USA Today quoted the White House Y2K Czar, whom to date has been optimistic in his progress reports, that there is uncertainty that the train system will be in good shape with respect to Y2K readiness. I am surprised that I've seen no reaction/commentary to his statement. If trains were not moving or slowed, food deliveries, manaufacturing, coal deliveries for heat and generation of electricity, etc. would be impacted. Also, how can the outlook on national power grid look questionable one day, the NERC report came out on Monday-and now everything is just super. Our 11PM news in SF reported Friday night that FEMA and Red Cross have their Y2K preparation guide out, everyone should get ready now, then on Monday they reported all is well. No wonder the public is largely apathetic. Thoughts?

-- Anonymous, January 12, 1999

Answers

I expect "disinformation". It has always been that way throughout history. Human language is inherantly vague, unlike mathematics or computer languages. It is almost impossible to say or write anything without bias creeping in.

However, I wonder - if our political, intelligence & corporate leaders *do* know things will get bad, then things *do* get bad, how will people react in any of the crisis, recovery or post-recovery stages. I'm not aware of people having been lied to on such a large scale in the past - not to say I have proof it is happening now. However if it IS happening, what happens if people *find* the proof?

I'm aware of past incidents like the US intelligence community expecting Perl Harbor to be bombed before it happened, but that seems small in comparison. Some would argue that religion is a lie (I hope not, as I teach CCD) - in either case, that is a much more subtle issue.

What happens if the bulk of a "western" nation's population (such as the US) completely loses trust in it's leaders? Not just like what we have today, where people don't expect honesty or loyalty as long as "the economy is good, but a DEEP-SEATED feeling that they have been COMPLETELY SCREWED by the folks in control?

From what I have seen (BTW, I have been programming since 1980), I don't expect "computers to crash". After seeing how well look-ahead problems are being dodged these days (and new systems deployed like the Euro), I can't worry too much about "the banks", at least not due to the Y2K bug. Not to say that the global debt "bubble" couldn't get even more "interesting"...

However, embedded controllers in utilities & manufacturing are another story. This is one of the few discussion groups intelligently discussing the embedded controller issue (in a public forum). Even here, the people who really know can't say much - if it is negative. In short, there is very little good information on the embedded controller issue affecting transporation, utilities & manufacturing. The engineers (IEEE, etc), present too small of a piece of the puzzle to be much use. Others write volumes when in fact they know less than people asking questions.

Koskinem says "don't worry - be happy". FEMA, the NG & Red Cross seem to have a different view.

Sigh...

-- Anonymous, January 13, 1999

I have to agree with you Anon... COBOL and mainframe remediation was once, and still is, regarded as the biggest area of problems for the Year 2000. The reality is, fixing COBOL programs is the easiest part. While occassionaly, you find unstructured, "spaghetti" code that follows no standards, most COBOL I have ran across is fairly simple to identify and fix.

This is not so in other areas of a year 2000 project. Vendor compliance is much more difficult. Getting the a Vendor to admit that their software is not compliant or is compliant and getting them to release their testing proceedures is far more difficult. When you send a compliance letter, you're lucky to get anything back and when you do it is from the companies Lawyer. Very seldom do you actually get a detailed report on the specific applications compliance status complete with test scripts.

The other big area is embedded systems. Where are they? When you start to simply walk around an office and observe, you start to realize that they are everywhere from UPSs to HVAC to Elevators to Fire alarms... Now consider walking around a Powerplant...A Chemical Plant, A ship, A train, an Airplane, an Oil Rig... Then realize that every single system has to be tested. As I have realize that just because two systems look the same, are in the same box, have the same label, Unless they were built on about the exact same day, I wouldn't make the assumption that they are the same and that they will perform the same. I have read several documented cases in which two identical items had different compliance status'. Then, once you identify all the things that need replacing, the new parts have to be ordered, and assuming they are easy to get and don't have to be custom built, they need to be installed and tested. There are no garauntee that the new replacement part is compliant.

When you consider that powerplants are testing racing through the embedded systems part of the project, it makes you wonder, are they using due dillegence enough to catch EVERYTHING. I wouldn't bet my life on it.

MB

-- Anonymous, January 13, 1999

Suzanne, To get more specific about YOUR question. It is ovious to me (a Y2k Project Manager and Sr. Analyst with 4 Fortune 100 projects under my belt) that the government is lying. I will not cover that with safe, pretty or misleading language. They are L Y I N G. One day they say the utilities are fine the next they are "very concerned" about the railroads. You cannot talk about one without talking about the other. Approximatly 45% of the utility companies are coal or fuel oil burning. Railroads are how the utility companies get the coal and fuel oil to burn. Even if the utility companies are 100% compliant, "nothing to burn = no electricity generated". Burlington Northern carries 80% of all coal transported in this country. Their Y2k effort has to be far behind because they did not begin until mid 1997, (I know because I was almost assigned to that project). 100% of all railroad switches in this country are automatically controlled (READ: Embedded Systems). Their is not a single manual controlled switch left anywhere in the country. Without being able to track the cars (mainframe computers) and without knowing in what position the switches are set (Embedded Systems), no engineer will take his train down the track and chance a collision with an oncoming train. Their are other problems also to numerous to go into here, just what I have mentioned should be enough to show even if the trains to not cease entirely, they will be slowed to the point of not being able to make adequate deliveries (some of the major utility companies require 3 train loads of coal per DAY!) So how can the govt. say utilites are "fine" but railroads are "very concerning" and balance the two? I am ashamed to say it but the answer is "Tell what they want to hear, do'nt worry about the truth"

-- Anonymous, January 13, 1999

Thank you for responses to my question, these ring 'real' to me as opposed to PR campaign of disinformation that seems to be going on in media. Tonight going to my first meeting of BAY2K. Will let you all know how it goes-especially any interesting comments on utilities. I think community outreach/preparation/organization is the key to getting through......Thanks again for your time and insights.

-- Anonymous, January 13, 1999

Deja-vu all over again, (again). I regularly find questions rolling around in the back of my mind for a day or so then find this group going over the same thing. I'll bet this happens to a lot of us humans.

This government lie could actually be the most responsible way they, (our leaders), could handle this. Why upset everyone further? Why not let the music play while the ship goes down, a'la Titanic. If it's gonna happen anyway that is.

For me I'd like to be as well informed as I can, hence; I read this forum.

-- Anonymous, January 13, 1999

What difference would it make if the trains could deliver if there is nothing to deliver. If the refineries are not compliant, no oil. If the coal companies are not complaint, no coal. If the farmer does not fix his equipment, no food. If there is no supply there will be no deliveries.

-- Anonymous, January 13, 1999

FYI, Press release from The Association of American Railroads at www.aar.org :

For Immediate Release

Contact: Tom White (202) 639-2556 TWhite@lms.aar.org

Year 2000 - Statement of Jim Gardner On behalf of Association of American Railroads Submitted to The House Committee on Transportation & Infrastructure

Date of speech:

10/02/98

The Association of American Railroads (AAR) appreciates this opportunity to present its comments on the impact of the Year 2000 (Y2K) problem on the railroad industry including including Amtrak. I have also attached a written statement prepared by Amtrak on its efforts with regard to Y2K issues. AAR's members acrcent of the railroad industry's freight revenues, operate 77 percent of the railroad industry's line-haul mileage, employ 91 percent of rail workers, and operate almost all of the nation's intercity passenger trains. All segments of the rail industry are very much aware of the critical importance of addressing the potential problems that could affect computer systems with the century change. Railroads and rail suppliers are actively engaged at every level in identifying and preventing these problems. The major railroads expect to spend in excess of $250 million on the Y2K issue. In this testimony we will provide insight into the industry's experience to date in safety-critical areas and share the project management approach being taken. From a railroad perspective, Year 2000 efforts are focusing primarily on two critical areas: safety and service continuity. Focus on Safety Our first priority is the safety of our employees, customers, and the public at large. Our industry has made significant strides in safety over the past two decades. The train accident rate has fallen by 23 percent since 1990 and by 68 percent since 1980. Employee lost workday injury and illness rates are down 52 percent since 1990 and 62 percent since 1980. Railroads will not let the Year 2000 challenge blemish that record of improvement. The rail industry's Year 2000 efforts in safety-critical areas address mainframe computer systems, decision support systems, and a variety of components supplied by vendors, including embedded devices. Railroads have received many inquiries about signals and highway grade crossing devices and have good news to deliver in response to these inquiries. Research and testing experience so far shows that the safety-critical aspects of signals and grade crossing devices do not employ date calculations. Because of this they are not subject to the sort of Year 2000 problems that affect credit cards, telephone systems, and older mainframe computer programs. However, the industry does not plan to stop the research and testing until we are assured that every safety-critical component and system will operate properly before, during, and after the century change. Service Continuity & Project Management Service continuity is a major concern to the rail industry and our customers due to the tremendous amount of rail traffic which is handled by two or more railroads in inter-line movements (25% of traffic and 33% of rail freight revenue). The Federal Railroad Administration hosted a meeting on general Year 2000 issues on July 20 for freight railroads, rail suppliers, commuter railroads, and Amtrak. At that meeting, eight AAR member railroads were represented and four made presentations on their Year 2000 activities. One key point made was that operations at large railroads in particular depend on information technology. For this reason, railroads cannot take the chance that they will be able to continue to operate at current levels without addressing the potential for Year 2000 problems. Having identified this critical issue, AAR member railroads instituted formal project management procedures. CEOs are updated regularly on progress. Responsibilities are clearly defined, resources are budgeted, and detailed plans outlined to address the various potential problems. Formal weekly status meetings are the norm. Efforts to address Year 2000-related problems have been underway at railroads for several years. The first stage of addressing Year 2000 problems at most railroads was completion of an inventory of potentially affected systems and components. This work, by necessity, has been carried out inside the information system departments as well as in the field. This process also includes division of the inventory into critical and non-critical, often with several categories ranging from safety-critical down to "nice to have." In the second stage railroads perform impact analysis, or preliminary testing, to determine which systems or components actually experience problems when presented with the century change or other "special" dates. Once the potential problem areas are identified, remediation, the third stage begins. One railroad estimates that 3 to 4 percent of their core mainframe lines of code need remediation. AAR believes this is typical. Following remediation, the upgraded system or component needs to be tested to assure that it will perform as required before, during, and after the century change. The last stage is contingency planning. Railroads have identified the need to develop detailed contingency plans that can be activated if required. Within their Year 2000 Project Offices, most railroads distinguish between their Information Technology (IT) related work and their Enterprise, or business, work. Specialists are deployed in each area so that appropriate skills and knowledge gained from past experience can be applied. The IT work, particularly addressing core mainframe systems, began before the Enterprise area work. AAR understands that its members expect to complete the great majority of their IT work this year. The Enterprise work is also well underway, but is expected to stretch into 1999. While most Year 2000 work is performed at the individual railroads, there are supportive activities at the industry level. The AAR Board of Directors has stimulated activity and receives regular status reports, as do other groups with representation from railroad Chief Operating Officers, Chief Marketing Officers, and Chief Information Officers. The North American Rail Industry Year 2000 Coordination Task Force was formed to manage the industry level activities and includes members from large and small railroads, with staff support from AAR. The Task Force engages in cooperative efforts to support North American railroads working to prevent the century change from negatively affecting rail industry safety and service. Due to the nature of North American rail industry operations, often more than one railroad must work together to handle many customer shipments. This is supported by extensive interaction among railroad information systems and has led to the development of various central information system applications at Railinc, AAR's information technology department. The Task Force has developed a plan for testing these systems to ensure that the separate railroad information systems interact appropriately when presented with situations where Year 2000 and related date issues might arise. The Task Force expects that the most significant portion of the testing work will be completed in 1998. Further, the Task Force has agreed to leverage the knowledge gained at individual railroads by sharing information from Year 2000 research, testing, and remediation of systems and components. This information will be available to participating large and small North American railroads in a structured data base through a secure electronic access mechanism. Also, the Task Force is planning joint research and testing in selected areas. Relief from Liability

Legislation in the House offers some protection from liability to parties making statements related to efforts to address Y2K issues. The legislation recognizes, given the myriad communications that of necessity will take place as businesses and consumers address Y2K issues, the potential for litigation by parties claiming to have been misled or otherwise harmed by such statements. By establishing a uniform standard that limits liability to egregious conduct, the free flow of useful information will be encouraged; at the same time, forum shopping will be discouraged. The rail industry supports this common sense approach taken by the House bills. Unlike the House legislation, the Senate bill, S.2392, also provides a temporary exemption from the antitrust laws for certain collective conduct aimed at avoiding Y2K problems. Given the network nature of the rail industry, as this testimony explains, some degree of coordination among railroads is needed effectively to address Y2K issues. The rail industry firmly believes that any collective action it has taken or will take is reasonable and procompetitive, and certainly would not constitute a violation of the antitrust laws. Nonetheless, by removing the threat of spurious litigation the proposed legislation likely would be of some value in encouraging companies to work together to address issues in their industries and in facilitating solutions to Y2K problems in all areas of commerce. Moreover, since the antitrust exemption would not apply to traditional per se offenses, such as price fixing and allocation of markets, there is little likelihood that the exemption could be used to shield anticompetitive conduct. Conclusion AAR hopes it has conveyed the seriousness with which the rail industry is approaching the threat of Year 2000 problems. AAR believes that the rail industry's approach will enable it to continue safe, customer-responsive, efficient rail operations before, during, and after the century change.

AAR Home Back to list of Press Releases

-- Anonymous, January 14, 1999

Chuck Night Driver's response from referring link on TimeBomb 2000:

Perhaps we can get "Try Some Facts" to go through the press release and highlight the "facts" there?? I sure didn't see anything to hang my hat on. What this included, to me, was a basic definition of a Y2K project, and an estimate of dollars expected to be spent. Nothing about completion estimates, embedded controls for switching, and flow control, or building train conrol. But I could have missed it.

Weight Loss will vary.....

CR

Chuck, night driver (rienzoo@en.com), January 14, 1999.

-- Anonymous, January 14, 1999

The train press release fergits to mention the "facts" about thier own company wide telecommunications situation. Which is one of the great concerns and core problem areas for railroads.

-- Anonymous, January 15, 1999

<<>>

You clearly do not have even the slightest clue as to what you are talking about in regards to railroad operations in general and the BNSF in particular. This nation's railroads WILL be able to function, albeit at reduced capacities, in the event of communication, signal, or dispatching system failures. Ever hear of the term "Dark Territory"? And geez, how do think you RR's managed before even ELECTRICITY came along? See my post under "Coal Companies" below if you care to be at all further enlightened about railroads.

-- Anonymous, January 19, 1999