|
|
 |
|
New York, NY USA dmschanoes@ten90solutions.com
|
|
|
|
Monday, May 25, 2009
Hustle and Flow on the Railroad
I'm all for Positive Train Control. Was for it in 1986 when a
rear end collision at Vern on Metro North killed the engineer of a deadhead equipment train as he slammed into the rear
of a another, stopped, deadhead equipment train.
I was for it then because that was before Metro North had installed
cab signal/train control over its entire system, and "no code" which meant "restricted speed" in
train control territory meant nothing, literally, if the ATC was not engaged, no code and non-coded territory being indistinguishable
to the on-board apparatus.
The forward, stopped, deadhead move was occupying the block directly in
advance of the of the interlocking signal controlling entrance to the "ATC Mode Forward" territory.
And if the interlocking signal was at restricting,and if the engineer failed to engage the ATC, and if the block were occupied,
if there was no code, the engineer could operate at any speed without triggering a penalty brake application.
I was for it in 1997 when an engineer on locomotives scheduled for service as a work train disengaged the ATC
while shoving to the work zone, passing a stop signal at 37 miles an hour. I remember walking the route, measuring
off the distance from the stopped locomotives to the interlocking signal and thinking "WTF? Is this guy nuts?
He must have been going 40 mph. And the conductor? Two lunatics?" Those thoughts repeated themselves
with each step, although abbreviated to just "WTF?" Why waste time with anything else when "WTF?" says
it all?
It's a WTF world we live in and PTC is an appropriate response to a WTF world.
What is PTC? PTC is not a specific technology, it is not necessarily communications based, it is neither
specifically fixed block nor dynamic block technology. PTC is defined, and by law, by its functions. It is
a signal system that enforces mandatory, positive stop. It is a system that enforces compliance with signal, timetable,
and temporary speed restrictions. It is a system that prevents train incursion into work zones. It is a system
that will prevent movement of a locomotive through an improperly lined switch.
PTC is not a business solution
to a business problem, although nothing messes up asset utilization like a collision; nothing restricts throughput
like a derailment. Still, it's not a business solution to a business problem. It's a safety solution to a
safety problem. And it should be embraced, welcomed as such. There isn't an operating rule book on a railroad
in the US that doesn't say somewhere, and probably closer to page 1 than page 50, "Safety is of the utmost
importance in the discharge of duty." OK, so here it is-- PTC. Expensive. Extensive.
Demanding. And of the utmost importance in the discharge of duty. Beats the hell out of saying "WTF?" every
year or two.
I'm for CBTC, communication based train control, too, although not as much as I am for PTC.
But still, I'm no Luddite. I like technology. I like CBTC, although in truth, I don't think its greatest
potential is in the actual "train control" part of the business.
And with CBTC, unlike PTC, we are
talking business-- a business potential based on, if not real-time, at least more timely-- Ron Lindsey of Comarch
calls it "on time reporting"-- of train location and velocity. The problem is that as soon as we railroaders
hear the words "train" "location" "velocity" "time,"
we can't help thinking about adding the words "more" "closer" "faster"
and "less."
We shouldn't be blamed for that. We wouldn't be in this business, we would have
never endured the torments of our unendurable bosses until we became unendurable bosses ourselves if we didn't always want
to run more trains, more closely together, faster, and in less time.
And when all those words are put
together, we hear those two magic words-- "increased capacity"-- and, well... be still my beating heart. Increased
capacity without building miles and miles of new railroad... think of it. What was it the temptin' Temptations
sang on their first album? "Dream Come True"? Yep.
Is that really what CBTC promises?
Maybe. But.... and there's always a but... lots of promises are made and broken in this WTF world.
At
the recent CBTC/PTC Conference sponsored by Railway Age and Parsons several of the presentations on CBTC and
PTC concentrated on capacity enhancements possible through the application of CBTC dynamic ["moving"]
block technologies to simultaneously increase throughput and maintain safe train separation.
Bombardier made a
very interesting presentation of its work on the Madrid Metro #6 line. One of the project's goals was the
ability to support 40 second headways between trains without an allotment for dwell. Certainly, 40
second headways are achievable when dwell is removed from the system; when all trains are continuously in motion, particularly
if maximum train speed is below 35 mph.
CBTC and moving block works exceedingly well when
all trains are continuously moving. That's the easy part.
The dwell is the hard part. We
are very good at managing movement. It's the non-movement we aren't so good at managing.
And what did the Madrid installation accomplish? Practically, as opposed to the theoretical 40 second headway, the CBTC
system provided the system managers the real time data about excessive dwells that were restricting the throughput,
the overall system capacity.
It is, in both passenger and freight, all about dwell. It's not the braking
distances required for higher speed operation that restrict the operation, it's the reason for the braking-- it's the transition
to low speed operation in and through yards.
In yards, everything is about dwell. Excessive
dwell, reduced velocity of track turnover, degrades switching productivity, increases final terminal delays, disrupts
connection compliance, and will bring main line operations to a virtual halt. Sooner or later.
So...
so if CBTC has a great potential, then it's great potential is in facilitating real, and realistically, scheduled operations. To reach
that potential, railroads will have to improve, optimize their yard operations, the approaches to their yards and terminals,
and right-size the dwell of cars and trains in those yards.
Or.. as the best railroad superintendent
I ever worked for told me when I was a trainmaster at Oak Island Hump, "Make this yard run right, Dave, and the
main line will take care of itself."
Once a terminal rat, always a terminal rat.
dms
May
25, 2009
9:29 pm est
|
|
Managing a railroad
never requires anything less than complete commitment to the task always at hand-- delivering the advertised service. The current economic and regulatory environments make these challenges particularly acute.
The impacts of the Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008 [HR 2095] will be deep and extensive. Developing the right plan to meet this changing environment is invaluable. Developing
the right plan the can be executed at the ground level to handle these challenges is priceless.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
David Schanoes
dmschanoes@ten90solutions.com
|
|
|
|