I would agree with Bob2, that this reporter, like most, does not know what he is talking about. He hints at some vague incompatibility between the proposed Caltrain version of PTS and that of CHSRA or UP. He is perplexed, or so he claims. But what he really is, is totally and completely ignorant. Not unlike California's two senators who have also claimed to be perplexed. They all need to face facts; they are ignorant - not perplexed.

There is nothing perplexing about PTS. The notion of using some sort of hardware device to stop a train before it passes a stop signal or movement authority limit, has been used widely throughout the world since the early thirties. These older track circuit / cab signal based systems did have interoperability problems. But these have been largely overcome since computer-based onboard controls were applied to Amtrak locomotives in the early nineties. Now if only the railroads would have been willing to apply them to freight trains. Now they are still balking - at PTS.

Since the newer technologies that we now call PTS are also computer based, interoperability is still no big deal. All that is required is a common set of interface specifications between all the various components of PTS, regardless of component manufacturer, or even the specific technology used.

Each railroad can still have very different methods and applications, specific to their own road; and still be able to communicate with any "guest" train on their track. All that is required to run anywhere then, is the "ephemeris", or data base describing each feature and special characteristic of the line. And since this ephemeris is already required for the home road's own use with PTS anyway, it too is no big deal.

Of course, the whole industry must agree on the above mentioned interface specification, including the basic structure of the ephemeris data. Therefore, a nationally respected neutral industry organization, A.R.E.M.A., has been working on this for some time now (even before PTS was mandated by law), and should be nearing completion soon, if not already. The A.R.E.M.A. specification is based upon Amtrak's Michigan PTS (but is much broader in scope), which is now in service, running at 95mph - slated to go to 110mph soon.

BTW - A.R.E.M.A. stands for American Railway Engineering & Maintenance Association. It performs a similar function for the end users (railroads and transit agencies) that the N.M.R.A. provides for model railroaders. In fact, the NMRA's DCC specification is an interoperability spec much as is AREMA's PTS spec.

So yes, the article is nothing but an expose' of ignorance. Or perhaps corruption - possibly planted by some vendor that doesn't want to comply with the A.R.E.M.A. open architecture specs (shades of Microslop). They are out there (at least one I know personally of) feeding bullbleep to our senators, and also sadly enough, the NTSB

OPB