SD60MAC9500 Euclid I have read this link from Railway Age and have downloaded the PDF provided at the end of the article. It sheds light on issues surrounding autonomous train operation, monster trains, and inadequate brake control to mitigate in-train forces. https://www.railwayage.com/safety/whire-paper-management-of-in-train-forces-challenges-and-directions/ The PDF is: Management of In‐Train Forces: Challenges and Directions Railroad Safety White Paper Grady C. Cothen, Jr. Some railroads are interested in running so-called monster trains with Automatic Train Operation (ATO). This report advocates that monster trains also need ECP brakes to better control and mitigate in-train forces, which increase with train length. However, the industry opposes ECP brakes by saying that they are not reliable, cannot be maintained, are not necessary, and cost too much. The author makes the point that the monster trains are made possible and well served by the advent of distributed power, but are lacking in braking performance. So it is that deficiency in braking that causes excessive slack draft and buff forces that can cause derailments. The report goes into a lot of detail about in-train forces increasing as train length rises, and how the rising risk of derailment due to in-train forces may now be at or above a practical limit with monster trains. It goes into detail about train makeup, and how it becomes more critical with monster trains, while at the same time more likely to be compromised by the complication of making up the consists for monster trains. In other discussions, I have speculated that autonomous running (ATO or “crewless trains”) is a lot closer than most people realize, and when it happens, it will spell the end of monster trains. However, I don’t think the railroad industry has reached the same conclusion thus far. They view ATO as an essential ingredient to the monster train philosophy, and do not plan on including ECP brakes. The reason I believe that ATO will eliminate monster trains is that the primary reason for monster trains is to increase train tonnage per crew cost. But that reason will no longer exist once ATO completely eliminates crew cost. Once that happens, railroads can evolve to favor short, fast, and frequent trains, which would bring them into line with the true customer service implications of modern Precision Scheduled Railroading of the 21st Century. So what's your incentive for the majority private car fleet to be equipped with ECP?
Euclid I have read this link from Railway Age and have downloaded the PDF provided at the end of the article. It sheds light on issues surrounding autonomous train operation, monster trains, and inadequate brake control to mitigate in-train forces. https://www.railwayage.com/safety/whire-paper-management-of-in-train-forces-challenges-and-directions/ The PDF is: Management of In‐Train Forces: Challenges and Directions Railroad Safety White Paper Grady C. Cothen, Jr. Some railroads are interested in running so-called monster trains with Automatic Train Operation (ATO). This report advocates that monster trains also need ECP brakes to better control and mitigate in-train forces, which increase with train length. However, the industry opposes ECP brakes by saying that they are not reliable, cannot be maintained, are not necessary, and cost too much. The author makes the point that the monster trains are made possible and well served by the advent of distributed power, but are lacking in braking performance. So it is that deficiency in braking that causes excessive slack draft and buff forces that can cause derailments. The report goes into a lot of detail about in-train forces increasing as train length rises, and how the rising risk of derailment due to in-train forces may now be at or above a practical limit with monster trains. It goes into detail about train makeup, and how it becomes more critical with monster trains, while at the same time more likely to be compromised by the complication of making up the consists for monster trains. In other discussions, I have speculated that autonomous running (ATO or “crewless trains”) is a lot closer than most people realize, and when it happens, it will spell the end of monster trains. However, I don’t think the railroad industry has reached the same conclusion thus far. They view ATO as an essential ingredient to the monster train philosophy, and do not plan on including ECP brakes. The reason I believe that ATO will eliminate monster trains is that the primary reason for monster trains is to increase train tonnage per crew cost. But that reason will no longer exist once ATO completely eliminates crew cost. Once that happens, railroads can evolve to favor short, fast, and frequent trains, which would bring them into line with the true customer service implications of modern Precision Scheduled Railroading of the 21st Century.
I have read this link from Railway Age and have downloaded the PDF provided at the end of the article. It sheds light on issues surrounding autonomous train operation, monster trains, and inadequate brake control to mitigate in-train forces.
https://www.railwayage.com/safety/whire-paper-management-of-in-train-forces-challenges-and-directions/
The PDF is: Management of In‐Train Forces: Challenges and Directions Railroad Safety White Paper Grady C. Cothen, Jr.
Some railroads are interested in running so-called monster trains with Automatic Train Operation (ATO). This report advocates that monster trains also need ECP brakes to better control and mitigate in-train forces, which increase with train length. However, the industry opposes ECP brakes by saying that they are not reliable, cannot be maintained, are not necessary, and cost too much.
The author makes the point that the monster trains are made possible and well served by the advent of distributed power, but are lacking in braking performance. So it is that deficiency in braking that causes excessive slack draft and buff forces that can cause derailments.
The report goes into a lot of detail about in-train forces increasing as train length rises, and how the rising risk of derailment due to in-train forces may now be at or above a practical limit with monster trains. It goes into detail about train makeup, and how it becomes more critical with monster trains, while at the same time more likely to be compromised by the complication of making up the consists for monster trains.
In other discussions, I have speculated that autonomous running (ATO or “crewless trains”) is a lot closer than most people realize, and when it happens, it will spell the end of monster trains. However, I don’t think the railroad industry has reached the same conclusion thus far. They view ATO as an essential ingredient to the monster train philosophy, and do not plan on including ECP brakes.
The reason I believe that ATO will eliminate monster trains is that the primary reason for monster trains is to increase train tonnage per crew cost. But that reason will no longer exist once ATO completely eliminates crew cost. Once that happens, railroads can evolve to favor short, fast, and frequent trains, which would bring them into line with the true customer service implications of modern Precision Scheduled Railroading of the 21st Century.
So what's your incentive for the majority private car fleet to be equipped with ECP?
There is no incentive for railroad companies or private car owners to adopt ECP brakes unless it becomes mandated by government. The logistics of a conversion has always posed an insurmountable obstacle due operation of a loose car fleet used in North American practice. There are strategies such as an overlay conversion, or starting conversion of unit trains. But the industry believes the cost outweighs the benefit. So the only way ECP brakes will be adopted is by government mandate.
The industry came close to having an ECP mandate for crude oil unit trains, but they dodged that dreaded bullet by helping forge the ultimate solution to be just strengthening tank cars without converting to ECP.
In the meantime, they have hitched their wagon to the monster train concept starting with a U.P. test train back on 1/10/2010.
Starting right with that prototype test train, there was local government criticism of monster trains based on public safety and on grade crossing delay. The two basic issues were endangerment to the public and railroad employees from derailment severity increases resulting from the excess train length and tonnage; and blocking emergency vehicles at grade crossings. As I recall, the criticism included a sense of surprise that there was no legal limit to the length of trains.
This criticism has gathered momentum, with government now looking at the question of whether train length should be legally limited based on the question of whether the longer trains are more prone to derail, and whether crossing blockage is too long.
Now there are emerging plans to couple the monster train concept to autonomous train operation in order to finally achieve the movement of the most tonnage with no crew.
Unfortunately, this daring feat is reviving a call for ECP brakes. The author of the attached white paper says conventional air brakes is the weak link in the monster train concept when it comes to controlling in-train forces, so a switch to autonomous running absolutely requires a switch to ECP brakes. Then with DPU controlling power and ECP controlling braking (in conjunction with dynamic braking) in-train forces will be completely under control at a safe level. It would be ironic if the industry’s love of monster trains led them back to the hated ECP brakes.
BaltACD...and the airlines never implemented a fare structure designed to keep the planes flying at capacity.
I would opine that fares that would keep the planes at capacity may be incapable of keeping the planes flying financially...
Kinda like the railroads...
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...
Variable cost vs. fixed cost. More financial risk with fixed cost.
The only autonomous heavy freight trains running today are on the Rio Tionto railway in Western Australia.
They have ECP brakes.
While it is and independent and isolated system, they have more than 10 000 ore cars and 200 plus locomotives. Not all trains are autonomous since only the route from one major mine to the two ports are set up for autonomous operation, so on the other branches loco crew are used. But all ore cars and all locomotives have ECP braking.
Back in 1978, I took actual measurements of tension and compression forces at the 200th 130 long ton car in a loaded train both climbing grades and descending long steep grades using an instrumented drawbar.
My recollection is the the high compression forces were 600kN , something like 60 long tons force.
At the end of that particular run, an emergency stop caused by a mistake in the Yard Tower broke the train in five places, including one of the drawbars between car pairs. It was moving slowly on a gentle downgrade.
Rio tinto never considered running Autonomous trains before they had enough ECP braked ore cars, and as I said, all trains have ECP brakes.
All the iron ore carriers in that region, BHP, Fortescue and Roy Hill have all ECP fleets although none of those operators run autonomous trains. BHP is about the same size operation as Rio Tinto, the Forstescue, then Roy Hill.
Peter
Passengers are a lot more demanding and much less profitable than freight.
Still plenty of 747's left flying in cargo service.
Greetings from Alberta
-an Articulate Malcontent
blue streak 1 BaltACD There is only one piece (no puzzle) - move more freight with less manpower and less investment. It is applicable to all forms of transportation. Not necessairly true in the airline industry. Jumbo jets are being left in the bone yard where as B-737s both regular and Maxs are starting to be ordered.
BaltACD There is only one piece (no puzzle) - move more freight with less manpower and less investment. It is applicable to all forms of transportation.
There is only one piece (no puzzle) - move more freight with less manpower and less investment.
It is applicable to all forms of transportation.
In part because the airport infrastructure never got built up to adequately handle the Jumbo planes and the airlines never implemented a fare structure designed to keep the planes flying at capacity.
When two engine airliners were granted authority to fly the over ocean routes, the need for four engine Jumbo's wilted in fuel costs.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
There are a lot of pieces to this puzzle. Here are the pieces and their pros and cons. What would be the best choice of these pieces?
MONSTER TRAINS:
Preferred by railroads.
Pros: Haul the most tonnage per crew cost.
Cons: More delays and breakdowns per tonnage/cars moved. Raise questions of the danger of excessive duration of blockage of grade crossings, and excessive in-train forces which can cause derailments. Possible imposition of new Federal limits on train length/tonnage to address the issues of crossing blockage and dangerous excess in-train forces.
SMALLER, FASTER, & MORE FREQUENT TRAINS:
Not preferred by railroads.
Pros: Fewer delays and breakdowns per tonnage/cars moved. Better customer service and scheduling. No need for Distributed Power. No excessive crossing blockage. No excessive in-train forces.
Cons: Hauls the least tonnage per crew cost.
AUTONOMOUS (“DRIVERLESS”) TRAIN OPERATION:
Pros: Eliminates onboard crew cost.
Cons: Cost of equipment.
ELECTRONICALLY CONTROLLED PNEUMATIC (ECP) BRAKING SYSTEMS:
Pros: Eliminates all problems associated with slack action and resulting in-train forces.
Cons: Cost of converting the North American loose car fleet.
EXISTING PNEUMATICALLY CONTROLLED PNEUMATIC (PCP) BRAKING SYSTEMS:
Pros: Is established practice on all rolling stock and locomotives.
Cons: Sequential brake application creates dangerous waves of slack run-in and run-out that increase in danger as the total train length and tonnage increases. These problem grow worse as train lengths are maximized to monster level. May result in a Federal mandate to limit train length/tonnage unless converting to ECP brakes.
tree68 Euclid If that were the case, why are they so interested in automation? The money for labor comes out of a different pocket than automation. Automation is a capital expense that they can depreciate out over years. Labor is right now. Cut labor, you cut a portion of the expense of operation, which probably helps the OR.
Euclid If that were the case, why are they so interested in automation?
The money for labor comes out of a different pocket than automation. Automation is a capital expense that they can depreciate out over years. Labor is right now. Cut labor, you cut a portion of the expense of operation, which probably helps the OR.
Changes to tax laws can change how money of a corporation gets allocated.
Euclid Regarding cost of automation versus cost for human crews: I don’t see any way to conclude that the automation equipment will cost more than human crews.
Regarding cost of automation versus cost for human crews: I don’t see any way to conclude that the automation equipment will cost more than human crews.
For sake of discussion, lets say that the ATO investment per engine equals running a 2-person crew for 10 years. Why would they want to run more smaller trains when they can maximize their investment by running longer trains. >15k ft and ATO will require ground support.
rdamon Euclid The reason I believe that ATO will eliminate monster trains is that the primary reason for monster trains is to increase train tonnage per crew cost. But that reason will no longer exist once ATO completely eliminates crew cost. The 'ATO' headend and ground based devices will cost much more than a crewmember. One would think they would continue with long trains with legacy equipment with a robot leader.
Euclid The reason I believe that ATO will eliminate monster trains is that the primary reason for monster trains is to increase train tonnage per crew cost. But that reason will no longer exist once ATO completely eliminates crew cost.
The reason I believe that ATO will eliminate monster trains is that the primary reason for monster trains is to increase train tonnage per crew cost. But that reason will no longer exist once ATO completely eliminates crew cost.
The 'ATO' headend and ground based devices will cost much more than a crewmember. One would think they would continue with long trains with legacy equipment with a robot leader.
Yes, I think that is exactly what they will do. They want no part of ECP brakes. However, their venture into longer and longer trains, breaking all previous records, is now subjecting them to the possibility of a Federal limit on train length and tonnage.
And that limit may be far lower than current monster train practice let alone what they will do in the future.
Regarding cost of automation versus cost for human crews: I don’t see any way to conclude that the automation equipment will cost more than human crews. If that were the case, why are they so interested in automation? For proper comparison, you would have to compare total life cost of automation equipment with the number of human work cycles eliminated by the automation equipment.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.