BaltACDCSX 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'.
And this points to another potential advantage - a busy stretch of track may get "inspected" several times per day, vs once per day, or less. And at operating speed.
Case in point - if you watch the Deshler Diamond cam for a while, you'll see the locos and the cars westbound taking quite the bounce. Never mind that it's been that way since they replaced the diamond and they still haven't fixed it...
An inspector in a hi-rail will be slowing down there, to safely traverse the diamond, and may not even sense that dip.
Going back to my original point - and my previous post - if the instrumented equipment can sense the most common problems, and that equipment runs over the rails multiple times a day, that's got to be a good thing.
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...
tree68I 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.
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.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
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 is the same argument that surrounds automatic trains. Unions say it will reduce safety because automation can fail to see something. Management says that it will increase safety because it will eliminate human error.
If there is a clear argument that the automated inspections will decrease safety, that point is not explained in the article in the first post.
Electroliner 1935 Paul_D_North_Jr Depends on how sophisticated it is. For example, how good is it at detecting raised spikes on the gage side which is an indication of a possible incipient rail rollover condition? Can it detect where a tie plate is sliding when the gage widens under load (only)? Can it detect a rotten tie under the tie plate? Can it tell what a varying longitudinal wear (or grease) pattern on the top of a rail means? Can an inspector in a hirail vehicle detect them while rolling along at 5 to 10 mph detect these items? A walking inspection might but where do they walk track anymore?
Paul_D_North_Jr Depends on how sophisticated it is. For example, how good is it at detecting raised spikes on the gage side which is an indication of a possible incipient rail rollover condition? Can it detect where a tie plate is sliding when the gage widens under load (only)? Can it detect a rotten tie under the tie plate? Can it tell what a varying longitudinal wear (or grease) pattern on the top of a rail means?
Can an inspector in a hirail vehicle detect them while rolling along at 5 to 10 mph detect these items? A walking inspection might but where do they walk track anymore?
I'm not sure Batory gets the concept of the difference in maintenance inspections, as in how different railroads approach the issue (and who is qualified to do things to what level (least common denominator thing)- The BN foreman could not hold a candle to his ATSF counterpart, same with the D&RGW guy being way ahead of his SP and UP counterparts. Testing and training go only so far.). I do not see regionals and shortlines being able to afford this in the near term and for a good while out into the future.
Big buggaboo out there remains documentation of defects found and the documented remedial actions.FRAField inspectors see the issue, but the officebound guy with almost zero real world experience is less forgiving. Things get testy when something unplanned goes wrong.
You both raise good questions. I hope this pilot program is actually seeking answers rather than providing a rationale for more labor cost reduction.
Paul_D_North_JrDepends on how sophisticated it is. For example, how good is it at detecting raised spikes on the gage side which is an indication of a possible incipient rail rollover condition? Can it detect where a tie plate is sliding when the gage widens under load (only)? Can it detect a rotten tie under the tie plate? Can it tell what a varying longitudinal wear (or grease) pattern on the top of a rail means?
Paul_D_North_Jr What would be interesting is to have both the machine and a human inspect the same track just a few minutes apart (no train between them) and compare the results. Didn't see that addressed in the article.
What would be interesting is to have both the machine and a human inspect the same track just a few minutes apart (no train between them) and compare the results. Didn't see that addressed in the article.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
Depends on how sophisticated it is. For example, how good is it at detecting raised spikes on the gage side which is an indication of a possible incipient rail rollover condition? Can it detect where a tie plate is sliding when the gage widens under load (only)? Can it detect a rotten tie under the tie plate? Can it tell what a varying longitudinal wear (or grease) pattern on the top of a rail means?
Long-term, I think the track inspector's jobs are in jeopardy. May still be a need for some to confirm the machine's results, or look at anomalies. OTOH, might be hard to fill those positions anyway.
- PDN.
https://www.inforum.com/news/accidents/4859872-Fewer-visual-track-inspections-by-BNSF-means-rail-safety-Russian-roulette-union-says
Safer or more dangerous? Union v management.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.