dehusman If by "kiss" you mean hitting the car at 30-45 mph, I agree. Unless the train is on a dead flat tangent railroad where there is 2 mile visibility, the train will nail the car on the crossing manned or un manned.
If by "kiss" you mean hitting the car at 30-45 mph, I agree. Unless the train is on a dead flat tangent railroad where there is 2 mile visibility, the train will nail the car on the crossing manned or un manned.
Nope, I mean "kiss" by hitting around 5mph. Thanks to the hills, I can stand at 116th street and see the ITM Fair Train at 96th. Not flat. Straight, yes. but not flat.
dehusmanThis wouldn't be an issue because any track that would be used for unmanned trains would be essentially "CTC". That means as soon as the cars roll through teh switch, the dispatchers get a warning, the signals go to stop and the PTC stops the train. That is the whole point of PTC. So the cars rolling out is very detectible.
-Morgan
@ruderunner: Perhaps so, but the Darwinite's family will object, most certainly with expert legal aid, and cost the Railroad involved heavily to settle - even if the unmanned remote unit is video equipped. BART transit in California ages ago built a complete automated transit system - un-manned computer controlled trains. Accidents, mistrust of the ridership, inability of the control system to adapt to real-time changes in conditions eventually forced BART to install a crew compartment and controls so a HUMAN could supervise the automated controls - at a cost of Millions of (taxpayer) dollars. Such an automated system just was implicated in the commuter crash in Washington, DC - control signal failures and the inability of a human to correct the problem (apparently, the range of vision was reduced by a curve, and the "Emergency Stop" either malfunctioned or was ineffective. PTC systems require a large investment in infrastructure and/or motive power control equipment/digital radio or satellite linkage and other expenses, plus the design, testing, certifying of all of the above, plus an operating protocol and training people to work and maintain the system. It's not as simple, and orders of magnitude more costly than adding DCC - Sorry ! (This is opinion, with some background in the industry - I don't claim to have the answers, but I do know some of the questions.) All the Best. Bob C.
ruderunnerAnd whats so scary about an unmanned train? In the event of an accident I don't think the outcome would be different, whatever was on the tracks gets obliterated wether there's people in the cab or not. In fact with modern crash avoidance technology the unmanned train may be better able to slow down or even stop (that's a long shot) and call 911 to get help on the way and provide exact gps coordinates. A road crew would be able to call but would likely give a milemarker or other landmark. Grade crossings could be automated as well as horn siginals for ungated crossings. Wether people are in the cab or not some darwin award winner will ignore the warnings and not beat the train through the crossing.
And whats so scary about an unmanned train? In the event of an accident I don't think the outcome would be different, whatever was on the tracks gets obliterated wether there's people in the cab or not. In fact with modern crash avoidance technology the unmanned train may be better able to slow down or even stop (that's a long shot) and call 911 to get help on the way and provide exact gps coordinates. A road crew would be able to call but would likely give a milemarker or other landmark. Grade crossings could be automated as well as horn siginals for ungated crossings. Wether people are in the cab or not some darwin award winner will ignore the warnings and not beat the train through the crossing.
But with nobody in the cab, who will send text messages to us railfans?
Check out the Deming Sub by clicking on the pics:
According to the "ATSF Color Guide to Freight and Passenger Car Equipment" Santa Fe has had remote control units since 1967. The were built from F3 and F7 B units.Hardly a new technology.
ruderunnerOK so 1:1 has been doing bits and pieces for many years but still no real cohernt system for all trains on all lines like NMRA standards. For example CSX may have remote locos for yard work and so does BNSF but will a CSX remote work a BNSF loco? Doubtful. But my Prodigy express will run someone elses loco on my layout. And whats so scary about an unmanned train? In the event of an accident I don't think the outcome would be different, whatever was on the tracks gets obliterated wether there's people in the cab or not. In fact with modern crash avoidance technology the unmanned train may be better able to slow down or even stop (that's a long shot) and call 911 to get help on the way and provide exact gps coordinates. A road crew would be able to call but would likely give a milemarker or other landmark. Grade crossings could be automated as well as horn siginals for ungated crossings. Wether people are in the cab or not some darwin award winner will ignore the warnings and not beat the train through the crossing. And who's to say that remote control needs to have a person at the controls? It only implys that commands are coming from a separate location, not who or what is issuing the commands.
OK so 1:1 has been doing bits and pieces for many years but still no real cohernt system for all trains on all lines like NMRA standards. For example CSX may have remote locos for yard work and so does BNSF but will a CSX remote work a BNSF loco? Doubtful. But my Prodigy express will run someone elses loco on my layout.
And who's to say that remote control needs to have a person at the controls? It only implys that commands are coming from a separate location, not who or what is issuing the commands.
May I respectfully suggest that this subject might be better suited to the Trains Magazine general forum instead of the Model Railroader general forum?
This has nothing at all to do with model railroading - only connection is that you are using DCC as an example of the pretty obvious point that having equipment that follows common standards improves interoperability between equipment from different manufacturers.
It is a concept that is pretty old in 1:1 scale railroading, as evidenced e.g. by most railroads in America have the same track gauge, couplers that match up, brake hoses that match up and so on and so forth.
When it comes to introducing common cab signals and track sensors all over the railroad nets of north America, we may have a a case of the old comment "amateurs study strategy, professionals study logistics".
It is not the rather simpleminded strategy of using a common signal encoding system to transmit information and commands to a moving train that is hard to grasp for 1:1 scale railroaders and engineers - it is finding a somewhat sensible way that won't bankrupt the railroads to handle the immense transition costs and logistics of the huge infrastructure project it is to introduce something like PTC.
Same with fully automated trains. Technically feasible under some circumstances. But the liability issues when the first fully automated train turns some lamebrained mom pushing a stroller across the tracks right in front of the train into ground meat is enough to cause hesitation in people who are even marginally aware of the fact that American legal system has a tendency to award pretty hefty punitive damage verdicts.
But be that as it may - how about taking the discussion of your vision of remotely controlled and automated 1:1 scale trains over to the Trains Magazine general forum and discuss it there ?
Smile, Stein
FlashwaveIf someone stalls on the tracks at any crossing, especially a rural one (far more common than either of us may realize) and an engine is a 1/2 mile away, the engineer can theoretically see it. Weather permitting, and curves, of course. He locks up into emergency, and slides home safe, or at the very least kisses the car instead of tossing it like pinball.
But you are correct, tresspassers, debris on the tracks and people not stopping for crossings are the biggest impediment to unmanned trains.
Flashwave12 cars manage to roll out of a yard unawares. Now, in the real life situatuion I am familiar with, it ended badly either way. But, NO ONE knew those cars were gone until it was too late, for 6 HOURS. They even snuck across a crossing, possibly two, and definately rolled across a bridge with a fairly busy road. No one saw a dozen or so loose cars. It is safe to assume then that a remote system would be blind to them as well.
This wouldn't be an issue because any track that would be used for unmanned trains would be essentially "CTC". That means as soon as the cars roll through teh switch, the dispatchers get a warning, the signals go to stop and the PTC stops the train. That is the whole point of PTC. So the cars rolling out is very detectible.
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
ruderunnerAnd whats so scary about an unmanned train? In the event of an accident I don't think the outcome would be different, whatever was on the tracks gets obliterated wether there's people in the cab or not
If someone stalls on the tracks at any crossing, especially a rural one (far more common than either of us may realize) and an engine is a 1/2 mile away, the engineer can theoretically see it. Weather permitting, and curves, of course. He locks up into emergency, and slides home safe, or at the very least kisses the car instead of tossing it like pinball.
Now, same situation, without an engineer, said train does not see the car on a non-electrified crossing, the car is totalled at 60mph. There is precedent for the above situation. Not my #1 concern-----------------------------12 cars manage to roll out of a yard unawares. Now, in the real life situatuion I am familiar with, it ended badly either way. But, NO ONE knew those cars were gone until it was too late, for 6 HOURS. They even snuck across a crossing, possibly two, and definately rolled across a bridge with a fairly busy road. No one saw a dozen or so loose cars. It is safe to assume then that a remote system would be blind to them as well. The engineer locked up the train and hit them at 15. If there was no engineer, or even one guy 200miles away on a TV screen,then that train likely would have hit those same 12 cars at 30-45mph, and thrown them through the residential housing near the tracks, instead of just across the backyard. THAT's my concern. And this is not the only time this or something like this has happened. There's still too many failure points in the current system that have yet to be taken care of . Yes, a remote would have spared the train crew, I believe one died, the other is in horrible shape, but that kind of collision would have killed easily two dozen more people without a man at the throttle
And in regards to the other part of the question, Right now, too muvch is lost on a video screen. No real depth.
Modeling the Cleveland and Pittsburgh during the PennCentral era starting on the Cleveland lakefront and ending in Mingo junction
Ulrich: Yeah, that's the general idea. And well on it's way to being the 1:1 DCC.
For me, that gives me the heeby geebies. I dislike the idea of 100,000 tons tearing across the population unmanned. Too many problems until a railroad track is completely isolated from the rest of the world.
Here it is: Click me
Hi Did anyone else see a piece about a train in Australia that is automated (un maned) and runs miles? I believe it is a mine ore train or some such.
Good day.
LeeI found it but not sure how to make click able.
ruderunnerBy no means am I trying to imply that applying DCC to 1:1 is easy. The sheer size and weight or a real train takes things to an entirely different level. But, I just find it ironic that the 1:1 guys are looking at systems to do work that are similar to what modelers have developed for simlpe play value. Command control has been around for about 50 years, DCC is just a modern refinement of it. Not including wireless throttles as an example was just an oversight. Sure it exists and has been around for decades. While PTC doesn't currently have the ability to start a train there's no functional reason it couldn't in the future. Modelers have beeen doing that for probably 10 years. Computer controlled unmanned trains are a, not so far fetched, possibility at least on main lines and unit trains and as pointed out has been used on commuter trains for a while. Switching, car spotting etc still have too many variables to be computerized anytime soon.
By no means am I trying to imply that applying DCC to 1:1 is easy. The sheer size and weight or a real train takes things to an entirely different level.
But, I just find it ironic that the 1:1 guys are looking at systems to do work that are similar to what modelers have developed for simlpe play value. Command control has been around for about 50 years, DCC is just a modern refinement of it.
Not including wireless throttles as an example was just an oversight. Sure it exists and has been around for decades.
While PTC doesn't currently have the ability to start a train there's no functional reason it couldn't in the future. Modelers have beeen doing that for probably 10 years. Computer controlled unmanned trains are a, not so far fetched, possibility at least on main lines and unit trains and as pointed out has been used on commuter trains for a while. Switching, car spotting etc still have too many variables to be computerized anytime soon.
MU'ed diesel engines (rear engine remotely controlled via cable from front engine) - 1930s
Locotrol - controlling mid-train helper engines via radio - 1960s
Automated Train Operations - London Underground Victoria Line 1968. If I remember correctly (I might be wrong) Black Mesa and Powell Lake opened in 1975, and runs fairly automated trains.
Sending a signal to a train isn't exactly new technology for 1:1 scale railroad people - I don't think they will need to use DCC to encode a signal and transmit to decoders in their trains ....
Grin,Stein
ruderunner But, I just find it ironic that the 1:1 guys are looking at systems to do work that are similar to what modelers have developed for simlpe play value. Command control has been around for about 50 years, DCC is just a modern refinement of it.
The point is they are not the same systems. All you see is that it involves a train moving and an box of electronics is involved. From the standpoint of what has to actually be done, DCC and PTC they aren't anything alike DCC and RCL would be a much closer analogy, but PTC and RCL are two completely different things.
Flashwave - is it this, what you had in mind?
The guy on the pic is driving the loco with an R/C system.
Flashwavedehusman FlashwaveI'm going to slightly amend a previous post. No one has set it up where 1 guy or 5 control 1000-5000 trains, but remoe control locos have been done. Not SAFELY but it has been done. A design flaw in Remote control engines was at fault for the recent major accident in Avon IN. PTC is NOT remote control. PTC controls when trains have to stop or slow down to trains ahead, speed restrictions or reaching the end of authority. PTC does not start or accelerate a train, I'm refferring to the remote control packs that are being worn, I have no idea what PTC is. The remote packs CAN start and move a train. They essentially work like a DCC throttle, gfrom what I understand, but wear like the vendor's packs they use at ball games. Strap around the nek and waist, sits on the front of the human.
dehusman FlashwaveI'm going to slightly amend a previous post. No one has set it up where 1 guy or 5 control 1000-5000 trains, but remoe control locos have been done. Not SAFELY but it has been done. A design flaw in Remote control engines was at fault for the recent major accident in Avon IN. PTC is NOT remote control. PTC controls when trains have to stop or slow down to trains ahead, speed restrictions or reaching the end of authority. PTC does not start or accelerate a train,
FlashwaveI'm going to slightly amend a previous post. No one has set it up where 1 guy or 5 control 1000-5000 trains, but remoe control locos have been done. Not SAFELY but it has been done. A design flaw in Remote control engines was at fault for the recent major accident in Avon IN.
PTC is NOT remote control. PTC controls when trains have to stop or slow down to trains ahead, speed restrictions or reaching the end of authority.
PTC does not start or accelerate a train,
I'm refferring to the remote control packs that are being worn, I have no idea what PTC is. The remote packs CAN start and move a train. They essentially work like a DCC throttle, gfrom what I understand, but wear like the vendor's packs they use at ball games. Strap around the nek and waist, sits on the front of the human.
Is this what you guys are talking about?
http://krugtales.50megs.com/rrpictale/MRLradio/MRLradio.htm
"The true sign of intelligence is not knowledge but imagination."-Albert Einstein
http://gearedsteam.blogspot.com/
"we can control it even with basic DC although DCC offers better control of more functions. While we send a siginal through the rails there's really no reason it can't be done with radio. I think large scale offers that as an option. That is remote control."
I think you need to brush up on your reading and see how many manufactures are offering wireless throttles or radio throttles for DCC operation. As far as operation goes I have operated with two groups that adhere to actual railroad time tables and schedules not to mention train orders etc. right out of actual railroad manuals not something made up in someone's head. As a mater of fact tow of our operators are engineers for the N&W and CSX respectively. They do things exactly the same way they do on the big train but it's all for fun purposes and would never happen in the real world.
As far as remote control, I believe MU or multi unit operation qualifies as such. I have yet to see anyone in the cab of any locomotive except the lead one on a multi unit train.
As far as having something like a dcc decoder on a 1:1 scale to operate a locomotive would never work as the locomotive is the power source except in the case of electrically powered trains etc. it's jsut not as feasible or as practical in real world operation as it is in a modeling scenario.
Running a train by remote control has many more complications lets say then flying a UAV which by the way all military UAV's are flown by certified pilots, As you know the purpose of the UAV is to typically fly an aircraft into harms way and not put a pilot at risks, so where would the advantage be of operating a train remotely none what so ever as far as I could see. Even if your in lets say a yard situation you owuld still need a qualified engineer at the controls
To my knowledge, there are systems available to run unmanned trains in Europe, but for reasons of safety, this is not being done. These system are used to support the driver, not to replace him/her and to add to safety. The gain in safety seems to justify the expense - sorry, no savings at all!
Ray Seneca Lake, Ontario, and Western R.R. (S.L.O.&W.) in HO
We'll get there sooner or later!
I'm going to slightly amend a previous post. No one has set it up where 1 guy or 5 control 1000-5000 trains, but remoe control locos have been done. Not SAFELY but it has been done. A design flaw in Remote control engines was at fault for the recent major accident in Avon IN.
ruderunner It occurred to me that plenty of layouts already have remote control. I mean think about it, we aren't actually in the locomotive on the layout but, we can control it even with basic DC although DCC offers better control of more functions. While we send a siginal through the rails there's really no reason it can't be done with radio. I think large scale offers that as an option.
It occurred to me that plenty of layouts already have remote control. I mean think about it, we aren't actually in the locomotive on the layout but, we can control it even with basic DC although DCC offers better control of more functions. While we send a siginal through the rails there's really no reason it can't be done with radio. I think large scale offers that as an option.
ruderunner As far as PTC goes, anyone with a DCC system, a PC and some sort of train detection system already has the capability of PTC. Trains, model or full size, can be setup to stop at red siginals, switches can be thrown by computer. The 1:1 guys want a system that will automatically stopa train if it passes a red siginal, and we already have it. Heck I'm sure some of the really large club or display layouts can be turned on in the a.m. and run all day without any human interaction. And make all the station stops that are scheduled.
Trust me its more complicated than that, just as a shuttle launch is a tad bit more complicated than setting off a bottle rocket.
One of the big stumbling blocks is the interoperability of different systems that may be developed. Can you imagine UP, BNSF, and CSX all buying into the same system? How do you handle trackage rights? What about run through power or loaner units?
That's been solved.
So I'm wondering if any of the 1:1 guys have contacted any of the DCC manufacturers or NMRA about how to do this? Will someone like Lenz build a prototype SD40 with a really large DCC chip? Will they follw NMRA standards for transmitting control siginals?
Not even close. Actually the neat thing is that the government has mandated it but nobody has actually built a working copy yet. All that has been done are some proof of concept trials. The railroads are on the hook to spend $10 billion on PTC and the AAR figures the benefit will be about $600 million.
OK for years modelers have been trying to emulate the 1:1 scale railroads. Things like detailed models, time tables etc. In our efforts to make believe we really are running the trains, we've developed some fancy technologies, mainly DCC and its computer interface options.
Well, last night I was in the reading room with a back issue of Trains (last year about new technologies for railroading) and a couple of the things they want to see or are under development are Positive Train Control (PTC) and remote control road units. Huh?
It occurred to me that plenty of layouts already have remote control. I mean think about it, we aren't actually in the locomotive on the layout but, we can control it even with basic DC although DCC offers better control of more functions. While we send a siginal through the rails there's really no reason it can't be done with radio. I think large scale offers that as an option. That is remote control. True the big boys have some more issues to deal with mainly size and weight but the technology exists to deal with that (think BEMF abd cv3 and 4)
As far as PTC goes, anyone with a DCC system, a PC and some sort of train detection system already has the capability of PTC. Trains, model or full size, can be setup to stop at red siginals, switches can be thrown by computer. The 1:1 guys want a system that will automatically stopa train if it passes a red siginal, and we already have it. Heck I'm sure some of the really large club or display layouts can be turned on in the a.m. and run all day without any human interaction. And make all the station stops that are scheduled.