Positive Train Control: Most Railroads Expect to Request an Extension, and Substantial Work Remains Beyond 2018
Released: 2018-09-13T00:00:00

Letter

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. While railroads may implement any PTC system that meets these requirements, the majority of the railroads are implementing one of four types of systems. 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 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. 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, D.C., 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. 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. Railroads are required to report quarterly and annually to FRA on the railroad’s PTC implementation status relative to the implementation plan. 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. 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.

Using results from field and RSD testing, combined with other information, host railroads must then submit a safety plan to FRA for approval. We have previously reported that these safety plans are about 5,000 pages in length. 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; (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.

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.

FRA has additional oversight tools, which include use of its general civil penalty enforcement authority for failure to meet certain statutory PTC requirements. 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. 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. The remaining one-quarter of railroads are among those designated by FRA as at-risk 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. 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. Additionally, 2 of 4 Class II/III railroads reported having initiated testing as of June 30, 2018.

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. 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. 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. 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.

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.

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. 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.

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. 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.

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 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. 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. 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. 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 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. 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, but that any policy decisions about how potential fines will be levied for non- compliant 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.

GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

If you or your staff have any questions about this testimony, please contact Susan Fleming, Director, Physical Infrastructure at (202) 512- 2834 or FlemingS@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this statement. GAO staff who made key contributions to this testimony are Susan Zimmerman (Assistant Director); Katherine Blair; Greg Hanna; Delwen Jones; Emily Larson; Joanie Lofgren; SaraAnn Moessbauer; Maria Wallace; and Crystal Wesco.

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.