Transcript Positive Train Control - United Transportation Union

Final Rule
Positive Train Control
Full Presentation
Implementation of the Mandate
Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008
January 2010
Text Color Codes
 Red is as required by the Rail Safety
Improvement Act
 Black is as previously briefed and published
in the NPRM.
 Green includes the comments, responses,
and final rule decisions.
2
Overview
 Background
 PTC functions
 PTC territory
 PTC trains
 Process
 Other issues
 Chronology
3
Background
 On about 3-4% of route miles of railroad, cab
signals and automatic speed control, or
automatic train stop, provides some
protection for single point human failure.
 Since about 1971, the National
Transportation Safety Board has been
demanding better technology.
 Since 1985, the railroad industry has been
promising it.
4
Background
 In 1994, FRA filed a required report with the
Congress on Railroad Communications and Train
Control. (Coined the term PTC.)
 In 2000, FRA filed a required report with the
Congress on Implementation of Positive Train Control
Systems. (Based on RSAC report.)
 In 2004, FRA filed a required report with the
Appropriations Committees of the Congress on the
Benefits and Costs of PTC.
 On March 7, 2005, FRA published a final rule on
Performance Standards for Signal and Train Control
Systems designed to facilitate introduction of PTC
5
PTC Functions
Chatsworth, CA
September 12, 2008
6
PTC Functions-RSIA08
 Prevent train-to-train collisions


Existing architectures generally effective
NPRM Limitations:

Restricted speed scenarios (e.g., where permitted
to pass red signal in TCS, joint authorities)
NPRM: Display restricted speed and enforce upper
limit of restricted speed in certain instances ◊
Comments: Generally supported limitation, but
NTSB suggested FRA further develop
technology to address.
Final rule: As proposed, to save cost and
promote early implementation.
7
PTC Functions-RSIA08
 Prevent train-to-train collisions
 NPRM Limitations:
 Side collisions at diamond crossings
NPRM: Given limited build out, enforce as to non-PTC line
where two lines cross and where risk is relatively high ◊
Comments: AAR asked for PTC enforcement on
unequipped route (cost assumed to fall on Class
II/III railroads).
Response: Proposal was a reasonable application
of the law and responsive to Regulatory Flexibility
Act.
Final rule: As proposed (significant savings, as
nothing would be required at majority of
crossings). Class Is can readily provide positive
stop where their lines intersect.
8
PTC Functions-RSIA08
Crossing type
Max Speed Required (or safety
equivalent to items listed)
PTC route
intersected by
non-PTC route
Two PTC lines
≤ 40 mph
Interlocking signal
arrangement (non);
enforced stop (PTC)
>40 mph
Above + split-point
derail and 20 mph MAS
on non-PTC line
Enforce positive stop all
routes
Any speed
9
PTC Functions-RSIA08
 Prevent overspeed derailments
 Enforce permanent and temporary speed restrictions
based on class of train
 Include restrictions associated with identified highwayrail grade crossing warning system malfunctions
Comment (commuter railroads):
 Not a core function; will introduce delays
Response:
 Merely enforces mandatory directives already required
to be issued; no different than slow order at soft track
location.
 Significant public safety issue.
 No intent to require remote health monitoring at
conventional speeds.
Final Rule:
 Retains the requirement.
10
PTC Functions-RSIA08
 Prevent overspeed derailments


Protect movements at movable bridges
No requirement to enforce equipment-specific
speed restrictions, but encouraged where
system design permits ◊
Comments: Want flexibility on speed enforced (to
avoid unnecessary enforcements).
Response: This is customary in train control.
Final rule: Railroad may propose and justify speed
increments for warning and enforcement.
11
PTC Functions-RSIA08
 Prevent incursions into roadway work zones



Arrange system to prevent single point human
failure
Employee in charge to maintain control over
entry
For later implementation: portable roadway
worker terminals ◊
Comments: Supportive.
Final rule: No change.
12
PTC Functions-RSIA08
 Prevent movement of a train through a switch left in
the “wrong position”



In dark territory, individual switches would be
monitored with position detected and secured
 Sidings with speeds above 20 mph considered main
line
In signal territory, signal circuits may be used to verify
route integrity (main line and controlled sidings) ◊-Saves $1.7 – 2.3B over 20 years (7%/3%)
Comments: Supportive, but NTSB hedge.
Response: Adopted as proposed (major savings).
FRA to consider other approaches
13
PTC Functions-Inherent to
Technology
 Warn and/or enforce for identified hazards ◊
 Hazard detectors tied into existing signal
system would be given effect through the PTC
system (typically route integrity detectors such
as slide fences)—most likely to take warning
followed by enforcement
 Railroads could interface additional detectors
and provide for responsive action in PTC
Safety Plan—many may warrant warning only
Adopted as proposed—minimalist implementation
(holds down costs).
14
PTC Functions-Supporting HSR
Higher speeds and auxiliary functions
 Above 59 mph passenger and 49 mph freight, functionality of
block signal system, including fouling circuits and broken rail
detection (tracks current regulations)
 Above 90 mph, technology must be vital, perimeter
protection must prevent unauthorized entry and rollouts
 Above 125, must demonstrate performance equivalent to
high speed rail of same class internationally
 Above 150, must be integrated into system safety plan
approved by FRA
Comments: Supportive, including AAHSTO.
Final rule: Adopted as proposed.
15
PTC Functions-Supporting HSR
Higher speeds and auxiliary functions


Note: Synergy with High-Speed Passenger Rail under
ARRA and Administration policy.
See: FRA HSPR Safety Strategy (nudge for integration
of crossing warning systems).
16
PTC Territory
 For Class I railroads, their lines with 5 mgt and PIH/TIH traffic

Proposed 2008 base year


Could request removal of line if “consistent with safety and
in the public interest”
NPRM Rationale:






Congress set criteria to capture core rail system
Closer to normal year
TSA rule producing consolidation
Rail Route Analysis process still in infancy, not a guide here
Evidence of attempt to shift burden to public
Designed to stabilize build out at level Congress intended,
staunch damage to PIH transportation
17
PTC Territory—Freight
 For Class I railroads, their lines with 5 mgt
and PIH/TIH traffic


Proposed 2008 base year
Comments:


Chemical shippers: support or want wider built
out
Class I Railroads:




2009/2015 traffic levels should govern
FRA approach will drive up cost
FRA lacks authority
Test for removing line vague
18
PTC Territory—Freight
 For Class I railroads, their lines with 5 mgt and
PIH/TIH traffic


Proposed 2008 base year
Response:
 In general, agree that wider deployment not supported
 However, not practical to use 2015 traffic; and 2009 is
atypical
 FRA approach provides basis for review of plans and
starts with scale intended by Congress
 FRA has ample authority under three separate
statutes, including RSIA
 However, revised from proposed in response to
comments.
19
PTC Territory—Freight
 For Class I railroads, their lines with 5 mgt and PIH/TIH traffic

Final Rule:



Start with 2008 base year (year mandate enacted; same period
used for initial Rail Route Analysis)
Presumptive removal of lines that fall below 5 mgt for two
consecutive years
For any line no longer carrying PIH—
 Provide risk assessment supporting re-routing that assumes PTC
on all lines under consideration.
 If re-routing is supported, ask whether remaining risk on the line is
greater than the average risk on lines carrying PIH. “Remaining
risk” includes risk to train crews, roadway workers, and
communities affected by rail accidents (including release of other
hazmat).
 If yes, install PTC.
 If no, remove line from the plan.
20
PTC Territory—Freight
 For Class I railroads, their lines with 5 mgt and PIH/TIH traffic

Final Rule:
 Line sale review provision made explicit.
 Likely case for review is sale to Class III railroad
under conditions such as the following:
 Class I retains right to repurchase
 Class I retains overhead trackage rights
 Overall mix of traffic will not change appreciably
 Purchaser is commercial alter ego of seller
 Plan subject to revision at any time through 2015 under
these rules, so railroads may ask for review as traffic
patterns change.
21
PTC Territory—Freight
 For Class I railroads, their lines with 5 mgt and PIH/TIH traffic

Comment:


AAR—FRA must adopt de minimis exception (<100 PIH cars per year)
Response:

~100 PIH cars on any line is not insignificant (~10,000 miles of railroad
out of 70,000 to be equipped)
 Would potentially include some high speed main lines with heavy traffic.
 Fails legal test for de minimis authority: “when the burdens of regulation
yield a gain of trivial or no value.”




Congress already provided an exception with 5 mgt threshold
Inherent legal authority to provide de minimis exception does not permit
FRA to rewrite the law for cost/benefit purposes
Should not ignore other PTC-avoidable risk in doing so.
However, approach does create potential to avoid large expenditures
for trivial benefits.
22
PTC Territory—Freight
 For Class I railroads, their lines with 5 mgt and PIH/TIH traffic

Final Rule:


Relatively narrow de minimis exception is provided as presumptive
basis for relief from PTC installation:
 Consisting exclusively of Class 1 or 2 track;
 That carries less than 15 million gross tons annually;
 Has a ruling grade of less than 1 percent; and
 On which any train transporting a car containing PIH materials
(including a residue car) is operated under conditions of temporal
separation
Broader de minimis exception where railroad offers mitigations that
reduce risk to negligible levels. Based on FRA review of the specific
operating conditions and alternative safety systems. Also limited to
lines with 15 mgt traffic.
 Major portion of risk reduction from PTC has to do with prevention of train-to-train
collisions. Can be accomplished with limited expenditure on the wayside.

AAR did not request, and the final rule does not provide, any
exceptions under this provision for lines carrying intercity/commuter
passenger traffic.
23
PTC Territory—Passenger
 Intercity and commuter railroad lines
 About 69,000 route miles total, of which 24,000 are
passenger lines and 18,000 miles qualify in both
categories
FRA has authority to make exceptions from “main line”
where there are “limited freight operations”
 Proposed rule offered four RSAC exceptions: (terminal
exception, restricted speed, temporal separation, risk
case showing low exposure)
Comments: Supported four RSAC exceptions. Amtrak
sought additional exceptions.




Limited passenger service on some intercity segments.
Questionable commitment of States sponsoring service.
Limited technical abilities of host railroads (Class II and III
railroads that otherwise would not be required to install
PTC)
24
PTC Territory—Passenger
 Intercity and commuter railroad lines
 FRA has authority to make exceptions from “main line”
where there are “limited freight operations”

In response to Amtrak comments, RSAC recommended 4
trains in dark, 12 in signal territory with NTE 5 mgt freight
(host could be Class I, II or III).
Response:
 Concur with Amtrak that preservation of passenger service is
a valid public goal.
 Lower density freight operations and infrequent passenger
service present limited risk that can be further mitigated in
many cases as lesser expense.
 Recognize that some commuter branch lines may present
similar circumstances (although in most cases commuter
lines are characterized by more frequent service).
25
PTC Territory—Passenger
 Intercity and commuter railroad lines
 FRA has authority to make exceptions from “main line”
where there are “limited freight operations”
Final rule (in addition to NPRM exceptions): ◊
 Freight cap of 15 mgt (vs. 5 mgt in RSAC)
 On a line segment of a railroad that is not a Class I
railroad – 4 trains per day in dark, 12 in signal
 These are lines that would not otherwise get PTC.
 On a Class I segment, 4 trains a day maximum.
 These are lines of a railroad whose locomotives and
back office are already equipped / wayside cost only.
 Make clear that FRA will review each requested
exception and may require mitigations.
26
PTC Territory—Gaps
 Gaps in statutory route structure
 Other major hazmat lines;
 Class I captives over which they operate, such as
switching and terminal railroads
 NPRM—no further requirements, but file plans and
bridge to Risk Reduction Program ◊
Comments:
 AAR – no authority to require filings
Response:
 FRA has ample authority under at least three statutes,
and integrating PTC planning with the new Risk
Reduction Program is very consistent with RSIA.
27
PTC Territory—Gaps
 Gaps in statutory route structure
 Other major hazmat lines;
 Class I captives over which they operate, such as
switching and terminal railroads
 NPRM—no further requirements, but file plans and
bridge to Risk Reduction Program ◊
Final rule:
 As proposed
 Does not require further build out, per se, but does
require response to other RSIA provisions (Risk
Reduction Program, Technology for Dark Territory)
28
PTC Trains
 Typical application in train control is that all
trains must be equipped (§ 236.566)
 But freight locomotive fleet is used throughout
the Nation in order to provide efficient service
and good asset utilization.
 Requirement would become fully effective
12/31/2015, when PTC must be in place on
all statutory lines
29
PTC Trains
 NPRM would have required equipped trains to have
system operative when installed on lead locomotive
and when on PTC line
 FRA-initiated proposal to run some trains failed at
initialization during early period ◊
Comments from AAR:
 No authority to require before 12/31/2015
 Will create disincentive to equip lines/power early
Response:


FRA enjoys ample authority, and the statute cannot be
read to defer all PTC benefits until the end of 2015.
Locomotives should be utiliized in PTC mode where
equipped.
30
PTC Trains
 NPRM would have required equipped trains to have
system operative when installed on lead locomotive
and when on PTC line
 FRA-initiated proposal to run some trains failed at
initialization during early period ◊
Final rule:
 PTC Implementation Plan (PTCIP) must establish
and justify annual goals subject to FRA approval
(% of trains equipped/operative on lines with
PTC)
 Must adjust plan if goals not met
31
PTC Trains
 Proposed rule would have permitted failed trains to move under
restrictions similar to those now in effect for cab signals
 Did not address interim period (before 12/31/2015)
Comments:


Amtrak, others—Potential significant impact on operations to
operate at lower speed or under absolute block
Labor—need even tighter restrictions
Response:

Agree that mandate heightens concern over running failed, but
disruption to service is also a concern.
Final rule:



Exception from restrictions for interim period (until 12/31/2015)
Mid-range restrictions retained
Passenger railroad may request and justify less stringent
restrictions
32
PTC Trains
 Proposed rule provided permanent exception for
Class II/III trains on Class I lines up to 4 trains per
day and 20 miles; exclusion for other such
movements over 20 miles until 12/31/2020. (Cited
negligible safety gain.)
Comments:
 AAR—FRA lacks authority to made exceptions; Class
Is deserve benefit of their investment in PTC
 ASLRRA—Strongly support
Response: FRA has authority to make limited
exceptions, and they are warranted.
Final rule:
 Exceptions retained as proposed (significant savings)
 Continue to maintain clarity that other considerations
may apply as between the parties
33
PTC Trains
 Proposed rule included
tourist and excursion trains
in the 20-mile or 2020 exception
Comments (tourist/historic interests):
 Want broad exception for trains led by historic
locomotives.
Response:
 No safety justification provided for broader
exception.
Final rule:
 As proposed.
34
Process
 PTC Implementation Plan must be filed by April 16,
2010


Interoperability
Deployment considers relative risk
 NPRM proposed PTC Development Plan with PTCIP.
Comments (mostly commuter RRs):
 Can’t submit PTC Development Plan by then, account
late delivery of interoperability standards.
Final rule:
 Option for Notice of Product Intent on April 16 (reduced
level of detail) per RSAC agreement.
35
Process
 PTC Implementation Plan must be filed by April 16, 2010
Interoperability
 Deployment considers relative risk
 NPRM proposed that Class Is would need to file jointly with
host/tenant freight railroads.

Comments (Class Is):
 Too burdensome to negotiate joint filings.
Final rule:
 Requirement is retained, account need to ensure
coordination and interoperability.
 Preamble makes clear that good faith efforts will be
recognized.
36
Process
 Grandfathering for systems in service (“short
form” certification) ◊




ACSES I, II
ITCS
BNSF’s ETMS, Configuration I
Others approved under subpart H?
 Credits for showings made under subpart H
until effective date of the new rule ◊
 Option to proceed under subpart H where
PTC is not mandated
37
Process
 Safety case showings
 Non-vital overlay: demonstrate 80% reduction
in PTC-relevant risk ◊
 Vital overlay: abbreviated risk assessment ◊
 Standalone: full risk assessment; introduce no
new hazards that have not been mitigated
 All systems
 Show mitigations related to use of
management information system sources not
subject to prior verification, CAD inputs, but no
quantitative risk assessment is required ◊
Final rule on process, as proposed.
38
Other issues (Access to display
info)
 Displays visible to each assigned crew member in
cab
 Avoid distraction of engineer
Comments:
 AAR—not warranted
 Labor—support requirements
39
Other issues (Access to display
info)
 Displays visible to each assigned crew member in
cab
 Avoid distraction of engineer
Response:
 Crew resource management
 Operations in and out of PTC territory
 Switching operations
 Initial system vulnerabilities
 Facilitate conductor interaction with system (consistent
with safety and efficiency)
 Preservation of safeguards in existing method of
operation (initial freight systems will be overlays)
 4% of system costs, yet major contribution to safety
40
Other issues (Access to display
info)
 Displays visible to each assigned crew member in
cab
 Avoid distraction of engineer
Final rule:
 Continues requirement in current regulations for
visibility of display, but may be met in several ways
 Continues language barring PTC-related duties that
would distract engineer
 Preamble is clear that merely viewing the default
display supports situational awareness (not distraction)
41
Other issues
 Supplier direct responsibility under the rule to report unsafe failures to
FRA.
Comments (RSI, GE, etc.):
 FRA should regulate railroads, not suppliers.
 Railroads will have first knowledge of unsafe failures.
 Should not burden suppliers while not permitting suppliers to bring
products directly to FRA for approval.
Response:
 FRA has enjoyed authority over suppliers since 1988, and an existing
regulation (sec. 236.907(d)) already references supplier duties.
 Agree that railroads should be first to report.
 However, need to know that supplier has distributed information
concerning unsafe failures to other railroads using the same product.
Final rule:
 Revised to make clear secondary role of supplier but retain
requirement to share product notices with FRA.
42
Chronology
Action
Date
RSIA signed into law
October 16, 2008
RSAC development of NPRM
January-April 2, 2009
NPRM published
July 21, 2009
Public hearing
August 13, 2009
Comment period closed
August 20, 2009
RSAC review of comments
August 31-September 2, 2009
Final rule officially received at OMB
October 23, 2009
Final rule cleared OMB
December 30, 2009
Final rule signed
December 30, 2009
Final rule placed on public display
January 12, 2010
Final rule published
January 15, 2010
Comments on issue resolution due
February 15, 2010
43
Chronology (2)
Action
Date
Final rule effective
March 16, 2010
PTC Implementation Plans due
April 16, 2010
FRA to respond to PTCIPs
July 16, 2010
PTC Safety Plans filed and
reviewed
As ready under PTCIP schedules
PTC build-out (onboard and
wayside)
Per PTCIP timetables
Risk Reduction Plans filed (with
further PTC lines identified)
TBD 2012-2013
Progress report to the Congress
December 31, 2012
Initial PTC implementation complete
December 31, 2015
44