Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
When a railroad almost built a PTC system
Last edited Thu Nov 12, 2015, 01:29 PM - Edit history (5)
I thought I had posted this last week or two weeks ago. I had not. Here it is.
When a railroad almost built a PTC system
A quick history of Burlington Northern and 'ARES'
By Forrest Van Schwartz | September 26, 2014
Since the early years of railroading, as soon as railroads started to run more than one train at the same time on the same segment of track, the industry has sought various means and technologies to prevent trains from running into each other. Various control systems evolved over the decades; most were good, some not so good.
In the early 1980s, one idea for increasing safety (and savings) came from Richard Bressler, Burlington Northerns chairman and chief executive. He had a long career in the oil industry and became fascinated with new technology developed by the U.S. military: the global positioning system. He approved a team to look for a project using GPS and the vastly improved computer systems available by the mid-1980s.
That teams efforts led to a project to replace the signal and communications pole line on a former Great Northern route extending west from the Lake Superior ports of Duluth, Minn., and Superior, Wis.
Originally, BN partnered with two other Class I railroads to advance the train-control project, but eventually shouldered the responsibility alone for what became known as the Advanced Railroad Electronics System, or ARES. Information was provided to train crews via radio links to in-cab displays as well as to train dispatchers at the central offices.
....
Veteran locomotive engineers, who knew every inch of their territory, grew to trust and rely on the in-cab displays. Train dispatchers liked the greatly improved voice radio communications and the speed at which switch and signal instructions were sent to field locations.
A quick history of Burlington Northern and 'ARES'
By Forrest Van Schwartz | September 26, 2014
Since the early years of railroading, as soon as railroads started to run more than one train at the same time on the same segment of track, the industry has sought various means and technologies to prevent trains from running into each other. Various control systems evolved over the decades; most were good, some not so good.
In the early 1980s, one idea for increasing safety (and savings) came from Richard Bressler, Burlington Northerns chairman and chief executive. He had a long career in the oil industry and became fascinated with new technology developed by the U.S. military: the global positioning system. He approved a team to look for a project using GPS and the vastly improved computer systems available by the mid-1980s.
That teams efforts led to a project to replace the signal and communications pole line on a former Great Northern route extending west from the Lake Superior ports of Duluth, Minn., and Superior, Wis.
Originally, BN partnered with two other Class I railroads to advance the train-control project, but eventually shouldered the responsibility alone for what became known as the Advanced Railroad Electronics System, or ARES. Information was provided to train crews via radio links to in-cab displays as well as to train dispatchers at the central offices.
....
Veteran locomotive engineers, who knew every inch of their territory, grew to trust and rely on the in-cab displays. Train dispatchers liked the greatly improved voice radio communications and the speed at which switch and signal instructions were sent to field locations.
Same story, picked up over a year later:
U.S.
Rail Industry Had Safety Technology Decades Ago
By RON NIXON NOV. 3, 2015
WASHINGTON In 1981, while traveling on a corporate jet, Richard M. Bressler, the chairman of the Burlington Northern Railroad, hit on an idea: What if the technology used by airlines to track the location of planes and help prevent accidents was applied to the rail industry?
Mr. Bressler, an engineer by training and a former airline executive, directed a small group of his employees to come up with a similar system for the railroads. The result was a safety system called the Advanced Railroad Electronics System, or ARES, which was soon placed on several trains on a section of track in Minnesota. The system, among other safety features, allowed dispatchers to stop trains automatically if the engineer exceeded speed limits.
But after five years in operation, the project was abruptly shut down in 1993. The company cited the systems expense and resistance from many managers who did not see how the benefits outweighed the cost of the technology. It calculated that it would have cost about $350 million to install the monitoring hardware and software on the railroads entire system, equal to about $580 million today.
....
The ARES system was rudimentary compared with the system the railroad industry is trying to install today, federal regulators say. Also, the older system was tested on only a few hundred miles of track with just a few trains, the regulators said, so it is not known how it would have worked in high-traffic areas like Chicago. Nevertheless, safety experts say the system proved that a technology to stop trains from colliding was feasible.
Rail Industry Had Safety Technology Decades Ago
By RON NIXON NOV. 3, 2015
WASHINGTON In 1981, while traveling on a corporate jet, Richard M. Bressler, the chairman of the Burlington Northern Railroad, hit on an idea: What if the technology used by airlines to track the location of planes and help prevent accidents was applied to the rail industry?
Mr. Bressler, an engineer by training and a former airline executive, directed a small group of his employees to come up with a similar system for the railroads. The result was a safety system called the Advanced Railroad Electronics System, or ARES, which was soon placed on several trains on a section of track in Minnesota. The system, among other safety features, allowed dispatchers to stop trains automatically if the engineer exceeded speed limits.
But after five years in operation, the project was abruptly shut down in 1993. The company cited the systems expense and resistance from many managers who did not see how the benefits outweighed the cost of the technology. It calculated that it would have cost about $350 million to install the monitoring hardware and software on the railroads entire system, equal to about $580 million today.
....
The ARES system was rudimentary compared with the system the railroad industry is trying to install today, federal regulators say. Also, the older system was tested on only a few hundred miles of track with just a few trains, the regulators said, so it is not known how it would have worked in high-traffic areas like Chicago. Nevertheless, safety experts say the system proved that a technology to stop trains from colliding was feasible.
The article elaborates:
ARES was modeled after an air traffic control system then newly developed by Rockwell International for Boeing 757 and 767 jets.
In an interview, Mr. Bressler, 72, now retired and living in the Seattle area, said he had read about the system in a magazine. After finishing the article, he sent a note to senior managers asking, Any application to locomotives?
To oversee the project, the company hired Steve Ditmeyer, a former Federal Railroad Administration official. ... I was just there a few weeks, and the note from Mr. Bressler landed on my desk, Mr. Ditmeyer recalled in an interview. Some months later, after seeing a Jan. 22, 1982, advertisement in The Wall Street Journal promoting Rockwells 21st-century avionics for the new generation of jetliners, he contacted the company.
I just wrote to them out of the blue, said Mr. Ditmeyer, who is now a transportation consultant in Virginia and an adjunct professor in the Railway Management Certificate Program at Michigan State University. The company agreed to give it a try.
In an interview, Mr. Bressler, 72, now retired and living in the Seattle area, said he had read about the system in a magazine. After finishing the article, he sent a note to senior managers asking, Any application to locomotives?
To oversee the project, the company hired Steve Ditmeyer, a former Federal Railroad Administration official. ... I was just there a few weeks, and the note from Mr. Bressler landed on my desk, Mr. Ditmeyer recalled in an interview. Some months later, after seeing a Jan. 22, 1982, advertisement in The Wall Street Journal promoting Rockwells 21st-century avionics for the new generation of jetliners, he contacted the company.
I just wrote to them out of the blue, said Mr. Ditmeyer, who is now a transportation consultant in Virginia and an adjunct professor in the Railway Management Certificate Program at Michigan State University. The company agreed to give it a try.
Full disclosure: I own shares of rail companies, but this ownership is not in conflict with my interest in rail safety. Also, I've attended a meeting at which Steven Ditmeyer delivered an address. I'm looking at his business card right now.
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
1 replies, 1966 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (4)
ReplyReply to this post
1 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
When a railroad almost built a PTC system (Original Post)
mahatmakanejeeves
Nov 2015
OP
mahatmakanejeeves
(61,298 posts)1. Steven Ditmeyer, on the April 3, 2016 Amtrak wreck in Chester, PA:
Amtrak Crash Probe Indicates Basic Safety Measure Wasn't Deployed
Crews apparently didnt use shunting device, seemingly violating railroads rules
Emergency crews investigated the Amtrak crash in Chester, Pa., on Sunday. Photo: Mark Makela/Getty Images
By Andrew Tangel, Scott Calvert and Ted Mann
andrew.tangel@wsj.com
@AndrewTangel
@scottmcalvert
Ted.Mann@wsj.com
@TMannWSJ
April 5, 2016 3:44 p.m. ET
An investigation into this weeks Amtrak crash in Chester, Pa., indicates track workers didnt deploy a basic, decades-old safety measure that experts say could have prevented a collision that killed two workers and injured more than 30 passengers, people familiar with the matter said.
Crews performing work on a stretch of Amtraks heavily traveled Northeast Corridor on Sunday apparently didnt put in place what is known as a supplemental shunting device, in apparent violation of Amtraks own worker-protection rules, these people said. The device, which is clamped to the track, completes an electrical circuit to alert the signaling system that the track is occupied.
Had a shunt been used, Amtraks computerized collision-avoidance system known as positive train control, or PTC, could have prevented the accident, said Steven Ditmeyer, a former federal railroad official and Virginia-based consultant who has advised the U.S. government and transportation industry groups but not Amtrak.
It would have triggered the signal system, which would have triggered PTC, Mr. Ditmeyer said of the shunting device. I can think of no reason that there would not be a shunt in place when maintenance is under way.
Crews apparently didnt use shunting device, seemingly violating railroads rules
Emergency crews investigated the Amtrak crash in Chester, Pa., on Sunday. Photo: Mark Makela/Getty Images
By Andrew Tangel, Scott Calvert and Ted Mann
andrew.tangel@wsj.com
@AndrewTangel
@scottmcalvert
Ted.Mann@wsj.com
@TMannWSJ
April 5, 2016 3:44 p.m. ET
An investigation into this weeks Amtrak crash in Chester, Pa., indicates track workers didnt deploy a basic, decades-old safety measure that experts say could have prevented a collision that killed two workers and injured more than 30 passengers, people familiar with the matter said.
Crews performing work on a stretch of Amtraks heavily traveled Northeast Corridor on Sunday apparently didnt put in place what is known as a supplemental shunting device, in apparent violation of Amtraks own worker-protection rules, these people said. The device, which is clamped to the track, completes an electrical circuit to alert the signaling system that the track is occupied.
Had a shunt been used, Amtraks computerized collision-avoidance system known as positive train control, or PTC, could have prevented the accident, said Steven Ditmeyer, a former federal railroad official and Virginia-based consultant who has advised the U.S. government and transportation industry groups but not Amtrak.
It would have triggered the signal system, which would have triggered PTC, Mr. Ditmeyer said of the shunting device. I can think of no reason that there would not be a shunt in place when maintenance is under way.