These and many other incidents could have been avoided, according to the National Transportation Safety Board, if railroads had implemented positive train control (PTC). They were supposed to do just that by the end of 2015. They missed the deadline, but got a reprieve, with Congress pushing back the deadline for PTC implementation to 2018.
Congress first mandated PTC in 2008 for rail lines used to transport passengers or toxic-by-inhalation materials. The unfunded mandate gave railroads seven years to comply. Questions arise: Why push back implementation to 2018? Why the delay? Will PTC actually help, whenever we get there? And what will it mean to emergency managers?
Steep Hill to Climb
PTC is meant to kick in when human error threatens safety. These systems use a combination of GPS satellite, state-of-the-art signaling and advanced databases in order to determine the exact location, direction and speed of trains. The system warns the operator of possible trouble and takes action to stop the train if there is no response.Suppose a train is moving full speed toward a signal or into a speed-restricted area. If the operator doesn’t take action, PTC will put on the brakes.
This is no small feat, according to the Association of American Railroads (AAR). A full deployment would include, “a complete physical survey and highly precise geo-mapping of the more than 82,000 track-miles … on which PTC technology will be installed, including geo-mapping of nearly 460,000 field assets (mileposts, curves, grade crossings, switches, signals and much more) along that right-of-way,” AAR reports.
Complex, yes, but we know how it works. So why isn’t it done? Well, it may not be quite that simple.
Despite understanding the basic technology, “railroads still have had to hire thousands of software developers and safety experts,” said AAR spokesman Ed Greenberg. Mostly this development has gone toward ensuring PTC can deliver on its safety expectations. Despite advances, various elements of PTC still show a 30 to 40 percent error rate. “We are talking about unprecedented technology. PTC is a complex system of systems and not off-the-shelf technology. It has had to be developed from scratch.”
In addition, the industry wants to reassure itself that the more than 70 railroads on the system will be able to exchange information. Without the free flow of data between rail lines, it’s unlikely PTC would have enough information to carry out its duties. “Interoperability is the key here,” Greenberg said.
A range of hurdles continues to stymie full implementation, according to a report to the House and Senate Appropriations Committees by the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA).
Wireless Spectrum Availability: Individual railroads are having trouble acquiring the needed spectrum for the radio signal that connects elements of PTC. In some cases, holders of spectrum won’t sell. In other cases the railroads find the conditions of a spectrum sale “neither fair nor reasonable.” Other spectrums are tied up in legal situations.
Hard-to-access equipment: “The number of suppliers who currently manufacture PTC system components is limited,” FRA notes. Only a handful of companies can make the needed components, which in turn slows deployment.
Safety Plans: As of August, FRA has received just three of 38 required PTC safety plans despite being in “constant and consistent contact with railroads to assist on safety plans and offer guidance.”
Some Success
Despite hurdles, freight carriers have made headway. By the end of 2015 more than 14 percent of 60,000 miles of track were PTC equipped, AAR reports, along with 31 percent of 22,000 locomotives. Freight rail has spent more than $6 billion on these systems.Overall, PTC has seen “some successful, but limited, deployment,” according to the FRA. As of August 2015, Amtrak had covered 60 route miles between Chicago and Detroit with its own variant of PTC, as well as in parts of the Northeast corridor, while BNSF Railway Co. has deployed systems on “a limited number of pilot territories.”
Amid all the competing pressures and declarations of progress, one thing emerges clearly: PTC will be late. Knowing they weren’t going to make the 2015 deadline, the railroads petitioned Congress and successfully got the due date pushed back to 2018, while pledging that the extension wouldn’t slow their efforts. “[T]his does not change our approach toward working aggressively to implement PTC as quickly as we possibly can and ensuring it can reliably deliver the safety features we all desire,” BNSF Executive Vice President and Chief Marketing Officer Steve Bobb said when the extension was passed.
When full-blown PTC finally is declared, all involved agree the rails will be safer. By some estimates, human error accounts for 40 percent of rail accidents. To the extent that PTC can remove human error from the equation — and that is exactly what it is designed to do — emergency management should see its load lightened.
Managing Emergencies
Fewer derailments, especially of trains carrying hazardous materials, will no doubt benefit emergency managers, not least financially. The cost of a derailment can be staggering when one includes lawyers, damages, repairs and so on. The hit to the emergency community’s budget is no less significant. Take for example a 2014 incident in downtown Lynchburg, Va., in which several CSX tanker cars carrying crude oil derailed and caught fire along the James River. The event cost roughly $8.99 million in emergency response and cleanup, according to the nonprofit research firm Sightline Institute.While PTC won’t eliminate all train accidents, it is one piece of the puzzle that will vastly improve safety under specific circumstances, said FRA spokesman Michael Booth. By overriding driver error, at the very least PTC will help keep trains out of work zones and prevent derailments caused by speeding.
Knowing PTC alone won’t prevent all accidents, the FRA encourages emergency response agencies to make use of the U.S. Department of Transportation’s (DOT) Transportation Technology Center in Pueblo, Colo. The center is managed by the AAR, and has trained more than 60,000 first responders since 1985, Booth said.
The DOT has taken additional steps in recent months to help equip the emergency community to deal with rail accidents. In September the agency announced $5.9 million in first responder grants to help protect communities from flammable liquid spills caused by rail accidents. Managed by the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, the money has been earmarked for three nonprofit organizations:
- University of Findlay (All Hazards Training Center), Findlay, Ohio
- International Association of Fire Chiefs, Fairfax, Va.
- Center for Rural Development, Somerset, Ky.
“Safety is our top priority, and [these] grants will help first responders, especially volunteer firefighters in rural or remote parts of the country, prepare for and respond to incidents involving flammable liquids,” DOT Secretary Anthony Foxx said in announcing the grants.
The emphasis on flammable liquids comes at least partly in response to the massive outflow of oil (up 4,000 percent in the past five years) from the Bakken oil fields, which underlie parts of Montana, North Dakota, Saskatchewan and Manitoba. A 2013 rail disaster involved the derailment of a 77-tank-car train carrying Bakken oil. The train exploded, killing 47 people and destroying 30 buildings.
Would PTC have prevented the disaster? The Transportation Safety Board of Canada found at least 18 probable causes, and its 12-page report never uses the phrase “human error.” Still, it does cite ineffective training and a failure to manage risks as concerns. Such factors could ultimately trigger a PTC response, under the right circumstances.
Rail lines, under various regulations, must notify emergency response authorities whenever hazardous materials are on the move. This may help emergency managers be prepared — but prevention would be even better than preparation, and PTC’s ability to prevent incidents, especially HAZMAT incidents, will come as welcome news to emergency managers … sometime down the line.
