We have two privately owned FP9's stored at our museum that also fit this description. They are from a group that VIA had rebuilt into what they and CN called a FP9RM (645C engine, modified Dash-2 electrical system, basically what CN did with their GP9RM rebuilds at the same time), and this pair are from a further subgroup of six that received HEP gensets circa 1996-1997, after VIA finally phased out steam-heated cars. They have Detroit Series 92's instead of Cummins engines.
It is indeed very cramped in the rear end of those units, and among other space the HEP engine occupies the passage from the back door to the handbrake. So if you enter from the back door or the rear door on the Engineer's side you have to walk around the front of the engine to get at the handbrake.
The HEP control panel takes up most of the space between the air compressor and electrical cabinet, but their current owner also managed to shoehorn a Hotstart system in there.
Here they are on display. The exhaust pipe and radiator for the HEP genset are readily visible at the rear of the unit:
http://www.railpictures.ca/?attachment_id=34316
Greetings from Alberta
-an Articulate Malcontent
zardozIn order to lighten up this thread, I'll bore you with a little tale of F7s in commuter operations.
We have a one-time GM&O F3 that's been rebuilt to an "F10." It ran on MBTA. It has an HEP genset exactly as you describe, but we aren't using it.
Everything else about moving around in the engine compartment is true. My nice, bright high viz jackets are a testament to that. They aren't as high vis any more.
For that matter, just getting into an F unit, or an RS-? ALCO makes it obvious that crews of an earlier age weren't a big as crews are today.
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
LensCapOnIf this was a REAL issue (snark/ON) all it would take would be smaller cab doors with the warning sign: "If you can't fit through this door you are too fat to Drive This Train".
These locomotives had a Cummins engine mounted in the rear of the locomotive, tanget to the prime mover, with the electric cabinet against the wall on the fireman's side. The F7 was so short, however, that the Cummins had to be mounted away from the fireman's side wall to make room for the Cummins electrical cabinet. These hi-revving engines did a wonderful job of coating the entire rear of the inside of the locomotive shell with a layer of oil.
These engines were so big, that walking from the first coach to the cab was nearly impossible for those of us "extra large" and beyond (unless one really sucked-in their excess midriff bulge), and impassible by anyone bigger than a size "large", without one's shirt wiping off all the oil from both the sidewall and also the engine itself.
The E units weren't quite as bad, as there was room between the 2nd prime mover and the rear wall to accommodate the Cummins so it could be mounted closer to the fireman's side wall, ahead of the Cummins electrical cabinet.
Overmod Euclid Has the conclusion not been reached and proven by the fact that self-driving trains are operating successfully every day on Rio Tinto Railroad in Australia? It seems to me that adequate testing has indeed been performed. That's damn near as silly as saying that because Black Mesa & Lake Powell trains could run unattended -- in not too dissimilar a set of operating conditions and parameters from those in the West Australia mining region -- it's 'adequate' for complete and unquestioning adoption on the North American general system. Very little that 'we didn't already know' about train control and control communications in general is involved in the Rio Tinto operations, and not too much more is actually demonstrated in the recent NYAB show. It's as if you haven't read many of the posts in this thread, and in other threads, regarding where there are problems even with two sets of eyes and minds running the train. And as if you are almost fundamentally unread on the science and technology behind actual current design of autonomous vehicles. Neither, I hope, is true, but I think you need reasons to claim 'adequate testing has indeed been performed' and back them up with technological proof of what was done, and what the systems can do in imperfect real-world conditions.
Euclid Has the conclusion not been reached and proven by the fact that self-driving trains are operating successfully every day on Rio Tinto Railroad in Australia? It seems to me that adequate testing has indeed been performed.
That's damn near as silly as saying that because Black Mesa & Lake Powell trains could run unattended -- in not too dissimilar a set of operating conditions and parameters from those in the West Australia mining region -- it's 'adequate' for complete and unquestioning adoption on the North American general system.
Very little that 'we didn't already know' about train control and control communications in general is involved in the Rio Tinto operations, and not too much more is actually demonstrated in the recent NYAB show.
It's as if you haven't read many of the posts in this thread, and in other threads, regarding where there are problems even with two sets of eyes and minds running the train. And as if you are almost fundamentally unread on the science and technology behind actual current design of autonomous vehicles. Neither, I hope, is true, but I think you need reasons to claim 'adequate testing has indeed been performed' and back them up with technological proof of what was done, and what the systems can do in imperfect real-world conditions.
No need for your insulting tone. I am fully awar of what I said. I NEVER claimed that the technology was ready to convert the entire U.S. rail system to driverless running in a "complete and unquestioning adoption of the North American general system," as you imply I said and meant. Of course that won't happen and there is no need to make it happen unless one needs it as an excuse to reject the entire concept of self-driving trains. Obviously the conversion would start with the easiest parts. Those would be running condtions most like that of Rio Tinto; that is, places where trains run a whole division without setouts and pickups. Even this simplest application may not be possible today, but in my opinion, it is something that could be started within a year or two. I would not be surprised if this spot automation application it is being worked on right now, and will soon be tested.
I don't think BM&LP ever achieved autonomous operation. I believe there goal was to still have a single person, as an observer-just in case, but have the train run by itself. Even that I don't think happened, the last I knew they ran a two person crew up to when they shut down.
Again, I would like to know how well Rio Tinto's operation really is doing. From the people who work with it day to day. I would like to know what their failure rate is. You won't hear that from Rio Tinto or NYAB et al. Obviously, it's at or below what they consider cost effective. But when you want something bad enough, you can rationalize away a lot of failure.
Jeff
EuclidHas the conclusion not been reached and proven by the fact that self-driving trains are operating successfully every day on Rio Tinto Railroad in Australia? It seems to me that adequate testing has indeed been performed.
CMStPnPThere is not yet a complete lack of a need for humans on locomotives and you cannot prove there is yet because adequate testing has not been performed to reach the conclusion
Has the conclusion not been reached and proven by the fact that self-driving trains are operating successfully every day on Rio Tinto Railroad in Australia? It seems to me that adequate testing has indeed been performed.
CMStPnPApples biggest mistake was trusting Bill Gates when he subcontracted with Apple not to steal major portions of their source code...
If this is an indication of the computer knowledge you bring to the cloud migration -- God help the United States Government.
CMStPnP charlie hebdo This discussion is reminiscent of the public campaigns, strikes, etc., about retaining firemen in diesels, which went on for 35 years until an agreement was reached in 1972. I see a big difference in that firemen were replaced via lack of a fire to tend by a human as internal combustion eliminated the task. There is not yet a complete lack of a need for humans on locomotives and you cannot prove there is yet because adequate testing has not been performed to reach the conclusion.
charlie hebdo This discussion is reminiscent of the public campaigns, strikes, etc., about retaining firemen in diesels, which went on for 35 years until an agreement was reached in 1972.
I see a big difference in that firemen were replaced via lack of a fire to tend by a human as internal combustion eliminated the task. There is not yet a complete lack of a need for humans on locomotives and you cannot prove there is yet because adequate testing has not been performed to reach the conclusion.
You are too young to recall the advertising campaign that emphasized the need for an extra set of eyes in the cab for safety reasons. That was an absurd argument, of course, since when fireman were actually working on steamers, they weren't looking down the tracks often, yet the collision rate was not noticeably higher then.
I agree that automation is not reliable enough now, but it's coming. Coupled with the economic slump for the rails (if not the entire nation) moving to a recession, the rails are unlikely to commit to retaining a larger crew size.
charlie hebdoThis discussion is reminiscent of the public campaigns, strikes, etc., about retaining firemen in diesels, which went on for 35 years until an agreement was reached in 1972.
EuclidJust to put this into context, CMStP&P said this about driverless trains: “Certainly as someone in IT I don't see how they would operate a no crew train safely 100% of the time.” Nobody has claimed that driverless trains operate safely 100% of the time or that they are expected to. Just to clarify, in that phrase, I asked him to clarify that it meant “operate 100% safely 100% of the time.” If it does, there is no wiggle room at all. It is means that there will be no lapse of safety. In any case, I take him to mean that this perfect safety is currently being provided by human operators onboard. Therefore, a reason not to convert to driverless trains is that they will not be as safe as those driven by onboard humans. I believe that the theoretical benchmark of perfect safety is impossible, and has never been achieved by human operators and will never be achieved by automatic operation either. I say that 100% safety 100% of the time is not possible because it is like a claim of a ship that cannot be sunk or a claim to have a perpetual motion machine. I believe that both engineer-driven trains and driverless trains can, and will have accidental events that amount to a lapse in safety, resulting directly from their operation. But I do not believe that the driverless option is fundamentally less safe than the human, manual operator option. Yet this seems to be a strong argument by those who oppose driverless operation. In any case, improving safety is not the primary advantage of automatic operation. The primary advantage is cost reduction by saving the cost of onboard crews.
It takes years of training an AI system to recognize and respond properly to various inputs that a human would. The automation technology for self driving cars as well as self driving trains has not had that lead time yet. Put the technology out there tommorrow and your guaranteed to have some fairly spectacular accidents as we saw with the not too long ago Tesla experiment.
Thats what I meant in saying the technolgy is not ready yet.
I am working on a project now to move all the governments computer systems onto the government portion of the Amazon Cloud. It's not a 2 year slam bam thankyou maam project. It's going to take 10-15 years before the AI will become learned enough to write it's own computer code and adapt to new human uses on it's own without massive human intervention. First step is to migrate all the system onto the cloud, second is to turn parts of it over to machine language and training and prep for AI, third step is to turn it completely over to AI.
No comperable lead time has elapsed for this driverless train technology and rail unions are correct in saying it is waaaaayyyyy to early to attempt an implementation without humans being involved.
BTW, the people on here that stated this is more hackable have no real clue what they are talking about when it comes to computer security. I have access to most government IT systems now to conduct my business and I have to use a password storage system as I have in excess of 80 passwords that need to change monthly. If I had to remember all those and did not have a tool to change those passwords in bulk you can imagine what my job would be like. It is already a problem with the other tight security measures the government has in place I find myself regularly locked out of various parts of the computer system and have to call a help desk to get my access restored. The cloud actually will make systems MORE not LESS secure and will reduce the ability to hack.....without all the overhead. If you know anything about OS, you would know that Apples OS has always been far less virus prone and hackable than Microsoft Windows. Part of the reason for that is Windows is a hack of the Apple OS and Microsoft opened it's OS to multitudes of vendors to increase it's marketability and market share and it grew in acceptance more than Apple as a result.
Some of those Microsoft vendors were sham companies that just wanted access to the source code to hack into it. Apple was far more careful with it's OS. Apples biggest mistake was trusting Bill Gates when he subcontracted with Apple not to steal major portions of their source code......but then Apple changed major parts of it's OS after Gates stole it.
Point of that whole story is Apple OS is far less hackable than Microsoft much in the way that the systems on the Amazon cloud will be far less hackable than they are now under security systems that are not kept up to date.
This discussion is reminiscent of the public campaigns, strikes, etc., about retaining firemen in diesels, which went on for 35 years until an agreement was reached in 1972.
samfp1943 Was it not thatr long ago when one of the 'Back Country' Australian, Mine to Ship rr's suffered a 'run away' on one of their 'autonomous' train operations(?) Similarly, their have been similar incidents on the Canadian [ single crew man] Labrador train operations(?).. Even the Navajo Power Plant trains have/had suffered, occasionally, sinilar incidents..... 100% Operational /100% Safely / Probably, not for awhile...
Was it not thatr long ago when one of the 'Back Country' Australian, Mine to Ship rr's suffered a 'run away' on one of their 'autonomous' train operations(?)
Similarly, their have been similar incidents on the Canadian [ single crew man] Labrador train operations(?).. Even the Navajo Power Plant trains have/had suffered, occasionally, sinilar incidents.....
100% Operational /100% Safely / Probably, not for awhile...
The Austrailan runaway was on the Mt. Newman Railroad, which I understand does not use self-driving trains. The runaway you mentioned happened after the train had stopped on a grade, and the engineer got off to look for a problem. The train had a software feature that would release the ECP brakes to save battery power within one hour. And to compensate, the engineer was supposed to make an emergency application to take over the brake securement of the train standing on that grade.
However, the engineer failed to make that emergency application, and after one hour, the ECP brakes automatically released. Since the emergency application was not there for backup, the train ran away and was intentionally derailed at a crossover at high speed to prevent it from entering the terminal. A few days later, the company announced that the wreck was caused by the human error of the engineer for failing to make the emergency application after the train had stopped.
zugmann SD60MAC9500 One person for intermodal/unit trains. Manifest will still require two since PSR has become the standard creating more work enroute with pre-blocking.. I see this as the outcome. Eventually.. But they want to erun intermodal mixed in with everything. Once PSR hits that side of the coin, I'm guessing. Although the intermodal trains we have take a lot of work (assembling, work enroute, and yarding at the destination. Actually more work than most junk freights).
SD60MAC9500 One person for intermodal/unit trains. Manifest will still require two since PSR has become the standard creating more work enroute with pre-blocking.. I see this as the outcome. Eventually..
But they want to erun intermodal mixed in with everything. Once PSR hits that side of the coin, I'm guessing.
Although the intermodal trains we have take a lot of work (assembling, work enroute, and yarding at the destination. Actually more work than most junk freights).
IM trains handling loose car traffic has been happening for sometime. CN, and CP were handling blocks of carload in IM service before PSR implementation at both Roads. BNSF Q-ALTSSE, and Q ALTPTL handle blocks of carload as well. NS I imagine is starting this trend systemwide as well, but even back in the day way before PSR. Up here on NS's ex Wabash district.. NS was combining carload and IM traffic destined for Deactur, IL.. One man will become the norm eventually, yet depending on work en-route you will still have a conductor onboard. Unless the concept of roving conductors are to be included inside contract negotiations as well..
zardoz Euclid I assume that operating “safely 100% of the time” means operating 100% safely 100% of the time. That is not possible. Why do you allege that?
Euclid I assume that operating “safely 100% of the time” means operating 100% safely 100% of the time. That is not possible.
Why do you allege that?
Just to put this into context, CMStP&P said this about driverless trains:
“Certainly as someone in IT I don't see how they would operate a no crew train safely 100% of the time.”
Nobody has claimed that driverless trains operate safely 100% of the time or that they are expected to. Just to clarify, in that phrase, I asked him to clarify that it meant “operate 100% safely 100% of the time.” If it does, there is no wiggle room at all. It is means that there will be no lapse of safety.
In any case, I take him to mean that this perfect safety is currently being provided by human operators onboard. Therefore, a reason not to convert to driverless trains is that they will not be as safe as those driven by onboard humans. I believe that the theoretical benchmark of perfect safety is impossible, and has never been achieved by human operators and will never be achieved by automatic operation either.
I say that 100% safety 100% of the time is not possible because it is like a claim of a ship that cannot be sunk or a claim to have a perpetual motion machine.
I believe that both engineer-driven trains and driverless trains can, and will have accidental events that amount to a lapse in safety, resulting directly from their operation. But I do not believe that the driverless option is fundamentally less safe than the human, manual operator option. Yet this seems to be a strong argument by those who oppose driverless operation. In any case, improving safety is not the primary advantage of automatic operation. The primary advantage is cost reduction by saving the cost of onboard crews.
SD60MAC9500One person for intermodal/unit trains. Manifest will still require two since PSR has become the standard creating more work enroute with pre-blocking.. I see this as the outcome. Eventually..
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
One person for intermodal/unit trains. Manifest will still require two since PSR has become the standard creating more work enroute with pre-blocking.. I see this as the outcome. Eventually..
charlie hebdoThe biggest improvement to safety would be more regular/permanent shifts, less on-call. Alertness suffers from lack of quality sleep, as shown in many studies.
If you can do that with a large network trying to satisfy multiple customers who all want service on their terms, if they can get it. You will be telling God how to manage humanity - and we know humanity marches to its own drummer.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
The biggest improvement to safety would be more regular/permanent shifts, less on-call. Alertness suffers from lack of quality sleep, as shown in many studies.
EuclidI don't see what conscience and morals have to do with automatic operation. Conscience and morals are needed by humans to make sure they make the right decesions. Wherease automatic machines don't require a conscience and morals to make the right decsions. They have no choice but to make the right decisions.
EuclidI assume that operating “safely 100% of the time” means operating 100% safely 100% of the time. That is not possible.
EuclidFor one thing, just the elimination of fatigue as a factor in train operation is a major increase is safety.
Murphy Siding jeffhergert I haven't seen anything to link too, yet. There was an announcement that the National Railway Labor Conference* is suing the Smart-TD (trainmen's union) in Federal Court to affirm the right to negotiate crew size in the next round of contract talks that has or soon will be starting. *Even though the name sounds like it represents the various labor organizations, it's actually a railroad industry group. I believe there is a moratorium on crew consist issues until the last pre-1985 conductor is gone. There aren't many left around my neck of the woods, but those that remain must not be leaving fast enough. The industry is citing the new safety technology has a factor in redefining the role of conductor on certain trains. Jeff If it's a negotiation, ask for three man crews. When all the dust settles, they can then compromise with two man crews and everyone's a winner.
jeffhergert I haven't seen anything to link too, yet. There was an announcement that the National Railway Labor Conference* is suing the Smart-TD (trainmen's union) in Federal Court to affirm the right to negotiate crew size in the next round of contract talks that has or soon will be starting. *Even though the name sounds like it represents the various labor organizations, it's actually a railroad industry group. I believe there is a moratorium on crew consist issues until the last pre-1985 conductor is gone. There aren't many left around my neck of the woods, but those that remain must not be leaving fast enough. The industry is citing the new safety technology has a factor in redefining the role of conductor on certain trains. Jeff
I haven't seen anything to link too, yet. There was an announcement that the National Railway Labor Conference* is suing the Smart-TD (trainmen's union) in Federal Court to affirm the right to negotiate crew size in the next round of contract talks that has or soon will be starting.
*Even though the name sounds like it represents the various labor organizations, it's actually a railroad industry group.
I believe there is a moratorium on crew consist issues until the last pre-1985 conductor is gone. There aren't many left around my neck of the woods, but those that remain must not be leaving fast enough.
The industry is citing the new safety technology has a factor in redefining the role of conductor on certain trains.
If it's a negotiation, ask for three man crews. When all the dust settles, they can then compromise with two man crews and everyone's a winner.
There are actually three man crews on some trains and yard jobs required by contract. My part of the yellow empire, former CNW, had won the right to place the third man (brakeman/helper switchman) on a job at their descretion. Other parts of the empire, maybe all but the former CNW, still have the brakeman/switchman requirement on trains that do a specified amount of work enroute, locals and yard jobs.
It's not just UP, but all the members of the NRLC behind the lawsuit. Many of them still have the helper position requirement on certain types of their trains and yard jobs, etc.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
Euclid We can only automate as it becomes cost effective and technologically possible. New things to automate come to meet these requirements every day.
We can only automate as it becomes cost effective and technologically possible. New things to automate come to meet these requirements every day.
I agree and further believe the focus needs to be on the jobs held by people who continually call for more automation. Kind of allow them to “walk the talk”, if you will.
I‘m retired now so I’m exempt and already living in the new nation of leisure.
rdamon Maybe we need more automation on the school bus as well.
Maybe we need more automation on the school bus as well.
I propose we automate everything and become a nation of leisure. We can all sit back and watch our investment portfolios grow at double digit rates resulting from the elimination of all those nuisance labor costs.
CMStPnP charlie hebdo Do manned trains operate safely 100% of the time now? Have they ever? No the difference is of course there is a conscience and morals behind the human decision whereas the machine decision does not have that. Example: School bus full of kids approaching a grade crossing and driver does not appear to notice approaching train. Would a machine at the throttle even take notice of that? My thinking is it would be like a horse with blinders on.
charlie hebdo Do manned trains operate safely 100% of the time now? Have they ever?
No the difference is of course there is a conscience and morals behind the human decision whereas the machine decision does not have that.
Example: School bus full of kids approaching a grade crossing and driver does not appear to notice approaching train. Would a machine at the throttle even take notice of that? My thinking is it would be like a horse with blinders on.
CMStPnP charlie hebdo Do manned trains operate safely 100% of the time now? Have they ever? No the difference is of course there is a conscience and morals behind the human decision whereas the machine decision does not have that. Which in my view makes the machine much less desireable until we are 100% sure it can replicate all aspects and inputs that go into a human decision. Especially when we are thinking about other human lives as we are in operating a freight train. Example: School bus full of kids approaching a grade crossing and driver does not appear to notice approaching train. Would a machine at the throttle even take notice of that? My thinking is it would be like a horse with blinders on.
No the difference is of course there is a conscience and morals behind the human decision whereas the machine decision does not have that. Which in my view makes the machine much less desireable until we are 100% sure it can replicate all aspects and inputs that go into a human decision. Especially when we are thinking about other human lives as we are in operating a freight train.
Conscience and morals have almost nothing to do with safety, unless you are thinking of willful acts endangering self and/or others. Dead is dead.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.