If there really is all of this subterfuge and deception going on to “cook” the inspection results based on distrust within the employee-employer relationship, it seems to me that alone would be a good reason to automate the process, and take the human element completely out of it.
charlie hebdoOf course, but do you really think management wants to increase spending for track maintenance?
Therein lies the conundrum - find too many defects and maintenance spending goes up, don't find any (or enough) and question whether the track is really getting inspected...
I'm sure they're at a relatively happy medium.
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...
BaltACD charlie hebdo Of course, but do you really think management wants to increase spending for track maintenance? With BNSF not being on a PSR trajectory I would expect they want safe track, not necessarily cheap track,
charlie hebdo Of course, but do you really think management wants to increase spending for track maintenance?
With BNSF not being on a PSR trajectory I would expect they want safe track, not necessarily cheap track,
BNSF is starting to embrace some facets of PSR.
Jeff
charlie hebdoPSR isn't the only way to maximize ROI.
Correct, but PSR is Wall Street's 'darling' for 21st Century railroads. Track related derailments create a big drain on ROI.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
PSR isn't the only way to maximize ROI.
tree68 charlie hebdo My personal opinion is that if approved and implented, they will not only save labor costs on the inspections, they will "find" fewer defects and save short term costs, at least, for maintenance. You may be right. We don't know what BNSF's management philosophy was regarding inspections. And this is why it's a trial program. It's possible the automated inspections will find more flaws than can be detected by an inspector in a hi-rail vehicle, resulting in a lot of catch-up maintenance, after which the rails will be safer. Have to see how the pilot program goes.
charlie hebdo My personal opinion is that if approved and implented, they will not only save labor costs on the inspections, they will "find" fewer defects and save short term costs, at least, for maintenance.
You may be right.
We don't know what BNSF's management philosophy was regarding inspections.
And this is why it's a trial program. It's possible the automated inspections will find more flaws than can be detected by an inspector in a hi-rail vehicle, resulting in a lot of catch-up maintenance, after which the rails will be safer.
Have to see how the pilot program goes.
Of course, but do you really think management wants to increase spending for track maintenance?
charlie hebdoMy personal opinion is that if approved and implented, they will not only save labor costs on the inspections, they will "find" fewer defects and save short term costs, at least, for maintenance.
tree68 charlie hebdo It's interesting that you and Balt demean the quality or honesty of work of other rail employees. Do you have any proof that the track inspectors consistently/frequently report false positives (false identification of defective track)? Not quite sure how I demeaned anyone. It's not the lower level of employees who usually drive such actions. It's management. That's what I alluded to with my military comment. If the purpose of the inspection is simply to keep you on your toes, "good enough" will be good enough. If the purpose of the inspection is punitive, you better hope that quarter bounces really high off your bed. It's not enough to simply conduct X number of inspections - if you do that many, you're bound to find something. If management feels that finding defects is an indication of a job well done, well... Police agencies deny them, but most folks are pretty sure that the cops have quotas for writing tickets. Traffic violations that would have otherwise gotten a warning will get a ticket. So, in general, that means that something that's not way out of whack, or not a safety hazard will still get written up. And, quite frankly, with something that takes as much beating as rail infrastructure, a constant clean bill of health might be a bit suspect over time. Of course, if the track inspector hates the MOW foreman... Our fire department was visited by the local state safety inspector a few years ago. The inspector was looking for a couple of specific items. We had them (I think to his surprise). He never called back. In fact, he didn't do a complete inspection (which very well might have resulted in some violations). Putting that in a railroad context, if the FRA has found something they feel needs extra attention, you'll probably see that item show up after some inspections, to be followed by a documented fix to those problems.
charlie hebdo It's interesting that you and Balt demean the quality or honesty of work of other rail employees. Do you have any proof that the track inspectors consistently/frequently report false positives (false identification of defective track)?
Not quite sure how I demeaned anyone.
It's not the lower level of employees who usually drive such actions. It's management. That's what I alluded to with my military comment. If the purpose of the inspection is simply to keep you on your toes, "good enough" will be good enough. If the purpose of the inspection is punitive, you better hope that quarter bounces really high off your bed.
It's not enough to simply conduct X number of inspections - if you do that many, you're bound to find something. If management feels that finding defects is an indication of a job well done, well...
Police agencies deny them, but most folks are pretty sure that the cops have quotas for writing tickets. Traffic violations that would have otherwise gotten a warning will get a ticket.
So, in general, that means that something that's not way out of whack, or not a safety hazard will still get written up.
And, quite frankly, with something that takes as much beating as rail infrastructure, a constant clean bill of health might be a bit suspect over time.
Of course, if the track inspector hates the MOW foreman...
Our fire department was visited by the local state safety inspector a few years ago. The inspector was looking for a couple of specific items. We had them (I think to his surprise). He never called back. In fact, he didn't do a complete inspection (which very well might have resulted in some violations).
Putting that in a railroad context, if the FRA has found something they feel needs extra attention, you'll probably see that item show up after some inspections, to be followed by a documented fix to those problems.
The program in question is in-house on BNSF. They are seeking a suspension of FRA rules.
My personal opinion is that if approved and implented, they will not only save labor costs on the inspections, they will "find" fewer defects and save short term costs, at least, for maintenance. Watch out for more derailments.
charlie hebdoIt's interesting that you and Balt demean the quality or honesty of work of other rail employees. Do you have any proof that the track inspectors consistently/frequently report false positives (false identification of defective track)?
Balt: I think some of the problems with lax government inspections and regulation is that the heads of agencies and some staff often come from the industries they are suppose to oversee. This is especially true in the anti-regulatory environment we've had since 1981. The fox is guarding the hen house.
tree68Anyone who's been in the military and has been through a white glove inspection knows the feeling - especially if the commander is looking to pull their weekend leave...
A bit off topic, but, as I recall. the worst part of inspections was the preparation. The NCO's drove us to get everything perfect, then when the "big guy" came, he usually just casually walked through and everything was OK.
_____________
"A stranger's just a friend you ain't met yet." --- Dave Gardner
charlie hebdo tree68 BaltACD The one thing about 'Inspectors' as a profession, no matter if they are public or private - "If they don't find defects they are fired." ie. if in normal means they didn't find defects, they have to create defects (real or on paper) to go on to the next territory. Anyone who's been in the military and has been through a white glove inspection knows the feeling - especially if the commander is looking to pull their weekend leave... It's interesting that you and Balt demean the quality or honesty of work of other rail employees. Do you have any proof that the track inspectors consistently/frequently report false positives (false identification of defective track)?
tree68 BaltACD The one thing about 'Inspectors' as a profession, no matter if they are public or private - "If they don't find defects they are fired." ie. if in normal means they didn't find defects, they have to create defects (real or on paper) to go on to the next territory. Anyone who's been in the military and has been through a white glove inspection knows the feeling - especially if the commander is looking to pull their weekend leave...
BaltACD The one thing about 'Inspectors' as a profession, no matter if they are public or private - "If they don't find defects they are fired." ie. if in normal means they didn't find defects, they have to create defects (real or on paper) to go on to the next territory.
The one thing about 'Inspectors' as a profession, no matter if they are public or private - "If they don't find defects they are fired." ie. if in normal means they didn't find defects, they have to create defects (real or on paper) to go on to the next territory.
Anyone who's been in the military and has been through a white glove inspection knows the feeling - especially if the commander is looking to pull their weekend leave...
It's interesting that you and Balt demean the quality or honesty of work of other rail employees. Do you have any proof that the track inspectors consistently/frequently report false positives (false identification of defective track)?
Governmental inspectors have a different mission than do company inspectors. Governmental inspection is a adversarial undertaking.
To switch industries we are seeing what lax governmental inspection and approval processes have manifested themselves in the Boeing 737 MAX. Boeing's internal inspection and approval process was even worse.
In one's local area - look at the published inspection reports of local eating establishments - I have yet to see one that has stated NO VIOLATIONS FOUND - and that runs the gammut from the swankiest of high roller establishments to the hole in the wall greasy spoon. Governmental inspectors - no matter the industry - don't retain their jobs if they don't find violations.
Euclid BaltACD The one thing about 'Inspectors' as a profession, no matter if they are public or private - "If they don't find defects they are fired." ie. if in normal means they didn't find defects, they have to create defects (real or on paper) to go on to the next territory. That is like home inspectors. They don't get fired for not finding defects. But they justify their cost to the home buyer by getting the seller to drop the price after the deal has been made. If the home is perfect, the inspector finds radon. That will cost $1500-2500, and easily justify the inspection cost to the buyer. Whether there actually is a radon problem is beside the point and is practically impossible to challenge. If I had an offer on a house made contingent on an inspection, I would refuse the offer. With railroad inpsections, I am sure there are other motives to skew the results. It is all the more justification for automated inspections.
That is like home inspectors. They don't get fired for not finding defects. But they justify their cost to the home buyer by getting the seller to drop the price after the deal has been made. If the home is perfect, the inspector finds radon. That will cost $1500-2500, and easily justify the inspection cost to the buyer.
Whether there actually is a radon problem is beside the point and is practically impossible to challenge. If I had an offer on a house made contingent on an inspection, I would refuse the offer.
With railroad inpsections, I am sure there are other motives to skew the results. It is all the more justification for automated inspections.
In Illinois at least, radon inspections are mandatory, just as a termite and other insect inspection is mandatory in Georgia.
mudchickenThe FRA geometry cars and their contract operators are well known for false defect reporting - you still have to check every one found.
They have gotten smart enough to realize that on a dead end line, they need to do the "for the record" testing on the way out...
Don't worry. I'm sure the rules will change.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.
Zugs: they (FRA) didn't change the rules to accomodate the thing. There have been two AREMA presentations about the two prototypes wandering the country in plain brown (really blue) boxcar wrappers. Dispatchers and operating supervisors are not allowed to remove those slow orders or face an FRA Code 1.(but they certainly do howl, whine and cry)... The more you crank up the sensitivity, the more problems with "flyers" you get Something's gonna give.
Ever noticed what happens when a regular g-car finds more than the section can fix the day the g-car slides by? (your train orders come with additional slow orders and your PSR theory goes to crap that much faster because nothing gets over the road on time)...The FRA geometry cars and their contract operators are well known for false defect reporting - you still have to check every one found.
It takes time just to determine if the defect is real or not. Qualified people to do that checking do not grow on trees....and FRA is obsessed with documented remedial actions.
mudchicken- you are not laying people off, you are adding qualified people to chase after that roaming digital troublemaker.
It's cute that you think that.
(and it isn't dawning on anybody here yet or at the unions that you have less than 24 hours to remediate/fix/slow-order and document whatever the geometized, remote liteslice scanner in a plain looking boxcar finds as a defect - you are not laying people off, you are adding qualified people to chase after that roaming digital troublemaker... or your railroad slows to a crawl....and then is there really a defect at all)
I gather that the new testing will be done with a track geometry car, and what BNSF wants to test at this point is a variety of testing programs, as opposed to the actual testing for the sole purpose of finding track defects. However, the union focuses on replacing manual inspections with automated inspections, which will come only in the future, and it is not yet known what that change will look like. The union’s complaint is that automatic inspections may be less capable of finding defects than human inspections, and so automatic inspections may increase danger. Yet they offer no evidence that will actually happen. BNSF points out that they expect automatic inspections will add more safety than the manual inspections that are replaced.
To support their supposition, the union cites the fiery Casselton, ND oil train wreck. However, as far as I know, that accident cause had nothing to do with track defects.
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2018/11/05/2018-24111/approval-of-bnsf-railway-company-test-program-to-evaluate-automated-track-inspection-technologies
I am involved with a pipeline company that is putting a fiber cable on top of a new line to measure for defects using that principle.
Paul Milenkovic BaltACD When I was still working, CSX had outfitted a number of locomotives with various accelerometers and coupled them with GPS and a computer and the communications ability to send reports to Jacksonville when motions were found that indicated 'rough track'. The report to Jacksonville would initiate another report to the Roadmaster responsible for the territory to have the specific site inspected and correct and report the defects that were found. Because of the imprecise nature of GPS, the report required the Roadmaster to inspect ALL tracks at the specific location where there were more than a single track. Various CSX cars that were in the Tropicana Juice Train were also outfitted to report track conditions to the headquarters MofW department. How do they figure out whether the problem is with the track or with the locomotive/freight car with the sensing equipment? OK, so the rough ride happens only over certain patches of track. But rough riding can be the fault of worn wheel profiles, worn pedestal guides or bad dampers. Yes, some track stretches may induce "hunting" or "nosing" in such worn rolling stock, but I still think you need to rigorously inspect any locomotive or freight car used to collect such data.
BaltACD When I was still working, CSX had outfitted a number of locomotives with various accelerometers and coupled them with GPS and a computer and the communications ability to send reports to Jacksonville when motions were found that indicated 'rough track'. The report to Jacksonville would initiate another report to the Roadmaster responsible for the territory to have the specific site inspected and correct and report the defects that were found. Because of the imprecise nature of GPS, the report required the Roadmaster to inspect ALL tracks at the specific location where there were more than a single track. Various CSX cars that were in the Tropicana Juice Train were also outfitted to report track conditions to the headquarters MofW department.
Because of the imprecise nature of GPS, the report required the Roadmaster to inspect ALL tracks at the specific location where there were more than a single track.
Various CSX cars that were in the Tropicana Juice Train were also outfitted to report track conditions to the headquarters MofW department.
How do they figure out whether the problem is with the track or with the locomotive/freight car with the sensing equipment?
OK, so the rough ride happens only over certain patches of track. But rough riding can be the fault of worn wheel profiles, worn pedestal guides or bad dampers. Yes, some track stretches may induce "hunting" or "nosing" in such worn rolling stock, but I still think you need to rigorously inspect any locomotive or freight car used to collect such data.
Reasonable question. One answer is if multiple reports about a certain section of track causing a rough ride, then it would be safe to say that the track was the problem.
A very recent development with fiber optics is making an unused fiber in a buried fiber "cable" act as a distributed seismometer. Results from experiments on Verizon cables was that the fiber could pick vibrations from street traffic and I would guess could pick up vibrations from a bad piece of track as well as problems with locomotives and other rolling stock.
Paul Milenkovic BaltACD tree68 I would suspect that such a machine would be made to find the most common problems - especially those which are known to be the most disruptive to the railroad. It's possible that some things might actually be better (and more consistently) measured this way. The article doesn't say how the automated inspections will be done. Perhaps it will be via some version of the automated test cars already in circulation on some railroads (can't remember which). If that's the case, the the sheer weight of the car may find defects a human in a hi-rail may not detect, or may overlook. For ties, if they haven't already developed something, perhaps some sort of ultrasonic technique could be used. That's over my head, technologically. Don't expect my name on the patent. Guage, pulled spikes, and other such items that have expected parameters are easy. Switch gaps and the like, not so much. Such instrumented cars could be added to the consists of numerous trains. Perhaps one cold be used as a buffer in hazmat trains, instead of a covered hopper full of gravel. It still wouldn't be a revenue car, but at least it would be productive. If other railroads adopted a similar technology, or perhaps simply contracted to receive the information, these cars could be used on run-through trains, saving switching at hand-over points. OTOH, some things are better inspected with a good, old-fashioned calibrated eyeball. I doubt you'll ever see the track inspector in the hi-rail go completely away. When I was still working, CSX had outfitted a number of locomotives with various accelerometers and coupled them with GPS and a computer and the communications ability to send reports to Jacksonville when motions were found that indicated 'rough track'. The report to Jacksonville would initiate another report to the Roadmaster responsible for the territory to have the specific site inspected and correct and report the defects that were found. Because of the imprecise nature of GPS, the report required the Roadmaster to inspect ALL tracks at the specific location where there were more than a single track. Various CSX cars that were in the Tropicana Juice Train were also outfitted to report track conditions to the headquarters MofW department. How do they figure out whether the problem is with the track or with the locomotive/freight car with the sensing equipment? OK, so the rough ride happens only over certain patches of track. But rough riding can be the fault of worn wheel profiles, worn pedestal guides or bad dampers. Yes, some track stretches may induce "hunting" or "nosing" in such worn rolling stock, but I still think you need to rigorously inspect any locomotive or freight car used to collect such data.
BaltACD tree68 I would suspect that such a machine would be made to find the most common problems - especially those which are known to be the most disruptive to the railroad. It's possible that some things might actually be better (and more consistently) measured this way. The article doesn't say how the automated inspections will be done. Perhaps it will be via some version of the automated test cars already in circulation on some railroads (can't remember which). If that's the case, the the sheer weight of the car may find defects a human in a hi-rail may not detect, or may overlook. For ties, if they haven't already developed something, perhaps some sort of ultrasonic technique could be used. That's over my head, technologically. Don't expect my name on the patent. Guage, pulled spikes, and other such items that have expected parameters are easy. Switch gaps and the like, not so much. Such instrumented cars could be added to the consists of numerous trains. Perhaps one cold be used as a buffer in hazmat trains, instead of a covered hopper full of gravel. It still wouldn't be a revenue car, but at least it would be productive. If other railroads adopted a similar technology, or perhaps simply contracted to receive the information, these cars could be used on run-through trains, saving switching at hand-over points. OTOH, some things are better inspected with a good, old-fashioned calibrated eyeball. I doubt you'll ever see the track inspector in the hi-rail go completely away. When I was still working, CSX had outfitted a number of locomotives with various accelerometers and coupled them with GPS and a computer and the communications ability to send reports to Jacksonville when motions were found that indicated 'rough track'. The report to Jacksonville would initiate another report to the Roadmaster responsible for the territory to have the specific site inspected and correct and report the defects that were found. Because of the imprecise nature of GPS, the report required the Roadmaster to inspect ALL tracks at the specific location where there were more than a single track. Various CSX cars that were in the Tropicana Juice Train were also outfitted to report track conditions to the headquarters MofW department.
tree68 I would suspect that such a machine would be made to find the most common problems - especially those which are known to be the most disruptive to the railroad. It's possible that some things might actually be better (and more consistently) measured this way. The article doesn't say how the automated inspections will be done. Perhaps it will be via some version of the automated test cars already in circulation on some railroads (can't remember which). If that's the case, the the sheer weight of the car may find defects a human in a hi-rail may not detect, or may overlook. For ties, if they haven't already developed something, perhaps some sort of ultrasonic technique could be used. That's over my head, technologically. Don't expect my name on the patent. Guage, pulled spikes, and other such items that have expected parameters are easy. Switch gaps and the like, not so much. Such instrumented cars could be added to the consists of numerous trains. Perhaps one cold be used as a buffer in hazmat trains, instead of a covered hopper full of gravel. It still wouldn't be a revenue car, but at least it would be productive. If other railroads adopted a similar technology, or perhaps simply contracted to receive the information, these cars could be used on run-through trains, saving switching at hand-over points. OTOH, some things are better inspected with a good, old-fashioned calibrated eyeball. I doubt you'll ever see the track inspector in the hi-rail go completely away. When I was still working, CSX had outfitted a number of locomotives with various accelerometers and coupled them with GPS and a computer and the communications ability to send reports to Jacksonville when motions were found that indicated 'rough track'. The report to Jacksonville would initiate another report to the Roadmaster responsible for the territory to have the specific site inspected and correct and report the defects that were found.
It's possible that some things might actually be better (and more consistently) measured this way.
The article doesn't say how the automated inspections will be done. Perhaps it will be via some version of the automated test cars already in circulation on some railroads (can't remember which). If that's the case, the the sheer weight of the car may find defects a human in a hi-rail may not detect, or may overlook.
For ties, if they haven't already developed something, perhaps some sort of ultrasonic technique could be used. That's over my head, technologically. Don't expect my name on the patent.
Guage, pulled spikes, and other such items that have expected parameters are easy. Switch gaps and the like, not so much.
Such instrumented cars could be added to the consists of numerous trains. Perhaps one cold be used as a buffer in hazmat trains, instead of a covered hopper full of gravel. It still wouldn't be a revenue car, but at least it would be productive.
If other railroads adopted a similar technology, or perhaps simply contracted to receive the information, these cars could be used on run-through trains, saving switching at hand-over points.
OTOH, some things are better inspected with a good, old-fashioned calibrated eyeball. I doubt you'll ever see the track inspector in the hi-rail go completely away.
When I was still working, CSX had outfitted a number of locomotives with various accelerometers and coupled them with GPS and a computer and the communications ability to send reports to Jacksonville when motions were found that indicated 'rough track'. The report to Jacksonville would initiate another report to the Roadmaster responsible for the territory to have the specific site inspected and correct and report the defects that were found.
Hunch - if the defects were because of the vehicle doing the measuring - it would be reporting defects from virtually every foot the vehichle travels.
I suspect, but don't know, that the vehicles that measuring equipment is attached to is inspected and 'brought up to snuff' in concert with installing the measuring equipment. They aren't attaching the measuring equipment to vehicles that are destined to the dead line or the scrappers in the next month or two.
tree68 I would suspect that such a machine would be made to find the most common problems - especially those which are known to be the most disruptive to the railroad. It's possible that some things might actually be better (and more consistently) measured this way. The article doesn't say how the automated inspections will be done. Perhaps it will be via some version of the automated test cars already in circulation on some railroads (can't remember which). If that's the case, the the sheer weight of the car may find defects a human in a hi-rail may not detect, or may overlook. For ties, if they haven't already developed something, perhaps some sort of ultrasonic technique could be used. That's over my head, technologically. Don't expect my name on the patent. Guage, pulled spikes, and other such items that have expected parameters are easy. Switch gaps and the like, not so much. Such instrumented cars could be added to the consists of numerous trains. Perhaps one cold be used as a buffer in hazmat trains, instead of a covered hopper full of gravel. It still wouldn't be a revenue car, but at least it would be productive. If other railroads adopted a similar technology, or perhaps simply contracted to receive the information, these cars could be used on run-through trains, saving switching at hand-over points. OTOH, some things are better inspected with a good, old-fashioned calibrated eyeball. I doubt you'll ever see the track inspector in the hi-rail go completely away.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
rdamonNot sure if cars sending pothole data to the DOT will speed things up ..
Much of the current approach to autonomous vehicles includes enormous amounts of 'big data', much of which will be analyzed and put into similarly vast (just not quite as huge) repository and information 'form'. Look for some of the techniques that develop 'emergent' relationships between disparate variables, as in many predictive-maintenance applications, to be fired up 'in various clouds' for good or ill.
Do not make the mistake of thinking that any 'autonomous' method of railroad inspection will, or can, replace skilled observation both 'on the ground' and commanding and using various forms of sensor-fused data. It may be easy to extrapolate from PSR and other follies like zero-crewed trains that such a thing is the end goal; it would be no more sensible than to have robots replace Sperry rail inspection as a means of enhanced track defect detection.
What I expect, in part, is a much quicker and 'inexpensively granular' method of determining track state and damage. When we get to 'intelligent trucks' for equipment maintenance, the information streams from these can be converged for even better 'early warning' (or autonomous flagging of emergent concealed damage, rapidly-evolving issues like the recent New Haven kink derailment, or problems 'as they happen' like the switch shenanigans at Cayce with the 'signal system' itself shut down).
Of course there will no more be "humans" looking over the raw data than we have "humans" looking at high-resolution satellite data. What will be among the most interesting things to see is the extent to which interworkable systems with artificial intelligence are structured and evolved to assist in the desirable purposes...
Agreed .. These arguments seemed to be based on a "or" instead or a "and"
They may use this to reduce eyeball inspections, but will get more data to focus on trouble areas.
Saw this today:
https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a30443516/bridgestone-connected-tire/
Not sure if cars sending pothole data to the DOT will speed things up ..
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.