Redeployment or One-Person Crews?

[BaltACD]

jeffhergert

While one person crews may be in the future, they still need people now.  I heard we had two hiring sessions for my terminal last week.  Between the two sessions three people showed up.

Word has gotten around, the dismal turnout shows that.  And it's not because of talk of one person crews or crewless trains either.

The reason they're hiring is that so very few of those furloughed, many right after finishing their training a few years ago, didn't come back when they were recalled.

Jeff

That was the pattern for the last decade I worked.  Once furloughed the company was lucky if the got 20% back when recalled; then they had to hire off the street, train the new hires and repeat the process when the new hires ended up being furloughed.

[jeffhergert]

While one person crews may be in the future, they still need people now.  I heard we had two hiring sessions for my terminal last week.  Between the two sessions three people showed up.

Word has gotten around, the dismal turnout shows that.  And it's not because of talk of one person crews or crewless trains either.

The reason they're hiring is that so very few of those furloughed, many right after finishing their training a few years ago, didn't come back when they were recalled.

Jeff

[CMStPnP]

caldreamer

anti tank weapon

You would be relatively safe in the current Abrams tank against anti-tank weapons. BTDT, used to be my job to blow up tanks.   Large IED's another story.

[caldreamer]

I grew up in New York and even I would NOT UNER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES want to hang around the yard in the the south Bronx.  We called it FORT APACHE, and for a good reason.  I would not go there in an Abrams tank.  Some crazy would appear behind it with an anti tank weapon and blow you sky high. Now stop a train with no engineer in some big city (New York, Chicago or Baltimore and watch it get emptied really quickly.

[Lithonia Operator]

Murphy Siding

 

 For my money, I think I'd prefer the human that would hesitate before derailing the train and setting the town on fire.

 

 

Jeez. What a wet blanket.

[BaltACD]

Running trains is the easiest thing that railroads do in their business of transporting product between shipper and consignee.  The rest of the job is where the cost really are.

[tree68]

The New York Central accomplished a substantial part of the crossing elimination goal years ago, particularly along the Water Level Route.  Even some branch lines (the St Lawrence Sub, for one) have few crossings, exceptions being where it was impossible to go over or under roads, like in cities and villages.

Of course, roads and traffic were less of a factor when they did a lot of that.

And they weren't afraid to do things along that line - witness the re-routing of the Mohawk River not once, but twice...

[greyhounds]

Euclid

I am not sure where we differ.  When I say the real objective is to run autonomous trains I mean the real objective is to run autonomous trains for the purpose of making the most amount of money by reducing crews to zero persons rather than just reducing to one-person.   If I understand James Hill, he is saying to make the most amount of money; you haul freight at the highest possible price and reduce the operating cost of your trains as low as possible.  I don’t think monster trains reduce the operating cost compared to normal average size trains.  I think they raise operating cost, but that is partly offset by the reduced crew per ton cost. 

Well, there’s more to it.

 

Of course, you want to charge as much as you can.  But there is a trade-off.  There’s always a trade-off.  The more you charge, the less volume you sell.  At some point increasing the price becomes counterproductive.  Finding that price point is a worthy goal.

 

The “More to It” thing is the amount of revenue on the train.  If you’re charging the optimized prices the other thing you can do is increase the tonnage (AKA revenue) on the train.  i.e., make the train longer.  If the increased revenue (ton miles) goes up faster than the cost element (train miles) goes up this is a winner.

 

There is no magic number regarding train size.  Sometimes the long “Monster Trains” are the best solution.  Sometimes shorter trains are the best solution.  There’s no one answer that fits everything.

 

Automated trains, if and when feasible, will shift the equation in favor of shorter trains.  But longer trains should still have a place. 

 

One person crews will also shift the equation in favor of shorter trains.

[greyhounds]

Convicted One

Yes, but would an autonomous train sacrifice a schoolbus full of children to avoid derailing itself?

Just as an aside, I was on a school bus that ALMOST got hit by a freight train.  IIRC, I was in the 7^th grade.

 

I remember this C&IM SD18 coming right at me.  

 

We cleared the crossing by a few feet,  The bus driver was fired.

[Paul Milenkovic]

Murphy Siding

 

I mention upgrading the crossing gates as a way to eliminate some of the need for those braking decisions in the first place. Take, for example, of a couple arms coming down and the lights and bells coming on. Instead of that, suppose the Belin Wall dropped out of the sky on each side of the track, ensuring that there would be no collision. No collision, no braking issues, problem solved. Now there's just few technical details to work out.

 

 

 

The Berlin Wall?  Grade crossings to be protected by armed guards?

Actually, there is a 4-quadrant crossing gate system, and the gates slide into latches to block traffic in either direction on each side -- no zig-zag around the gates.  The gates may be rated to resist a certain weight of vehicle up to a specified speed from crashing through.

The previous Wisconsin State Director of Crossing Safety had made some arrangement to have them installed at a crossing of the WSOR at the corner of Old Middleton Road and Whitney Way in Madison, WI.  Don't know if that crossing was a high priority compared to other crossings, but this was some manner of a demonstration project.  I have to take a look the next time I drive by if they are still there.

[rixflix]

Lately I've been video-cab-riding Japanese railways, where the public seems to have reached a higher plane of civility when interacting with their trains. I "ride" the single track interurban style lines through dense cities, isolated hamlets and wonderful scenery. Vehicles, bicyclists and pedestrians universally stop at the crossing gates and stand behind the safety stripes on station platforms. Like in the USA, people need to get places and on time, but nobody tries to cheat, whether for an appointment or a seat. And by necessity I suppose, they are more intimately connected with their railways, whereas here we usually regard them as a nuisance. Witness all the photographers in the videos.

The train operators cruise, sometimes at alarming speeds, through congested areas apparently confident that there will be no problems with the turnouts, gates, vehicles or trespassers. Regarding livestock and wild animals except for birds, well you never see them, though deer crossing signs are evident. These lines could seemingly be operated autonomously but hey, people need work and  economies need freely flowing money and goods.

I'll have to look at their largely separated freight operations next. Also the Japanese seem to have put the kind of priority on infrastructure that we have put into defending us, them and the rest of the "free" world.

In any case, check out 4K Japan railways on Youtube for a fun time.  

Sayonara Y'all,

Rick

[Overmod]

Murphy Siding

I mention upgrading the crossing gates as a way to eliminate some of the need for those braking decisions in the first place.

This has been a government and lawyers' answer for time immemorial; in fact, it is the organized government action that replaced 1920s ATC as a priority.  Ideally you close the crossings in such a way no one could trespass... or roll trucks downhill to foul ... or fall off overhead bridging or bash decks out of line.  Or have hydraulic barriers rise up out of the road, or fences and crash-barrier webbing fold down out of arms.  

And always have someone else pay for it and maintain it.

I actually worked out a solution to protect private crossings, but it became too difficult to implement it coherently within the framework adopted for mandated PTC.  That is the next great list of problems to be solved with technology after all public road crossings are indefeasibly gated (or otherwise fully protected) 100% of the time under 100% of the circumstances.

(/sarc, in case it might not be clear)

I suggested, only partly tongue-in-cheek, that all the ideas and proposals for the Mexican "wall" ought to be adapted, and equally government-subsidized, for any right-of-way with operations faster than, say, 40mph.  That won't fix getting scooter wheels stuck in the grade-crossing gaps, though.  And it won't fix bravado, it won't fix expedience, it won't fix various kinds of stupidity or fatigue or ignorance ... and it won't fix what Zug brought up, the bending of good judgment when slowly-moving monster trains come to be perceived as the norm...

[Murphy Siding]

Euclid

 

Murphy Siding

 

Convicted One

Yes, but would an autonomous train sacrifice a schoolbus full of children to avoid derailing itself?

 

 

 

 

I gotta admit, I went back and read euclid's post again. It sure seems like he's suggesting that the autonomous train wouldn't stop for the school bus. To be honest though, it's not quite clear, due to some circular logic being involved. It'd be best if re-explained what he meant. One thing is clear though. He suggests that I would be too timid to use the brakes for fear of derailing the train? Again> huh? I've never said that.

 

 

 

 

 

Re the sentence fragment-

“…and unlike the human engineer, the autonomous operation would not hesitate to apply braking because it worries about derailing the train and setting the town on fire.” 

The post where I brought this up above is too confusing because the above sentence conveys two conflicting meanings at the same time.  The wrong meaning is:  The autonomous train applies braking because it worries about derailing the train and setting the town on fire.  The actual meaning is that it applies brakes because it does not worry about derailing the train because of applying the brakes.

I am sorry for the confusion.  I also went back and edited that post to remove the above sentence fragment.

The point, as we have discussed in other threads, is that a human engineer may wait to apply braking until a collision has occurred because until that point, they will not actually know if a collision will occur.  This prevents an inconvenience of an unnecessary emergency application.  Engineers might do this as a matter of operational philosophy.  I am convinced that is a bad philosophy.  So, my point above is that the autonomous operations will not have that operational philosophy unless it is programed in, which I would not expect.   

I brought this up in regard to what you said about a need to upgrade crossing protection if autonomous operation is adopted.  I don’t see such a need, and do not know why it would be required. 

 

Thank you. I understand your meaning now.

I mention upgrading the crossing gates as a way to eliminate some of the need for those braking decisions in the first place. Take, for example, of a couple arms coming down and the lights and bells coming on. Instead of that, suppose the Belin Wall dropped out of the sky on each side of the track, ensuring that there would be no collision. No collision, no braking issues, problem solved. Now there's just few technical details to work out.

[Overmod]

zugmann

It is going to do whatever the programmers program it to do. 

Except that where that simplistic approach has been tried in PTC, particularly in NAJPTC, it causes more problems than it solves.  The 'legacy railroad approach' of piling rules on top of rules to cover more and more issues that come up only complicates what actually happens in real life: see the accidents at Cayce and, more recently, at Bromfield on the Lickey Incline in Britain for examples where no amount of 'rules' made any difference.

It has been my opinion for decades that proper systems of artificial intelligence need to be applied along with expert systems (in fact, I use a composite term to describe that) in any safety-critical system.  Note that I use the plural: this is a larger plural than a system like current PTC employs.

In my opinion the system can be 'architected' so it produces either a minimum-time or minimum-length stop, and it can know moment to moment which of these is a 'better' or 'safer' alternative.  That is not really any different from Joe's opinion that the morals and ethics of a trained engineer govern all right action behind throttle and brake -- the argument there also being what the right response under the right emergent priorities should be.

I have no hesitation in saying that 'general response' of an autonomic system is to modulate smooth application of full service as its 'first response' if there is no discrimination of full-effort emergency.  I'd have no problem testifying in court that that is the 'safest' overall method of taking way off a freight train with conventional one-pipe brakes, or training personnel that it's a way that their conscience can be clear that they've done the best thing for all concerned... if they need that reassurance.  

Others of course can, and do, and will, disagree with this, and I don't consider them 'wrong'.  Nor would I dictate to professional railroaders what they should or shouldn't do, either as a 'rule' or in particular situations.  But as a method of training in a world full of pitfalls and tolerated shaming, I think it has advantages.

[zugmann]

Even if we get autonomous trains - it's not going to be some magical thing of whether it dumps the train or not.  It is going to do whatever the programmers program it to do. 

 

"It just runs programs!" -  quote from Short Circuit. 

 

So this same, tired discussion will never end. It will jsut change to "should the train be programmed to...blah blah blah.."  

 

 

[Overmod]

To my knowledge Euclid has always, like Joe, supported the idea that 'emergency' should always be used in these circumstances, whether or not it might derail or damage the train.  To the extent that an autonomous train represents the 'best practice' of a human engineer, the same braking preference would apply.  I would argue that the autonomous train could better implement the idea of modulating full service and controlling/setting DPUs to set the train up (with knowledge of local conditions) before going to full emergency, but that is more a matter of programming.

[Euclid]

Murphy Siding

 

Convicted One

Yes, but would an autonomous train sacrifice a schoolbus full of children to avoid derailing itself?

 

 

 

 

I gotta admit, I went back and read euclid's post again. It sure seems like he's suggesting that the autonomous train wouldn't stop for the school bus. To be honest though, it's not quite clear, due to some circular logic being involved. It'd be best if re-explained what he meant. One thing is clear though. He suggests that I would be too timid to use the brakes for fear of derailing the train? Again> huh? I've never said that.

 

 

Re the sentence fragment-

“…and unlike the human engineer, the autonomous operation would not hesitate to apply braking because it worries about derailing the train and setting the town on fire.” 

The post where I brought this up above is too confusing because the above sentence conveys two conflicting meanings at the same time.  The wrong meaning is:  The autonomous train applies braking because it worries about derailing the train and setting the town on fire.  The actual meaning is that it applies brakes because it does not worry about derailing the train because of applying the brakes.

I am sorry for the confusion.  I also went back and edited that post to remove the above sentence fragment.

The point, as we have discussed in other threads, is that a human engineer may wait to apply braking until a collision has occurred because until that point, they will not actually know if a collision will occur.  This prevents an inconvenience of an unnecessary emergency application.  Engineers might do this as a matter of operational philosophy.  I am convinced that is a bad philosophy.  So, my point above is that the autonomous operations will not have that operational philosophy unless it is programed in, which I would not expect.   

I brought this up in regard to what you said about a need to upgrade crossing protection if autonomous operation is adopted.  I don’t see such a need, and do not know why it would be required. 

[tree68]

Convicted One

I guess that I just grew up in a very different world? 

It's probably at least partly that teenage attitude of "it can't happen to me."  Some never grow out of it.

[BaltACD]

Convicted One

I guess that I just grew up in a very different world?  I was always told  if you run thru a  flashing crossing, to expect disaster, or if you resist arrest, bad things are gonna happen to you. Responsibility was YOURS.   Now days everyone who doesn't have deep pockets, is a victim.  

And every victim that has deep pockets buys their way out.

[Convicted One]

I guess that I just grew up in a very different world?  I was always told  if you run thru a  flashing crossing, to expect disaster, or if you resist arrest, bad things are gonna happen to you. Responsibility was YOURS.   Now days everyone who doesn't have deep pockets, is a victim.  

[tree68]

Convicted One

It's usually passed off as "it depends" or "each situation is unique"

One key factor with crossings is that they often represent a dynamic situation, not a static one.

A static situation would have the obstruction in view well before a train arrives at the crossing.

A dynamic one would be like the videos that were circulating a while back where  cars full of teens arrived at the crossings, at speed, at the same time as the locomotive.  

And there's a long continuum in between.  

I don't care how good the sensors are - such collisions are going to happen, barring elimination of all crossings on autonomous routes...

 

[Convicted One]

Murphy Siding

suggests that I would be too timid to use the brakes for fear of derailing the train? Again> huh? I've never said that.

Just my "gut".   The discussion is actually grounded in a belief held by some that engineers have either been instructed, or have a personal preference, to hit encroaching cars rather than putting their trains into emergency.  Whether this is official or not, or whether this is safety driven, or vengence driven never really gets conclusively nailed down. It's usually passed off as "it depends" or "each situation is unique" .

So, the nominal aspect of fear, would be for one's job security, not any fear of the vehicle.

 The schoolbus, as a plot device, usually serves as a grounding rod.

I'm no railroader, but my general inclination is that it's likely easier to explain "I hit a car violating a crossing" than it is to explain putting your train on the ground, unless, of course,  the car is one of those long yellow ones. 

The other side of that, of course, if you put your train into emergency everytime you see a car that might foul a crossing, in adequate time to stop the train before impact, you'd probably have a hard time explaining that too.  

[jeffhergert]

Longer trains may cut down on the number of meets. However, our recrew report is full of trains that die because they can only be met, or passed, at one or two sidings.  

John Kneiling in one of his columns where he addressed autonomous trains felt that crossings should have a metal detector or something similar to detect objects on the tracks.  The train could be programmed to stop if something was detected.  His view was that the train should be programmed to stop only if the object was large enough that it might imperil the train.  If the object didn't meet the set criteria, the train should just plow through it.

Jeff  

[Murphy Siding]

Convicted One

Yes, but would an autonomous train sacrifice a schoolbus full of children to avoid derailing itself?

 

I gotta admit, I went back and read euclid's post again. It sure seems like he's suggesting that the autonomous train wouldn't stop for the school bus. To be honest though, it's not quite clear, due to some circular logic being involved. It'd be best if re-explained what he meant. One thing is clear though. He suggests that I would be too timid to use the brakes for fear of derailing the train? Again> huh? I've never said that.

[Convicted One]

Yes, but would an autonomous train sacrifice a schoolbus full of children to avoid derailing itself?

[Murphy Siding]

Euclid

 

 

Murphy Siding

 

Euclid

... And unlike the human engineer, the autonomous operation would not hesitate to apply braking because it worries about derailing the train and setting the town on fire.

 

 

 

 

Huh?  That doesn't make autonomous trains sound very appealing. For my money, I think I'd prefer the human that would hesitate before derailing the train and setting the town on fire.

 

 

 

 

 

Think about it. Of course you don’t want to burn down the town.  But how are you going to know if making an emergency application will even derail the train let alone cause deadly mayhem?  It is always possible.  So what do you do?  If you take your side on the issue, you never use the emergency application.  

You may think that of course you will use it, but you still may hesitate and cause a death that may have been prevented had you not hesitated.  The problem is that you develop a mindset of second-guessing the need for an emergency application due to an overabundance of caution.  But it can cause you to freeze when a hard choice is necessary.  Carrying this mindset is a liability.

It is simply not your job to assume the responsibility for every mishap that may occur due to the use of the train brakes.  Making an emergency application when it proves to have not been needed is far less harmful than not making one that proves to have been needed. 

 

You're not convincing me that it's better to have an autonomous train derail and burn down a town all of the time, verses having a human involved where the chances of averting disaster are higher.

     You also sell the engineer short. The engineer has the experience running a train. You don't. Just because you would freeze up and become indecisive doesn't mean a trained professional would.

[Euclid]

Murphy Siding

 

Euclid

... And unlike the human engineer, the autonomous operation would not hesitate to apply braking because it worries about derailing the train and setting the town on fire.

 

 

 

 

Huh?  That doesn't make autonomous trains sound very appealing. For my money, I think I'd prefer the human that would hesitate before derailing the train and setting the town on fire.

 

 

Think about it. Of course you don’t want to burn down the town.  But how are you going to know if making an emergency application will even derail the train let alone cause deadly mayhem?  It is always possible.  So what do you do?  If you take your side on the issue, you never use the emergency application.  

You may think that of course you will use it, but you still may hesitate and cause a death that may have been prevented had you not hesitated.  The problem is that you develop a mindset of second-guessing the need for an emergency application due to an overabundance of caution.  But it can cause you to freeze when a hard choice is necessary.  Carrying this mindset is a liability.

It is simply not your job to assume the responsibility for every mishap that may occur due to the use of the train brakes.  Making an emergency application when it proves to have not been needed is far less harmful than not making one that proves to have been needed. 

[BaltACD]

Murphy Siding

 

Euclid

... And unlike the human engineer, the autonomous operation would not hesitate to apply braking because it worries about derailing the train and setting the town on fire. 

Huh?  That doesn't make autonomous trains sound very appealing. For my money, I think I'd prefer the human that would hesitate before derailing the train and setting the town on fire.

Euc is investing in town renewal - the next big investment sector.  After the town burns there will be a lot of building supples sold to rebuild the destoyed buildings; not to mention the loans that will have to be obtained to facilitate the reconstruction.

[Murphy Siding]

Euclid

... And unlike the human engineer, the autonomous operation would not hesitate to apply braking because it worries about derailing the train and setting the town on fire.

 

Huh?  That doesn't make autonomous trains sound very appealing. For my money, I think I'd prefer the human that would hesitate before derailing the train and setting the town on fire.