 |
Re: GPS and PTC? Too much reading?
Author: BOB2
Date: 08-25-2011 - 09:00
Some of these assertions are a hoot: I can assure you GPS is a problem? Is this opinion based on many years of knowledge of transportation systems engineering, integration, and GPS testing? How many ITS tracking and reporting systems have you worked on in your career?
It's interesting that some would seem to be okay with another Chatsworth or two per year, rather than upgrading our rail control systems with modern technologies? After all, isn't that better than having to read and implement those awful 2200 pages in complicated FRA PTC regulations? Or maybe, it's just that I'm okay with heavy reading, and difficult challenges to complex problems?
So what is the cost benefit on 2 major Chatsworth type accidents per year versus PTC on most mainlines? And, you do have the numbers to support that view, right?
Broken rails are detected the old fashioned way through interupted circuits. Altough I have encountered broken rails that did not fully disrupt the circuit, so that is always a potential issue. This circuit interruption, once detected, could be sent via a number of systems, and compared to signal readings, approaching train locations, and speed of approach. FYI,there are even more sophisticated ways to detect stress on the rail that can also report a possible break, so there are additional potential technical overlays that can also improve the detection of these events.
GPS is only one small component part and piece of location information for an integrated systems engineering approach to enhnace rail safety through an integrated PTC system. No one is proposing to have a single location confirmation point, as you assume (I think wrongly) that the UAV system you allude to has, for the proposed PTC system approaches. So that argument is nonsense
Railfans are great, but sometimes the jibberish on stuff like this, really makes me question the crazy notions that people get. When you see a mess like Chatsworth, and understand that all of the events were preventable with systems level overrides, then you understand why we need to move railroads into the modern era, and use modern technology, to eliminate these costly and deadly possibilities for "human error".
Safety is of the first importance, obedience to the rules is required. Unfortunately, since humans are extremely imperfect, we try to build failsafe systems to avoid the impacts of these imperfections. And, I'm not thinking that is such a bad thing?
It's interesting that some would seem to be okay with another Chatsworth or two per year, rather than upgrading our rail control systems with modern technologies? After all, isn't that better than having to read and implement those awful 2200 pages in complicated FRA PTC regulations? Or maybe, it's just that I'm okay with heavy reading, and difficult challenges to complex problems?
So what is the cost benefit on 2 major Chatsworth type accidents per year versus PTC on most mainlines? And, you do have the numbers to support that view, right?
Broken rails are detected the old fashioned way through interupted circuits. Altough I have encountered broken rails that did not fully disrupt the circuit, so that is always a potential issue. This circuit interruption, once detected, could be sent via a number of systems, and compared to signal readings, approaching train locations, and speed of approach. FYI,there are even more sophisticated ways to detect stress on the rail that can also report a possible break, so there are additional potential technical overlays that can also improve the detection of these events.
GPS is only one small component part and piece of location information for an integrated systems engineering approach to enhnace rail safety through an integrated PTC system. No one is proposing to have a single location confirmation point, as you assume (I think wrongly) that the UAV system you allude to has, for the proposed PTC system approaches. So that argument is nonsense
Railfans are great, but sometimes the jibberish on stuff like this, really makes me question the crazy notions that people get. When you see a mess like Chatsworth, and understand that all of the events were preventable with systems level overrides, then you understand why we need to move railroads into the modern era, and use modern technology, to eliminate these costly and deadly possibilities for "human error".
Safety is of the first importance, obedience to the rules is required. Unfortunately, since humans are extremely imperfect, we try to build failsafe systems to avoid the impacts of these imperfections. And, I'm not thinking that is such a bad thing?
