U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

33–636 PDF WASHINGTON : 2018

THE STATE OF POSITIVE TRAIN CONTROL 

IMPLEMENTATION IN THE UNITED STATES 

(115–55) 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON RAILROADS, PIPELINES, 

AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

TRANSPORTATION AND 

INFRASTRUCTURE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

SEPTEMBER 13, 2018 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

( 

Available online at: https://www.govinfo.gov/committee/house-transportation?path=/ 

browsecommittee/chamber/house/committee/transportation 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania, Chairman 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee, 

Vice Chair 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

ERIC A. ‘‘RICK’’ CRAWFORD, Arkansas 

LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania 

BOB GIBBS, Ohio 

DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida 

JEFF DENHAM, California 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania 

RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois 

MARK SANFORD, South Carolina 

ROB WOODALL, Georgia 

TODD ROKITA, Indiana 

JOHN KATKO, New York 

BRIAN BABIN, Texas 

GARRET GRAVES, Louisiana 

BARBARA COMSTOCK, Virginia 

DAVID ROUZER, North Carolina 

MIKE BOST, Illinois 

RANDY K. WEBER, SR., Texas 

DOUG LAMALFA, California 

BRUCE WESTERMAN, Arkansas 

LLOYD SMUCKER, Pennsylvania 

PAUL MITCHELL, Michigan 

JOHN J. FASO, New York 

A. DREW FERGUSON IV, Georgia 

BRIAN J. MAST, Florida 

JASON LEWIS, Minnesota 

MIKE GALLAGHER, Wisconsin 

VACANCY 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

JOHN GARAMENDI, California 

HENRY C. ‘‘HANK’’ JOHNSON, JR., Georgia 

ANDRE ́ CARSON, Indiana 

RICHARD M. NOLAN, Minnesota 

DINA TITUS, Nevada 

SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York 

ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut, Vice 

Ranking Member 

LOIS FRANKEL, Florida 

CHERI BUSTOS, Illinois 

JARED HUFFMAN, California 

JULIA BROWNLEY, California 

FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida 

DONALD M. PAYNE, JR., New Jersey 

ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, California 

BRENDA L. LAWRENCE, Michigan 

MARK DESAULNIER, California 

STACEY E. PLASKETT, Virgin Islands 

(II) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON RAILROADS, PIPELINES, AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

JEFF DENHAM, California, Chairman 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania 

DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania 

MARK SANFORD, South Carolina 

TODD ROKITA, Indiana 

JOHN KATKO, New York 

BRIAN BABIN, Texas 

RANDY K. WEBER, SR., Texas 

BRUCE WESTERMAN, Arkansas 

LLOYD SMUCKER, Pennsylvania 

PAUL MITCHELL, Michigan 

JOHN J. FASO, New York, Vice Chair 

JASON LEWIS, Minnesota 

MIKE GALLAGHER, Wisconsin 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania (Ex Officio) 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

DONALD M. PAYNE, JR., New Jersey 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

JOHN GARAMENDI, California 

ANDRE ́ CARSON, Indiana 

RICHARD M. NOLAN, Minnesota 

ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut 

CHERI BUSTOS, Illinois 

FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida 

MARK DESAULNIER, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon (Ex Officio) 

(III) 

(V) 

CONTENTS Page 

Summary of Subject Matter .................................................................................... vi 

WITNESSES 

Hon. Ronald L. Batory, Administrator, Federal Railroad Administration: 

Oral statement .................................................................................................. 4 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 5 

Hon. Robert L. Sumwalt III, Chairman, National Transportation Safety 

Board: 

Oral statement .................................................................................................. 9 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 10 

Susan A. Fleming, Director, Physical Infrastructure, U.S. Government Accountability Office: 

Oral statement .................................................................................................. 13 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 15 

Scot Naparstek, Chief Operating Officer, Amtrak: 

Oral statement .................................................................................................. 23 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 25 

Edward R. Hamberger, President and Chief Executive Officer, Association 

of American Railroads: 

Oral statement .................................................................................................. 30 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 31 

Jeffrey D. Knueppel, P.E., General Manager, Southeastern Pennsylvania 

Transportation Authority, on behalf of the American Public Transportation 

Association: 

Oral statement .................................................................................................. 35 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 37 

Stacey Mortensen, Executive Director, San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission: 

Oral statement .................................................................................................. 43 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 46 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Testimony of Floyd Mason, President, Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen ...... 71 

vi 


Insert offset folio 1 here 33636.001

Jiiilll5>l)ll~ttr 

<l.Cbairman 

QI:ommtttee ott 'Qtratt!)portatton anb Jhtfra!)tructure 

m.~. ~ouse of l\epresetttattbes 

'Waljbington, ll~ 20515 

'lilctcr ilL llllcjfn;io 

ll\nnking Jllcmbcr 

ChristopherW.Vie$Oil,StaffDirector Katherine W. Dedrick, Democratic StafTDirector 

September 7, 2018 

SUMMARY OF SUBJECT MATTER 

TO: 

FROM: 

RE: 

Members, Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials 

Majority Staff, Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials 

Subcommittee Hearing on "The State of Positive Train Control Implementation in 

the United States" 

PURPOSE 

The Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials will meet on 

Thursday, September 13, 2018 at 10:00 a.m. in 2167 Rayburn House Office Building to receive 

testimony on the status of implementing positive train control (PTC) on the freight and passenger 

rail network. 

BACKGROUND 

Elements of Positive Train Control 

PTC describes technologies designed to automatically stop or slow a train before certain 

accidents occur specifically, train-to-train collisions, derailments caused by excessive speed, 

unauthorized incursions by trains onto sections of track where maintenance activities are taking 

place, and movement of a train through a track switch left in the wrong position. A fully 

functional PTC system must be able to precisely determine the location and speed of trains; warn 

train operators of potential problems; and take action if the operator does not respond to a 

warning. For example, if a train operator fails to stop a train at a stop signal, the PTC system 

would apply the brakes automatically. 

There are two primary types of systems--overlay and standalone- that functionally 

meet the PTC requirements. An overlay system allows railroads to install PTC components over 

existing rail infrastructure and operate the train in accordance with the existing signals and 

operations in the event of a PTC system failure. A standalone system may be used for new 

locations, as a replacement for an existing signal or train control system, or to enhance the 

capabilities of the current method of operation. 
vii 


Insert offset folio 2 here 33636.002

There are more than 20 major PTC components that are currently in various stages of 

development. In order to implement PTC that meets federal requirements, railroads need to 

integrate and install those components across the rail network. The Association of American 

Railroads (AAR) has reported that freight railroads will spend a total of$10.6 billion and 

additional hundreds of millions each year to maintain PTC systems. 1 The cost of PTC for 

passenger rail is estimated at $3.5 billion. 2 Railroads have made progress on PTC 

implementation, yet challenges still remain. 

Legislative History 

The Rail Safety Improvement Act of2008 (RSIA, P. L. 110-432), Division A, included a 

requirement that certain freight, commuter, and passenger rail lines install PTC by December 31, 

2015. The PIC mandate followed a September 12, 2008, accident in California, where a 

Metrolink commuter train collided head-on with a freight train in the Chatsworth district of Los 

Angeles. The scene of the accident was a curved section of single track on the Metro link 

Ventura County Line just east of Stoney Point. According to the National Transportation Safety 

Board (NTSB), which investigated the cause of the collision, the Metrolink train ran through a 

red signal due to the engineer being distracted by text messages. After running the red signal, 

the commuter train entered a section of single track where the opposing freight train had been 

given the right of way by the train dispatcher. In the resulting collision, the Metrolink 

locomotive telescoped into the passenger compartment of the first passenger car and caught fire. 

All three locomotives, the leading Metrolink passenger car, and seven freight cars were derailed 

and both lead locomotives and the passenger car fell over. Tragically, there were 25 fatalities 

and 135 other individuals were injured. 

Section 1 04 of RSIA amended title 49 of the United States Code to add a new Section 

20157, implementation of positive train control systems. This section mandated that Class I 

railroad carriers and intercity passenger rail and commuter rail entities must implement PTC 

systems by December 31, 2015, on: (1) lines over which intercity passenger rail or commuter rail 

are operated; (2) main freight lines over which poison- or toxic-by-inhalation hazardous 

materials (TIH/PIH) are transported; and (3) such other tracks as the Secretary may prescribe by 

regulation or order. 

As early as August 2012, the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) reported that, "most 

railroads will likely not be able to complete full RSIA-required implementation ofPTC by 

December 31, 2015."3 FRA cited the major implementation obstacles as spectrum and radio 

availability, design specification availability, interoperability standards, back office server and 

dispatch system availability, track database verification, and installation engineering, including 

the limited resources that were available to railroads. 4 In 2013, the Government Accountability 

Office (GAO) reported that, "most railroads report they will not complete PTC implementation 

by the 20 15 deadline due to a number of complex and interrelated challenges," and that 

1 Positive Train Control, ASSOC. OF AMERICAN RAILROADS (March 2017), 

https://www.aar.org/BackgroundPapers/Positive%20Train%20Control.pdf. 

'I d. 3 Positive Train Control implementation Status, lssues, and Impacts. Fed. Railroad Admin., 

https://www.fra.dot.gov/Elib/Document/23!8. 

4 !d. 

2 
viii 


Insert offset folio 3 here 33636.003

"Congress should consider granting FRA the authority to extend the deadline."5 Similar to the 

2012 report, the GAO report outlined implementation challenges, citing the fact there are limited 

suppliers of the technology available to railroads and that many of the PTC components had not 

been developed before RSIA was enacted.6 Additionally, GAO cited developing system 

components and PTC installation, system integration and field testing, and FRA resources as 

major challenges. 7 

In 2015, GAO and FRA again identified the need to extend the deadline.8 According to 

the GAO report, the biggest challenges to PTC implementation were integration and field testing 

ofPTC components, as well as FRA field testing, certification, and approval of systems and 

safety plans, including FRA's available resources and timeliness.9 Additionally, GAO cited 

issues with development of a major component of the Interoperable Electronic Train 

Management System had been continually delayed and was one of the major obstacles to 

meeting the 2015 deadline. 10 InFRA's 2015 report, they also reported that there were a limited 

number of suppliers of PTC technology and issues remained with spectrum and radio 

interference. 11 Similarly, AAR and the American Public Transportation Association (APTA) 

reported that most railroads would not have had PTC fully implemented by the 2015 deadline. 12 

At the time, the potential impacts of a missed deadline were significant. In letters to 

Congress, freight railroads indicated that they would have to suspend shipments ofTIH/PIH 

chemicals, and those shipments would have to have ceased well before the December 31, 2015 

deadline. TIH/PIH chemicals are critical for the economy. For example, chlorine is used to 

purity drinking water and for manufacturing, while anhydrous ammonia is used by farmers for 

fertilizer. Some railroads would have had to suspend shipments of all commodities on lines 

requiring PTC, effectively shutting down the network. 13 Rail service disruptions lasting only one 

5 POSIT!VE TRAIN CONTROL Additional Authorities Could Ben~fit Implementation. GOV'T ACCOUNTABILITY 

OFFICE, https:llwww.gao.gov/assets1660/656975.pdf. 

6 !d. 

7 !d. 

8 POSIT!VE TRAIN CONTROL Additional Oversight Needed As Most Railroads Do Not Expect to Meet 20/5 

Implementation Deadline, Gov'T ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE, httos://www.gao.gov/assets/680/672320.pdf ("In our 

2013 report on PTC implementation, we suggested that Congress consider providing FRA with additional authority 

to extend the deadline on individual rail lines-when the need to do so can be demonstrated by the railroad and 

verified by FRA-on a case-by-case basis"); Status ofPositive Train Control Implementation, FED. RAILROAD 

ADMIN, https://www.fra.dot.gov/eLib/details/L 16962. 9 POS!TfVE TRAIN CONTROL Additional Oversight Needed As Most Railroads Do 

Implementation Deadline, GOV'T ACCOUNTABILITY 0FFICF, hl!~lf3i.JY1l~!QjW,Y~~;iQ)l.Q!illi:Jl.Q,pg[ 

10 !d. 

11 Status of Positive Train Control Implementation, Fed. Railroad Admin, 

https://www. fra.dot.gov/eLib/details/L !6962. 12 Assoc. Am. RRs, PTC Implementation: The Railroad Industry Cannot Install PTC on the Entire Nationwide 

Network by the 2015 Deadline 13 (Apr. 2015); Positive Train Control: An Assessment ofPTC fmplementation by 

Commuter Railroads, APTA, 

https://www .apta.com/ gapllegissues/passengerraii/Documents/ APT A %20 PTC%20lmplementation%20progress%20 

report FINAL. pdf (APT A policy supports providing the Department of Transportation with the authority to provide 

extensions on a case by case basis). 13 Letter from Carl R. Ice, President and CEO, BNSR Railway Co., to Senator John Thune, Chainnan, Committee on 

Commerce, Science, and Transportation (Sept. 9, 2015); Letter from Luc Jobin, Executive Vice-President and Chief 

Financial Officer, CN, to Senator John Thune, Chairman, Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation 

(Sept. 1 0, 20 15); Letter from Keith Creel, President and Chief Operating Officer, CP, to Senator John Thune, 

3 
ix 


Insert offset folio 4 here 33636.004

month were estimated by one report to give rise to a 2.6 percentage point hit to the United States' 

real GDP. 14 That same report noted that a shutdown would put nearly 700,000 jobs at risk. 15 

Similarly, in the event of a missed deadline, commuter railroads would have had to cease 

operations after December 31,2015, significantly impacting commutes in major metropolitan 

areas (560 million trips per year). 16 Additionally, Amtrak service would have been suspended. 

Not extending the PTC deadline would have forced more commuters onto busy roads, and 

stopped or diverted some TIH shipments to other modes. 

In response, Congress passed the bipartisan Surface Transportation Extension Act of 

2015 (P.L. 114-73). Section 1302 was the Positive Train Control Enforcement and 

Implementation Act of2015, which extended the deadline to December 31,2018, with the option 

of up to 24 months of additional time. Additional time is subject to FRA review and approval if 

railroads meet certain implementation milestones. Government, industry, and labor were 

supportive of extending the deadline. 17 

PTC Financing 

The Department of Transportation (DOT) has a number of grant programs and other 

financing options to assist railroads in implementing PTC. The Fixing America's Surface 

Transportation Act (FAST Act, P.L. 114-94) authorized a PTC Grant Program in the wake of the 

Chairman, Committee on Commerce, Science. and Transportation (Sept. 9, 2015); Letter from Michael J. Ward, 

Chairman and CEO, CSX Corporation, to Senator John Thune, Chairman, Committee on Commerce, Science, and 

Transportation (Sept. 9, 20 15); Letter from David L. Starling, President and Chief Executive Officer, Kansas City 

Southern, to Senator John Thune, Chairman, Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation (Sept. 9, 2015); 

Letter from lames A. Squires, President and Chief Executive Officer, Norfolk Southern Corporation, to Senator 

John Thune, Chairman, Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation (Sept. 9, 2015); Letter from Lance 

M. Fritz, President and Chief Executive Officer, Union Pacific Corporation, to Senator John Thune, Chairman, 

Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation (Sept. 9, 2015). 14 AMERICAN CHEMISTRY COUNCIL, ASSESSMENT OF THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL IMPACTS OF THE FAILURE OF 

CONGRESS TO EXTEND THE COMPLIANCE DEADLINE FOR POSITIVE TRAIN CONTROL (PTC) (Sept. 2015). 15 /d 16 About Positive Train Control, AMER. PUBLIC TRANS. Assoc., 

http://www.apta.com/mediacenter/ptbenefits/Pages/20 15 l 0 19 Positive-Train-Control.aspx. 17 Letter from John Risch, National Legislative Director, SMART Transportation Division, and Ron Kloos, National 

Vice President/National Legislative Director, Transportation Communications Union/lAM, to Congress (Sept. 30, 

20 15) ("support [ ... ]legislation introduced by House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee leadership [ ... ] to 

extend the deadline for the implementation of Positive Train Control (PTC)."); Letter from Cal Dooley, President 

and CEO, American Chemistry Council, to Congressman Bill Shuster, Chairman, Committee on Transportation and 

Infrastructure (Oct. 5, 2015); Letter from The United States Conference of Mayors to Congressman Bill Shuster. 

Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure (Oct. 5, 2015); Letter from Texas Department of 

Agriculture Commissioner Sid Miller to Congressman Bill Shuster, Chairman, Committee on Transportation and 

Infrastructure (Oct. 5, 2015); Letter from Pennsylvania State Association of Boroughs, to Congressman Bill Shuster, 

Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure (Oct. 20, 2015); Joint letter from American farmers, 

manufacturers, retailers, energy providers, and other freight rail customers to Congressman Bill Shuster, Chairman, 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure (Oct. 23, 20 15); Letter from the National Industrial Transportation 

League to Congressman Bill Shuster, Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure (Oct. I, 2015); 

Letter from the National Retail Federation to Congressman Bill Shuster, Chairman, Committee on Transportation 

and Infrastructure (Oct. 5, 2015); Letter from States for Passenger Rail Coalition to Congressman Bill Shuster, 

Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure (Sept. 29, 2015); Press Release, TID AFL-CTO, 

Shuster-DeFazio Offer Sensible PTC Extension Bill (Sept. 30, 2015) (on file with Committee). 

4 
x 


Insert offset folio 5 here 33636.005

PTC extension seeing the need for funds to assist railroads in implementing PTC. There is a 

matching cost share of20 percent minimum of the total requested project cost. In 2017, FRA 

and Federal Transit Administration (FTA) had 27 total eligible projects from 16 states apply for 

grants, 17 projects from 13 states were selected and awarded grants which totaled the full 

authorization amount of $197 million. 18 In the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018 (P .L. 

115-141 ), Congress made commuter railroads eligible applicants for the $250 million set-aside in 

the Consolidated Rail Infrastructure and Safety Improvements (CRISI) program for PTC system 

implementation. In August 2018, FRA awarded $203 million in grant funding for 28 projects in 

15 states to assist with the deployment of PTC systems. In addition, FRA expects to issue a 

Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) soliciting applications for PTC systems deployment 

projects based on the balance of the remaining $46.3 million. 

In total, FRA and FT A have awarded more than $1 billion in grant funding to railroads to 

assist in implementation ofPTC. Sources of grant funding are: 

- $475 million from FRA's High-Speed Intercity Passenger Rail (HSIPR) Grant Program; 

- $203 million from FRA's Consolidated Rail Infrastructure and Safety Improvements 

(CRISI) program; 

- $197 million in FAST Act PTC Grant funding; 

- $142 million in annual capital grant funding to Amtrak (as of August 2018); 

- $86 million from FRA's Railroad Safety Technology Grant Program; 

- $52 million in American Recovery and Reinvestment Act grant funding to Amtrak; and 

- $2 million in Research and Development grants. 19 

In addition to grants, the Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing (RRIF) 

program and the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) program are 

available for financing PTC implementation. Indeed, the FAST Act specifically prioritized PTC 

installation projects for RRIF funding. In May 2015, FRA issued a $967.1 million loan to 

Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) for Long Island Rail Road's (LIRR) and MetroNorth Railroad's PTC implementation.20 On December 8, 2017, the Build America Bureau 

closed a $162 million TIFIA loan and a $220 million RRIF loan to the Massachusetts Bay 

Transportation Authority (MBTA) for PTC system implementation.21 

PTC Mandate Progress 

As of June 30, 2018, the freight industry has made substantial progress in implementing 

PTC since the extension was passed in 2015. According to FRA, 99 percent of all radio towers 

have been installed; 93 percent of locomotives have been equipped and are operational; 66 

percent of route miles are in PTC operation; 97 percent of employee training is completed; and 

86 percent of track segments are completed. 22 

"Id 

19 Federal Railroad Administration Briefing with House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure on Positive 

Train Control (on file with Committee). 2o Id 

21 /d. 22 FTC IMPLEMENTATION STATUS BY FREIGHT AND PASSENGER RAIL, Fed. Railroad Admin., 

https:/ /www. fta.dot.gov /app/ptcsummary /. 

5 
xi 


Insert offset folio 6 here 33636.006

As of June 30, 2018, the passenger and commuter rail industry has made progress 

towards implementing PTC, with some entities making greater strides than others. Overall, 91 

percent of radio towers are installed; 73 percent oflocomotives are equipped and PTC operable; 

24 percent of route miles are in PTC operation; 77 percent of employees are trained; and 48 

percent of track segments are complete. 23 

Based on railroads' self-reporting data from their Quarterly PTC Progress Reports for 

Quarter 2 of2018, FRA currently considers nine railroads at risk of not meeting the statutory 

criteria required to qualify for an alternative schedule. FRA currently considers any railroad that 

installed less than 90 percent of its PTC system hardware as of June 30, 2018, to be at risk, as 

installation of all PTC system hardware is only an initial phase of implementing a PTC system 

and only one of the six statutory criteria required to qualify for an alternative schedule. 

The nine at-risk railroads are: New Mexico Rail Runner Express (Rio Metro), Capital 

Metropolitan Transportation Authority, New Jersey Transit, Altamont Corridor Express, 

Maryland Area Regional Commuter, Trinity Railway Express, South Florida Regional 

Transportation Authority, Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (Caltrain) and Central Florida 

Rail Corridor (SunRail). 

!d. 

6 
xii 


Insert offset folio 7 here 33636.007

WITNESS LIST 

The Honorable Ronald L. Batory 

Administrator 

Federal Railroad Administration 

The Honorable Robert Sumwalt 

Chairman 

National Transportation Safety Board 

Ms. Susan A. Fleming 

Director, Physical Infrastmcture Team 

Government Accountability Office 

Mr. Scot Naparstek 

Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer 

Amtrak 

The Honorable Edward Hamberger 

President and Chief Execntive Oflicer 

Association of American Railroads 

Mr. Jeffrey D. Knueppel, P.E. 

General Manager 

Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority 

On behalf of American Public Transportation Association 

Ms. Stacey Mortensen 

Executive Director 

Altamont Cotridor Express 

7 
(1) 

THE STATE OF POSITIVE TRAIN CONTROL 

IMPLEMENTATION IN THE UNITED STATES 

THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 13, 2018 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON RAILROADS, PIPELINES, AND

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS, 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:06 a.m. in room 

2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Jeff Denham (Chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Mr. DENHAM. The subcommittee will come to order. 

Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a recess at 

any time. We expect a very lengthy hearing today, but we also 

know that there are several other committees meeting, as well as 

floor votes today. 

Our hearing today focuses on the implementation of Positive 

Train Control, PTC, in the United States. It is an especially important hearing, as yesterday marked the 10th anniversary of the 

tragic Chatsworth accident. 

This important life-saving technology is one of the most complex 

safety mandates ever undertaken by the railroad industry. PTC is 

a radio- or GPS-based system designed to prevent train-to-train collisions, over speed derailments, incursions into work zones, and the 

movement of a train through a switch left in the wrong position. 

From its inception a decade ago, Congress and stakeholders anticipated that the PTC mandate would be a daunting undertaking. 

It has never been implemented on such a large scale, and has 

never required such a high level of interoperability. 

Since the 2008 mandate was enacted and the 2015 bipartisan extension was passed, freight, passenger, and commuter railroads 

have been working to implement PTC. We have seen a great deal 

of progress, from freight rails as well as commuter rails across the 

entire country, but we have still seen challenges. We have still seen 

accidents. We have had promises made to us, as a committee, that 

haven’t been met. 

And we held a hearing earlier this year. He and I have been very 

united on this topic. And we ask the entire industry, if there is 

something you need, let us know. If it is funding, if it is a technical 

rule, whatever the issue is, because we have got a very, very large 

country with very unique circumstances and different rails across 

the entire country in different positions, as far as implementation. 

We have consulted several times to ask each other what have the 

2 

rails come up with. Has anybody asked for extensions? Is anybody 

asking for money or grants? 

And so, as you will see in this committee hearing, I would expect 

the patience is growing thin on actual PTC implementation. That 

is why we called this, to hear from all of you. So it is a critical 

issue for our country, especially as we have continued to see some 

accidents, for a variety of different reasons. But most of which 

would be solved if we had PTC in place. 

With that, I yield to the ranking member, Mr. Capuano. 

Mr. CAPUANO. I agree with everything the chairman just said, 

100 percent. 

I also want to state that, from what I see, there has been a lot 

of progress made. So I want to be clear about that. From what— 

the way I look at it, there is a few people who are lagging behind, 

which actually, I think, proves the point that there is no reason to 

be lagging behind, because most everybody is doing their job. 

So I just want to be real clear: for those who are doing their job, 

thank you, I appreciate it. A long time coming, and it is finally 

happening. 

For those of you who are not, understand it is going to be very 

difficult to make an argument that for some reason everybody else 

could do it except you. It is going to be almost impossible, as far 

as I am concerned. 

And I do say again that when that time comes, there will be nobody to point a finger at any more. There will be no more bottom 

lines on whether it was worth the money to not do PTC and possibly risk lives or property. Those days are over. 

And again, most of you get it, and I want to be real clear. Because of that, I—we get upset on occasion, but I also want to be 

real clear. Most companies have done it. Most public entities have 

done it, or are on the way to doing it. The handful who are not, 

I am just saying very clearly, be careful, because I don’t think you 

are going to find very many, if any, open minds on this side of the 

table when you come to say, for some reason, every other person 

except us could get their job done, particularly at this late date. 

With that, I am going to yield back. 

Mr. DENHAM. I now recognize the full committee chairman, Mr. 

Shuster. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Thank you, Chairman Denham. Thanks for holding this hearing. And I just want to echo the concerns that the 

chairman and the ranking member have about PTC. 

I would like to point out, though, further, we are talking about 

who is doing, who is not doing. And I want to say I know my reports that I have seen is the freight rails are all in position to deploy, and it is the commuter rails and the other smaller entities out 

there that seem to be holding this up. 

And, as the chairman said, there have been concerns, we have 

reached out, asked what the needs are, and time and time again 

it has either been—not got a response back, or everything is OK. 

And, as I said, it is concerning when we, in 2015, we unanimously 

voted to extend it, we did it because we thought that everybody 

would step up their game and get to a point that we would see PTC 

being deployed. 

3 

So again, it is—as the ranking member said, it is not everybody. 

What I have seen, again—I will emphasize the freight rails seem 

to be doing what they are supposed to be doing, and need to move 

forward. And that interoperability is the piece that doesn’t seem to 

be there, that doesn’t—they can’t do what they need to do to fully 

implement the PTC. 

So again, this hearing is important. Safety is absolutely critical 

to this committee when it comes to all modes of transportation. So 

I look forward to hearing everybody’s testimony today. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Mr. DENHAM. I now recognize Mr. DeFazio for any statement he 

may have. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Thanks for holding this 

important hearing. 

Yes, I hope, like the speakers before me, to hear about how we 

are going to meet the statutory deadlines of 2018 and full utilization by 2020. 

You know, I am concerned at some of those at the rear of the 

pack. As Ranking Member Capuano mentioned, there is no feasible 

excuse that isn’t, you know, for this committee, or for the agency. 

I am concerned. Ranking Member Capuano, Congressman Cohen, 

and Congressman Cooper and I sent a letter to the FRA after they 

exempted the Music City Star a permanent exemption from PTC, 

you know, and I understand there is another railroad that is pending. I hope to hear from Administrator Batory on this. 

You know, Congress did not authorize exemptions to PTC. I find 

that nowhere in the law. And you know, this causes me concern 

that some will look at this, look at the exemption, the one granted 

and the one potentially in process, and say, ‘‘Well, there is our out, 

you know, we are way behind schedule here.’’ 

So, you know, this is not something that Congress anticipated. 

And, you know, I look forward to hearing how FRA might revise 

the process in the future. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you, Mr. DeFazio. 

I would like to welcome each of our witnesses here today. Our 

panel is comprised of the Honorable Ron Batory, Administrator of 

the Federal Railroad Administration, FRA; the Honorable Robert 

Sumwalt, Chairman, National Transportation Safety Board, NTSB; 

Susan Fleming, Director of Physical Infrastructure, Government 

Accountability Office; Scot Naparstek, executive vice president and 

COO of Amtrak; Ed Hamberger, president and CEO of the Association of American Railroads; Jeff Knueppel, general manager, 

Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority, on behalf of 

the American Public Transportation Association; and Stacey 

Mortensen, executive director of the San Joaquin Regional Rail 

Commission. 

I ask unanimous consent that our witnesses’ full statements be 

included in the record. 

Without objection, so ordered. 

Since your written statement has been made part of the record, 

the subcommittee would request that you limit your testimony to 

5 minutes. 

Mr. Batory, you are recognized. 

4 

TESTIMONY OF HON. RONALD L. BATORY, ADMINISTRATOR, 

FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION; HON. ROBERT L. 

SUMWALT III, CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION 

SAFETY BOARD; SUSAN A. FLEMING, DIRECTOR, PHYSICAL 

INFRASTRUCTURE, U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE; SCOT NAPARSTEK, CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER, AMTRAK; EDWARD R. HAMBERGER, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN RAILROADS; JEFFREY D. KNUEPPEL, P.E., GENERAL MANAGER, 

SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ASSOCIATION; AND STACEY MORTENSEN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, SAN JOAQUIN REGIONAL RAIL COMMISSION 

Mr. BATORY. Thank you, Chairman Denham, Chairman Shuster, 

Ranking Member Capuano, Ranking Member DeFazio, and members of the subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify 

today to discuss Positive Train Control, better known as PTC. 

I come to my position as Administrator of the Federal Railroad 

Administration with 45 years of experience in the railroad industry. Through my career I have continually focused on improving 

safety performance, and I bring this same commitment to the FRA. 

Secretary Chao and myself have made railroads’ implementation 

of PTC the top of FRA’s agenda. Forty-one railroads are required 

to implement PTC systems, and that includes all 7 Class I freight 

railroads, 30 commuter and intercity passenger railroads, including 

Amtrak, and 4 short line and terminal switching railroads. This 

technology is required to be implemented on approximately 58,000 

miles of the 140,000-mile rail network. 

While railroads are making progress, FRA expects that most railroads will need to request an alternative schedule to complete testing, obtain system certification, and meet interoperability requirements. 

This summer, for the first time in agency history, the FRA 

hosted three symposia for the to-be-compliant railroads. Each of 

the day-long sessions brought together railroad safety officials and 

FRA’s PTC experts to ensure that each railroad subject to the mandate is aware of its obligations and is equipped to meet the deadline. These meetings discussed industry questions and lessons 

learned, requirements for the December 31, 2018, deadline, along 

with best practices for testing and safety plans. 

Since April 2016, FRA has tracked individual railroads’ self-reporting implementation. Based on the railroads’ most recent reports, PTC systems are in operation on 66 percent of the freight 

railroads’ required route mileage. Passenger railroads have made 

less progress, with PTC systems in operation on 24 percent of what 

is required. 

The most recent data also showed a reduction in the number of 

railroads FRA considers to be at risk of not qualifying for an alternative schedule, from 12 railroads in April of 2018 to 9 in August 

of this year. FRA currently considers any railroad that has installed less than 90 percent of its system hardware as of June 30th 

to be most at risk of failing to qualify for an alternative schedule. 

It is important to note that the installation of all PTC system hardVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:59 Dec 18, 2018 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\115\RR\9-13-2~1\33636.TXT JEAN
5 

ware is only one of six criteria required to qualify for an alternative 

schedule to complete full PTC system implementation after December 31, 2018. 

The nine at-risk railroads are the New Mexico Rail Runner, 

CapMetro, New Jersey Transit, Altamont Corridor Express, MARC, 

Trinity Railway Express, Tri-Rail, Caltrain, and SunRail. FRA is in 

frequent communication and providing additional onsite technical 

assistance to further assist these railroads. 

Over the next several months FRA expects to receive and review 

requests for railroads’ alternative schedules beyond the December 

31, 2018, deadline. By law, FRA has 90 days to review and issue 

a decision to approve or deny the alternative schedule. FRA expects 

to receive many of the requests before the end of the year, and will 

review the extension request in January through March of 2019. If 

a railroad fails to qualify and receive FRA approval for an alternative schedule, FRA is authorized to assess monetary penalties. 

PTC is designed to provide important risk reduction protocols to 

enhance existing safety, but these systems come with significant 

costs. Since 2008, FRA has awarded $961 million in grant funding 

to support railroads’ implementation. More recently, on August 

24th of this year, FRA selected 28 PTC projects, including 13 commuter railroads, to receive $203 million under the Consolidated 

Rail Infrastructure and Safety Improvement grant program. Of the 

$203 million announced, $80 million in grants, or 39 percent, was 

announced for at-risk railroads. Since 2008, a total of $2.5 billion 

in grants and loans has been allocated to the railroads to assist 

with PTC implementation. 

In an effort to show FRA’s continued commitment to PTC implementation, we reissued a notice of funding opportunity for the remaining $46 million in grants. Similar to the previous issued 

NOFO, this is an expedited solicitation with a 30-day application 

period. Applications will be due October 12th. 

Looking forward to the rest of this year and into 2019, FRA will 

continue to support and facilitate railroads’ implementation of PTC 

by utilizing the tools afforded by Congress, and providing extensive 

technical assistance. 

I appreciate the committee’s support for our programs, and look 

forward to your safety-oriented questions. 

[Mr. Batory’s prepared statement follows:] 

f 

Prepared Statement of Hon. Ronald L. Batory, Administrator, Federal 

Railroad Administration 

Chairman Denham, Ranking Member Capuano, and members of the subcommittee: 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify today to discuss positive train control 

(PTC). I come to my position as Administrator of the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) with 45 years of experience in the railroad industry, rising to become 

the President and Chief Operating Officer of a significant freight rail carrier in the 

United States. Throughout my career, I have been focused on continually improving 

safety performance, and I bring this same commitment to my current position as 

Administrator of the FRA. 

As we approach critical deadlines for railroads’ implementation of PTC systems, 

myself, and the men and women that serve at FRA remain committed to working 

with the railroads and its supply industry to ensure the full implementation of this 

important rail-safety technology in a timely manner. 

6 

PTC MANDATE

Railroads’ implementation of PTC systems has been, and remains, at the top of 

our agenda. PTC systems represent the most fundamental change in rail safety 

technology since the introduction of Automatic Train Control in the 1920’s. As mandated by the Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (RSIA), each Class I railroad and 

entity providing regularly scheduled intercity or commuter rail passenger service 

must implement an FRA-certified PTC system on (1) its main lines over which 5 

million or more gross tons of annual traffic are transported if the main line carries 

poison-or toxic-by-inhalation hazardous materials, and (2) its main lines over which 

intercity or commuter rail passenger transportation is regularly provided. Under 

RSIA, railroads were originally required to complete implementation by December 

31, 2015. Approximately 2 months before that deadline, the House and Senate overwhelmingly passed, and the President signed, the Positive Train Control Enforcement and Implementation Act of 2015 (PTCEI Act), extending the deadline for full 

PTC system implementation to December 31, 2018. 

In addition, under the PTCEI Act, Congress permits a railroad to request FRA’s 

approval of an ‘‘alternative schedule’’ with a deadline extending beyond December 

31, 2018, but no later than December 31, 2020, for full PTC system implementation. 

The law requires FRA to approve a railroad’s alternative schedule with a deadline 

that is as soon as practicable, but not later than December 31, 2020, if a railroad 

submits a written request to FRA that demonstrates it has met the statutory criteria to qualify for such an alternative schedule. Currently, 41 railroads are required by statute to implement PTC systems: all 7 Class I freight railroads; 30 commuter and intercity passenger railroads, including the National Railroad Passenger 

Corporation (Amtrak); and 4 short line and terminal railroads. The technology is required to be implemented on approximately 58,000 route miles of the 140,000-mile 

railroad network. 

While railroads are making progress, FRA expects that most railroads will need 

to request an alternative schedule to complete testing, obtain PTC System Certification, meet the statutory interoperability requirements, and fully implement PTC 

systems on all main lines required to be governed by PTC systems. FRA continues 

to take a proactive approach to help railroads acquire, install, test, and fully implement certified PTC systems as soon as possible. 

At the direction of Secretary Elaine L. Chao, FRA senior leadership met individually with executives from each of the 41 railroads in January and February of this 

year. In May and June, we also held followup meetings with the 12 railroads identified as at risk, as of Quarter 1 of 2018, of not meeting the statutory criteria necessary to qualify for FRA’s approval of an alternative schedule. Railroads have generally been candid in detailing the challenges and obstacles confronting their properties. During the meetings, we sought to objectively evaluate each railroad’s PTC 

deployment status, and learn what remaining steps each railroad needs to take to 

meet the deadline or satisfy the statutory criteria necessary to qualify for an alternative schedule. 

During these meetings and throughout our conversations with the railroads, they 

commonly conveyed the following ongoing challenges: 

• There is a competitive yet limited number of PTC system vendors and suppliers. 

Unusually weighted demand and supply has constrained the timely serving of 

all 41 railroads and their tenant railroads; 

• As reliability and stability of PTC systems is still immature, railroads are experiencing significant technical issues with both PTC system hardware and PTC 

system software that often take considerable time to diagnose and resolve, impacting current operations; 

• Host railroads (totaling 36) noted that many tenant railroads (estimated at 

250+) that operate on main lines requiring PTC system implementation have 

made variable, and often unknown, progress equipping locomotives with operational PTC technology, while some tenant railroads report that their host railroads are not providing opportunity for testing. FRA is initiating efforts to synchronize the coordination among the host and tenant railroads; 

• Railroads have only recently begun testing PTC systems for interoperability; 

• Many commuter railroads stated that negotiating legal agreements with certain 

vendors and suppliers often took time to complete, given various insurance, liability, and State law issues; 

• Absence of consistent leadership at several railroads, regardless of leadership 

quality, weakened the ‘‘sense of urgency’’ and the focus on PTC system implementation at some entities subject to the statutory mandate; and 

• Railroads noted concern about FRA’s review and approval cycle, given the surge 

in submissions requiring FRA approval in 2018–2020. 

7 

By law, it is the railroads’ responsibility to implement PTC systems, but FRA is 

facilitating railroad and supplier collaboration to hasten, and urge, implementation. 

We have also met individually with PTC system component suppliers to learn more 

about their capacity to meet the high demand of railroads to achieve timely implementation. 

This summer FRA hosted three PTC symposia for the 41 railroads mandated to 

implement PTC systems. Each of the day-long sessions brought together railroad 

safety officials and FRA’s PTC experts to ensure that each and every railroad subject to the mandate is aware of its obligations and is equipped to meet the congressionally mandated deadline. The first symposium discussed industry questions and 

focused on requirements for the December 31, 2018, statutory deadline. 

The second focused on best practices for testing PTC systems on the general rail 

system, including field testing, revenue service demonstration (RSD), and interoperability testing. The third focused on lessons learned and best practices for PTC Safety Plans, which are required for host railroads to obtain PTC System Certification 

and achieve full system implementation. As FRA tracks railroads’ progress, additional symposia on PTC may be offered, as new challenges arise. 

PTC STATUS UPDATE

Since April 1, 2016, FRA has been closely tracking and displaying on its website 

individual railroads’ self-reported PTC system implementation status. FRA’s PTC 

Dashboard tracks railroads’ progress toward full implementation on a quarterly 

basis, including the number and percentage of locomotives equipped and PTC operable, track segments completed, radio towers installed, training completed, spectrum 

acquisition, route miles in RSD, whether the railroad has obtained PTC System Certification, route miles in PTC operation, and more recently, interoperability between 

host railroads and tenant railroads. In addition, FRA tracks, on a quarterly basis, 

the progress each railroad has made toward meeting the statutory criteria necessary 

to qualify for FRA’s approval of an alternative schedule. 

Based on railroads’ most recent Quarter 2 reports (with data current as of June 

30, 2018), PTC systems are in operation on 35,487 route miles, which is approximately 66 percent of the freight railroads’ route miles that are required to be governed by a PTC system. Passenger railroads have made less progress, with PTC systems in operation on 975 route miles, which is approximately 24 percent of the required route miles. Notably, PTC systems are being operated in RSD on an additional 1,103 freight railroad route miles and an additional 140 commuter railroad 

route miles, as of Quarter 2. Fifteen railroads report they have completed installation of all hardware necessary for PTC system implementation, and 12 other railroads have installed between 95 and 99 percent of the PTC system hardware identified in their PTC Implementation Plans, as of June 30, 2018. All but one railroad, 

whose PTC systems use spectrum, reported they have acquired sufficient spectrum. 

In addition, 14 railroads have initiated sufficient RSD or met substitute criteria, 

which is also one of the six statutory criteria needed to qualify for an alternative 

schedule. 

The most recent data also showed a reduction in the number of railroads at risk 

of not qualifying for an alternative schedule, from 12 railroads as of Quarter 1 of 

2018, to nine railroads as Quarter 2. FRA currently considers any railroad that had 

installed less than 90 percent of its PTC system hardware as of June 30, 2018, to 

be most at risk of failing to qualify for an alternative schedule. Installation of all 

PTC system hardware is only an initial phase of implementing a PTC system and 

only one of the six statutory criteria required to qualify for an alternative schedule 

to complete full PTC system implementation after December 31, 2018. The nine atrisk railroads are: New Mexico Rail Runner Express (Rio Metro), Capital Metropolitan Transportation Authority (CapMetro), New Jersey Transit (NJT), Altamont Corridor Express (ACE), Maryland Area Regional Commuter (MARC), Trinity Railway 

Express (TRE), South Florida Regional Transportation Authority (Tri-Rail), Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (Caltrain) and Central Florida Rail Corridor 

(SunRail). 

In addition to the letters of concern from April and June 2018, on August 24th, 

I sent letters to the nine railroads that FRA remains concerned are at risk of both 

missing the statutory implementation deadline, and failing to qualify for an alternative schedule. This assessment was based on railroads’ self-reported progress as 

of June 30, 2018 (Quarterly PTC Progress Reports for Quarter 2 of 2018). I also sent 

similar letters expressing concern to the relevant State departments of transportation and Governors. FRA is working closely with all 41 railroads subject to the 

PTC mandate; for the nine at-risk railroads, FRA is actively engaging in frequent 

communication and providing additional onsite technical assistance. Of course, all 

8 

railroads subject to the mandate must pay careful attention to the requirements for 

an alternative schedule if they will not achieve full PTC system implementation by 

December 31, 2018, and must continue vigilantly working toward prompt PTC system implementation. 

GRANT FUNDING AND FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE

PTC technology is designed to provide important safety improvements, but these 

systems come with significant costs, both in terms of immediate acquisition and increased operations and maintenance costs. Industry estimates PTC acquisition will 

exceed $14 billion, and maintenance will cost 10 to 20 percent of annual capital 

costs. Since 2008, FRA has awarded approximately $961 million in grant funding 

to support railroads’ implementation of PTC systems. FRA also supported the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) with its evaluation and selection of approximately $197 million in grant funding awarded to 17 commuter and intercity passenger railroads and State and local governments for installation of PTC systems, 

which were announced on May 31, 2017. More recently, on August 24, FRA selected 

28 PTC projects, including 13 commuter rail projects not usually eligible for FRA 

funding, to receive $203.7 million under the Fiscal Year 2018 Consolidated Rail Infrastructure and Safety Improvements (CRISI) grant program. Given that applications for this funding were due July 2, I would note that FRA worked tremendously 

hard to evaluate the applications and make selections. Our hard work allowed us 

to make the grant announcements 2 months after receipt of the applications. This 

process can typically take up to 6 months or longer to complete. 

Currently, FRA has two open funding opportunities that can further aid railroads, 

States, and other stakeholders with implementing PTC as well as other important 

safety and infrastructure needs: $318.4 million under the broader Fiscal Year 2018 

CRISI program, and $46.3 million for the remaining funding under the PTC-specific 

Fiscal Year 2018 CRISI program. And finally, FRA is evaluating applications submitted under the $65.2 million Fiscal Year 2017 CRISI and $4.8 million Fiscal Year 

2017 Restoration & Enhancements grant programs, and will be making selection announcements in the near future. 

In total, the sources of the approximately $1.16 billion in FRA and FTA grant 

funding for PTC are: 

• $475 million from FRA’s High-Speed Intercity Passenger Rail Grant Program; 

• $197 million in Section 3028 of the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act 

(FAST Act) funding; 

• $204 million in CRISI grant funding; 

• $0.3 million in a Special Transportation Circumstances Grant; 

• $142 million in annual capital grant funding to Amtrak; 

• $86 million from FRA’s Railroad Safety Technology Grant Program; 

• $52 million in American Recovery and Reinvestment Act grant funding to Amtrak; and 

• $2 million in Research and Development grants. 

Additionally, in May 2015, FRA issued a $967.1 million loan to Metropolitan 

Transportation Authority for Long Island Rail Road’s and Metro-North Railroad’s 

implementation of PTC systems. And on December 8, 2017, the Build America Bureau closed on a $162 million Transportation and Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act loan and a $220 million Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing loan to be issued to the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority for 

PTC system implementation. 

In sum, thanks to the funding provided by Congress, the Department has made 

available over $2.5 billion in grants and loans since 2008. This amounts to nearly 

20 percent of industry estimates for PTC implementation costs. 

ENFORCEMENT OF THE PTC IMPLEMENTATION MANDATE

FRA is committed to helping ensure that railroads implement PTC systems as 

safely and expeditiously as possible, in accordance with the congressional mandate. 

FRA is authorized to assess monetary civil penalties against any railroad that fails 

to implement a PTC system by the applicable statutory deadline (either December 

31, 2018, or, if a railroad has an approved alternative schedule, the applicable date 

not later than December 31, 2020). FRA’s civil penalty schedule recommends, as 

guidance, a $16,000 civil penalty for a failure to timely complete PTC implementation on a track segment where it is required. For any violation of a Federal rail safety statute, regulation, or order, however, the current statutory minimum civil penalty FRA may assess is $853, and the ordinary statutory maximum is $27,904. FRA 

may assess a civil penalty for each day the noncompliance continues, but FRA may 

elect to take enforcement action on a one-time basis or each month, quarter, year, 

9 

or other interval of time during which the noncompliance continues. FRA is currently considering all options, within the framework established by law, to determine what type of enforcement action will be most effective and appropriate under 

the circumstances. Our goal is to ensure any enforcement action compels a railroad 

to fully implement its PTC system as efficiently and safely as possible. 

Also, I would like to note that in June and July 2018, FRA initiated enforcement 

action against each of the 13 railroads that failed to complete one or more of the 

end-of-2017 hardware installation milestones and/or spectrum acquisition milestones 

the railroad established in its PTC Implementation Plan. Consistent with FRA’s 

commitment to ensuring railroads comply with the statutory mandate, including interim requirements, FRA’s Notice of Probable Violation to each of the 13 railroads 

proposed the maximum civil penalty for this type of interim violation—i.e., a onetime civil penalty of $27,904. 

Since this Administration took office, railroads have made significant progress toward installing and implementing PTC systems. From Quarter 1 of 2017 to Quarter 

2 of 2018, railroads increased the total amount of installed PTC system hardware 

from 77 percent to 97 percent. As of June 30, 2018, PTC systems are either in RSD 

or in operation on approximately 37,705 route miles (i.e., 65 percent) of the nearly 

58,000 route miles that are subject to the statutory mandate. 

Moving forward, FRA will continue to support and facilitate railroads’ implementation of PTC technology by utilizing the tools afforded by Congress and providing 

extensive technical assistance and guidance to railroads and suppliers. We remain 

vigilant in harnessing and leveraging all the personnel, financial, and other resources available to help expedite railroads’ implementation efforts. We appreciate 

the subcommittee’s support for our critical programs, and we welcome your continued partnership to advance rail safety and service. I look forward to your questions. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you. 

Mr. Sumwalt? 

Mr. SUMWALT. Good morning, Chairman Shuster, Chairman 

Denham, Ranking Member DeFazio, Ranking Member Capuano, 

and members of the subcommittee. 

As Chairman Denham indicated, yesterday marked the 10-year 

anniversary of the tragedy at Chatsworth. That accident killed 25 

people, injured over 100, many with life-altering injuries. And, of 

course, in the aftermath of that accident, Congress mandated PTC 

through the Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008. 

Now, here we are, 10 years later, and nearly 3 years after the 

original deadline mandated by Congress. And we still do not have 

PTC fully implemented in the United States. Is that acceptable? It 

is certainly not acceptable to the NTSB. 

Since Chatsworth, we have investigated 22 accidents that could 

have been prevented by PTC, and these accidents resulted in 29 

deaths, over 500 injuries, and property costs in excess of $190 million. 

The NTSB strongly urges swift implementation of the congressional PTC mandate. 

That said, it is important to note that even after that mandate 

is met, significant portions of the Nation’s rail network will not 

have PTC. According to reports submitted by the railroads to FRA, 

only about 40 percent of the Nation’s rail network will have PTC. 

And of significant concern as it relates to Amtrak, there are over 

1,400 miles of mainline track that Amtrak currently operates on 

that will not have PTC. And if Amtrak continues to operate on 

those segments, there will be a diminished level of safety for those 

passengers and train crews who are traveling through communities 

such as Topeka, Kansas; Grand Junction, Colorado; Portland, 

Maine; Memphis, Tennessee; New Orleans; St. Louis; and many 

others. 

10 

1 NTSB, 2017–2018 Most Wanted List (Washington, DC: NTSB, 2016). 

In other cases, under its regulations, the FRA has approved exemptions to the PTC requirement for other mainline tracks on 

which not only freight, but also intercity passenger and commuter 

railroads operate. Again, this means there will be a significant diminished level of safety for passengers traveling on those railroads. 

Earlier this year, an Amtrak passenger train collided with a 

standing CSX freight train in Cayce, South Carolina. An operational PTC system could have prevented that accident. This is the 

second accident that we have investigated involving a train being 

unexpectedly diverted onto a side track because of a switch being 

left in the wrong position in an area of track under signal suspension due to installation and testing of PTC. 

When I testified before this committee in February, in the aftermath of that Cayce accident, I told you about an urgent safety recommendation that we had issued that day which called on the FRA 

to order railroads to implement operational measures needed to ensure safety operation in areas where PTC is being installed and 

tested. 

Now, I want to point out that we only issue urgent safety recommendations when we determine that the course of action requires immediate attention to avoid imminent loss. And here we 

are, 7 months later, and the FRA has not issued such an order, and 

the recommendation is currently classified by the NTSB as ‘‘Open– 

Unacceptable Response.’’ And I think that the classification of that 

recommendation in an unacceptable status speaks for itself. We are 

concerned with the lack of action by the FRA. 

The NTSB is also concerned that 10 years after Chatsworth most 

railroads are still not ready. And let me spell that out: for every 

day that we go without PTC, we are at risk for another 

Chatsworth; another Bronx; another Amtrak in Philadelphia; another DuPont; another Cayce, South Carolina. Each of these were 

mass casualty events due to human error, accidents that could 

have been prevented by PTC. 

And I thank you for the opportunity to testify today. Thank you 

for holding this hearing. And I look forward to your questions. 

[Mr. Sumwalt’s prepared statement follows:] 

f 

Prepared Statement of Hon. Robert L. Sumwalt III, Chairman, National 

Transportation Safety Board 

Good morning, Chairman Denham, Ranking Member Capuano, and members of 

the subcommittee. Thank you for inviting the National Transportation Safety Board 

(NTSB) to testify before you today. 

The NTSB is an independent Federal agency charged by Congress with investigating every civil aviation accident and significant incidents in the United States, 

as well as significant accidents and incidents in other modes of transportation—railroad, highway, marine, and pipeline. We determine the probable cause of these accidents and other transportation events and issue safety recommendations aimed at 

preventing future accidents. In addition, we carry out special studies concerning 

transportation safety and coordinate the resources of the Federal Government and 

other organizations to assist victims and their family members who have been impacted by major transportation disasters. 

On November 14, 2016, we announced our Most Wanted List of Transportation 

Safety Improvements for 2017–2018.1 This list, based on safety issues we have identified in our investigations, highlights the 10 areas in transportation safety where 

11 

2 NTSB, Collision of Metrolink Train 111 With Union Pacific Train LOF65–12 Chatsworth, 

California September 12, 2008, Rpt. No. NTSB/RAR–10/01 (January 21, 2010). 3 Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008, Pub. L. No. 110–432, § 104 (October 16, 2008). 4 Positive Train Control Enforcement and Implementation Act of 2015, Pub. L. No. 114–73, 

§ 1302 (October 29, 2015). 

we believe improvements are most critical. One issue area on this cycle’s Most 

Wanted List is ‘‘Increase Implementation of Collision Avoidance Technologies,’’ 

which addresses the need for positive train control (PTC) to reduce accidents, prevent injuries, and save lives. 

THE STATE OF POSITIVE TRAIN CONTROL IMPLEMENTATION

Yesterday marked the 10-year anniversary of the tragic accident in Chatsworth, 

California, in which a Metrolink commuter train and a Union Pacific freight train 

collided head-on, killing 25 people and injuring 102 others.2 Our investigation concluded that the Metrolink engineer’s use of a personal electronic device to send text 

messages distracted him from his duties and that positive train control (PTC) could 

have prevented this accident. In the aftermath of that tragedy and a number of others that the NTSB investigated, Congress passed the Rail Safety Improvement Act 

of 2008 (RSIA), which required the implementation of a PTC system on each line 

over which intercity passenger or commuter service is operated or over which poison-or toxic-by-inhalation hazardous materials were transported, by December 31, 

2015.3 In October 2015, Congress extended this deadline to December 31, 2018, and 

included provisions for railroads to request an additional 24-month extension to December 31, 2020, if certain criteria are met.4

Now, 10 years later and nearly 3 years after the original deadline imposed by 

Congress, PTC is still not fully implemented in the United States. The NTSB 

strongly urges swift implementation of the congressional PTC mandate. However, 

it is important to note that even after that mandate is met, significant portions of 

the rail network will not have PTC. According to reports from railroads to the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), only about 40 percent of the rail network—or 

58,000 of 134,000 route miles—will have PTC. Significantly, Amtrak will have over 

1,400 miles of track it currently operates on that will not have PTC. If Amtrak continues to operate on these segments, there will be a diminished level of safety for 

passengers and train crews traveling communities such as Topeka, Kansas; Grand 

Junction, Colorado; Portland, Maine; Memphis, Tennessee; New Orleans; St. Louis; 

and many others. 

In other cases, under its regulations, the FRA has approved exceptions to the PTC 

requirement for other main line tracks on which not only freight, but also other 

intercity passenger and commuter railroads operate. Again, this means that there 

will a significantly decreased level of safety for those passengers and train crews 

that are traveling on those railroads. 

NTSB INVESTIGATIONS OF PTC-RELATED ACCIDENTS

Since the enactment of RSIA, there have been 22 accidents we have investigated 

or are currently investigating that could have been prevented by PTC. These accidents resulted in 29 deaths, over 500 injuries, and over $190 million in property 

damage. These include: 

• In September 2010, near Two Harbors, Minnesota, human error and fatigue 

contributed to the collision of two freight trains. Five crewmembers were injured. 

• In May 2011, in Hoboken, New Jersey, human error contributed to the collision 

of a train with the bumping post at the end of the track. 

• In June 2012, near Goodwell, Oklahoma, human inattentiveness contributed to 

the collision of two freight trains. Three crewmembers were killed. 

• In May 2013, near Chaffee, Missouri, inattentiveness and fatigue contributed 

to the collision of two freight trains. Two crewmembers were injured and a 

highway bridge collapsed. 

• In December 2013, in the Bronx, New York, fatigue contributed to the derailment of a passenger train. Four passengers were killed and 61 others were injured. 

• In May 2015, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, an Amtrak engineer’s acceleration 

to 106 miles per hour (mph) as he entered a curve with a 50 mph speed restriction, due to his loss of situational awareness, led to a derailment. Eight passengers were killed and 185 others were injured. 

Two accidents currently under investigation occurred in DuPont, Washington and 

Cayce, South Carolina. Each of these accidents happened on tracks that were unproVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:59 Dec 18, 2018 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 P:\HEARINGS\115\RR\9-13-2~1\33636.TXT JEAN
12 

5 NTSB, Preliminary Report, RRD18MR001 (January 4, 2018). 6 NTSB, Preliminary Report, RRD18MR003 (February 28, 2018). 7 Signal suspension means train control signals located alongside the track have been taken 

out of service, oftentimes for maintenance or system upgrades. When these signals are taken 

out of service, train movements are controlled by means such as absolute blocks or by track warrants. 8 NTSB, Collision of Two Union Pacific Railroad Freight Trains, Granger, Wyoming. Rpt. No. 

NTSB/RAB–17–10 (December 5, 2017). 

tected by PTC. While we are still investigating both, they are each a type of accident 

that a fully operational PTC system is designed to prevent—overspeeds and misaligned switches. 

Amtrak 501 Derailment—DuPont, Washington 

On the morning of December 18, 2017, on its first regular passenger service trip, 

Amtrak passenger train 501 derailed as it traversed a curve near DuPont, Washington. The lead locomotive, the power car, and two passenger railcars derailed from 

an overpass onto Interstate 5. At the time of the accident, 77 passengers, 5 Amtrak 

employees, and a technician from the railcar manufacturer, Talgo Incorporated, 

were on the train. Of these individuals, 3 passengers were killed and 62 passengers 

and crewmembers were injured. Eight individuals in highway vehicles were also injured. Our investigation is ongoing, but on January 4, 2018, we issued a preliminary 

report regarding this derailment.5

Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority (Sound Transit), a public transit 

agency in the State of Washington, owns the Point Defiance Bypass tracks where 

the derailment occurred. Sound Transit reported that the PTC system on this line 

was not operational at the time of the accident. The authorized track speed decreases from 79 mph to 30 mph as the track approaches the curve. According to the 

lead locomotive’s event data recorder, the final recorded speed of the locomotive was 

78 mph. In this accident, PTC would have notified the train engineer about the 

speed reduction for the curve, and if he did not take appropriate action to control 

the train’s speed, PTC would have applied the train brakes to maintain compliance 

with the speed restriction and to stop the train. 

Amtrak 91 Collision with CSX Train—Cayce, South Carolina 

In the early morning of February 4, 2018, an Amtrak passenger train unexpectedly entered a siding near Cayce, South Carolina, and collided with a stationary 

CSX freight train. Two of the crewmembers—the engineer and the conductor—were 

killed, and at least 92 passengers and crewmembers were transported to medical 

facilities. Our investigation is ongoing, but on February 28, 2018, we issued a preliminary report.6

At the time of the accident, a signal suspension was in place through the area, 

due to signal work being done, including upgrades to prepare for implementation 

of PTC. Trains were being directed through the area by a CSX dispatcher, who 

would issue warrants, or permissions, to use the main line.7 The crew of the CSX 

train had completed work in the area, moved the train to the siding, and released 

their authority to use the main line back to the dispatcher. However, the switch on 

the main line was left open to the siding and locked. The Amtrak train, traveling 

at 57 mph, was diverted into the siding from the main and struck the CSX train. 

This is the second accident that we are investigating involving a train being unexpectedly diverted onto a side track because of a switch left in the incorrect position 

in an area of track under ‘‘signal suspension’’ due to installation and testing of PTC. 

On December 5, 2017, we issued an accident brief regarding the collision of two 

Union Pacific Railroad freight trains that occurred on March 14, 2016, in Granger, 

Wyoming. One crewmember received minor injuries. We determined that the probable cause of the accident was that the employee-in-charge incorrectly used information from a conversation with the train dispatcher as authorization to send a train 

into the signal suspension territory. Contributing to the accident was the failure of 

a crewmember to check the switch position before authorizing the train to enter the 

signal suspension territory.8

In both the Granger and Cayce accidents, human decisionmaking and actions likely played key roles. Safe movement of the trains through the signal suspension depended on proper switch alignment, which, in turn, relied on error-free manual 

work. The risk of error was not safeguarded, either by technology or supervision. 

The reliance on error-free human performance for safe train movement creates a 

single point-of-failure given the current operating practices and regulations. We concluded that additional measures are needed, such as restricted speed, to ensure safe 

operations during signal suspensions, especially during the movement of passenger 

trains, due to the likelihood of harm to the traveling public. 

13 

9 NTSB, Safety Recommendation Report: Train Operation During Signal Suspension. Rec. No. 

R–18–005 (February 13, 2018). 

Therefore, on February 13, 2018, we issued an urgent safety recommendation to 

the FRA to issue an emergency order directing railroads to require that when signal 

suspensions are in effect and a switch has been reported relined for a main track, 

the next train or locomotive to pass the switch location must approach with a restricted speed. After verifying the switch position, the train crew would be required 

report to the dispatcher that the switch is correctly lined for the main track before 

trains would be permitted to operate at maximum-authorized speed.9 We only issue 

urgent recommendations when we determine that the course of action requires immediate attention to avoid imminent loss due to a similar accident. 

On April 23, 2018, the FRA published a notice of draft safety advisory in response 

to our urgent safety recommendation. The proposed safety advisory recommends 

that railroads adopt industry best safety practices regarding railroad operations 

under temporary signal suspensions. Because FRA’s proposal would not require 

adoption of such practices, as called for by our urgent safety recommendation, the 

NTSB has classified this urgent safety recommendation as ‘‘Open—Unacceptable 

Response.’’ Furthermore, it is noteworthy that FRA has not even published proposed 

industry best practices. We believe that the FRA must act now to prevent accidents 

like those in Granger or Cayce. 

On July 10 and 11, 2018, we held a 2-day investigative hearing to explore issues 

involved in the DuPont and Cayce accidents. The purpose of the hearing was to elicit additional factual information about the accidents as part of our ongoing investigations. The factors involved in these accidents are comprehensive and we are examining a multitude of aspects beyond PTC, including Amtrak operations on host 

railroads and safety management systems in passenger rail. 

CONCLUSION

The NTSB is gravely concerned that the majority of the Nation’s railroads, particularly passenger railroads, required to install PTC will not have fully operational 

systems by the December 31, 2018, deadline. I appreciate the committee holding another hearing this year on the importance of PTC, and I am here today to urge implementation of this lifesaving technology without further delay. For each day that 

goes by without PTC, we are at continued risk for another tragic accident. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today. I look forward to responding to your questions. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you, Mr. Sumwalt. 

Ms. Fleming, you are recognized. 

Ms. FLEMING. Chairmen Shuster and Denham, Ranking Members DeFazio and Capuano, and members of the committee, thank 

you for the opportunity to discuss railroads’ implementation and 

FRA’s oversight of PTC, one of the most promising technological 

advances in rail safety in decades. 

As you know, GAO has been closely tracking and reporting on 

railroads’ and FRA’s PTC efforts since 2010. Although railroads 

and FRA have made some progress in certain areas, it has been 

slow. And in light of the implementation and other challenges, we 

have consistently cautioned that some railroads may not meet required deadlines. 

We are now fast approaching the December 31, 2018, deadline 

for railroads to either fully implement PTC or seek an extension of 

up to 2 years. My testimony today focuses on two issues: the 

progress that railroads required to implement PTC have made, and 

FRA’s efforts to assist them; and how railroads and FRA plan to 

approach the December 2018 and 2020 deadlines. 

With respect to railroads’ progress, we found that many railroads 

remained in the early implementation stages, meaning equipment 

installation and initial field testing. Equipment installation presents a more positive picture. Half of railroads were still installing 

14 

equipment on trains and alongside tracks. However, nearly threequarters reported being more than 90 percent done. 

Progress varied more widely with respect to testing. All of the 

Class I freights and Amtrak had initiated field testing and entered 

the latter stage of advanced testing known as revenue service demonstration, or RSD. 

By contrast, 19 commuter railroads and 2 Class II and III freight 

railroads had initiated field testing, and only 8 commuter railroads 

and no Class II or III had initiated RSD. Initiating RSD is important for two reasons: first, it allows railroads to test trains operating PTC as part of their regular operations; second, unless commuter or Class II or III freights receive FRA approval to use substitute criteria, they must initiate RSD by year-end to qualify for 

an extension. 

In this regard, FRA’s recent clarification about substitute criteria 

may lessen concerns, at least in the near term, about the number 

of railroads that had yet to initiate RSD. In three symposia this 

summer, FRA officials explained that initiating field testing could 

potentially qualify as substitute criteria. Consistent with our recommendation, FRA also clarified other aspects of its planned approach for reviewing and granting extensions. Railroad representatives welcomed this information, though a few wish FRA had 

shared it much sooner. 

Turning to this year’s deadline, as of August, eight railroads anticipate reaching full implementation by December. The remaining 

32 said they plan to apply for an extension. To date, only one had 

done so. Sixteen said they intend to use substitute criteria. For 

those railroads that fail to meet either year-end requirement, FRA 

officials said that the levying of civil fines is a yet-to-be-made policy 

decision, and will take into account specific circumstances. 

Given that applying for an extension appears to be the general 

approach, rather than the exception, to the upcoming deadline, 

much work will need to be accomplished to achieve full PTC implementation in the final 2-year window. Many railroads will need to 

either initiate or complete field testing. To date, moving from field 

testing to RSD has taken railroads, on average, 2 years to complete. And about one-quarter of the railroads told us that they had 

encountered software bugs or other challenges related to the maturity of the system. 

Moreover, interoperability remains a great unknown. Almost all 

railroads implementing PTC share track with at least one other 

railroad, and therefore, must ensure their PTC systems operate 

with each other. This poses a particular challenge for Class I 

freight railroads, especially in dense areas, such as Chicago, where 

14 different railroads interoperate. 

While Class I’s are in the latter stages of implementation, they 

cannot begin interoperability testing until their tenant railroads 

fully implement PTC. In turn, FRA’s already substantial workload 

will increase. FRA has re-allocated some internal resources, and 

begun reviewing draft documents to help address the upcoming 

surge of anticipated submissions. 

One of the last documents railroads must submit is their safety 

plan. As of July, 34 railroads had yet to do so. FRA officials estimated that each safety plan would take 6 months to 1 year to reVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:59 Dec 18, 2018 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\115\RR\9-13-2~1\33636.TXT JEAN
15 

1 The Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008, Pub. L. No. 110–432, div. A, 112 Stat. 4848 

(2008). 2 Specifically, these 40 railroads are currently subject to the statutory mandate that requires 

the implementation of a PTC system on certain main lines. 3 Freight railroads are classified by operating revenues. As of 2017, Class I railroads are those carriers with annual operating revenues of $447.6 million or more. Class II railroads are 

carriers with annual operating revenues of less than $447.6 million but in excess of $35.8 million, and Class III railroads have annual carrier operating revenues of $35.8 million or less. 4 See GAO, Positive Train Control: Additional Authorities Could Benefit Implementation, 

GAO–13–720 (Washington, DC, Aug. 16, 2013). 5 See GAO, Positive Train Control: Additional Oversight Needed As Most Railroads Do Not 

Expect to Meet 2015 Implementation Deadline, GAO–15–739 (Washington, DC, Sept. 4, 2015). 6 The Positive Train Control Enforcement and Implementation Act of 2015, Pub. L. No. 114– 

73, § 1302, 129 Stat. 568, 576–582 (2015), codified at 49 U.S.C. § 20157. 

view. Prioritizing resources based on risk will continue to be key 

to FRA’s ability to manage its workload and oversight responsibilities. 

In conclusion, today, almost a decade after the tragic rail accident in Chatsworth, California, it remains an open question whether railroads and FRA are poised to complete the remaining work 

and overcome the ongoing challenges facing them to achieve full 

PTC implementation by 2020. 

Chairman, this concludes my statement, and I would be pleased 

to answer any questions you or members of the committee have. 

[Ms. Fleming’s prepared statement follows:] 

f 

Prepared Statement of Susan A. Fleming, Director, Physical Infrastructure, 

U.S. Government Accountability Office 

Chairman Denham, Ranking Member Capuano, and members of the subcommittee: 

Thank you for the opportunity to discuss our work in reviewing railroads’ and the 

Federal Railroad Administration’s (FRA) efforts to implement positive train control 

(PTC). In September 2008—10 years ago this month—a commuter train and freight 

train collided in the Chatsworth neighborhood of Los Angeles, California, resulting 

in 25 deaths and over 100 injuries. In the wake of this accident, legislation was enacted requiring certain railroads to implement PTC—a communications-based system designed to slow or stop a train that is not being operated safely.1 Forty railroads are required to implement PTC.2 These railroads include 28 commuter railroads and Amtrak, which collectively provide over 500 million passenger trips annually. Railroads that play a key role in our nation’s freight network must also implement PTC, including the 7 largest Class I and 4 Class II and III freight railroads.3

As we have previously reported, PTC implementation is a complex and lengthy 

process, which touches almost every part of major rail lines and almost every aspect 

of railroads’ train operations.4 Each implementing railroad must install more than 

20 major components that will ultimately communicate trains’ locations, movements, and speed, and then slow or stop a train that is not being operated safely. 

Full implementation of PTC involves a number of steps, including but not limited 

to: planning and system development, equipment installation, testing, system certification, and achieving interoperability. Since U.S. railroads often operate some or 

all of their trains as ‘‘tenants’’ on the track of another railroad, known as the ‘‘host,’’ 

interoperability is intended to enable trains that operate on the same track to be 

governed by the PTC system and to move seamlessly across track owned by different railroads. 

When PTC implementation was mandated in 2008, the deadline for railroads’ implementation was December 31, 2015. We reported in September 2015 that nearly 

all railroads did not expect to meet this deadline.5 In October 2015, Congress extended the deadline to December 31, 2018, and established criteria that would enable FRA, the agency responsible for overseeing PTC implementation, to grant railroads meeting certain requirements an alternative schedule up to year-end 2020.6

Throughout this statement we refer to the alternative schedule as the ‘‘extension.’’ 

My testimony today includes work conducted at the request of Chairman Denham 

and Ranking Member Capuano as well as Chairman Bill Shuster and Ranking 

Member Peter DeFazio of the House Committee on Transportation and InfrastrucVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:59 Dec 18, 2018 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 P:\HEARINGS\115\RR\9-13-2~1\33636.TXT JEAN
16 

7 GAO, Positive Train Control: Many Commuter Railroads Still Have Significant Additional 

Implementation Work and Opportunities Exist to Provide Federal Assistance, GAO–18–367T 

(Washington, DC, Mar. 1, 2018). 8 We sent the questionnaire to all 40 railroads that are currently required to install PTC and 

the one commuter railroad that was granted a mainline track exception in March 2018. In 

March 2018, we reported that 41 railroads were required to implement PTC. However, since 

then one commuter railroad received approval from FRA for a main line track exception, meaning it is no longer required to implement PTC. FRA can grant main line track exceptions under 

certain conditions, such as through limited operations. 49 C.F.R. § 236.1019(c). In this case, a 

commuter railroad reduced its regularly scheduled service by one train on 1 day of the week 

to 12 regularly scheduled one-way trains per day. 9 The Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008, Pub. L. No. 110–432, div. A, 122 Stat. 4848 

(2008). 10 The four types of PTC systems are the Interoperable Electronic Train Management System 

(I–ETMS), the Advanced Civil Speed Enforcement System, the Enhanced Automated Train Control (E–ATC), and the Incremental Train Control System (ITCS). 

ture. Specifically, my testimony discusses the efforts of FRA and railroads to implement PTC as the December 31, 2018, deadline approaches and since we last testified on PTC in March 2018.7 My statement today will address (1) railroads’ implementation progress and the steps that FRA has taken to assist them and (2) how 

railroads and FRA plan to approach PTC implementation to meet the December 

2018 and December 2020 deadlines. 

To describe railroads’ progress, we analyzed the most recent available quarterly 

PTC implementation reports that railroads submitted to FRA, reports that reflected 

the progress as of June 30, 2018. We analyzed the reports to determine the extent 

that each railroad has installed PTC hardware and initiated testing. Based on our 

review of these data for anomalies, outliers, or missing information and our previous 

assessment of such quarterly reports for our March 2018 testimony, we determined 

that these data were sufficiently reliable for our purposes of describing railroads’ 

progress in PTC implementation. To describe railroads’ and FRA’s progress and approaches, we interviewed representatives from 16 passenger and freight railroads, 

including the 12 railroads (11 commuters and 1 Class III) that FRA identified in 

June 2018 as at risk of not having implemented PTC or qualifying for an extension 

by December 31, 2018. 

The remaining 4 railroads we interviewed were: Amtrak; 2 Class I freight railroads, which were selected based on their relationships with tenant railroads and 

substantial progress toward PTC implementation; and a commuter railroad that received approval from FRA in March 2018 for an exception from PTC system implementation. To describe how railroads and FRA plan to approach PTC implementation for the December 2018 and 2020 deadlines, we sent 41 railroads a semi-structured questionnaire.8 The questions we asked were based on the data collection efforts from our March 2018 testimony. We analyzed railroads’ responses and summarized their plans and challenges into common categories. To determine the stage of 

PTC implementation railroads expected to reach by December 31, 2018, we considered railroads’ responses to our questionnaire, information provided in interviews, 

and documents submitted to FRA regarding railroads’ planned implementation approaches, among other information. To describe railroads’ progress and FRA’s actions to assist railroads, we interviewed the industry associations for commuter 

(American Public Transportation Association) and freight (Association of American 

Railroads) railroads, and two PTC vendors. We also reviewed applicable laws and 

FRA regulations, presentations, reports, and guidance and interviewed FRA officials. 

We conducted this performance audit from June 2018 to September 2018 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards 

require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our 

audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis 

for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. 

BACKGROUND

PTC systems are required by law to prevent certain types of accidents or incidents. In particular, a PTC system must be designed to prevent train-to-train collisions, derailments due to excessive speed, incursions into work zone limits, and the 

movement of a train through a switch left in the wrong position.9 While railroads 

may implement any PTC system that meets these requirements, the majority of the 

railroads are implementing one of four types of systems.10 PTC’s intended safety 

benefits can be fully achieved nationwide when all required railroads have successfully installed PTC components, tested that these components work together and the 

17 

11 See 49 U.S.C. § 20157. With certain exceptions, full implementation requires all controlling 

locomotives to be equipped with a fully operative and functioning onboard PTC apparatus, including the controlling locomotives for each host railroad and each tenant railroad operating on 

a PTC-equipped track segment. 49 C.F.R. § 236.1006. 12 The Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008 required that railroads submit an implementation plan by April 16, 2010. When the PTC implementation deadline was extended to 2018 

under the PTC Enforcement and Implementation Act of 2015, railroads were required to submit 

a revised implementation plan by January 27, 2016, to outline how and when each railroad 

plans to achieve full PTC implementation. 13 See GAO–18–367T and GAO–15–739. In this statement, we use the term locomotive generally to refer to any of the variety of vehicles, such as cab cars and electric multiple unit trains, 

that commuter railroads may need to equip. Wayside equipment includes items such as communication towers or poles, switch position monitors, wayside radios, wayside interface units, and 

base station radios. 14 To effectively monitor each railroad’s progress implementing PTC, FRA requires the submission of quarterly progress reports under its investigative authorities, See, e.g., 49 U.S.C. § §

20107, 20902, 20157(c)(2); 49 C.F.R. § 236.1009(h). In addition, each railroad is required to annually report to FRA on PTC implementation progress in areas such as spectrum acquisition, 

installation progress, and the total number of route miles where revenue service demonstration 

has been initiated or PTC is in operation. See 49 U.S.C. § 20157(c) (1); 49 C.F.R. §

236.1009(a)(5). 15 Results and data from RSD testing are also used to support the safety case outlined in 

each host railroads’ safety plan. 

systems function as designed, and are interoperable with other host and tenant railroads’ PTC systems that share track. Interoperability means the locomotives of any 

host railroad and tenant railroad operating over the same track segment will communicate with and respond to the PTC system, allowing uninterrupted movements 

over property boundaries.11 Interoperability is critical to PTC functioning properly 

given the complexity of the rail network in the United States. In much of the country, Class I railroads function as hosts for Amtrak and commuter railroads. For example, one of the seven major Class I railroads reports that 24 tenant railroads operate over its PTC-equipped tracks, including freight, Amtrak, and commuter railroads. A notable exception to this is the Northeast Corridor, which runs from Washington, DC, to Boston, Massachusetts, which Amtrak predominantly owns and over 

which 6 freight and 7 commuter railroads operate as tenants. 

PTC implementation involves multiple stages to achieve full implementation, including planning and system development, equipment installation and testing, system certification, and full deployment, including interoperability. Each railroad 

must develop an FRA-approved PTC implementation plan that includes project 

schedules and milestones for certain activities, such as equipment installation.12

The equipment installation stage involves many components, including communication systems; hardware on locomotives and along the side of the track (called ‘‘wayside equipment’’); and software in centralized office locations as well as onboard the 

train and along the track.13 Railroads are required to report quarterly and annually 

to FRA on the railroad’s PTC implementation status relative to the implementation 

plan.14 A railroad can also revise its implementation plan to reflect changes to the 

project, which then must be reviewed and approved by FRA. 

In addition, railroads must demonstrate that the PTC system is deployed safely 

and meets functional requirements through multiple stages of testing. Before initiating testing on the general rail system, railroads must submit a formal test request 

for FRA approval that includes, among other things, the specific test procedures, 

dates and locations for testing, and the effect the tests will have on current operations. The multiple stages of PTC testing include: 

• Laboratory testing: locomotive and wayside equipment testing in a lab environment to verify that individual components function as designed. 

• Field testing: includes several different tests of individual components and the 

overall system, such as testing of each locomotive to verify that it meets functional requirements and field integration testing—a key implementation milestone to verify that each PTC component is integrated and functioning safely 

as designed. 

• Revenue service demonstration (RSD): an advanced form of field testing in 

which the railroad operates PTC-equipped trains in regular service under specific conditions.15 RSD is intended to validate the performance of the PTC system as a whole and to test the system under normal, real-world operations. 

• Interoperability testing: host and tenant railroads that operate on the same 

track must work together to test interoperability to ensure each railroad can operate seamlessly across property boundaries. Almost all of the 40 railroads currently required to implement PTC must demonstrate interoperability with at 

least one other railroad’s PTC system. 

18 

16 49 C.F.R. § 236.1015. 17 GAO–18–367T. 18 PTC uses radio spectrum to communicate a train’s location, speed restrictions, and movements. Radio frequency spectrum is the medium for wireless communications and supports a 

vast array of commercial and governmental services. Commercial entities also use radio frequency spectrum to provide a variety of wireless services, including mobile voice and data. 19 49 U.S.C. § 20157(a)(3)(B). FRA defines a ‘‘territory’’ as an entire installation/track segment as identified in a railroad’s PTC implementation plan (e.g., a track segment, territory, subdivision, district, etc.). 

Using results from field and RSD testing, combined with other information, host 

railroads must then submit a safety plan to FRA for approval.16 We have previously 

reported that these safety plans are about 5,000 pages in length.17 Once FRA approves a safety plan, the railroad receives PTC system certification, which is required for full implementation, and is then authorized to operate the PTC system 

in revenue service. According to FRA officials, the FRA may impose conditions to 

the PTC safety plan approval as necessary to ensure safety, resulting in a conditional certification. 

Railroads may receive a maximum 2-year extension from FRA past the December 

31, 2018, deadline if they meet six criteria set forth in statute. Specifically, railroads 

must demonstrate, to the satisfaction of FRA, that they have: (1) installed all PTC 

system hardware consistent with the total amounts identified in the railroad’s implementation plan; (2) acquired all necessary spectrum consistent with the implementation plan;18 (3) completed required employee training; (4) included in a revised implementation plan an alternative schedule and sequence for implementing 

the PTC system as soon as practicable but no later than December 31, 2020; (5) certified to FRA that they will be in full compliance with PTC statutory requirements 

by the date provided in the alternative schedule and sequence; and (6) for Class I 

railroads and Amtrak, initiated RSD or implemented a PTC system on more than 

50 percent of the track they own or control that is required to have PTC. For commuter and Class II and III railroads, the sixth statutory criterion is to have either 

initiated RSD on at least one territory required to have operations governed by a 

PTC system or ‘‘met any other criteria established by the Secretary,’’ which FRA refers to as ‘‘substitute’’ criteria.19

FRA is responsible for overseeing railroads’ implementation of PTC, and the agency monitors progress and provides direct assistance to railroads implementing PTC. 

For example, FRA officials provide technical assistance to railroads, address questions, and review railroad-submitted documentation. FRA has a national PTC director, designated PTC specialists in the eight FRA regions, and a few additional engineers and test monitors responsible for overseeing technical and engineering aspects 

of implementation and reviewing railroad submissions and requests. In anticipation 

of the upcoming implementation deadline, in May 2017, FRA began to send notification letters to railroads it determined were at risk of both not meeting the December 

31, 2018, implementation deadline and not completing the requirements necessary 

to qualify for an extension. FRA identified ‘‘at-risk’’ railroads by comparing a railroad’s hardware installation status to the total hardware required for PTC implementation, according to the railroad’s implementation plan. FRA has increased the 

‘‘at-risk’’ threshold percentage over time as the deadline approaches. See table 1. 

Table 1: Installation Thresholds Used Over Time by the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) to Determine Railroads At-Risk for Missing Positive 

Train Control (PTC) Implementation Deadlines 

Date of railroad’s progress 

from quarterly reports used to 

determine whether at-risk 

Threshold of percent of hardware installed relative to 

railroad’s implementation 

plan—below which railroads 

considered at-risk 

Date of FRA 

at-risk letters 

sent to railroads 

Number of atrisk railroads 

identified by 

FRA 

December 31, 2016 50 May 2017 17 

December 31, 2017 80 April 2018 15 

March 31, 2018 85 June 2018 12 

June 30, 2018 90 August 2018 9 

Source: GAO presentation of Federal Railroad Administration information. GAO–18–692T. 

19 

20 49 U.S.C. § 20157(e). 21 GAO–18–367T. 22 As of June 30, 2018, seven railroads reported that they were not required to install wayside equipment because either their hosts were responsible for installation of wayside equipment, or the PTC system being installed did not require it. We did not include these railroads 

when we analyzed railroads’ progress in wayside equipment installation. 23 GAO–13–720 and GAO–15–739. 24 See GAO–18–367T. We determined a railroad to have initiated testing if it met one of the 

following criteria: (1) at least one track segment reported as ‘‘testing;’’ (2) at least one track segment reported as ‘‘operational/complete;’’ or (3) at least 1 route mile reported as in testing. Accordingly, ‘‘testing’’ in this context includes a range of testing activities from laboratory testing 

Continued 

FRA has additional oversight tools, which include use of its general civil penalty 

enforcement authority for failure to meet certain statutory PTC requirements.20

FRA has used this authority in 2017 and 2018 to assess civil penalties against railroads that failed to comply with the equipment installation milestones, the spectrum acquisition milestones, or both, that the railroads had established in their implementation plans for the end of 2016 and 2017. 

As part of our body of work on PTC, we found that railroads face numerous PTC 

implementation challenges and made recommendations to FRA to improve its oversight of implementation. Specifically, in 2013 and 2015 we found that many railroads were struggling to make progress due to a number of complex and interrelated challenges, such as developing system components and identifying and correcting issues discovered during testing. Most recently, we found in March 2018 that 

FRA had not systematically communicated information or used a risk-based approach to help railroads prepare for the 2018 deadline or to qualify for an extension.21 We also found that many railroads were concerned about FRA’s ability to review submitted documentation in a timely manner, particularly given the length of 

some required documentation such as safety plans and FRA’s limited resources for 

document review. In March 2018, we recommended FRA identify and adopt a method for systematically communicating information to railroads and use a risk-based 

approach to prioritize its resources and workload. FRA agreed with our recommendations. 

MANY RAILROADS REMAIN IN EARLY STAGES OF PTC IMPLEMENTATION AND FRA HAS

CLARIFIED EXTENSION REQUIREMENTS

Railroads Continue to Install and to Test PTC Systems, and Report Previously 

Identified Implementation Challenges 

As of June 30, 2018, many railroads reported that they remain in the equipment 

installation and field-testing stages, which are early stages of PTC implementation. 

However, since we last testified in March 2018, railroads have made progress on 

equipment installation. Based on our analysis of the 40 railroads’ reported status 

as of June 30, 2018, about half of the railroads have completed equipment installation, and many others are nearing completion of this stage. Specifically, three-quarters of the 40 railroads reported being more than 90 percent complete with locomotive equipment installation. Similarly, nearly three-quarters of railroads that 

must install wayside equipment reported being more than 90 percent complete.22

The remaining one-quarter of railroads are among those designated by FRA as atrisk of both not meeting the end of 2018 implementation deadline and not completing the requirements necessary to qualify for an extension. Specifically, in August 2018, FRA identified 9 railroads—all commuter railroads—as at-risk, fewer 

than the 12 railroads FRA had previously designated as at risk in its June 2018 

letters to railroads. 

Since we last testified, most commuter railroads reported slow progress with testing, especially with RSD, while Class I railroads and Amtrak have reached later 

stages of testing. Notably, all 7 Class I freight railroads and Amtrak reported having initiated field testing and entering RSD as of June 30, 2018. We reported in 

2013 and 2015 that Class I railroads and Amtrak have been conducting PTC implementation activities for longer than commuter railroads, which has likely factored 

into their advanced progress.23 However, commuter railroads and Class II/III railroads have progressed more slowly. For example: 

• Laboratory and initial field testing: 19 of 28 commuter railroads reported having initiated this testing as of June 30, 2018, 6 more commuter railroads than 

the 13 we previously reported as having initiated field testing as of September 

30, 2017.24 Additionally, 2 of 4 Class II/III railroads reported having initiated 

testing as of June 30, 2018. 

20 

to on-track field integration testing. Additionally, because field testing is a prerequisite for RSD, 

these counts include some railroads that may have also initiated RSD. 25 GAO–15–739. 26 GAO–18–367T. 27 FRA has 90 days to approve a railroad’s alternative schedule and sequence plan and provide notification to the railroad of its decision. See 49 U.S.C. § 20157(a)(3)(C); 49 C.F.R. §

236.1011(a), (c). Within 45 days of receiving notification of a railroad’s alternative schedule and 

sequence plans, FRA must provide to the railroad notification of any deficiencies that would prevent FRA approval and provide an opportunity to correct the deficiencies. 28 FRA officials noted that each application for substitute criteria is different, with different 

circumstances, and that applications are evaluated individually on a case-by-case basis by FRA. 

• RSD testing: 8 of 28 commuter railroads reported initiating RSD testing as of 

June 30, 2018, 2 more commuter railroads than the 6 we previously reported 

as having entered RSD testing as of September 30, 2017. No Class II/III railroads reported having initiated RSD. As noted earlier, unless a commuter or 

Class II/III railroad receives approval for using substitute criteria, the railroad 

must initiate RSD, a final stage of PTC testing, on at least one territory by December 31, 2018, to qualify for an extension. 

Railroad representatives reported that they continue to face many of the same 

challenges we have previously identified. For example, in response to our questionnaire to all 40 railroads implementing PTC, 14 reported challenges with PTC vendors and contractors, which we originally reported on in 2015. One railroad noted 

that, because its contractor manages PTC projects across the country with the same 

deadline and requirements, it can be difficult for all railroads to get the resources 

they need from their contractor. We previously reported that there are a limited 

number of vendors available to design PTC systems, provide software and hardware, 

and conduct testing. For example, we reported in 2015 that, according to railroad 

industry representatives, there were two vendors for the onboard train management 

computer and three vendors for the wayside equipment.25 Likewise, we previously 

reported that railroads face software challenges, and noted that railroads had concerns with the number of defects identified during software testing, since these take 

time to address. In response to our questionnaire, 11 railroads reported encountering challenges related to maturity of the PTC software systems, such as working 

through software bugs or defects during testing. 

FRA Has Recently Clarified Extension Requirements 

In June, July, and August 2018, FRA held three PTC symposiums that were attended by representatives from all 40 railroads and that focused on the extension 

process and substitute criteria, PTC testing, and safety plans, respectively. FRA’s 

June 2018 symposium covered information consistent with our March 2018 recommendation that the agency adopt a method for systematically communicating information related to the requirements and process for an extension to railroads.26

Specifically, FRA presented information on the procedures for requesting and obtaining FRA’s approval for an extension to implement PTC beyond the December 

2018 deadline including FRA’s review process.27 FRA also clarified that for railroads 

eligible to use substitute criteria, initiating field testing was one approach that 

could potentially qualify as substitute criteria, rather than initiating RSD.28

Representatives we interviewed from the railroads that participated in the symposiums found them to be helpful and some railroads reported that the information 

presented led them to adjust their approach to meeting the December 2018 deadline. For example, one railroad representative we spoke to said that until the symposium, he was unaware that using field testing as substitute criteria was a potential option. Some railroads we met with also told us they are re-evaluating what 

activities and documentation need to be revised and submitted to FRA before the 

December 2018 deadline based on the information presented at the symposiums. For 

example, representatives from one railroad we met with said that FRA officials encouraged them to update their PTC implementation plan right away with current 

equipment installation totals, to ensure consistency across all required documentation by the end of 2018. A couple of railroads noted that the information presented 

at the symposiums clarified many questions and would have been beneficial to know 

a year or two earlier in the implementation process. 

In addition, in recent months FRA has continued to provide assistance to railroads and has taken a series of steps to better prepare railroads for the 2018 deadline. These steps include meeting regularly with individual railroads and developing 

approaches intended to help many railroads meet the requirements necessary for a 

deadline extension. For example, representatives from one commuter railroad said 

agency officials have been willing to share lessons learned, clarify requirements, and 

review draft documentation to provide informal feedback. 

21 

29 According to FRA officials, tenant-only railroads are not required to apply for an extension 

but are covered under extensions applied for and granted to their host railroad(s). Therefore, 

we considered tenant railroads that told us that their hosts would be applying for an extension 

on their behalf as part of the 32 railroads cited here. This total includes two total tenant railroads that told us that they would require an extension because one or more of their hosts would 

not reach full implementation. 30 This includes some tenant railroads that are included in their hosts’ conditionally—certified safety plans and that have achieved, or expect to achieve, full interoperability with those 

host(s). 31 As previously mentioned, only commuter and Class II and III railroads may apply for substitute criteria. According to publicly available documents, as of September 2018, 6 railroads had 

submitted substitute criteria applications to FRA for approval, and FRA had approved 5. 

RAILROADS AND FRA ARE WORKING TOWARD EXTENSIONS, LEAVING SUBSTANTIAL WORK

TO BE COMPLETED BEYOND 2018

Most Railroads Anticipate Needing an Extension, and Many Plan to Start 

RSD Testing Beyond 2018 

More than three-quarters of railroads (32 of 40) reported to us that they plan to 

apply for an extension.29 However, FRA officials noted that with the exception of 

possibly one or two railroads, they anticipate that all railroads will likely need an 

extension. As of September 2018, most railroads have not submitted their request 

for an extension. A railroad must demonstrate that it has met all of the criteria to 

qualify before it may formally request an extension, and as previously discussed, 

many railroads remain in the early stages of PTC implementation. Of the eight railroads that anticipate reaching full implementation by December 31, 2018, five have 

conditionally certified safety plans; one has submitted its safety plan for review; one 

plans to submit its safety plan to FRA in fall 2018 for certification; and one did not 

specify when it would submit its safety plan for certification.30

Of the 32 railroads that intend to apply for an extension, half reported that they 

plan to use substitute criteria to qualify, including 12 commuter and 4 Class II and 

III railroads.31 Moreover, three-quarters of the commuter and Class II and III railroads that plan to use substitute criteria (12 of 16) intend to apply to use their initiation of field testing or lab testing as substitute criteria. Figure 1 depicts the stage 

of PTC implementation railroads at least expect to reach by December 31, 2018, to 

be in compliance, based on railroads’ responses to our July August 2018 questionnaire. 

Figure 1: Number of Railroads Expected in Each Positive Train Control (PTC) 

Implementation Stage by December 31, 2018 

Note: This graphic is based on railroads’ self-reported expectations and approaches 

to be in compliance as of December 31, 2018. Railroads may make more or less 

progress than expected. For tenant-only railroads—railroads that only run on 

hosted track—we considered both the tenant and the host railroads’ reported expectations, including for extensions, which, according to FRA, are generally applied for and granted to host railroads but which also cover tenants. 

a Railroads that were granted a temporary mainline track exception may remain in 

the installation stage. FRA can grant mainline exceptions under certain conditions, such as through limited operations. 49 C.F.R. § 236.1019(c). 

Although FRA has recently made clear that it is authorized to grant extensions 

based on initiating field testing or other FRA-approved substitute criteria, this approach defers time-intensive RSD testing into 2019 and beyond. In March 2018, we 

testified FRA officials told us that moving from the start of field testing to the start 


GAO-1-rail.eps
22 

32 GAO–18–367T. 33 FRA approved the railroad’s revised PTC implementation plan and alternative schedule 

and sequence on September 5, 2018. 34 FRA officials noted that FRA’s decision is based on whether the railroad has met the statutory criteria for an alternative schedule, and that if the requesting railroad meets all applicable 

statutory criteria, FRA must approve the alternative schedule. 49 U.S.C. § 20157(a)(3)(C). According to FRA officials, while FRA’s decision is pending, the railroad is considered in compliance with PTC requirements and FRA will not assess civil penalties. 

of RSD can take between 1 and 3 years, and has averaged about 2 years for those 

railroads that have completed that stage. We also testified that FRA officials believe 

that most railroads underestimate the amount of time needed for testing.32 FRA officials told us that they do not consider railroads that are approved for an extension 

under substitute criteria to be necessarily at a higher risk of not completing PTC 

implementation by 2020. However, in light of these time estimates and the unknown challenges that railroads may face during testing, railroads that are in the 

early field-testing stage moving into 2019 could face challenges completing PTC implementation by the extended December 2020 deadline. 

Railroads further behind in PTC implementation may need to apply for an extension due to factors such as compressed implementation schedules, as well as the 

time needed for FRA approvals. For example, representatives from one commuter 

railroad said they hope to reach RSD before the December 31, 2018, deadline, but 

that it would be difficult to meet the extension requirements, apply for, and receive 

an extension given the volume of paperwork FRA will be receiving at the end of the 

year. Instead, the railroad plans to submit an extension request using substitute criteria consisting of field testing in order to be in compliance at the end of the year. 

Such an approach involves first applying for and receiving approval for substitute 

criteria and then formally requesting an extension and submitting supporting documentation to FRA before the end of the year. Entering RSD prior to the deadline 

could be difficult given that FRA officials told us they have advised railroads to 

allow at least a month for FRA’s review of test requests, which must be approved 

prior to initiating field testing and RSD. 

Additionally, for some railroads further along in PTC implementation, particularly 

Class I freight railroads, interoperability is a key remaining hurdle for full implementation by the end of 2018, and railroads expect this challenge to persist in the 

future. The two Class I railroads we interviewed noted that ensuring all tenant railroads are PTC-equipped, tested, and interoperable is a primary reason the railroads 

plan to request an extension. One of these host railroads also reported that it has 

little ability to influence its tenants’ progress with PTC implementation. Across all 

40 railroads, 8 reported current or anticipated challenges working with tenant or 

host railroads, or both, to plan and conduct testing to ensure interoperability. Moreover, given that few railroads have reached the interoperability testing stage, the 

challenges railroads may face in this stage remain unclear. For example, some railroads we interviewed noted it is unknown how much time and effort will be required to work through interoperability issues during testing to ensure the system’s 

reliability. One railroad association stated that interoperability is, and will continue 

to be, a substantial challenge for metropolitan areas with dense and complex rail 

networks with several host-tenant relationships. For example, according to one commuter railroad, 14 different freight and commuter railroads will need to interoperate in the Chicago area. 

FRA’s Substantial Workload Remains a Concern 

FRA’s already substantial workload is expected to increase as railroads continue 

to submit documentation necessary for extensions and continue PTC implementation activities. FRA is focused on ensuring railroads are in compliance through the 

December 2018 deadline—whether via an extension or by completing implementation. While FRA officials report that they anticipate almost all railroads will likely 

request an extension, only one—a Class I railroad—had submitted an application 

for an extension as of early September 2018.33 FRA will need to review and approve 

all related documentation associated with each extension request and make a determination within 90 days, meaning if a railroad were to submit its extension request 

on December 31, 2018, FRA would have until the end of March 2019 to approve or 

deny the railroad’s extension request.34 In addition to extension requests and supporting documentation, many railroads will also be submitting to FRA: requests for 

substitute criteria, test requests to initiate field testing or RSD, revisions to PTC 

implementation plans, and PTC safety plans. 

To help manage the forthcoming influx of documentation, FRA officials have offered to review draft documentation, such as substitute criteria requests and test 

requests, and have advised railroads to take FRA’s review times into account prior 

23 

35 GAO–18–367T. 36 FRA officials noted that the schedule of civil penalties is provided for in governing regulations. See 49 C.F.R. pt. 236, App. A. 

to submitting required documentation. FRA officials told us that in trying to manage their workload, they initially told railroads they did not have time to review 

draft submittals. However, they found that taking the time to conduct draft reviews 

ultimately led to higher quality formal submittals and accelerated the overall review 

process. In addition, FRA officials said that their goal is to not delay any railroad 

that is ready to move into testing, and that they advised railroads to build 30–45 

days for test request reviews into their project schedules. 

Despite these efforts, railroads remain concerned about the agency’s ability to 

manage the PTC workload in the coming months and beyond 2018. For example, 

9 of the 40 railroads identified FRA’s resources and review times as a challenge 

leading up to the December 2018 deadline. Based on similar concerns, in March 

2018, we recommended FRA develop an approach to prioritize the allocation of resources to address areas of greatest risk as railroads work to complete PTC implementation.35 FRA has acknowledged the railroads’ concern given the surge of submissions requiring FRA approval in 2018 and has reported the agency is reallocating existing expertise and expanding the PTC workforce through training, expanding contracts with existing support contractors, and initiating one additional 

contract to provide technical support. For example, FRA officials told us that they 

reallocated resources to shift PTC Specialists’ responsibilities to focus exclusively on 

testing-related activities because their involvement is critical for the testing stage. 

Although FRA has taken steps to provide key extension information to railroads 

and help ensure railroads’ compliance with PTC deadlines, uncertainty remains, 

particularly in regard to FRA’s enforcement strategy if railroads are noncompliant 

with the statute, such as if railroads were to fail to apply for an extension by the 

deadline. Representatives from all railroads implementing PTC we met with told us 

that FRA’s planned enforcement approach for any railroad that fails to meet the requirements for an extension beyond 2018 is unclear. FRA officials told us they have 

shared the range of applicable civil penalties with railroads for years,36 but that any 

policy decisions about how potential fines will be levied for noncompliant railroads 

is a policy decision that has not yet been made. In addition, it is also unclear how 

the agency would approach enforcement for railroads that have a host or tenant operating on their tracks that has not completed implementation or met the requirements necessary for an extension. FRA officials said that the goal of enforcement 

is to help bring all railroads into compliance and that they would have to look at 

the specific circumstances for any host-tenant issues before assessing a fine. 

In conclusion, almost all railroads will likely request an extension beyond 2018, 

which will require FRA approval and, for many railroads, substitute criteria requests that may result in approximately a third of railroads remaining in the early 

stages of PTC implementation at the start of 2019. However, given that almost no 

railroads have submitted extension requests, it is unlikely we will know how many 

railroads will be granted an extension by the December 31, 2018, deadline. Although 

FRA has reported taking some actions in response to our March 2018 recommendation that they better prioritize resources, FRA resources and review times remain 

a significant concern. These issues, combined with the ongoing implementation, testing, and interoperability challenges that a number of railroads reported to us, raise 

questions as to the extent FRA and the railroad industry are poised for full PTC 

implementation by December 31, 2020. 

Chairman Denham, Ranking Member Capuano, and members of the subcommittee, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be pleased to respond to 

any questions that you may have at this time. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you. 

Mr. Naparstek? 

Mr. NAPARSTEK. Good morning. I wish to thank Chairman 

Denham and Ranking Member Capuano for hosting this important 

discussion on Positive Train Control. I am Scot Naparstek, and I 

am Amtrak’s chief operating officer. 

I joined Amtrak in 2012, and currently oversee the 17,000 hardworking employees of Amtrak’s operating departments. Our workforce does a great job, and I am proud to represent them here 

today. 

24 

At this moment, Hurricane Florence is bearing down on the east 

coast. And for the safety of our customers and our employees, we 

have adjusted our service and are making all necessary preparations to safeguard them and our infrastructure as much as possible 

from the impacts of this storm. 

Today I will provide an update on PTC, including its operation 

on Amtrak-owned infrastructure, on other hosts’ infrastructure, 

and our tenants’ PTC operations on our infrastructure. 

First, let me discuss our most straightforward scenario: the Amtrak trains operating over Amtrak infrastructure. In this case, Amtrak plans to be fully PTC ready and compliant by the end of this 

year. We have developed a detailed plan for every portion of our 

network, and we are executing an aggressive, yet realistic plan 

which will enable the remaining one-third of our route-miles to be 

complete by December 31st. 

Second, I would like to discuss those places where Amtrak is a 

tenant on other hosts’ infrastructure, and in fact, 72 percent of our 

train miles are over tracks owned and maintained by other railroads. For those tracks we are cooperating with our freight and 

commuter host railroads as they work to complete PTC installations. 

We are currently interoperable with five hosts, and we anticipate 

several more before the deadline, although this is dependent on 

host readiness. In places where the host’s PTC system is not anticipated to be ready for service by year’s end, and if they have accomplished specific criteria, they will be able to apply for an alternative 

schedule. We expect this on 37 segments across our network, including all the portions where PTC is mandated by law, but not 

ready by the deadline. 

Additionally, the FRA permits railroads to seek Mainline Track 

Exclusion Addendums if the operation meets certain criteria. Consistent with our safety management system methodology, we have 

been conducting detailed risk assessments to enable us to develop 

risk mitigation measures to address those areas without a functional PTC system. 

While this risk analysis process and mitigation plan development 

is still underway, let me be clear that Amtrak’s goal is to continue 

to operate all of our services over all of our current routes come 

January 1, 2019. Exactly how we accomplish this will vary across 

our network, based on the specifics of each route. But I want to assure the committee that, at this time, we believe we will have 

strategies in place that will permit continued operation until PTC 

or PTC equivalency is achieved everywhere. 

Third, there are several freight and commuter railroads that operate over Amtrak’s infrastructure. For those railroads who may 

require an FRA extension, Amtrak will work collaboratively with 

the FRA and each railroad on a case-by-case basis, ensuring their 

continued safe operations. 

Amtrak’s goal is for all our tenants to have operational PTC as 

soon as possible. But we are also mindful of the impacts that any 

disruption of commuter service may have, and the potential resulting safety consequences. Thus, Amtrak is working with tenants 

who believe they may be at risk, and the FRA to explore, through 

25 

our SMS process, how risk mitigation strategies could be applied 

in such situations until they are fully operable. 

Amtrak has worked for years to be ready for the upcoming PTC 

deadline. When 2019 arrives, we will have our track, computer, 

training, and locomotive PTC work complete, we will be operating 

PTC across all the tracks we control, and across much of the host 

railroad network. 

On January 1, 2019, we anticipate that 90 percent of our trains 

will operate with PTC protection along some or all of their routes. 

We expect the FRA will have granted the remaining portions an alternative schedule or an exemption. Given the difficulty of completing testing with so many freight and commuter partners, and 

the potential for technical issues to arise during testing, Amtrak 

will be required to submit an application to the FRA for an alternative schedule to enable us to continue operating while we finalize 

testing of our system and the systems of our hosts and tenants. 

This alternative schedule is required due to the FRA’s interpretation of the law that full implementation status cannot be achieved 

until all non-Amtrak trains operating on Amtrak’s PTC-equipped 

lines are also PTC-compliant. 

As previously mentioned, we will implement mitigation measures 

for all those areas which will not have operational PTC, due to a 

host’s alternative schedule of PTC exemption. 

PTC is not a silver bullet, and railroads alone cannot solve all 

the safety issues that face us, such as grade crossing and trespasser accidents, which require efforts from local, State, and Federal stakeholders. Still, we are confident that achieving PTC or 

PTC-equivalent levels of safety across our network will be a major 

safety achievement. In fact, it is our goal to be the safest passenger 

railroad in North America. 

Thank you for the opportunity to appear here before you today, 

and I welcome questions. 

[Mr. Naparstek’s prepared statement follows:] f 

Prepared Statement of Scot Naparstek, Chief Operating Officer, Amtrak 

INTRODUCTION

Good morning. I wish to thank Chairman Denham and Ranking Member Capuano 

for hosting this important discussion on Positive Train Control (PTC). My name is 

Scot Naparstek, and I am Amtrak’s Chief Operating Officer. I joined Amtrak in 

2012, and currently oversee Amtrak’s operations, including the Transportation, Engineering, and Mechanical departments, and their nearly 17,000 hardworking operating employees. Our workforce does a great job and I am proud to represent them 

here today, on behalf of our President and Chief Executive Officer Richard Anderson, who previously testified before this subcommittee in February of this year. 

Amtrak is committed to running the safest intercity passenger rail system we can 

for our customers and employees. PTC represents an essential next step for the rail 

industry to improve safety of train operations, and it will make the entire U.S. rail 

network safer for passengers, railroad employees, and the cities and towns through 

which the national rail network traverses. Thus, we have developed a policy of network-wide PTC or PTC-equivalency at Amtrak. Simply stated, we believe that all 

of our trains and routes should eventually be equipped with PTC or employ some 

other suite of technology and operating practices that addresses the safety risks that 

PTC helps to mitigate. Given the tragic incidents Amtrak has experienced since the 

PTC mandate was enacted in 2008, particularly relating to over-speed situations 

which are a risk regardless of the amounts or types of traffic using a specific route, 

we think this is the safest course and the right standard for the nation’s intercity 

passenger rail carrier. 

26 

Amtrak has long been a leader in the installation of PTC, having already deployed 

systems on two-thirds of the route-miles where we control the tracks, including 

nearly all of the Northeast Corridor (NEC), the busiest railroad in North America. 

In fact, Amtrak began PTC operations almost 20 years ago as part of our introduction of Acela Express high-speed rail service. The Advanced Civil Speed Enforcement System, or ACSES, that we first deployed in 2000 is active and in force on 

all of our trains operating on Amtrak’s tracks anywhere between Washington and 

Boston, a deployment that we accomplished by the original December 31, 2015, PTC 

deadline. 

OVERVIEW

Today, I will provide an update on PTC, including its operation on Amtrak-owned 

infrastructure, Amtrak’s PTC operation on other hosts’ infrastructure, and other 

tenants’ PTC operations on Amtrak-owned infrastructure. 

As we have discussed with you before, PTC systems are designed to provide protection from the following conditions: train-to-train collisions; operating over misaligned switches; over-speed events; and work zone incursions. While we acknowledge that PTC is complicated and difficult to implement, Amtrak has made significant progress implementing PTC across the routes and equipment we control. As 

of September 10, 2018: • 88 percent of the minimum number of Amtrak-owned locomotives required for 

revenue service are fully equipped and PTC operable, 

• 122 of 142 installations on 114 State-owned locomotives and cab cars that Amtrak operates or maintains are complete, and 53 are also tested, and PTC operable, 

• 8 of 11 installation/track segments completed, 

• 132 of 140 radio towers fully installed and equipped, 

• 100 percent of employees trained as required per the PTC Implementation Plan 

to run in revenue service, 

• 607 of 901 route-miles in PTC operation, and 

• 480 route-miles in testing. 

We are proud of the work we have accomplished thus far and remain focused on 

the work ahead to advance PTC as soon as possible. 

AMTRAK’S OPERATIONS ARE UNIQUE

In many ways, the installation and deployment of PTC reflects the complicated 

nature of railway operations in the United States. Multiple companies and agencies 

must cooperate closely to ensure the safe, reliable, timely operation of various types 

of trains across differing networks. To integrate PTC into this complex environment 

has been a significant undertaking for the industry and its suppliers. Amtrak and 

its industry partners remain eager to bring this technology online, but there is no 

way around the fact that it is a difficult process and has required the dedication 

of significant resources, both in terms of funding and of our personnel. Over the last 

few years Amtrak and many other railroads have worked to develop complicated deployment plans, and then rethink them, as various limitations became apparent. 

At a scale unlike any other carrier in North America, Amtrak operates over a 

large and complex network of various host railroads and is also a host itself to numerous tenants. Our unusual role within the industry reflects our unique origins, 

and while this presents a wide range of challenges, it also creates opportunities for 

us to serve as a leader in a number of important ways. For example, earlier this 

year Amtrak organized and hosted PTC summits in Seattle, Washington and Chicago, Illinois, which brought together freight railroads, commuter railroads, government agencies, and vendors to focus on the challenges of PTC implementation in 

those regions. These events have been followed by an ongoing series of regular calls 

that have allowed the participants to learn from one another, to share their latest 

developments, to coordinate testing schedules, and to work through all sorts of unexpected issues. 

Amtrak has also worked hard to share our PTC expertise with our partners. We 

have done this in ways both large and small, but two quick examples include: preparing to install and commission PTC equipment on 13 locomotives for the North 

Carolina Department of Transportation, ensuring those units will be ready in time 

for the deadline; and conducting an engineering survey of the new Siemens Charger 

locomotives that belong to the Illinois Department of Transportation, so that they 

could fully understand what they need to do to equip that fleet to become PTCready. 

Our work across all these fronts and with so many partners has enabled us to 

make significant progress, but it has also revealed a number of limitations and botVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:59 Dec 18, 2018 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 P:\HEARINGS\115\RR\9-13-2~1\33636.TXT JEAN
27 

tlenecks. System federation and the subsequent interoperability testing of the 

IETMS PTC system are complicated tasks. By definition, they depend on coordinating with external partners who are facing their own time and resource constraints. As we have worked through these issues, we have learned much that we 

expect will streamline the work involved in the remaining portions. 

Another issue that was raised in February’s hearing that has continued to present 

challenges is the limited number of vendors available to support the industry. While 

Amtrak has developed significant PTC expertise in the last few years, there are still 

times when we would appreciate the ability to better utilize additional vendors to 

expedite the installation, configuration, and testing of various PTC components. 

There is simply not a deep reservoir of relevant expertise available to the rail industry, which has resulted in all of the railroads turning to the same small number 

of vendors seeking the same resources. To work around this, we have worked hard 

to foster the necessary skills inside of Amtrak, and we will continue to do so, but 

that is a slow and expensive process. 

Looking ahead to the upcoming December 31 deadline, let me address three important environments so that you can fully understand where Amtrak stands with 

its PTC deployment. 

AMTRAK PTC OPERATION ON AMTRAK-OWNED INFRASTRUCTURE

First, the most straightforward scenario Amtrak faces is when Amtrak trains operate over Amtrak infrastructure. In this case, Amtrak plans to be fully PTC ready 

and compliant by the end of this year. 

Where Amtrak owns or operates the infrastructure, Amtrak is responsible for all 

elements of the PTC system. These rail lines include the following: 397 miles of the 

457-mile Northeast Corridor mainline between Washington and Boston; 105 miles 

between Philadelphia and Harrisburg, Pennsylvania; 232 miles between Porter, Indiana and Dearborn, Michigan; 94 miles between Schenectady and Poughkeepsie, 

New York; and 61 miles between New Haven, Connecticut and Springfield, Massachusetts. We also own or operate another 12 miles of track near our terminals, for 

example, in Chicago and New York. These segments total 901 route-miles. Currently 

605 of them have at least one wayside PTC system installed and operational. We 

have developed a detailed plan for every portion of our network, and we are executing an aggressive yet realistic plan which will enable the remaining third of the 

route-miles to be complete by December 31. 

In some places where we host tenant operations over our tracks, at the freight 

railroads’ request, we are installing the freights’ standard IETMS PTC system on 

our infrastructure in parallel with either our ACSES or ITCS system, which will 

eliminate the requirement for them to install either ACSES or ITCS PTC equipment 

on their locomotives. Locations where this occurs include along the NEC between 

Washington and Philadelphia, along the Keystone Line between Frazer and Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, and the eastern, Michigan-owned portion of the Michigan Line 

between Kalamazoo and Dearborn. 345 miles, or roughly two-fifths, of our 901 

route-miles will be equipped with dual PTC systems. 

Amtrak is dedicating significant attention to the segments where PTC installation 

is not yet complete, such as the Springfield and Hudson Lines. We hold regular 

cross-department meetings to ensure rapid coordination in our efforts, as we are giving this work the highest priority. While the timeline for these segments is indeed 

tight, we are planning to complete these projects by the December 31 deadline. 

For Amtrak locomotives, the process starts with installing the necessary equipment for one or, in some cases, two different PTC systems, and then running each 

unit through the necessary tests to ensure the proper functioning and integration 

of the various elements, which we call ‘‘commissioning.’’ Given the need for multiple 

PTC systems in individual locomotives, we have added 535 systems to 443 units, 

and have completed commissioning on 456 of them. Again, we have developed detailed plans and are confident we will have the commissioning work done in time 

for the December 31 deadline. 

So much of the discussion around PTC relates to the hardware, that sometimes 

we do not properly convey how important training is to the successful rollout of PTC 

across our operations. To ensure our workforce is ready, we will need to provide 

training to, and ensure the successful completion of, 5,095 qualifications. All of 

those qualifications are complete. As some employees will need to be trained on multiple systems, the number of qualifications is higher than the specific number of 

people being trained. Of the overall total, 70 percent are for the train and engine 

crews who operate the trains, with dispatchers, maintenance of way, and mechanical forces making up the remainder. 

28 

AMTRAK PTC OPERATION ON OTHER HOSTS’ INFRASTRUCTURE

The second operating environment I would like to cover is where Amtrak is a tenant on other entities’ infrastructure. Since Amtrak runs 72 percent of its train-miles 

over tracks owned and maintained by other railroads, we have spent a great deal 

of time and effort preparing for PTC operations on such areas. For the tracks we 

use but do not own or control, we are cooperating with our freight and commuter 

host railroads as they advance their obligations to complete PTC installations. In 

these models, Amtrak is responsible for the locomotive portion of the PTC system, 

which I have already addressed. We are currently interoperable with five hosts and 

we anticipate several more before the yearend deadline, although this is dependent 

on each host railroad’s readiness. 

In places where the host’s PTC system is not anticipated to be ready for service 

by year’s end, if they have made sufficient progress with installation, they will be 

able to apply for an alternative schedule. We anticipate this being the case on 37 

segments across our route network. We have stayed in close contact with the various hosts to keep apprised of the status of their PTC installation work, and the 

best information we have now suggests that approved alternative schedules will be 

in place for all of the portions of the network where PTC is mandated by law and 

is not available on January 1, 2019. Additionally, the FRA permits railroads to seek 

Mainline Track Exclusion Addendums (MTEAs) if the operation meets certain criteria. An MTEA waives the requirement for a railroad to install PTC. 

To prepare for operations where PTC is not in service, we have been conducting 

detailed risk assessments to enable us to develop an appropriate array of risk mitigation measures to address those areas that are not mitigated by a functional PTC 

system, consistent with our Safety Management System methodology. Starting in 

late spring, our safety team began a detailed, cross-departmental process of reviewing every portion of our network falling in one of two categories: places where an 

MTEA is present or places where we had reason to believe PTC is mandated but 

the railroads will qualify for an alternative schedule. Members of the safety team 

lead these assessments, ten of whom are dedicated to this process. 

They work with their Engineering and Transportation colleagues to develop detailed profiles of each location under review, covering at least 2,100 miles of track. 

Each assessment defines the segment under review, with an emphasis on the physical characteristics of the territory, including elements such as curves, speed restrictions, and facing point switches. The assessments also address operational factors 

and local traffic volumes and traffic mixes. As the assessment is conducted, the 

team quantifies potential risks both in terms of likelihood of occurrence and the potential severity. The assessment team then develops operational and technological 

recommendations to reduce risk in the near, middle, and long-term, and works with 

Amtrak leadership to ensure there is a clear, organization-wide understanding of 

the results before any approvals are sought to adopt the recommendations. These 

assessments are being worked through as quickly as possible while ensuring the 

quality of the work, and those covering MTEA territory are slated to be complete 

by the end of October, with the rest by the end of the year. As this work is all above 

and beyond statutory requirements, the timing is driven by our own Safety Management System approach. 

The central value of these assessments will be their role in determining what 

mitigations will be necessary to adopt for a given location over a given period to 

ensure Amtrak has a high degree of confidence in our ability to operate the safest 

possible railroad, short of the installation of PTC. We envision these potential mitigations in three tiers or layers. 

The first is made up of changes to our operations, which may go beyond compliance with the host railroads’ rulebooks to create a greater safety margin for our operations. These changes, most of which could be implemented almost immediately, 

could include reducing the maximum speed of our trains, further reducing speed 

when we approach facing point switches, or even changing the composition of our 

crews. In some cases, these changes may impose delays on our trains, but we believe 

that the additional level of safety is justified. 

The second level of potential mitigations would be technological in nature but 

would take the form of relatively simple infrastructural changes that could be installed fairly quickly to add additional safety measures. Examples of such mitigations include warning signs for the crews, or new switch position indicators, both 

of which would provide additional situational awareness for our employees. The idea 

is to add these additional layers of mitigation to the system, which may then allow 

us to remove or minimize some of the more inconvenient operational mitigations we 

initially put in place. 

29 

The third and final layer of mitigations consists of more elaborate technological 

solutions that would take more time to develop and deploy. In many cases, we may 

determine that a full PTC system is the best long-term solution to strengthening 

safety on a given route. In other cases, we believe there may be various technologies, that when coupled with the other mitigations I have mentioned, could offer 

what we term ‘‘PTC equivalency’’ once they were ready. Many of the ideas in this 

category are in early stages, and still have significant operational and procedural 

issues that will need to be resolved. Nonetheless, we are determined to be open to 

innovative approaches to obtaining the benefits of PTC across all of our network. 

While this risk analysis process and mitigation plan development is still underway, let me be clear that Amtrak’s goal is to continue to operate all of our services 

over all of our current routes come January 1, 2019. Exactly how we accomplish this 

will vary across our network, based on the specifics of each route, but I want to assure the committee that, at this time, we believe we will have strategies in place 

that will permit us to continue operations until operational PTC or PTC-equivalency 

is achieved for all of our network. 

OTHER TENANTS’ PTC OPERATIONS ON AMTRAK-OWNED INFRASTRUCTURE

Third, there are several freight and commuter railroads that operate over Amtrak’s infrastructure, and for those railroads who may require an extension from the 

FRA, Amtrak is prepared to work collaboratively with the FRA and each railroad 

on a case-by-case basis with the aim of ensuring their continued, safe operations. 

These various freight and commuter railroads that operate over our infrastructure 

must equip their rolling stock with PTC for use on our railroad and we are working 

cooperatively with them to advance these tasks. This cooperation, where applicable, 

primarily takes the form of linking our server system with the server systems of 

each tenant. Additionally, we then conduct interoperability field testing to verify the 

proper functioning of all the elements to enable both Amtrak and the tenant to develop confidence that the systems are working as intended. 

Along the NEC, we have ten tenants that will use Amtrak’s ACSES PTC system, 

and another two tenants that will use the freights’ IETMS system. This is another 

example of how the PTC tasks facing Amtrak are complicated by the wide range 

of rail partners with whom we interface. Of the corridor, we also have one freight 

railroad that will operate over our tracks using both IETMS and ITCS, and three 

freight railroads and one commuter railroad that we host that will use IETMS only, 

so there are many different integrations that all must be verified for the whole network to be ready. Presently on the NEC, our tenants Connecticut DOT, CSX, 

MBTA, SEPTA, and the Providence & Worcester Railroad have completed implementation and are currently operating with fully functioning PTC on our routes. 

MARC and Norfolk Southern will both be IETMS ready, but it is not clear yet if 

everything for PTC operation will be in place before the deadline. Our sense is that 

NJ Transit has significant work facing it before it will be PTC operational. 

Amtrak believes strongly in the value and importance of PTC and our aim is to 

ensure that all of our tenants have an operational system as soon as possible. Having said this, we are mindful of the impacts that any disruption of commuter service 

may have on the regions we serve and the potential safety consequences that could 

follow. Thus, Amtrak is continuing to work with any tenants who believe they may 

be at risk of not having fully completed the installation and commissioning of PTC 

equipment on their trains for use on our tracks. We will work with these carriers 

and the FRA to explore, through our Safety Management System process, the potential of risk mitigation strategies that could be applied in such situations until full 

installation and commissioning is achieved. 

NEXT STEPS

Amtrak has worked for years to be ready for the upcoming PTC deadline. When 

2019 arrives, we will have our track, computer, training, and locomotive PTC work 

complete and we will be operating PTC across all of the tracks we control and across 

much of the host railroad network. Already 222 of our 315 daily trains currently 

operate with PTC protection along some or all of their routes. On January 1, 2019, 

we anticipate that this number will climb to 283, or 90 percent, with only those portions of the network which have been granted an alternative schedule or an exemption by the FRA being without the protection of this system for our trains. 

Having said that, given the docility of completing testing with so many freight 

and commuter partners and the potential for some limited technical issues to arise 

during testing of the sort that often accompany the initial operation of any complex 

technology, Amtrak will be required to submit an application to the FRA for an alternative schedule to enable us to continue operating while we finalize testing of our 

30 

system and the systems of our hosts and tenants. This alternative schedule is required due to the FRA’s interpretation of the law that full implementation status 

cannot be achieved until all non-Amtrak trains operating on Amtrak’s PTC-equipped 

lines are also PTC-compliant. However, to be considered fully implemented requires 

that all other railroads operating across any of Amtrak’s PTC-equipped lines must 

be capable of operating with Amtrak’s PTC system. This interoperability of PTC systems between railroads remains a work in progress and we are currently working 

with each railroad to assess this work, so we can determine the appropriate alternative schedule durations. In addition, as I mentioned, we will implement mitigation measures that we develop for all those areas which will not have operational 

PTC due to a host’s alternative schedule of PTC exemption. 

Strengthening safety is a continuous process. Amtrak’s responsibility is to lead 

safety across our industry and serve as good stewards of the vital resources that 

we receive from Congress and the Administration to help us implement these advancements. Likewise, PTC is not a silver bullet and railroads alone cannot solve 

all of the safety issues that face us, such as grade crossing and trespasser accidents, 

which require a broader effort of local, State, and Federal stakeholders to educate 

motorists and pedestrians, better equip vulnerable crossings, limit public access to 

rights of way, and strengthen enforcement. Still, we are confident that achieving 

PTC or PTC-equivalent levels of safety across our network will be a major achievement in the safety performance of intercity passenger rail. One need look no further 

than our accident history to see the universal benefits that PTC can bring to Amtrak and our industry. We look forward to continuing to work with all of our partners to improve safety across the rail network. 

CONCLUSION

I have the highest confidence in Amtrak’s dedicated workforce and the commitment I see across our company to becomes the safest passenger railroad in North 

America. While the challenges described today are defficult, they can, and will, be 

overcome. At Amtrak, we owe our customers, and your constituents, nothing less. 

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today, and I welcome your 

questions. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you. 

Mr. Hamberger, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. HAMBERGER. Chairman Shuster, Chairman Denham, Ranking Member DeFazio, Ranking Member Capuano, and members of 

the most important subcommittee in the House of Representatives, 

thank you for the opportunity to discuss Positive Train Control and 

progress on implementation across the U.S. rail network. My focus 

today is specifically on AAR’s Class I freight railroad members, 

their significant progress to date, and the remaining technical and 

operational steps necessary to fully implement PTC nationwide. 

Of course, a big piece of that task is establishing interoperability 

with Amtrak, as Mr. Naparstek has just outlined. I want to assure 

the committee that all hosts are working diligently with Amtrak to 

achieve just that. 

Chairman Denham, your opening statement was spot on. This is 

a life-saving technology. But it is indeed complex and daunting. I 

am pleased to report that, on all fronts, the Class I railroads have 

made tremendous progress since this committee last convened on 

the topic in February of this year. At the end of July the vast majority of installation has been completed: 98.2 percent of locomotives; 99.2 percent of wayside interface units; 99.1 percent of 

radio towers, all equipped and installed. And, in addition, 99.8 percent of required employees have received their training. 

Furthermore, by the end of July the Class I railroads already 

had in operation more than 37,000 route-miles, or nearly 70 percent of the 54,000 total required by law. PTC development has 

been an immensely complex undertaking from day one. From the 

start, railroads focused on developing and testing technology that 

31 

would meet the RSIA requirements, especially nationwide interoperability. This required developing essential software and hardware. Once developed, rigorous and repeated testing is the only 

way to ensure this system works as intended. 

In addition to initial testing in a simulated environment, these 

components must be installed and exposed to day-to-day operations 

to verify that each individual part, and the system as a whole, will 

function properly under real-world conditions. And as Scot has just 

pointed out, those real-world conditions can be very challenging, as 

we are seeing in the Carolinas today. The freight rails operating 

there are working with emergency responders and the Governors 

to be ready to move in and help in the aftermath after Hurricane 

Florence hits. 

In addition, failure of a single PTC component can mean that the 

system shuts down a train unexpectedly and unnecessarily. When 

that happens it means trains are not able to operate normally on 

affected rail lines until the failure is corrected: a situation railroads 

are currently facing as PTC is rolled out. 

Additionally, it is common for one railroad’s locomotives to operate on another railroad’s tracks. Therefore, PTC systems must be 

fully interoperable across all the Nation’s major railroads, adding 

yet another layer of complexity. Ensuring this interoperability is 

the largest step left to full PTC implementation. Class I railroads 

are up to the task, making consistent progress, and continuing to 

resolve issues as they arise. 

In the future, by the end of 2018, each Class I railroad will have 

completed PTC installation. One hundred percent of wayside, back 

office, and locomotive hardware will be installed. One hundred percent of spectrum will be in place, and 100 percent of required employee training will be complete. 

In addition, it is projected by the end of this year 80 percent of 

Class I route-miles will be in operation under PTC. This compares 

to the target established by Congress in 2015 of 50 percent. 

While some Class I railroads plan to be fully operational by the 

end of the year, all Class I railroads will be 100 percent implemented no time later than some time in 2020. 

As Mr. Naparstek has pointed out, even if a railroad will have 

PTC fully operational on its network by the end of this year, FRA 

will not consider the railroad to be fully implemented until all railroads, the host, and all of its tenants are fully interoperable. 

The bottom line is that every day, as railroads finalize the PTC 

installation and expand PTC operations, the risk of accidents on 

the Nation’s rail network is reduced, passengers move more safely, 

and employees operate in a safer environment. Thank you. 

[Mr. Hamberger’s prepared statement follows:] 

f 

Prepared Statement of Edward R. Hamberger, President and Chief 

Executive Officer, Association of American Railroads 

On behalf of the Association of American Railroads (AAR), thank you for the opportunity to discuss positive train control (PTC). AAR members account for the vast 

majority of North American freight railroad mileage, employees, and revenue. 

In this testimony, I will review the progress freight railroads have made in the 

development and implementation of PTC and what to expect going forward. My 

focus will be on Class I freight railroads and their PTC-related status. 

32 

1 A switch is the infrastructure that controls the path of trains where two sets of tracks diverge or converge. 

The bottom line is that by December 31, 2018, all Class I’s will have completed 

PTC hardware installation, trained all employees, and secured all needed radio 

bandwidth. Further, by the end of this year, PTC will be in operation on the vast 

majority—approximately 80 percent—of Class I PTC route-miles network wide, with 

some Class I railroads planning to be fully operational on their networks. Between 

2018 and 2020, all Class I railroads will be completing PTC implementation, consistent with the statute. All railroads will continue their work on resolving technical 

operational challenges that will inevitably rise, which Congress anticipated and specifically provided flexibility for in its 2015 law. They also will be addressing the biggest remaining challenge of PTC implementation: interoperability with each other 

and with their tenant passenger and shortline railroads. 

WHAT IS POSITIVE TRAIN CONTROL?

As members of this committee know, ‘‘positive train control’’ (PTC) describes technologies designed to automatically stop a train before certain accidents caused by 

human error occur. Under the Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (RSIA), passenger railroads and Class I freight railroads are required to install PTC on main 

lines used to transport passengers or toxic-by-inhalation (TIH) materials. 

Specifically, PTC as mandated by the RSIA must be designed to prevent four 

major types of train accidents: train-to-train collisions; derailments caused by excessive speed; unauthorized incursions by trains onto sections of track where maintenance activities are taking place; and the movement of a train through a track 

switch left in the wrong position.1 The PTC system now being installed to meet this 

statutory mandate is an overlay system, and meant to supplement, rather than replace, existing methods of operation. 

To work as it should, a PTC system must be able to determine the precise location, direction, and speed of trains; warn train operators of potential problems; and 

take immediate action if the operator fails to act after a warning is provided by the 

PTC system. For example, if a train operator fails to begin stopping a train before 

a stop signal or slowing down for a speed-restricted area, the PTC system will override the operator and apply the brakes automatically before the train passes the 

stop signal or enters the speed-restricted area. 

A PTC system consists of three main elements that are integrated by a fourth 

critical element, the wireless data communications system. An onboard or locomotive system monitors a train’s position and speed and activates braking as necessary to enforce speed restrictions and unauthorized train movements; a wayside 

system monitors railroad track signals, switches, and track circuits to communicate 

data on this local infrastructure needed to permit the onboard system to authorize 

movement of a locomotive; and a back office server stores all information related to 

the rail network and trains operating across it (e.g., speed restrictions, movement 

authorities, train compositions, etc.) and transmits this information to individual locomotive onboard enforcement systems. Finally, all of these segments of the PTC 

system are integrated by a wireless data communications system that must move 

massive amounts of information back and forth between the back-office servers, the 

wayside equipment, and the locomotives’ on-board computers. 

33 

2 As just one example of the magnitude of the PTC implementation effort, it takes about one 

person working for about 1 month to install all of the necessary PTC equipment on a single 

locomotive. It will take approximately 1,400 staff-years to install PTC on all of the Class I locomotives that require it. 

Such a system requires highly complex technologies able to analyze and incorporate the huge number of variables that affect train operations. A simple example: 

the length of time it takes to stop a freight train depends on train speed, terrain, 

the weight and length of the train, the number and distribution of locomotives and 

loaded and empty freight cars on the train, and other factors. During the operation 

of a single train over a single operating segment of track known as a sub-division, 

the length of time and the distance needed to stop that train may change 100 or 

more times due to changes in the factors mentioned above. A PTC system must be 

able to take all of these factors into account automatically, reliably, accurately, and 

in real time in order to safely stop the train wherever it may be along its route. 

PTC IS AN UNPRECEDENTED TECHNOLOGICAL CHALLENGE

PTC development and implementation constitute an unprecedented technological 

challenge. Some of the development and installation tasks associated with the Class 

I railroads’ efforts over the past few years include: 

• A complete physical survey and highly precise geo-mapping of the approximately 54,000 route-miles on which PTC technology will be installed, including 

more than 450,000 field assets along the right-of-way (e.g., mileposts, curves, 

rail and highway grade crossings, switches, signals, track vertical profiles and 

horizontal geometry). 

• Installing more than 28,000 custom-designed ‘‘wayside interface units’’ (WIU) 

that provide the mechanism for transmitting information from signal and 

switch locations along the right-of-way to locomotives and railroad facilities. 

• Installing PTC technology on nearly 16,400 Class I locomotives.2

• Installing PTC technology on nearly 2,100 switches in non-signaled territory 

and completing signal replacement projects, including upgrades to PTC-compatible signal technology, at some 14,500 locations. 


HM-1.eps
34 

• Developing, producing, and deploying a new radio system specifically designed 

for the massive data transmission requirements of PTC at tens of thousands of 

base stations and trackside locations, and on nearly 16,400 locomotives. 

• Developing back office systems and upgrading and integrating dispatching software to incorporate the data and precision required for PTC systems. 

In all these areas, Class I railroads have already made tremendous progress. Figure 2 has details on the status of Class I PTC installations at the end of July 2018. 

Additionally, as shown in Figure 3, at the end of July 2018, the Class I railroads 

already had in operation more than 37,000 route-miles, or nearly 70 percent, of the 

approximately 54,000 route-miles that will eventually be equipped with PTC. To be 

clear, each Class I railroad will install 100 percent of PTC wayside, back office, and 

locomotive hardware, and complete all required employee training, by the end of 

2018 and expect to have nearly 80 percent of required PTC route-miles operational 

by the end of 2018. 

The AAR estimates that, as of today, freight railroads together have spent more 

than $10 billion—of their own funds, not taxpayer funds—on PTC development and 

deployment, and expect to spend more than $11 billion by the time PTC is fully 

operational nationwide. This does not include the hundreds of millions of additional 

dollars that will be needed each year to maintain the railroads’ PTC systems once 

they are initially installed. 

TESTING AND VALIDATION IS ESSENTIAL FOR SAFE OPERATION AND FULL

INTEROPERABILITY

From the outset, railroads’ efforts were focused on development and testing of 

technology that could meet the requirements of the RSIA, particularly those related 

to interoperability, and that could be scaled to the huge requirements of a nationwide system. Essential software and hardware for many PTC components had to be 

developed and deployed, and then rigorously tested. Only after technology is actually installed and exposed to the rigors of day-to-day operations can the task of testing each of the individual parts, and the system as a whole, be completed under 

real world conditions. 


HM-2.eps HM-3.eps
35 

This task is made particularly complex by the need to ensure that PTC systems 

are fully and seamlessly interoperable across all of the nation’s major railroads. It 

is not unusual for one railroad’s locomotives to operate on another railroad’s tracks. 

When that happens, the ‘‘tenant’’ locomotives must be able to communicate with, 

and respond to conditions on, the ‘‘host’’ PTC system. Put another way, a CSX locomotive must behave like a Norfolk Southern locomotive when it is traveling on NS 

track; a BNSF locomotive must be compatible with Union Pacific’s PTC system 

when it is on UP track; and so on. All the while, each railroad has its own operating 

rules designed to address specific conditions on its property, all consistent with FRA 

regulations, but further adding to this complexity. Ensuring this interoperability 

has been a significant challenge. 

It is critical that any and all potential failure points be identified, isolated, and 

corrected. By necessity, a mature, well-functioning PTC system is enormously complex, and it is not realistic to think it will perform flawlessly day in and day out, 

especially upon initial implementation. That is precisely why testing, first in a simulated environment and then under real-world operating conditions, is so important. 

Unfortunately, the failure of a single part within a complex PTC system can mean 

that the system—designed to be fail safe—shuts down a train unexpectedly and unnecessarily. When that happens, it means that trains are not able to operate normally on affected rail lines until the failure is corrected, a situation railroads are 

facing today as they proceed toward PTC implementation. 

Every day, as railroads finalize their PTC installation and expand PTC operations, the risk of accidents is lowered. However, as other train control systems implemented in other countries demonstrate, there is risk in improperly designed, installed, or operated PTC systems. This is not just a speculative concern. Since 2008, 

there have been a number of incidents worldwide in which accidents resulting in 

deaths and injuries occurred on rail lines that had PTC-like systems. These concerns make it essential that a railroad’s first priority must be to implement PTC 

correctly, and to test and validate it thoroughly. 

CONCLUSION

Railroads have devoted enormous human and financial resources to develop a 

functioning and reliable PTC system, and progress to date has been substantial. 

Class I railroads remain committed to safely implementing PTC as quickly as possible. By the end of 2018, each Class I railroad will have PTC fully operational or 

initiated revenue service demonstration on, at a minimum, 51 percent of its required PTC route-miles or subdivisions; have 100 percent of the necessary wayside, 

back office, and locomotive hardware installations completed; have all required spectrum in place; and have all required employee training completed. 

In addition, network-wide approximately 80 percent of required PTC route-miles 

are expected to be operational by the end of 2018. While some Class I railroads plan 

to be fully operational by the end of this year, all Class I railroads will be fully implemented no later than 2020. In the meantime, Class I railroads will continue to 

work with each other and their tenant passenger and shortline railroad partners to 

successfully achieve full interoperability, which is the largest remaining challenge 

to a fully implemented national PTC system. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you, Mr. Hamberger. 

Mr. Knueppel? 

Mr. KNUEPPEL. Good morning, Chairman Denham, Chairman 

Shuster, Ranking Member Capuano, Ranking Member DeFazio, 

and members of the Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and 

Hazardous Materials. On behalf of the American Public Transportation Association, thank you for the opportunity to testify on the 

state of Positive Train Control implementation in the United 

States. 

My name is Jeffrey Knueppel. I am a professional engineer, and 

serve as the general manager of the Southeastern Pennsylvania 

Transportation Authority, or SEPTA, the Nation’s sixth-largest system, providing more than 1 million daily trips throughout southeastern Pennsylvania. I am also chair of APTA’s Commuter Rail 

PTC Subcommittee. 

As we sadly recognize the 10th anniversary of the tragic 

Chatsworth accident this week, I want to begin by reiterating 

36 

APTA’s and the commuter rail industry’s commitment to implementing Positive Train Control. 

The Nation’s commuter railroads have been working continuously with our freight partners, third-party contractors, Amtrak, 

and the FRA to address financial, technological, and logistical challenges as the industry works towards a common goal: implementing positive train control and making an already safe system 

even safer. And I would like to note that it is 18 times safer to take 

the train than drive. 

Since APTA last testified before this subcommittee in February, 

commuter railroads have continued to make strong progress. This 

improvement is reflected in the FRA’s second-quarter PTC progress 

report, including reducing by two the number of commuter railroads on FRA’s list of at-risk railroads. And we expect the number 

of at-risk railroads to continue to drop. 

Although no two PTC experiences are the same, I offer the 

SEPTA story as a positive outcome based on a good plan, a supportive board, and some good circumstances. I kind of break our 

PTC efforts down into three stages: the first one was construction 

and testing; our plan was to do the work with both in-house forces, 

as well as contractors. So our in-house forces installed automatic 

train control, while third-party forces placed the access overlay on 

top of that system. 

We also had a particular situation with CSX, where both railroads wanted to run their form of PTC, and so we performed a separation project that was completed over a 6-mile stretch in August 

of 2015. And I would like to note that we really appreciate the 

TIGER funds that were utilized for that work. 

Stage 2 was placing routes and provisional revenue service. And 

we began in April of 2016 to start placing our lines in revenue 

service, and we did that first on our Warminster line, which is single-track line. We incrementally rolled out one or two lines a month 

in our territory, until January of 2017. At that point we intensified 

our field testing efforts on Amtrak, and ran from January until 

May of 2017, when we began operation with PTC on our three Amtrak territory lines. 

So since May of 2017, all 13 lines have been continuously operated with PTC. That is SEPTA vehicles. And that leads to stage 

3, where we are at right now, and that is interoperability. This significant challenge remains. CSX and Norfolk Southern are scheduled to be completed by the end of the year, but this could be a 

photo finish for one of the carriers. 

It has not been easy, even though our progress appears strong 

along the way. Funding was very difficult for SEPTA. The economic 

collapse of 2008 and other circumstances put us at our lowest historical capital funds. Fortunately, in our State, Act 89 was passed, 

which helped SEPTA through a tough time. Employee retention 

and continuity was a challenge. A limited vendor base. There were 

countless innovations needed to overcome technological hurdles at 

various points, car shortages during our equipment installation, 

endless testing, a formidable training effort. We did experience a 

very significant radio interference issue with freight carriers. There 

was, obviously, startup inertia and struggles, and poor on-time performance until schedule changes could be made. 

37 

But we persevered through this. We have spent $344 million on 

this project, and I am proud of the efforts of our entire organization. 

Thank you for this opportunity to testify on the challenges and 

the successes of implementing this critical safety system, and I look 

forward to answering any questions that you may have. 

[Mr. Knueppel’s prepared statement follows:] 

f 

Prepared Statement of Jeffrey D. Knueppel, P.E., General Manager, Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority, on behalf of the American Public Transportation Association 

The American Public Transportation Association is a non-profit international association of more than 1,500 public-and private-sector member organizations, including public transit systems and high-speed, intercity, and commuter rail passenger 

operators; planning, design, construction, and finance firms; product and service 

providers; academic institutions, transit associations and State departments of 

transportation. APTA members serve the public interest by providing safe, efficient, 

and economical transit services and products. 

INTRODUCTION

Chairman Denham, Ranking Member Capuano, and members of the Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials, on behalf of the American Public Transportation Association (APTA) and its more than 1,500 public-and 

private-sector member organizations, thank you for the opportunity to testify on the 

state of positive train control (PTC) implementation in the United States. 

My name is Jeffrey D. Knueppel, P.E., and I am the General Manager of the 

Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA). SEPTA is the nation’s six largest transit system, with more than 9,000 employees. We provide more 

than 1.1 million daily passenger trips through an extensive network of fixed-route 

services including bus, subway, trolley, and Regional Rail, as well as ADA paratransit and shared ride services that serve Philadelphia, Bucks, Chester, and Montgomery Counties in Pennsylvania. SEPTA’s commuter rail system (Regional Rail) is 

a network of 13 rail lines with 155 stations that provides service to and from Center 

City Philadelphia and the rest of southeastern Pennsylvania, as well as service into 

New Jersey and Delaware. We operate 770 weekday trains and serve more than 34 

million riders each year, and Regional Rail ridership has increased by more than 

50 percent over the last 20 years. I also serve as Chair of APTA’s Commuter Rail 

PTC Subcommittee. 

As we sadly recognize the 10th anniversary of the tragic Chatsworth accident this 

week, I want to begin by reiterating APTA’s and the commuter rail industry’s longstanding and unwavering commitment to implementing positive train control. 

I am pleased to be working with APTA and representing the industry in this important effort. Since APTA last testified before this subcommittee in February, the 

nation’s commuter railroads have continued to make strong and continuous progress 

in installing and implementing positive train control. This progress is reflected in 

the Federal Railroad Administration’s (FRA) recently released second quarter PTC 

Progress report, including reducing by two the number of commuter railroads on 

FRA’s list of at-risk railroads. 

The commuter rail industry has been working continuously with freight partners, 

third-party contractors, Amtrak, and FRA to implement PTC and address and correct technical and interoperability challenges. APTA has also provided a number of 

forums for collaboration and the sharing of best practices and lessons learned, including the PTC Subcommittee, which has been particularly helpful in providing a 

cohesive push as the industry works toward a common goal—implementing PTC 

and making an already safe system even safer. 

We greatly appreciate the subcommittee’s focused attention on the critical issues 

of rail safety and PTC, and the challenges and successes that publicly funded commuter railroads have experienced in procuring, installing, and implementing this 

complex signaling and communications technology. 

SAFETY IS OUR FIRST PRIORITY

For commuter rail operators and the entire public transportation industry, safety 

is our first priority. Safety is not simply a value we share; it is a core operating 

38 

principle and a promise to our riders. The men and women responsible for managing 

and operating public transportation systems are fully committed to the safety of 

their systems, passengers, employees, and the general public. 

Moreover, throughout our 136-year history, APTA and its predecessor associations 

have been leading advocates for safety improvements. As APTA President and CEO 

Paul Skoutelas outlined in his testimony before the subcommittee in February, 

APTA and its members have led the way in creating an effective safety culture over 

many decades: • creating a Rail Safety Audit Program; • developing Safety Management Program Plans; and • writing more than 270 standards and recommended practices for public transit, 

including Passenger Rail Equipment Safety Standards (PRESS) for commuter 

rail cars. 

APTA’s PRESS standards help improve the safety of public transportation systems by specifying safety requirements for vehicle crashworthiness, passenger door 

systems, emergency lighting and evacuation, and new benchmarks to improve the 

safety of vehicle interiors including seat attachment strength and workstation tables. 

With regard to positive train control, APTA publicly supported the concept of PTC 

prior to enactment of the Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (RSIA), and we advised Members of Congress and other policymakers of the need for proven technology, adequate resources, and the expanded radio spectrum necessary to put PTC 

into operation. Since enactment of RSIA, APTA has actively worked to assist the 

commuter rail industry with PTC research, development, installation, and implementation, including by participating in FRA’s Rail Safety Advisory Committee 

(RSAC); establishing ‘‘user groups’’ among different types of commuter rail operators 

to share information and encourage coordinated actions; and conducting PTC conferences, workshops, and summits with commuter rail Chief Executive Officers, senior engineering staff, FRA senior staff, and congressional staff. 

As a result of this overriding and sustained commitment to safety, today, public 

transit is the safest form of surface transportation. Every year, 30 commuter railroads across America safely carry passengers on more than 500 million trips. And 

traveling by commuter and intercity passenger rail is 18 times safer than traveling 

by car. 

POSITIVE TRAIN CONTROL MANDATE

Moreover, we are working to make commuter rail even safer by installing and implementing PTC, a complex signaling and communications technology that provides 

a critical safety overlay on top of already safe commuter rail systems. 

In 2015, Congress recognized the implementation challenges that the Government 

Accountability Office had outlined since RSIA implementing regulations went into 

effect. In enacting the Positive Train Control Enforcement and Implementation Act 

of 2015, Congress identified specific installation and implementation milestones. 

Under current law (49 U.S.C. 20157), commuter railroads are required to implement 

PTC by December 31, 2018, or, alternatively, to meet the following milestones (as 

defined in 49 U.S.C. 20157(a)(3)(B)) by that date: 

• Installed all PTC hardware (wayside and onboard equipment); 

• Acquired all necessary spectrum for PTC implementation; 

• Completed all employee training required under the applicable PTC system regulations; 

• Initiated revenue service demonstration (RSD) on at least one territory subject 

to the PTC requirement (or other criteria); and 

• Submitted a plan, schedule, and certification to the Secretary of Transportation 

for implementing a PTC system. 

Upon reaching these milestones by the end of 2018, the commuter railroads must 

implement PTC as soon as practicable, and no later than December 31, 2020. 

APTA supports these statutory deadlines and is committed to assisting all our 

commuter railroads in implementing PTC. 

PTC: UNPARALLELED TECHNOLOGICAL CHALLENGE

As defined in statute, a positive train control system is a ‘‘system designed to prevent train-to-train collisions, over speed derailments, incursions into established 

work zone limits, and the movement of a train through a switch left in the wrong 

position.’’ 

Implementing PTC requires changes to four main system components—vehicles, 

communications, signals, and the back office/control center—and each has to be fully 

functioning and integrated with the other systems. 

39 

1 PTC is deployed by commuter railroads in three basic forms: 

• I–ETMS TM (Interoperable–Electronic Train Management System): In general, railroads 

that share track with freight railroads are installing and implementing a system known 

as I–ETMS, a GPS-based technology heavily dependent on the nationwide 220 MHz radio 

network. All wayside elements are monitored and reported to the locomotive. Track conditions and restrictions are delivered to the locomotive and reported to the operator for action. The system monitors the action of the operator and reacts if safety is compromised. 

I–ETMS supports interoperability with freight railroads. FRA granted type approval to 

I–ETMS on February 4, 2015. • ACSES (Advanced Civil Speed Enforcement System): In general, railroads that operate 

on the Northeast Corridor are installing and implementing an Amtrak-developed system 

known as ACSES, which uses track-mounted transponders to deliver information to the 

locomotive. ACSES monitors actions of the train operator and intervenes if safety is compromised. It facilitates interoperability among operators on the Northeast Corridor. FRA 

granted type approvals to ACSES variants between 2010 and 2013. • E–ATC (Enhanced Automatic Train Control): In general, small commuter railroads that 

do not require complex interoperability with other operators are installing and implementing E–ATC, a track circuit-based system that is less complex and therefore less expensive than either I–ETMS or ACSES. FRA granted type approval to E–ATC on March 

11, 2016. 2 Some commuter railroads’ PTC systems do not require spectrum and use track-based circuits to communicate data between the onboard and wayside equipment. 

When RSIA was enacted in 2008, there was no universal off-the-shelf technology 

capable of achieving these safety objectives. Although many commuter railroads 

have long used collision avoidance systems to help protect against certain accidents, 

these systems did not have all of the required attributes of PTC. Since the enactment of RSIA, APTA and its member commuter railroads have aggressively pursued 

both the funding and technology necessary to implement the PTC mandate by the 

statutory deadlines. 

PTC is a predictive enforcement system of subsystems overlaid on existing systems. Although commuter railroads are currently in the process of installing these 

systems, a one-size-fits-all approach to implementation does not exist. Each commuter railroad has its own unique and complex operating environment and PTC 

systems must be tailored to meet those specific operating requirements. 

For instance, commuter railroads interoperating with freight railroads typically 

use a variant of PTC called I–ETMS. Railroads that operate on the Northeast Corridor are installing an Amtrak-developed system known as ACSES. Railroads without extensive freight interoperability requirements may use a different PTC variant 

called E–ATC.1 As such, what works for one commuter railroad may not work for 

another. Thus, each passenger rail system needs to build its own unique PTC solution, and it is that absence of a proven, off-the-shelf technology that creates uncertainty about whether a new solution will work as intended. 

In general, the following components are required for implementation of PTC: 

Locomotive Hardware 

All locomotives and other operating equipment must be fitted with onboard computers, radios, display units, and event recorders. Numerous configurations of commuter rail equipment are in service including self-propelled cars and push-pull 

equipment adding to the complexity and cost of deploying these onboard systems. 

Wayside Hardware 

The wayside equipment that needs to be installed is also extensive and includes 

Wayside Interface Units (WIU), switch monitors, wayside radios, base stations, and 

transponders. The status of the components is transmitted via WIUs to the locomotive to enable the PTC system to take action as necessary. 

Communications (Spectrum and Towers) 

PTC implementation typically requires a robust wireless infrastructure that is 

used for transmission of data between the various subsystems including the onboard, wayside, and back office equipment. The communications architecture includes data radios, antennas, wayside towers, and spectrum.2 After enactment of 

RSIA, many commuter railroads chose to adopt the PTC protocol developed for 

freight railroads or intercity passenger (Amtrak) operations instead of investing the 

time and money to develop their own PTC protocol. 

Back Office 

The back office stores millions of rail network data points as encrypted information (e.g., speed limits, track layouts, speed of other trains on the system, and train 

compositions) and transmits the authorization for individual trains to move into new 

track segments. Operating PTC on commuter railroads presents a variety of back 

40 

office requirements. Railroads that dispatch trains need to invest in a complete set 

of upgraded dispatch systems and Back Office Servers. 

Employee Training 

All employees who perform dispatch, operations, and signaling, as well as roadway workers and supervisors, must be trained and are essential for successful PTC 

implementation and operation. The commuter rail industry must train approximately 15,000 employees for full PTC operations. 

PTC IMPLEMENTATION PROGRESS

Commuter railroads are making strong and continuous progress in implementing 

positive train control. These railroads have faced, and continue to face, a variety of 

complex challenges in implementing PTC including financial, technological, and 

logistical challenges. Some commuter railroads have overcome these significant hurdles, but other railroads continue to grapple with PTC implementation issues. Moreover, these railroads are faced with installing, testing, and implementing PTC on 

an enormous and complicated network of interconnected railroads while still providing daily service to millions of Americans, in and around many of our nation’s 

most important metropolitan regions. 

The commuter rail industry continues to make substantial progress in implementing PTC according to updated analyses conducted by APTA, and as of June 30, 

2018: 

• 91 percent of spectrum has been acquired; 

• 85 percent of 13,698 pieces of onboard equipment have been installed on locomotives, cab cars, etc.; 

• 79 percent of 14,083 wayside (on-track equipment) installations have been completed; 

• 78 percent of back office control systems are ready for operation; 

• 74 percent of 14,847 employees have been trained in PTC; and 

• 34 percent of commuter railroads are in testing or revenue service demonstration; or service is fully operational. 

These percentages represent significant increases from the status of PTC implementation on commuter railroads compared to 6 months ago (the end of calendar 

year 2017). 

OVERCOMING CHALLENGES TO PTC IMPLEMENTATION

Total Cost—More than $4 Billion 

PTC will cost commuter rail operators approximately $4.1 billion to implement, 

and an estimated additional $80 million to $130 million each year to operate and 

maintain. For publicly funded agencies that rely on Federal, State, and local funding, as well as passenger fares to operate their service, these costs are staggering. 

Moreover, these costs are in addition to the existing $90 billion backlog needed 

to bring the current public transportation system into a state of good repair, as estimated by the U.S. Department of Transportation. A recent survey of commuter railroad agencies found that many commuter railroads have state-of-good-repair needs 

that far outweigh their capital budgets, even before including the additional costs 

associated with implementing PTC. As a result, to fund PTC, commuter railroads 

have had to divert funds from other critical infrastructure and safety projects, such 

as replacing bridges (some of which that are more than 100 years old), rehabilitating outdated locomotives, and upgrading tracks and safety systems. 

Limited Federal Funding 

The enactment of RSIA coincided with the 2008 global financial crisis and a 

multi-year period of short-term SAFETEA-LU extension acts and transportation appropriations continuing resolutions making it difficult for public transit agencies to 

plan and fund major projects like PTC. Since Congress mandated PTC, the Federal 

Government has directly provided barely one-tenth ($435 million) of the necessary 

funding for commuter railroads to implement PTC. Moreover, more than 80 percent 

of this funding ($360 million) has only been awarded in the last 16 months (since 

May 2017). In addition, two commuter rail operators have also secured Federal 

loans to help pay for PTC implementation. While this financing has been helpful, 

the burden of repaying these loans still falls on public agencies that are already 

under financial pressure. 

We urge Congress and the administration to consider these costs and provide additional funding to enable publicly funded commuter railroads to quickly implement, 

operate, and maintain PTC, as well as address the massive backlog of other deferred 

critical infrastructure and safety projects. Additional funding would not only help 

41 

commuter railroads continue to achieve the necessary milestones to implement PTC, 

but it would also allow them to address critical and costly interoperability challenges and system-wide reliability improvements after PTC deployment. As previously noted, the annual ongoing cost of PTC for publicly funded commuter railroads is estimated to be between $80 million and $130 million. 

Limited Vendors and Expertise 

PTC is specialized rail signaling and communications equipment and there are a 

very limited number of manufacturers of this technology. A limited number of PTCqualified vendors are simultaneously in demand by freight, intercity passenger, and 

commuter rail operators to develop, design, and test this complex safety technology, 

and it has been a significant challenge for the industry. In addition, the procurement process employed by public transit agencies is more rigorous and time intensive, which hindered some agencies’ ability to advance contracts. Moreover, the scale 

of large freight railroad PTC procurements made it difficult for commuter railroads, 

which typically contract for much smaller procurements, to compete in the limited 

market. 

Installing and commissioning PTC requires highly qualified signaling, communications, and software engineers. Workforce development is a critical issue in public transportation generally. With so many railroads implementing PTC at the same 

time, worker retirements and limited available expertise in the specialized communications and signaling fields, where institutional knowledge is crucial, has taxed 

the nationwide implementation effort. 

Communications (Spectrum and Towers) 

Many commuter railroads have also faced significant issues in accessing and acquiring the necessary radio spectrum. Railroads often attempted to secure spectrum 

on the secondary market, only to encounter issues such as questions about ownership and legal authority to sell, unavailability in required geographic areas, and 

cost-prohibitive contractual requirements. Some railroads contracted their spectrum 

usage to the host railroads on which they operate, which created other issues that 

needed to be addressed. 

Commuter railroads also may be subject to contractual constraints imposed by 

State and local governments. For instance, receiving government approval to use a 

sole-source procurement to acquire spectrum can take a very long period of time. 

Finally, after spectrum is acquired, commuter rail PTC systems are also subject 

to radio interference from freight railroads operating on or near commuter rail territory that can overwhelm commuter rail PTC signals and render the system vulnerable to failure. Complex, and sometimes costly, solutions must be developed to mitigate this operational problem. 

Equipment Installation and Training 

Commuter railroads do not have surplus equipment or personnel, and the impact 

of PTC implementation on daily service has been significant. It is extremely difficult 

to operate the level of service that our customers rely upon when railroads must 

remove railcars and personnel from service for onboard equipment installation and 

training and work on multiple territories simultaneously. 

Most locomotives and other operating equipment must be reconfigured to accommodate the installation of PTC components, which has led to higher costs and 

longer schedules to implement PTC than initially predicted. To provide an example 

of the level of effort required to install this hardware, it generally takes one person 

working for one complete month to equip one locomotive or similar controlling 

equipment. Moreover, this example does not take into account the design and proofof-concept work that is needed prior to equipage. Similarly, many railroads must upgrade track components such as switches and signals to be reported by the Wayside 

Interface Units. Commuter railroads face the same challenges in equipping the wayside components as private-sector freight railroads, but with far more limited development and testing resources. 

In addition, railroads installing I–ETMS must maintain extensive back office capability to interact with the overall PTC network. Recognizing this requirement as 

a key resource constraint for commuter railroads, APTA, in conjunction with FRA, 

worked with suppliers to develop a cloud-based back office system. In 2015, FRA 

provided approximately $5 million for this initiative. The shared back office provides 

for efficient operations, software maintenance, communications software updates, 

train initialization, and other key features. Several suppliers now offer this service. 

Interoperability 

Commuter railroads face different operating environments. Railroads operate as 

hosts on tracks they own, as tenants on other railroads tracks (e.g., freight railVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:59 Dec 18, 2018 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 P:\HEARINGS\115\RR\9-13-2~1\33636.TXT JEAN
42 

roads, Amtrak), or a combination of the two environments. PTC must have the ability to interface and function with different operators that share use of a section of 

track. In metropolitan areas, several different carriers often operate on one section 

of track. For instance, Metra, a Chicago-area commuter rail operator, has 13 required rail partners for its service area. Moreover, interoperability requirements are 

very complex for both testing and implementation. It continues to be a challenge to 

ensure compatibility and requires close coordination and communication between 

host and tenant railroads. Commuter railroads continue to diagnose and resolve 

software issues and address complex interoperability issues as they begin testing 

the system in RSD. 

Overall, there are 30 commuter railroads vying for a limited number of resources 

related to PTC. As you can imagine, the systems are at various stages of the process. It is important to note that commuter railroads must continue to serve their 

customers during this process. Each day, systems must delicately balance PTC installation and serving their customers as they work to continue to safely carry passengers on more than 500 million trips per year. 

SEPTA’S EXPERIENCE IMPLEMENTING PTC

Finally, I would like to outline SEPTA’s experience implementing PTC. Despite 

a period of historically low capital funding at the Authority, our Board was committed to implementing PTC. The Board’s support, coupled with proactive decisionmaking and planning, and some good circumstances, combined to drive SEPTA’s 

PTC implementation efforts. Following our implementation plan, SEPTA received 

FRA approval to operate ACSES II PTC provisional revenue service on our Warminster Line in April 2016, and SEPTA commuter trains have been operating under 

PTC on all 13 of its Regional Rail Lines since May 1, 2017. 

SEPTA began designing its PTC system in November 2009 without really knowing how we were going to pay for it, but we were fortunate to have several circumstances fall into place, and we were positioned to take action, including: 

• In 2013, SEPTA received a $10 million U.S. Department of Transportation 

TIGER Grant and worked with CSX to physically separate freight and commuter rail operations to address PTC interoperability in a congested corridor 

where SEPTA’s West Trenton Line operated over the freight carrier’s Trenton 

branch. 

• Counter to industry trends, we had a qualified and highly skilled in-house team 

that remained intact throughout implementation; and 

• Most importantly, at the end of 2013, Pennsylvania enacted Act 89—Pennsylvania’s landmark multi-modal transportation funding bill—which gave SEPTA a 

future, doubling our annual capital program. The bill provided critical funding 

to allow SEPTA to begin to address its $5 billion state-of-good-repair backlog 

while making it possible for SEPTA to aggressively finish PTC implementation. 

Without Act 89, and the other good circumstances, SEPTA’s PTC story would be 

very different. 

Implementing PTC at SEPTA has required a series of innovative solutions to myriad challenges—cost, limited Federal funding, interoperability, radio spectrum, 

equipment installation and training, and a limited number of qualified vendors to 

accommodate the simultaneous, industry-wide implementation of PTC. SEPTA’s inhouse team has distinguished themselves in responding to the complexities of implementing a new safety system across our extensive network in a finite period of time 

and maximizing opportunities to install, test, and implement our system. But we 

would not have been able to execute our plan without close and productive working 

relationships with Amtrak, CSX and Norfolk Southern, our third-party contractor 

Hitachi (formerly Ansaldo), and the Federal Railroad Administration. 

At a total project cost of more than $344 million, completing the installation of 

PTC for a system as large and complex as SEPTA was, and continues to be, a hard 

and challenging project. After working through a number of technical and operational challenges, SEPTA continues to address interoperability with freight tenants 

operating on various segments of our territory. 

To date, SEPTA has already invested more than $337 million to implement PTC, 

following a strategic approach: 

• successfully separating SEPTA from CSX on the West Trenton Line; 

• systematically rolling out PTC on SEPTA territory beginning in April 2016 and 

completing PTC implementation on 12 distinct segments by January 2017; and 

• activating PTC on the three lines that operate on Amtrak-owned track on May 

1, 2017. 

SEPTA is proud of its record implementing PTC for our customers and employees, 

and yet we still have work to do. 

43 

With three major phases completed, and with SEPTA trains operating with PTC 

on all 13 Regional Rail Lines, the final major focus is completing the task of establishing interoperability with the freight lines—CSX and Norfolk Southern—operating along portions of SEPTA territory. Working with our freight partners, this 

phase of the program is scheduled to be completed by December 2018. 

Although we have had success in our implementation efforts, no two commuter 

railroads are the same—each has different operating environments, equipment, 

host-tenant relationships, and ridership—so no two PTC experiences are going to be 

alike. What we do have in common, though, is a commitment to safety and implementing PTC on our systems. That commitment is shared by our employees—who 

embraced SEPTA’s PTC efforts during training and installation and now in revenue 

service—and our customers—who experienced schedule adjustments and service 

changes during implementation. SEPTA’s PTC effort would not be where it is without their professionalism and patience. 

CONCLUSION

Safety is the shared responsibility of every commuter railroad in the country, and 

the current nationwide effort to implement positive train control is a critical initiative that reflects the industry’s commitment to strengthening safety. The nation’s 

commuter railroads are aggressively working to implement PTC by the statutory 

deadlines, and right now, thousands of workers across the country are working 

trackside or in back offices to make that happen. 

APTA is grateful for the work that this subcommittee has done to make our nation’s railroads safer. We look forward to continuing to work with you and your staff 

on this and many other issues that face public transportation agencies. 

Mr. SHUSTER [presiding]. Thank you, Mr. Knueppel. 

And now, Ms. Mortensen, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

Ms. MORTENSEN. Chairmen Shuster and Denham, Ranking Members DeFazio and Capuano, and members of the subcommittee, 

thank you for holding this important hearing and inviting me to 

testify about our experience implementing PTC on the smallest 

commuter rail service in the country. 

First of all, I want to note our sincere appreciation for our congressional delegation for our service area, especially the ones who 

serve on the House T&I Committee. Chairman Denham, and Representatives DeSaulnier and Garamendi have done a fantastic job 

for our constituents, and we are very fortunate to have them on 

this committee. 

Second, I also want to thank the Class I railroads who are our 

hosts for both our ACE service, which I will talk about today, and 

the San Joaquins Amtrak service, which we manage. They have 

been incredibly collaborative and helpful to us on the PTC, as well 

as our goals to expand services out in northern California. 

Just a brief bit about our agency. We operate under a consolidated staffing model that allows us to be very agile. We are a very, 

very small agency, and we manage both the ACE commuter rail 

and the Amtrak San Joaquins. And we throw our heart and soul 

into both. We have two policy boards that can take care of the constituents in each of the communities, but we share one staffing so 

that we can leverage opportunities, have very good cost controls 

and cost efficiencies, and bring more rail service, regardless of 

whether it is intercity or commuter, to the communities that we 

serve. 

The Amtrak San Joaquins run up and down the spine of California, north and south, and our ACE trains connect that spine 

from the Central Valley into the bay area. Our small rail commission is headquartered in Stockton, in San Joaquin County. And 

44 

while we don’t have very large budgets, we really make the most 

of what we have with our local partners. Our State just gave us a big vote of confidence in investing $1 

billion in our program of State funds to help us expand more service up to Sacramento, the State’s capital, and further down into the 

Central Valley. And we are tasked with delivering that within the 

next 3 to 6 years. So we are used to daunting tasks. 

We have just four ACE trains that operate in the commuter 

hours between the Central Valley and the Silicon Valley, our big 

job market. But on 3 of those 4 trains a day we are carrying over 

1,000 people each way. That is a very congested train situation, 

and we realize safety is paramount. 

We are also celebrating our 20-year anniversary. So while we are 

the smallest, we are not the newest kid on the block. And we have 

made do mostly by funding from local transportation sales taxes in 

each of our service counties. We have really found that self help is 

a necessity when running a regional rail program. 

In addressing the topic of today’s hearing, I am here to represent 

to you—and I know we are on the list of nine—that our board and 

our entire team is more than 150 percent committed to safety in 

many ways, including PTC. We have undertaken all the steps possible for us, and will continue to take the final steps necessary to 

fully implement the PTC program by the deadline. 

But I do want to be very direct, and especially in response to the 

opening comments. We have had some challenges. Some we have 

worked through, some we are continuing to work through. Some 

are out of our control, and frustrating, but we continue to push 

ahead. 

While being the smallest does have its advantages in terms of 

agency flexibility and agility, our responsiveness out in the service 

territory, and very close access to our customers, in a national process where we are vying for the attention of a single vendor and 

manufacturer of the PTC equipment, we find ourselves sort of 

pushed towards the end of the line. We really have faced a situation of being at the mercy of the marketplace. 

We operate our trains on the host railroads, so our only requirement for the ACE trains are the PTC implementation on six locomotives, eight cab cars, and setting up a back-office server. We also 

have the responsibility of the crew training, of course, but we have 

a somewhat limited role in terms of our compliance requirements. 

Our PTC equipment was ordered in March of 2017, well in advance of this year’s deadline, well in advance of being able to work 

with our host railroad partners on the testing. But because of the 

many other orders—and important orders—across the country, the 

equipment was not delivered until April of this year, so a year and 

a month after the order. And it was difficult for the vendor, as was 

mentioned before, to establish a site workforce, given the demands. 

This week, 6 of our locomotives—of our total 14 pieces of equipment—that is 42 percent—will be fully outfitted. That is as of 

today. We are on an expedited installation schedule, so all units 

will be completed by mid-October. And our test trains begin field 

testing on Saturday, October 6th. That will continue through into 

RSD through the end of December under Union Pacific’s testing 

plan. 

45 

I would like to give an example of how Union Pacific is helping 

us out, since our equipment is not fully installed. They helped expedite us getting a desktop simulator that will help get our engineering crews into at least the desktop training sooner, so that 

they are already well ahead of the game, once the equipment is out 

and field testing. 

Our back-office server has been approved by UP, and we are 

ready to start configuring all the equipment with the slot 10 cards 

as soon as the testing units are validated. So we have been trying 

to be very forward-moving and very proactive in our implementation. 

And I know your question is why has it taken so long to get to 

this point. And I guess it is good news and bad news. Issues that 

have arisen for other properties who do have the resources to do 

the R&D testing and work out the bugs, those sort of cascade onto 

us. 

So I will give you an example. The radio antennas, which are 

common to everyone, they began to fail due to water intrusion for 

other agencies that were using them. And so the antenna was recalled. So we already had our service kits ordered with the old antennas with the cabling, and we had already installed some. So we 

were unsure about the priority for us getting the new antennas, 

since you had operating systems that were failing. 

So, rather than wait for that, we continued with the installation 

of the old antennas. They haven’t failed yet. And out in California 

we are not in a water intrusion situation, so we just forged ahead 

with the old antennas. We will replace them when the new antennas become available to us down the line, as they will at some 

point, but it is an example of how we can be a little bit innovative, 

and just keep making this thing work, regardless of what the challenges are. 

On the Amtrak San Joaquins side, I am happy our partner Amtrak has taken the lead. They made a big equipment purchase a 

little bit after we did, and I think they sort of got in front of us, 

but that lets us have one of our systems out in the corridors testing 

already. And I am confident the San Joaquins will be compliant. 

And I guess a benefit of being last in line, we have taken advantage of the lessons learned. We have taken the resources that the 

FRA has offered. Both FRA DC and FRA District 7 have been great 

to us throughout the process. 

Our operating contractor from Herzog, who has been our contractor for 20 years, he came from the Northstar property and has 

been through the PTC process, so he is helping us expedite, and 

he is firm in his commitment to me that the ACE service will meet 

the deadline. 

We have also had other partner agencies offer us some equipment if we have some trouble, if anything malfunctions, and we are 

thankful for that. 

So with everyone rowing the boat this hard, I believe we will 

meet the deadline. And we look forward to adding our name to the 

list of agencies that are in PTC operation, and we get off the list 

of nine. 

And I thank you for the opportunity to share our experience 

today and look forward to your questions. 

46 

[Ms. Mortensen’s prepared statement follows:] 

f 

Prepared Statement of Stacey Mortensen, Executive Director, San Joaquin 

Regional Rail Commission 

Chairman Denham, Ranking Member Capuano, and members of the subcommittee: 

Thank you for holding this important hearing and inviting me to testify about our 

experience implementing PTC at likely the smallest commuter rail service in the 

country. 

First of all, I want to note our sincere appreciation for the congressional delegation in our service area, especially the ones who serve on the House Transportation 

and Infrastructure Committee. 

Chairman Denham, Rep. Garamendi and Rep. DeSaulnier have done fantastic 

jobs in Congress representing their constituents and our humble agency. And we are 

honored to have them represent us on the committee. Your leadership in all things 

transportation has been integral to our continued success. 

Second, I would also want to thank our Class I railroad stakeholders—Union Pacific and BNSF. They have been incredibly collaborative in so many ways, and we 

wouldn’t have our successful services without their cooperation and leadership. 

First a bit about our agency. Under a consolidated staffing model which allows 

us to be agile, we manage both the ACE commuter service and the Amtrak San 

Joaquins. One runs up the central spine of the State and the other runs east-west 

from the Central Valley to the Bay Area. We are headquarted in Stockton in a small 

valley county and while we don’t have large budgets, we make the most out of what 

we have. Our State recently allocated funding for long awaited expansions to Sacramento and further south in the Central Valley and we are focused on delivering 

new service in the next 3 years. 

Our four daily ACE trains operate during the commute hours between California’s 

Central Valley and the Silicon Valley, with connections to San Francisco. On three 

of those four weekday trains, ridership is over 1,000 passengers. The ACE Service 

celebrates a 20-year anniversary on October 19th and has been funded mostly by 

local transportation sales taxes in San Joaquin, Alameda and Santa Clara Counties. 

Let me be clear about one thing from the beginning: The Board and the entire 

team are 150 percent committed toward safety. We have undertaken all the steps 

we could—and will continue to do that—to fully implement PTC by the deadline. 

But let me also be very clear and direct in admitting that we definitely have had 

some challenges—challenges we have solved and are continuing to work through. 

Other things regrettably, are not directly under our control—yet we push ahead. 

While being the smallest can have its advantages in terms of agency flexibility, 

responsiveness and close access to the customers, in a national process vying for the 

attention of the single manufacturer of PTC equipment and software, it has positioned us toward the end of the line. 

We were quite simply at the mercy of the marketplace. 

Issues that arise in the implementation and testing for other agencies before us 

can have cascading impacts on our program that are beyond our control. We operate 

on a host freight railroad, so our only equipment requirement involves our six locomotives, eight cab cars and the back-office server. 

The ACE PTC equipment was ordered in March of 2017, well in advance of this 

year’s Federal deadline. Because of the many other orders across the country, the 

equipment was not delivered until April of this year. Further, the vendor couldn’t 

establish a site workforce until late June. This week, six of our 14 locomotives and 

cab cars (or 42 percent) will be fully outfitted. All units will be completed prior to 

the end of October and test trains will begin operating every Saturday starting October 6th. Testing will continue through the end of December under Union Pacific’s 

testing plan. 

The back-office server has been approved by Union Pacific and the consultant is 

ready to start configuring the equipment with the ‘‘Slot 10’’ cards as soon as the 

first testing unit has been validated. We have been trying very hard to be forward 

moving and proactive in our implementation. 

Why has it taken so long to get to this point? While there are several reasons, 

one example of the difficult issues we’ve had to work through was equipment recalls. 

Radio antennas for early implementation agencies began to fail due to water intrusion, resulting in the product being recalled. We already had the ACE kits ordered with the ‘‘old’’ antennas and several had been installed along with the cabling. 

47 

The priority for delivery of new antennas was focused on systems that were already 

in operation and those in the Northern States where water intrusion conditions 

were more threatening. 

Rather than wait the undetermined amount of time for the new antennas to be 

delivered, we continued installation-and will begin testing with-the old antennas 

which have not yet failed. We will replace the ‘‘old’’ antennas and cabling after our 

PTC program is completed and certified. 

On the Amtrak San Joaquin side, Amtrak was able to make a large, expedited 

purchase of the onboard equipment within the last year, so the San Joaquins are 

already in testing mode. However, this pushed ACE a little further out. But each 

experience learned in the San Joaquin roll out is valuable to ensuring the ACE program meets the deadline. 

One benefit of being last in line is taking advantage of the lessons learned at 

other agencies. FRA’s PTC Summits have been very helpful and both FRA Washington and our FRA District 7 staff have offered assistance throughout the process. 

In addition, the General Manager of our Herzog O&M contractor has been through 

the PTC process. Given his experience with Northstar, we are able to move faster 

and he is firm in his commitment that we will meet the PTC deadline. Another 

partner agency has also offered us two antenna kits if we experience any interruption to the installation schedule. In an effort to achieve compliance, Wabtec has assigned more staff and is utilizing our Herzog contractor for some tasks such as pulling cable and welding brackets. I believe that we will meet the deadline. 

Another delay that was beyond our control was due to the fact that ACE trains 

operate on the Caltrain Corridor for approximately four miles in the San Jose area. 

As you may know, Caltrain will be filing for an Alternative Schedule. We cannot 

complete work on that stretch without their cooperation. 

We look forward to adding our name to the list of agencies who are operating the 

new PTC system. 

I thank you for the opportunity to share our experience with you today and look 

forward to your questions. 

Mr. DENHAM [presiding]. Thank you, Ms. Mortensen. I appreciate 

you being here. 

When is Caltrain scheduled to upgrade the 4 miles of track that 

ACE operates over? 

Ms. MORTENSEN. Caltrain plans to begin testing a segment by 

the end of this year. It will not be the segment that is for the ACE 

in the Capitol Corridor, down around San Jose. So they will begin 

testing, but not in that section. So that is anticipated, I think, in 

the second quarter of 2019. 

Mr. DENHAM. So if you are unable to certify that area for PTC, 

how does that affect your deadline? 

Ms. MORTENSEN. So we are a tenant on both railroads. So they 

will file an alternative schedule for all the tenants—Amtrak, Capitols, ACE, and UP. And so we will fall under that. 

Mr. DENHAM. So they will file for the extension. 

Ms. MORTENSEN. Correct. 

Mr. DENHAM. You are not required to do so. 

Ms. MORTENSEN. Correct. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you. 

Mr. Naparstek, in your testimony you talked about 605 of the 

901 Amtrak-owned route-miles have at least one wayside PTC system installed and operational. What are the biggest risks to not 

completing the remaining one-third of Amtrak’s routes by December 31st? 

Mr. NAPARSTEK. The largest risk at this time, I would say, is the 

interoperability testing, in terms of the time it will take to run the 

test trains, to evaluate the test results, to submit and get approvals. 

So—in each of the areas we run—and we cover a lot of territory. 

Certainly on the Northeast Corridor, Michigan, Chicago, et cetera, 

48 

each one has a little bit of a different risk pattern. But where we 

are, based on the fact that—a lot of what we are looking at now 

is doing interoperability testing. 

For instance, on the Northeast Corridor—and I think it has been 

mentioned—until all our tenants are ready for interoperability testing, we can’t be 100 percent complete. And we have tenants on various phases. We have Mr. Knueppel’s organization, who I think is 

much more advanced than certainly other commuter agencies. 

So working through the whole interoperability, I think, is the 

biggest risk right now. 

Mr. DENHAM. And how far are you on the Northeast Corridor? 

Mr. NAPARSTEK. We plan on having all route-miles where we 

control PTC ready and compliant. So we should be ready ourselves 

on the corridor, and it will be a matter—we will file for extensions, 

we will file for the alternative schedule, and then we will work 

with all our tenants to help them become interoperable. 

And in some—I mean in some cases, to be frank, I am working 

with the tenants right now, my staff and I, to understand when 

they could be ready for testing. 

Mr. DENHAM. You will file for an extension on the Northeast Corridor, as well? 

Mr. NAPARSTEK. Yes. 

Mr. DENHAM. I would say that—I don’t want to speak for Mr. 

Capuano, but we have shared a number of conversations about the 

accidents that we have both seen, together—Philadelphia being one 

of those. And in 2015 this committee was promised that the Northeast Corridor would be 100 percent PTC-compliant by the end of 

2015. It is 2018 now, and we are talking about filing for an extension because we are still not there yet. 

I am going to tell you it is one of the main reasons of frustration 

for this committee, when Mr. Sumwalt talks about the 29 deaths 

that have happened around the country. Amtrak is right there on 

some of those catastrophic accidents—Philly being one of the most. 

So it is with a great deal of frustration that we continue to have 

this conversation and talk about extensions, especially when the 

last hearing that we had at the beginning of the year we were very 

explicit about who was going to need an extension and why. 

Mr. Batory, what is your strategy to enforce PTC implementation 

compliance after the 2018 deadline? 

Mr. BATORY. Thank you, Chairman. 

Mr. DENHAM. I think just pull it closer. I think that one is—— 

Mr. BATORY. Yes, we are having a technical defect here. 

If I didn’t know better I would think it was a railroad and we 

bad-ordered this thing. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. BATORY. Very good question. Going into 2019 we will continue the plan that emerged during first quarter of 2018 with the 

urgency and intensity that we have applied against that plan 

throughout this calendar year so far. 

We are already recognizing where there are violations, and recommending penalties. That is our only, if you will, mechanism to 

entice more urgency and more effort towards bringing PTC to resolve. 

49 

But I would much rather see us retain the resolve for PTC 

through the constant communication and collaboration that we 

have demonstrated as a group of people over the past 6 months. 

We have made considerable inroads. This is my observation of the 

FRA when I arrived in regards to this particular initiative. It is a 

personal opinion, based on the facts that were put before me. 

We definitely lacked, within FRA, a proactive organization plan 

with a sense of urgency. We were decentralized in responsibility 

and accountability. And I am not just speaking of recent date; I am 

talking over the last 10 years, part of it from my observation from 

the outside. 

Now, was the FRA responsive? Yes. FRA has always been responsive with this initiative. But it was somewhat ad hoc because 

of the decentralization. But we have a plan today, we started formulating that plan when the Secretary brought me on as a special 

advisor back in November of last year. It was formalized in January of this year. And I am very pleased and proud of the people 

that I am working with, both in the railroad industry, in other 

agencies, and in FRA itself, of what has been accomplished. And 

we are going to do nothing less than what we have demonstrated 

thus far. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you. 

Mr. Batory, I am out of time. But one of the questions that has 

come up as we have had PTC hearings throughout the years is 

what about the fines that at some point will be levied. I believe it 

is up to $27,500 per day. Are you prepared to deal with any of the 

rails that have fallen behind or ignored the mandate with a heavy 

fine? 

Mr. BATORY. What I have shared internally among the people 

that I work with daily—and actually, the range can be anywhere 

from around—I think it is $857 per violation, up to around 

$27,000. 

At this juncture, when you have an initiative that is 10 years old, 

and you see the amount of lagging that has taken place, why would 

you do anything less than the full amount? 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you. I would now like to recognize the ranking member, Mr. DeFazio. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

To Amtrak, Mr. Naparstek, the—back when we had a hearing in 

February, President Anderson said, ‘‘There may be railroads that 

operate over our NEC tracks which may not have sufficient PTCcommissioned rolling stock to operate normal services by the end 

of the year. Under the present rules, we cannot permit noncompliant equipment on our railroad after the deadline.’’ 

But you seem to have said something different. Can you explain 

that to me? 

Mr. NAPARSTEK. Our—— 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Please, close to the microphone, so people—— 

Mr. NAPARSTEK. Our position is to work very aggressively with 

the FRA and with our tenants in order for, at the deadline, to have 

each railroad operating services as safely as possible. 

I want to make sure—— 

50 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Yes, but that—not as—I don’t want as safely as 

possible. This was pretty definitive. We cannot permit noncompliant equipment to be used. Does that still stand, or not? 

Mr. NAPARSTEK. We expect every tenant that will operate on Amtrak—Amtrak will be 100 percent operating trains—— 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Got that. 

Mr. NAPARSTEK [continuing]. With PTC. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Right. But these are on your tracks—— 

Mr. NAPARSTEK. We expect every tenant to be operating either 

with PTC or under an extension, under an alternative schedule. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. OK. So the statement should have been qualified 

at the time, saying not—so you are saying that someone has an extension, the equipment is noncompliant, but it is not noncompliant 

because they have an extension? OK. Interesting. 

All right, and then he also said, you know, that, obviously, there 

will be carriers over which we operate who appear unlikely to 

achieve sufficient progress to apply for an alternative PTC implementation schedule by the year’s end. For any route segment Amtrak will suspend operations. How are we doing there? Are we 

going to have suspensions of service in certain areas? Are we going 

to have holes in the system? 

Mr. NAPARSTEK. At the point—since the statement was made, 

there has been a lot of progress made by host railroads. As we 

evaluate where our hosts are, our hosts will either be operational 

or will qualify for alternative schedules. We are not anticipating 

right now that there will be a host that will not have at least an 

alternative schedule. 

Where we will run over MTEA [Mainline Track Exclusion Addendum] territory or where we will run over alternative schedule, we 

are applying risk mitigation strategies, we are looking at the territory, and we are saying what additional risk can we do to close the 

gap. 

The goal, our goal at Amtrak, will be to be running PTC 100 percent everywhere we run. That is not a goal we will be able to 

achieve by 12/31, but we are committed to make that goal, and we 

will continue. So even over MTEA territories, we will continue to 

move towards PTC. In the meantime we will use risk mitigation to 

move towards what we are terming as ‘‘PTC equivalency,’’ using 

other operational and technology means to close the gap. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. OK. Administrator Batory, I guess you are going 

to get a flood of extension requests. And, as I understand, these are 

rather complicated and lengthy documents. 

I mean are you, you know, staffed up to the point where you are 

going to be able to process all of these by the first of next year? 

Especially if some of them come in, you know, in December? 

Yes. Yes, I think it is—it might be working this time. 

Mr. BATORY. Can you hear me? 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Yes. 

Mr. BATORY. We will get it closer. There we go. 

Now, we are talking about the acceptance? 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Well, the extensions. 

Mr. BATORY. The—OK, the—— 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Yes. I mean there is—you are going to get quite— 

well, you are getting a pile of both, OK? 

51 

Mr. BATORY. It is—the extensions thus far, for instance, we have 

the ability to handle the alternative schedule requests within a 

timely period where the—we have a 90-day window. We have to go 

back and tell the applicant what the concerns are, if any, within 

the first 45 days, and then we have the remaining 45 days to [inaudible]. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Well, if people submit documents on the first of 

December, and you get 45 days to send back concerns, do they 

qualify to continue to operate on January 1, even though you 

have—— 

Mr. BATORY. Yes. Yes, they do. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Well, that is probably going to mean you are going 

to get a heck of a lot of people filing on whatever the last business 

day is in December. 

Mr. BATORY. You are exactly right, Congressman. And we have 

discussed that with the prospective to-be-compliant carriers. We 

have talked about it internally. 

We are going to be able to be responsive to the alternative scheduling requests. The one that is concerning that we may want to discuss later has to do with the certification of the safety plans. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. OK, all right. My time has expired. Thank you, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Shuster, you are recognized. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Yes, Mr. Batory, can you—I don’t think I quite— 

Mr. DeFazio, I think, has a great question. And I guess the answer 

I am looking for is do you have enough staff to meet those 

timelines? That is—I am a bit unclear on that. 

Mr. BATORY. I have a calendar that we have to respect and recognize. 

Mr. SHUSTER. I am sorry, I can’t hear you. 

Mr. SUMWALT. I do want you to note that the NTSB does occasionally help the FRA. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. SHUSTER. I see that. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. The room is getting redone next year, and there 

will be—— 

Mr. BATORY. I trust—— 

Mr. DEFAZIO [continuing]. Include a new sound system. 

Mr. BATORY. I trust that is for the record. OK, OK. 

In regards to how we are staffed, we have 30 people that are assigned full-time to the administrative review of PTC. When we look 

at what we have in the way of talent among those 30 people—and 

that is the key, talent—we have a sufficiency rate of probably in 

excess of 80 percent. The other 20 percent are going through the 

learning curve. 

Now, we are also retaining third-party service providers. And as 

far as getting past this calendar year and into next year, the administrative burden that we are going to see facing ourselves we 

feel comfortable with. 

I will add one thing, though, that I talked about earlier about 

FRA and how it—— 

Mr. SHUSTER. Sure. 

Mr. BATORY [continuing]. Polices itself. Starting early this year, 

we instituted a perpetual inventory of all administrative instruVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:59 Dec 18, 2018 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\115\RR\9-13-2~1\33636.TXT JEAN
52 

ments that entered the FRA, was being handled within the FRA, 

and being sent out by the FRA concerning PTC. We defined 

timelines for ourselves, as far as how much time we should give 

ourselves to respond. That has helped immensely, because now we 

really understand what we are faced with, and we are maturing as 

every day goes on. 

Mr. SHUSTER. OK, thank you. 

Ms. FLEMING. Mr. Chairman, could I—— 

Mr. SHUSTER. Sure. 

Ms. FLEMING [continuing]. Add perspective to that? 

Mr. SHUSTER. Sure. 

Ms. FLEMING. You know, we talk to all the railroads, and they, 

quite frankly, do remain concerned about FRA’s ability to manage 

the influx of documentation. 

As I mentioned in my opening remarks, we have 32 out of the 

40 railroads that are going to seek an extension. So FRA is going 

to have to deal with reviewing and approving all of that documentation. You have got substitute criteria of requests to initiate 

testing, RSD. Safety plan documents could be as long as 5,000 

pages. 

There has been some movement of some resources, particularly 

with testing, and they have expanded some technical contracts. But 

it hasn’t amounted to a substantial increase in resources. So we 

really think they should implement our rec, which is to come up 

with a more strategic, risk-based approach. It is not about getting 

to just December, it is not even about getting to 2020. This is kind 

of a game-changer for the railroad operations and industry, so they 

are going to be in it for the foreseeable future. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Well, and you mentioned risk-based, and I know 

Mr. Batory and I have talked about risk-based and, you know, this 

is not the hearing to talk about this. But I think in the future— 

I won’t be here, but I hope this committee deals with it, not just 

the railroads, but industry in general. 

When you deploy technology, many—the railroads, this is a new 

technology, it has been extremely complicated. But once it is implemented, I think the technology is going to grow exponentially. And 

the FRA has to be working in collaboration with the freight rails 

to make sure that we are moving fast, because I have seen so many 

times that technology is developed, and by the time the Government gets around to saying OK, there is new technology. 

So, Mr. Batory, can you respond to that? 

Mr. BATORY. Yes. Let me also share this. And this was something that was enlightening to myself. And, you know, it is one 

thing to live outside the tent, and it is another thing to live inside 

the tent. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Right. 

Mr. BATORY. When it comes to PTC—and this is a tribute to 

yourselves and all your colleagues in Congress—we have two statutes, one from 2008 and the one from 2015. The one in 2008 was 

three sheets of paper. The one in 2015 was six sheets of paper. We 

took that, OK, and we formulated regs. And we came up with 45 

pages of regs. And then the rulemakings that percolated out of that 

was 190 pages. 

53 

Implementation plans, which are things that are already behind 

us—now, they have to be maintained, they are living documents— 

represent anywhere from 150 to 200 pages, with a lot of technical 

substance that has to be maintained, going forward, forever more. 

The one that gives everybody a concern is the safety plan. And 

I was astonished. And remember, my railroad in my prior life had 

to be PTC-compliant. The typical safety plan, regardless of the 

amount of mileage or the size of the railroad, averages in excess 

of 5,000 pages of paper. Now, that might be surprising to some of 

you. 

Now, as a result of these symposia—and that—this is where I 

think people get concerned. How do you administer 5,000 pages of 

paper? How much of it is substance and how much of it is fluff? 

Is it format over substance, or is it substance over format? So, as 

a result—and to put 5,000 sheets into perspective, it is one Xerox 

box of paper, so it is pretty heavy, too. And that is what we are 

struggling with. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Right. 

Mr. BATORY. And what we have identified is there is a way in 

which—to go after the substance and facilitate this process much 

faster. 

Now, when we had this symposium I just referenced a moment 

ago, I had 100 people in the room. The 100 people in the room were 

the experts of the railroad industry. I said, ‘‘Has anybody in this 

room written their entire safety plan?’’ There was no raising of 

hands. I said, ‘‘Has anybody in this room read the entire safety 

plan?’’ There was no raising of hands. ‘‘Has anybody edited the entire safety plan?’’ 

There was no raising of hands, because it has been syndicated 

out within their respective companies or out to third parties, then 

put together, and then sent to the FRA. And then, when people see 

what they are sending to the FRA, they are astonished, and they 

say, ‘‘Can the FRA really handle all this?’’ And that is where we 

have now learned that we are able to look at these safety plans, 

give conditional approval. 

At this juncture we have given conditional approval to a total of 

nine: six of the seven Class I’s. The only one that hasn’t gotten conditional approval yet—but we have it—is Canadian National. We 

have two commuter railroads—that is Metrolink and SEPTA—and 

then we, naturally, have Amtrak. 

So that is why I bring this to everybody’s attention. Let’s not 

make something out of perception, let’s talk about facts. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Right. Well, I think you have got a great point. I 

have run out of time here, so—but I just want to make one final 

point. Again, that is a great point. You and I have had this discussion. 

But I just want to say that you really give me great confidence 

that a guy who comes from the operating world, comes to the Government, and I have great confidence you are going to change 

things at FRA, and you have demonstrated here, right here in this 

committee room, when you had a problem with your mic, you didn’t 

screw around, you reached over and got another mic, and solved 

the problem immediately. And that is what it takes, I believe. So 

thank you very much. 

54 

I yield back. 

Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Capuano. 

Mr. CAPUANO. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Again, I want to start out 

by recognizing the railroads that have done their jobs, which is the 

majority of them. They are at least heading in the right way, particularly the Class I’s. So I want to start there. 

At the same time, as I sit here, you have heard the chairman say 

several times we have asked—for years now, people come and tell 

us what they need. No one has. No one came and said we needed 

extra time. No one came and said we needed extra money. And the 

FRA didn’t come and say we needed more people. So I sit here 

thinking there is no reason that we should have anybody in this 

situation. 

As I sit here and I look at it, I think it is incredibly unfair to 

the railroads who have done their job to allow those that have not, 

to escape this. 

The permanent exception you gave to somebody is unacceptable. 

And I believe, if there is ever an accident on that line, that permanent exemption will be thrown out by a court of law, because there 

was no authority to do it. Simple. And when that happens, somebody at the FRA is going to be held to blame. It may not be you; 

it will be somebody. 

And if it happens again, we will get another one coming in looking for an exemption because they don’t have any money. Every 

railroad in the country could have made that excuse, yet they 

didn’t. They came in and said, ‘‘OK, we have money, we will do 

this, we will reprioritize our spending.’’ 

And to sit here and say to somebody they have no money, here 

is my answer. On line 7 of your written response, Mr. Batory, you 

say you imposed the maximum civil fine on 13 railroads of $27,904. 

Thank you. But you also say it is a one-time fine. Eleven lines 

above that you also say you could assess that fine for every day 

they are not in compliance—$27,000 one time is not the maximum 

fine. It is $27,000 per day, per railroad, every day. And that money 

could be then used to help those, including the ones who are fined, 

to actually reprioritize their spending. 

I got to tell you I have none—zero—sympathy for the handful of 

companies that haven’t done anything. None. 

And I have said it before and I will say it again. It is only a matter of time until the next accident happens and someone dies. We 

have got NTSB—I believe your numbers were 29 deaths and $190 

million. How much is a life worth? Apparently, it is $190 million. 

Well, guess what? That is not near what my wife is worth, not 

near what my children are worth. Maybe you don’t value your families as much as I do. 

And again, I don’t think anybody wants to—it is a business decision. The FRA has the authority—and if you don’t have the authority, you should come to us, even today, and say, ‘‘We don’t have the 

authority to do this, we don’t have enough people to do that,’’ whatever it is, and we will do our best to help you. But unless you do 

that, we have to presume you have got what you need. 

I also have to presume, since you have done it in your previous 

life, you know how important this is. There is no excuse not to do 

it. 

55 

And where is the sympathy coming? How are you supposed to 

look at one of the Class I railroads who have done this, spent millions of dollars doing this? They didn’t really want to do it, but they 

were told they had to, they finally realized, OK, we got to do it, 

let’s get over it. How do you turn to them and say, ‘‘Thank you for 

doing what you did, thank you for reprioritizing your spending. But 

you, over here, Music City, New Mexico Rail Runner, doesn’t matter. You can go right ahead, keep killing people.’’ It is totally unacceptable. 

I don’t think you are going to find anybody on this side of the 

table who is going to accept that responsibility. I don’t think you 

are going to find anybody—it comes January, the next rail accident 

that happens after January, that they are going to sit here and 

say, ‘‘Not a big deal.’’ And that is fine, if that is what you want 

to do. 

I also think you got lawsuits coming. You got lots of lawsuits 

coming. And maybe my next life, maybe I will go back to practicing 

law so I can take one-third of that fee. It is going to cost a fair 

amount of money. And you know what? There isn’t a single person 

that I know of that wants a penny of it. They don’t want to lose 

their loved ones. 

So again, I am going to end where I started. I want to thank the 

companies that have done their job. I know it wasn’t easy. I know 

some of them had to be pushed, kicking and screaming. And again, 

I am not trying to be a perfectionist here. I get there will be some 

extensions. That is OK, within reason. But there are a couple of 

companies that haven’t done anything. And we have been down 

that rail before, and it is wrong. And I don’t think this Congress 

is going to accept it any longer. 

I apologize for the rant, but, what the hell, that is what I do. 

Thank you. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you, Mr. Capuano. 

Mr. Gallagher? 

Mr. GALLAGHER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

First of all, I would like to thank all of you for being here today 

and taking the time to brief us on this very important matter. 

Mr. Batory, given that PTC connects trains’ controls to wireless 

networks, is there any instance where a successful hacker could 

theoretically gain control of such a system to disrupt their 

functionality, and even potentially cause a derailment? 

If so, what measures are being taken to prevent such a development? 

Mr. BATORY. Thank you, Congressman. Yes, there are efforts 

that have been underway long before PTC. And we are fortunate 

that those efforts were underway before the development of PTC, 

because we are capitalizing on the results of those efforts. 

Imagine our automated train control systems that we had in 

place throughout this country, all of our sophisticated computer 

systems and networks that we have within the railroad industry. 

We have teams of people within the corporations that work very silent, but effectively, in developing the software technology that is 

needed to monitor perspective hacking, as well as protection of 

56 

hacking. And that is carrying forward into the PTC realm, and has 

to continue to be maintained. 

Mr. GALLAGHER. Just in terms of the overall threat landscape, do 

you feel like you are getting the information you need from the 

interagency, from all the stakeholders necessary to understand who 

might be trying to penetrate systems and networks? 

Mr. BATORY. I can only speak for myself, personally. I have never 

sought, OK, specifically who is attempting. But there have been attempts in the other systems, OK, non-PTC. And the railroad industry individually, as far as companies, as well as collectively, has 

been quite successful. 

Mr. GALLAGHER. Thank you. 

Mr. HAMBERGER. Mr. Gallagher, if I could chime in there, it is 

a major concern for the industry in general, but for PTC in particular. I would like to get a more detailed answer for the record, 

but I believe the data transmissions are encrypted, and I believe 

we have a very reputable contractor, whose name I don’t have at 

the tip of my tongue, working with us to help provide that security. 

But I would like permission to submit a more detailed answer for 

the record, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. DENHAM. Without objection. 

Mr. GALLAGHER. Thank you, Mr. Hamberger. And I would like 

to follow up with you. And forgive me for being new to all of this. 

You know, the chairman has assigned me a lot of homework as the 

newest member of the committee, and I am staying up all night to 

do it. 

But the FRA and FTA have awarded grants that have subsidized 

PTC implementation to the tune of more than $1 billion, correct? 

So much of this has gone into infrastructure that the freight railroads use, and has thus helped defray any investment that the railroads would otherwise have to make themselves. 

Could you just sort of tell us why you think that this subsidization of a private profitable industry is justified, and—not to stoke 

division—but especially when I hear often from AAR that, for example, trucking doesn’t pay its fair share, and things like that, I 

just would be interested in your perspective on that issue. 

Mr. HAMBERGER. I would like to get a little bit better understanding of that $1 billion. I believe most of it has not gone to the 

Class I freight railroads. I believe it has gone to short lines and to 

commuter roads, primarily. So I stand by the AAR position that 

this industry has spent over $10 billion of private-sector money, 

going on—by the end of this year it will probably be $11 billion not 

subsidized, not taxpayer money, private-sector money to meet this 

safety mandate. 

And so, if we are going to transition into the issue of modal equity, the matter is really how much of the trust fund comes from 

user fees and how much of it comes from non-user fees, and the 

last—— 

Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Hamberger, can I interrupt real quickly before 

Mr. Capuano leaves? 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. DENHAM. I just want to thank him for his leadership on this 

committee. He has been somebody that not only have I worked 

57 

very, very well with in a very bipartisan fashion, but I have 

learned a lot from him, too. His passion, but his knowledge is a lot. 

And I will tell you. I have even learned that not only can you 

buy a cheap shirt, but it is quite—it has got a cooling effect to it. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. DENHAM. He is a fashion statement that we are all following. 

[Applause.] 

Mr. CAPUANO. Thank you. 

Mr. DENHAM. You are a good man, Mike. 

Mr. Hamberger? 

Mr. HAMBERGER. I was in the middle of a rant there, Mr. Chairman. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. HAMBERGER. But let me just close by saying that in the past 

10 years $43 billion of taxpayer money has gone into the Highway 

Trust Fund, not user fees, to subsidize those people whose infrastructure is funded by the Highway Trust Fund. 

Mr. GALLAGHER. Mr. Chairman, I had a whole line of questioning 

related to the utility of short-sleeve, button-down shirts and them 

going in and out of style, but I will forgo that. 

I would just respond by making a point that, with freight in this 

country expected to increase by 40 percent over the next 30 years, 

you know, this is not a zero-sum game between different modes. 

There will be room for everyone to grow. Everyone has to have skin 

in the game. We need to make a public, as well as private investment. 

And so, I think we need to ask hard questions around what, you 

know, everyone has to do. And so—and particularly when it comes 

to the cyber vulnerabilities, I will look forward to the followup. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. HAMBERGER. And I will be glad to follow up on the modal 

equity issues, as well. 

And for the record, I was incorrect. It is $143 billion in the last 

10 years, not $43 billion, $143 billion of non-user-fee revenue into 

the trust fund. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you. 

Mr. Lipinski? 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to start out with 

Mr. Batory. 

We were talking about the safety plans that had not been submitted. So looking at the PTC dashboard, it looks like CN has submitted a plan, but it has not been approved yet. Is that accurate? 

Are you going to prioritize approving plans ahead of requests for 

extension, so that those get done more quickly, and that PTC can 

be started up on those lines? 

Are you going to prioritize approving the submitted plans, safety 

plans, over the request for extensions? 

Mr. BATORY. Yes. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. I just want to make sure you are going to—— 

Mr. BATORY. Yes, yes—— 

Mr. LIPINSKI [continuing]. Be able to get done, because—— 

Mr. BATORY. Both efforts are going in tandem. And as far as the 

CN one, it is currently being reviewed, and there are some unique 

58 

circumstances about that that I would certainly share with you, in 

the essence of time—— 

Mr. LIPINSKI. OK. 

Mr. BATORY. But it is positive. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. OK. More general, I just wanted to make sure— 

as Mr. Shuster was talking about, we want to make sure you have 

the ability to move forward as quickly as you can with all this, because the requests, as you have said, are going to come pouring in. 

Now, how much grant money does the FRA have still right now 

from fiscal year 2017, 2018 for PTC grants? I know some money 

went out in late August. How much more is there? 

Mr. BATORY. If I could, Congressman, let me characterize it this 

way. 

First of all, we have, out the door, OK, among all the parties associated with PTC, $2.6 billion so far. 

Now, since fiscal year 2017 we had CRISI money of $67.32 million that was noticed during first quarter, and selections are currently under review. A portion of these funds went to a PTC project 

under the special transportation circumstances program. 

We also had the CRISI money that was identified strictly for 

PTC, the $250 million. As soon as that hit, we recognized that we 

had to do something different, and get that money out as quickly 

as possible, without compromising the due diligence that we have 

to administer in getting money into responsible hands. And we 

were able to get that accomplished within about 75, 90 days. 

The part that was interesting about that—and I want to touch 

on, and I shared this with staff internally, I shared it with some 

of your colleagues—at this juncture it was more about the calendar 

than it was the money. But it—we did webinars, which is nothing 

new for FRA by a stand-alone, but we sought APTA, we sought 

AAR, we sought other associations and said, ‘‘Get your membership 

on a webinar. We will help facilitate it so we can get this money 

into the responsible hands.’’ It was undersubscribed. 

So, as a result, we just issued a NOFO, I believe this week, to 

get out the balance that was not taken—— 

Mr. LIPINSKI. How long do you expect that to—— 

Mr. BATORY. And we are going to try to get that done within 

about 90 days—again, if not less. Because—— 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Now, that last one was very impressive. 

Mr. BATORY. You have to get this money in their hands, so that 

they—— 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Yes. 

Mr. BATORY [continuing]. Can get the equipment purchased, get 

it delivered, and get it applied. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. A lot of us have been talking about passenger rail 

as a big concern here. It is also—but honestly, this is a tough one, 

when it comes to—we want to make sure that commuter rail, especially, is going to get PTC installed as quickly as possible. 

But, you know, a question out there: are we going to be levying 

these big fines against commuter railroads who do not—may not 

have the money to begin with, and that is why they are so slow 

in getting this done? And what will happen next? So, you know, 

that, I think, is a question. 

Do you have any, you know, comments on that? 

59 

Mr. BATORY. I certainly do. Let me share a statement of fact. 

When we had individual meetings, eyeball-to-eyeball, with each of 

the 41 railroads—and at that time I was not yet confirmed, I was 

an advisor to the Secretary—I shared with each of them that I 

often sat on the other side of that table, where they were sitting. 

So I asked for candor and thorough understanding of where they 

were with PTC. 

And money came up in each of those conversations, and only in 

2 was money an issue among the 41 to-be-compliant railroads. It 

was more about the calendar, and can we make the calendar as far 

as physical installation and implementation of the equipment. 

Those two railroads was the Rail Runner in New Mexico and 

Caltrain train in California. 

Other than that, there wasn’t—now, that is not to say that there 

isn’t a railroad that wouldn’t have taken a check that day. They 

all would have taken money. But none of them said money was an 

impediment. 

Ms. MORTENSEN. Congressman Lipinski, if I could add to that as 

a small commuter rail property, I had to do risk analysis about 

funding the PTC program. And what we did instead was—our 

State is very supportive in California of getting PTC installed. And 

so, through State sources related to safety and security, we funded 

our $7 million PTC program. 

I worried, just about the timing of Federal grants coming out, 

that that would be another one of those issues that is out of my 

control that would push when we could make the order of equipment. And so there are times when there is just the uncertainty 

of the grants added on to the uncertainty of all the rest of the program that—we couldn’t bear that risk. 

And so, while we—the offer was made, we did go forward with 

State funding, just because it had more certainty about when we 

would have our hands on it and be able to get it to the vendor and 

order the equipment. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. All right, thank you. I yield back. 

Mr. DENHAM. Mr. DeSaulnier? 

Mr. DESAULNIER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I admire your attire today. For the record, I paid $5.98 at K-Mart for this shirt, so I realize the wisdom of Mr. Capuano, and I want to make my comments in the same spirit of Mr. Capuano, but looking more towards 

the future. 

So, Ms. Mortensen, I have been around long enough to remember 

when you started. If memory serves me, there is, like, 175,000 car 

trips through that corridor right now. We have got companies like 

Facebook and Google anxiously wanting to write checks to improve 

that. We talked about doing the Dumbarton Bridge. So you are taking 2,000 people. 

So I would like to make this comment—and if you could specifically add to this and come back to Mr. Batory—this reminds me 

of an FDA hearing in another committee. We have got people who 

want the FDA to do best practices and make sure they don’t make 

mistakes. But they want them to get new inventions—in that instance, in biomedicine—and to saving lives. 

In places like the bay area and Philadelphia and urban areas, we 

have got this huge demand, mega-trips, people spending 2 hours 

60 

going both ways, yet imperiling the growth of these urban areas 

where 65 percent of our GDP comes from. So we want to get it 

right. 

But looking forward, what do we learn from this? We can expect 

new technology, we can expect new innovation. But right now people are struggling with their day-to-day life, and it is impacting the 

national income if we don’t get this infrastructure right. 

So, Ms. Mortensen, maybe you can—I know about your instance, 

because Mr. Denham’s constituents come through my former constituents when I was in the legislature. They are going out there 

to buy affordable housing. They are working as software engineers 

in some of the biggest companies in the world. They are taking 2 

hours to go. But you are overprescribed. 

So what are things that you look at, your situation? You could 

take more of those cars off the Altamont, off 580, and put them 

into a real world-class commuter rail system, if we got our act together here at the Federal level, and knowing that the State is 

ramping up, as you said, a $1 billion just for that corridor. 

Ms. MORTENSEN. Well, I think one observation I have seen about 

the Facebook issue—and I have been in transportation 25 years— 

this is the first time where we have flash mob population that ends 

up at one place at one time. 

It used to be, when an industry would come in, it would take 

some time to develop the plant—you know, a production plant, a 

steel plant—you would know how fast it would grow and how many 

employees would be there over time. And it followed a fairly predictable schedule. With the new tech firms in the Silicon Valley, 

there can instantly be 19,000 employees in one location, and that 

is not a unique situation. It is happening over and over again. Government has a difficult time responding so quickly to put the infrastructure together for something like that. 

And so I am aware of the issues on the Dumbarton Bridge, a 

very valuable bay crossing that doesn’t exist today. And I think 

public-private partnerships, where we let the public sector take the 

lead and maybe push things through faster than the Government 

can, is a way to look at those kind of situations to solve it faster. 

We would definitely utilize the Dumbarton Bridge. But if we do the 

typical Government study/design/build process, it will be 35 years. 

Hopefully—there is a financial partnership between Plenary and Facebook that has about $1 billion on the table. And I think that 

kind of thing we should support at the Federal, State, and local 

levels, because capacity is critical. We have to solve our own problems within the communities. 

And then we have to negotiate with our Class I railroads. That 

is a commodity for them. We want our goods, too, not just people 

movement. So it is a give-and-take on a lot of different fronts. 

Mr. DESAULNIER. So, Mr. Batory—and I would like to, in the 

context of Mr. Sumwalt, who—NTSB came to your rescue there 

with a microphone, his quote was, ‘‘Every day that we go without 

PTC, we are at risk of a mass casualty event due to human error.’’ 

So here is the balance. And you said urgency. We have got these 

demands of commuters, their lives being affected. We want to get 

new—so what have we learned from this experience? How can we 

fix this, once and for all, but going forward make sure we are more 

61 

nimble about getting new technology in place and out into the commuter’s benefits? 

Mr. BATORY. Thank you for that question. Just to speak on PTC 

first, it has been a 10-year journey. And—— 

Mr. DESAULNIER. It is too long. 

Mr. BATORY. Exactly. What did this phone do 10 years ago? And 

we are basically trying to put in a platform that we designed 10 

years ago. 

So, as a result, I understand that there may be some frustration 

and irritation about things that have taken place that evolve from 

the past. But I am trying to lead this initiative looking through the 

windshield, and not through the rearview mirror. 

And we have to go forward, we have to bring closure to PTC 1.0, 

as I call it, recognizing the calendar gives us as much latitude as 

2023. But we can’t wait that long. And if we get it done sooner, we 

can then have a more robust, efficient PTC system that will be less 

money to maintain and operate, it will have more risk reduction, 

enhancing safety overall. 

And when you start doing that you take variability out of the 

system. And when you take variability out of the system, you create capacity. And that allows for additional organic growth. We see 

that, both in the passenger side and the freight sector, but we have 

got to get this accomplished and quit worrying about the past. 

Mr. DESAULNIER. But the key part—and this is for future hearings—is what have we learned from this experience, going forward. 

So when you put the phone up—this discovery 10 years ago, we 

don’t want to be here 10 years with some undeveloped, unknown 

technology now going through the same experience. There is a real 

demand and consequence for everyday people’s lives if we don’t get 

better at this. So that is the point of my question. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. HAMBERGER. If I might be so bold, I think what we have 

learned is that a mandate that is so specific is what is causing the 

problem. If the mandate had been reduce accidents by X percent, 

if the mandate had been reduce fatalities, reduce accidents per 

train mile, then the industry, working with suppliers, would be 

able to leapfrog technology, move forward. 

And I am hoping that that lesson is learned so that, once this 

platform is put in place—and it is a heck of a platform—that there 

are a lot of people in the Class I’s now, sitting in—you know, smart 

people—how do we take advantage of this to go to—what I refer 

to PTC 2.0—and get additional safety benefits, additional operational efficiency benefits. But we are going to need an FRA and 

a Congress that allows us to do that, and doesn’t impede us from 

being able to do that. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you, Mr. Hamberger. 

Mr. Babin? 

Dr. BABIN. Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, witnesses for being here. And this will be for Mr. Knueppel. Is that 

the way you say it, Knueppel? 

Mr. KNUEPPEL. Knueppel. 

Dr. BABIN. Knueppel, OK. Sorry about that. Can you tell us 

about some of the commuters that are on track to meet the deadVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:59 Dec 18, 2018 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00073 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\115\RR\9-13-2~1\33636.TXT JEAN
62 

line, and what they are doing that is making them successful in 

this implementation? Just give me a rundown, if you don’t mind. 

Mr. KNUEPPEL. Sure. Obviously, I can give you our own experience, which I talked a little bit about today. 

For a public agency, there are a lot of things that kind of have 

to break the right way. For us, we were fortunate in that we had 

had an in-house signal construction program already going. And so 

we just were able to expand it. The fact that we were also able to 

use contractors and find a way to have both working at the same 

time was very good. 

A lot of people have been retiring in the last 10 years. At my 

company I have lost, just generally, 25 percent of my employees in 

the last 3 years. 

Dr. BABIN. Wow. 

Mr. KNUEPPEL. And so, keeping your talent and your team together is usually a big factor in how an agency will do. 

We do low bids. Low bids can work out. Low bids cannot work 

out. We were very fortunate with Hitachi and formerly Ansaldo, 

and they were very motivated and they worked well with us, and 

they were based in Pennsylvania, so that helped. 

For SEPTA, radio spectrum went very well. When we went to 

pursue it, the person was extremely reasonable and actually owned 

it, which made it a lot easier. 

Relationships are a big deal. With CSX I can tell you that, you 

know, we had already separated on one of our territories with 

them. So having to separate again, it was just a follow-on. We did 

that separation project with them in less than 2 years, start to finish. And the TIGER funds were, as I mentioned, very helpful. 

But we had also a radio interference problem with them, and it 

got tough. But the relationships that we had, we ultimately worked 

through it. I liken it to the Cuban Missile Crisis, but we got 

through it. 

Amtrak was very, very instrumental in helping us, and their engineering group was based out of Philadelphia, so that was extremely helpful. 

And the FRA, you know, I think, has been very, very helpful to 

us. And the Administrator has even come to me and sat in my office and made sure that I had what I needed and answered any 

questions, so that, you know, your relationship with the FRA is important. 

Your workforce, you know, your train crews, it is a big change. 

And so the agencies that have a positive approach towards it, and 

buy-in, that helps. 

And for us, you know, I had a very supportive board. We were 

at a very, very low time, in terms of our capital funding, but our 

board was very, very supportive. And our riders, I can’t thank them 

enough, because they knew what was going on, we were telling 

them, and it did affect them. Our on-time performance went way 

down, as we—we run every car we can every day. They are always 

asking for more cars on every train. And we had to take cars out 

of service to equip them, and they were patient, and they let us 

keep going. 

Dr. BABIN. I want to ask you one more question, though. 

Mr. KNUEPPEL. Sure. 

63 

Dr. BABIN. If you can just go ahead and wrap up—— 

Mr. KNUEPPEL. I am done, I am done. 

Dr. BABIN. You are done? OK. 

Mr. KNUEPPEL. So those are kind of the positive things that came 

out of our experience. 

Dr. BABIN. OK, thank you. And then, how much money have 

commuter railroads invested into PTC, and what is the estimated 

total cost? 

Mr. KNUEPPEL. $4.1 billion. 

Dr. BABIN. OK. 

Mr. KNUEPPEL. And the funding that has been made available to 

us is about one-tenth of that. And 80 percent of that has really only 

come since May of 2017. 

The problem with having the money come late is with the requirements of the funding. You often can’t use it on contracts that 

have already been awarded. So that is what makes it difficult to 

have the money—have—in most cases, for commuters, come later. 

But we are certainly making use of it wherever we can. 

Dr. BABIN. OK, thank you. Thank you very much. 

And I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you. 

Ms. Esty? 

Ms. ESTY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I, too, salute Mr. 

Capuano and his short-sleeved shirts. 

I wanted to touch on two topics, as I think the last one here— 

no, no, Mr. Weber is joining us. 

The first, as somebody who represents Connecticut, I have to 

drill down more on the Northeast Corridor and serious concerns. 

There has been way too much loss of life. There continue to be 

delays on that. And safety is paramount. 

And the other is I do want to, before the close of my 5 minutes, 

return to Mr. Hamberger’s point about, basically, performance 

standards. And I think if we in America are going to have a transportation and an infrastructure system that is state of the art, we 

have got to figure out how to move much more nimbly. And I do 

want to return to that, because we saw that with NextGen. We are 

seeing that with this. And we are losing ground around the world, 

and we have got to figure out together how to stop pointing fingers 

at who is responsible and saying we have to redo how we get to 

fast, safe, affordable. 

So on the Northeast Corridor, Mr. Naparstek, I know—not everybody in this room knows, but I know the Connecticut lines are 

owned by the MTA, not Amtrak. So when you say how much— 

when you are talking about how much of that, of the Northeast 

Corridor that everything Amtrak owns is going to be compliant, 

what is not going to be compliant? So what lines are—what portions are not going to be compliant, and how heavily traveled are 

those portions? 

Mr. NAPARSTEK. [No response.] 

Ms. ESTY. Because the rails are actually owned—in Connecticut 

are owned by Connecticut, are owned by the MTA. They are not 

owned by the State of Connecticut. Are those all going to be compliant with PTC? 

64 

Mr. NAPARSTEK. I believe—let me get back to you with specifics 

on Connecticut. And I actually have somebody on my staff who 

could easily answer that. But I believe they will be compliant. But 

I would want to verify that 100 percent, in terms of Connecticut. 

Everywhere we run service in Connecticut should be compliant 

by 12/31/2018. 

Ms. ESTY. All right. Because I have to say it. For many of us this 

is like Groundhog Day. I have been on this committee for almost 

6 years, and we have been hearing about we are close, we are close, 

just give us a little more time, a little more time. And frankly, you 

know, I have to say the folks in my district are angry and worried 

and late to work. Like a combination of all those. That is not a 

good combination. 

So you hear that frustration up here? That is because—and the 

chairman of the subcommittee has raised that—people have not 

come forward to say, ‘‘This is what we need.’’ And to wait until the 

eleventh hour, I mean, how is Mr. Batory supposed to go through 

on the 31st of December? This is like college, you know, paper 

being done all night and asking for an extension at, you know, 1 

minute of midnight. It is not any good way to instill confidence in 

the riding public. And it makes it impossible for us to do our jobs 

of oversight. And that is really for everyone. I mean don’t wait. Tell 

us what you need, and we will try to work with you. 

Mr. Batory, I agree with you on those fines. I mean you get people’s attention, people—and the Class I freights have complied. But 

if people are not complying—you change the business calculation if 

you are facing a big, fat fine. And we did do that extension in 2015 

because we wanted the money to go to PTC, not to fines. And here 

we are, 3 years later, and it didn’t work. So I think people say take 

out the sticks now, because this is not working. We haven’t succeeded in getting this done. 

So again, what is it going to take to get this done as rapidly as 

possible? We are not going to performance standards 2.0, we had 

better go to performance standards. What exactly do we need to do 

right now to get this done as fast as possible? Is it fines? 

I mean, Mr. Batory, do you think it is fines? And I want a fast 

response. Do you think it is fines to get attention now? 

Mr. BATORY. That is definitely a tool in the toolbox. And as I 

mentioned earlier, I would like not to have to use that tool. But if 

that is the one you have to use in combination with everything else 

that we have now invoked, OK, I think we should do nothing less 

than that, insofar as exercising that. 

But the main thing is getting the concentrated, concise, collaborative communication. And I am going to speak to the Northeast 

Corridor, from Boston down to Washington, DC. 

When we met with those 41 railroads, Amtrak was one of them. 

And even though we have read in the newspapers over the last 3, 

5 years that the Northeast Corridor has PTC in place, it has pepper spots and stains all over it where there is no PTC. They have 

done an excellent job this year in trying to get rid of those pepper 

spots and stains where Amtrak is in total control of itself. 

The next thing that became very apparent, we had to maintain 

nothing less than a dialogue of once a month on a macro perspective with Amtrak. We maintain a dialogue with them daily, 

65 

tactically, on PTC. But they host a lot of commuter railroads. So, 

as a result, it then became apparent that we had an absence of 

synchronization between the commuter railroads and Amtrak. And 

the only way you are going to get that resolved is communication, 

and you can never have too much communication. 

So, as a result, with our monthly meetings now, we have basically—we don’t ask people to come to Washington, but we allocate 

whatever amount of time—it is usually about 15 to 20 minutes— 

for each individual commuter railroad to express on the monthly 

call where they see issues with Amtrak, and where Amtrak sees 

issues with the commuter railroad, so we can get them in synch, 

and get this PTC piece in place. It is a very densely operated piece 

of railroad that doesn’t lend itself to absorbing a lot of variability 

because of its density. And we have to have this interoperability 

piece in place sooner, rather than later. 

Ms. FLEMING. May I add a perspective? I think one of the things 

that we need to think about is that only eight railroads said they 

are going to make the December deadline. So 32 are seeking an extension. Of those 32, 12 would like to use substitute criteria, particularly initial testing. And that is in the really early stages. And 

our analysis has shown that from initial testing to RSD takes, on 

average, 2 years. So if you do the math, we are concerned that 

some railroads won’t even make 2020. 

Mr. HAMBERGER. As long as people are adding on, let me add on, 

if I might, Mr. Chairman, those people who are filing for an alternative schedule, I would argue, are not filing for an extension. 

They are filing for an alternative schedule under the law, as written. 

Several Class I railroads and Amtrak were ready to be declared 

fully implemented by the end of 2018. But the FRA regulations 

stipulated that no one could be fully implemented until everyone 

was fully implemented. Therefore, the host railroad, whether it was 

a freight railroad or Amtrak, could not ask—asked, but was denied 

being declared fully implemented because their tenant railroads 

were not fully implemented. And I think Mr. Naparstek is being 

kind to one of his tenants by not going further down that path. 

And—but it is important, I think, for this committee, and, as I 

read some of the media outlets, for the media to understand that 

there were railroads ready to be fully implemented 100 percent 

operational, and were denied that and were forced to apply under 

the alternative schedule. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you, Mr. Hamberger. Final question to Mr. 

Weber. 

Mr. NAPARSTEK. If I could—I am sorry, sir, but if I could answer 

Congresswoman Esty’s original question, so for Amtrak tracks in 

Connecticut we will be 100 percent in operation by 12/31. For 

CTDOT, they will be PTC-operable completely by the deadline. And 

Metro-North will be filing for an alternative schedule. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you. 

Mr. Weber, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. WEBER. Thank you. Gosh, I don’t know where to start. 

Mr. Batory, quick question for you. I was here earlier, and had 

to go to another hearing. You—and I have been on this committee 

now—what is this, my second year? So you mentioned there were 

66 

two laws, 2008, 2015 in some of your remarks. And then you went 

through 2008 was four pages long, and then you went from there 

to the number of rules, and from there to the safety—can you give 

me those stats again? Do you have them handy? I will come—— 

Mr. BATORY. Yes, Congressman. And just to give you some color 

as to why I sought this, when I heard the safety plans were 5,000 

pages, I was a little taken back. So I said, ‘‘Well, let’s peel the 

onion back.’’ What got us to 5,000 pages? 

So I said, well, tell me how thick was the statute that came out 

of Congress? In 2008 it was three pages; 2015 it was six pages. And 

then the RSAC [Railroad Safety Advisory Committee] process was 

engaged to develop the regs, and we came up with 45 pages of regs. 

And that percolated 190 pages of rulemaking, which then drove the 

implementation plans that are not that burdensome, but they are 

living documents and have to be maintained forevermore—150 to 

200 pages. But then you get to the safety plan, and it is 5,000 

pages. 

Mr. WEBER. OK. So in those rules and all those pages that you 

cited, Mr. Hamberger makes a very good point. There was no provision for tenant rail lines, I guess, railroads. And I am not quite 

sure how to provide for that, because, you know, it is true that Amtrak may be on board, for example, but if you have got tenants responsible, are they to be held liable for their tenants under those 

rules? 

Mr. BATORY. Here is what evolved. There are three railroads, 

and the facts are there, so I feel comfortable in revealing them. 

You have two commuter railroads that are extremely far ahead 

of the curve: Metrolink and SEPTA. The two Class I’s are Burlington Northern Santa Fe and Union Pacific, as far as maturity 

into PTC. Burlington Northern Santa Fe realized that they were 

going to have their entire railroad PTC-equipped, their locomotives 

are equipped, OK? So naturally, if you are working at Burlington 

Northern you would say, well, I am done, OK? 

But they have thousands of miles on their railroad that they 

offer, OK, for use by tenants, some of them utilized by Class I’s. 

So, as a result, they wanted to be recognized as fully implemented. 

And we said you can’t get fully implemented, because you have tenants out there that aren’t going to be PTC-equipped. 

And let’s talk about Chatsworth. That was a Metrolink train and 

a Union Pacific train, a tenant and a host got together. So if you 

would have declared that piece of railroad—had PTC been in effect 

back then—and said you are fully implemented, but one of those 

two weren’t equipped, you would have still had the crash. So that 

is why it was written that way. 

So what we told Burlington Northern Santa Fe, we said, all 

right, there is the rule, the reg, the law, but there is also the spirit 

and the intent of all that. So that is when we suggested get all 

your tenants to file for alternative schedule, OK, and—— 

Mr. WEBER. Not an extension, but an alternative—— 

Mr. BATORY. Just get the tenants—— 

Mr. WEBER [continuing]. Schedule, as pointed out. 

Mr. BATORY. Get the tenants to file for alternative schedule, and 

then we can recognize you as being fully implemented, recognizing 

67 

those tenants are not fully implemented yet, because they filed for 

alternative schedule. They elected not to—— 

Mr. WEBER. Why? 

Mr. BATORY [continuing]. When we offered. I do—I can’t answer 

that. Burlington Northern—— 

Mr. HAMBERGER. Well, clearly, they had no jurisdiction over their 

tenants—— 

Mr. BATORY. I have—— 

Mr. WEBER. Well, that is what I said, you are making them responsible. 

Mr. BATORY. But he—— 

Mr. NAPARSTEK. Well, there is two things. 

Mr. BATORY. So—— 

Mr. NAPARSTEK. Jurisdiction, as well as you can’t test interoperability on a tenant that isn’t ready to test—— 

Mr. WEBER. That is a little tough. 

Mr. NAPARSTEK. We can’t prove 100 percent—we are 100 percent 

ready, but I can’t prove on Amtrak’s system 100 percent interoperability without my tenants being ready. 

Mr. WEBER. That is a little tough. 

Mr. NAPARSTEK. Therefore, I need to work with my tenants, and 

we will be as aggressive as possible to get them PTC-operable as 

quickly as possible. 

Mr. WEBER. I am running out of time and I am the only thing 

that stands between this committee and lunch, so I need to hurry. 

Ms. Fleming, you said something that got my attention. You said 

that there were 32 of the 40, but that the others—the 8 were seeking an extension based on—so that they could come up with, was 

it substantive criteria? Was that what you said? 

Ms. FLEMING. Right. So within the statute, FRA has the ability 

to allow railroads to apply for—instead of meeting the current criteria for an extension, substitute criteria. 

Mr. WEBER. Oh, substitute criteria. 

Ms. FLEMING. Substitute. So, 16 are going to seek an extension 

using substitute; 12 of the 16 want to be able to have approval for 

initial field testing, which is really in the early stages. 

And my point was that, for those 12 railroads, we are a little concerned that they may not even meet 2020, because at that juncture 

you are still kind of working through a lot of bugs, the system may 

not be mature, and the railroads that are further along, such as my 

colleagues at the table, it has taken an average of 2 years from initial testing to RSD. So we are a little concerned that some of those 

railroads—granted, sometimes extensions—you know, I mean your 

schedules work out fine. But sometimes there is, you know, unforeseen circumstances. So we are a little concerned about those 12 

railroads and where they are at this point. 

Mr. WEBER. OK. Well, I am past my time, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your indulgence, I yield back. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you, Mr. Weber. 

Mr. Shuster? 

Mr. SHUSTER. Well, I just want to say a final note. Look, this is 

an incredibly complicated situation here. Deploying technology that 

is not fully developed, and we are going through the process, we 

have got some folks that are—obviously, the freights are ready to 

68 

go, and you have got others that aren’t. So this is incredibly complex. It should be a lesson to all of us about technology and going 

forward, no matter what the industry is, and how we have to make 

sure that, as Mr. Batory said, it has got to be a collaborative effort. 

These companies don’t want to have dangerous—they don’t 

want—they want to have the safest possible system they can have, 

and I don’t believe anybody is trying to cut any corners, but it is 

just very complicated. So I just wanted to say that. 

But also, I wanted to say to my good friend of 40 years, Ed, I 

did the calculation. Forty years I have known Ed Hamberger. He 

has been a great friend. He has done an outstanding job, I believe, 

at running AAR for the last 20 years. 

You have been a great ally at times and have been a formidable 

opponent at times, and I appreciate that. And whoever has to fill 

your shoes at AAR has got some really, really big shoes to fill. So— 

but I wish you the best. And whoever comes after you, I wish them 

the best, having to go after Ed Hamberger. 

That being said—I am not done yet, Mr. Chairman—I came here 

today because this is an incredibly important hearing. But I would 

not miss the final performance of Ed Hamberger. 

Now, I went through the—went through, looked at the testimony, 

I tried—— 

Mr. HAMBERGER. I am delighted to hear that this is my final performance. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. SHUSTER. At least before this committee, I should say. 

Mr. HAMBERGER. Chairman Denham may have different ideas, 

but anyway—— 

Mr. SHUSTER. Well, at least before this committee, at least when 

I am here. Maybe Denham and I won’t be here the next time. 

So—but I just wanted to say I looked through the record, I tried 

to find some way to grill you today, because with a name like Hamberger, grilling you is absolutely appropriate. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. SHUSTER. But I couldn’t, because I agree with you, that the 

Class I’s have done their work, have done their job. And so we are 

in a situation here that, as I said, it is complicated. But again, you 

have done a great job for the last 40 years. 

I appreciate all of you being here. And again, we are going to 

continue to work forward. And I know in the able hands of Chairman Denham, he will make sure that we all come together and we 

have a great ending when it all comes together. 

Mr. HAMBERGER. Mr. Chairman, right back at you. Of course, 

you have been a great Member of Congress, a good friend, and a 

great chair. And whoever follows in your footsteps will have a great 

legacy to live up to, as well. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Thank you very much. 

And if I could ask one more question, Mr. Denham, when I finish 

here, please do not recognize Ed Hamberger again, because he always tries to get in the last word. 

Mr. HAMBERGER. Can he just say, ‘‘Well done, Hamberger’’? 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. SHUSTER. Great job, Ed. 

I yield back. 

69 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. DENHAM. Last word of this committee is PTC, get it done. 

With that, if there are no further questions, I would like to ask 

unanimous consent that today’s record of the hearing remain open 

until such time as our witnesses have provided answers to any 

questions that may be submitted to them in writing, unanimous 

consent that the record remain open 15 days for additional comments and information submitted by members and witnesses. 

Without objection, so ordered. 

I would like to thank our witnesses again today. 

If there are no other comments, the committee stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:58 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(71) 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD

TESTIMONY OF FLOYD MASON, PRESIDENT, BROTHERHOOD OF RAILROAD SIGNALMEN

Dear Chairman Shuster and Ranking Member DeFazio: 

My name is Floyd Mason. I have served as Vice President East for the Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen (BRS) for many years, which included the role of chairman on our training committee. During our recent Convention, I was elected President of the BRS and assumed the office on October 1, 2018. Prior to my full-time 

union assignment, I worked on Class I railroads as a technical employee, which involved extensive work on a large signal installation initiative—the installation of 

centralized traffic control systems that in many areas changed operation from a 

local operator to a remote centralized control facility. The BRS represents signal employees who install, maintain and test the signal systems responsible for the safe 

movement of trains and protection of the public, including Positive Train Control 

(PTC) which overlays and is governed by the existing signal system. 

On September 13, 2018, I was accompanied by BRS Legislative Representative 

Leonard Parker while attending the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee 

(Committee) hearing titled, ‘‘The State of Positive Train Control in the U.S.’’ While 

at the hearing, certain comments and assurances were made either by the industry 

or by Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) Administrator Ronald Batory regarding the status of PTC training for Railroad Signalmen. The theme was Class I Railroads have completed, or nearly completed, the required and necessary training of 

Railroad Signalmen in aspects of PTC. More specifically, the implication is that the 

training of Railroad Signalmen required by the Rail Safety Act of 2008 is complete, 

meeting the requirements of the law and FRA requirements. The indication was 

that this training provides Signalmen with what they need to properly perform their 

duties and provides for the safety of the public and rail employees regarding PTC— 

with these comments I plan to challenge that notion. 

The work of Railroad Signalmen, other front-line rail workers, the industry, the 

FRA, and this Committee has been truly impressive. Without question, the installation of PTC is the largest application of life-saving and operational-efficiency technology in the history of railroad signaling. The process has taken time, arguably too 

much time, but the scope and level of technical advancement in railroad signaling 

is impressive and remarkable. My comments are limited to the training of Signalmen on Class I railroads. The Class I railroads appear to be the yardstick that the 

T&I Committee is using for progress, and rightfully so. 

The training provided for Railroad Signalmen is inadequate and will not 

meet the high-standard necessary to ensure the safe, proper, and reliable 

operation of these sophisticated systems. As an anecdote, at Local meetings 

where I converse with Signalmen, I am often met with chuckles or concerns when 

I raise the subject of proper training for PTC systems. There has been a real effort 

to check off all Signalmen as PTC trained, unfortunately what is needed and what 

has occurred are vastly different. I raised this issue personally and directly with Administrator Batory at the BRS 52nd Regular Convention in August where he was 

a speaker. I sincerely believe he reports on the progress of this and other PTC related issues based on reports provided by the industry. It is certainly understandable that the reports are not verified by field visits the way that FRA Testing Requirements under 49 CFR Parts 234 and 236 are verified. Generally speaking ‘‘PTC 

Training’’ in some cases is a quick briefing describing what the technology is and 

what it is intended to do. Signalmen who must troubleshoot the system in the middle of the night after the system fails, replace defective components, test the system 

for proper operation, and return the system to normal operation must be more extensively trained than the generic overview provided to those who simply need to 

know what the system is or its purpose. 

I will provide two examples demonstrating that the necessary training has not occurred, in part due to the railroads canceling their overall signal training effort. I 

72 

will cite two examples: (1) CSX which canceled its very effective training development program and (2) Norfolk Southern (NSR) which canceled all training to Journeymen over a dispute involving expense reimbursement. These two railroads ended 

the programs that were working towards the proper training of Signalmen during 

the very time that the railroads were reporting that great strides were being accomplished in this area. 

Example 1: On CSX, signal training beyond the existing training, which is extensive, is developed by a joint labor-management process. This joint process was 

canceled when Hunter Harrison came in as CEO and the process has not resumed. The facility known as the REDI Center, a centralized CSX training facility, is a ghost town compared with its past vibrancy. There is no other process 

or location that has taken the place of the joint training development process or 

training facility. In the previous joint training development process, subject matter experts mostly made up of Signalmen were sometimes accompanied by vendors or managers. In this instance, cooperation from the railroad managers responsible for standards and instructions, signal management, technical writers 

and various experts in visual aid came together and developed training procedures for new equipment. The procedures led to testing standards, along with 

a written manual at an appropriate technical level for Signalmen, which contained illustrations and technical requirements. After this effective program was 

canceled and no replacement put in its place, all Signalmen were checked off as 

qualified on PTC as reported to FRA and your Committee. 

We know from implemented training on many previous examples of new technology that this is simply not possible on the scale required with the time involved and without the support of the previous training process or facility. We 

can provide real examples of technical training developed for new signal equipment; and we challenge CSX to provide examples of technical training for PTC 

installation, maintenance, and repair. Your Committee can then compare the 

products. 

Example 2: Recognizing the need for PTC Training and other ‘‘Journeyman 

Training’’ the BRS worked jointly with NSR signal management in 2017 and 

2018 to re-develop Journeyman Training. This effort included the professionals 

at the McDonagh Training Center, a NSR training facility near Atlanta, Georgia. 

This training, however, did not make it to Signalmen beyond an initial pilot 

group; the Pilot was intended to test its effectiveness of the new program. 

After the initial pilot program, a dispute developed about reimbursement of travel expenses for the Signalmen attending the facility. We spent time in 2017 and 

2018, resolving those conflicts. We have now developed a 2nd Pilot Program with 

an agreed upon plan to reimburse travel expense for those that attend. The 2nd 

program is scheduled to begin the first week of October 2018, for one small class 

of 16. It is our hope and intention that we will begin to train more Signalmen 

in 2019. 

The training, which is limited, is an excellent start to what we should be doing 

across the nation. It takes a week of classroom training using simulators and 

covers important aspects of PTC. With a class size presently limited to 16, and 

with less than 52 available weeks in the year, it will be years before this effort 

will reach all 1,300 signalmen. Adding to the limited availability of training resources is the requirement to train newly hired employees. The new hire training 

process takes 43 weeks, and not all training is performed at the McDonagh Center, but never-the-less impacts availability of the facility to train Signalmen on 

PTC. 

Again, the Signalmen on NSR have not, and will not be properly trained on PTC 

for some time. 

I attach to this statement a copy of our Pilot Training Program on NSR and the 

proposal that led to it. If you need supporting documentation pertaining to the 

training that was canceled over disputes, that information can be provided. 

I will look for verification of the limited or nonexistent nature of PTC Training 

on the other remaining Class I railroads and provide it if you are interested. 

This testimony/letter was prompted by the misinformation, Leonard Parker and 

I witnessed during the September 13, 2018, T&I hearing, that is being shared with 

your Committee. Additionally, there was a private comment made by a guest, who 

I believe was there to support the Association of American Railroads (AAR)—this 

guest assured us that PTC training really was accomplished. We knew better and 

felt compelled to bring this to light. 

73 

Finally, the work of your Committee and all those involved, notwithstanding the 

shortfall on this most important issue, is to be commended, but it can’t be left as 

fact that Signalmen are properly trained on PTC Systems when it is not true. 

f 

Journeyman/Advanced Training—2018 Pilot Program 5–21–18 

There are two available openings for Journeyman Training in calendar year 2018: 

August 27 to 31, 2018 and October 1 to 5, 2018. We have had a series of successful 

Pilot Programs for the ERN, N&W and Southern before 2018. The training, particularly the portions that had to do with radio equipment testing using a watt meter, 

and the PTC Initialization using PTC equipment in a trailer were helpful and informative. A dispute developed with respect to what the proper expense should be 

to get signal employees to and from the McDonough Training Center. Some were 

reimbursed zero while others were reimbursed overtime, penalties and expenses. 

A second pilot program for dealing with travel time and expense will be arranged 

for volunteers in the two available weeks for 2018, using existing rules and training 

to the extent possible. This second Pilot Program is outlined below: 

• Reduce training program to fit within Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday of 

each week. 

• Focus on PTC related training and new training modules 

• Longer term, look for ways to take more conventional modules, for example 

switch machines and put them into either a CBT module, a module for remote 

video, or train the trainer delivery method 

• All Signalmen (including those currently assigned four ten-hour days) attending 

training will be converted to a 5-day 40-hour schedule Monday through Friday 

for the week of training 

• Travel will occur on Monday and Friday. NSR will pick the mode of travel from 

among: company vehicle, private automobile, or airline. If private vehicle, mileage will be reimbursed, if airline, NSR will provide ticket. 

• Transportation to and from airport will be either company vehicle, or private 

auto with mileage reimbursement. 

• Transportation from airport to Training Center will either be arranged by 

NSR or reimbursed as actual necessary expense. 

• Hotels will be provided, and meals will be reimbursed at the standard per 

diem rate. 

• Transportation from the hotel to the Training Center will be provided by 

NSR. 

• Consistent with travel arrangements, briefings may be held on Monday afternoon or Friday morning, schedules permitting. 

• This second Pilot Program will be voluntary, for examining the scheduling and 

expense reimbursement aspects of training, while concentrating on several key 

topics related to PTC or timely changes in railroad signaling. 

Next step review potential for schedule with McDonough Training Center, Joe 

Lee, for feasibility to develop schedule before August. (based on conversation it is 

feasible) Review transportation for Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday classes. (arranged by Signal for past classes) Exit survey of volunteers and instructors for suggested changes to arrangements with the goal of keeping travel expense and time 

away from home manageable. The results of the second pilot will be informative for 

future training including FRA parts 243 and 236 training. 

Æ