Amtrak: PTC Mandate, Progress System Wide

[JimBoylan]

Here's the link to the Regulation, https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?S ... 0&rgn=div8, "e-CFR data is current as of November 14, 2018". That "quote from a 2015 regulation" is what will kick in shortly. It has only been postponed from Dec. 31, 2015 by amendments.

This link to Appendix I of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 236 gives the details of Positive Train Control. https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?S ... i&rgn=div6 Where does it say that Cab Signals must be part of Positive Train Control?
In that link are the new dates for requiring Positive Train Control:
236.1005 Requirements for Positive Train Control systems.
…..
(6) New rail passenger service. No new intercity or commuter rail passenger service shall commence after December 31, 2020, until a PTC system certified under this subpart has been installed and made operative.
(7) Implementation deadlines. (i) Each railroad must complete full implementation of its PTC system by December 31, 2018.
(ii) A railroad is excepted from paragraph (b)(7)(i) of this section and must complete full implementation of its PTC system by December 31, 2020, or the date specified in its approved alternative schedule and sequence, whichever is earlier, only if the railroad:
(A) Installs all PTC hardware and acquires all spectrum necessary to implement its PTC system by December 31, 2018;
(B) Submits an alternative schedule and sequence providing for implementation of positive train control system as soon as practicable, but not later than December 31, 2020;
(C) Notifies the Associate Administrator in writing that it is prepared for review of its alternative schedule and sequence under 49 U.S.C. 20157(a)(3)(B); and
(D) Receives FRA approval of its alternative schedule and sequence.
(iii) If a railroad meets the criteria in paragraph (b)(7)(ii) of this section, the railroad must adhere to its approved alternative schedule and sequence and any of its subsequently approved amendments or required modifications.

If S.E.P.T.A. and Amtrak want to have stricter rules, they are allowed.

[ThirdRail7]

Where's your information on the 2019 modifications and changes? The ones I keep mentioning?

[JimBoylan]

They've only posted the Dec. 31, 2018 modifications and changes, some of which I posted above. All that they are doing so far is changing the dates that the Dec. 31, 2015 specifications become required. It may now be too close to 2019 to have enough time for notices, hearings, comments, etc. for any modifications and changes to Positive Train Control specifications to be effective at the start of 2019.

[ThirdRail7]

Unless....wait for it.....they've actually summarized more changes...sent them to the railroads....who crafted operating rules and released a schedule of implementation....which have been provided to those that need to be notified....and they trickled the information to those that are affected by them.


Hmmmm. That couldn't have happened.

At any rate, as much as I can appreciate you trying to hang on to your beliefs, shall we cut to the chase?

The OP made an inquiry. He asked:

As we get closer to the deadline, sections of railroad without cab signals where passenger trains are allowed 79 mph are slowly getting PTC. I know there are other factors in max speed like grade crossing activation times and signal spacing, but is there any reason a system like I-ETMS would not satisfy the FRA rule that requires cab signals above 79 mph?

My answer:

I doubt the FRA will allow it. Unless something changes, when the regulations begin in earnest,............

I stand by my answer. I highly doubt it. It is based on a summary of forthcoming changes for when PTC is mandatory.

Thus far, your answer has....well....there hasn't been one. You've quoted regulations that may or may not be amended (depending on what happens) in January, 2019.

So, the debate aside....do you actually have an answer or even an opinion for the OP?

[JimBoylan]

As we get closer to the deadline, sections of railroad without cab signals where passenger trains are allowed 79 mph are slowly getting PTC. I know there are other factors in max speed like grade crossing activation times and signal spacing, but is there any reason a system like I-ETMS would not satisfy the FRA rule that requires cab signals above 79 mph? At the very least, passenger trains could be bumped to 90 where possible to fully utilize the capability of Class 5 trackage.

!st, there is no "FRA rule that requires cab signals above 79 mph" and no other alternative. The rule says

On and after December 31, 2015, where any train is permitted to operate at a speed of 80 or more miles per hour, a PTC system complying with the provisions of subpart I shall be installed and operational, unless FRA approval to continue to operate with an automatic cab signal, automatic train stop, or automatic train control system complying with the provisions of this part has been justified to, and approved by, the Associate Administrator.

Does I-ETMS comply with Subpart I? If it does, then the FRA Rule allows speeds of 80 or more m.p.h. Of course, railroads are free to impose stricter rules on themselves and their tennants.

[jamesinclair]

According to the San Joaquin folks, the San Joaquin line is now fully PTC compliant as of this week.

[Trinnau]

As of Dec 31, 2018 Cab Signals are no longer sufficient alone to exceed 79mph. An approved PTC system is required over 79mph, and I-ETMS fits the bill. It's all in §236.0 Applicability, minimum requirements, and penalties.. Basically, Cab is ok to exceed 79 now, but PTC is needed in the future.

However there are more stringent restrictions when it comes to failures. This regulation is already on the books, which is what SEPTA must be following.

...
(2) Where a block signal system is in place:
(i) A passenger train may proceed at a speed not to exceed 59 miles per hour;
(ii) A freight train transporting one or more cars containing PIH materials, excluding those cars containing only a residue of PIH materials, may proceed at a speed not to exceed 40 miles per hour; and
(iii) Any other freight train may proceed at a speed not to exceed 49 miles per hour.

(3) Where a cab signal system with an automatic train control system is in use, the train may proceed at a speed not to exceed 79 miles per hour.
...

[Amtrak706]

The last time I read the regulation none of this was in there, so it’s good to hear that they updated it. And I guess this means that it’s technically possible, wherever Amtrak runs on FRA Class 5 track, that passenger speeds could be upped to 90 from 79.

[electricron]

And lets assume the FRA Class 5 track is around 40 miles in length. an increase of 10 mph max speed over 40 miles saves minutes.
Math
40 miles/ 80 mph = 30 minutes
40 miles / 90 mph = 26 minutes, 40 seconds
30 minutes - 26 minutes, 40 seconds = 3 minutes, 20 seconds.
Over a distance of let's say 240 miles, such as the approximate distance of Chicago to St. Louis or Chicago to Detroit, time savings would be 6 times as much, approximately 20 minutes. This assumes the 10 mph speed increase is in effect the entire 240 miles, but we all know in the real world it can't be so. There will be sections of tracks where the curves are too tight, where the tracks are not maintained as Class 5, and when a slower freight train ahead slows the faster passenger train behind.

[Amtrak706]

The whole reason such an upgrade would only be 90 is that it would be making full use of existing PTC and Class 5 track, with virtually no costs involved. If you want to bring up the cost/benefit of a speed upgrade, make it 110-125 mph as that would require higher track standards and other added costs. Superliners are only good for 100 but almost all new equipment Amtrak has acquired in the past few decades is 125 capable, so it stands to reason that any eventual Superliner replacement might be as well. Chargers and Superliner IIIs at 125 mph on the national network would suddenly make train travel a lot more competitive. All this may be a pipe dream, but the strategy of squeezing as much as possible out of what you already have is arguably a lot more productive than Amtrak’s current strategy of blind cost cutting.

[Amtrak706]

You're assuming the Class 4 or higher track is already on the ground. On most of the miles of tracks Amtrak uses you see Class 4 or lower track on the ground.

Notice I said “wherever Amtrak runs on Class 5 track.” Sure there is a lot of lower spec track, but BNSF and UP both have quite a bit of Class 5 track to support their 70 mph intermodal operations out west, some of which is host to Amtrak trains.

[east point]

It may be that the Capitol corridor might be a candidate for +79 MPH operation. The authority already pays for extra surfacing of the track to maintain present speeds and with just a little tweaking and PTC speeds could go much higher. The only problem is would only be advantage for express or super express trains .l
Another problem would be higher speed trains would have many conflicts with freight trains especially slower than intermodal .

[farecard]

This is slightly OT.
Is there a topic here covering Amtrak signaling innards? If so, I've not found it so far.

Specifically the NEC; I have never seen a Wee-Z bond there as is used on transit systems.
But I can't see how such can be missing on any electrified trackage.

[east point]

There may be a problem with auto grade crossings. Not all crossings have constant timed circuits. Constant distance circuits have to be lengthened and slower speed freights ay cause gates to be down longer than desired or within FRA guidelines?

[farecard]

On my eastbound trip Capitol Limited this week I noticed something I had not seen previously.

West of that long tunnel that's goes under Rt 160 s. of Berlin PA, several PTC sites with satellite dishes have now grown solar panel arrays.

I wonder if they are the primary source of power, or a backup? I did not see any with propane tanks adjacent; which to me would be a favorable off-grid system: solar keeping the propane consumption to a minimum.

Separately, at another signaling block, I saw a shiny new building, say 5' square and 8' tall, with a large perforated/vent area on the one face. It was placed 10-15 ft away from the other huts. Any ideas what it might be?