CMStPnPThere is not yet a complete lack of a need for humans on locomotives and you cannot prove there is yet because adequate testing has not been performed to reach the conclusion
Has the conclusion not been reached and proven by the fact that self-driving trains are operating successfully every day on Rio Tinto Railroad in Australia? It seems to me that adequate testing has indeed been performed.
EuclidHas the conclusion not been reached and proven by the fact that self-driving trains are operating successfully every day on Rio Tinto Railroad in Australia? It seems to me that adequate testing has indeed been performed.
That's damn near as silly as saying that because Black Mesa & Lake Powell trains could run unattended -- in not too dissimilar a set of operating conditions and parameters from those in the West Australia mining region -- it's 'adequate' for complete and unquestioning adoption on the North American general system.
Very little that 'we didn't already know' about train control and control communications in general is involved in the Rio Tinto operations, and not too much more is actually demonstrated in the recent NYAB show.
It's as if you haven't read many of the posts in this thread, and in other threads, regarding where there are problems even with two sets of eyes and minds running the train. And as if you are almost fundamentally unread on the science and technology behind actual current design of autonomous vehicles. Neither, I hope, is true, but I think you need reasons to claim 'adequate testing has indeed been performed' and back them up with technological proof of what was done, and what the systems can do in imperfect real-world conditions.
Overmod Euclid Has the conclusion not been reached and proven by the fact that self-driving trains are operating successfully every day on Rio Tinto Railroad in Australia? It seems to me that adequate testing has indeed been performed. That's damn near as silly as saying that because Black Mesa & Lake Powell trains could run unattended -- in not too dissimilar a set of operating conditions and parameters from those in the West Australia mining region -- it's 'adequate' for complete and unquestioning adoption on the North American general system. Very little that 'we didn't already know' about train control and control communications in general is involved in the Rio Tinto operations, and not too much more is actually demonstrated in the recent NYAB show. It's as if you haven't read many of the posts in this thread, and in other threads, regarding where there are problems even with two sets of eyes and minds running the train. And as if you are almost fundamentally unread on the science and technology behind actual current design of autonomous vehicles. Neither, I hope, is true, but I think you need reasons to claim 'adequate testing has indeed been performed' and back them up with technological proof of what was done, and what the systems can do in imperfect real-world conditions.
Euclid Has the conclusion not been reached and proven by the fact that self-driving trains are operating successfully every day on Rio Tinto Railroad in Australia? It seems to me that adequate testing has indeed been performed.
I don't think BM&LP ever achieved autonomous operation. I believe there goal was to still have a single person, as an observer-just in case, but have the train run by itself. Even that I don't think happened, the last I knew they ran a two person crew up to when they shut down.
Again, I would like to know how well Rio Tinto's operation really is doing. From the people who work with it day to day. I would like to know what their failure rate is. You won't hear that from Rio Tinto or NYAB et al. Obviously, it's at or below what they consider cost effective. But when you want something bad enough, you can rationalize away a lot of failure.
Jeff
No need for your insulting tone. I am fully awar of what I said. I NEVER claimed that the technology was ready to convert the entire U.S. rail system to driverless running in a "complete and unquestioning adoption of the North American general system," as you imply I said and meant. Of course that won't happen and there is no need to make it happen unless one needs it as an excuse to reject the entire concept of self-driving trains. Obviously the conversion would start with the easiest parts. Those would be running condtions most like that of Rio Tinto; that is, places where trains run a whole division without setouts and pickups. Even this simplest application may not be possible today, but in my opinion, it is something that could be started within a year or two. I would not be surprised if this spot automation application it is being worked on right now, and will soon be tested.
LensCapOnIf this was a REAL issue (snark/ON) all it would take would be smaller cab doors with the warning sign: "If you can't fit through this door you are too fat to Drive This Train".
These locomotives had a Cummins engine mounted in the rear of the locomotive, tanget to the prime mover, with the electric cabinet against the wall on the fireman's side. The F7 was so short, however, that the Cummins had to be mounted away from the fireman's side wall to make room for the Cummins electrical cabinet. These hi-revving engines did a wonderful job of coating the entire rear of the inside of the locomotive shell with a layer of oil.
These engines were so big, that walking from the first coach to the cab was nearly impossible for those of us "extra large" and beyond (unless one really sucked-in their excess midriff bulge), and impassible by anyone bigger than a size "large", without one's shirt wiping off all the oil from both the sidewall and also the engine itself.
The E units weren't quite as bad, as there was room between the 2nd prime mover and the rear wall to accommodate the Cummins so it could be mounted closer to the fireman's side wall, ahead of the Cummins electrical cabinet.
zardozIn order to lighten up this thread, I'll bore you with a little tale of F7s in commuter operations.
We have a one-time GM&O F3 that's been rebuilt to an "F10." It ran on MBTA. It has an HEP genset exactly as you describe, but we aren't using it.
Everything else about moving around in the engine compartment is true. My nice, bright high viz jackets are a testament to that. They aren't as high vis any more.
For that matter, just getting into an F unit, or an RS-? ALCO makes it obvious that crews of an earlier age weren't a big as crews are today.
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...
We have two privately owned FP9's stored at our museum that also fit this description. They are from a group that VIA had rebuilt into what they and CN called a FP9RM (645C engine, modified Dash-2 electrical system, basically what CN did with their GP9RM rebuilds at the same time), and this pair are from a further subgroup of six that received HEP gensets circa 1996-1997, after VIA finally phased out steam-heated cars. They have Detroit Series 92's instead of Cummins engines.
It is indeed very cramped in the rear end of those units, and among other space the HEP engine occupies the passage from the back door to the handbrake. So if you enter from the back door or the rear door on the Engineer's side you have to walk around the front of the engine to get at the handbrake.
The HEP control panel takes up most of the space between the air compressor and electrical cabinet, but their current owner also managed to shoehorn a Hotstart system in there.
Here they are on display. The exhaust pipe and radiator for the HEP genset are readily visible at the rear of the unit:
http://www.railpictures.ca/?attachment_id=34316
Greetings from Alberta
-an Articulate Malcontent
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.