by Gilbert B Norman
Ms. Nellie Bly and other proponents of Positive Train Control will be less than happy when first glancing at April TRAINS cover and even less so when reviewing the Fred Frailey column to which it refers.
Mr. Frailey sets forth a position I have personally held that PTC was born by legislation, namely RSIA '08, signed by a lame-duck president, and initiated by a congress desperate to 'show the folks back home we're doing something about Chatsworth", yet without any sense of accountability to what was being forced upon the industry. There is an active topic here at this forum originated by Ms. Bly that addresses PTC within the passenger train environment, yet Mr. Frailey's column is focused on the consequences to the industry as a whole. It is one thing to impose PTC upon operators of passenger trains - they have the public dole to pick up the tab and most anywhere passenger trains are operated in any volume, systems that qualify as "PTC" are operational (major exception is of course the "one a day" frequency of Amtrak Long Distance trains). But the Class I freight system has only the shippers for whom to pick up the tab and because of the "oligopsony" nature of the industry, i.e. few very large buyers and few very large providers of a service, if there is to be resistance from shippers, the cost of this system could well be borne by the industry's stakeholders, i.e. shareholders, debt-holders, vendors, and employees.
However, Mr. Frailey correctly points out how the industry balked at the installation of Centralized Train Control (CTC) and that the first 'breakthrough' of a system first installed during 1927 did not occur until Al Pearlman applied same to the entire New York Central Water Level Route during the later '50's. The Northeast Corridor only became controlled by CTC during the Amtrak era as both the PRR and the NYNH&H resisted such installation. So he holds that the initial industry resistance could wear down in time - but not likely by the legislated 2015 "PTC-Day".
Let the discussion begin.
Mr. Frailey sets forth a position I have personally held that PTC was born by legislation, namely RSIA '08, signed by a lame-duck president, and initiated by a congress desperate to 'show the folks back home we're doing something about Chatsworth", yet without any sense of accountability to what was being forced upon the industry. There is an active topic here at this forum originated by Ms. Bly that addresses PTC within the passenger train environment, yet Mr. Frailey's column is focused on the consequences to the industry as a whole. It is one thing to impose PTC upon operators of passenger trains - they have the public dole to pick up the tab and most anywhere passenger trains are operated in any volume, systems that qualify as "PTC" are operational (major exception is of course the "one a day" frequency of Amtrak Long Distance trains). But the Class I freight system has only the shippers for whom to pick up the tab and because of the "oligopsony" nature of the industry, i.e. few very large buyers and few very large providers of a service, if there is to be resistance from shippers, the cost of this system could well be borne by the industry's stakeholders, i.e. shareholders, debt-holders, vendors, and employees.
However, Mr. Frailey correctly points out how the industry balked at the installation of Centralized Train Control (CTC) and that the first 'breakthrough' of a system first installed during 1927 did not occur until Al Pearlman applied same to the entire New York Central Water Level Route during the later '50's. The Northeast Corridor only became controlled by CTC during the Amtrak era as both the PRR and the NYNH&H resisted such installation. So he holds that the initial industry resistance could wear down in time - but not likely by the legislated 2015 "PTC-Day".
Let the discussion begin.