Norm48327 BaltACD If they could modify the EOT to assist in a service application that would be helpful.
BaltACD
If they could modify the EOT to assist in a service application that would be helpful.
JeffHergert would be the one to ask about the usefulness of a service application from a DP unit, as he runs them. I question the benefit of initiating a service application from the rear of the train, but I just dispatch them, I don't run them.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Norm48327 BaltACD 2-way EOT's are in almost universal use on line of road trains. In addition to reporting rear end air pressure and movement to the lead locomotive, the engineer can initiate an emergency brake application from the EOT. If they could modify the EOT to assist in a service application that would be helpful.
BaltACD 2-way EOT's are in almost universal use on line of road trains. In addition to reporting rear end air pressure and movement to the lead locomotive, the engineer can initiate an emergency brake application from the EOT.
I don't know about situation on other railroads, but on Canadian National our EOT's used to be used in this manner. It was called Brake Assist, but it had a major problem in that the EOT's vent valve would sometimes stick open and keep venting the brake pipe pressure for long after the desired reduction had been achieved. Because of these problems, the decision was made before I hired on to stop using this feature, and now if crews find it enabled on an EOT we are to disable it.
Greetings from Alberta
-an Articulate Malcontent
SD70M-2Dude It was called Brake Assist, but it had a major problem in that the EOT's vent valve would sometimes stick open and keep venting the brake pipe pressure for long after the desired reduction had been achieved. Because of these problems, the decision was made before I hired on to stop using this feature, and now if crews find it enabled on an EOT we are to disable it.
I am an outsider, but this seems like a problem that could be fixed rather than abandoning the whole idea.
We've had discussions on ECP brakes before, and it still seems to me that several such EOT's (or MOT's) placed in the train (say every 20 cars or so) would produce control approaching that of ECP brakes, with the one big exception of graduated release.
_____________
"A stranger's just a friend you ain't met yet." --- Dave Gardner
Paul of Covington We've had discussions on ECP brakes before, and it still seems to me that several such EOT's (or MOT's) placed in the train (say every 20 cars or so) would produce control approaching that of ECP brakes, with the one big exception of graduated release.
Paul of Covington SD70M-2Dude It was called Brake Assist, but it had a major problem in that the EOT's vent valve would sometimes stick open and keep venting the brake pipe pressure for long after the desired reduction had been achieved. Because of these problems, the decision was made before I hired on to stop using this feature, and now if crews find it enabled on an EOT we are to disable it. I am an outsider, but this seems like a problem that could be fixed rather than abandoning the whole idea. We've had discussions on ECP brakes before, and it still seems to me that several such EOT's (or MOT's) placed in the train (say every 20 cars or so) would produce control approaching that of ECP brakes, with the one big exception of graduated release.
It probably could be fixed with enough time and money, but all our trains have still been running without it for years now and apart from in training classes and rulebooks I have hardly heard it mentioned, so it doesn't seem to have been enough of a help to be missed.
But keep in mind that EOT's have been around for over 30 years, and we still have problems with their emergency valve, often due to it freezing in the winter. Valves on cars & locomotives, and indeed any air valve of any kind in an unheated outdoor environment will (and do) encounter this same problem, and 100 years of railway air brake technology hasn't come up with a cost-effective way of eliminating it (maybe global warming will ). The standard method of fixing the problem is for the Conductor to head outside and cut off the air supply to whatever valve is leaking, wait a bit and then cut it back in slowly and hope the valve has reset itself. As you can imagine walking back 11,000 feet to troubleshoot an EOT takes a while.
I should add that emergency valves sticking open is a managable problem since this pretty much only happens after they are opened intentionally, either during a test or when the engineer places the tail end in emergency on purpose. During the first example the Conductor is standing beside the EOT, and the second happens so seldomly that delays caused by this valve are livable (and it often resets itself in the time before the engineer recovers his PC on the head end and air pressure gets to it again). Brake Assist required the valve to open multiple times a day while the train was moving, so any problem with it quickly spiraled into a several hour delay, especially if it accidently triggered an emergency application and the associated violent in-train forces broke a knuckle or drawbar, or caused a derailment (known to happen).
Also remember that any fix you make has to be light enough for a Conductor to carry with one arm, and EOT's are already heavy.
Another thing to keep in mind is that many (most?) of our trains now run DP, especially in cold weather. This is a proven and reliable technology that not only allows brake applications to take effect quicker, it also provides several other benefits that Brake Assist never could, such as lower in-train forces and quicker air brake releases. Another innovation is the Distributed Braking Car, which is a converted boxcar or well car with a diesel genset-driven air compressor and a radio receiver inside, which responds to the engineer's braking commands on the lead locomotive, just like a DP locomotive. They have problems too, but seem to provide enough improvement to be worth investing in.
I know I ramble, but to sum up Brake Assist on EOTs was a worthy idea but it turned out to not have a good enough cost-benefit ratio to justify working out its inherent problems, especially when other superior technologies were available.
Thanks, SD70M-2Dude, and ramble on; I welcome the information. I hadn't given much thought to cold weather problems.
The "air containers" show up quite regularly in Calgary, probably used on trains 114/115 from Toronto.
http://www3.telus.net/jsuther9/rails/2016-01-31Aa-Sarcee-CN0009-CNSU0009.jpg
cx500 The "air containers" show up quite regularly in Calgary, probably used on trains 114/115 from Toronto. http://www3.telus.net/jsuther9/rails/2016-01-31Aa-Sarcee-CN0009-CNSU0009.jpg
I'm pretty sure they had boxcars so equipped in the past.
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 I'm pretty sure they had boxcars so equipped in the past.
You are quite correct, although I never got around to taking any pictures of the boxcars. I think they may have been acquired 2nd hand from another railroad. I haven't noticed any lately, but haven't really been looking.
I'm not sure what percentage of CN's road power has DPU capability enabled, which may be why they are using these cars as a solution to winter air woes.
"+1" on the rambling, too. Oh wait, excuse me, now it's called: "data transfer" !
- Paul North.
cx500...which may be why they are using these cars as a solution to winter air woes.
I was of the understanding that they were for exactly that purpose - to help keep the air up in cold weather throughout the train.
The boxcars were aquired from another railroad, BN I believe but am not certain. I also heard that Great Northern experimented with air repeater cars, so the concept is not new.
The air containers are placed in the bottom position on a regular well car. They are not confined to intermodal trains either, and have been seen in mixed freights too.
schlimm The Southern Region of BR introduced the electro-pneumatic system for suburban passenger service in Britain in 1950. Still electric, not electronic.
The Southern Region of BR introduced the electro-pneumatic system for suburban passenger service in Britain in 1950. Still electric, not electronic.
I was reading Practical Helps for the Electric Railway, (C) 1919 by the Electric Railway Journal and came across a couple references to electro-pneumatic braking. One reference was for the New York Municipal Railway use of electro-pneumatic braking along with a means for adjusting the braking force based on the weight of the car - passenger weight could be as high as 40% of the empty weight of the car. Comments were made that the system permitted graduated application and release under electric control.
- Erik
Euclid Backing up a bit: Does anybody have a further explanation or a link to information about using an EOT to mirror a service application of air brakes when one is initiated from the cab?
Would an End of Train Device be able to replicate all of the actions of a locomotive brake controller? It would need a pretty complex air brake valve and serious control data arriving by radio link...
Has anyone done a survey to see if Railroads resisted the Westinghouse automatic air brake when first intoduced as seriously as they are trying to avoid ECP brakes.
All these suggestions about how to get a result not quite as good as ECP by adding complications to the existing system sound like saying that by using more brakemen spaced down the train and developing a better set of whistle signals would give you a result nearly as good as air brakes (as an excuse for not adopting air brakes).....
I'm told that Pacific National, the largest single operator of coal trains in the Australian Hunter Valley (leading to Newcastle, the largest coal export port in the world) have started storing locomotives not fitted with ECP braking and are planning to convert the remainder of their fleet to ECP. PN's main competitors, Aurizon and Freightliner (a G&W operation) run all ECP trains and PN have about half their fleet ECP now.
Note that the decision to go all ECP by all three operators was a straight business decision. No government authority cares either way.
M636C
M636CWould an End of Train Device be able to replicate all of the actions of a locomotive brake controller? It would need a pretty complex air brake valve and serious control data arriving by radio link... Has anyone done a survey to see if Railroads resisted the Westinghouse automatic air brake when first intoduced as seriously as they are trying to avoid ECP brakes. All these suggestions about how to get a result not quite as good as ECP by adding complications to the existing system sound like saying that by using more brakemen spaced down the train and developing a better set of whistle signals would give you a result nearly as good as air brakes (as an excuse for not adopting air brakes)..... I'm told that Pacific National, the largest single operator of coal trains in the Australian Hunter Valley (leading to Newcastle, the largest coal export port in the world) have started storing locomotives not fitted with ECP braking and are planning to convert the remainder of their fleet to ECP. PN's main competitors, Aurizon and Freightliner (a G&W operation) run all ECP trains and PN have about half their fleet ECP now. Note that the decision to go all ECP by all three operators was a straight business decision. No government authority cares either way. M636C
OK, you lost me a little bit. Where did you read or infer that the railroads do not want ECP? Both BNSF and UP have stated publicly they want ECP but have other priorities on the table now, most specificly PTC.
They stated they wanted to phase in ECP at some future date when they can afford it on coal trains and/or intermodal trains first since all the cars are the same and in one pool. They are not sure about mixed car freights and when the conversion for those will be feasible. They said right now they have higher priorities with their capital budgets but that ECP is definitely and item on their future wish list.
So ECP is comming. Don't know when and thats why I started the thread, I was curious if anyone had a number of years outlook or more info on this.
CMStPnP OK, you lost me a little bit. Where did you read or infer that the railroads do not want ECP? Both BNSF and UP have stated publicly they want ECP but have other priorities on the table now, most specificly PTC. They stated they wanted to phase in ECP at some future date when they can afford it on coal trains and/or intermodal trains first since all the cars are the same and in one pool. They are not sure about mixed car freights and when the conversion for those will be feasible. They said right now they have higher priorities with their capital budgets but that ECP is definitely and item on their future wish list. So ECP is comming. Don't know when and thats why I started the thread, I was curious if anyone had a number of years outlook or more info on this.
Have BNSF and UP (or third parties providing vehicles for coal trains) not purchased new coal wagons in the last ten years?
It would be easy to equip all new wagons with ECP but use a triple valve (with manual changeover) until enough cars are in service to convert a full train. Then you switch over, train by train, to ECP....
If a car has to run in a non ECP train, just change it back to conventional...
It is like the joke about Pyschiatrists and light bulbs: "How many Pyschiatrists does it take to change a light bulb? Only one, but the light bulb has to want to change...."
It is beginning to look like changeover to ECP in the Hunter Valley will take about fifteen years - we are at the ten year mark now.
It was the arrival of competitors using ECP that caused Pacific National to start changing.
If that hadn't happened, they might still have the view that it would be nice to have it in the future.
Perhaps it is the contributors on the forum that keep looking for reasons not to use ECP. But it seems to be viewed as something that isn't easily attainable.
All the Australian cars are fitted with ECP equipment from Wabco and NYAB and other USA suppliers using AAR standard fittings. There is nothing to be tested or invented. You just have to start buying it, and soon you'll have a set of trains that run faster, cost less to maintain and spend longer in service between maintenance.
Since you raised the subject of PTC, I'm less convinced of the benefits there, although Rio Tinto have been running trains without any fixed signals now for more than ten years. Rio are planning to convert over to complete driverless operation based on their system which they call "in cab signalling".
PTC has been introduced or at least tested on some busy single track sections of the national network but I feel that more double track would have a much bigger impact on traffic flow than just allowing trains in the same direction to run closer together...
Euclidbut the grim reality of universal conversion has set in.
More like the grim reality of congress mandating the railroads spend their own money on something that is of little benefit to them. PTC is a huge expenditure that the railroads have to cover. There is just so much money in the coffers yet congress thinks the rails have unlimited budgets.
Norm
Norm48327 Euclid but the grim reality of universal conversion has set in. More like the grim reality of congress mandating the railroads spend their own money on something that is of little benefit to them. PTC is a huge expenditure that the railroads have to cover. There is just so much money in the coffers yet congress thinks the rails have unlimited budgets.
Euclid but the grim reality of universal conversion has set in.
M636CHave BNSF and UP (or third parties providing vehicles for coal trains) not purchased new coal wagons in the last ten years?
I don't have any idea on their equipment purchases but both BNSF and UP in the progressive railroad article I read have ECP equipped freight trains they have tested in Coal Unit Train service. Not sure about intermodal as I only scanned the article.
Someone correct if wrong. Early EMUs including subways migrated to electric braking control from air only. Only with separations of a train would air system apply brakes in emergency.
Now almost all EMUs being built have provision for most braking to be regenerative. For those transit systems or some system routes not yet with provisions for regeneration the regeneration is disabled. Now only if regeneration is not working for any reason is electrical braking used with the air backup.
Amtrak has provisions thru the car control ( not loco control ) 27 point connectors to apply brakes electrically. But with the extended range dynamic / regeneration now available Amtrak has not pursued that option. The blended brake system seems to work fine. Now it could be the if a lenghtened Amtrak Autotrain is allowed then electric braking might be activated on those trains in certain conditions.
Probably one thing holding back implemation of ECP on unit trains (aside from cost and the fact that the money is needed for PTC right now) is the fact that unlike captive lines running unit trains, any car in any train must be capable of being handled as a single car.
Inasmuch as general traffic will likely be the last to get ECP, an ECP equipped car must be able to be handled by a non-ECP train should it need to be set out for any sort of problem. If it can't be handled as standard brakes, it needs to be handled as a car without brakes, which has its own set of conditions.
Of course, this issue has been discussed before.
Railroads aren't the only industry facing such issues. The fire service has been campaigning for years for residential sprinklers (in the house, not on the lawn). This is also a proven technology which will save lives and property. Chief objection (from the builders) is the additional cost to the home buyer (around $1.50 per square foot).
tree68The fire service has been campaigning for years for residential sprinklers (in the house, not on the lawn). This is also a proven technology which will save lives and property. Chief objection (from the builders) is the additional cost to the home buyer (around $1.50 per square foot).
I had an experience while in college. I was a student stage electical operator and ran the light board. Back when the auditoium was built, the board had wiring that was rubber and cloth insulation and the light dimmers were big pancake rheostats that put out a lot of heat. The head stage electrician was a former pullman conductor, (Dry campus, he still loved his whiskey) but he was off, and another student was left in charge one day. Got a call from him that the board just burned up. When I got there, it seemed like all of Cincinnati's fire department was there. Sprinklers contained it. Only casualty was the board. Smoke damage clean up and aquiring a new board put the place OOS for about five month's. Turned out that someone had installed an outlet by the board but had just fed it from the bus bars with #12 wire and NO FUSE. Plug in a defective cord and the wire overheated, burst into flame and ignighted the boards wiring. Made an impression.
By the way, is your house sprinkled?
Electroliner 1935By the way, is your house sprinkled?
Unfortunately, no.
Then, again, it was built in 1840 with real lumber (as opposed to the toothpicks and cardboard they use these days).
And there is the cost - while new construction can run $1.50 a square foot, retrofits are closer to $5.00 a square foot (and up). At this point in my life, I'll settle for safe practices and working smoke detectors.
If I built a new one, I'm sure I'd include sprinklers.
One thing I may not have mentioned it that while the Iron Ore lines in the Pilbara in Western Australia have pretty much fully converted to ECP being the "captive lines running unit trains" Tree68 mentioned, the Hunter Valley lines carry passenger trains and the coal trains of the three major operators and other freight (intermodal, grain, cement and heavy metal concentrates mainly) from at least three additional operators. There are dedicated "coal lines" for about twenty miles from the port, but these were opened a hundred years ago to separate trains of privately owned coal wagons with no air brakes from the passenger trains. They now keep the ECP brake coal trains from being delayed by commuter trains.
So the ECP coal trains run among non ECP coal and non ECP general freight and passenger trains (all of which have EP brakes).
The same situation applies in Central Queensland where ECP coal trains (both diesel and electric hauled on the same lines) and non ECP coal trains (both diesel and electric) from three operators Aurizon, Pacific National and BMA share with general freight and passenger traffic.
On both systems, the need to set out ECP cars has been almost negligible, partly at least because ECP makes the cars more reliable by reducing brake wear and wheel defects caused by sticking triple valves at the rear of long trains.
Before they converted to ECP Rio Tinto made up their trains with the oldest cars in the middle, and put their newest cars on each end so that the newest triple valves were always trailing, and they didn't do that because someone thought it looked good.
A straight ECP car can be run in a normal train under battery power with the ECP valve emulating a triple valve and this should cover most emergencies. A car which might need to operate for extended periods could be fitted with both ECP and conventional brakes (at the extra cost of only the triple valve) but this requires manual changeover.
In Australia, there is almost no loose car traffic. Cars are switched between trains en route, but most trains are dedicated intermodal, steel, coal or grain. Pacific National started adding steel cars to intermodal and vice versa at the beginning of the last economic downturn so that they could maintain the same service with fewer trains.
But in Australia, the need for interoperability is no less, the operators have just decided that ECP will save them money and went ahead with it.
I would expect that there will be a gradual decline in loose car operation in the USA. I believe more freight goes in intermodal trains than loose cars now.
And since the USA railroads own their own track, they must have fewer external reasons not to adopt ECP.
It's been my understanding, perhaps wrongly, that the first cars equipped with ECP equipment will be be capable of operating in either ECP or conventional mode. That is, if a car is in a train made up of all ECP capable cars and operated in that mode, the car's brake system would be in ECP mode. If that car is set out for mechanical reasons, it would be able to be picked up by a conventional train. It's brake system then working conventionally. (It's the same with the locomotive brake valves. They will be able to work in one mode or the other, but not both at the same time.)
I've seen some newer equipment over the last few years (mainly hoppers, both open and covered) that have air brake equipment with some extra hoses and other hardware that I've been told has to do with ECP. Those cars aren't fully equipped, but the extra items make a conversion to ECP that much faster later on.
I'm not sure that ECP will allow faster freight trains in the US. While it might eliminate or modify some tons per operative brake restrictions for some trains, I don't think it will make heavy bulk commodity trains less damaging to the track structure. I don't see them raising the speed for loaded coal trains above the current 50 mph for us.
Jeff
I don't think actual speeds will increase, but ECP's quicker brake application and release rates will allow trains to travel at track speed for longer and thus get over the road faster.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.