About as comprehensive a discussion as we could want.  You missed one aspect of PTC, though, Gavilan, that might contribute to ROIC.  If you know where your train is at all times and with precision, you may not need the same separation standards that you have with today's dispatch and signal systems.  That can allow for more traffic density withouthaving to make the investments in double-tracking and adding sidings.

There are definitely some positives to adding PTC, even among the increased burden of the cost.

I like LarryKaufman's suggestion that density could increase.  Just the tracking potential increase the railroads opportunities for safety, data, and even presentation to customers.

Some KPIs.

Presence and sentament tracking of rail usage in towns and areas where the railroad has prospective contention.

Tracking and elimination of tagging/graffiti of vehicles & vandalism (i.e.)

Decrease contention with Amtrak and show customer tracking for Amtrak - which could be provided to Amtrak for a very minimal fee if Amtrak chose to get a developed solution to display this data to customers.  This could be done for a nominal amount of money and integrated into their current systems.

The Class Is could recoup at least a few million this way while raising their their reputation drastically if people knew why and where these trains are traveling while they're on the train - especially while stopped on the train.  It couldn't hurt to turn these often naysayers of the freight rail companies into advocates.

...anyway, the list could go on, one just has to think outside the box a little.

"Adron:  I hope you're sitting down because this may shock you.  I agree totally with your comments on PTC.  Improved customer service - the ability to tell a customer with some precision where the train is and when it will arrive - is an unquantified benefit to railroads.  I suspect that it won't be too long after PTC actually is deployed that the railroads will be singing its praises and some of us will be wondering what took them so long.

LK>"the ability to tell a customer with some precision where the train is and when it will arrive - is an unquantified benefit to railroads."

   It's a quantified benefit to a lot of shippers (and end recipients.)  Between retail (volume) customers who may want to know specifically when a package is arriving, to volume customers working on a strict JIT system, providing almost any data on exactly where the goods are has a measurable effect on customer satisfaction, and has real benefits for analyzed inventory management.  There are auto plants that think of parts inventory in terms of hours, not days.

  It also provides outsiders a window into internal operations, for better and for worse, letting UPS (for example) better analyze where a rail carrier can provide excellent TOFC performance, and where there are likely to be problems.

anmccaff:  Absolutely right.  The benefits are quantifiable, as you point out.  I think you'll find, though, that the railroads already provide UPS with the kind of visibility it wants and needs.  Funny how being the largest individual customer focuses the attention of marketing and operating executives at railroads.

LK>"anmccaff:  Absolutely right.  The benefits are quantifiable, as you point out.  I think you'll find, though, that the railroads already provide UPS with the kind of visibility it wants and needs.  Funny how being the largest individual customer focuses the attention of marketing and operating executives at railroads."

   This might be out of date, but I'd say the class 1s provide UPS with the amount of visibility they can without further expenses, which UPS is smart enough to know would somehow be passed on to them.  Same for some of the auto manufacturers.  If the railroads had better data themselves, they'd demand it, but they're not going to push the envelope on their own dime.

Probably right, anmccaff, but I know of a consultancy that gets raw data on car location based on passage by wayside detectors, and then sells its information to its clients, which may be shippers or consignees.  As a given car number gets closer to its destination, the firm has an algorithm that allows it to provide constant updates of when the consignee can expect to see the car.  The closer the car gets, the more certainty there is that it will arrive when forecast.  So, I think you'll find that there is a wealth of data available; it all depends on how you massage it and who pays for that massaging.  

UPS may be a special case.  It's huge.  It is a most demanding customer, although in fairness to it, it never demands more than the carrier agrees to sell it.  UPS may have 50 or more drivers and tractors awaiting the arrival of a train, and it gets very testy, I can assure you, when it has to pay overtime to those drivers because the railroad failed to keep it fully informed.

The biggest problem with automated car identification and wayside readers is that it isn't in real time.  It tells you when a car passed a detector, but the train could suffer a breakdown 1,000 yards down the line and no one would know for the better part of a day.  That's where technology can be upgraded.

LK>"Probably right, anmccaff, but I know of a consultancy that gets raw data on car location based on passage by wayside detectors, and then sells its information to its clients, which may be shippers or consignees."

  Just so it's clear, I'm agreeing with you. I can see this becoming simpler and more transparent (hence, cheaper) if it's integrated into something that tracks whole trains in real time.  Less massaging, closer alignment between the data the railroad uses itself, and what the customers might want, hence easier deliver of the information.  I can also still see a massive datamining potential for third part analysts, so I don't see this as breaking anybody's ricebowl.

Dead right on, anmccaff.  Again, the railroads may have more capability than they realize.  If train line-ups are accuratge - and almost all are - all you need to know is the location of a train and its speed and you have the same data for each car in that train.

Damn LarryKaufman... I fell right over and out of my chair and squished the cat.

I'm in the analytics and data business, so I often see ways to use data that others haven't.  It keeps me entertained, and as of late closer to my secondary occupation (transportation/transit) than I ever imagined.  It seems the railroads (and transit agencies) are stumbling into this world of being knowledgeable to modern Internet Standards.  :)

LK>"all you need to know is the location of a train and its speed and you have the same data for each car in that train."

  ....and if you don't, then late shipments are the least of your troubles.   Anyone else thinking about the joke about C-123s?

   (A collection of rivets and aluminum sheets, moving roughly in the same direction.)

    Humor is good, especially if it contributes to flatter cats.

Adron Hall:  Are you cursing me, or did you simply exclaim and leave out a comma?

This discussion requires the injection of some facts.

1) The horse is out of the barn relative to the location determination system.  It will be GPS based, on PTC systems away from the NEC, that decision has basicly been taken and it would reuire some major backpedalling to change it.

2) All proposed PTC applications on signaled lines are to be overlays on the existing signal system.  Overlay systems by their very nature degrade not increase capacity/density.  It takes a stand alone, moving block PTC system to achieve capacity improvements and ain't nobody got one of those for the freight environment at this time.  So the 2015 roll-out of PTC is unlikely to yield much in the way of economic benefits in this area.

No cursing you LarryKaufman, was just expounding without a comma.  My grammatical error - whoops.  :)

I was basically expounding how I was amazed you agreed with me.

I'm not that sensitive; I was simply having a bit of humor at your expense.  Hope you didn't hurt yourself falling out of the chair.

Gavilan wrote

>Your announcement that the existing suppliers have this thing all sewed up may be a bit premature. Of anytime in recent history - now is the time for some new players in the game.

You said that you are out of the loop and you really are.  Shortly after RSIA was passed last year there was pressure to agree on an interoperability standard and the Class Is focused on the only existing system, WABTEC.

The protocals for this interoperability standard were presented to the commuter and shortlines at Dallas earlier this month so consider it a done deal.

>If a carrier could have signaled track, with rolling blocks, near real time position, and PTC for about the cost of an GPS overlay which way do you think they would go?

First of all signaled track (in the conventional sense) with rolling blocks is a contridiction in terms, but skip that.

Of course they would go with a rolling block system BUT it is a frictionless system, great in theory but just doesn't exist right now.  What you don't seem to appreciate is that the RSIA requires an implementation plan to be filed with the FRA by 4/15/10.  Do we file a plan based on a system tham that might or might not exist by 2015??? Of course the existing system will dominate (Note that ATKs 9 aspect system will probably dominate in the east).

>Lets hope your horse can find its way back to the barn long enough to get the shoes it needs to make the horizon.

No chance

>Maybe now is the time for the rest of the industry to show the big boys what efficiency is really all about.

And who is the "rest of the industry"? They don't have a dog in this hunt!

While the meat of this discussion has focused upon the PTC application-technology in and of itself, much more can be gained by a broader look at PTC as a real-time source of operational data. This data will be rich with information that can be selectively mined or aggregated, depending upon the application and organizational unit or departmental need.

Several of us at EDS, an HP company, have been looking at this opportunity presented by  PTC implementation since shortly following the Chatsworth incident, and we continue to engage with the Class 1 and regional carriers, the AAR and the FRA to see how (what many within the industry view as) lemons can be effectively turned into lemonade.

By taking the long-view towards PTC as an enabling technology, integrating communication-based train control with (legacy) transportation management systems will provide the initial foundation to build the intelligent (i-)railway of the future – a fully-networked system that allows for in-depth, real-time visibility into the operational state of the railroad, with decisions enabled using predictive technologies to effect optimal efficiency.

To read more about our viewpoint on PTC, please see my white paper at www.eds.com/.../positive-train-control-it.aspx or visit our rail freight practice page at www.eds.com/.../rail for more information. We are eager to continue the exchange of ideas on the longer-term benefits of this technology, as well as assisting the rail community in meeting the short-term needs generated by this Federal mandate.

Dan Mitzel, PMP

Project Manager

EDS, an HP company

Data mining.  What a novel idea.  Seriously, most in or close to the railroad industry know that PTC is not cost effective from a purely safety perspective.  At the risk of seeming cold and uncaring, the fact is that the number of collisions that would be prevented annually, assuming 100% performance, just does not justify an investment of the magnitude of PTC.  If it is to have economic value, it is going to have to prevent train-to-train collisions and provide significant operating efficiencies.  Good luck, Dan Mitzel.

Dan,

Some the points in your are interesting and valueable, but I believe that there are 2 sticking points to moving farther forward on them in the near future.

One is FRA's requirement (actually in the statute) that an implementation plan be filed with the FRA 4/15/10.  FRA's proposed rule is requireing a rather high level of detail in the plan.  This has the effect of freezing the first generation PTC to what we have now (with some room for some additional tweeking).

Second is the size of the data pipe.  One of the problems with the IDOT project was the capability of the data radios.  One reason the new PTC generation is focused on 220 rather then the 900MH used in earlier systems.  Its still not clear how well this will work on high density lines and if there will be room for the transfer of much data above and beyond the train control requirements.  It will be interesting to see how this plays out.