Trains.com

PTC + ECP + DPU - Coal + Intermodal = ?

4097 views
16 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    January 2001
  • From: Atlanta
  • 11,971 posts
PTC + ECP + DPU - Coal + Intermodal = ?
Posted by oltmannd on Tuesday, January 21, 2014 2:25 PM

I took a stab at the answer to that equation in my blog.  Wrote a not-as-short-as-it-should-be story.  Take a look and tell me where I'm all wet!

Or, take a stab at it yourself!

(I'm not quitting my day job any time soon....)

-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Tuesday, January 21, 2014 2:53 PM

Wow. What a fascinating read -- thanks for sharing it!

I'm not going to stick my neck out and speculate about industry economics, electrification, or the role of technology, but I will punch one hole in your narrative.

The original brake valves from when the cars were built in the first part of the century were mostly still in place and the train still carried an ancient end of train device they called FRED.  Charlie had no idea why they called them FRED.  Maybe it was the name of the inventor?  An old head had told him a story about a rather vulgar acronym.  That couldn't be right.  Railroaders didn't use that kind of language.

From my experience in the industry, that's one thing that will never change. Whistling

  • Member since
    January 2002
  • From: Canterlot
  • 9,575 posts
Posted by zugmann on Tuesday, January 21, 2014 2:55 PM

I don't think I ever heard a railroader refer to the blinkey boxes as FREDs.

I've only ever heard them called markers. Or if someone wants to be fancy:  EOTD.

I'll (hopefully) still be working in 2040, so we'll see what happens.

It's been fun.  But it isn't much fun anymore.   Signing off for now. 


  

The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.t fun any

  • Member since
    December 2001
  • From: Northern New York
  • 25,018 posts
Posted by tree68 on Tuesday, January 21, 2014 5:21 PM

Flashing Rear End Device

That's what we call ours.  All it does is hang on the coupler and flash.  

Besides, "FRED" has a lot more "personality" than "EOTD" or "Marker" when I'm showing the plush version to kids...

LarryWhistling
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...

  • Member since
    March 2003
  • From: Central Iowa
  • 6,900 posts
Posted by jeffhergert on Tuesday, January 21, 2014 5:24 PM

Zug, we use EOT or FRED.  I've read that some places call the head end box Mary, but I've never heard that around my area.

From what I've read in Railway Age, ECP braking seems to be on the back burner.  I wouldn't be surprised to see that change in the future.

I don't think unit grain trains will go away.  The push is on for 110 car trains.  They will still load 75 cars now, but I think the time will come when 100 cars will be the minimum.  I wouldn't be surprised to see fewer loading elevators but with 120 or even 150 car capacity.

Some of the things are already here.  Timetables and General Orders are already downloadable.  I haven't joined the 21st century yet, I still prefer paper but wouldn't be surprised that before I retire the company will issue electronic devices and go that route.  All that stuff is now posted in electronic friendly form.  Almost to the point that it's harder sometimes to print the stuff out.  

I don't doubt that some of things you predict will happen.  I won't be out here in 2040.  In a way, I'm kind of glad.  Although the 13000 foot trains we are running would be a lot easier with ECP.  Well maybe, they'll probably still not want you to use air.  Uses too much fuel.

Jeff   

  • Member since
    December 2009
  • 1,751 posts
Posted by dakotafred on Tuesday, January 21, 2014 5:29 PM

The proper name, as I understood it, was Rear-End Device, or RED. The 'F' got added to the acronym by trainmen unhappy with the demise of the caboose.

I was never fond of the new acronym, myself.

  • Member since
    March 2016
  • From: Burbank IL (near Clearing)
  • 13,540 posts
Posted by CSSHEGEWISCH on Wednesday, January 22, 2014 7:41 AM

I've also heard that FRED is a subtle insult from Brotherhood members directed at the president of the UTU at the time.

The daily commute is part of everyday life but I get two rides a day out of it. Paul
  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: US
  • 2,593 posts
Posted by PNWRMNM on Thursday, January 23, 2014 10:57 AM

Don,

Your vision looks credible to me, particularly the line improvements driven by increasing traffic and a need for speed.

The most inventive, and perhaps least likely, I thought was the flying squads. I agree something like them are necessary for one person crew but I wonder about "land anywhere" access in the mountains.

Mac McCulloch

  • Member since
    January 2005
  • From: Brecksville Ohio
  • 266 posts
Posted by rluke on Thursday, January 23, 2014 11:25 AM
I had read that the F in FRED stood for Flashing Rich
Rich
  • Member since
    January 2001
  • From: Atlanta
  • 11,971 posts
Posted by oltmannd on Thursday, January 23, 2014 12:23 PM

TrainManTy

Wow. What a fascinating read -- thanks for sharing it!

I'm not going to stick my neck out and speculate about industry economics, electrification, or the role of technology, but I will punch one hole in your narrative.

The original brake valves from when the cars were built in the first part of the century were mostly still in place and the train still carried an ancient end of train device they called FRED.  Charlie had no idea why they called them FRED.  Maybe it was the name of the inventor?  An old head had told him a story about a rather vulgar acronym.  That couldn't be right.  Railroaders didn't use that kind of language.

From my experience in the industry, that's one thing that will never change. Whistling

Yeah, that might be the LEAST credible thing in there!  Wink

-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/

  • Member since
    December 2012
  • 20 posts
Posted by W.Shawn Gray on Sunday, February 9, 2014 2:38 AM

G'day Don,
A little surprised you didn't mention the possibility of a return of some re-conceived form of carbon-neutral steam  locomotives in your story. I know that the Canada's tar-sands warp the Peak-oil problem somewhat for North America, but it could easily prove easier to run Carbon Neutral steamers along the line of the Coalition for Sustainable Rail (CSR) research than trying to offset traditional fossil fuels whatever they be (oil, CNG, CPG etc.).

             Internationally the Post-Carbon future for railway locomotive power is not as precarious as my initial reading (5 years ago) suggested.  However locally Australia needs a 'Plan B' for where railways can not be economically electrified Australia is going to discover too late that oversea answers (for a Post-carbon world) are not going to work in a future hotter dryer Australia.

           After the early dramas with the The Canadian Green Goats in the North East USA I don't know how much of the 2040 vision could even be located to the South West of the USA, let-alone here to Auz.

           Final version of my musings researching Post-Carbon Australian Locomotive Option went up on the web the last month  http://www.auzgnosis.com/pgs/auzloco.htm   .

Probably of particular interest to the readership here is:

1#   'Strategy Matrix for Migration of Locomotives to Carbon Neutral Operating Regime' included on page 14 of Folio:1:g4 Germinal Material

2#   Part 3: Looking Forward   A vision of a possible future:
Down by the heliostats1 early in the morning.
     included on page 44 of Folio:1:g4 Germinal Material

Hope you enjoy all this.   W.Shawn Gray

Tags: steam , Australia , prr , CSR , Futures
  • Member since
    June 2002
  • 20,096 posts
Posted by daveklepper on Monday, February 10, 2014 10:33 AM

Electric controlled braking will come, first with unit trains and then with loose cars, eventualy

GGOD JOB, WELL WRITTEN\\

THANKS

  • Member since
    November 2003
  • From: Rhode Island
  • 2,289 posts
Posted by carnej1 on Monday, February 10, 2014 11:40 AM

W.Shawn Gray

G'day Don,
A little surprised you didn't mention the possibility of a return of some re-conceived form of carbon-neutral steam  locomotives in your story. I know that the Canada's tar-sands warp the Peak-oil problem somewhat for North America, but it could easily prove easier to run Carbon Neutral steamers along the line of the Coalition for Sustainable Rail (CSR) research than trying to offset traditional fossil fuels whatever they be (oil, CNG, CPG etc.).

             Internationally the Post-Carbon future for railway locomotive power is not as precarious as my initial reading (5 years ago) suggested.  However locally Australia needs a 'Plan B' for where railways can not be economically electrified Australia is going to discover too late that oversea answers (for a Post-carbon world) are not going to work in a future hotter dryer Australia.

           After the early dramas with the The Canadian Green Goats in the North East USA I don't know how much of the 2040 vision could even be located to the South West of the USA, let-alone here to Auz.

           Final version of my musings researching Post-Carbon Australian Locomotive Option went up on the web the last month  http://www.auzgnosis.com/pgs/auzloco.htm   .

Probably of particular interest to the readership here is:

1#   'Strategy Matrix for Migration of Locomotives to Carbon Neutral Operating Regime' included on page 14 of Folio:1:g4 Germinal Material

2#   Part 3: Looking Forward   A vision of a possible future:
Down by the heliostats1 early in the morning.
     included on page 44 of Folio:1:g4 Germinal Material

Hope you enjoy all this.   W.Shawn Gray

  The current Natural Gas boom (correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe Oz is experiencing a similar rapid increase in NG production?) seems to be dictating the next great leap in railroad fuel, and given that LNG (and CNG) are more efficiently used in internal combustion I don't see the steam traction renaissance some predict, at least while there is still plenty of gas.

 As far as "torrified wood" biomass there appears to be a huge debate raging about whether it is really carbon neutral or not (I won't debate the point  but if you web search the issue you will see what I am referring to).

 So once Gas runs out maybe you have a shot but by that time it is possible that the economics of widespread electrification may be far more favorable and/or energy storage systems (you name it; ultracapacitor, flywheel, ect.ect.) may have reached IC/steam like reliability and energy density.

 But predicting the future that far out is always risky so I won't  try...

"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock

  • Member since
    December 2012
  • 20 posts
Posted by W.Shawn Gray on Tuesday, February 11, 2014 3:25 PM

G'day Don,

carnej1

  The current Natural Gas boom (correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe Oz is experiencing a similar rapid increase in NG production?) seems to be dictating the next great leap in railroad fuel, and given that LNG (and CNG) are more efficiently used in internal combustion I don't see the steam traction renaissance some predict, at least while there is still plenty of gas.

            Marketing hype. Australia [Auz]  had a Natural Gas boom at the end of the last century beginning of this one, that the stupid John Howard (Federal Conservative) Government over sold on forward contracts to China et al.  So now the foreign mining companies want to frack good farm land with scares water for trickles of Coal Seam Gas (methane also but strictly speaking NOT natural gas) to make up the short fall between forward contract obligations and North West Shelf gas field limited production  resources.  As the locals will not see any gas (or profits) from the destruction of their farming capacity the frackers have a public relations nightmare that is going from bad to worse by the day.

carnej1

As far as "torrified wood" biomass there appears to be a huge debate raging about whether it is really carbon neutral or not (I won't debate the point  but if you web search the issue you will see what I am referring to).

 So once Gas runs out maybe you have a shot but by that time it is possible that the economics of widespread electrification may be far more favorable and/or energy storage systems (you name it; ultracapacitor, flywheel, ect.ect.) may have reached IC/steam like reliability and energy density.

 But predicting the future that far out is always risky so I won't  try...

Thanks for flagging the debate about carbon neutrality of torrified wood bio-mass  ( I will look into to that).   Personally I am more interested in Pyrolysis Oil (trademarked as Bio-oil ) for steam locomotives, something that there is no argument over the carbon neutral credentials of.  As I noted in my original comment  "Canada's tar-sands warp the Peak-oil problem somewhat for North America" along with all your shale-gas it will be some time before North America is short of fossil fuels & natural-gas, but is there any progress being made that such supplies can have carbon offset cost effectively?

Given the world wide shortage of copper I seriously doubt "widespread electrification may be far more favourable" unless some other thing is found to conduct electricity fast enough for the catenary line above.

I agree with you that the ultracapacitors are a very exciting option for the future, especially as batteries and hot climes (like the Southern USA or Auz) look multially incompatable.

Al the best,   W.Shawn Gray

  • Member since
    December 2012
  • 20 posts
Posted by W.Shawn Gray on Tuesday, February 11, 2014 3:44 PM

G'day Don,
           An "Intermodal question" flowing from your future gazing.  As Intermodal traffic is about capturing market back from the road-trucking industry I do not understand how that meshes with longer intermodal trains.  Yes for the efficiency benefits railroad companies are moving to longer trains for bulk goods (coal, iron ore &c.) but surely with intermodal the markets hankering for delivery before something is even sent would argue for more shorter trains to (cut delays) increase the speed of any items travel time??  Or am I missing something here like the expected size of the market is so big those long trains would be rolling out every few minutes along the same route (as opposed to the once a shift / day impression I got from the story) ?

Thanks that guy from Auz.   W.Shawn Gray

Tags: intermodal
  • Member since
    March 2016
  • From: Burbank IL (near Clearing)
  • 13,540 posts
Posted by CSSHEGEWISCH on Wednesday, February 12, 2014 7:07 AM

Not all intermodal is the same.  From conversations with a friend, he mentioned that you get different types of service and speed depending on your needs and the rate that you're willing to pay.  Doublestacks out of Long Beach are going to be longer and not as fast as an all-UPS priority-rate train with all sorts of gradations of speed and service in between.

The daily commute is part of everyday life but I get two rides a day out of it. Paul
  • Member since
    June 2002
  • 20,096 posts
Posted by daveklepper on Wednesday, February 12, 2014 7:12 AM

But on the railroad itself, on the main line, a one-speed railroad is the most efficient and safest.

Join our Community!

Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.

Search the Community

Newsletter Sign-Up

By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy