gokeefe wrote:That depends almost entirely on who the new Governor is.It seems just as likely to me that regardless of the governor, Maine tells Amtrak to pound sand. Several orders of magnitude cheaper to put up “Buses can use the shoulder” signs on I-95 than subsidizing a full I-ETMS or ACSES II install, and Maine can still claim those CMAQ funds.
Railroad Forums
Amtrak Shutting Down Several Route Sections 12/31/2018
- Discussion related to Amtrak also known as the National Railroad Passenger Corp.
Moderators: GirlOnTheTrain, mtuandrew, Tadman
Maine will not be paying for PTC that isn't required by law. Receiving federal funds to install it would be another matter entirely.
gokeefe
Anyone who believes this isnt going to happen needs to take a look around. Mr Anderson dosent care about Maine Vermont or anywhere else. The FRA has its rules and regs and Mr Anderson dosent care if it fits inside those regs. No PTC no go. This is a rather hot topic at the crew base I work in as it effects one currently and possibly two trains
gokeefe wrote:Maine will not be paying for PTC that isn't required by law. Receiving federal funds to install it would be another matter entirely.That's understandable, but it seems that Anderson wants to "exceed the law" of safety when, in essence, he has stated no PTC, no Amtrak.
Jeff or John: Are you willing to ask Anderson for comment, as a writer from RAILROAD.NET? That sounds official enough that we might actually get answers that way.
NGEC August minutes came out couple days ago. Found this interesting:
"On 8-14-18, Charlie King provided a high-level overview of the RFP that is on the streets for power and cited some of the differences between the PRIIA specification and that of Amtrak. Amtrak began with the PRIIA spec as its baseline and added some items based on its needs.
Some of those differences/changes include: Amtrak speed is 110mph vs PRIIA “up to” 125mph; 1000 KW HEP system vs PRIIA’s 600 KW Amtrak is calling for a 2,200-gallon fuel tank – to PRIIA’s call for 1,800 to 2,200 gallons; and the maximum length for Amtrak is 85 feet vs 72 feet called for in the PRIIA spec. There are other items such as those pertaining to advanced analytics and safety options especially in areas where there will be no PTC, and other safety measures will be required."
Charlie King works for Amtrak, FYI.
*Emphasis was done by me, not NGEC.
"On 8-14-18, Charlie King provided a high-level overview of the RFP that is on the streets for power and cited some of the differences between the PRIIA specification and that of Amtrak. Amtrak began with the PRIIA spec as its baseline and added some items based on its needs.
Some of those differences/changes include: Amtrak speed is 110mph vs PRIIA “up to” 125mph; 1000 KW HEP system vs PRIIA’s 600 KW Amtrak is calling for a 2,200-gallon fuel tank – to PRIIA’s call for 1,800 to 2,200 gallons; and the maximum length for Amtrak is 85 feet vs 72 feet called for in the PRIIA spec. There are other items such as those pertaining to advanced analytics and safety options especially in areas where there will be no PTC, and other safety measures will be required."
Charlie King works for Amtrak, FYI.
*Emphasis was done by me, not NGEC.
In essence a specification that Siemens can meet in their sleep. I have to wonder if the length change is favorable to the Charger.
gokeefe
gokeefe wrote:In essence a specification that Siemens can meet in their sleep. I have to wonder if the length change is favorable to the Charger.85 feet is just 13 feet longer than 72 feet, besides fitting a large fuel tank under the main deck, what would they place on the extra 13 feet, a larger restroom?
electricron wrote:A larger fuel tank, maybe a larger HEP engine and larger DEF tanks. Doesn’t need to be 85’, but it’s there in case a manufacturer has a design that needs the space (like if they’re using a GEVO-12 or 12-1010.)gokeefe wrote:In essence a specification that Siemens can meet in their sleep. I have to wonder if the length change is favorable to the Charger.85 feet is just 13 feet longer than 72 feet, besides fitting a large fuel tank under the main deck, what would they place on the extra 13 feet, a larger restroom?
Might be larger Cooling Rads for the prime mover and inverters,along with the larger fuel.DEF and cooling water tanks.
and enough room for Both ACSES and I-ETMS PTC gear
and enough room for Both ACSES and I-ETMS PTC gear
The Land of Enchantment is not Flyover country!
Railjunkie wrote:Anyone who believes this isnt going to happen needs to take a look around. Mr Anderson dosent care about Maine Vermont or anywhere else. The FRA has its rules and regs and Mr Anderson dosent care if it fits inside those regs. No PTC no go. This is a rather hot topic at the crew base I work in as it effects one currently and possibly two trainsAs you know, the FRA establishes only minimum safety regulations. Railroads are free to exceed them to increase safety for employees and the public above and beyond the minimum. I would like to think that many railroads care sufficiently for employee safety that they adopt higher levels of safety standards. For example, my career-long former employer was required to meet the safety requirements of OSHA and certain other federal and state requirements for its electric and gas delivery system. The safety standards that the company adopted were significantly above the minimum necessary for legal compliance. The other concern is that in the event of personal injury litigation by a passenger or other member of the public in the event of an accident in non-PTC terrirtory which would have been prevented by PTC, a valid legal argument can be made that management to save money wilfully exposed the public to danger by failing to install and utiliize the PTC state of the art safety system. That could well convince a jury that Amtrak should not just pay actual and special damages to the injured plaintiffs, but substantial punitive damages in addition. Punitive damages are often several times or more than the actual damages.
~Ken :: Fairmont ex-UP/MP C436 MT-14M1 ::
Black River Railroad Historical Trust :: [/url]
Black River Railroad Historical Trust :: [/url]
To sort of throw this back on topic:
The section I emphasized: I may be interpreting it incorrectly, but does that mean that Amtrak is looking at some sort of “built-in” safety system to compensate for the lack of PTC, thereby negating this whole problem?
The section I emphasized: I may be interpreting it incorrectly, but does that mean that Amtrak is looking at some sort of “built-in” safety system to compensate for the lack of PTC, thereby negating this whole problem?
My take on it is they intend to have some sort of improved protocols. CTC with enhanced radio protocols. Or Form D on steroids.
gokeefe
gokeefe wrote:My take on it is they intend to have some sort of improved protocols. CTC with enhanced radio protocols. Or Form D on steroids.I like the idea of Form D on Steroids. To me, that sounds like the dispatcher would email a computerized warrant to the train’s ACSES or I-ETMS system as well as verbally verifying the warrant, then the crew would email it & their location back for verification. The crew would then follow any restrictions in the warrant, but if the crew didn’t follow instructions or the dispatcher sent an emergency stop, the locomotive computer would also follow the warrant and apply brakes based on its own GPS position.
The dispatcher wouldn’t know precisely where the trains are, but they would know that the train is following their instructions to the letter.
Would "form D on steroids" electronic enforcement of track warrants require replacement of the present IETMS or ASCES systems in the locomotives on those routes?
