CMStPnP charlie hebdo You mean more accidents and derailments than we have now with humans running the show? Well psychologically you have to ask yourself which type of accident is more excusible by society. Human error or automated computer error. I would definitely argue the former as society seems to think computers should be less error prone than humans, especially if it is safety related.
charlie hebdo You mean more accidents and derailments than we have now with humans running the show?
Well psychologically you have to ask yourself which type of accident is more excusible by society. Human error or automated computer error. I would definitely argue the former as society seems to think computers should be less error prone than humans, especially if it is safety related.
Good point because humans, and by extension, economics are both irrational.
Around here the garbage is picked-up by a truck with semi-automated 'arms' that reach out, grab the can, lift it up and dump it, then return it. Called a 'Toter' system - trade name. Everyone has to have a standardized can. Only 1 man on the truck - the driver/ operator, so no more need for the 'runner' on the ground. Saves quite a bit on worker's comp claims, I'm told. Easier to find people to drive/ operate the truck than be the runner. Safer in winter conditions or when it's still dark, too. And definitely cheaper when the cost of the cans and the specialized truck is spread out over 5 years.
- PDN.
Paul_D_North_JrAround here the garbage is picked-up by a truck with semi-automated 'arms' that reach out, grab the can, lift it up and dump it, then return it.
I live in a small hamlet - your choice is to hire a garbage pickup firm or take it to the town transfer site (in special bags). I hire a firm.
Once a week the truck comes by and dumps my container - there's a spot to lift and dump it, but a human has to put the container in the right spot for the lift.
Some weeks, there's two guys on the truck - one drives, the other handles the containers. Other weeks, the driver dismounts and handles the containers himself.
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
Deggesty Jeff, do you have any idea as to how much disemploying (yes, another way of saying "firing") the utility mechancal department trouble shooter has cost over the cost of continuing to use his services?
Jeff, do you have any idea as to how much disemploying (yes, another way of saying "firing") the utility mechancal department trouble shooter has cost over the cost of continuing to use his services?
I couldn't say. I do know that wait times for help to arrive have doubled or tripled, depending on where the help has to come out of. I like to read our company's recrew report. It's prepared in the dispatcher's offices. It gives the reasons, more or less, why a train had to be recrewed. One time two or three trains had to be recrewed, the first had the problem, the others were trapped behind it. The first train broke down with a mechanical issue, I don't remember what the problem was. The location was near where the utility mechanical position had recently been eliminated. The nearest available was now two or three hours away. The entry for this recrew emphasized that fact.
Jeff
I wonder if anyone has gone beyond looking at the fuel savings on individual trains for Trip Optimizer and other systems. Fuel can be saved by running slow but what does that do to the overall velocity of the railroad. I've been in situations where a slow train ahead will have several following trains running on restrictive signals. Trip Optimizer would not even let the train run at maximum authorized speed going down grade.
mvlandsw I wonder if anyone has gone beyond looking at the fuel savings on individual trains for Trip Optimizer and other systems. Fuel can be saved by running slow but what does that do to the overall velocity of the railroad. I've been in situations where a slow train ahead will have several following trains running on restrictive signals. Trip Optimizer would not even let the train run at maximum authorized speed going down grade.
We have a feedback computer form to fill out for both PTC and EMS. It's required for reporting any problems, but optional otherwise. I always fill it out, problem or no.
The other day I wrote on it about Trip Optimizer's normal slow operation. I stated, "Saving fuel by lowering velocity."
If you want to save fuel by running slower you don't need to buy an expensive system from GE: just lower the maximum authorized speed.
When they started implementing this PSR crap around here, it was all about speed. All fuel conservation measures were off - and engineers were expected to maintain track speed.
Then they must have gotten the fuel bill.
Just like that, they pulled a 180, and re-issued horsepower per ton and throttle notch restrictions. They can't make up their minds anymore.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.
mvlandswIf you want to save fuel by running slower you don't need to buy an expensive system from GE: just lower the maximum authorized speed.
Depends upon the territory.
A number of years ago - CSX limited coal trains to 40 MPH PERIOD. Atlanta Division leadership chaffed at the limitation between Atlanta and Waycross and prevailed to get a measured test performed. Identically sized trains with identical class power were operated from Atlanta to Waycross - one observing the 40 MPH max speed and one observing a 50 MPH max speed. Fuel situation was measured both at the start in Atlanta and upon arrival in Waycross.
The 50 MPH train used 150 gallons per unit less fuel.
The general geography between Atlanta is a series of rolling hills. The 50 MPH train was able to make use of the kinetic energy of the down grade train to assist it up the next grade. The 40 MPH train had to brake to hold it's speed in check and thus dissipated the kinetic engergy potential of the train. At 50 MPH that kinetic energy potential could be utilized and fuel saved.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
jeffhergert Deggesty Jeff, do you have any idea as to how much disemploying (yes, another way of saying "firing") the utility mechancal department trouble shooter has cost over the cost of continuing to use his services? I couldn't say. I do know that wait times for help to arrive have doubled or tripled, depending on where the help has to come out of. I like to read our company's recrew report. It's prepared in the dispatcher's offices. It gives the reasons, more or less, why a train had to be recrewed. One time two or three trains had to be recrewed, the first had the problem, the others were trapped behind it. The first train broke down with a mechanical issue, I don't remember what the problem was. The location was near where the utility mechanical position had recently been eliminated. The nearest available was now two or three hours away. The entry for this recrew emphasized that fact. Jeff
Penny wise and pound foolish. Lack of thinking about possible consequences?
Johnny
Balt, was the lower speed limit for coal trains on the AB&C raised in the interest of better fuel utilization? And, perhaps, elsewhere?
DeggestyBalt, was the lower speed limit for coal trains on the AB&C raised in the interest of better fuel utilization? And, perhaps, elsewhere?
After the testing that Atlanta - Waycross speed limit for coal trains was raised to 50 MPH. I am not aware of it being raised anywhere else until those 'fuel conservation' rules were changed systemwide.
BaltACD Deggesty Balt, was the lower speed limit for coal trains on the AB&C raised in the interest of better fuel utilization? And, perhaps, elsewhere? After the testing that Atlanta - Waycross speed limit for coal trains was raised to 50 MPH. I am not aware of it being raised anywhere else until those 'fuel conservation' rules were changed systemwide.
Deggesty Balt, was the lower speed limit for coal trains on the AB&C raised in the interest of better fuel utilization? And, perhaps, elsewhere?
So, the higher-ups realized that the first thought is not always the best.
When I was a kid my dad and I built a self driving lawnmower that worked pretty well..For the best part of one summer it mowed our grass without any help from us apart from putting gas in it and starting it up.. Only problem with it was that it only worked pretty well.. not flawlessly. One day it went estray and ran into traffic...the end.
Deggesty BaltACD Deggesty Balt, was the lower speed limit for coal trains on the AB&C raised in the interest of better fuel utilization? And, perhaps, elsewhere? After the testing that Atlanta - Waycross speed limit for coal trains was raised to 50 MPH. I am not aware of it being raised anywhere else until those 'fuel conservation' rules were changed systemwide. Thanks. So, the higher-ups realized that the first thought is not always the best.
Thanks.
Problem was it took two or three years to get enough traction through the hierarchy to even get the test.
jeffhergert mvlandsw I wonder if anyone has gone beyond looking at the fuel savings on individual trains for Trip Optimizer and other systems. Fuel can be saved by running slow but what does that do to the overall velocity of the railroad. I've been in situations where a slow train ahead will have several following trains running on restrictive signals. Trip Optimizer would not even let the train run at maximum authorized speed going down grade. We have a feedback computer form to fill out for both PTC and EMS. It's required for reporting any problems, but optional otherwise. I always fill it out, problem or no. The other day I wrote on it about Trip Optimizer's normal slow operation. I stated, "Saving fuel by lowering velocity." Jeff
Yep. It HAS to lower velocity or it wouldn't save any fuel. It's just physics.
We argued that again and again and again at NS. It finally showed up in the data. "Well, not by THAT much", was the response then.
Now, if they'd integrate it into UTCS so they could time meets on single track....they'd have something.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Paul_D_North_Jr Around here the garbage is picked-up by a truck with semi-automated 'arms' that reach out, grab the can, lift it up and dump it, then return it. Called a 'Toter' system - trade name. Everyone has to have a standardized can. Only 1 man on the truck - the driver/ operator, so no more need for the 'runner' on the ground. Saves quite a bit on worker's comp claims, I'm told. Easier to find people to drive/ operate the truck than be the runner. Safer in winter conditions or when it's still dark, too. And definitely cheaper when the cost of the cans and the specialized truck is spread out over 5 years. - PDN.
It only picks up on the right-hand side, but it moves pretty fast, and with one operator, it's likely to be more economical. I left a pile of branches once, expecting them to be picked up by a different truck, but the operator got out, picked up a GIANT pitchfork and scooped up the whole pile at once and dumped it into the bin.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/paulofcov/48746205123/in/datetaken/
_____________
"A stranger's just a friend you ain't met yet." --- Dave Gardner
Are any of the driverless systems open to hacking?
York1 John
CMStPnP Euclid So, I don’t think the unions’ argument that self-driving trains are not possible will prevent them from happening. The way I interpreted the remarks is that the Union was saying the technology is not ready today at this moment, I don't think they said it would never be ready.....at least I did not read that in their comments.
Euclid So, I don’t think the unions’ argument that self-driving trains are not possible will prevent them from happening.
The way I interpreted the remarks is that the Union was saying the technology is not ready today at this moment, I don't think they said it would never be ready.....at least I did not read that in their comments.
I do not mean to characterize the union position as saying that self-driving trains are impossible to achieve. But they are clearly implying that self-driving trains, as the practical attempts now under way, will not succeed. If their only point was that self-driving trains are not ready at this moment, I don't see why they would couch that in such a skeptical tone. They are not ready because it takes some time to get ready. They point to tests that are lacking in real world conditions as though that means that the concept will not work in real world conditions. Their argument on this basis seems like grasping at straws, like trying to stop progress by denying it.
Their only somewhat effective opposing position is that self-driving trains will be more dangerous to the public. But that argument too is grasping at straws. How many times have we heard that it would be too dangerous to have unmanned trains passing over public grade crossings? But why is that dangerous? Why is an engineer needed to make it safe to run trains over grade crossings? They can’t stop in time anyway. If anything, the world would be safer if we got the crews out of the locomotives where they did not have to face the dangers of collisions with vehicles.
1. Railroads don't have a great track record (heh) of actually maintaining stuff. How much "slop" will self-driving trains be able to compensate for?
2. A self-driving train clobbers some poor motorist at a rural crossing in the middle of the night and happily keeps on chugging along. That's not goign to go well with the general audience of people out there.
3. You're still going to need crews to do yard work and industry stuff. I think we're a long way from a train negotiating itself through a plant to spot its own cars.
Euclid CMStPnP Euclid So, I don’t think the unions’ argument that self-driving trains are not possible will prevent them from happening. The way I interpreted the remarks is that the Union was saying the technology is not ready today at this moment, I don't think they said it would never be ready.....at least I did not read that in their comments. I do not mean to characterize the union position as saying that self-driving trains are impossible to achieve. But they are clearly implying that self-driving trains, as the practical attempts now under way, will not succeed. If their only point was that self-driving trains are not ready at this moment, I don't see why they would couch that in such a skeptical tone. They are not ready because it takes some time to get ready. They point to tests that are lacking in real world conditions as though that means that the concept will not work in real world conditions. Their argument on this basis seems like grasping at straws, like trying to stop progress by denying it. Their only somewhat effective opposing position is that self-driving trains will be more dangerous to the public. But that argument too is grasping at straws. How many times have we heard that it would be too dangerous to have unmanned trains passing over public grade crossings? But why is that dangerous? Why is an engineer needed to make it safe to run trains over grade crossings? They can’t stop in time anyway. If anything, the world would be safer if we got the crews out of the locomotives where they did not have to face the dangers of collisions with vehicles.
I think you’re reading way too much into the union’s statement. It seems to me that the skeptical tone was simply a “not so fast, my friend” note of caution in response to the giddiness of the original announcement. There’s no way the unions are so delusional that they think autonomous train operation can never happen; they’re merely saying we’re nowhere close to that point yet.
Psychot Euclid CMStPnP Euclid So, I don’t think the unions’ argument that self-driving trains are not possible will prevent them from happening. The way I interpreted the remarks is that the Union was saying the technology is not ready today at this moment, I don't think they said it would never be ready.....at least I did not read that in their comments. I do not mean to characterize the union position as saying that self-driving trains are impossible to achieve. But they are clearly implying that self-driving trains, as the practical attempts now under way, will not succeed. If their only point was that self-driving trains are not ready at this moment, I don't see why they would couch that in such a skeptical tone. They are not ready because it takes some time to get ready. They point to tests that are lacking in real world conditions as though that means that the concept will not work in real world conditions. Their argument on this basis seems like grasping at straws, like trying to stop progress by denying it. Their only somewhat effective opposing position is that self-driving trains will be more dangerous to the public. But that argument too is grasping at straws. How many times have we heard that it would be too dangerous to have unmanned trains passing over public grade crossings? But why is that dangerous? Why is an engineer needed to make it safe to run trains over grade crossings? They can’t stop in time anyway. If anything, the world would be safer if we got the crews out of the locomotives where they did not have to face the dangers of collisions with vehicles. I think you’re reading way too much into the union’s statement. It seems to me that the skeptical tone was simply a “not so fast, my friend” note of caution in response to the giddiness of the original announcement. There’s no way the unions are so delusional that they think autonomous train operation can never happen; they’re merely saying we’re nowhere close to that point yet.
As I said above, I do not mean to characterize the union position as saying that self-driving trains are impossible to achieve. But I think their comments have a bitterness of insulting tone that suggests they are far more than just an objective disagreement about how fast self-driving trains will be in widespread use in the U.S.
I am referring to comments such as this: “union officials dismissed the test as nothing more than an unrealistic experiment.”
They go on to say that the effort is unrealistic because the application will be incapable of dealing with real world conditions. Yet self-driving trains are in operation today and the first examples go back several decades. Granted, those are non-interchange railroads, but U.S. railroading is capable of changing their operations to integrate some self-driving trains into their traffic. Then as it goes forward, more operational changes will accommodate more autonomous train operation. The self-driving train concept won’t just be put into operation over the whole railroad at as a one-time conversion. That total simultaneous conversion is not necessary, and not practical.
zugmann 1. Railroads don't have a great track record (heh) of actually maintaining stuff. How much "slop" will self-driving trains be able to compensate for? 2. A self-driving train clobbers some poor motorist at a rural crossing in the middle of the night and happily keeps on chugging along. That's not goign to go well with the general audience of people out there.
These are big cultural problems that aren't going to be solved anytime soon. North American railroads are ingrained in this 'run to failure' system and many regular citizens think that flashing red lights and/or crossbucks mean they should floor it.
zugmann 3. You're still going to need crews to do yard work and industry stuff. I think we're a long way from a train negotiating itself through a plant to spot its own cars.
I can see the railroads persuading many large industries to have their employees do all the switching after a unmanned train arrives at the plant, but as long as the current coupling and air brake systems are in use the railroads will need people to switch and build trains. It's that simple.
GE built that robot that can bleed off cars, but can it reach in and lace up air hoses? Apply or release handbrakes? Mount or remove an EOT? The list goes on....
Greetings from Alberta
-an Articulate Malcontent
And there go the savings in running autonomous trains.. If the customers are going to have their employees do the switching then likely they'll want some compensation for doing that either directly or in the form of lower rates. And there is the liability aspect.. do we want nonrailroaders switching cars in any event? The shippers' insurance and WSIB premiums would hit the roof... unlikely they'll agree to that unless they're paid handsomely for it. Or maybe an intermediary along the lines of Uber Eats.. call it Uber Switch..switchmen on call for any situation.. and since anyone can be a cabbie or a hotelier why not also turn the average Jane/Joe looking for a side hustle into a part time switchman?
Ulrichcustomers are going to have their employees do the switching
Russell
UlrichIf the customers are going to have their employees do the switching...
A friend of mine worked for a shortline that handled in-plant switching for a local industry. I don't know how extensive that is/was.
csxns Ulrich customers are going to have their employees do the switching In Shelby NC the PPG industries fiber glass plant did that Nippon glass bought the former PPG and they still do it.
Ulrich customers are going to have their employees do the switching
In Shelby NC the PPG industries fiber glass plant did that Nippon glass bought the former PPG and they still do it.
Many customers - all across the nation - have their own employees perform intra-plant switching to keep their plants in operation
Customers are entitled to ONE PLACEMENT of a inbound car - either loaded or empty - by the railroad. If the railroad is instructed by the industry to move the car to another location after the initial placement - the railroad bills a 'Intra-plant Switching Charge'. I don't know what the present cost of a Intra-plant Switch is at present (with the application of PSR in rates, I expect it to be high).
Many manufacturing processes require cars to be spotted in multiple locations for performance of the individual company's products to be manufactured.
Reviewing www.railpictures.net you will come across picture of any number of varied locomotive types that are or have been used by industries to perform their in plant switching.
During strike duty at the PPG plant in Barberton, OH in the early 70's it took 3 crews to keep the plant's production processes in operation. One crew was made up of railroad supervision from the carriers that jointly owned the Akron & Barberton Belt RR that normally served the plant and used railroad power. The two other crews, using power owned by PPG, were staffed by PPG supervision.
I was able to find a few intra-plant charges. UP is $180 per car, Iowa Interstate is $175. Some other short lines in the G&W family had $200 and $250 per car. (I thought UP was at $250 from something a manager said last year. Maybe they had been, but backed off after shipper's complaints to the STB.)
PTC won't, and probably will never be, everywhere. Regionals and short lines may not have it. Even secondary and branch lines of the class ones may not have it. There will probably be a lot of manned trains out there. It might even eventually persuade the class ones to sell off more of those secondary and branch lines and become true line-haul carriers.
On major line-haul corridorThat's where autonomous trains
Paul of Covington Paul_D_North_Jr Around here the garbage is picked-up by a truck with semi-automated 'arms' that reach out, grab the can, lift it up and dump it, then return it. Called a 'Toter' system - trade name. Everyone has to have a standardized can. Only 1 man on the truck - the driver/ operator, so no more need for the 'runner' on the ground. Saves quite a bit on worker's comp claims, I'm told. Easier to find people to drive/ operate the truck than be the runner. Safer in winter conditions or when it's still dark, too. And definitely cheaper when the cost of the cans and the specialized truck is spread out over 5 years. - PDN. https://www.flickr.com/photos/paulofcov/48746205123/in/datetaken/
https://m.imgur.com/nzaliE5
Too funny
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.