Security requirement derivation by noun–verb analysis of use–misuse case relationships: a case study using positive train control

2013 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 103-122
Author(s):  
Mark Hartong ◽  
Rajni Goel ◽  
Duminda Wijesekera
Author(s):  
Dave Schlesinger

A 1969 collision of two Penn Central train resulted in four fatalities and forty-five injuries. This accident could have been prevented, had some type of train control system been in place. After this accident, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) asked the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) to study the feasibility of requiring railroads to install some type of automatic train control system that would prevent human-factor caused accidents. Over the next almost four decades, a number of additional accidents occurred, culminating in the January, 2005 Graniteville Norfolk-Southern accident and the September, 2008 Metrolink Chatsworth accident. A little more than one month after the Metrolink accident, Congress passed the Rail Safety Improvement Act, which requires Positive Train Control (PTC). To better explain the positive train control requirements, this paper traces each to a detailed case study. Four different accidents are studied, each being an example of one of the four, core positive train control requirements. Included in the case study is a discussion about how positive train control would have prevented the accident, had it been present. This provides positive train control implementers and other railroad professionals with a better understanding of the factors that have caused or contributed to the cause of the positive train control preventable accidents studied.


Computer ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 51 (11) ◽  
pp. 46-55 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yuchang Won ◽  
Buyeon Yu ◽  
Jaegeun Park ◽  
In-Hee Park ◽  
Haegeon Jeong ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
Timothy Meyers ◽  
Amine Stambouli ◽  
Karen McClure ◽  
Daniel Brod

Author(s):  
Randolph R. Resor ◽  
Michael E. Smith ◽  
Pradeep K. Patel

The purpose of this analysis was to quantify the business benefits of Positive Train Control (PTC) for the Class I freight railroad industry. This report does not address the safety benefits of PTC. These were previously quantified by the Rail Safety Advisory Committee (RSAC), which identified nearly a thousand "PPAs" (PTC-preventable accidents) on U.S. railroads over a 12-year period, and determined the savings to be realized from each avoided accident. The RSAC finding was that avoidance of these PPAs was not, by itself, sufficient (from a strictly economic point of view) to justify an investment in PTC. Examples of potential business benefits include: * Line capacity enhancement * Improved service reliability * Faster over-the-road running times * More efficient use of cars and locomotives (made possible by real-time location information) * Reduction in locomotive failures (due to availability of real-time diagnostics) * Larger "windows" (periods during which no trains operate and maintenance workers can safely occupy the track) for track maintenance (made possible by real-time location information) * Fuel savings This paper presents the results of the analysis. It is important to recognize, however, that the state of the art in making these estimates is not sufficiently mature to make exact answers feasible. Presented here are the best estimates now possible, with observations as to how better information may be developed. Benefits were estimated in the above areas and the cost of deploying PTC on the Class I network (99,000 route miles and 20,000 locomotives) were calculated. The conclusions of the analysis were as follows: * Deployment of PTC on the Class I railroad network (99,000 route miles, 20,000 locomotives) would cost between $2.3 billion and $4.4 billion over five years * Annual benefits, once the system was fully implemented, were estimated at $2.2 billion to $3.8 billion * Internal rate of return was estimated (depending on timing and cost) to be between 44% and 160%


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document