replies to Curt.
LOL! I’m not holding my breath Mike. 😏
Curt
I don't waste my time with TV. Nothing of any value. Not at all surprised they would put on junk.
Was just reading another forum about that segment last night, and the Engineer certainly changed his response to 60 Minutes as compared to the statement/statements he gave the NTSB "on the record". What a farce!
it might have helped if more time was allowed to cover this subject ,but with Lesley Stahl reporting.....not likely ...i lost any respect i had for her when she interviewed and drilled president Trump a while back....
So, what is the Hold Up with PTC???
SPSF posted:So, what is the Hold Up with PTC???
1) The technology didn't even exist when Congress mandated PTC be implemented.
2) Congress never appropriated ANY funds for development nor any funds for implementation.
3) Some railroads are already complete, i.e. BNSF, for those lines that require PTC.
4) Many of the initial delays were related to "conflicts" between the FCC and the FRA concerning use of required GPS access & information.
I thought Amtrak's version of PTC was already in use before the mandate. But from what I understand, it required between the rail detectors, and other such hard wired devices. Expensive to put in, expensive to maintain. And it was used in the NEC. (Not that any PTC system is cheap.) From what I read in a TRAINS article, the freight railroads wanted a system which did not need such devices.
NS is actually installing their version of PTC parallel to Amtrak's at places they have freight rights. Why? So they can run any NS locomotive there, instead of having to install Amtrak's system on a select fleet.
Outside of the NEC, a high speed line in MI, and a UP segment of a UP line between Chicago and St. Louis, are the railroads using a "common standard" to PTC?
Dominic Mazoch posted:I thought Amtrak's version of PTC was already in use before the mandate. But from what I understand, it required between the rail detectors, and other such hard wired devices. Expensive to put in, expensive to maintain. And it was used in the NEC. (Not that any PTC system is cheap.) From what I read in a TRAINS article, the freight railroads wanted a system which did not need such devices.
NS is actually installing their version of PTC parallel to Amtrak's at places they have freight rights. Why? So they can run any NS locomotive there, instead of having to install Amtrak's system on a select fleet.
Outside of the NEC, a high speed line in MI, and a UP segment of a UP line between Chicago and St. Louis, are the railroads using a "common standard" to PTC?
Eventually all class one carriers are suppose to be transparent on compatibility. ....yeah right the thing won't work on each individual railroad now.
One day same engine,same track route it works next day it fails and PTC back shop tells you to log out next time you safely stop .
Just happened to me last night.
I don't necessarily blame the carriers, but the technology.
Hot Water posted:SPSF posted:So, what is the Hold Up with PTC???
1) The technology didn't even exist when Congress mandated PTC be implemented.
2) Congress never appropriated ANY funds for development nor any funds for implementation.
3) Some railroads are already complete, i.e. BNSF, for those lines that require PTC.
4) Many of the initial delays were related to "conflicts" between the FCC and the FRA concerning use of required GPS access & information.
Naturally, CBS didn't bring up the massive cost, new technology and wishful thinking when they did their hatchet job report.
"Hey, they're big companies with a lot of money, so they should be done with it by now," is all they can say. Sure, easy for CBS to say that.
PTC (POSITIVE TRAIN CONTROL). for those that don't know, because I didn't and had to google it.
Glad I missed the 60 minutes hack job. That used to be a must see 25 years ago but, jeez, what's happened to that platform is indicative of nearly all the news outlets. The evening tv news makes me vomit almost every night. Watch for the weather report & the rest is almost always garbage. But the thing about PTC to start with is that it won't really matter as much for the safety of the public when applied to freight trains. True, implementation might save the lives of some crews. Statistically it's an outlay in the billions of dollars for nearly zero return. The saving of the lives of passengers aboard trains is totally different and this is where the focus should be and the costs can probably be justified. I would have hoped that the federal govt. could see the distinction. The PTC equipment ought to be compatible with cab signal equipment but with manufacturers guarding their proprietary technologies, good luck integrating the two systems. This will be a tough one until one company owns both. In a perfect world this is how things would work.
Phil:
I can’t speak for all the Class 1’s but NS plans to utilize PTC to eliminate intermediate wayside signals on lines that currently have cab signal functionality. On these lines, the only locations at which waysides will continue to exist is at control points. I know the Pittsburgh line from Harrisburg west is one of the lines on which they plan to eliminate the intermediate waysides. In theory at least; that should reduce the cost of maintaining all the intermediate signals. Of course; the cost of maintaining PTC related equipment may offset this.
I would also be certain that at a certain point; the Class 1’s will use PTC as a springboard to one man crews.
Curt
juniata guy posted:Phil:
I can’t speak for all the Class 1’s but NS plans to utilize PTC to eliminate intermediate wayside signals on lines that currently have cab signal functionality. On these lines, the only locations at which waysides will continue to exist is at control points. I know the Pittsburgh line from Harrisburg west is one of the lines on which they plan to eliminate the intermediate waysides. In theory at least; that should reduce the cost of maintaining all the intermediate signals. Of course; the cost of maintaining PTC related equipment may offset this.
I would also be certain that at a certain point; the Class 1’s will use PTC as a springboard to one man crews.
Curt
There was once a point in my life where I never thought that I would say this, alas, with each passing day I am so thankful that I am retired from NS!
OK:
Train going along. PTC senses something wrong. What happens next? Warning to the engineer to do something? And if the engineer does not? I would think putting the train brakes into emergency at the first sign of trouble would be a good idea.
Dominic Mazoch posted:OK:
Train going along. PTC senses something wrong. What happens next? Warning to the engineer to do something? And if the engineer does not? I would think putting the train brakes into emergency at the first sign of trouble would be a good idea.
"Emergency" no. Penalty Brake Application, yes.
Phil McCaig posted:Glad I missed the 60 minutes hack job. That used to be a must see 25 years ago but, jeez, what's happened to that platform is indicative of nearly all the news outlets. The evening tv news makes me vomit almost every night. Watch for the weather report & the rest is almost always garbage. But the thing about PTC to start with is that it won't really matter as much for the safety of the public when applied to freight trains. True, implementation might save the lives of some crews. Statistically it's an outlay in the billions of dollars for nearly zero return. The saving of the lives of passengers aboard trains is totally different and this is where the focus should be and the costs can probably be justified. I would have hoped that the federal govt. could see the distinction. The PTC equipment ought to be compatible with cab signal equipment but with manufacturers guarding their proprietary technologies, good luck integrating the two systems. This will be a tough one until one company owns both. In a perfect world this is how things would work.
Obviously, PTC is most needed where you have a lot of people involved, for example passenger rail or even more so, commuter rail, where if an accident happens a lot of people can be hurt or killed. The real issue to me would be where freight and passenger trains share the rails, in that case a freight line having to have PTC would be about saving lives on passenger trains. So if you have a class 1 freight railroad whose rails only ship freight, then the PTC mandate might be questionable, but should for example CSX shared trackage with Amtrak be exempt? A freight train out of control could crash into a passenger train, causing havoc. The other thing, what about freight lines in areas with high population? Train flies off the tracks and explodes in the middle of rural Montana, only people killed likely are the train crew, but happens in a Chicago suburb or a large town in Pennsylvania, you have a lot of casualties (kind of like that Denzel Washington movie "Unstoppable"). On the other hand, given the way government reacts to something like a horrific crash, you end up with a mandate like PTC, rather than targeting the real need (risk to people ie passenger trains, densely populated areas), they put up a broad, universal mandate that weighs a ton, seen this a lot in the financial industry.
The whole fatal flaw is the "government mandates and reality must follow" philosophy, whether it's fuel mileage, electric vehicles or PTC.
Few people deny the need for progress in any industry, including railroading.
Bureaucrats mandating unproven technology with unfunded mandates is a recipe for disaster.
I was a conductor for 13 years and worked with PC, Conrail, Amtrak and NJT equipment on the road and in the yards. I have also consulted with railroad buddy engineers.
1) Was the dispatcher informed by the freight conductor that the switch was thrown normal for the main line track or not?
2) If signals were not working then the train was running under train orders from interlocking to interlocking.
3) It was up to the freight conductor and dispatcher to know which way the siding switch was aligned before the dispatcher allowed the Amtrak train to proceed.
4) If the dispatcher did not receive a call from the Conductor indicating the switch lined up for the main line, the accident is on the dispatcher for allowing the train to proceed. All radio communications are recorded.
5) If the Conductor lied about throwing the switch back for the main line, the accident was on him.
6) Did the dispatcher have any ability, at all, to know the position of the siding switch through his model board or computer display?
7) If PTS was fully operational, in that area, it would have known the switch position through electrical connection.
8) Again, even if PTS was down for any reason, there should have been communication between the freight conductor and the dispatcher as to the position of the switch.
9) The freight engineman was not, at all, responsible for this accident. It's was between the freight conductor and the dispatcher.
10) Facing point switches, sometimes, glitch.
THE END
Ponz posted:9) The freight engineman was not, at all, responsible for this accident. It's was between the freight conductor and the dispatcher.
I'll defer to your experience. But it begs the question, why did the engineer get canned?
And why didn't the union fight that?
p51 posted:Ponz posted:9) The freight engineman was not, at all, responsible for this accident. It's was between the freight conductor and the dispatcher.
I'll defer to your experience. But it begs the question, why did the engineer get canned?
And why didn't the union fight that?
He shouldn't have.
Ponz posted:p51 posted:Ponz posted:9) The freight engineman was not, at all, responsible for this accident. It's was between the freight conductor and the dispatcher.
I'll defer to your experience. But it begs the question, why did the engineer get canned?
And why didn't the union fight that?
He shouldn't have.
Just my opinion but, I believe he should have been fired, along with the Conductor. On the interview with CBS the Engineer gave a number of contrary statements that did NOT mirror what he testified, on the record, with the NTSB. The folks at CBS NEVER addressed THAT!
Again, in my opinion, I believe that the Engineer sensed/knew, deep-down, that the Conductor had NOT realigned the main line turnout back to the proper mainline position.
Hot Water posted:Ponz posted:p51 posted:Ponz posted:9) The freight engineman was not, at all, responsible for this accident. It's was between the freight conductor and the dispatcher.
I'll defer to your experience. But it begs the question, why did the engineer get canned?
And why didn't the union fight that?
He shouldn't have.
Just my opinion but, I believe he should have been fired, along with the Conductor. On the interview with CBS the Engineer gave a number of contrary statements that did NOT mirror what he testified, on the record, with the NTSB. The folks at CBS NEVER addressed THAT!
Again, in my opinion, I believe that the Engineer sensed/knew, deep-down, that the Conductor had NOT realigned the main line turnout back to the proper mainline position.
As discussed in a thread over a year ago dealing with this incident, for whatever reason, CSX Operating Rules detailing how main track switches are to be handled, and their position documented in TWC (Track Warrant Control) territory were circumvented by the CSX crew. These rules were in effect as a result of FRA Emergency Order 24 issued in 2005 in response to a number of similar incidents involving main track switches in dark territory left open, causing fatal freight train accidents, most notably Graniteville SC.
Hot’s hunch has some merit. At the time I was told by reliable sources close to the accident investigation that the CSX engineer was indeed off the locomotive, on the ground heading towards the switch because he had some doubt as to its proper position.
GP 40 posted:Hot Water posted:Ponz posted:p51 posted:Ponz posted:9) The freight engineman was not, at all, responsible for this accident. It's was between the freight conductor and the dispatcher.
I'll defer to your experience. But it begs the question, why did the engineer get canned?
And why didn't the union fight that?
He shouldn't have.
Just my opinion but, I believe he should have been fired, along with the Conductor. On the interview with CBS the Engineer gave a number of contrary statements that did NOT mirror what he testified, on the record, with the NTSB. The folks at CBS NEVER addressed THAT!
Again, in my opinion, I believe that the Engineer sensed/knew, deep-down, that the Conductor had NOT realigned the main line turnout back to the proper mainline position.
As discussed in a thread over a year ago dealing with this incident, for whatever reason, CSX Operating Rules detailing how main track switches are to be handled, and their position documented in TWC (Track Warrant Control) territory were circumvented by the CSX crew. These rules were in effect as a result of FRA Emergency Order 24 issued in 2005 in response to a number of similar incidents involving main track switches in dark territory left open, causing fatal freight train accidents, most notably Graniteville SC.
Hot’s hunch has some merit. At the time I was told by reliable sources close to the accident investigation that the CSX engineer was indeed off the locomotive, on the ground heading towards the switch because he had some doubt as to its proper position.
Graniteville gave us the SPAF form.
It is ironic that 60 Minutes chose to spend so much time on the AMTRAK 91, Cayce, SC incident during a segement criticizing the carriers implementation of PTC.
Had PTC NOT been mandated by Federal Law, the signal suspension would have not been necessary and this particular accident would not have occurred.
I was on Long Point Road and Hempstead Highway in Houston TX. I noticed a switch on the UP Eureka Sub. It seemed to have newly placed wiring on it. PTC?
GP 40 posted:It is ironic that 60 Minutes chose to spend so much time on the AMTRAK 91, Cayce, SC incident during a segement criticizing the carriers implementation of PTC.
Had PTC NOT been mandated by Federal Law, the signal suspension would have not been necessary and this particular accident would not have occurred.
However you slice it, one way or the other, there was a lack of communication between the freight conductor and the dispatcher.
