From: cfmpublic@ns.sympatico.ca   
      
   On Sat, 18 Apr 2015 09:43:48 -0400, Jishnu Mukerji   
    wrote:   
      
   >On 4/17/2015 10:02 PM, Michael Finfer wrote:   
   >>   
   >> One of the issues here is that SEPTA chose a PTC system that is   
   >> incompatible with the one CSX will be using.  I am still shaking my head   
   >> over that.  Interoperability was supposed to be one of the key features   
   >> of operating a national system.   
   >   
   >The PTC technology chosen by the freight railroads is incompatible with   
   >high speed operations by their own admission. SEPTA, which operates   
   >significant service on the NEC and the Main Line had no choice on the   
   >matter of whether they will use Amtrak's ACSES or not, unless they   
   >wanted to fund the parallel installation of freight PTC system on the   
   >entire length of the NEC, all four tracks through PA, which did not make   
   >much sense.   
   >   
   >Amtrak simply installs multiple PTC systems in the locomotives that have   
   >to operate on multiple system equipped tracks, as do Europeans, with   
   >their plethora of legacy train control systems.   
   >   
   >CSAO is having such parallel installation put in place between Baltimore   
   >(Bayview) and Newark DE for through freaights coming down through   
   >Perryville to get to the two yards that they access.   
   >   
   >In any case, expect all high speed passenger operations to use a PTC   
   >system that is more compatible with the European ERTMS than with the   
   >freight PTC. The PTC being installed in the US is a case of NIH which is   
   >at the end of the day somewhat less expensive, and not as precise in   
   >most installations as ERTMS level 2.   
      
   How well is ERTMS level 2 working.  I'm getting mixed reports on the   
   state of ERTMS in Modern Railways and Today's Rail Europe.   
      
   Clark Morris   
      
   --- SoupGate/W32 v1.03   
    * Origin: LiveWire BBS -=*=- UseNet FTN Gateway (1:2320/1)