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)