Strategic Railroading

ACT NOW! Don’t wait any longer. This is your last chance opportunity to get PTC before the technicians take your railroad to the edge of the PTC investment abyss and give you the financially-fatal push.

The PTC approach being pursued by the Class Is via the Interoperable PTC Committee (ITC) manned by CSX, UP, BNSF, and NS, is tremendously overdesigned as to functionality, technology, and infrastructure. The net of this is a 5-fold increase in investment (my estimate). However, it still is not too late to scream “ I’m not going to take anymore!” and design your PTC implementation in a fashion to avoid most of the unnecessary stuff.  Here’s the story in 3 simple bullets.

• As was addressed in an earlier posting on this blog, YOY WIUs, it is clear that the recent estimate of 50,000 wayside interface units (WIUs) that provide wireless data paths from wayside infrastructure components to the PTC client on the locomotive and the PTC server in the office is off by a factor of 60%, minimum. As explained in the earlier posting, WIU’s are not required for Intermediary Signals (ISs) and control points. The former is not a required function of the PTC mandate (in fact, doing so may actually increase risk), and the latter can be done via the already installed code line.

• I find no evidence of anyone doing an actual data throughput analysis for PTC. From my personal experience, having been the architect for the first overlay PTC system that provided the foundation for the Class I pursuits, there is very little data throughput required (save track data base downloads that can be handled via WiFi in the yard).  And yet, the ultimate wireless data system is being developed by ITC.  It is clear that PTC has nothing to do with this development in actuality. The railroad technicians want the network (they love the challenge), and perhaps someday they will need it (there currently is little to no strategy as to how the network could be used), and they are using PTC as the excuse.

• Complimentary to the above point, the railroads actually don’t even need the 220 MHz network.  What they failed to do several years ago was to use digital trunked radio technology to outfit the current analog 160 MHz infrastructure to meet the FCC’s narrowbanding requirement.  They are already switching that network from analog to digital, but they have chosen to use conventional radio instead of trunked. Granted it would have been a complicated transition, but $1 billion cheaper by avoiding the 220 MHz infrastructure. Again, the railroads’ technicians took it upon themselves to address challenges without proper executive management understanding and oversight which would have required proper business case analyses.

The bottom line on the railroads’ bottom lines is that the cost of PTC implementation could be reduced from the estimate $10 Billion to a mere $2 billion, give or take a $1 billion. But to take advantage of this Spring reduction, someone has to stand up now and say scrap the 220 MHz, install digital trunk 160 MHz, and ignore 60% of those WIU’s.  Of course that won’t happen. What a shame.

Ron Lindsey was recently commissioned to write a white paper titled ” Wireless for Railroads”.

The paper addresses the extraordinary opportunities railroads have, both individually and collectively as an industry, to advance their operations via the use of advanced wireless technologies, as well as to improve the efficiency of their spectrum usage. This perspective is expanded to consider the relationship of the freight rail industry with passenger rail, other transportation modes, and the intersection with public safety. This is a STRATEGIC PERSPECTIVE based upon identifying both the DEMAND for and SUPPLY of wireless technologies which provides the basis for structuring an approach for MOVING FORWARD.

The white paper will soon be available for download. But, to request an exclusive advance copy email Ron Lindsey at comarch@aol.com

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 5^th 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.

At the PTC Congress last week in Miami, a Union Pacific (UP) panelist was asked about the real estate on top of the locomotive as to the placement of antennas in the light of the 220 MHz band that is to be used for PTC. The UP manager stated that, in fact, there can be up to 14 antennae mounted on a locomotive, and Yes! they are getting crowded. The number was quite a surprise for me in that my quick count could only come up with 10 (which is a pathetic number in itself), i.e., GEO satellite, 40MHz, 160 MHz-voice, 160 MHz-data, 450 MHz, 900 MHz, cellular, WiFi, GPS, and 220 MHz. Now, moving into the cab, the large number of antennae implies that there is a significant number of radio units mounted in nooks and crannies, with each unit most likely servicing singular applications with singular protocols via singular frequencies, e.g., voice, end-of-train (EOT), locomotive diagnostics, event recorder download, and distributed power.

Ah Yes! I can’t help but think back just 20 years ago when railroad communications engineering was so straightforward. At that time, wireless on the locomotive was limited to voice radio with the introduction of EOT as the first major use of radio telemetry across the industry. Granted, railroads were even less efficient than they are today, but there was plenty of excess of everything, so what the heck? We didn’t need wireless data to advance resource management processes. The big thrust then was the transition from crystals to the use of synthesizers to provide a full slate of channels on a single locomotive radio unit. While the railroads’ communication forces may consider their expansion of wireless data technology since then to be progressive, as suggested by the locomotive’s antenna farm, I view the transition as being totally tactical and not at all strategic. So! Is that being progressive … or is it just being evolutionary? The difference between those two perspectives is extraordinary. That is, the additional cost of being tactical instead of strategic includes an extraordinary amount of capital investment, maintenance, opportunities to delay trains due to inoperable equipment, as well as an extraordinarily poor IT architecture (both physical and logical) due to the lack of system integration resulting in an extraordinary inhibiting of advancing railroad operations in a revolutionary fashion instead of an evolutionary one. By this last point I mean that railroads have failed to use wireless technologies to advance the management of their key resources from that of being reactive to that of being proactive, as discussed in other postings on this blog.

Unfortunately, the technicians have been free to do what they like to do most, i.e., design communication solutions that are tailored to specific applications. If they were asked to justify why they didn’t consider pooling applications on a single radio, for example, they would have a number of seemingly good technical reasons, of which some would have some merit. However, the bottom line is that they have not been required to build a multi-function or multi-band wireless platform that would reduce many if not all of those extraordinary items mentioned above. This is where software define radio (SDR) comes into play.

With the term SDR being introduced as recently as 1991, it can most simply be described as replacing a number of hardware components of a radio unit with software. The underlying principle for doing so is the use of some form of digital signaling processers (DSPs) that can replace specifically designed hardware such as RF filters, mixers, amplifiers, and modulators/demodulators. While that sounds interesting, the truly great point is that a single signal processing platform can service an unlimited number of combinations of bands and protocols. It only needs the appropriate software; software which can be accessed instantaneously to provide a different radio platform to the same user.

The real breakthrough in SDR began with the rapid, exponential increase in the power of general purpose processors to service the PC market. Again, simply stated, that meant that a standard computer and the corresponding advancements in software programming could advance SDR much more rapidly than continuing to rely on the much slower advancement in specialized DSP technology. What better example of this is there than the iphone and its competitors that can handle multiple protocols, e.g., 3G, 4G, in a fashion transparent to the user?

It was a decade ago that I reached out to several companies that were then beginning to use the general purpose processors found in PCs instead of specialized DSP to deliver SDR to the military – industry complex. One such company accepted an invitation to present their concepts, using a laptop computer, to the AAR’s wireless committee. They came, they saw, and they retreated. The interest by the railroads’ technicians was one of moderate curiosity without any incentive to do anything different than what they were then doing to avoid the inevitability of meeting the FCC’s narrow-banding push of the railroads’ 160-161 MHz band. That was then, What about now? Interestingly, the answer is that the technicians have totally swung to the other extreme of the pendulum. That is, instead of spinning wheels to achieve nothing, they are totally involved in creating the ultimate wireless data network and thereby ignoring all other possibilities as to advancing technologies as well as alternative approaches to spectrum usage.

SDR is only one possibility for advancing the cost-effective and efficient use of wireless across the rail industry that will be discussed in future posts on this blog. For example, I will be addressing soon the software defined antennae (SDA), that in sync with SDR, provides the basis for cognitive radio.

So many words, phrases, and processes that were used in 70s regarding computers have faded to the point that it is likely that few under 50 years of age would have heard of them, yet alone understand their usage. I am referring to terms such as core memory, thrashing, I/O bound, DP, TOS, DOS, boot strap, JCL, punched cards, re-IPLing, LCS, and core dump. This was the era of mainframe computers with orders-of-magnitude less processing power and storage than available today at orders-of-magnitude higher prices.  Indeed, as the phrase DP suggested, this was a period of batch processing of data, e.g., payroll or inventory update, versus that of dynamic generation of information.

Back then, one process in particular was extremely important when making decisions about the investment in computer systems. That is, customers would often require that a computer supplier to benchmark it’s various levels of systems, or against competitor systems, to compare the efficiency and adequacy relative to the cost of those systems.  In truth, having been actively involved in such activities as an IBM DP Marketing Representative, benchmarking was more often than not a shell game played by the vendors’ System Engineers that tweaked each part of their computer parameters (constraints such as I/O speed, partition size, disk access speed, etc.) to maximize the throughput of a particular a system in favor of each customer’s individual expectations. Getting the customer’s order was often the result of the vendor’s Marketing Representatives and System Engineers working together to set up the customer expectations and then to demonstrate the ability to meet them, respectively, euphemistically referred to as having account control.

With the move from back-office / mainframe computing to that of distributed client/server, the art and science of benchmarking has become that of legends for those still able to remember the good ole days.  With seemingly unlimited computer power and communication links, there is rarely an issue today of whether or not the IT architecture will handle the requirements and at what cost. Over the last several decades the investment decision has shifted from costs/power to that of developing / obtaining the software relative to business value. Well, that’s almost totally true. For industries that rely on substantial mobile and remote resources, advancing IT can also be a significant infrastructure and hardware cost as well and therefore worthy of benchmarking.  Unfortunately, that continues to NOT be the case for railroads.

As I have noted in other postings on this blog, and in my quarterly publication, Full Spectrum, most of the major railroads in North America have failed to develop a strategic technology plan in sync with a strategic operations plan (Strategic Railroading™). What is not understood, and therefore not appreciated or evaluated by railroads, is the paradigm shift that can be made for these predominantly unscheduled railroads by increasing the accuracy and timeliness of the status of their key assets, including track time, locomotive diagnostics, fuel, crews, and yard occupancy. And, the primary technology to do that is wireless data.  So, if companies found it appropriate to benchmark computer systems for the paradigm shift that they made in the 70s by replacing clerks with MIPS, then why are the railroads not doing the same in pursuing their deployment of wireless? There are two points to consider to address this question, i.e., MOTIVATION and PROCESS.

MOTIVATION

In the case of railroads with 1000s of locomotives and the possibility of incorporating them as mobile nodes on the IT architecture, as a manufacturer would consider fixed nodes, then there is definitely something missing. What is missing is the understanding by railroad management, and suppliers failing to taking a proactive position, of what can be done with IN-TIME data. I am not referring to REAL-time data. The difference between IN-TIME and REAL time is critical in understanding the constraints of using wireless data, versus the seemingly infinite capability of wired links as in a manufacturing environment.  To be explained in a future posting, IN-TIME data for train speed and position information in unscheduled operations is no more frequent than every 5 minutes for other than moving block operations. Hence, the railroad technicians that are charged with designing wireless networks can’t help themselves, nor are they held responsible, in making technical decisions which are not related to true business evaluation. Stated simply, technicians will always over design to make sure that they don’t come up short.

PROCESS

As nearly everyone now appreciates with the proliferation of cell phones and laptop computing, wireless is clearly limited in its throughput speed and coverage. It has been an eye-opening experience for those folks that expected that their internet connectively on their cell phone and notebook would match their in-the-office-cubicle desktop performance. There are two primary ways to determine what needs to be done.

1.      evaluate every possible wireless-based application as to data requirements and calculate the ultimate throughput requirements.  At least one railroad tried this approach several years ago, and the process bogged down in detail thereby insuring nothing would be resolved.

2.      evaluate on an 80/20 basis as to evaluating throughput requirements relative to a variety of wireless options recognizing the two key parameters of wireless data parameters. i.e. throughput and coverage. This approach was used a decade ago when I structured such a study that was participated in by the big 4 railroads in the U.S. with oversight by the AAR. The results of that study were used at that point by the AAR to justify the industry’s usage of the 160 VHF spectrum to the FAA. However, that was all the farther it went. Basic details follow.

Developing a Wireless Strategy for a railroad, or for an industry, needs to be pragmatic and adjustable to each railroad’s technical agenda, assuming there is one.

The process is rather simplistic in structure, but a true commitment is required by a railroad’s upper management to provide the players involved with the proper motivation to address the bottom line at the same time. To be brief, the process requires developing a matrix that plays off THROUGHPUT requirements against COVERAGE.  For railroads, the THROUGHPUT requirements may include simple categories such as Voice, Monitoring (locomotive diagnostics, shipment status), Out-bound Transactions (PTC targets), Process Control (moving block), and Interactive (M of W activities, in-train management). As to COVERAGE, the categories can be as simple as Terminal, Metropolitan (major cities with multiple railroads), Main Line, and Group (M of W gangs, Trains/Cars).  Within each Throughput / Coverage block of  the matrix, the possible applications are identified with a pragmatic evaluation of data requirements.  This provides the Demand perspective.

The next step is to evaluate the various wireless data options, both commercial and private, as to their ability to service the demand. This is the Supply perspective that results in Wireless Corridors, if you will, that permits structuring a manageable number of wireless strategies based upon business evaluation as to costs vs. value. Such an analysis, in my belief, would have prevented the phenomenal, unwarranted investment in the 220 MHz spectrum that is being made in the name of PTC, even though the railroads are required to spend $100s millions to rebuild the 160 MHz infrastructure as required by the FCC by 2013.

For those small to medium railroads outside of North America that are being slammed with ETCS, and the requirement for GSM, the analysis goes even deeper. That is, as described in other postings on this blog, the use of dark territory (with or without PTC) and the deployment of cost-effective wireless solutions can provide substantially lower capital investments to run a railroad both safely and efficiently.

Bottom Line, railroads should be benchmarking the use of wireless technologies with a pragmatic understanding of both Demand and Supply. Further details of such a process can be obtained by contacting me to discuss individual situations. This is what I provide as a consultant.

Prior to the PTC mandate in November 2008, the misunderstandings about PTC were starting to narrow down to just a few issues. Fortunately, the fact that PTC is not vital had fairly well stabilized across the industry. But there remained the most persistent, fatuous belief that PTC delivered business value, followed closely by the corollary that such business benefits would be achieved after the deployment of PTC. Actually, the second point is pathetically true somewhat because there is a tremendous lack of understanding, proper management direction, and executive bonus incentives as to what railroads can do NOW without PTC with the use of the simplest of wireless data infrastructures, whether it be owned and/or commercial (cellular / satellite). As proof of this point, as noted in previous postings on this blog (Really! You Gotta Let It Go), NS is leading the charge in the industry, followed by BNSF in actually achieving such business benefits now without PTC.

Since the mandate of PTC, a whole new plateau of misunderstandings and misrepresentations regarding PTC has been reached.  Some of these are perhaps innocent mistakes, but others are clearly the result of  misleading, if not fraudulent, activities by suppliers and consulting firms alike. This is not a point of concern for the Class Is in that they know what PTC is and what it will take. Afterall, they have taken the charge to define PTC themselves with little to no interest in help from the supplier community. My concern, rather, is for the commuters and regional rail transit systems that are looking for a path through the PTC implementation mine field armed with regulations, budget constraints, the challenge of public financing, and long-established relationships with selected suppliers who have no experience in PTC.

PTC, as to be deployed in the U.S, is only one form of enforcement systems that are meant to ensure that movement authorities are not violated as to some combination of time, distance, and speed. They are deployed to prevent train crew errors (whereas traffic control systems prevent dispatcher errors). Examples of enforcement systems in addition to PTC include, Advanced Civil Speed Enforcement System (ACSES) as used by Amtrak on the NE Corridor,  various forms of Automatic Train Protection (ATP) as deployed across Europe and elsewhere (e.g., ETCS, LZB ), and various forms of Automatic Train Control (ATC) over the years. The critical point here is that while all of these systems are enforcement systems, they can differ substantially as to the technologies and challenges involved in designing, implementing and maintaining. Consider the following differences between PTC and ACSES.

APPLICATION

ACSES is an overlay on cab signaling for the NE corridor. Contrarily, PTC is an overlay system for traffic control systems other than cab signaling, including both dark (non-signaled) and signaled operations.

FUNCTIONALITY

ACSES, as originally designed, does not provide for 1 of the 4 core objectives of PTC as mandated. That is, it doesn’t provide protection for work gangs in the NEC in that those workers do not have authorities, per se’, to be there. The maintainers use watchmen to inform them of approaching trains. (BTW, I have a patent pending for a slick solution to this problem. But getting funding, yet alone purchase orders, has been impossible.)  ACSESS II will provide for such protection I understand. Additionally, neither PTC nor ACSES have addressed the likelihood that additional capabilities will be required by commuter and regional rail operators – more on this in a forthcoming posting. Lastly, the critical aspects of the braking algorithm for freight trains, compared to the relative simplicity of passenger trains, will be an on-going challenge as to the reliability and acceptance of PTC.

ARCHITECTURE

PTC is dependent upon a ubiquitous wireless data network with a different set of wayside / in-track components than that of ACSES. Also, PTC requires a central-office server that links with the dispatching and signaling platforms through various means. PTC requires its own on-board platform that will most likely be integrated at some point with other on-board systems for advanced train / locomotive management.

MAINTENANCE

Given the substantial difference in architecture and functionality between ACSES and PTC, it is not difficult to understand that the maintenance issues are substantially different.

TRAINING

Given the substantial difference in architecture and functionality between ACSES and PTC, it is not difficult to understand that the training issues are substantially different.

INSTALLATION

Given the substantial difference in architecture and functionality between ACSES and PTC, it is not difficult to understand that the installation issues are substantially different.

MANAGEMENT

I know nothing of the type of management overview that is used by Amtrak’s operations management regarding attempted violations, etc. of ACSES operations, but providing the same for PTC will be more complex . . . that is once the railroads recognize that this is a requirement.

Considering the above, I come back to the point of misunderstanding / misrepresentation by suppliers and consultants following the mandate of PTC.  First, I provide the They’re Just Stupid perspective followed by the They’re Lying perspective of what is happening in North America to the likely disadvantage of both the commuter / regional rail operators as well as the suppliers / consultants with legitimate PTC credentials.

They’re Just Stupid

Yes! ACSES / ATP / ATC / ETCS, etc. do provide for various combinations of PTC functionality as mandated. However, having designed, implemented, and/or consulted on ACSES, ATP, ATC, ETCS, etc. does not qualify a supplier or consultant in any fashion to say that they have PTC experience given the above comparison between PTC and ACSES.  But yet, consulting firms and suppliers that had not been involved with PTC development in any fashion prior to the mandate have since expanded their credentials and list of brochures presenting themselves as PTC experienced.  To do so is an act of stupidity and/or blind arrogance on their part. BTW, CBTC credentials are not appropriate either.

They’re Lying

Yes! ACSES / ATP / ATC / ETCS,etc. do provide for various combinations of PTC functionality as mandated. However, having designed, implemented, and/or consulted on ACSES, ATP, ATC, ETCS, etc. does not qualify a supplier or consultant in any fashion to say that they have PTC experience given the above comparison between PTC and ACSES. But yet, consulting firms and suppliers that had not been involved with PTC development in any fashion prior to the mandate are scamming clients that they have such expertise with a hope and a prayer that they will get the contracts and learn on the job or hire the necessary truly qualified talent. BTW, CBTC credentials are not appropriate either.

In closing, a RFP was issued by the FTA to study the issues of deploying PTC across commuter and regional rail operators. That RFP has now closed as to the submission of proposals. It will be interesting to see what team is awarded that contract as to their actual vs. promoted credentials; definitely a forthcoming posting.

“The way of paradoxes is the way of truth”

“To test reality, we must see it on the tight-rope. When the Verities become acrobats, we can judge them.”

With these two statements the reader is soon introduced to the underlying principle of paradox throughout Oscar Wilde’s only novel, The Picture of Dorian Gray. This piece of literature drips with often-veiled aphorisms that either challenge or enlighten one’s intuition of humanity and society. While the author’s nearly-religious pursuit of beauty was the motivation behind this writing, the truisms revealed have applicability today … and, if you will grant me some wide-ranging poetic freedom,  within the rail industry.  Consider the following quotes and their applicability to railroads;  the OSCARS if you will.

“I can stand brute force, but brute reason is quite unbearable.  There is something about its use.  It is hitting below the intellect.” . . . Operations management if pressured to run to schedule.

“The true mystery of the world is the visible … not the invisible.” . . .  Operations management if pressured to recognize and integrate yard status in managing the main line lineup.

“Punctionality is the thief of time.” . . . Advocates for running a truly-scheduled railroad.

“People know the price of everything and the value of nothing.” . . .  Why the railroads need technologists (and not technicians) to pursue NOW the transition of analog VHF to digital VHF.

“Faithfulness is to the emotional life what consistency is to the life of the intellect – simply a confession of failure.” . . .  An evaluation of those who refuse to break with traditional methods of operations even though there are substantial benefits to be had.

“Good artists exist simply in what they make, and consequently are perfectly uninteresting in what they are …  inferior poets are absolutely fascinating.” . . . The boredom of running a scheduled (but efficient) operation vs. the “excitement” of traditional crisis-based railroad management.

“To be good is to be in harmony with one’s self … discord is to be forced to be in harmony with others “ . . . Why non-scheduled operations causes strife within a railroad.

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.

TRAFFIC CONTROL

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.)

ENFORCEMENT

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.

TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT

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.

Last week there was the story on National Public Radio about the young fellow who challenged his friends to the old chestnut about not licking a stop sign’s metal pole in freezing weather.  The story went on to state how the boy was standing on the tips of his toes for 15 minutes until the firemen were able to release his tongue.

Hey!  Watch this! (H!WT)  Ah yes! The last spoken (and printable) words of impetuous young males who fatuously attempt to perform ridiculous if not impossible acts. Whether it is a passion for the limelight, a flash of perceived brilliance, or a display of bravado, whatever, such acts of pure stupidity can result in serious degradation of the soul, if not destruction of the body. Fortunately, somewhere in our post-teen years we mature and we take on a sense of self-preservation for the benefit of ourselves and our family and learn to not yield to such temptations. We become responsible and reflective and make clear cut, well-justified analyses of the matters at hand before we take action.  And, should we find that we are in error with the actions we took, then we adjust our reasoning by adding a new variable to the equation, or perhaps adjusting the coefficients, and we are then just that more effective should the situation occur in the future. Yes! Life is good … and all makes sense . . .  eventually.      Well! Maybe not always.

Unfortunately, stuff happens that is forced upon us, instead of being of our choice, and the manner in which we respond is more often than not, I believe, directly related to the level of the chaos of the situation. That is, the more chaotic / disturbing the situation, the more ill-structured, the more irresponsible our reaction may be. In such situations, the impulsive H!WT response still occurs but in a reactive fashion versus the proactive fashion of our youth.  Now, if you mix this reactive response with politics and a high level of public exposure, then you have the underlying explanation of why Positive Train Control (PTC) has been mandated in the U.S. This is a situation where a proactive H!WT begot a passive H!WT. First, some statistics.

According to the U.S.’s General Accounting Office (GOA) report of December, 2010 regarding Rail Safety, Human errors have been the primary cause of rail accidents (34%) for the past decade relative to 5 other common causes.  Track issues are a close second (32%), with the remaining 1/3 due to crossings, equipments, signals (only 2%), and the ever present other. As to the movement of trains, the two primary human factors are dispatchers and train crews. While traffic control systems are used to prevent dispatcher errors, there has been very little provided prior to PTC to prevent crew errors across North America’s freight railroads. Back to H!WT.

The train accident at Chatsworth, CA on September 12, 2008 between Metrolink and UP in which 25 people died was a proactive H!WT on the part of the Metrolink driver that thought he could text message while operating his train. In less than 5 weeks Congress did their H!WT knee-jerk reaction, as in we have to stop the carnage due to train crew errors, by passing the Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008. This act mandates PTC before 2016 across most of the nation’s trackage. Clearly, there was no cost vs. value justification, even though it was already known by the FRA and the railroads from the RSAC-PTC process that PTC was not cost justified on safety benefits. From Congress’s standpoint, something just had to be done, regardless of the cost. And, about those costs, the price tag is horrific. Specifically, as estimated by the FRA, the cost of meeting the mandate ranges from $9. Billion to $13.1 billion. As to the benefits, the safety value of PTC over 20 years is estimated to range between $440 million to $674 million. That is a 20-to-1 cost/value ratio that is way beyond any rational business decision that would be made in the private sector. Undoubtedly, to their defense, Congress was being fed misleading statements of PTC delivering business benefits (see my previous posting Really! You Gotta Let it Go), Additionally, NTSB was stoking the PTC fire with its long standing proclamation that PTC was on its Most Wanted list. Rational financial thinking was out of the window, and self-preserving politics were in play for those on the Hill.

Although the Chatsworth tragedy was directly responsible for the mandating of PTC, it was not the first to tempt such fate. In 1996, a MARC commuter collided with Amtrak in Silver Springs, MD resulting in 11 deaths.    Given that its engineer was the driver of the MARC commuter and was at fault, CSX decided to pursue the development of the yet-to-be defined overlay PTC concept. CSX did this in anticipation of a H!WT by Congress, especially considering that the accident took place in Congress’s backyard. This is where I entered the picture in that I was hired by CSX at that time to deliver what was then referred to as  Positive Train Separation (PTS).  The resulting system, known as Communications Based Train Management (CBTM), provided the underlying architecture and functionality of the current PTC pursuits by the freight railroads to meet the mandate.

So! Why did Congress not do a H!WT after the Silver Springs’ accident? The answer, I believe, is two-fold. First, UP was in the process of abandoning an extremely expensive and undeliverable Precision Train Control (PTC™) system. Although the same acronym as Positive Train Control, there is a key difference between PTC™ and PTC.  That is, PTC™ was meant to be both a traffic control (moving block) and enforcement system, whereas PTC is only the latter. Undoubtedly, UP and its Class I siblings had to be all over the Hill at that time to prevent a mandate of such a technology. The second reason is that CSX took the initiative to “develop something that is effective, but cheap” as were my marching orders, thereby lessening of the pressure on Congress to H!WT .

There was also a second accident that could have resulted in the mandate of PTC. In January 2005, a NS train proceeded through a misaligned switch and collided with a standing NS train in Graniteville, SC. This accident involved hazardous material and resulted in 9 deaths and the evacuation of 5400 residents within a mile of accident for 2 weeks. While it didn’t result in a mandate, the accident did result in a fourth core objective of PTC, i.e., prevent movement through a misaligned switch, in addition to the original 3 core objectives defined in the RSAC-PTC process nearly a decade earlier: 1. prevent train-to-train accidents (PTS), 2. prevent over-speeding, and 3. prevent trains from endangering on-track workers.

PTC is definitely not justified on safety benefits, and it doesn’t deliver business benefits. At first that seems bad for PTC deployment outside of the U.S. However, that is really not true in that there are so many railroads, whether private or state owned, that don’t incorporate safety as part of the mantra of operations. There are so many railroads, whether private or state owned, that are being forced by traditional suppliers with traditional solutions to deploy traffic control and enforcement systems that are totally unjustified for their level of operations.  In these environments, the consideration of PTC in concert with non-signaled traffic control, a.k.a. dark territory, would present a solid, cost-effective solution for both safe and efficient operations – that is if they were willing to listen. Now, as to North America, PTC is really not a loser financially as well, that is if there would be a strategic technology plan associated with its implementation that permits the necessary wireless data platform to be used for business benefits as well. Unfortunately, however, most of the Class I’s have not gained such a perspective. This is due to the fact that there are so few technical staffs of the railroads, and even less executive management teams of railroads and suppliers alike, that are willing to do a proactive H!WT as to syncing a strategic technology plan with a strategic operations plan. Yes! I am referring to Strategic Railroading™.

In closing, I will be the Chairman of the PTC Congress in Miami, FL on February 22. If you and/or your colleagues are attending that event, then I would appreciate the opportunity to meet you.

Railroad execution and planning need to be dealing with the same range of significant digits.

For those of us who began our engineering studies before the 70’s, the practicality of the slide rule is well appreciated. This intriguing device of sliding scales, that miraculously performs multiplication and division via the addition and subtraction of non-proportional linear distances, minimized the terror of dealing with an endless flow of variables encompassed in complex engineering equations. That was the heyday for analog mathematical devices as digital computers were being somewhat reluctantly infused into the engineering ranks, and accordingly, it was the pinnacle for the art of approximation, the art of defining squishy limits. Using the slide rule required thinking in terms of powers of 10 as well as understanding that there was a clear rationale to acceptable precision, what was referred to as “significant digits”. For example, did the resulting answer of 8.something shown on the slide rule’s “D” scale after multiplying and dividing a series of 27 numbers actually mean 8.2 ? or 8.25 ? or perhaps was it .0082 ?  or maybe 8200 something?  Back then, “being close” was good enough, in fact expected, as test scores were partially determined by the proper use of the slide rule.  

With the introduction of the personal calculator, arrived the immediate requirement for precision. This was not a level of precision, however, that one had to work for, but instead it was that which was instantly provided to the user on green-lighted displays. If one required the square root, or even a discounted cash flow, one needed only to push the appropriate function key once the data had been entered. And, there was no limit to the number of digits of preciseness it seems. The mind was given the answer, without thought, without question and, unfortunately, without the opportunity to truly understand the underlying mathematics.

Interestingly, for major railroads in North America and across the globe that are either primarily non-scheduled or without moving block operations, the planning and execution processes for traffic management employ opposite extremes of understanding the underlying mathematics and the discipline of approximation.  Practically speaking,  there is a very real opportunity for railroads to transition train dispatching from an art to a science by including mathematics-based movement planners. Currently, the approximations inherent to moving trains are so broad that the railroads are running below capacity in critical corridors. These inefficiencies are due to the lack of both timely train position and speed and the tools to handle the continuous mathematical processes, specifically reactive and proactive planners.  The former would assist the dispatchers with the current approach of crisis-based traffic management, whereas the latter would provide for the prediction of traffic conflicts and subsequently the ability to avoid them.

Whereas the execution side skimps on the mathematical processes, thereby resulting in broad approximations, the planning side of operations embraces the other extreme. Supported by incredibly complex mathematical algorithms being endlessly massaged on digital wizards capable of truly mind-boggling computations per second, the railroad planners pursue the absolute opposite of approximation with the concept of significant digits being totally unknown in their profession. To them, precision is a truly achievable dimension that is to be expected and respected. As such, the Planners proudly serve up their precise results to the execution side, only for many of those results to be dismissed either directly or during execution as reality sets in. This rejection is the inevitable result of either the inability or unwillingness of Operations to handle the significant problems and changes that come with execution and that inevitably make the Planners “precise” schedule an impossible reality. Operations, of course, accepts this lot in life and their thus “un-planned” execution as…inevitable, since they rationalize the events that befall the schedules to be beyond their control.  However though, most are actually within their control.

The execution side has a long way to go in tightening their processes. They need the data and tools that will permit them to approach the level of performance that the planners are attempting to achieve. Conversely, the planners need to back off. They need to incorporate squishy limits into their planning processes.  I have seen some asset planning tools that have managed to do that, but I assume most still do not .  In a rather simplistic way, one could say that execution and planning need to be dealing with the same range of significant digits.

They clearly aren’t today.