It never ceases to amaze me how the U.S. insists on reinveting
the wheel with many technologies.

There have been any number of proven, off-the-shelf signal
solutions available. But, no, we need something new and a
whole lot more complex than anything anyone else is using.

I've talked to many railroad officials who will say -- mostly
off-the-record -- that with the U.S. PTC mandate, the @#$%&
is in the details, and that there are still plenty of areas
where things don't work.


As others have pointed out, most European countries have had
some form of automatic train stop and crew alerters for many
years. The German/Austrian Indusi system requires crews to
acknoledge all restricitive signals, or a penalty brake
application is made. It uses a simple pickup device on each
engine that "reads" a signal from a lineside magnet at each
signal.


When they needed something more sophisticated, they went to
LZB, which uses a continuous antenna between the rails that
handles communications between the dispatching computer and the
computer aboard the engine. It works. The real high-speed
lines have no lineside signals, except at interlockings --
junctions between lines. Even work trains on the high-speed
lines have to be equipped with LZB.

No GPS. No maze of antennas on the engines.


Just once, I would like to see a government mandate specify that
what is being required must use off-the-shelf proven technology
-- even if it was developed in another country.


But, back to the original article: While I think the reporter had
good intentions, I don't think he really understood the complexity
of what is being required by the PTC mandate -- or the complexity
of railroad operations.

I would also question the contention that railroads are basically
19th century technology. Railroads and their suppliers do spend
a lot of money on research -- and today's railroads are quite
different technologically even from those of 50 or 60 years ago.

-- Ernest