PTC and railroad automation

>>1053310
>railroad crews become cucked out of their jobs by automation
Never, or less.

abolish all railroad unions desu

>>1053310
PTC is shit and the carriers are about to realize just how great they had it before. They're testing it here, the first subdivision on the system, and it's going ruin train times once it's implented in revenue service.

>>1053310

RR crews will never be fully automated for insurance reasons. Also, for point of reference California now requires two operators for any train carrying hazmat goods (with "hazmat" being anything that causes cancer, including the paint used on trains). Manned operators ain't going away unless WW3 starts and there's a major labor shortage.

>>1053362

It'll be annoying at first but operators will get used to it. In the end PTC helps labor because it means workers cannot be rushed because the train won't physically move.

>>1053368
Meh, it's still trash. Forces you to be at 15 mph or less 1500 ft. from entering yard limits or passing a restricting signal. Forces you to be under 10 mph when coming up to switches at restricted speed. It just slows shit down for no good reason. You're on flat straight rail and can see the next 4 block signals and can see any target from 1/2 a mile away, but the computer constantly wants to plug the train on you anyways.

It's going to take a lot of the finesse out of running an engine as well. I'm fearful of the nexr generation of engineers that will only know how to run in PTC.

>>1053375

Next gen are effectively machine operators, the only people with any sort of tact needed will be shortline operators who operate in non-PTC areas.

>You're on flat straight rail and can see the next 4 block signals and can see any target from 1/2 a mile away, but the computer constantly wants to plug the train on you anyways.

Being an engineer was always a Union job, so Union things like this are inevitable. It's better than being rushed and treated like shit.

>>1053570
They're taking the fun and skill out of railroading. They've basically already made it impossible to get any sort of switching done with the rules in place yet they still want the same results as the years before. I'd want to blow my brains out working for a carrier that wants safety stops on every couple and no getting on or off moving equipment. It already irks me that they just took dropping cars (legally) out of our rule book. The mediocre and moronic are taking over.

>>1053582

Well, it's a Union job. That's all I got. I came in from trucking where doing stupid shit (18 hour shifts, running with a "slightly" leaking head gasket, doing 50 in a school zone, rolling stops around pedestrians, unloading in a turn lane, strapping down loads with old t-shirts) is common so I'll happily take everything slow and steady as long as I'm being paid.

>>1053361
This, unions do more harm than good nowadays.

>>1053635
>>1053639
>Implying this has anything to do with unions

These fucking clowns can barely fill up an engine with diesel. Nothing, no piece of equipment, ever works as intended. So when PTC works about as well or as sporadically as everything else on the railroad, we will have job security. Because we all know that rules, and all the other bullshit we deal with including PTC, gets highballed as soon as we are not moving freight.

>>1053713
Probably more true than not.

>tfw America is just starting to install these when most of the developed world had some form of ATO since the 80s

he government is pushing this and it cost billions of dollars to implement, money that could be spent on other things like infrastructure, wages, equipment, safety. You guts should look into the "Leader" computer ( like the NS uses ) it tells you how to operate the train ! THIS is BAD for the human element in the cab of the locomotive.

>>1057589

>it tells you how to operate the train

yeah just like airline pilots, marine pilots, and some some truck drivers have to deal with now

>THIS is BAD for the human element in the cab of the locomotive.

is it? It makes my job easier and I can blame the computer if it tells me to do something wrong.

>>1058256
>Implying PTC will obviate the need for you to comply with all restrictions and proper train handling.
I can assure you that if PTC initiates emergency or even penalty braking there will be consequences for you.

And PTC wants you to run extremely conservative. There'll be no more coming right up to a slow order and getting down just in time.

>>1058260

>I can assure you that if PTC initiates emergency or even penalty braking there will be consequences for you.

not if the company wants to hear complaints from my union

>And PTC wants you to run extremely conservative. There'll be no more coming right up to a slow order and getting down just in time.

depends on how they program it, I'm more than certain after a week more "lenient" rules would be applied

>>1057419
PRR had this in the 1920s, the issue is ASC and its family well isn't new. PTC is well modern now.

>>1058277
Dude, you have no idea. My sub is the test bed for everything PTC. It's garbage, there will not be any leniency, and your union isn't going to protect you because the computer took a 30 lb. reduction on you because you didn't hit a button in time.

When you actually get a chance to work with it, it's going to blow your mind that this is the best they could come up with.

It would all go down to attitudes then. With electropneumatic brakes on the wagons themselves (yes, it's becoming a thing) and input on the characteristics of the train, you could get performance and driving habits that are limited by the hardware rather than the book. Of course, it would take some balls for that.

The pace of freight in the US is generally laid back anyway.

>>1058356

I've had to deal with a half-operating PTC system myself, and it's shit in part because it's not ready yet. But all the issues will be ironed out because ain't nobody going to tolerate a systemwide slowdown just due to tech. Ways will be found around it, while remaining in compliance with the letter of the law.

>>1058359

eh, depends on the route. I could see states (in particular, mine) requiring EPs for tank cars and I could see companies themselves adopting it for long-distance intermodal trains (which, in theory, could run longer and faster on the existing track geometry).

>The pace of freight in the US is generally laid back anyway.

Really all of railroading. Only within the last five years was I even required to wear a uniform or PPE. I'm just old enough to remember all the pre 9-11 stuff where you could walk into the cab and radio in without swiping in first at the front desk. PTC was inevitable, just like RC ops are. And like RCs it'll be a rough rollout but the issues will be fixed and everyone will come away happy, and railroads more competitive.

>>1058505
>Implying states can regulate interstate commerce.
EPB is neat, but overrated. You can get a lot of the advantages of EPBs by using distributed braking units or DP. Certainly not all of the performance, but a lot of it. Car owners aren't going to want to install something expensive that provides no benefit to them.

>>1058511

CA already requires anyone moving hazmat goods to have two operators, for no reason other than passive safety. They could easily require all tank cars to be fitted with EPBs, then slug it out in court. It'd spook enough customers to force adoption, which is their goal in the end.

>>1058767
It doesn't matter what California requires. It's a symbolic gesture. States do not regulate interstate commerce. This was the first major ruling by the US Supreme Court. If BNSF decided they wanted to run one man trains tomorrow, California could hoot, hooler, and wail, but BNSF would get an injuction from a Federal court stopping California from enforcing its law and then would get a final ruling stating that California's law is unconsitutional.

The FRA has the sole authority to regulate operating practices of railroads. Now if US Congress passed a law demanding two man trains, you'd be getting somewhere.

>>1053361
Abolish yourself desu

>>1061713
Not an argument.

https://www.fra.dot.gov/Page/P0628
>those target full-implementation dates

This shit was supposed to be 100% by 2015 lmao what a joke

File: 1427146555602.jpg (2MB, 3264x1836px)

2MB, 3264x1836px

>>1053639
Ha! Quit talking out your ass, anon.

>>1067534
>If your jealous
>your

lmao, guess spell-checking wasn't in anyone's job description/requirements so they didn't feel obligated to check before printing that out, eh?

>>1067534

>im gettin my gibs u best be gettin yoz

>>1069757
>>1070666
Not an argument.

in during that union goon defending his faceless mob

>>1058775
Umm have ya ever heard of the California public untiltity commission? They regulate trains in California ahead of the fra...(states rights desu). Let a carrier try that and puc will pull every mile of track out of service!

I work for one of the big ones out west. I work locals mostly, most of the locals use gp40s. No ptc equipment on them at all! Every day I hear on the radio at least twice in a shift of mainline trains having ptc issues and having to get authority for a soft cut out. When this happens it takes sometimes as much as an hour as our locomotive desk trys to trouble shoot the problem. This is job security if ya ask me. Also ptc does not get along with the trip optimiser, which was getting trains in on time. Now they are dying cuz ptc has slowed everything down to a crawl. Not saying I like it, but like most technology forced on to, or unwisely bought into by the class ones, it will eventually go away.

File: a line.jpg (10KB, 300x168px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 300x168px

>>1074263
The new A Line in Denver to the airport is one of the first local rail lines to implement PTC. Although it runs (most of the time)' it's been a maintenance disaster with lots of delays. There's still unresolved issues with the rail crossings. The feds won't certify it until all equipment is 100% reliable so there's two flag persons at every crossing that stand out in the road when a train is getting close. There's the whole other G light rail line that is complete but still in testing because of PTC.

That said, any big new technology that is attempting to adapt itself to older systems is going to be a clusterfuck. Especially if it's dealing with folks who feel threatened by it. An example would be Denver International's automated baggage system which was designed to replace most of the ramp workers. It wasn't exactly sabotage but let's just say that a lot of bags were loaded onto the belts the wrong side up.

>>1074262
States do not regulate interstate commerce. See: Gibbons v. Ogden

>>1074313
>>>1074262 (You)
>States do not regulate interstate commerce. See: Gibbons v. Ogden
That's fine and dandy...but next time the cpuc makes a q train miss it's departure window but almost 9 hrs...ill be sure to quite them that ruling hahaha.

>>1074392
They really don't regulate them, compadre. Federal supremacy is a fact of life since the great dictator and the War of Northern Agression.

>B-b-but I know what I'm talking about because I know what train symbols are!

>>1074457
In theory they don't, in practice it happens. I've seen it time and again in my yard. Maybe it doesn't happen where you're at, but here in commiefornia it's sadly common.

Why are there so many disparate standards on automated train operation?

ATC, D-ATC, TVM, ERTMS, CBTC, LTE-R, GSM-R, LZB, PZB, ATB, etc., etc.