 |
Re: Amtrak
Author: mook
Date: 10-07-2015 - 10:20
Anybody with a necktie and a sincere-looking face can be an "expert" on TV. Sometimes, you even get paid for it, but not if it's otherwise your job.
In an early job, I was the spokesdweeb in a couple of cases - put on the tie, look at the camera, provide the scripted answers, and since I was low-level it was deniable and I was expendable. We all knew what was going on.
If I understand PTC correctly, it is intended to prevent train-on-train collisions. That's probably where the 2% figure comes from. They're rare but are big news (usually with good reason) when they happen; it's worth spending money to avoid them, and PTC will ultimately, I think, be seen as an improvement in the state of the art for that. A very expensive one, true.
PTC might be able to prevent or reduce the intensity of some grade-crossing collisions, if the grade crossings are integrated with PTC and somebody fouls the crossing while the train still is far enough away to slow considerably or stop. A downside is, perhaps, an inability to maintain schedule speed and an uncomfortable ride where there are a lot of momentary PTC invocations as drivers cut crossings too close. Rather than spend some multiple billion$ on attempting to make that work, it might be better for railroads to toss a little money into the pot for additional grade separations.
PTC will never help with collisions due to something (like a rockslide or washout or big fallen tree at a location that had no previous indication that some sort of monitoring was needed) that doesn't affect the signaling system, nor will it help with accidents caused by mechanical failure on the train itself.
PTC could improve railroad operations if it is used for more than just a fancy ATS overlay on existing signals. There have been many discussions of that. But it would take more time, more money, and major clout with FRA to make it happen so I don't expect to see it much, if at all, in the near future. Most likely, such a change-up of PTC use would go with engineer-only or even unmanned (automatic or remote control) trains.
Since Amtrak carries people, it rightly has greater responsibilities for having all feasible safety gear installed and working. But the infrastructure is not under their control in most places - it's the responsibility of the railroad that Amtrak runs on.
In an early job, I was the spokesdweeb in a couple of cases - put on the tie, look at the camera, provide the scripted answers, and since I was low-level it was deniable and I was expendable. We all knew what was going on.
If I understand PTC correctly, it is intended to prevent train-on-train collisions. That's probably where the 2% figure comes from. They're rare but are big news (usually with good reason) when they happen; it's worth spending money to avoid them, and PTC will ultimately, I think, be seen as an improvement in the state of the art for that. A very expensive one, true.
PTC might be able to prevent or reduce the intensity of some grade-crossing collisions, if the grade crossings are integrated with PTC and somebody fouls the crossing while the train still is far enough away to slow considerably or stop. A downside is, perhaps, an inability to maintain schedule speed and an uncomfortable ride where there are a lot of momentary PTC invocations as drivers cut crossings too close. Rather than spend some multiple billion$ on attempting to make that work, it might be better for railroads to toss a little money into the pot for additional grade separations.
PTC will never help with collisions due to something (like a rockslide or washout or big fallen tree at a location that had no previous indication that some sort of monitoring was needed) that doesn't affect the signaling system, nor will it help with accidents caused by mechanical failure on the train itself.
PTC could improve railroad operations if it is used for more than just a fancy ATS overlay on existing signals. There have been many discussions of that. But it would take more time, more money, and major clout with FRA to make it happen so I don't expect to see it much, if at all, in the near future. Most likely, such a change-up of PTC use would go with engineer-only or even unmanned (automatic or remote control) trains.
Since Amtrak carries people, it rightly has greater responsibilities for having all feasible safety gear installed and working. But the infrastructure is not under their control in most places - it's the responsibility of the railroad that Amtrak runs on.
