Preface: I am in no way trying to bash one of Trains advertisers; I am mostly seeking information and venting some irritation.
Since I've been retired for a while, I'm not too hip on the latest railraod tech. Which is why I ask my fellow railroaders for their input regarding the claims made by New York Air Brake in the ad on the back cover of the July 2017 Trains magazine.
Specifically, the claim that it "has never 'broken a train' over 1,200,000 trips and 190,000,000 miles". Are these real, on the road miles or are they 'simulated' software miles. Also, if they are indeed real miles, what types of trains are they quoting? Mixed manifest mega-tonnage or 100-car trains of empties? On flat terrain or in 'hogback' territory?
While I'm certainly no Luddite, I find it hard to believe any software could be written that could handle the many variations of tonnage, load/empty distribution, track profile (grade ups and downs, curves), wet rail, snowy rail, leaves on rail, cold temperatures, hot temperatures, malfunctioning locomotives (such as no sand, wheel-slip issues, load dropouts, etc), trainline 'kickers', air hose parting on crossings or from debris placed between the rails, train striking a vehicle or person, signal malfunctions (such as dropping from clear to red just as the train approaches); just to name a few.
Since each of the items mentioned above has various effects on a train, the combination of possible multiple events would seem to lead to such a large number of permutations of possible hazards that I cannot imagine any software being able to handle that level of computation in the time frame necessary to act.
I understand that to what I am referring is an advertisement (with all the veracity that goes with it), and maybe the NYAB really does have such a superb product.
But as a former engineer, and in defense of my fellow rails, it rather irritates me that the language in the ad seems insulting to engineers. I guess that is what put the bee in my bonnet.
We already, to some extent, have trains operating in the US that operate themselves. I know UP, NS and CP are using them. They are used for "fuel management", but I don't think they've been saving as much fuel as the salesman said it would. They currently are a clear block systems. That is, they don't see restrictive signals, they assume you are the only train out there. They do recognize permanent and temporary speed restrictions and work zones, provided they are in the system when intially logging in. Unforseen restrictions, radioed to the train, have to be acted upon manually.
UP has both NYAB's LEADER and GE's Trip Optimizer. I believe NS has LEADER and CP Trip Optimizer. (Not all routes of the railroads listed may be equipped.) IMO, both are scary, for different reasons.
LEADER has two versions. One only prompts the engineer to make throttle/dynamic settings. (Both systems prompt the engineer if using air brakes is needed.) If you are DP, it assumes the DP is in sync mode. The newer version, and slightly better, is an auto-throttle/dynamic operation. It actually runs the train. In auto throttle mode, it operates any DP separately from the lead. I feel it's scary because it's train handling isn't good. Especially the first version. It's caused people, myself included, to tear trains apart when following the prompts. About the only good thing about LEADER I can think of is the display. It's better than the Trip Optimizer display and will be close to what the PTC displays will be.
Trip Optimizer has been an auto-throttle system from the beginning. We just got it on our part of the system a few months ago. It's scary because it's pretty good when it's working. My MOP said the algorithims for our PTC will be the same used by the Trip Optimizer program.
If automatic and completely crewless freight trains happens before I retire, I guess I can always go drive truck. Oh, right....
Jeff
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I wrote the above in the thread about driverless trucks. I don't believe the claim that it hasn't caused any train seperations. Engineers aren't held responsible for energy management system caused seperations. I don't have their ad before me, but I think they've lowered the claim on how much fuel it will save. IIRC, the first version when new was supposed to save 11% but actual results were said to be 5 or 6%. I'm not even sure if those numbers weren't just tossed out to "save face."
IMO, it handles empty unit trains and intermodals best. Loaded unit trains and manifests are a mixed bag. It handles some good, others not so much. There are places where I usually won't let it run the train. I don't want the conductor to have to fix something.
A year or so back we were told at a union meeting that the railroad was thinking about suing because it wasn't delivering the promised benefits. I don't know that they ever did bring suit, maybe they just threatened to do so to leverage some kind of deal. I do now that it's use (whenever possible) is mandatory.
To what Jeff, said; SCARY, might be an underatement !
Just an observation: Train Handling is an ART... Irequires a level of skill, and a sense of understanding what is going on in each train. Things that cannot be learned in a classroom, they come from experience. IMHO.
As nothing more than an interested observer, who lives beside a rail line, that line has a slight up grade, we have a number of trains,in eiither direction, passing each day. In a short time, it becomes loudly, obvious, when there is a rookie in the cab, as well as the experienced one who can handle a train smoothly....The differences between "Spike Jones and his Band' and a Lawrence Welk Band, playing similar pieces.
I suspect much the same was said about autopilots on aircraft.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
schlimm I suspect much the same was said about autopilots on aircraft.
It's still a much - talked about topic. When autopilot systems fail- it goes to manual mode. And when the person that is supposed to be the safety manual backup has lousy skills because they barely ever operate, well....
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.
zugmann schlimm I suspect much the same was said about autopilots on aircraft. It's still a much - talked about topic. When autopilot systems fail- it goes to manual mode. And when the person that is supposed to be the safety manual backup has lousy skills because they barely ever operate, well....
True. But in some crashes, it would have been better to let the autopilot continue even though it seemed counter-intuitive. Human interference made a bad condition worse.
Developing an autopilot is a much simpler problem than developing control software for a long freight train. An airplane can be treated (mostly) as a rigid body with relatively simple flight dynamiics. As long as the plane is under maneuvering speed, flight control inputs are unlikely to break the airframe. The impetus for autopilots came from reducing the workload on the pilots, or in the case of high performance aircraft were stability augmentation systems that responded much faster than any human could.
A long freight train is a whole different beast as it isn't a rigid body with respect to curves (horizontal AND vertical) and slack action. With regards to the latter, it is very easy to break the train with improper control inputs, either through slack action or stringlining (tank car of metam sodium?). In addition, the varations in train makeup will make for very significant changes in train dynamics.
That said, even very recent autopilots have had problems dealing with unexpected events such as icing of the pitot tubes. (omitting long rant on control yokes versus side sticks on transport aircraft)
erikem schlimm I suspect much the same was said about autopilots on aircraft. Developing an autopilot is a much simpler problem than developing control software for a long freight train. An airplane can be treated (mostly) as a rigid body with relatively simple flight dynamiics. As long as the plane is under maneuvering speed, flight control inputs are unlikely to break the airframe. The impetus for autopilots came from reducing the workload on the pilots, or in the case of high performance aircraft were stability augmentation systems that responded much faster than any human could. A long freight train is a whole different beast as it isn't a rigid body with respect to curves (horizontal AND vertical) and slack action. With regards to the latter, it is very easy to break the train with improper control inputs, either through slack action or stringlining (tank car of metam sodium?). In addition, the varations in train makeup will make for very significant changes in train dynamics. That said, even very recent autopilots have had problems dealing with unexpected events such as icing of the pitot tubes. (omitting long rant on control yokes versus side sticks on transport aircraft)
You are the engineering guy, but surely weather, velocity, acceleration, and horizontal and vertical changes are complicating factors not seen on trains. In the history of science and technology, generally certain developments happened earlier because they are simpler/easier.
samfp1943 To what Jeff, said; SCARY, might be an underatement ! Just an observation: Train Handling is an ART... Irequires a level of skill, and a sense of understanding what is going on in each train. Things that cannot be learned in a classroom, they come from experience. IMHO. As nothing more than an interested observer, who lives beside a rail line, that line has a slight up grade, we have a number of trains,in eiither direction, passing each day. In a short time, it becomes loudly, obvious, when there is a rookie in the cab, as well as the experienced one who can handle a train smoothly....The differences between "Spike Jones and his Band' and a Lawrence Welk Band, playing similar pieces.
A better comparison would be that of Florence Foster Jenkins and Beverly Sills singing opera. Mrs. Jenkins could not sing, and she had to hire an opera house for her performances.
Edited to correct spelling mistakes.
Johnny
You forgot Mother-in-law nagging at the rail.
Semper Vaporo
Pkgs.
The main issues with weather and autopilots are extreme turbulence (e.g. thunderstorms) and icing. Both are usually dealt with by avoiding them, with the autopilot allowing the pillot(s) to concentrate on naviagting around those conditions. Having said that, icing is the more serious of the weather related issues for autopilots as many aircraft are certified to fly into known icing conditions and that icing WILL change flight dynamics in various unpleasant ways.
Freight trains are also affected by weather, with rain, snow and ice affecting adhesion along with wind affecting train resistance in much more complicated ways than winds aloft affect flying.
Keep in mind that an autopilot is pretty simple device, a couple of gyros coupled to the flight control surfaces to keep the wings and nose level. There's a bit of control theory behind this, with the impetus coming from problems of the interation between the constant speed props and turbochargers on the B-17. A flight management system is a bit more complicated, controlling the throttles, iniating turns, climbs and descents.
To do the train right, every car in the train needs to be modeled.
Deggesty I believe that if Spike Jones were to play the same piece that Lawrence Welk played, he would apply his talent to the performance. He was unique; who else could describe a horse race as he did--"Cabbage is ahead, Girdle is in the stretch, Tomato is trying to catchup--and it's Hankerchief by a nose!" He was not inept. Edited to correct spelling mistakes.
I believe that if Spike Jones were to play the same piece that Lawrence Welk played, he would apply his talent to the performance. He was unique; who else could describe a horse race as he did--"Cabbage is ahead, Girdle is in the stretch, Tomato is trying to catchup--and it's Hankerchief by a nose!" He was not inept.
WARNING: OFF TOPIC RESPONSE!!!!!!
Actually the song you are referring to; Spike Jones manic take on the classic "William Tell Overture", featured narration and lyrics written by City Slickers associate "Professor" Doodles Weaver
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doodles_Weaver
He was a regular contributor to Jone's radio show and interestingly, the uncle of well known actress Sigourney Weaver..
https://youtu.be/aupQysNpMzk
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
Thanks,Semper Vaporo You forgot Mother-in-law nagging at the rail. Thanks. I completely forgot about her. She did not even show.
Semper Vaporo You forgot Mother-in-law nagging at the rail.
At least it was a photo finish... or an oil painting.
schlimm erikem schlimm I suspect much the same was said about autopilots on aircraft. Developing an autopilot is a much simpler problem than developing control software for a long freight train. An airplane can be treated (mostly) as a rigid body with relatively simple flight dynamiics. As long as the plane is under maneuvering speed, flight control inputs are unlikely to break the airframe. The impetus for autopilots came from reducing the workload on the pilots, or in the case of high performance aircraft were stability augmentation systems that responded much faster than any human could. A long freight train is a whole different beast as it isn't a rigid body with respect to curves (horizontal AND vertical) and slack action. With regards to the latter, it is very easy to break the train with improper control inputs, either through slack action or stringlining (tank car of metam sodium?). In addition, the varations in train makeup will make for very significant changes in train dynamics. That said, even very recent autopilots have had problems dealing with unexpected events such as icing of the pitot tubes. (omitting long rant on control yokes versus side sticks on transport aircraft) You are the engineering guy, but surely weather, velocity, acceleration, and horizontal and vertical changes are complicating factors not seen on trains. In the history of science and technology, generally certain developments happened earlier because they are simpler/easier.
Now all we need is uniform brake valves and draft gear. Tests have shown up to 100% stopping distance variation based on valve and rigging type. This issue is one of the bugaboos with PTC enforcement curves.
Murhpeys Law- There is no such thing as fail safe
Buslist Now all we need is uniform brake valves and draft gear. Tests have shown up to 100% stopping distance variation based on valve and rigging type. This issue is one of the bugaboos with PTC enforcement curves.
erikem . . . A long freight train is a whole different beast as it isn't a rigid body with respect to curves (horizontal AND vertical) and slack action. With regards to the latter, it is very easy to break the train with improper control inputs, either through slack action or stringlining (tank car of metam sodium?). . . .
Even then, there's an element of 'dashpot' in the cars because the draft gear allows some motion with varying degrees of resistance. Compare to the slack between the coupler knuckles, which is pretty 'loose' as that space opens and closes. But it's better now that the Hydra-Cushion cars aren't so prevalent . . .
As to engineer proficiency: One of Malcolm Gladwell's books had a chapter on how the best correlation with aircraft crashes was the culture of the crew, not weather or anything like that. As I recall, the US pilots are the safest because they're not afraid to challenge something that seems not right to them, whether it's a wrong decision by the command pilot or a bad situation. Jeff's recounting of how he observes and overrides the system seems to be of like kind.
- PDN.
Electronic braking that has been discussed on here before is supposed to reduce slack problems considerably. I think an engineer's job is hard but I also think much of it can and will be automated within the next 10-15 years, at least on mainlines.
schlimm Electronic braking that has been discussed on here before is supposed to reduce slack problems considerably. I think an engineer's job is hard but I also think much of it can and will be automated within the next 10-15 years, at least on mainlines.
And when we see a train, will we be waving at C3PO at the controls?
And will he wave back?
I have used this system for about 5 years, it has improved, but it really far from perfect, a well trained engineer can do a lot better job with running a train efficiently, the leader system gets confused a lot with grades, it does too many throttle suggestions, I do not know how they actually measure fuel savings. The parts I like are the route maps, info on grades, speed limit listings, possible projected speeds( though sometimes it is wrong on those). The whole driverless train thing has a lot further to go than many will admit. The leader system also has issues in areas with complex multiple routes and directions. A side note: PTC is really going to be interesting to watch when it is fully implemented.
James Sanchez
zardoz schlimm Electronic braking that has been discussed on here before is supposed to reduce slack problems considerably. I think an engineer's job is hard but I also think much of it can and will be automated within the next 10-15 years, at least on mainlines. Yup. And when we see a train, will we be waving at C3PO at the controls? And will he wave back?
Yup.
Wait and see. Firemen were once "indispensible" also. The trend throughout industries of all sorts has been for many years and continues to be automation, which is the primary reason for both job losses and increases in productivity.
schlimm Wait and see. Firemen were once "indispensible" also. The trend throughout industries of all sorts has been for many years and continues to be automation, which is the primary reason for both job losses and increases in productivity.
Disclaimer: In no way is it my intention to cast aspersions towards today's Engineers, as I am certain they have their own difficulties running today's huge trains. But running a train with high-horsepower, high-adhesion locomotives with fantastic wheel-slip control, quiet cabs, and high-tech electronics is, at least using just those criteria, much easier. Of course, today the trains are much longer and heavier, with distributed power to contend with, and Trainmasters and their ilk waiting around every corner to try and catch a rule violation. How today's Engineers manage to keep everything together (considering the lack of extensive hands-on experience) amazes me.
Be that as it may, back 'in the day' the firemen were indeed "indespensable", in the same way an airline co-pilot is. Watching and learning was the only was a person could become proficient in the trade. "Hands on" was the only way to learn what was then an extremely difficult craft, at least to learn it well enough to not be feared by the Conductor and rear brakeman.
Engineers had to contend with unreliable power, no radio communication, AB freight car brakes, friction bearings, no dynamics, 24RL and 6BL brake valves in the locomotive. Back then, if the Conductor needed to communicate with the Engineer, the only way was to pull the air and start walking.
Hotbox detectors used wayside signals to indicate to the Engineer the condition of his train. And if the signal was against you, you had to seek out the lineside phone in order to contact the dispatcher (good luck finding it in dense fog and/or heavy snow, especially at night. And once the info was received, thus began the long walk back to fix it. And woe to the crew if the head-end was around a curve 3/4 miles ahead. I won't even go into the fun we had resulting from a break-in-two.
But most important was learning the skills necessary to control slack action. We talk now of bad slack control causing lading damage and breaking the train, but back then slack action could (and did) cause severe injuries to anyone riding in the caboose.
Indespensible indeed!
zardozBut most important was learning the skills necessary to control slack action. We talk now of bad slack control causing lading damage and breaking the train, but back then slack action could (and did) cause severe injuries to anyone riding in the caboose. Indespensible indeed!
With the size of todays trains, if there was still a caboose, slack action would be lethal.
Today's railroads have done away with all the positions that were once the apprentice to learning the craft. Because of two man road crews, the Conductors position (if they get along with the particular engineer) may still get some apprentice time in their forced path to becoming a Engineer.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
BaltACD zardoz But most important was learning the skills necessary to control slack action. We talk now of bad slack control causing lading damage and breaking the train, but back then slack action could (and did) cause severe injuries to anyone riding in the caboose. Indespensible indeed! With the size of todays trains, if there was still a caboose, slack action would be lethal. Today's railroads have done away with all the positions that were once the apprentice to learning the craft. Because of two man road crews, the Conductors position (if they get along with the particular engineer) may still get some apprentice time in their forced path to becoming a Engineer.
zardoz But most important was learning the skills necessary to control slack action. We talk now of bad slack control causing lading damage and breaking the train, but back then slack action could (and did) cause severe injuries to anyone riding in the caboose. Indespensible indeed!
Was it as common back when firemen and engineers belonged to separate unions for firemen to become engineers?
_____________
"A stranger's just a friend you ain't met yet." --- Dave Gardner
The path to being an engineer almost always required being a fireman first. Some BLE contracts allowed hiring engineers under certain conditions. (Although a "hired" engineer almost had to have been a fireman somewhere at sometime.) A RI agreement I have allows engineers to be hired at a ratio to those being promoted depending on how long a person was required to fire on any specific seniority district. Example less than three years required to fire, all engineers will be hired. At the other end, on districts requiring to fire 8 or more years, all engineers will be promoted. There's a ratio for in between, but I don't have time to give all of them.
While you may have been required to belong to one of the recognized unions, it wasn't necessarily the one that held your contract or the craft you were working. That's still true today. There are engineers who belong to SMART-TD (former UTU) and conductors who belong to the BLET.
Back about 45 years ago, when some trains had an engineer, a brakeman, and a conductor, I wonder what provision was made for a man in road service to learn the work of an engineer. I never thought to ask any of the men whom I knew.
jeffhergertWhile you may have been required to belong to one of the recognized unions, it wasn't necessarily the one that held your contract or the craft you were working. That's still true today. There are engineers who belong to SMART-TD (former UTU) and conductors who belong to the BLET.
Thanks, Jeff. It didn't occur to me that there could be crossover between unions and crafts.
.
Quote from the link:
Developed by New York Air Brake / Train Dynamic Systems Division, LEADER has provided 30,000,000 gallons of fuel savings to railroads in North America, Australia, Mexico, and Brazil. Bill Sturtz, General Manager, New York Air Brake / Train Dynamic Systems Division announced, “It is a testament to LEADER’s ability to correctly manage in-train forces that over 125,000,000 miles and more than 800,000 trips our system has never broken a train.”
http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20131101005905/en/York-Air-Brake-LEADER%C2%AE-Users-Share-Data
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.