Are your organizations and the industry organizations watching the progress of the various PTC projects on the Class Ones? There are a lot of interesting things going on, and some of them might be a matter for attention from any groups that plan to operate on Class One track in the future.

For example, if you take a look at the capabilities of the PTC systems that are being developed, you can see that wayside signals will be redundant, and may be unnecessary to the operation of motive power equipped with PTC. The information they provide is going to be available on the computer display unit (CDU) in the cab, and in addition, any violation of the permissions is going to be recognized with action taken by the system.

With an estimated $20 billion unfunded mandate imposed on the railroads by PTC, I would suspect they are going to be eager to recover some of that cost by elimination of any maintenance intensive older systems (signals) that are no longer required. If the signal systems go, that leaves track warrant control for anything not PTC equipped. Any concerns over how that might effect the future of passenger excursions?

PC

Well, money talks, so there is two options:
1) raise the money to equip an excursion engine with basic PTC equipment
2) pay to utilize a PTC equipped locomotive in the excursion consist.

In those cases, expect to see more excursions take place on smaller lines. From what I understand, the PTC mandate is meant to be placed on the class I lines, so Class II and III lines would be easier on groups that want to run excursions, but can't afford a PTC equipped locomotive.

For general information in the discussion, the estimated cost per unit for PTC outside the Northeast Corridor or other special system territories is $55,000 per locomotive (FRA Economic Analysis, 2009). It should be noted that the estimate assumes a diesel-electric locomotive with 26 or later brake.

The engineer has to be able to access and operate the PTC display, thus it should be expected that a PTC unit will have to be in the lead.

PC

Preston,
Is there a list of equipment required to be PTC compliant? Would it pay for several organizations to get together and purchase the necessary equipment and equip their locomotives with a standard rack system so the equipment could be "shared" between a few mainline operations?

Mike Tillger

Mike,
The latest information I have seen is that UP, BNSF, CSX and NS are going to use the same system, manufactured by Wabtec, except in territories requiring special equipment like ACSES. It includes an onboard computer, with power supplies, communications module with satellite link, and a control stand mounted computer display unit (CDU). I can see where this system might be adaptable to a removable mounting in temporary holders for an older diesel-electric, but it might be challenging to try to mount in a steam locomotive because of interference with existing operating controls and cab equipment.

Yes, this equipment does have a "standard" mounting rack, it is being installed in some new production locomotives in advance of the system going nationwide.

PC

When you look at the big picture for mainline excursions, an investment of $55k is a part of the cost of doing business. It is not uncommon to find an organization investing ten times that much to restore a 2-8-0 that will only run on a shortline. So I don't see PTC as a deal-breaker when you are talking about spending a million to get a 4-8-4 on the road.

The cost of the control interface(i.e.-how do you close the throttle and/or center the reverser upon the command from the control system, one of these is mandatory) will add costs well above the $55,000 Preston has mentioned. I believe it can be done with the assistance of a programmable logic controller and some added hardware, but it will take some engineering for it to happen. I look forward to a sharing of knowledge on this subject in the very near future.

Are there any plain English manuals or published standards that an individual or group can access to begin a planning process? I for one would like to be prepared should the need arise, for both diesel and steam locomotives.

Mike Tillger

Answering part of Mike's question, I think you will see some public accessible information about the system appearing in the not-too-distant future.

One of the mandates that is going to have a significant effect on system cost (but is not included in the figure I cited above) is the requirement that all personnel (management, operating, maintenance, etc.) who have direct involvement with the system must have manufacturer supplied and certified PTC training. That requirement may also complicate any efforts to share a system between various operating organizations.

PC

Having read up on PTC, I really don't see it happening, I suspect it'll be killed - which has long been worked on.

CD

Mike / Preston,

I too would be very interested in the sharing of info regarding implementation of PTC for historic equipment. Not sure that I have much to share, but definitely interested in being educated!

I definitely agree that utilizing PLC's could make this very possible.

TB

A year or two ago I would have agreed that this system might get cancelled. But with several of the class ones now making major communications system upgrades and installing the full suite of PTC gear on their current locomotive rebuilds, it seems more and more likely that it is going to happen.

I think what changed is the potential for additional uses of the communications capability that the system is bringing. There are plans in the works to also incorporate central information collecting with periodic event recorder downloads, monitoring of locomotive performance and alarms, and remote oversight for troubleshooting problems with locomotives on the road. This is particularly important for commuter operations where one road failure can delay the entire rush hour lineup, but it is also very appealing to the Class Ones to maintain the schedule with high value traffic and obtain better control and flow of traffic.

We had a modern motive power session including some PTC discussion recently at Norfolk County Railroad Club near Boston, sorry I did not mention it to the RYPN participants, but at the time we were not thinking about the possible impact on preservation related operations.

PC

The rules have been loosened a bit for them knowing many lines have difficulty lining up with the strictness of them. The thing I hope is I wish lineside signals would not be obselesqued, as you know darwins rules, if something could go wrong, it will. To me its a bonus to helping secure safe railroading, but if you go all out dependent on it without backup, could mean problems. Nothing wrong with track warrant as thats the backup backup backup standard. But not efficient but gets the trains thru.

If PTC actually does stay as it is, I suspect a lot of Class I owned trackage to be sold off.
Here's some examples here in Texas:
To go from Houston to D/FW you need to go through Hearne, and UP routes nearly all traffic from San Antonio through Hearne as well. UP curently has 2 sets of roughly parallel tracks going from Houston to Hearne, ex-MP/IGN and ex-SP/H&TC. There are also two ways there from San Antonio - ex-MP/IGN and ex-SP. I suspect one route each will be axed.
North from Hearne, the ex-SP/H&TC line goes to Dallas and the ex-MP line goes to Fort Worth. I suspect the SP line will be axed, it doesn't have the traffic of the MP line to Ft. Worth. Unfortunately for UP, the Katy saw fit to start abandoning the Hillsboro-Dallas line and severed it prior to the merger.
BNSF has the former Burlington - Rock Island Houston-Dallas line (the shortest Houston-Dallas line) but sends trains to D/FW via the old GC&SF line. They have unnecessary redundancy.
This is the story across the country, I expect a massive amount of new short line and regional railroads to sprout up. $20,000,000,000 is a lot of money, and that's the low end of PTC initial costs.
PTC is a bad idea that I suspect was pushed through by GE lobbyists, GE was all behind it until they ran into financial difficulties that prevented the research needed to design the system. They did have a GE PTC web site up at one time (dedicated domain), but I think it's gone now.

CD

In my humble opinion, PTC is a long over due technology, that has been put on the back burner by the railroads. If it saves one life, or several hundred, what is it worth? Automatic train stop has been around since the 1920's, why so long a delay to implement improvements? I do not agree with the government mandate to shove it down the railroads throat, but how many more accidents caused by mechanical, electrical and human failures are we willing to endure when there is technology to prevent this. Had the railroads implemented some form of improvements on their own, I do not think the government would have taken this drastic step. I think the railroads may have been waiting for the government funding that the RR lobbyists failed to get pushed through. It is an unfortunate knee jerk reaction to a larger problem.

My 2 cents,
Mike Tillger

You're talking about accidents caused by, "mechanical, electrical and human failures" while espousing a position that puts trains under controls of machines? Want to see what happens when you put machines in charge? Watch this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SCwYAzqvcrQ
That was an Airbus A320 that tried to do a low-speed fly-by at an air show. The pilot tried to lift, the computer decided that the plane needed to land so the computer 'landed' the plane.
Putting computers in charge of America's Class I railroads is a very bad idea. There is no real safety advantage over CTC, and the vulnerabilities increase. Computers can be hacked, even the off-line Iranian computers running their nuclear centrifuges were infected and destroyed. If computer control is such a good idea, why isn't the air traffic control system computerized?
Then there is the cost. Twenty billion dollars is a lot of money! That is the estimated set-up and additional short-term costs for PTC. To give you an idea, UP has a market capitalization of less than $51 Billion, CSX's is less than $29 Billion, NS's is less than $26 Billion. Valuing privately owned BNSF equal to UP puts the 'big four' US railroads at $157 Billion in total worth. PTC demands that four companies with a combined worth of $157B spend $20B - and continued maintenance expenses - on an unproven system with no realistic expectation of any cost savings.

Eli