M636CI noted that the 2014 version of the 2040 vision included knuckle couplers and manually connected air pipes but required a yet to be developed wireless connection for the ECP brakes. That seems strange for something that works reliably on six separate operations all over Australia every day.
The 'reason' for the trainline is similar to the rationale for DCC in model railroading: the cable carries both the various forms of recharge power and serves as a potentially well-shielded data cable using one of the effective schemes for powerline broadband. My own belief is that cables and wireless both have their place in effective ECP, and that there are other forms of data that can be multiplexed onto the wireless that don't 'belong' on a strictly safety-critical network -- cumulative car diagnostics or railhead scanning from 'smart sideframes', for example. If it is not possible to move a train expediently with one or more cables butchered, or impaired, or missing, you are left with wireless as the only sane alternative in the absence of fully-equipped flying repair squads.
Again, I agree with the previous posts.
1. There is no economic justification for freight railroading in North America for automatic air-connection coupling.
2. There may be some economic justification for EBC for unit-trains-only, but so far there is no proven economic justification for EBC for loose-car railroading, and there is no economic justification for automatic electrical and air couplers for unit trains.
3. Should the situation change and EBC be widely applied. then there may be a possibility for a role for automatic air and electrical couplers.
4. Should that happen development of an heritage-compatible Janey coupler with automatic air and electrical coupling and solutions to vertcal movement displacement appears to be the best approach.
I believe British Railways had automatic couplers on electric multiple unit trains that combined knuckle couplers with automatic air and electrical connectors. Knuckle type couplers are called "Buckeye" couplers in the UK. However, Scharfenberg and Dellner couplers have proven more effective and were more frequently used. Dummy knuckles are available for emergency connection to Janney type couplers.
I should observe that fully automatic couplers are not a precondition for successful operation of ECP brakes. All of the very successful operations in Australia have standard knuckle couplers, conventional air hoses and ECP cables with two pole connectors to AAR recommended practices.
I note that both of the "2040" visions referred to wireless ECP operation. There seems to be an impression n the USA that ECP cables are unreliable, which is not evident in the day to day operation in Australia.
(I must admit that the runaway on the BHP line resulted from an ECP cable parting, but it was only the comedy of errors that followed that allowed a disaster to develop. If it had been filmed the attempts to correct the situation would have rivalled the Keystone Kops, particularly track maintenance crews applying handbrakes on an adjacent empty train which they believed to be the defective loaded train...)
I noted that the 2014 version of the 2040 vision included knuckle couplers and manually connected air pipes but required a yet to be developed wireless connection for the ECP brakes. That seems strange for something that works reliably on six separate operations all over Australia every day.
And as has been said here, ECP was adopted in Australia because the commercial operators thought it would cost less to use ECP rather than conventional air brakes. Only the first user took the risk, the others just watched and saw what worked.
Peter
daveklepper I am not disagreeing with you. Simply pointing out that the Janey coupler can be developed into an automatic coupler that can still function as a regular Janey coupler, and so in North America, adapters and more than one coupler at each end are not required. That is the only point I am trying to make.
I am not disagreeing with you. Simply pointing out that the Janey coupler can be developed into an automatic coupler that can still function as a regular Janey coupler, and so in North America, adapters and more than one coupler at each end are not required. That is the only point I am trying to make.
That is very true. You can simply add to the current couplers, the features that will make the air joint automatically as the couplers mate. I once spent a great deal of effort designing and prototyping such a device. But patent searches indicate that the dreams of automating the air connections date back to the invention of the air brake. There must have been millions of inventors working on the idea. What I learned in my development effort is that a lack of workable inventions was not what prevented the concpet from being adopted for use. What held it back was cost. Also problmetic was finding a reliable air connection; or at least finding one as reliable as the manually connected glad hands on hoses.
In addtion to drawbar slack, couplers have their own slack, and that has to be accommodated with any air connector added to the couplers. The glad hands ramp the rubber seals into compression as the glad hands are rotated, and the rotation brings the seals into compression in a rotational motion while both seals are aligned. So there is no tendancy for the ramping friction to dislodge the rubber seals. I explored ramping the seals into compression by the linear bypassing of coupler planes as they came together during coupling. But this posed problems with coupler slack changing the port/seal alignment besides requiring complex guide features to align the bypassing faces of the air coupling.
So I changed to an axial compression of the round rubber seals as the knuckle couplers mated. I also developed a cone/pin, left/right mechanical guide that would gather the two air couplers into alignment as the knuckle couplers came together. Later I discovered that the same cone/pin alignment feature has been widely known and used in transit application.
But even with all this promise, there remained the problem of the industry simply not wanting such an improvment; and the problem of making the air joint reliable.
The main driver for this improvment was cost reduction of labor to couple air hoses and to eliminate the need for a person to be in such a dangerous locations as required to couple the hoses.
Euclid is correct. Past history of US railroads informs anyone willing to listen that most/all the safety appliances adopted over the past 100+ years were mandated upon the resisting railroads.
daveklepper One matter where I am in full agreement with my critics: Electrical - Electronic control of braking should arise out of economics and a decision by the railroads and not by Government fiat. Ditto automatic couplers. And they do not make sense without ECB. My proposal is strictly a "what if." But my proposal involves no dual drawbars or heavy adapters or transition cars.
One matter where I am in full agreement with my critics:
Electrical - Electronic control of braking should arise out of economics and a decision by the railroads and not by Government fiat.
Ditto automatic couplers. And they do not make sense without ECB.
My proposal is strictly a "what if."
But my proposal involves no dual drawbars or heavy adapters or transition cars.
Dave,
What exactly is your proposal for conversion logistics of existing rolling stock to new fully automatic couplers with air and electric connections, and ECP brakes? I don't follow your plan for the conversion. I agree with your point that it makes sense to convert unit trains first as they are the low hanging fruit. But then they benefit the least from the modern upgrades. How much time would it take to convert a 120-car unit train?
The details of the conversion plan for both ECP brakes and fully automatic couplers have been very sparse in all articles and reference material on the subject. What I have outlined above is my interpretation of the EU proposal as based on one tidbit of information I have read about it. That is that they are considering an onboard system that allows the selection of either type of coupler for any given joint.
But I am not convinced that they will actually make this change once the details of the conversion become more evident. As far as I know, they may not have any conversion process actually developed and documented. If they do, I would definitely like to see it. What I have described above is the most detailed proposal that I know of.
The EU plan seems to be driven by the pie-in-the-sky idea of achieving a total high tech modernization rather than just a coupler improvement. Right now, they seem to be thinking of all the improvements that might fall under this umbrella objective. So they are thinking about couplers and brakes. They are also, no doubt, thinking about train sensors for every inspection possible, and the information from all the sensors would require all of the electric power/electronic digital connections as part of the new couplers.
But this sweeping EU objective for a high tech rail revolution will certainly have to include automatic trains and automatic switching.
For the U.S., I don’t see either new couplers or ECP braking ever happening unless they are mandated. Of the two improvements, ECP is the most likely to be mandated. I am sure that the mini-mandate for ECP equipped crude oil trains gave the industry heartburn. They had to see that as a very disagreeable precedent with the camel’s nose getting under the tent. The industry fought back by saying that only 1% of accidents involved brake failure, as if that is the only benefit of ECP.
Any car with the new equipment in my "what-if" proposal can act as a "transition car.," and no adapter is reuired.
EuclidSo how is a worker going to hand manipulate this heavy assembly consisting of two different couplers and the dual drawhead they are mounted on? It seems like this feat will require power equipment. It could be a piece of mobile equipment with hydraulic arms and grippers that could reach out, grab the coupler/dual drawhead assembly, and switch it to the alternate position.
Gundam!
...a-and this also solves the problems with flat switching, as boarding and leaving can be done as easily at 50mph as at 10 ... heck, you could probably dispense with the switchers entirely.
With ECP or fully automatic couplers, the main downside is the cost of the conversion. The issue with conversion is the need to install the upgrade while retaining the old couplers that the upgrade intends to replace. This strategy maintains car interchangeability through the long process of converting all the rolling stock.
For the EU conversion, what is said to be under consideration is a kind of dual coupler drawhead. It would be mounted on the car drawbar, and present the old and new coupler equipment. Then with each train consist, these selectable drawheads would be manually set to either the old system or the new system depending on whether the joint is composed of two new systems, two old systems, or one of each system.
Once the total conversion is complete, the dual coupler phase would end, and all of the selectable dual coupler drawheads would be removed and scrapped. Then the new coupler will be installed by attaching it to the car drawbar to which the dual coupler drawhead had been attached.
So, for this conversion strategy, there must be the development of a dual coupler drawhead with the necessary moving parts to allow it to be set with either coupler choice needed for a given car joint.
Not only will this conversion process require a new dual drawhead to be installed, but it may also require a redesign and modification to the existing car drawbar, which is presently composed of several parts. Ideally, this revision of the car drawbar can be avoided, so that the dual coupler drawhead could be attached to the drawbar without any modification of the drawbar.
But the main challenge will be in the design of the dual coupler drawhead. This component will need a moveable mechanism of linkages to allow it to be shifted from one coupler mode to the other, and all of its mechanism will have to be robust enough to withstand the extreme buff and draft forces in a long freight train. Therefore the selection operation of the dual coupler drawhead will require the moving an assembly consisting of both couplers and the robust drawhead. I am guessing that this assembly will weigh at least 4,000 pounds. What is the weight of one standard coupler in use today?
So how is a worker going to hand manipulate this heavy assembly consisting of two different couplers and the dual drawhead they are mounted on?
It seems like this feat will require power equipment. It could be a piece of mobile equipment with hydraulic arms and grippers that could reach out, grab the coupler/dual drawhead assembly, and switch it to the alternate position. These mobile units would have rubber tires and be stationed at any point where they are likely to be needed.
A more modern thinking alternative would be to simply power each of the dual coupler drawheads so they could be switched without human effort, other than just pressing a control button. Maybe this button switching could be done by remote control for more keeping in the spirit of modern automation.
But now we have a motorized dual coupler drawhead with no easy access to a power supply, since the old coupler system has no ability to bring power through a cable from the locomotive. So the dual head would have to be battery powered. Then each car would need a generator connected to one of its axles.
Then when the conversion is complete, all the motorized, dual coupler drawheads (2 per car), the power generators, and the batteries would all be removed and scrapped.
In addition to all this costly logistics of the conversion, there is also the cost of the new coupler compared with the old one. The new couplers in the videos appear to be very sophisticated mechanisms with precision machining that might be found in the construction of a diesel engine, for example. This costly precision of the new couplers is nothing like the robust, loosely fitted, and non-lubricated components of the current standard automatic coupler.
Also, the new couplers have that added functionality of the automatic air connection and the automatic electrical power/electronic connection, and their power source to make them operable by remote control. All of this has to be robust and low maintenance for all weather conditions, but also be extremely reliable. So I wonder if the new coupler might cost 5-10 times as much as the current standard coupler in use today.
In addition to the cost of the new coupler is the cost of the operational dual coupler drawhead, and its power drive system. Considering that this is a precision mechanism subjected to enormous tension and compression forces as well as impact forces, its cost will be significant.
It would not surprise me if the cost of building a new railcar with the dual coupler system will find the cost of the system for both ends of the car to exceed the entire cost of the rest of the car, including frame, superstructure, air brakes and trucks.
tree68How does that work for pre-blocking, where a train might have blocks destined for several different locations? Normally, that would mean that a train could drop that block relatively quickly. This would appear to mean that a train would likely have to drop two blocks at a given yard.
No further conversion inside the block, or insertion of devices or adapters by carmen as it is made up, will be necessary for optimal operation, although it might be mentioned that inserting periodic remote valves in automatic connections every 20 cars or so is easier, and accomplishes much of the short-term safety gain possible without ECP, so there might be incentive for applying 'two adapters and then a valve' between knuckle cars as the block is switched up ...
Note that the analogy with turn-of-the-20th-Century practice with conversion to power air brakes does not hold with ECP, and probably isn't best operating practice during coupler conversion even with relatively pervasive presence of converted equipment in 'random interchange' .
I suspect a great deal of Mickey Mouse switching would be required to get each block organized so that all the converted cars are in their own block (or part of the train) and all the unconverted ones in theirs, and I think you're still going to need some number of applied adapters of some kind to make block switching fully practical for what it's intended to do.
I personally don't see a happy future in 'doubling up' work by having one set of blocks in the converted part of the train, then a single adapter, then a corresponding set of blocks in the consist of the unconverted part. That has the same sort of ultimately specious attractiveness as placing an intermodal container in a train consist on the 'return trip' from picking one to stack it... turns out there's more confusion and delay doing it, even with computerized location tracking in the yard, than pulling everything to come off sequentially and then placing all the loads sequentially. (And believe me, I tried to figure out how to make pick-and-place work!)
daveklepper When we get to 30% or 40% of the loose-car fleet, the front of a block behind front or mid-train power would be EBC, with the air-only cars behind.
How does that work for pre-blocking, where a train might have blocks destined for several different locations? Normally, that would mean that a train could drop that block relatively quickly. This would appear to mean that a train would likely have to drop two blocks at a given yard.
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...
I don't think the new coupler makes economic sense without electrically controlled braking, and the two should be thoroughly tested before large-scale application.
Equipped also with normal air-hoses and gladhands, in mixed consist it will behave like today's modern freightcars. When we get to 30% or 40% of the loose-car fleet, the front of a block behind front or mid-train power would be EBC, with the air-only cars behind. Unit trains might be converted first, but their cars would still be equipped with air-hosesc if there is any possibility of a car being moved outside is assigned unit-train. When 90% of the loose-car fleet is ECB, then new and modernized cars can lack air-hoses.
I was thinking of the mechanical action of the coupler pull-in and locking, which is mechanically distinct from the 'draw' action of a Miller or the sideways face locking of the Tomlinson type and its variants.
If we need bad science fiction all we need is some Midichlorians in the trainline and the brakes will develop all the Force they need.
I am not sure why you are discussing 'really good acting' and most of the Star Wars movies past the Empire Strikes Back in the same sentence; it's like Isambard Brunel's discussion of coffee at the station restaurant in Swindon.
Overmod zugmann Those couplers in that German video look like they'd last about 45 minutes at most in many yards or industries. One good cross couple... Yeah, I'd think so; I don't think I have enough faith. They note the Scharfenbergs weren't robust enough for North American service, but these are 'beefed up Scharfenbergs'. I suspect they might not be beefed up quite enough if I understand their intended engaging and locking action correctly. I suspect Prof. Milenkovic can comment on this more properly.
zugmann Those couplers in that German video look like they'd last about 45 minutes at most in many yards or industries. One good cross couple...
Yeah, I'd think so; I don't think I have enough faith.
They note the Scharfenbergs weren't robust enough for North American service, but these are 'beefed up Scharfenbergs'. I suspect they might not be beefed up quite enough if I understand their intended engaging and locking action correctly. I suspect Prof. Milenkovic can comment on this more properly.
The line about "lack of faith" is when one of the Imperial generals, played by an actor with a British accent, offers a technocratic solution in the form of the supposed invulnerable defenses of the Death Star spaceship-fortress for fighting the Rebel Alliance and in so doing disrespects Darth Vader for his invoking "The Force" as being a discredited superstition. When Vader starts telepathically choking this general who dared criticise the Emperor's right-hand man, the line "I find your lack of faith . . . disturbing" is meant to be ironic in the face of this supposed superstition cutting off this man's ability the breathe.
The lack of faith, in this case, is not in a source of good but rather in the power of the evil Dark Side of The Force.
There has to be an analogy somewhere, in this discussion of air-powered brakes, between those who believe that the superior air brake system being expensive, yes, but invulnerable to the forces that may defeat it and those who believe that hidden, intangible factors can bring the mightiest of technologies to ruin?
And of course we know that people who speak with a British accent are the bad guys because the good guys speak with an American accent, only the bad guys are played by really good actors because of the traditions for acting on stage "over there" and the good guys are rather bad at acting who were cast for their good looks, but having believably menacing bad guys made it a good adventure movie?
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
Paul MilenkovicForget the Star Wars analogy, what you are describing is a hand air pump I bought 2 weeks ago from the hardware store.
The problem comes when the Big Push to convert the couplers to automatics reaches a point where the 'big savings' isn't seen to be there, or diminishing returns on investment happen, or there's a further recession/depression or change of government that squeezes the funding. Then you might be left with a protracted era in which some trains have automatics and some have 'legacy' couplers, perhaps indifferently maintained when 'they're going to be retired anyway soon'.
Yes, there are similar issues with ECP, but there is little question that the equipment works nicely as accelerated-release one-pipe when the "key is turned" that way... and the inspection path is straightforward to keep the ECP part of it serviceable whether 'called upon to serve' or not.
Note how carefully I have avoided the issue of large production runs bringing the cost of ECP 'kits' and spare parts/assemblies down. The silver lining is that the whole design for production is done; there's a potential problem that there might be changes partway through the conversion that make complete refit of equipment necessary or advisable -- the idiot "feature" of releasing the train brakes on a 2% grade without warning 'to save battery power' being a sure example.
It wuld be heavy and add to the work. I believe it my approach would involve less work overall. The new couplers would then be inspected along with all the specific equipment's brake equipment and any power equipment. The added inspections would reveal coupler defects before they translate into Break-in-twos.
daveklepperOvermod, I think the old problems you discussed can be solved
A considerable set of design options needs to be added when rapid changeover is required. And part of the key is the realization that a substantial percentage of cars cannot be cost-effectively converted to 'native' automatic couplers and are in service where they won't need to be. This to me argues for a single, reversible, robust conversion adapter that can join incompatible ends in what may be inclement weather without tools.
zugmannThose couplers in that German video look like they'd last about 45 minutes at most in many yards or industries. One good cross couple...
Overmod, I think the old problems you discussed can be solved; better steel, shelving as on most modern passendger car couplers, greater strength to avoid break-in-twos, all-in-all Using the best technoogy available.
No weather doors. Electrcal connections cut, blue flag, and simple ewiping of the contact faces before coupling when weather otr dirt requires it.
Euclid More specifically, it is the fact that so much money has to be spent on the changeover before any return can be realized. Individual, converted cars may be running around for ten years before ever coupling to a car with the use of their new equipment.
More specifically, it is the fact that so much money has to be spent on the changeover before any return can be realized. Individual, converted cars may be running around for ten years before ever coupling to a car with the use of their new equipment.
I find your lack of faith . . . disturbing.
Forget the Star Wars analogy, what you are describing is a hand air pump I bought 2 weeks ago from the hardware store.
"You mean you had it for two weeks and it broke now?"
"Yes, but this was the first time I needed to add air to a tire. It broke on the first pump stroke."
OvermodTo repeat: the transition to ECP is not difficult; it is merely expensive. Equipment is modified with the conversion kits, over time, in normal shop cycles or contract work, and therefore when the time to 'switch' actually arrives, conversion can be made in a matter of minutes a car.
Difficult = Expensive. When I refer to the conversion being difficult, the term is meant to fully contain the issue of cost along with any other undesirable issues that may arise. I don’t mean “difficult” only in terms of worker discomfort.
I believe the scope of the coupler changeover is what makes it difficult. More specifically, it is the fact that so much money has to be spent on the changeover before any return can be realized. Individual, converted cars may be running around for ten years before ever coupling to a car with the use of their new equipment.
OvermodPart of the issue is that, if going to a full new installation, getting rid of problems with vertical separation, broken knuckle woes, pins ejected while switching, etc. should be made. Of course, railroaders here can comment on whether one set of issues is being swapped for another...
Those couplers in that German video look like they'd last about 45 minutes at most in many yards or industries. One good cross couple...
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
The design of car for the transition will be interesting. For those cars that are new kuckle without transition the design can follow what China, Russia and north American cars are presently designed , What standard numbers will be the EU's standards of buff and pull? US or some lesser number?. Now transition cars will need those standards and the buff load designed for the buffers on the transition car. Probably have to be able to transfer the buff load to the new center of the car's draft gear.
Additionally the transition car will need the buffer air brake line installed . Anyone know if Europe uses the same glad hand as North America or something slightly different ? Should be no problem to design the new knuckle so that it will accept a link from old style cars.
Part of the issue is that, if going to a full new installation, getting rid of problems with vertical separation, broken knuckle woes, pins ejected while switching, etc. should be made. Of course, railroaders here can comment on whether one set of issues is being swapped for another...
There's a very long history of automatic make-and-break of air and electric connections together with 'normal' knuckle couplers; many of these predictably work when brand new and aggressively supervised to be kept in new condition, but 'do not survive actual contact with the enemies' -- heat, impact, dirt, water, and time. Anyone want to start a pool on the MTTF of those cute little weather doors -- let alone if given PSR-style maintenance priority over what may be a long expected service life? Or tot up the cost if the FRA mandates these as 'safety appliances' and requires 92-day inspections on them all...
With today's materials, a Janney=MCB coupler with all the automatic features and compatibilty is possible:
To repeat: the transition to ECP is not difficult; it is merely expensive. Equipment is modified with the conversion kits, over time, in normal shop cycles or contract work, and therefore when the time to 'switch' actually arrives, conversion can be made in a matter of minutes a car.
The chief issue with the dual system of couplers is much the same as replacing a single-track bridge: both couplers have to be in line with the draft gear and center sill; to be able to swing laterally to 'make' on curves, either the 'dual' arrangement has to pivot ahead of the draft gear (requiring it to be moved back in the under frame structure) or behind it (necessitating full duplication of draft gear and 'all that that implies' for the dual heads. Applying these changes together with harness and manifold changes would be exorbitant... and then, likely have to be done all over again to replace the heavy dual arrangement with a single 'new' head.
I think far likelier, given current yard-switching models, would be adoption of coupler adapters on a wider scale, particularly if the adapters are designed to be self-supporting once applied to a car. The chief difficulty then becomes the power equipment needed for carmen to work efficiently in yards (they can 'know' with reasonable efficiency which cars or ends need adapting with simple additions to car tracking). As with ECP the actual conversion from draft gear forward for the new system can be done incrementally, with 'changed' cars now able to be fully converted. Gradually the mix will change toward 'new' but older or legacy cars will still be accommodated.
Were it desirable, a similar model to that of ECP can be followed with adapters: when cars are shopped, they are given full conversion, with support brackets for deployed adapters, and then fitted with knuckle and hose adapters at both ends for interchange. As blocks are converted, the adapters can be removed at a common time; alternatively the bulk of the system can run 'as converted' and then on an agreed date 'switched over' (by exchanging adapters, mainly) from "majority knuckle" to "majority automatic" -- something that if necessary could be done in parallel over days or weeks, quicker if an arrangement can be made with carmen's unions to use contracted labor for this one task in the period of the switch.
A further advantage of this is that non-interchange cars can continue in service, using the by-now-costed-down adapters as needed, without expensive interchange modification.
Regarding my suggestion that converting rolling stock to ECP braking and to fully automatic couplers are similar challenges: In my opinion, the resemblance is obvious even without getting into the exact technical details of the actual design executions. I cannot think of one other loose car railroad upgrade that poses the challenges of converting to either one of these two which are ECP, and fully automatic couplers. Both are highly eligible for revision because the difficulty of changing them has frozen them for so long. Both are frozen because they are standardized, and interoperating between each piece of rolling stock, which is subject to continual re-grouping in within the national pool.
As I understand it, this EU conversion is testing various coupler products and designs and has not yet completed the process of the conversion strategy. I recall reading that the strategy was at least likely to involve equipping rolling stock with a dual system of the old and new couplers with the ability to unfold and use either one as required by the mating cars. This would allow the conversion to move at its own pace while maintaining full interchangeability. Then after the dual system is complete, the old couplers in the dual system could be gradually phased out.
In the process of that phase-out, the coupler mounting systems would also be changed and simplified to offer only the modern coupler.
So, this dual system approach avoids the challenge of instant conversion that would maintain compatibility; but it adds the burden of paying for and maintaining a dual system over a long period of time that it will take to make the conversion complete.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.