Amtrak: PTC Mandate, Progress System Wide

ApproachMedium wrote:

LIRR272 wrote:

ApproachMedium wrote:The transponders are in the field, they have been completed in the field since about 2012 I think. The Data Radio portion has not been in service and possibly not even in some places yet. The acses in non acses territory nonsense has been happening since then. You would just think with all the pressure for PTC installations that they would be getting sections online bit by bit as they can.

You can't turn a system on if you don't have the radio spectrum so that the system can communicate.

Hilarious. Why are we even bothering? This is why i think the whole mandate for PTC nationwide is silly, when they could have put cab signals in for a tiny fraction of the price and had the entire nation done up already. Yes it doesnt completely stop a train from colliding but it makes the possibility less and the speed at which it could happen far lower.

Cab signals were in place when Conrail locomotive ran the stop signal and Amtrak slammed into it. Remember that. As you stated it doesn't completely stop a train, but ACSES can.

o far the topic is interesting but has turned away from the subject of Amtrak PTC plans and Status.

LIRR272 wrote: Cab signals were in place when Conrail locomotive ran the stop signal and Amtrak slammed into it. Remember that. As you stated it doesn't completely stop a train, but ACSES can.

o far the topic is interesting but has turned away from the subject of Amtrak PTC plans and Status.

I wasn't employed on the railroad at the time, but if memory serves me right, the Conrail locomotive, although equipped with cab signals, was not equipped with any form of Automatic Train Stop or Speed Control. At the time Amtrak did not require it for freight locomotives to use the NEC. This was changed after the wreck. The alarm was inaudible in the cab because somebody had placed tape over the hole where the air escaped, so the engineer would have never heard the alarm go off. Had the locomotive been equipped with the proper equipment, it likely would have slowed down and stopped long before reaching Gunpow and passing a Stop Signal at 60mph no less. So as a C&S guy, it is my true belief that had the system been in place in its present form, then yes it could have prevented this particular accident and 16 people would still be alive today.

Going back to the original subject on the status of PTC, I know we did all the required connections here in the control center. We've just been waiting for them to finish out in the field. I have not heard anything since then, and that was probably about 6 months ago.

Illinois has a significant number of track miles that are expected to be upgraded to Class 6 operations by the end of 2015. I am opening this new thread to provide for discussion of "higher" speed operations in Michigan, Illinois and future locations. Discussion of the Incremental Train Control System (ITCS) that is utilized in both cases as well as any Positive Train Control (PTC) systems that are deployed in the future is also envisioned. The previous thread for Michigan operations using ITCS can be found here.

I believe that as the Illinois and Michigan "test beds" mature other states will fund track improvements leading to "higher speed" operations elsewhere over railroads with similar "at grade" characteristics. California and North Carolina are two obvious examples.

It might be good to take another look at the Midwest Highspeed Rail group, at this point in time. I was shocked to see a 2-hour trip between Chicago-Indianapolis on their wish list, in light of what's currently going on there.

http://www.midwesthsr.org/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Thanks for starting this thread.

I believe Illinois has decided to go with a traditional cab signal system. Can anyone confirm? I assume that's what's been used for years on the CSX line from Poughkeepsie up to Rensselear and Schenectady. ITCS seems to be working well in Michigan, as I've noted trains routinely doing 110 mph on the online route tracker.

Matt Johnson wrote:I believe Illinois has decided to go with a traditional cab signal system. Can anyone confirm? I assume that's what's been used for years on the CSX line from Poughkeepsie up to Rensselear and Schenectady. ITCS seems to be working well in Michigan, as I've noted trains routinely doing 110 mph on the online route tracker.

I thought they were using a different system as well and for quite some time that is what was intended.

In the end they went with ITCS per this GE press release.

The original system was being developed by Lockheed Martin in conjunction with several other companies and was known as North American Joint Positive Train Control (NAJPTC). You can read more about that system in this record of decision. This was the original "Illinois High Speed" project that eventually collapsed.

I'm sure there is plenty of background but from 30,000 feet up it looks to me as if Amtrak and GE basically beat everyone else to the gate with a functioning system. They were both in simultaneous development.

AMTK822401 wrote:I think I read somewhere that ITCS is considered Positive Train Control..... and lets not forget that New York has been doing 110MPH speeds for DECADES before states like Illinois. The 110MPH "at grade" option is really the most practical method to improve passenger trains. Not everywhere needs traditional high speed rail.

This question has come up before and it probably good to address it right off. ITCS is an overlay and is not a complete PTC system in of itself. It function in conjunction with signals to provide information regarding crossing systems and other information. At least that's how its been explained in prior discussions. We may need to review the system in full in order to have further discussion about it. I think that's a very worthwhile endeavor especially since this system is about to go online in a big way in Illinois.

AMTK822401 wrote:The 110MPH "at grade" option is really the most practical method to improve passenger trains. Not everywhere needs traditional high speed rail.

"At grade" still has its hazards. Until it was closed in January, gates at one crossing in Elwood, IL were breaking at the rate of about one per week. (If I recall correctly, UP replaced over 50 broken gates at that crossing in 2014.) http://abc7chicago.com/news/officials-c ... ns/494492/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; You can see from the picture in the article that the crossing is adjacent to a signalized intersection. Trucks would be illegally stopped in the cross-hatched portion behind the traffic light and the gate would come down on their trailers. The intersection serves a joint BNSF/UP intermodal railport.

Now that the unintended consequences of closing the grade crossing have become clear, the State is considering reopening the closed crossing. http://www.chicagotribune.com/suburbs/d ... story.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

*Edit- correction: Nearly 50 times in 2014. http://www.mysuburbanlife.com/2015/01/1 ... s/aiustb8/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The roadway intersection in Elwood is also host to a number of funeral processions on their way to the veteran's cemetery south of town. So truckers may proceed across the tracks on a green light only to encounter a funeral procession running the red down IL Route 53 at 45 mph.

The grade crossing lights and bells are now behind the trucker. If he happens to hear the bells (or worse, the train horn) he may choose to lay on his own horn and barge into the funeral procession (risking a collision in the intersection). If his trailer is clear of the crossing, another truck may be stuck behind. If his radio is on loudly...

jstolberg wrote:The roadway intersection in Elwood is also host to a number of funeral processions on their way to the veteran's cemetery south of town. So truckers may proceed across the tracks on a green light only to encounter a funeral procession running the red down IL Route 53 at 45 mph.

The grade crossing lights and bells are now behind the trucker. If he happens to hear the bells (or worse, the train horn) he may choose to lay on his own horn and barge into the funeral procession (risking a collision in the intersection). If his trailer is clear of the crossing, another truck may be stuck behind. If his radio is on loudly...

That intersection of IL-53 and Walter Strawn, and of IL-53 with Hoff Road to the south, are crying out for a SPUI or traffic circle overpass to replace both. This is an instance where as much as it is nice to have ITCS, the ultimate solution is really grade separation.

I hope with the installation of whatever systems they choose, they are provisioning for speeds over 110mph. With the charger engines coming in a few years being able to run at 125mph that brings us to the next step up after 110mph operations are installed. Once all of the new LDSL cars are delievered amtraks rolling stock will be 125mph capable in the majority. The only thing that wont be is private cars and superliners.

ApproachMedium wrote:I hope with the installation of whatever systems they choose, they are provisioning for speeds over 110mph. With the charger engines coming in a few years being able to run at 125mph that brings us to the next step up after 110mph operations are installed. Once all of the new LDSL cars are delievered amtraks rolling stock will be 125mph capable in the majority. The only thing that wont be is private cars and superliners.

Interesting point. Curious to think of Class 7 as someday becoming the new "standard" for Amtrak's non-NEC operations. I wonder just exactly how significant the maintenance challenges are at these levels and what the cost curve looks like from one class to the next.

In light of events that have happened recently and NTSB's PUSH that PTC is the"end all cure all" fix,
none of the Host RR's seem to have "working" PTC systems up and running,now most of the Long Distance and
corridor operations not on the NEC may be forced to shut down due to the lack of active PTC across the US by
the end of this year(2015).
This is the mandate created by the Congress Critters after Chatsworth Wreck on Metrolink(SCAX).
While Amtrak will have ACSES up and running by the end of the year,with a gap on MN between New Rochelle and New Haven,
while the IL and MI corridors have the ITCS systems online now,there's little progress on the Host RR's
Metro North and LIRR have decided on ACSES,but the rest of the commuter operators are waiting on what
systems the Class I RR's will use.
As an example,NMRX is thinking of a cost of $30 million to put in PTC compatable with BNSF's PTC setup
In news reports on the networks,Amtrak's costs are at the $300 million level for the rest of the network
outside of the NEC.

The Feds have already granted a 2018 extension to some of the commuter railroads, I doubt you will see anything shut down due to lack of PTC.

Fearless predictions:

1. Nobody is going to be shut down for lack of a PTC system, regardless of how late they are getting one installed and working (aside, it's easier to install something, than install it AND "get it working").

2. Nobody is going to meet the 2015 deadline for PTC.

Another prediction (not entirely fearless, but a prediction nonetheless):
3. Nobody is going to meet the 2018 deadline "extension", either.