Talk:Positive train control

message: Is "Positive Train Control" just another generic term for Train protection system (compare also :Category:Train protection system), a specific class of train protection system, or a specific system? --Pjacobi (talk) 10:29, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Good question. "Positive Train Control" (PTC) is not a generic train protection system. It is a specific technology as described in the Positive Train Control article. Truthanado (talk) 23:33, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's the point I don't agree to. I don't see anything in the article which distinguishes PTC from e.g. LZB or ETCS. And in fact all five mandatory bullet points sort of apply to all TPCs, with some caveats as Le Crocodile isn't exactly wireless and PZB and all older systems have a rather low degree of resolution in their knowledge where the trains are located. --Pjacobi (talk) 16:37, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: One key difference is that PTC can operate in non-signaled "dark" territory on mainline North American freight railroads, where there is little (if any) trackside equipment. In fact, that is probably where it will make its biggest impact. LZB, ETCS, Le Crocodile etc. are used on signaled European railways that primarily carry passenger trains. Parts of the technology are similar, but the overall system is different, with PTC being independent of trackside equipment, instead using GPS for train location. Truthanado (talk) 00:43, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess first we have to answer the question What makes up the PTC? and then we should decide, what is a PTC and what's not. The crucial thing is operation in "dark" territory whith no track side equipment.   The system seems to be closest to ETCS Level 2, but ETCS does not relay soley on GPS data for location, it uses also some fix passiv balises. Beside of that there is no other wayside equipment. The chapter Where PTC is used acutally lists also Train protection system which are not PTC-like. Most of them do not even have a control center knowing the acutal position of the trains:* AWS - fix installation, no control center* PZB - fix installation, no control center* LZB - fix installation, control center* Le Crocodile  fix installation, no control centerOn the other side is missing: * ETCS Level 2 - no fix installation except passiv balises for location, control center, moving authority over GSM-signal.other ETCS Levels are not PTC like:* ETCS Level 1 is not PTC style because of fix installation* ETCS Level 3 will most probably never exist since the Europeans do not get out a system to savely detect the completness of the train while moving.I guess the sentence PTC does not generate movement authorities is wrong. The movmenent authorities are normaly exactly the thing the system is working with. (Yes, it is true that it likely to go reduce the trafic density.)Pechristener (talk) 18:59, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Train completeness is foremost a problem of freight trains. Anyway, comparing PTC to ERTMS is hardly possible since the attempts of integrating GNSS-augmented satellite localization into ERTMS have failed so far, e.g. with LOCOPROL. If the US want to take over the development risk of satellite train positioning then it may still be added later like ERTMS Regional as another low-cost solution. Guidod (talk) 13:53, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

text: I've tried to distinguish and explain the term PTC. According that, "Train Protection Systems" is the upper level "umbrella" term. This article is mostly influenced by USA situation and detailed with respect to this. It's importent to get the sources of 'positive' and a look to the opposite and why it is not mentioned. I got the impression, that "positive" was occupied by marketing and the technical aspect was not clearly emphasized. And after clearing theoretical aspects of definition we have "dirty" practical implementations and imperfect and developing frameworks of law. And transitional states from old deprecated systems to moving, new holy pure future. So ETCS in Baseline 3 is generally a PTC. But Level 1 "Limited Supervision" isn't it. Actually in Germany is Indusi combined with tilting train signalling as two opposite controlling mechanisms. The successor of this combination was adopted with newest ETCS SRS definitions for tilting train speed enhancements in Level 1 LS. - We have something to do: Cleaning up german artice for ETCS and PTC to make it readable for general audience. And moving english/american PTC article to global style with american chapter. Let's start. Saxobav (talk) 07:54, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The definition of PTC is spelled out in the Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008 and the article should revolve around that and possibly any definitions/requirements being circulated before that act was passed. I guess this makes it more a train protection specification, not a train protection system.  There is no one PTC technology.  Anything that implements the regulatory requirements counts as PTC.Sturmovik (talk) 13:12, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

text: The article now is quite clearly mostly about the US FRA requirements and systems that implement it except for the deployment section. My suggestion would be to do one of two things: 
# Get rid of all non-US systems there and simply provide a link to Train protection system and its list of train protection systems abroad.
# Replace the non-US systems with a comparison to how they meet the FRA requirements for PTC. Gsnedders (talk) 19:21, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Important open question 

message: This article as currently written seems to imply that Amtrak's Northeast Corridor has PTC, and that PTC normally uses GPS.  As far as I know, GPS is not involved in the Northeast Corridor signaling at all.  I think we need clarification on specific examples of which systems deployed in the real world actually do use GPS.  Also remember that GPS does not have sufficient resolution to tell a train which track it is on where there are multiple parallel tracks along a single right of way (track centers can be 20 feet apart or less, which is very different from an airport environment where a single runway can be over 100 feet wide); any description of a GPS based system ought to explain how the system knows which track it is on.  JNW2 (talk) 00:30, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I fixed all of the issues with the technical content of the article based on a number of good sources I found online and the July 2009 FRA proposed regulations.  Sturmovik (talk) 17:49, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: GPS and Amtrak's Northeast Corridor, etc

message: Most passenger trains outside the Northeast Corridor and limited other regions can only go 79 miles per hour or slower due to a lack of in-cab signaling (see Speed limits in the United States (rail)).  If PTC gets implemented broadly, that should make that limit go away, right? (Though I suppose most track in the U.S. is only class 4 or below, so trains would still be limited to 80..?)  —Mulad (talk) 23:20, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Somewhat answering my own question, I asked about this at a Minnesota Department of Transportation forum about rail in my state, and the presenter said that yes, PTC will allow for higher speeds (if track and crossings are also rated for the higher speeds). —Mulad (talk) 20:27, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Remove 79 mph limit?

message: It is clear that Class 1 railroads and Commuter Railroads will have to deal with PTC on segments of their track but what about Class II railroads? Has anything been published about that? Knightdaemon (talk) 22:33, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who is subject to Positive Train Control? 

message: The following passage: "...trains "shoving"[clarification needed] in reverse..."   Permit me to suggest the inclusion of a parenthetical  "...trains "shoving" in reverse (PTC being administered in the locomotive, which is normally at the head end of the train)..." Paul Niquette (talk) 21:29, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Limitations 

message: While I certainly agree that makers of PTC systems is something the article should mention, I object heartily to the current format of a list of external links, as it's just inappropriate per our external link policy. These should be converted to links to Wikipedia articles, at the least. Expressing it as prose would also be better. oknazevad (talk) 13:57, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The section has been updated to remove the external links and, instead, link to the company's Wikipedia article, if one exists. Thanks. Truthanado (talk) 14:48, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links in manufacturers section 

message: Sturmovik, you have a history of altering the article here to advance your anti-PTC WP:POV. Assuming you do not wish to be blocked for behavior you have been warned about, you might wish to discuss your proposed edits before you make them, find out what people who actually know the subject have to say about your proposed edits first. BiologistBabe (talk) 20:37, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Otherwise we may need to require the assistance of admin to evaluate your behavior. BiologistBabe (talk) 20:38, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  The CBTC system installed on the Ashmont–Mattapan High Speed Line PCC trolleys is NOT a Railroad PTC system.  This is the actions of a signal vendor that is trying to increase exposure for their products, nothing more.  MBTA Commuter Rail currently uses the ACSES PTC System as part of Amtrak's Northeast Corridor. That's why I have undone this edit and will continue to do so.  If you don't like it go get an admin.Sturmovik (talk) 20:45, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

text:  No, BiologistBabe, not yet, please don't involve admin unless it gets seriously out of control. I have a copy of the original before the problem user started vandalising the page, and if I can get a working email address from you I'll send you a copy of the original as it was a year ago. Yet there are good reasons to allow the user to continue for now. Your office email is bouncing. Thanks! Damotclese (talk) 20:51, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Is there really any disagreement that a Streetcar CBTC system is somehow a railroad PTC system? An anonymous user keeps slipping it back in with a big old link to a signal vendor.  That's called a product placement.Sturmovik (talk) 21:08, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

text:  Okay. The MRIID no longer allows emails from outside of .gov or .mil email addresses, the problem (which makes me laugh) is virus and Trojan software being sent to us, often from foreign servers, so everything gets blocked. Send email to usamriid.ca@gmail.com with "BiologistBabe" in the Subject line and it will get to me. And yes, the anti-PTC people are almost as bad as the anti-MMR vaccination people; everything is a "liberal conspiracy." --sigh-- BiologistBabe (talk) 21:31, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  If there's anything that's a conspiracy its the signal industry pushing for costly signaling improvements that can't be justified via a rational economic analysis.  As a self-identified biologist what is your experience in rail transit or railroad signaling?  If I was really looking to run afoul of WP:NPV I would add to the article the way that the NTSB was advocating for cab signals and ATC until the signaling industry chimed in with their promises of PTC with its very "low cost" wireless infrastructure and how it could drive trains automatically!  Unfortunately I don't have any good sources for that, but the fact that industry, regulators, transit agencies, the unions and the rank and file employees are against it should tell you something.  Now can I please bounce the CBTC product placement?Sturmovik (talk) 22:21, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

text:  PTC is a set of technical requirements which can be met by CBTC, but the requirements apply to North American main line railroads covered by the Association of American Railroads.  We need to make sure that the same technologies aren't dumped in multiple articles covering CBTC, PTC, Automatic Train Protection etc.  In the case of an exemplar PTC system, the MBTA CBTC system on the Red Line would not count.  In fact all of the MBTA transit lines would qualify as having PTC if PTC applied in a transit context.Sturmovik (talk) 03:03, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sturmovik Edits 

message: Isn't this frequency still allocated to amateur radio in Canada? K7L (talk) 19:00, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  220MHz 

message: FRA Statement about Civil Speed -- That is the FRA's summary statement noting that excess speed was the cause of 8 people's death, tens of millions of dollars in damaged infrastructure and private property, and numerous injuries because the locomotive and consist were progressing at 106 miles per hour when the maximum civil speed limit for that section of track is 50.
And why was the train going too fast? Human error coupled with a lack of automated mechanical oversight. 
PTC / ACSES would have prevented these deaths and the destruction of hardware, so the commentary in the extant article noting that cost of PTC was a potential factor in the line not fielding PTC is not only almost certainly true, the positive expense of PTC roll-out along that line would have been mitigated by the negative cost of deaths, destruction, and reputation. (And tax-payer money is used for aftermath mitigation in all such incidents, money that is never factored in to determining the cost of incidents vs. the expense of technology that reduces or eliminates such incidents, likely because is tax-payers are an endless source of free money.)
The financial savings of rolling out PTC to afford higher safe maximum civil speeds must also be considered. ACSES Generation 1 fielded by Safetran along the Northeast Corridor permits greater speeds and higher passenger through-put which is factored in to corporate profit/loss calculations. The decision to field ACSES in the NEC was due to improved cost savings just as much as it was to improve commuter safety. Yet some less-informed, short-sighted among us would have us believe that the expense of PTC nationally exceeds its benefits. You don't see China, Japan, or European countries holding-off on infrastructure improvements by catering to those who think safety is too expensive.
The extant article makes numerous unfounded assumptions about the cost of rolling out PTC nationally, with references and citations that are not science-based, peer-reviewed sources, thus they remain opinion. Damotclese (talk) 18:15, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I refer you to "Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 138 / Tuesday, July 21, 2009 / Proposed Rules" where the FRA's own assessment states that PTC is not economically justifiable.  You can also just look at the basic facts.  The last deadly PTC preventable accident on the NEC was in 1986.  Not only is there the cost to install the equipment, but ongoing maintenance over 3 decades to save a sum total of 8 lives.  I also refer you to Amtrak's own set of employee operating rules that documents the ways that ACSES degrades operational efficiency.  If you have any "peer reviewed" studies that show otherwise you may link them here.Sturmovik (talk) 11:46, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trail 118 Derailment 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Positive train control. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131224094921/http://www.alstom.com/Global/US/Resources/Documents/ACSES_April_16_2013.pdf to http://www.alstom.com/Global/US/Resources/Documents/ACSES_April_16_2013.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131219192208/http://www.railwayage.com:80/index.php/ptc/siemens-bombardier-pair-on-nymta-ptc.html to http://www.railwayage.com/index.php/ptc/siemens-bombardier-pair-on-nymta-ptc.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131224095459/http://www.bombardier.com/en/media-centre/newsList/details.bombardier-transportation20131114bombardierstrengthenspresencein.html to http://www.bombardier.com/en/media-centre/newsList/details.bombardier-transportation20131114bombardierstrengthenspresencein.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:13, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I checked the links, they are alive. Strange that some of then went bad, but they were! Damotclese (talk) 03:01, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I think the lead is too long for the length and amount of detail in the rest of the article. The lead is already five long paragraphs and goes into an intricate level of detail (previously it was about 9 or 10 paragraphs).
I also don't think Template:Refimprove section is relevant to the lead. The tag was placed in the middle of the lead. Maybe Template:Refimprove would do instead. 100.12.80.11 (talk) 16:45, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead too long 

message: Is there a follow-on to Positive Train Control? I am amazed by the relatively small volume of rail traffic on the US freight rail network compared to its potential capacity. Today's trains operate like faxes in the Internet era. The track sits idle. A train goes by and then the track often sits idle for 30 minutes to hours. 
Imagine it every train car could power itself and (when not on a siding) were controlled by a railroad's central computer. Imagine if train cars traveled similar to how packets travel through the Internet. The railroad could model when it's most efficient for cargo's to enter the rail network. The railroad could gain the efficiencies of trains by grouping autonomous train cars going to the same destination. But at the same time, if you had autonomous train cars, you wouldn't have to delay rail cars because you wouldn't have to form them into 100 car trains. 
I call it Packet Rail. I'm trying to find if academic research is being done on this concept or if it's being investigated. Thought those with interest in PTC might be aware?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by GF22066 (talk • contribs) 17:15, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Packet Rail? 

message: Apparently, the US has completed installation:  https://apnews.com/article/technology-transportation-safety-us-news-transportation-887894df4186c7a6b796dc39121d8f3c Kdammers (talk) 04:24, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  US complete? 

message: The article needs to be rewritten to make this clear. --Eldomtom2 (talk) 13:00, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Which concept do you speak of? Because your comment is unclear and provides no guidance. oknazevad (talk) 16:31, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Train protection systems. Sections like Europe and India in "Deployment" need to be removed, and the page rewritten to make it clear that "positive train control" is a specifically American form of train protection system. --Eldomtom2 (talk) 17:45, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I've eliminated all references to non-US systems. Rdhale92 (talk) 17:12, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I'm not sure where all that stuff came from.Sturmovik (talk) 11:18, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

text: Thanks, the article is now much improved. I have removed the globalize maintenance tag as now being irrelevant, since the article is now firmly about a US-specific concept.--Eldomtom2 (talk) 11:19, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Positive train control seems to be a US-specific implementation of a broader concept