Well, hopefully the driverless car would not smash into the unmanned truck, if the computers can succesfully talk to each other.
Semper VaporoI could ALMOST think that a train could be unattended while in motion, but the unexpected will always require a PEOPLE to handle the problems that inevitably come up. I am quite against trucks or cars on the highway without a driver... bad enough with some of the drivers that ARE in attendance!!!!
True, as many minor incidents with air travel have shown. If the computer thinks one thing is happening and another is actually happening, bad things happen. I don't want 'What's it doing now?' on our roads or rails.
Perhaps we need a new thread on this?
schlimm Only new stock offerings to investors generate invested capital to increase productivity. The price and trading of existing stock in the markets does not increase capital available for expansion or infastructure improvements.
Only new stock offerings to investors generate invested capital to increase productivity. The price and trading of existing stock in the markets does not increase capital available for expansion or infastructure improvements.
If I'm correctly understanding what you are stating as a fundamental fact than Berkshire Hathaway should be the biggest failure in Corporate history and BNSF is doomed....or is B-H the exception that proves your rule?
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
Speaking of "Unmanned trains" Has anyone ridden the Skybus in Vancouver BC. It operates with no operator onboard. It does have an exclusive ROW. Not aware of significant problems.
NorthWestWell, hopefully the driverless car would not smash into the unmanned truck, if the computers can succesfully talk to each other.
This is actually two things.
First, each of the vehicles is capable of reacting much faster than any 'human', even one with very good driving reflexes (where the 'instinctive' first reaction will be both correct and not generate excessive force that causes trouble at a later point in an incident). A properly-designed autonomous system will have some 'expert-system' capability; it will recognize not only the sensed parameters, but also keep a wider 'situational awareness' about what it can and can't do, right up to understanding when it's better to take paint off cars in the adjacent lane than to miss the impact attenuators on a bridge abutment.
Second -- as you note, the computers can talk to each other. So they can mutually determine a way out of a dangerous situation ... a couple of trucks could trap a skidding car and keep it from spinning, for example, or a truck could hold a car that had lost effective power under its second trailer and decelerate it to a stop in an appropriate line that keeps it in lane and away from incidental traffic or roadside hazards...
In practice, one of the premises of ITS is that the vehicles are all in some sort of communications 'datasphere' (and almost incidentally with each other in 'awareness', so that ad hoc communications at higher data rate, or higher security, or whatever, can be commanded between or among particular groups, or utilities).
This is not Skynet, or Forbin's Colossus, or Alpha soixante-neuf or whatever. In the systems my father was working on in college, it was possible for the 'environment' and surrounding vehicles to mock up a full control program to replace a crashed piece of software, or to emulate the functionality of many potential 'failing' pieces of equipment, since the 'best' solution is not always the quickest stop or the most expedient 15' of shoulder on a well-traveled freeway...
Of course, I haven't forgotten that where there is artificial intelligence there will probably be much more artificial stupidity. Commercial systems will have bugs, and some of them will probably turn out to be much more serious than we presently expect. One of the key principles in design is to be able to dance a solution when such a serious bug occurs...
Note that this happy situation should not be expected to prevail under the current "ITS" for railroads -- PTC and an associated 'cloud'. The data radios have insufficient bandwidth and insufficient current coverage to assure the necessary pervasive coverage. Current rules don't favor use of multipurpose OTS equipment or solutions, to say nothing of many kinds of AI/ES assistance or 'telepresence' approaches. We've already seen that even a few seconds' lapse of 'oversight' at ACS-64 or 17 Mile Grade acceleration speeds can lead to problems that no amount of connected intelligence can rectify.
When you have a Skybus composed largely of multiple unpowered vehicles, in a consist two miles long that masses 15 kilotons or better, come back and you can be more proud if there are no problems...
Wizlish NorthWest Well, hopefully the driverless car would not smash into the unmanned truck, if the computers can succesfully talk to each other. This is actually two things. First, each of the vehicles is capable of reacting much faster than any 'human', even one with very good driving reflexes (where the 'instinctive' first reaction will be both correct and not generate excessive force that causes trouble at a later point in an incident). A properly-designed autonomous system will have some 'expert-system' capability; it will recognize not only the sensed parameters, but also keep a wider 'situational awareness' about what it can and can't do, right up to understanding when it's better to take paint off cars in the adjacent lane than to miss the impact attenuators on a bridge abutment. Second -- as you note, the computers can talk to each other. So they can mutually determine a way out of a dangerous situation ... a couple of trucks could trap a skidding car and keep it from spinning, for example, or a truck could hold a car that had lost effective power under its second trailer and decelerate it to a stop in an appropriate line that keeps it in lane and away from incidental traffic or roadside hazards... In practice, one of the premises of ITS is that the vehicles are all in some sort of communications 'datasphere' (and almost incidentally with each other in 'awareness', so that ad hoc communications at higher data rate, or higher security, or whatever, can be commanded between or among particular groups, or utilities). This is not Skynet, or Forbin's Colossus, or Alpha soixante-neuf or whatever. In the systems my father was working on in college, it was possible for the 'environment' and surrounding vehicles to mock up a full control program to replace a crashed piece of software, or to emulate the functionality of many potential 'failing' pieces of equipment, since the 'best' solution is not always the quickest stop or the most expedient 15' of shoulder on a well-traveled freeway... Of course, I haven't forgotten that where there is artificial intelligence there will probably be much more artificial stupidity. Commercial systems will have bugs, and some of them will probably turn out to be much more serious than we presently expect. One of the key principles in design is to be able to dance a solution when such a serious bug occurs...
NorthWest Well, hopefully the driverless car would not smash into the unmanned truck, if the computers can succesfully talk to each other.
Hackers delight!
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
carnej1If I'm correctly understanding what you are stating as a fundamental fact than Berkshire Hathaway should be the biggest failure in Corporate history and BNSF is doomed....or is B-H the exception that proves your rule?
I think what he is saying is, that acquiring and holding (existing) stock in a company is not one-in-the-same with providing them growth resources.
When a company has an IPO, the money goes to the company, when existing stock is traded... the money goes to the previous holder. Which touches on the concept of "provides nothing to the productive workflow" as I posted earlier.
The frame of reference that I made the comment from was actually more along the lines of looking back at the way entrepreneur-equity used to operate.
Love them or hate them, at least the robber barrons of old actually put in a day's work in exchange for their slice of the pie. Now-a-days mom-n-pop hobbyist stockholders seem to expect their investment to be their entire contribution to the operation and their idea of "productive work" is to just sit around clipping dividend coupons while salaried specialists run the business.
And it is That double sucker-hose which leaves so little money to spare to pay the blue collar guys to just perform the work that actually GENERATES revenue.
Firelock76 I read the "One Man Crews" article in the August "Trains", and certainly the big 'roads trot out some convincing arguments for the idea, why it'll be OK and won't cause any problems and such, but something was bothering me, like I'd heard something similar before. Maybe it was that iron-throated "Ahem!" in the back of my mind. Then I remembered. The "Titanic." The lack of lifeboats. You see, back around the turn of the 20th Century shipping line magnates had convinced themselves that with the advances in ship design and construction lifeboats for all would never be needed. Oh, they had some convincing arguments: "These new ships can easily ride out storms that would have overwhemed older ships." "They have watertight compartments. Nothing's likely to damage more than two of them at any point of the hull." "We have wireless now. A ship in trouble can call for help, all the boats will be needed for will be to transfer passengers from one ship to another. We don't need 'boats for all' to do that." "Boats for all might even be dangerous. All that extra top-weight could make the ship unstable." "All the above being said, they're just not worth the money." Needless to say all those self-delusional arguments went right out the window on the morning of April 15, 1912. Shipping companys, and let me say NO ship carried enough boats for all in those days, couldn't get extra lifeboats on board fast enough. If they didn't, no one would sail with them, and then they'd REALLY have a money problem to worry about! This is why "Titanic" junkies like myself love the old girl so much. Even a century after her sinking, she still has so much to teach us. In my humble opinion, we're heading for a digital "Titanic" one of these days, but that's another story. Jim Wrinn's "From The Editor" column this month says it all. I stand with Mr. Jim on this one.
I read the "One Man Crews" article in the August "Trains", and certainly the big 'roads trot out some convincing arguments for the idea, why it'll be OK and won't cause any problems and such, but something was bothering me, like I'd heard something similar before. Maybe it was that iron-throated "Ahem!" in the back of my mind.
Then I remembered. The "Titanic." The lack of lifeboats.
You see, back around the turn of the 20th Century shipping line magnates had convinced themselves that with the advances in ship design and construction lifeboats for all would never be needed. Oh, they had some convincing arguments:
"These new ships can easily ride out storms that would have overwhemed older ships."
"They have watertight compartments. Nothing's likely to damage more than two of them at any point of the hull."
"We have wireless now. A ship in trouble can call for help, all the boats will be needed for will be to transfer passengers from one ship to another. We don't need 'boats for all' to do that."
"Boats for all might even be dangerous. All that extra top-weight could make the ship unstable."
"All the above being said, they're just not worth the money."
Needless to say all those self-delusional arguments went right out the window on the morning of April 15, 1912. Shipping companys, and let me say NO ship carried enough boats for all in those days, couldn't get extra lifeboats on board fast enough. If they didn't, no one would sail with them, and then they'd REALLY have a money problem to worry about!
This is why "Titanic" junkies like myself love the old girl so much. Even a century after her sinking, she still has so much to teach us.
In my humble opinion, we're heading for a digital "Titanic" one of these days, but that's another story.
Jim Wrinn's "From The Editor" column this month says it all. I stand with Mr. Jim on this one.
But let's get back to railroads. If a two person crew is as vital to safety as some claim, why don't we require two person crews on over the road trucks? After all, railroads operate on a fixed guideway, on a largely private right of way, with multiple safety systems that can alert and, in some cases, override the engineer. True, the existing rail safety systems don't cover every possible contingency, as demonstrated by the Philadelphia accident. But they cover a lot more than the largely non-existent automatic safety systems for trucks. Moreover, trucks don't operate on a fixed guideway or on a private right-of-way. Rather, trucks operate on public roadways, mixed with other vehicles. Some truck rigs, in fact, are actually "trains" hauling mutiple trailers. Trucks depend almost entirely on their single person crews (the driver) to keep them out of trouble. The likelihood of fatigue, inattention, etc leading to a serious accident would seem to be much higher with a truck (or, for that matter, a bus) than with a train. Just this past week, there was a serious truck accident in Indiana where a trucker rear ended a line of stopped vehicles in a construction zone, killing 5 (making it worse than the Metro North passenger rail accident), in spite of multiple warning signs which should have alerted him to the upcoming construction zone. And, if you live in a big city, nearly every day you'll hear a traffic report about a truck turning itself over by operating too fast around an entrance or exit ramp. If this were really a "safety" issue, the regulators would be demanding two people in truck cabs.
23 17 46 11
Eventually, probably within the next five to ten years, you will see more widespread use of one person crews for simple point A to point B moves. But for more complex work such as switching and setting out cars etc, two or more people will still be the norm. Why can't crew size be flexible to meet the demands of the work? How many crew on a train is not the right question to ask.. rather both sides should be aiming for flexible work rules that will allow the right number of crew for the work at hand.. sometimes that's one person.. and sometimes it could be three or more.
Convicted OneConvicted One wrote the following post yesterday: carnej1 If I'm correctly understanding what you are stating as a fundamental fact than Berkshire Hathaway should be the biggest failure in Corporate history and BNSF is doomed....or is B-H the exception that proves your rule? I think what he is saying is, that acquiring and holding (existing) stock in a company is not one-in-the-same with providing them growth resources. When a company has an IPO, the money goes to the company, when existing stock is traded... the money goes to the previous holder.
carnej1 If I'm correctly understanding what you are stating as a fundamental fact than Berkshire Hathaway should be the biggest failure in Corporate history and BNSF is doomed....or is B-H the exception that proves your rule?
I think what he is saying is, that acquiring and holding (existing) stock in a company is not one-in-the-same with providing them growth resources. When a company has an IPO, the money goes to the company, when existing stock is traded... the money goes to the previous holder.
I clearly said that only IPOs and new stock offerings by a company already traded add new capital to the company coffers. I do not believe that is disputable. Why carnej thinks the example of B-H proves or disproves this is beyond my comprehension.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Ulrich Eventually, probably within the next five to ten years, you will see more widespread use of one person crews for simple point A to point B moves. But for more complex work such as switching and setting out cars etc, two or more people will still be the norm. Why can't crew size be flexible to meet the demands of the work? How many crew on a train is not the right question to ask.. rather both sides should be aiming for flexible work rules that will allow the right number of crew for the work at hand.. sometimes that's one person.. and sometimes it could be three or more.
And mechanical breakdowns in the middle of nowhere are so scheduleable to bring in the 'roving' conductor (whose job was blanked because the board had been cut and there was no one to fill it).
BaltACD Ulrich Eventually, probably within the next five to ten years, you will see more widespread use of one person crews for simple point A to point B moves. But for more complex work such as switching and setting out cars etc, two or more people will still be the norm. Why can't crew size be flexible to meet the demands of the work? How many crew on a train is not the right question to ask.. rather both sides should be aiming for flexible work rules that will allow the right number of crew for the work at hand.. sometimes that's one person.. and sometimes it could be three or more. And mechanical breakdowns in the middle of nowhere are so scheduleable to bring in the 'roving' conductor (whose job was blanked because the board had been cut and there was no one to fill it).
Trucks breakdown too.. so trucks should be crewed by a driver and a mechanic, just in case? My house is flammable.. should I be required to have a fireman on the premises and at the ready at all times?
The trucking industry (for example) doesn't require any minimum/maximum crew . For a load of milk they send out one driver. If its Atlas Moving then they send out a driver and three big goons who can each lift a refrigerator.. see? Common sense in action. Likewise for the railroad.. on an operation like the QNS&L one person is sufficient while more labour intensive moves might call for more than one crew member. Why can't common sense determine the number of workers like in just about every other industry? How many workers should a builder hire to build a house? Answer.. it depends on the house. If it's a dog house one worker will do.. if it's a McMansion then maybe 20 or more would be needed.. Ya can't have a rule for everything... at some point that gray matter between one's ears got to count for more than stuffing.
Ulrich BaltACD Ulrich Eventually, probably within the next five to ten years, you will see more widespread use of one person crews for simple point A to point B moves. But for more complex work such as switching and setting out cars etc, two or more people will still be the norm. Why can't crew size be flexible to meet the demands of the work? How many crew on a train is not the right question to ask.. rather both sides should be aiming for flexible work rules that will allow the right number of crew for the work at hand.. sometimes that's one person.. and sometimes it could be three or more. And mechanical breakdowns in the middle of nowhere are so scheduleable to bring in the 'roving' conductor (whose job was blanked because the board had been cut and there was no one to fill it). Trucks breakdown too.. so trucks should be crewed by a driver and a mechanic, just in case? My house is flammable.. should I be required to have a fireman on the premises and at the ready at all times? The trucking industry (for example) doesn't require any minimum/maximum crew . For a load of milk they send out one driver. If its Atlas Moving then they send out a driver and three big goons who can each lift a refrigerator.. see? Common sense in action. Likewise for the railroad.. on an operation like the QNS&L one person is sufficient while more labour intensive moves might call for more than one crew member. Why can't common sense determine the number of workers like in just about every other industry? How many workers should a builder hire to build a house? Answer.. it depends on the house. If it's a dog house one worker will do.. if it's a McMansion then maybe 20 or more would be needed.. Ya can't have a rule for everything... at some point that gray matter between one's ears got to count for more than stuffing.
Trucks don't know about the middle of nowhere! Unless maybe you are a Ice Road Trucker on the ice alone in the middle of a lake and it is melting.
BaltACDTrucks don't know about the middle of nowhere! Unless maybe you are a Ice Road Trucker on the ice alone in the middle of a lake and it is melting.
You've clearly never been on NYS Route 30 between Long Lake and Blue Mountain Lake at Oh-Dark-Thirty...
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...
tree68 BaltACD You've clearly never been on NYS Route 30 between Long Lake and Blue Mountain Lake at Oh-Dark-Thirty...
BaltACD
Being a road - there is the potential for other traffic - from either direction.
Single track railroad - nothing is getting through until a train's issues are fixed, and in way to many locations - nobody that isn't on the rail is getting to the train to provide any assistance.
Back in 1993 I broke down on Christmas Eve near Brockville, ON. It was COLD and the snow was coming down hard. They closed the highway, and let me assure you, although I was only about an hour out from Montreal, it sure felt like the middle of nowhere for about 16 hours.
edblysard The same argument could be made for private automobiles too....and you, the auto driver, don't have to have a federal license, or undergo safety testing and a rules examine every 3 years, along with a physical. Of course, the truck can swerve and negotiate in traffic, and its weight is tiny compared to a train, so it can stop relatively quickly compared to a train. I would love to get all the "one man crew" fans in the cab of a over the road train, heck, even a switching yard job cab, and see if they could even get the train out of the yard by themselves. From most of the posts, it seems you guys don't have a clue what a conductor does, his or her responsibilities and duties. You all sound like you think all the conductor does is ride around waving at people at the crossings, maybe call a signal or two, and sleep.
My point, however, is that the notion that there should be a second person on a crew simply to provide additional eyes is a bad idea. For one thing, if the person has little to do except be a second set of eyes, he (or she) will be quickly bored, and will likely distract the engineer with meaningless conversation. Again, if a second pair of eyes is so essential to safety of a surface transporation vehicle, then it should be at least as essential to an over the road truck (which operates in a much more hostile environment than a train) as a train. The fact that there is no great movement to mandate a second person in over the road trucks (or busses) tells me that this is yet another railroad labor-management issue masquerading as a "safety" issue.
I don't think its just a second set of eyes. A second person is able to provide support on the ground for switching cars, communicating with dispatch, and in dealing with some situations like broken couplers as they arise. Moreover, the trucking industry evolved differently. Right from the start it was one driver per truck, sometimes two for expedited services. But we never had fireman and brakemen on trucks, so there was never a need for the trucking industry to rightsize in that context in order to remain current with technology. That may be changing now as autonomous trucks will make it possible for one driver to drive two or more trucks at a time through what's being called platooning.
About train crew size, I don't think there's a right answer. Instead the railroads and the various unions should be striving for crew size flexibility. In some cases one person working alone is probably okay while in other situations two or more people may be required. Why not let the workload and the situation at hand determine how many people are required? That's how its done in every other industry.. the workload as well as the particulars of the job at hand dictate how many workers are assigned to the job.
On my carrier, when Mandatory Directives must be sent to a train. The Directive must be copied by a employee on the controlling locomotive of the train. If there is only one person on the controlling locomotive of the train - the train must be stopped and then the directive can be copied. This applies to ALL trains that only have one person in the locomotive control position - Amtrak and the various commuter carriers that operate on our property.
With the frequency of scheduled stations stops, these stops can normally be used to comply with the rule; however, if events conspire trains can be stopped anywhere in order to comply.
Where situations such as signal suspensions, which require trains to operate on TWC or DTC rules, the passenger carriers will normally arrange to have a second person in the operating locomotive to be able to copy the necessary authorities which are Mandatory Directives.
schlimm Why carnej thinks the example of B-H proves or disproves this is beyond my comprehension.
It looked to me as though he was trying to employ sarcasm grounded in an assumption of omni-competence of Warren Buffett. I mean if Big Warren is putting his chips on the line for an equity swap, that MUST mean acquiring pre-existing equity isn't dumb? right? ( insert apples and oranges quip here)
Murphy Siding Seems like the same type logic could be used to justify one pilot in the cockpit of a jet airliner. "This is your captain speaking. If you pay close attention, you'll see me walking back to the restroom. For your safety, I have put our 747 on autopilot. I shouldn't have had the fish".
Seems like the same type logic could be used to justify one pilot in the cockpit of a jet airliner. "This is your captain speaking. If you pay close attention, you'll see me walking back to the restroom. For your safety, I have put our 747 on autopilot. I shouldn't have had the fish".
This is the exact situation you get with almost all Asian airlines, the pilots on Asian airlines rely upon the computer to fly the jet and do almost no manual flying of their own....it only comes in to play when trying to land or take off(which they also rely on the computers to do most of the work, but not all of it)...see the Asiatic Air crash at San Francisco International Airport to find out how well using the computers to land works...not very well. But in all honesty, a jet can be flown with only one pilot on board, and there is in essence only one, the Captain, the First Officer can take over if necessary, but is there for other purposes...and many regional flights only have a Captain and two Flight Attendants...just the scenario you are describing.
Borrowing heavily from the bard, sarcasm is a dish best served live; the subtleties that give it life don't transcend the electronic page.
I agree that the reason for a "second person" on a train is not always a second set of eyes. As some of the other posts point out, there are various scenarios that can make a second person on particular trains or in particular operations useful and appropriate. But the issue with the government mandating a second person is whether the second person is necessary for safety, and the normal explanation is that the second person provides "redundancy" (i.e., a "second set of eyes"). My point was that, if this were true, the safety rationale for mandating a second person in trucks is even more compelling, given the environment in which trucks operate. The fact that no one in authority is even suggesting such a measure tells me that a "two person" mandate applicable only to railroads is another labor-management issue masquerading as a safety issue.
Remember - While Amtrak, normally, only have one person in the cab of the locomotive - they have additional personnel (Conductors & Asst. Conductors) to assist in anything that may require feet on the ground.
A freight train has so many situations that can require feet on the ground - switching, inspecting DD activations, inspecting defects observed and communicated by MofW personnel and passing trains etc. etc. etc., the necessity to hand throw power switches at locations of signal failure (signal failure that in many instances is caused by failure of commercial telephone service), the list goes on and on.
This subject came to mind last night while I was out at Bayview Junction, watching trains pass under a full moon. As one long train after another passed I couldn't help but think that CN is certainly maximizing their labor prodcutivity. And during the last second quarter conference call COO Jim Vena mentioned trains were getting longer. Yeah, no kidding! Two people on trains that massive is probably a good idea.
I wonder if they would allow a lone engineer to use remote control while replacing a knuckle out in the middle of nowhere?
He throws the knuckle out onto the ballast, exits the cab with his radio pak. Pulls the Train forward via radio, sets the new knuckle on top of the last coupler, grabs a ladder rung, and idles the train back to the problem.
Change the knuckle, and then conduct a roll-by via remote? Then, bring the engine back (via remote of course) for boarding?
Just think of all the foot steps we just saved!!
Convicted One I wonder if they would allow a lone engineer to use remote control while replacing a knuckle out in the middle of nowhere? He throws the knuckle out onto the ballast, exits the cab with his radio pak. Pulls the Train forward via radio, sets the new knuckle on top of the last coupler, grabs a ladder rung, and idles the train back to the problem. Change the knuckle, and then conduct a roll-by via remote? Then, bring the engine back (via remote of course) for boarding? Just think of all the foot steps we just saved!!
And schlimm just said a couple of hours ago that sarcasm couldn't be expressed well in text posts...
Just think of the leading end of the movement not being protected on the 'blind' shove!
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.