PTC 220 MHz info

PTC-220 is requesting a waiver from FCC for construction requirement.
https://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsEntry/...tachmentKey=19836998&attachmentInd=applAttach

Basically old news, back in November a number of Railroads (including ours) said they would stop service on Jamuary 1st if deadline wasn't extended. The whole licensing thing is a mess, on 220 there is too much interference. In NYC you have WNET-TV right next to the services, and we found no less than 20 unlicensed operations including cash registers, cordless phones, and 2-way radios. They should have left it on 900mhz, there is much less background noise, the diversity antenna systems are a lot smaller, and you can reuse the channels a lot closer than the 220.

220 is an awful choice for this

Kitn1mcc said:

220 is an awful choice for this

Click to expand...

Not necessarily. When they did their due diligence, they evidently found that the problems were manageable, and while in some major metropolitan areas there could be issues, the overwhelming majority of the railroad mileage is in rural areas, where 220 MHz performs much better at lower cost and has virtually no interference.

In those few areas where there are interference issues caused by unlicensed users, better filtering and tighter tolerances on the railroad equipment would likely deal with most of the issues, and better enforcement to take care of the rest.

(Of course, I would personally prefer that 220-222 MHz still be a ham band, but that ship sailed a long time ago.)

I don't know where you got that the interference was manageable from. I have been involved in the PTC program at my RR since the beginning and what they found is hideous. Besides what I stated earlier, other issues are door buzzers(actually any make/break contacts like relays and there a lots of them in trains), power supplies for computers (220mhz is the dumping ground for switching supplies), and mixing of AM/FM broadcast stations. We havn't even factored in customers appliances yet.

I'm not sure I really follow that logic about most areas are rural, since most interlockings which is what the whole deal is about are located in urban area such as ours (NYC). When you have to able to force a train to stop within 1 mile at speed of said interlocking if that train violates, it doesn't matter 220 or 900. Also as I said frequency reuse would be a lot closer. Costs associated with the different radio bands, our findings are 900 was cheaper than 220 since most components were already available due to 2-way and cellular. The 900mhz modems were half the cost of 220 ones.

Not that this would count, but when Amrtak dumped their 900 modems on E-bay they went for $15-20 each. Our new 220mhz are $2400.00 each.

This whole project is a mess, up until now an unfunded orphaned mandate that probably will work as well as Firstnet in 20 years. The only positive thing I can say about it is that I will have a job until retirement.

900 MHZ or high would be the way the to go. Even going up into the GHZ range could mount panel antennas and set up diversity RX . makes more sense. I wonder how well 220 would work in the Park ave Tunnel

On the BNSF Seligman Sub from Needles to Winslow, a distance of roughly 300 miles in mixed desert and mountainous terrain, how many transmit sites do you think it would take cover the line using 900 MHz as opposed to 220 MHz? I think the system designers have made a conscious decision that the system will be more affordable using fewer sites and that requires lower frequencies.

I appreciate that the radio spectrum is crowded in metropolitan ares, but there's more territory that needs to be covered by PTC than just New York and Chicago.

PTC 220

From a system standpoint, the "PTC system" has access to 220, 800-900 cellular, anf 2.4G WiFI.

From my training, WiFi when available (mostly in yards) and both cellular and 220 when "on the road". The goal is redundancy in the comm links.....

As previously stated, there is a lot of trackage outside of the metropolitan centers, that WiFi/Cellular does not cover, where 220 works much better.

same argument as "700mHz is not the universal fix for nation public safety"

Some of the pictures of some newer locomotives that have been posted over the years on PTC have both 220 and 900 antennas and filters.

Where do you think the greater possibility of an accident will happen in the great desert or where 30 intelockings and over 600 passenger trains not cars congregate in a single 8 hour period. My understanding of PTC is control at interlockings, and how many interlockings are there in that great expanse of desert, probably not many. From what I have heard in relation to those great expanses the radio coverage area is not the problem, but the backhaul. CSX and others I am sure are using satellite backhauls, very expensive so they probably would want the sites only at the interlockings.

We havn't even begun to address the Park Ave tunnel yet. GPS is more of a concern then the 220 or whatever freq we end up on as of now. There is a large consortium (7 companies) project going on that puts all frequencies, NYPD uhf,FDNY vhf,uhf,800,MTA PD vhf,800,MNRR FD vhf, RTC vhf ,WiFi, GPS,Cellular on a fiber optic network, but there is no completion date. Makes it hard to plan for something if the infrastructure isn't there yet. We still plan on keeping our in use now radio system until the consortium project proves itself.

All I can say about our planned PTC system, and I have made many comments to the vendor about frequencies and frequency plans is that it has to work as advertised or you won't get paid. From the information that I heard at past planning meetings, it ain't going to work since there isn't enough bandwidth for the amount of data on 220mhz in Metro areas. 24 slot TDMA with encryption cannot fit in a 12.5kc channel. So that means multiple channels, now how does the radio know what channel and time slot. What programming are RR from other areas that travel our territory going top need. See where I am going?

radioman2001 said:

I don't know where you got that the interference was manageable from. I have been involved in the PTC program at my RR since the beginning and what they found is hideous. Besides what I stated earlier, other issues are door buzzers(actually any make/break contacts like relays and there a lots of them in trains), power supplies for computers (220mhz is the dumping ground for switching supplies), and mixing of AM/FM broadcast stations. We havn't even factored in customers appliances yet.

Click to expand...

While your comments may be true for NYC, they're very likely not the case for probably at least 90% of the route mileage in the United States. RF is RF, no matter what it's being used for, and if door buzzers and every other gadget out there which radiates to some extent in the 220 MHz band caused problems as hideous as you imply, it would have been obvious long before PTC came about.

I'm not sure I really follow that logic about most areas are rural, since most interlockings which is what the whole deal is about are located in urban area such as ours (NYC). When you have to able to force a train to stop within 1 mile at speed of said interlocking if that train violates, it doesn't matter 220 or 900. Also as I said frequency reuse would be a lot closer. Costs associated with the different radio bands, our findings are 900 was cheaper than 220 since most components were already available due to 2-way and cellular. The 900mhz modems were half the cost of 220 ones.

Click to expand...

Again, you're viewing things from the NYC perspective, not looking at the big picture.

Yes, interlocking plants are more closely concentrated in metro areas, but if you look at a map of the rest of the country you'll see that the vast majority of RR mileage is in rural areas, and there are interlocking plants (and intermediate signals, many of which also have PTC installations) everywhere. . . the majority of them in rural areas.

Take a look at railroad history and study the development of signal systems; they were developed to keep traffic moving smoothly and improve safety. Without interlocking plants (in rural areas or otherwise), a stalled train causes awful delays and backups. For traffic fluidity on a busy double track line, I wouldn't want to have a stretch of track more than 15 miles long without crossovers, which means interlocking plants are needed. The same applies for a single track line with passing sidings, although I wouldn't want my passing sidings (the longer the better) much more than 10 miles apart.

The only positive thing I can say about it is that I will have a job until retirement.

Click to expand...

So why are you complaining?????

As I said before, and W9BU reinforced, the PTC planners obviously took these factors into account and decided that 220 MHz was the most cost-effective solution.

Quote"
While your comments may be true for NYC, they're very likely not the case for probably at least 90% of the route mileage in the United States. RF is RF, no matter what it's being used for, and if door buzzers and every other gadget out there which radiates to some extent in the 220 MHz band caused problems as hideous as you imply, it would have been obvious long before PTC came about."

Actually 900mhz was first and used for over 10 years without issue, and what PTC planners are you supposedly quoting, do you have some inside info on this. We did our own investigation of feasabilty and liability as there was no guide book on this by AAR or anyone else. Everyone is just stumbling in the dark, and this has been an abortion in progress since it's inception similar to First Net. I will have a job whether this goes through or not, so why do I complain, because I hate stupid, and that is what this is. An update to the current cab warning system would have filled the same requirement, and cost about 1/10 th of what the final bill is going to be. This whole thing is being driven again by vendors.

While freight makes the most money per mile an accident on a commuter line will cost much more to settle then a couple of tankers or box cars that run off the tracks.It's got to work right the first time nationwide not piecemeal depending where in the country you are.

Hello,

It also seems like railroads are implementing the PTC system while it is still being developed. The materials I have seen indicate that not all the pieces are in place. The equipment manufacturers have been rolling out firmware and software updates to add features and to bring equipment back in compliance with the freshly updated standards.

73 Eric

PTC 220

Quote:

"It also seems like railroads are implementing the PTC system while it is still being developed. The materials I have seen indicate that not all the pieces are in place. The equipment manufacturers have been rolling out firmware and software updates to add features and to bring equipment back in compliance with the freshly updated standards."

This is exactly what is happening.

Blame Congress for mandating a new system that had not been developed along with an unrealistic deadline (5 years). You can't just snap your fingers and have this magnitude of a project happen.

Seems like this has happened before.... (FAA "computer upgrade", Digital TV "transition", etc)

"24 slot TDMA with encryption cannot fit in a 12.5kc channel."

Yes, it can. It would just have s.........l...........o..........w throughput.

PTC all came from the accidents on the commuter side of things less than the freight out in the high dessert. a freight train out in some long stretch of track in the middle of no were is not very likely to all of a sudden have a collision. the saftey devices that have now should cover that.


The thing is seeing how park ave could technically be a Yard and most of it is manual block/no cab will it be needed. I know if the PTC causes too many issues/late trains on the MNR it will get tossed. Access is basically PTC on 900mhz and works pretty good. Funny thing is the MBTA if basically saying they will not install it

While it is true that the Metrolink commuter train collision with a UP freight train in Chatsworth (suburban Los Angeles), California, in 2008 is generally regarded as the spark that drove Congress to mandate PTC, the facts are that a significant number of train vs. train collisions or derailments due to excessive speed or misaligned switches have happened in wide, open spaces.

Here's a link to the National Transportation Safety Board's railroad accident investigation database:

Railroad Accident Reports

As I look through the database for the type of accidents I described above, i see the following:

• Amtrak train leaving track due to excessive speed in a curve, Philadelphia PA
• Southwestern RR train collides with another SWRR train due to a misaligned switch, Roswell NM
• Two UP freight trains collide due to one train not having cleared the main track, Galva KS
• UP freight collides head-on with a BNSF freight due to a misaligned switch, Keithville LA
• BNSF grain train derails a few cars and a BNSF oil train collides with the derailed cars, Casselton ND (not sure how PTC would have prevented this accident)
• Metro-North train derails in a curve due to excessive speed, Bronx NY
• A set of unoccupied Chicago Transit Authority cars roll into a stopped occupied CTA train due to water in the control wiring of the unsecured cars, Forest Park (Chicago) IL (another case where PTC probably wouldn't have prevented the accident)
• One BNSF freight strikes the rear of a stopped BNSF freight and derailed cars from the first accident foul an adjacent track which are collided with by third BNSF freight, Amarillo TX
• UP freight collides with standing cars in a siding due to a misaligned switch in dark territory, Hays KS
• UP freight collides with a BNSF freight at an interlocked crossing, Chaffee MO
• Metro-North passenger train collides with derailed cars of another M-N train on an adjacent track due to an undetected broken track joint, Bridgeport CT
• Conrail freight derails after the crew decides to proceed over an improperly aligned and locked movable bridge, Paulsboro NJ (how will PTC prevent human attempts to override it?)
• Amtrak passenger train derails after inadvertently proceeding onto yard tracks at speed due to the unauthorized use of a jumper wire to align a mainlne switch for the yard, Niles MI
• KCS train collides with BNSF train at a crossing due to the KCS crew not complying with signals, Barton County MO
• Two UP freights collide head-on due to one of the crews not complying with signals, Goodwell OK
• One CSX freight rear-ends another CSX freight due to one of the crews not complying with signals, Westville IN
• One CSX freight rear-ends another CSX freight due to one of the crews not complying with signals, Mineral Springs NC
• BNSF freight rear-ends BNSF MoW train due to the freight crew not complying with signals, Red Oak IA

Well, there's five years worth of collisions and derailments that might have been prevented by PTC. While some of them occurred in congested metro areas, many of them occurred in the wide, open spaces.

I'm not saying that places like New York City don't present serious challenges to the implementation of PTC. But, I do agree with the system designers that the 220 MHz band is a viable and economical solution to implementing PTC on the bulk of railroad track mileage in the U.S. There's a whole lot of railroading going on out here in "flyover" country and that seems to be where the accidents are occurring.

Kitn1mcc said:

...a freight train out in some long stretch of track in the middle of no were is not very likely to all of a sudden have a collision. the saftey devices that have now should cover that.

Click to expand...

What if there are no safety devices? The CSX line closest to my house is dark territory operated by track warrants. This line carries a handful of regular and local freight trains as well as two Amtrak trains each day. Occasionally, an oil or ethanol train will pop up. When one of the locals opens up a switch to take care of a customer on the line, they have to manually record their switch opening and closing times and report that information to the dispatcher. That's the extent of the safety devices in place to prevent an Amtrak train flying into a lumber yard at 50 MPH if someone forgets to re-line the switch for the main.

Kitn1mcc said:

I know if the PTC causes too many issues/late trains on the MNR it will get tossed...Funny thing is the MBTA if basically saying they will not install it

Click to expand...

I don't see that they have any choice. The original law stated that PTC was going to required on all rail lines used to transport passengers or toxic-by-inhalation materials. MNR and MBTA both transport passengers, don't they?

There are some exceptions, mainly to do with trackage owned by a single agency. NYCTA (subways) which now part of the NY MTA isn't installing PTC either, as no other RR operates or could even fit on their tracks. MNRR has sections where no other RR operates, and could in effect not have to install it, and MBTA may have the same.

With your scenario with the Amtrak fling into a lumberyard, PTC may or may not prevent. Assuming the switch points are properly line up and registered with the control equipment. Most switch de-railings occur as a result of misaligned points and the equipment monitoring missing it, as well as those you mention who are in charge willfully disreguarding and going over the misaligned switch. Most of the accidents you list would not have been prevented by PTC. Willful misconduct and broken switches and rails won't get prevented, only maintainence and closer oversight by supervisors takes care of that.

I have mentioned in the past how people are the best way to prevent accidents. The culture has changed in RR in the last 50 years from a benevolent employer that actually wanted you to think and think safely to profits and on time performance. They seem more important, and insurance pays for screw ups. Relying on machinery to decide everything is not good, it breeds complacency and an attitude that it's not my fault because of a machine. You only have to look at the accidents with true fully automated lines to see machinery doesn't fix it all.

I am friends with several people who work in the MBTA radio shop and the MBTA is basically saying they do not care what the feds say in regards to this. (Mass has been known to do there own thing in the past)

The park ave tunnel is gonna be a real pain . switches inside of switches and movable frogs fun times.

As for the CTA they are non FRA as well as NYCTA . PTC does does not effect subway lines

Hello,

MBTA also has commuter rail and it is affected. AMTRAK operates over MBTA track from Boston to Providence.
https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2...ain-crashes/9y0vo4h4r43QitzkxDncrL/story.html

73 Eric