Archive for the ‘Signaling’ Category
Based upon the study my team just completed in Egypt to evaluate the safety and efficiency of the Egyptian National Railways (ENR), I have posted a video on youtube, and is provided below, as to the design for a new traffic control, traffic management, and enforcement system. This system is referred to as Virtual CTC + Enforcement. It offers small to medium railroads across the globe, both freight and passenger, a cost-effective and pragmatic solution to delivering both efficient and safe railroading with enforcement capability that exceeds PTC, ETCS, and ATC. VCTC does not require either the extensive capital investment or extensive on-going maintenance of conventional or advanced traffic control systems.
Check it out!
It is reasonable to expect that most of the visitors to this blog are well-experienced railroaders for technically-savvy, established railroads, but not likely that knowledgeable of either traffic control systems or enforcement methodologies (prevention of human errors in the handling of movement authorities) that may exist elsewhere. Personally, until 3 years ago, my experience was almost exclusively with traditional signaling systems as well as non-signaled traffic control as used across 50% of the U.S. trackage – what is generically referred to as “dark territory”. With 40+ years of experience, including being the architect for the first overlay PTC system that provided the foundation for the PTC systems being deployed in the U.S. to meet a Federal mandate, my level of railroad basics had not been truly tested it turns out. It seems that I knew too much technically, but yet too little as to basic railroading. That is, I had a firm grip on understanding the pragmatic deployment of technologies to advance technologies for financially-successful, heavy density freight railroads. But, I really had never had to get to the basics of what safe railroading is when it comes to those railroads that have neither the internal resources (financial and technical) nor the support of suppliers who only deal with modern railroads thereby promoting only traditional signaling or advance systems such as ETCS. How foolish, if not arrogant – I confess, on my part. But, again, that all changed 3 years ago when I became the Project Leader for a study funded by the U.S. Trade Development Agency (TDA) to study the safety and efficiency of the Egyptian National Railways (ENR).
ENR is the 2nd oldest railroad on our planet, the once-shining, now tarnished, star of the Middle East. I say tarnished for reasons primarily due to the raping of the Egyptian economy by the now-defunct Mubarek regime over the last several decades. ENR has deteriorated to a pathetic operation which is both highly inefficient and horrendously unsafe due to the reliance on human involvement in the generation and handling of movement authorities. Specifically, 2 points make the case. The traffic control systems across 82% of the trackage, Staff (token) and TYER (token-less), are block-by-block authority systems that stem from the middle of the 19th century. Such inefficient traffic control systems have contributed substantially to the inability of ENR to handle freight operations that is critical for advancing Egypt’s economy. More tragically, the Egyptian people have been subjected to an amazing number of horrific train accidents resulting in fatalities. Specifically, within the last 2 months alone, there were two accidents that resulted in 55 fatalities due to errors by a mechanical interlocking operator and a level crossing guard.
Our study to address the safety and efficiency of ENR began 3 years ago, but was greatly hampered, if not threatened, by the politics and questionable ethics by key individuals that existed prior to Egypt’s revolution. Following the revolution, the project was assigned to ENR, and the professional railroaders at both MOT and ENR provided the means for the study to progress. The study is now complete, and the Prime Minister has directed ENR to immediately move forward with the study’s recommendation to implement our innovative traffic control, traffic management, and enforcement approach that is based upon proven concepts that until now have not been integrated to meet the unique requirements of ENR, and most likely many other railroads across Africa, the Middle East, and elsewhere. I have labeled this approach as Virtual CTC (V-CTC) + Enforcement. This approach required myself and my team members to challenge our understanding of the basics of safe and efficient railroading. Simply stated, those basics fall into two categories. First, there is the point of functional vitality (i.e., how are authorities generated) across this most antiquated railroad – and how does one minimize the capital investment to complement or replace those processes. Second, to what extent and by what means can enforcement be provided to prevent human errors in the handling of the movement authorities, again both generation and adherence?
The primary purpose of a traffic control system is to prevent overlapping authorities, i.e., to authorize only one train to occupy a portion of track for a given portion of time. However, as is the case in the U.S. with Employees in Charge (EICs) for work gangs, there can exist a nesting of authorities. That is, a train can have an authority for a segment of track (multiple blocks) within which there is a second level of authority that must be obtained at some point. In the case of ENR, this was a critical consideration in that it deploys hundreds and thousands of mechanical interlocking operators and level crossing guards, respectively, that have the responsibility to provide a nested authority for a train to advance through their individual portion of control. In fact, the two accidents that I mentioned above where the result of the failure of these “vital employees” (see a previous posting on this blog with that title) to perform their responsibilities.
To provide enforcement means being able to obtain the parameters (time / distance / speed) of the movement authorities that are generated, including the nested authorities. We all understand how that works in signaled territory, and some of us understand how that works in dark territory. But very few of us have had to deal with the nested authority process. Without going into depth here, our solution for ENR presented a very pragmatic solution that minimizes the use of wayside infrastructure. This is important not only to the direct capital investment requirement and ongoing maintenance, but also due to the consideration of extreme weather and theft issues in Egypt that readily compromise the safety of any approach so dependent.
The bottom line to the above discussion is that dealing with railroads that are without the financial or technical resources, for whatever reason, to advance their operations, there are solutions that they can deploy that are not offered by major suppliers that sell major systems for major railroad operations, whether freight and/or passenger. However, to develop such solutions means getting to the basics of railroad operations as to the generation of authorities and the means to provide enforcement. Our solution for ENR prevents accidents due to errors by dispatchers and train drivers, but also those errors by vital employees such as EICs, mechanical interlocking operators and level crossing guards. Such systems, to my knowledge, do not exist elsewhere – that is prior to what we have designed for ENR.
If you wish to explore the above points further, then please contact me at email@example.com or 904 386 3082 in the U.S. My team of seasoned railroaders can address functional, technical (including wireless), financial (business case), and mathematics-based (OR) traffic density from both a tactical and strategic standpoint.
With the introduction of overlay PTC just over a decade ago, the concept of vitality needed to be expanded at that point beyond the mantra of signaling engineers as to a vital component or system being one that fails in a safe manner, i.e., failure without introducing any additional risk. In addition to this design vitality, it was necessary to introduce a concept of functional vitality to prove that PTC was and remains not vital. That is, a functionally vital entity is one that generates the movement authorities for trains, thereby providing for the integrity of train movements. For signal engineers the two concepts are inseparable, and in their viewpoint, anything associated with traffic control must by vital. Such fatuous rationalization can be quite unfortunate for the deployment of advancing technologies in railroads, including PTC. Two current examples here are ITC’s efforts in designing the wireless and positioning platforms for PTC that are way beyond what is required for a non-vital system, if even a vital one.
In anticipation of such design tangents by railroad technicians ( as demonstrated in the past by UP with it Precision Train Control project that died from overdesign), I introduced the functionally vital perspective a decade ago to demonstrate that overlay PTC is not vital and therefore not subject to the design and regulatory complexities associated with vital systems. Stated otherwise, PTC’s ability to enhance the safety of rail operations is substantially less critical than that of the traffic control systems that provide for the integrity of train movements. PTC only addresses human errors whereas traffic control systems are absolute.
Being the architect of the first overlay PTC system, I was continuously challenged during the early years by labor, FRA, suppliers, and even my counterparts on other railroads, to explain why PTC is not vital. The forum for these discussions was primarily that of the Rail Safety Advisory Committee (RSAC) for PTC that was charged with defining the core objectives of PTC. Understandably, RSAC-PTC was primarily manned by signal engineers who live and breathe vitality with their natural inclination being that everything is vital. Again, for them PTC had to be vital, I assume, because it addresses safety, and it is related to vital traffic control systems. At the same time, signal engineers when asked during the courses I teach on PTC and railroad operations “What is vital in dark territory?”, will respond that there is nothing vital since there is no wayside equipment. The solution for addressing both of these ill-structured mind-sets of signal engineers as to PTC and dark territory was to provide the functional definition of vitality that really goes to the core of running a safe railroad, i.e., the generation of authorities.
In parallel with the functional vitality effort was the extraordinary task of convincing the masses that PTC did not deliver those business benefits that continue to be so widely and wildly proclaimed by FRA and suppliers as to increasing traffic density and the efficiency of the key operating assets, e.g., crews, locomotives, and even maintenance crews. I quote the FRA’s website “In addition to providing a greater level of safety and security, PTC systems also enable a railroad to run scheduled operations and provide improved running time, greater running time reliability, higher asset utilization, and greater track capacity.” Here is the simple, and one would think very obvious, logic as to why overlay PTC can’t provide such business benefits. To increase traffic density means that the generation of movement authorities need to be done more efficiently … and since PTC does not generate movement authorities (nor deliver them as the FRA website proclaims – that is the purpose of digital authorities – not PTC), then it cannot provide those benefits. Actually, if not properly designed, PTC can actually decrease both the traffic density and safety by making unnecessary enforcements. What the FRA and others who flaunt PTC business benefits refuse to understand is that it is the wireless data path required by PTC that also permits train tracking status data to be delivered to back office management systems. As demonstrated by NS and BNSF at least, a railroad doesn’t need PTC to obtain the stated business benefits; a railroad only needs a wireless data platform, whether it be cellular, satellite, and/or private. In any event, the bottom line remains, i.e., PTC is not vital in any sense.
OK, at this point you may be thinking about VPTC (where V means vital) which is one title given to the PTC systems being pursued by the freight and commuter railroads. Clearly such a title suggests that PTC is vital, but it isn’t. VPTC means that the platforms upon which those PTC systems are deployed are design vital so as to reduce the failure of the PTC system, but PTC is still not functionally vital. The purpose of VPTC is to provide a pragmatic economical solution to regulatory issues that requires a restricted speed for a train should its PTC platform fail. In heavy density corridors, the application of restricted speed could result in significant business costs.
With the distinction between design and functional vitality now established above, I introduce a new vitality phrase: “Vital Employee”. Simply stated, a vital employee is one that generates a movement authority. For U.S. railroads, the primary example is the Employee-In-Charge (EIC) that provides the authority to a train to move through a work zone, a work zone that is encapsulated (nested) within an authority generated by a traffic control system. Handling the enforcement of the nested EIC authority was a major design issue that I had to provide for the first overlay PTC system … and is now used by the PTC systems being deployed by the freight railroads. Again this was done in a non-vital way by not affecting the underlying Method of Operations, thereby avoiding regulatory complexities.
The vital employee perspective has proven to be particularly challenging in my assignment as Project Leader for a consulting effort in Egypt to advance both the safety and efficiency of the majority of the Egyptian National Railways (ENR) operations that use token block and TYER, a.k.a. British Absolute Block, traffic control systems. In the case of ENR, their operations have mechanical interlockings that are handled by operators independent of the central movement office. Instead of a centralized dispatcher, ENR uses block/interlocking operators to generate block-by-block authorities thereby compromising the efficiency and safety of train movements compared to that which railroads around the world achieve with dark and signaled operations. For this engagement, a “virtual” CTC (V-CTC) system is being designed that will provide for multiple block authorities subjected to nested, manual interlocking authorities. This solution provides for enforcement for the authorities generated by both V-CTC as well as the interlocking operator.
As a closing point, I wish to remind all that the Book of Rules provides the underlying threshold of vitality for all rail systems. In my 40+ years in the industry, I find that too many tend to ignore this point – just as signal engineers tend to ignore dark territory.
In designing and implementing safety systems, risk assessments are made to identify and mitigate unsafe situations so as to ensure a certain level of safety is achieved (a level of risk is not exceeded). For traditional railroad signaling systems, each supplier in the North America has developed its individual qualitative approach referred to as V & V (validation & verification) for evaluating their respective systems. That is, the V&V process is meant to validate that the right thing is being done, and then verify that it was done correctly. For electrical / mechanical components and systems, such an approach makes sense. But, when a most complex and highly unpredictable variable such as the human is introduced as part of the system, then the V&V process is not sufficient; the risk assessment process becomes much more risqué.
The design and implementation of Positive Train Control (PTC) has taken the traditional signaling suppliers outside of their comfort zone for risk assessment. With PTC designed to prevent the failures of humans to operate their trains within the limits of the active movement authorities, means that a qualification process has to be complimented with a quantitative process as well. But, if humans are so unpredictable as to both the types and occurrence of errors that can be made, then how can even a quantification process be established? Actually, the process is quite straightforward. It’s a matter of simulating the environment to be evaluated over an extensive period of time and/or iterations, and to use historical data as to the type and degree of threats that may occur. The reason for the extensive time period and/or iterations is to provide for the randomness of events so as to ensure a statistically sound analysis.
Risk relative to evaluating PTC was defined by the Railroad Safety Advisory Committee (RSAC) to be the severity multiplied by the likelihood of the train being coincident in time and space with an unsafe condition. RSAC was composed of a mixture of regulators, rail management, labor, and supplier personnel, and one of their responsibilities was to evaluate a risk assessment process that was being specifically designed for PTC. Referred to as the Axiomatic Safety Critical Assessment Program (ASCAP), this tool was to be a very straightforward simulation program that could have readily provided a more than adequate analysis of PTC reducing risk – which everyone already intuitively understood anyhow. I mean, if PTC eliminates the most dangerous source of train accidents, again human errors, then it’s a winner (assuming it doesn’t introduce any significant risk – and it doesn’t). Of course, the regulators can’t accept intuitive analysis. They need the mathematical proof, and hence ASCAP.
You noticed that I said that ASCAP could have been a great tool. But, it failed to be delivered due to extremely poor management of resources. I am not referring to ASCAP’s developers, but rather to involvement by the RSAC participants that continuously battered the developers with “insights” and additional requirements of how to make the ASCAP simulate a railroad to the greatest exactness possible. What they failed to understand was that the error associated with simulating human-based events was much greater than correcting for the acceleration of a sample train from a railroad yard, for example.The bottom line here is that the RSAC advisors who were lacking in sound mathematical principles, including Operations Research (OR), and simple pragmatic analytical tools turned a straightforward simulation tool into an unachievable, complex quagmire of code. What was missing was a manager experienced in OR with railroad domain knowledge that could have separated the RSAC’s advisors appropriate advice from the fatuous comments.
ASCAP failed due to poor management and not due to its concepts or principles. Simulation is a quantification risk assessment approach that eliminates the risqué-ness in risk assessment processes involving humans.
In a previous posting on this blog, Hey! Watch This, I reported on some of the findings stated in the U.S.’s General Accounting Office (GAO) report on PTC dated December 2010. The bottom line of that report was that the cost / benefit ratio over 20 years for implementing PTC is hovering around 20/1; an absolutely unacceptable criteria for private investment. And yet, that is the burden, the cost of doing business, for the freight railroads it seems. For the commuter and regional rail systems that require public funding to stay in gear, the challenges of obtaining the necessary funding are likely to be even more severe. Given these circumstances, the question needs to be asked as to what can be done (other than obtaining Federal funding) to make the cost/benefit ratio more reasonable.
The opportunities to obtain a more reasonable cost/benefit ratio fall into three categories obviously, i.e., reduce the costs, increase the benefits, or do both. Until now, the only focus has been on increasing the benefits. However, as I have noted in the referenced posting, as well as others on this blog, there are no business benefits directly associated with PTC; PTC is only a safety-enhancement system. Those fatuous attempts by either naïve or mischievous individuals to identify business benefits have been rejected mostly by now, with only the occasional exception as discussed in my posting, Really! You Gotta Let It Go. So, the safety benefits that have been identified for PTC are all that there are.
So! If the benefit denominator of the cost/benefit ratio can’t be increased, then the only option is to decrease the cost numerator. Interestingly, there are three very significant ways to do that, although they still may not provide a reasonable cost/benefit ratio. The first possibility, again, has been addressed on this blog already. I am referring to tightly integrating the PTC platform with an IT / wireless data platform to provide a mobile node architecture for a railroad’s management system just as a manufacturer would do with fixed nodes to manage its facilities. The second possibility to reduce costs is to go after the wireless infrastructure that is being developed by the Class Is. As also addressed on this blog, this network is a tremendous overkill for what is needed for PTC as currently structured. And as will be described immediately below, the wireless infrastructure is even more irrational if the third method of reducing costs is taken into consideration, i.e., significantly reducing the number of Wayside Interface Units (WIUs).
Why Oh Why the WIUs ?
The implementation of PTC requires 4 primary components.
1. On-board PTC platforms (clients);
2. A back-office PTC platform (server);
3. Wayside interface units that provide for the interchange of data between the critical wayside infrastructure components and the PTC clients / server; and
4. A wireless communication network to deliver the necessary data between the other 3 components.
There simply is no way to reduce the number of PTC clients or to eliminate the server. However, when it comes to the WIU’s there is in fact a major opportunity to minimize the number of units required, that is if one doesn’t accept what is being said by the industry. Specifically, the estimated number of WIUs that will need to be installed to implement PTC across the U.S. has gone from 75,000 for shock value by the freight railroads following the mandate, to the current estimate of 50,000. Now, with the recent agreement by the Obama Administration to reduce the amount of trackage requiring PTC by 10,000 miles, due to changes in traffic by 2016, the estimated requirement for WIUs is probably now around 45,000. But, the kicker is that such a number is still way too high, at least from a regulatory standpoint.
To understand what can be done to reduce the WIU requirement first requires understanding the functionalities that are provided by the use of WIUs, as follows:
1. Reporting status of a manual switch to the PTC server for routing a train in dark territory;
2. Reporting status of a manual switch to the PTC server or clients for supporting enforcement of a train to prevent unauthorized movement through a misaligned switch;
3. Reporting aspects of the control points to the PTC server or clients so as to set up the “targets” for possible enforcement; and
4. Report aspects of the intermediary signals (ISs) to the PTC server or clients so as to set up the “targets” for possible enforcement.
There is a 5th functionality supported by the use of WIUs that is not directly associated with PTC deployment, i.e.
5. Permitting the operator to operate a switch remotely from the locomotive either within the train’s authority if PTC is operable, or without checking for authority should PTC not be available.
Now, like everyone else, did you accept #4 regarding ISs without question? In fact, to incorporate ISs into PTC functionality is not a regulatory requirement of PTC. Additionally, not only does incorporating ISs into PTC not provide any true advantage, but one could argue that to monitor ISs could become more of a hazard than a benefit, as well as a source for decreased velocity, due to the increase likelihood of false enforcements.
Note: the issue of false enforcements is primarily due to the significant variance in determining the braking curve necessary for enforcement, thereby possibly enforcing the train to a stop when it fact the operator could have managed to handle the train properly.
So, why have ISs been incorporated into the PTC platform? It all stems back, in my opinion, to one individual at one Class I who took the dark territory solution for PTC for which I was the architect at CSX, and put a non-pragmatic signal territory spin on top of it. However, it may go deeper than that it seems. Just as with the resistance that existed by Labor to reduce the trackage that requires PTC by 10,000 miles, as noted earlier, it seems that Labor has had its hands in the design of PTC as well. I guess it comes down to jobs. In short, not only is PTC not a rationally justified safety system, but there is an irrational level of infrastructure being required to satisfy Labor.
I am not quite through as to reducing the use of WIU’s. I now look at point #3 as to the WIUs for control point. The point here is that the control points are already connected to the CAD platform via a wireless or wired pole line. These communication links provide the same data to CAD that are required by PTC. That means that WIUs are not required for control points either in that the code line infrastructure can be tapped by the PTC server at the back office to get the information required to generate targets. Wait, I am still not done with reducing the number of WIUs.
Consider point #2 as to ensuring no movement through a misaligned switch. This situation is somewhat similar to the approach I developed for handling work gangs and the Employee in Charge (EIC), which by the way is the approach being used for PTC by the freight railroads. That is, the on board PTC client notifies the operator of the train’s approach to a work gang and requests that s/he indicates via the on board PTC display whether or not s/he has approval provided by the EIC to proceed into the work zone. If no positive response is received by the PTC client within certain distance / speed / time parameters, then an enforcement is made. This same approach could be used to notify the operator of an upcoming switch and to request an input by the operator that s/he can verify that the switch is properly aligned. Again, as with the work gang, if a positive response is not received within a certain combination of distance / speed/ time, then an enforcement is made. While this approach may seem a bit awkward, it is in fact a solution that is directly aligned with the operating rules.
Finally, as to point #1, the use of WIU’s for routing trains in dark territory. Actually, that one is still appropriate in that it was the solution I conceived for the development of PTC at CSX. As mentioned above, that PTC project was for dark territory and the other alternatives for routing trains at that time were too outlandish and/or too expensive, including the failed pursuit by the joint venture of GE and Harris to deploy Precision Train Control (not positive train control), a vital, moving block operation.
One last thought here. If indeed the railroads were to greatly reduce the number of WIUs based upon the above, then the cost of the wireless network would be significantly reduced as well, me thinks.
I await your comments.
Recently on this blog I posted the article Dangerous Railroading in which I identified 4 primary areas that a railroad needs to address for safe operations, i.e., 1. choice of safety systems deployed, 2. critical infrastructure maintenance practices, 3, personal / personnel accountability, and 4. theft of critical infrastructure. The primary point of that posting was that a railroad’s slack in any one of the four areas would result in the safety of its operations being readily compromised. In that posting I addressed each of the areas in a cursory fashion with the commitment that I would address each in greater detail in subsequent postings. As such, this posting addresses safety systems with additional discussion as to Traffic Management.
There are two levels of safety systems to consider for the movement of trains from both the dispatching and train crew’s perspectives, i.e.. traffic control and enforcement, respectively.
Simply stated, traffic control is the functional vitality of the railroad that ensures the integrity of train movement authorities. It does that by employing vital logic / hardware / systems that generate the movement authorities in a fashion that fails safely, i.e, unsafe authorities are not delivered. I am purposely pointing out the difference between functional vitality and logic / hardware / system vitality here in that the distinction is often overlooked, if even recognized by many railroaders. Logic / hardware / system vitality is that which signal engineers solely identify with. Too often, signal engineers mistakenly believe that signals are installed for safety purposes. Of course, signals provide for safety, but they are installed for traffic throughput in that it is possible to operate a railroad safely without signals, e.g., 50% of the trackage in the US is non-signaled traffic control. … as is ETCS level 3, … as is the most primitive token block system. Signal engineers don’t identify with functional vitality, a point which is quickly proven by asking ANY signal who has not taken my Railroad Immersion Course (brochure is available on the blog), “What’s vital in non-signaled (dark) operations?” Their response will always be “Nothing!” since there is no hardware installed along the wayside. They are so, so wrong from a functional standpoint. Vital functionality is what a railroad requires, and the vital logic / hardware of signaling systems is only one way to achieve that. (Further discussion on this point, as well as the answer as to what is vital in dark territory, is provided in a previous posting on this blog in the Teddy Bears category: There’s Nothing Vital in Dark Territory).
Arguably, the most disturbing issue currently about traffic control is the willingness by too many railroads to blindly accept both the traditional and advanced traffic control systems that are offered to them by traditional suppliers pushing what they have, versus what those railroads really require. I am not referring to high speed, high capacity operations as in Europe’s passenger operations where interoperability and traffic density are the driving factors. Rather, I am referring to all of those railroads across the other 90% of the globe that are struggling to develop a core transportation infrastructure to expand their country’s economy. How dare traditional signaling companies and consulting firms provide only products that feed the seller’s bottom line instead of pragmatic cost-effective solutions that service a railroad’s bottom line. These suppliers are providing, as well as the consultants are promoting, products instead of true solutions. (Again, I refer you to another posting on this blog: In the Light of Dark in the Railroad Business category.)
Unlike traffic control which is meant to prevent dispatching errors, enforcement is meant to prevent train crew errors. Simply stated, enforcement systems monitor the status of a train’s movement relative to its authorites. Should the system determine that the train is in jeopardy of violating an authority as to some combination of speed, distance, and time, then the enforcement system takes some combination of actions such as warnings to the crew, slowing the train, or bringing the train to a complete stop. As such, enforcement functionality can be integrated with advanced traffic control systems such as ETCS in Europe, or it can provided as an overlay system, as is the case with PTC in North America. In any event, enforcement systems are not vital as to functionality or logic / hardware (as discussed above) in that they do not generate authorities. Should, the enforcement system fail in some fashion, then the train is no less safe than it was without the enforcement system . . . Well! Almost always. One possible exception is that of an improperly designed enforcement system that makes an emergency brake application that for some reason results in a derailment.
Various types of enforcement systems have been in use in passenger operations for decades. However, for freight operations across most of the globe, enforcement systems have been extremely limited in their deployment and functionality compared to what is now available with PTC and the European flavor of Automatic Train Protection (ATP) as well as enforcement functionality incorporated in ETCS for Europe’s High Speed Passenger operations. What is unique about PTC relative to ATP / ETCS, is that no significant additional wayside infrastructure (other than a commercial or private wireless data network) is required for a very basic approach in signaled territory, with only switch monitors required in non-signaled operations. NOTE: For the hardcore PTC followers who feel tempted to correct me regarding WIU’s being required in signaled territory, I request that you first think about why WIU’s are needed if interim signals are not enforced.
Neither traffic control nor enforcement is traffic management. Traffic management deals with the efficient generation of authorities, but not the generation itself. It is designed to meet the operating directives (business value) of the railroad in managing the key resources, and as such has nothing to do with the safety of the railroad. Until recently, traffic management has been dependent upon the analytical and the rationalization of a railroad’s management team as to what was most important, i.e, moving high priority trains regardless of the cost associated with other traffic. It has only been within the last decade that advanced traffic management has introduced the mathematical tools that can displace the limited human-mentality of dispatchers to deal with the most simplistic prioritization of track time only, yet alone consider fuel utilization, crew availability, balance of locomotive distribution, and the constraints of track maintenance. I should point out that I am referring primarily to non-scheduled operations that are prevalent in North America. I am not referring to high speed passenger operations that are highly scheduled. (One more time, I offer two other postings on this blog relative to traffic management, both from the Teddy Bear category: 1) CAD Delivers Traffic Management, and 2) Train Dispatching is too Difficult for that Math Stuff.
Until a year ago, my professional railroading career as Class I management and an independent consultant had been almost totally dedicated to the freight industry of North America. There have been some interesting consulting engagements outside of that sphere, including a most peculiar investigation (I never knew who the true client was) into the traffic control and communication systems for railroads in the Middle East and Southeast Asia 25 years ago. But I was taken by surprise, actually shocked, when I read about the initiation of a study in that same corner of the world that would evaluate the safety and efficiency of a local railroad operation. It seems I didn’t really know what I thought I knew.
Having been nurtured for 36 years in the U.S. railroads, I had come to understand that operating a railroad safely requires disciplined allegiance to 1) safety systems, 2) maintenance practices, and 3) personal accountability. And, slack in any one of these three areas could readily result in the safety of a railroad’s operations being severely compromised. Hence, it was with the greatest dismay that I soon realized upon starting the study for the troubled railroad (hereon referred to as TRR), that it was suffering in all three areas as well as a fourth issue – the theft of critical wayside infrastructure. Given these significant problems, there have been a number of deadly train accidents across TRR, and there will continue to be unless all four areas are addressed properly. Thus, the focus of the TRR study was clearly directed to be that of safety first, and then efficiency.
The slap-across-the-face revelation for me was that TRR is NOT unique. Its dangerous railroading practices and problems are common in many parts of the world. Given the importance of railroads to emerging economies as providers of labor mobility and accelerators of industrialization – these safety and operating issues have far-reaching impacts. Thus, I have shifted the emphasis of my consulting to now focus on what railroads can do to address these 4 critical areas. In this post, I provide a brief description of each problem area as observed from my experience with TRR. Some readers will likely see similarities to their own operations . . . or their clients. Additionally, as will be addressed in subsequent postings, I will identify non-traditional, cost-effective and 100% safe solutions for each of the 4 areas. These are solutions that are not being provided by traditional suppliers that focus on the high speed passenger and/or high density freight networks across the globe. The solutions have to be non-standard / non-traditional since traditional suppliers produce and price for high speed/high density lines and these solutions can in fact result in a financial disaster for small and emerging railroads while increasing the likelihood of additional risk in their operations.
There are two primary levels of safety systems to consider in the movement of trains, i.e., traffic control and enforcement. TRR’s traffic control is a mixture of traditional signaling (i.e., a railroad’s traffic lights) and an antiquated token block operation. While the condition of the signaled operation across TRR is understood to be below par, it is TRR’s token block operation that requires the greatest attention.
Token block originates back in the middle of the 19th Century in Britain, and its deployment across the globe was in step with the expansion of the British Empire. Simply explained, token block’s safety, as used across TRR, is based upon an operator for each section of track (block) handing a token, e.g., metal rod, to the train crew as an authority to proceed into the block. Upon exiting the block, the train crew hands back the token to the next operator and at some point receives a new token unique to the next block. In concept, token block is a safe system. But, in practice the manual processes involving the block operator and the crew can be, and have been, violated resulting in fatal accidents. For this and perhaps other reasons, various types of Radio Electronic Token Block (RETB) have replaced manual token block in Britain and elsewhere, including a relatively short corridor in TRR. But for the majority of TRR’s operation that is still manual token block, the integrity of that operation is subject to being compromised by human error. Fortunately, as to be addressed in a forthcoming posting, there are non-signaling traffic control systems that can replace token block. These are solutions that don’t require the extensive capital investment of traditional CTC operations or the overwhelming capital investment of ETCS as used for Europe’s high speed rail networks.
Traffic control safety is not the only issue associated with safe train movements. There is also the issue of train crew errors regardless of whether the operation is in signaled territory or token block, and it is the purpose of enforcement systems to prevent such errors. In TRR’s case, an antiquated enforcement approach, Automatic Train Protection (ATP), is deployed across much of the railroad. However, based upon my visits to date, it appears that the maintenance and theft of ATP components embedded in the track as well as the train drivers turning off the on-board controller so as to not be enforced for over-speeding, has rendered the system highly ineffective. To be addressed in a latter posting, ATP is quite similar in functionality to another enforcement system referred to as Positive Train Control (PTC) that is now mandated for implementation before 2016 across most of the trackage in the U.S. PTC doesn’t have the theft, maintenance, and driver abandonment problems of TRR’s ATP system.
As suggested above, the adequateness and reliability of TRR’s maintenance procedures for wayside infrastructure and rolling stock are dubious. For the wayside infrastructure, TRR is confronted with an aging signaling system that is anticipated to have a major overhaul in the near future. However, much of the token block operation incorporates mechanical interlockings that, as with the token block equipment itself, are reportedly not up to grade. Such lack of maintenance is likely the result of two key issues. First, there is no regulatory process for providing mandatory maintenance procedures. Second, it is doubtful given just the physical appearance of the railroad overall, that governmental financial support has been anywhere near sufficient, if even budgeted.
As to equipment, I reflect on a conversation I had with a TRR executive when I asked what he thought was the most unsafe part of his railroad. Without hesitation his answer was “The brakes.” I was then told that the goal of their operation at that time was to ensure that half of the cars (wagons) in a train’s consist were equipped with working brakes – with an additional challenge of ensuring that ½ of the brake-able cars were to be placed at the beginning and the end of each train so as to reduce in-train forces.
Outside of North America, Europe and the far East, many railroads are confronted with two critical parameters that affect their ability to perform proper traffic control and supporting infrastructure maintenance. First, there is the issue of an adequately-trained work force. However, that issue can be readily handled via the use of contractors. The second parameter is the topography over which the railroad operates, and the accessibility to the wayside as well as the availability of power. Again, solutions are available, but they can be quite expensive. The point here is that railroads subjected to such parameters should consider safety systems that minimize those requirements, i.e. minimize the amount of wayside infrastructure. However, traditional suppliers do not offer those types of systems to them – why would a supplier offer a system that has less equipment. A future posting will address this point.
As demonstrated by the discussion above, there is a critical lack of consistency in personal accountability across TRR in both the operations and maintenance of critical equipment. Perhaps this is due to the fact that TRR is a government-owned railroad with seemingly little incentive to address costs or revenues. Or, perhaps this is due to the lack of a regulatory body, such as the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) in the U.S. that mandates and enforces proper procedures. Regardless of the reasons, it is clear that TRR, or any railroad, will not operate safely without a workforce totally committed to safety. To achieve that takes documented procedures, education / training, the right incentive system and discipline throughout the organization. A future posting will address these points.
While copper wire used for pole lines has been a favorite target of thieves in the U.S. over the years, the theft of other critical components has been minimal. However, in many parts of the world, everything is fair game apparently. The treasure chest includes signaling equipment, power supplies, and in-track transponders used by Europe’s advanced traffic control system for high speed rail, ETCS. The key point here is that, as with maintenance issues noted above, a railroad should consider the vulnerability to operations and safety due to theft of critical components when selecting from alternative safety systems. The only viable solution is a system with less infrastructure to steal – but again, what supplier in their right mind would sell a system with less equipment. A future posting will address these points.
In addition to the 4 areas above, there are other significant considerations as to safe train movement operations including the use of train-integrity detection in token block operation, end-of-train monitoring of brake line pressure, wayside defect detectors, and on-board car detection systems, e.g., fire detection and alarm systems for passenger operations.
Indeed, there are overwhelming issues with the safety of TRR’s operations. The study that is being performed by my colleagues and I, will address those issues as well as identify advanced traffic management concepts that will support TRR’s increasing requirement to mix freight with passenger service on critical corridors. I know now that there are many railroads across the globe that could benefit greatly, both as to safety and financial viability, by having such a study performed without prejudice to particular approaches, equipment, or suppliers. Such a study would take into consideration safety systems, maintenance practices, personal accountability, and theft, as well as the peripheral safety considerations mentioned above.
Your correspondence is most welcomed and encouraged.
In the previous posting to this blog, In the Light of Dark, I introduced the concept of non-signaled operations used in the Americas that is most frequently referred to as Dark Territory (DT). In fact, there are two basic types of DT, i.e., Dark/Dark and Dark/Lighted (my terminology and not Googable). In Dark/Dark operations, neither the dispatcher is presented with any indication of where the train is (as in signaled CTC operations), nor is the train crew provided with any in-cab or wayside signals to present the crews with the indication of the time & speed parameters of the current movement authority (a.k.a. aspects). Instead, the crew obtains the movement authority via voice radio or as data via data radio (a.k.a. digital authorities) from the dispatcher. That is, both the dispatcher and the train crew are in the dark, so to speak, as to the train position and authority, respectively. Contrarily, in Dark/Lighted operation, the dispatcher is still unable to see the position of the train, but signals are used within the corridor to keep trains separated by block. This use of Absolute Block System (ABS) increases the possible capacity of the DT operation by adding a second level of vitality (i.e., the generation of movement authorities) to the primary authority so as to place multiple trains into a sequential set of blocks instead of having one train hold all blocks exclusively until it releases the whole set of blocks. Although a signal engineer will declare ABS to be signaled operations, it is actually DT in that the primary authority to get the train into the corridor was so generated. Regardless of the type of DT, two critical points remain true: 1. the dispatcher doesn’t know where the train(s) is in the DT corridor, and 2. the dispatcher doesn’t know the speed of the train(s). But, that’s OK, seemingly, because DT is used for low to medium density operations … or is it really OK? Actually, it is no longer OK.
Traditional railroaders have accepted that DT has limited capacity due to the manual efforts of transmitting authorities and subsequently releasing them. But, what if a railroad was to obtain the actual position and speed of trains, and then use mathematical movement planners to adjust the generation of movement authorities in a more dynamic fashion? That is, what if a dispatcher had a Planning Platform, either integrated or independent of CAD, that could more efficiently plan the generation of authorities, and then have the dispatcher use CAD as the execution platform that it truly only is? That is, what if the dispatcher had what I have introduced 5 years ago as Proactive Traffic Management (PTM) instead of the reactive, crisis-based management of train movements (more on this in a future posting)?
Now, the question is: How much capacity can be obtained with DT operations that use the dynamic duo of digital authorities and PTM, whether dark/dark or dark/lighted? Of course, the answer varies for each individual corridor. But no railroad, to my knowledge, has attempted to answer that question. They don’t know what they don’t know. Instead, they take the traditional signaling approach that requires heavy investment in infrastructure as well as extensive maintenance costs to ensure the reliability of the equipment. Additionally, such signaling operations in developing countries are subject to theft and deterioration due to poor maintenance given a lack of adequately train maintenance personnel.
The great news is that such capacity evaluations can be performed through the use of mathematical models not unlike those that are used to calculate the theoretical throughput of signaled operations. But again, to my knowledge, no one is using such models. Clearly, neither suppliers nor traditional consultants that advise railroads are doing such analyses in that they will not sell anything since 1. there is no infrastructure investment for DT other than wireless data, and 2. they don’t have operational experience with such operations, respectively. That’s where my associates and I can be brought into play.
As my team of professional railroaders and planners are pursuing with small and emerging operations in selected areas of the globe, there is the opportunity to bring those types of alternatives to railway management. The icing on the cake is that we also can advise on the use of enforcement systems, such as PTC, so as to provide for as safe of a railroad operation that is possible with both reliable traffic control and efficient traffic management, as well as assure that a train crew will not violate their authorities. It doesn’t get any better than that.
If what I have discussed above applies to your railway, then we need to talk. By the way, my team doesn’t represent any suppliers, nor do we accept commissions from suppliers. We work for your railway’s best financial and operational interests.
Rail professionals, whether from the railroads or the suppliers, associated with North American freight rail or European/Asian high speed passenger live and breathe some form of fixed block, signaled operation, either wayside or in-cab, as the means to provide crews with reliable movement authorities to advance trains. However, of that group only a relatively small percentage is operationally-familiar with the well-established, non-signaled operation (a.k.a. Dark Territory [DT]) that is used across 50% of U.S. rail trackage (albeit handling only 20% of the traffic).
What causes this lack of awareness? Essentially, traditional traffic control suppliers have nothing to sell in DT - there is no infrastructure required other than wireless – hence no business interest. Additionally, the heretofore, manual-only processes of DT have made it incapable of handling the requirements of high speed and/or high density operations, whether freight or passenger. I say heretofore in that the digital age has now come to DT.
The availability of a wireless data network (with or without PTC) permits the time consuming, and possibly compromised, voice transmissions of the movement authorities between the crews and the dispatcher in DT operations to be handled as data presented via an on-board display. Additionally, that same wireless data path can be used to release authorities in the back office DT platform logic, a.k.a., conflict checker. This double time-reduction whammy provides for a quantum increase in the capacity that a dispatcher can handle in DT operations.
But, outside of the Americas, the capability of DT, with or without the quantum improvement, is one of best kept secrets that, if known, could have a phenomenal effect on small and emerging railroads; railroads that are critical to the business and social welfare of their respective countries. Again, I am not talking about the sophisticated railways of Europe, but the railways that are being considered across Africa, the Middle East, India, Indonesia, and elsewhere. These railroads could see a massive increase in capacity for minimal investment in a green-field operation to a net-savings for a railroad operating on an older signaling system (removing the older system would save future operating and maintenance costs, often resulting in a net savings). In addition, a traffic control system without wayside infrastructure results in less expensive equipment to be stolen or damaged by harsh environs reducing operating costs and increasing safety.
The railroads across the globe that could benefit from DT come in two types. First, there are railroads that are emerging either as green-field developments or as rebuilds of railways that have been reduced to rumble or abandoned for civil and/or economic reasons. Second, there are those railroads that are fully functional but are dependent upon the most antiquated traffic control system generically known as Token Block (TB). With its development stemming from the middle of the 19th century in Britain, TB can be found in patches across the globe. TB is safe in concept. That is, to operate within a particular segment of track , a crew must possess a token, physical /electronic that is uniquely assigned to that segment. However, as I witnessed in my assignment in Egypt regarding the Egyptian National Railways (ENR) to evaluate safe railroading, including both traffic control and enforcement, the manual processes involved in TB ( 85% of ENR’s trackage) permit the vitality of operation to be greatly compromised. When those processes are violated; major accidents have occurred.
So! Here’s the problem. While DT is an excellent traffic control approach for small and emerging railroads, these operators are not being informed of its availability. Instead, major suppliers are selling (and traditional consultants are promoting) the major systems that have been deployed across major rail operations as the only solutions. Such solutions put these railroads at considerable financial risk , not only due to the initial investment required, but also as to the on-going profitability due to a combination of extensive maintenance and training costs, a likely lack of disciplined and educated maintenance personnel, and the susceptibility to theft of wayside infrastructure.
Hopefully, the safety project I mentioned in Egypt, as well as the marketing efforts of myself and my colleagues (we don’t represent suppliers nor accept commissions) will help spread the knowledge of Dark Territory and bring it into the light of those nationalized and private railroads that can truly benefit from its deployment.
I thought I had covered all of the important Teddy Bears in my prior posts as to the issue of vitality in railroad operations, but I forgot about one. Several weeks ago at a PTC conference where I was the luncheon speaker, I addressed a number of topics. Arguably, the most important two points I discussed were:
- The fervent pursuit of PTC by the railroads to meet the mandate requirement is actually preventing the pursuit of opportunities to advance railroad operations. The reason for the latter is explained by the fact that most railroads lack both the Strategic Railroading perspective and the necessary resources, Technologists, to develop and deploy such a perspective.
At the conclusion of the presentation, the audience was asked if they had questions or comments. The first question was as to whether or not I thought Digital Authorities are vital. Indeed, there are many that believe them to be … with the sequential logic being that the wireless communication system required would have to be vital as well. In fact, the digital authorities are no more vital than the aspects on the signal post or the authorities that are provided via voice radio in non-signaled territory. All of these are only the display of the results of the vital process that was in effect to generate the authority.
With that said, it doesn’t mean that the transmission of authorities need not be accurate and reliable. For voice authorities, those attributes are provided by the crew member repeating the authority back to the dispatcher, and then starting over if there is any disagreement. For DA’s, the accuracy and reliability factors are provided by a mathematical algorithm that performs error detection and correction on bits. And for signals, the issue is whether or not the light source is operable. In all cases, should the transmission fail, then the crew knows what to do. They revert to the threshold level of vitality referred to as the Book of Operating Rules.
The bottom line is that DA’s are not vital.
Therefore neither the transmission process nor the equipment need to be either.