Jishnu wrote:Are you then suggesting that CSX will not even do PTC on the Empire Corridor? What is it that you get with "cab signal" that you do not basically get with PTC?
CSX is implementing (ITCS?) positive train control on the line, like all Class I's are mandated to. PTC doesn't require cab signals underneath; it can be implemented anywhere if/when all the wireless spectrum issues are worked out. The ACSES-over-cab-signals that Amtrak does and nearly all east coast commuter rail operators are doing merely bootstraps the PTC overlay on top of the existing trackside infrastructure. Both accomplish the same thing; the cab signal overlay just doesn't require nearly as much scarce wireless spectrum bandwidth and has more redundancy/reliability being backed by the fixed infrastructure. Especially once you get past a certain passenger trains per hour saturation point...a wireless signal dropout is not going to slow a freight much, but if it dings as much as 1 passenger train per week past Albany and the cascading delays from that blown schedule stretch back down the Hudson it's going to stick out like a sore thumb. I'm not sure if ACSES-on-cabs territory is going to terminate at Albany or Schenectady before it transitions to CSX's cabless ITCS, but this dispute is entirely a Water Level Route thing.
So that's one sore point where freight + HSR are at odds. Amtrak and NYS would much rather build out from the existing and massive east coast cab signal network with ACSES-on-cabs (or ITCS-on-cabs) west of Albany. That's economy of scale for them as a buildout of the east coast passenger network...it is cheaper for them to do fresh-install cabs + PTC as an extension of that network. It's not good economy of scale for CSX. Right now Selkirk is the dividing line between CSX power that runs in cab territory and power that doesn't. The B&A east to Boston was cabbed by Conrail in the mid-80's. The Hudson is cabbed. Much of what goes down the non-cabbed River Line eventually proceeds into cab territory: anything on commuter rail in NY/NJ/PA, a bunch of Norfolk Southern-originating lines bleeding into Conrail Shared territory, the RF&P sub down to Richmond. But nothing west of Selkirk is cabbed, and no traffic interchanged in/out of Selkirk from Canada or Northern New England is cabbed. So right now they have a pretty neat-and-tidy power segregation where all stuff heading to/from Boston and nearly all stuff heading to/from NYC and points on the coast get cabbed power swapped in, and the cabless power gets sent right back out west. This is why they haven't complained about anyone's signals or PTC in commuter territory...they've got ample cabbed (and ACSES) equipment already traveling daily through all this territory, and because power swaps are easy at Selkirk they pretty much have a pre-existing, naturally-occurring ops separation of east coast vs. non- east coast fleets.
Make the WLR cabs and it totally screws up that balance. So much of the entire CSX nationwide fleet either makes regular trips to Selkirk or has to be ready on short notice to take reassignment to the WLR that forcing them to swallow cab signals basically requires them to install the units on all Chicago-hub locos. Or...vast majority of their whole fleet, even when majority of them won't venture into cab territory or ONLY would have to to get from Buffalo to Selkirk. That's the assumption you'd have to make here. And who's going to pay for all the hundreds of loco installations and staff training 4 states away so CSX doesn't get its ops constrained by this? I don't see NYS volunteering for that. Yes...it's a very big deal and a very big burden to change the way they cycle power. That's another reason why the Hudson and WLR are almost totally separate projects. I really can't see cab signals being practical anywhere past Schenectady.
Other stuff too...the WLR's signals are already optimized for all manner of their freight traffic and freight blocks. So what self-interest do they have in redoing it all for something that doesn't add efficiency, and could potentially harm their efficiency if the signal block length gets shortened and starts fouling 100+ car freights. NYS seems to want them to not only share in the costs for trenching all that signal cable, but also get them to voluntarily give up control of the block layout. And that's a ton of wishful thinking and arguably a lot of arrogance on the state's part. Public money has to pay for the construction, and the passenger interests are the ones that have to compromise or build wholly segregated tracks when somebody's ideal signal block length is in conflict with somebody else's.
CSX is not unreasonable to deal with if you deal with them on their turf. Massachusetts learned that after years of similarly butting heads with them on the B&A. Give them the price they want for control of the tracks and speak to them in terms of enhancing freight efficiency. Jacksonville is
wholly rational, and quite cooperative with passenger interests after you've piqued their rational interest in freight margins. But the state first has to drop its abstract pretenses of what's "right and just" and approach them like a rationally-acting business, not a charity. And New York doesn't seem to want to do that, or learn from anyone else's example. Probably because the pols floating this aren't serious about seeing this through to fruition any further than can enrich themselves today and tee it up as their successors' problem to solve. You don't have to go the CAHSR megaproject comparison to see the difference in attitude at getting something done vs. making lots of noise and setting it up as someone else's problem to solve. Just look at what formerly CSX-antagonistic MA did during Gov. Patrick's tenure at approaching Jacksonville from a different, more productive angle to get what it wanted re: Worcester Line control and Beacon Park redevelopment.
