Just saw this on Arstechnica. Not sure if it belongs in Locomotives or the general forum, but I'll start here.
I thought the article did a good job of going over the obvious issues with the company's use model. I think the idea of autonomous rail vehicles with shorter trains (or platoons) is interesting, but I think it would have it's biggest impact either moving containers from ports to inland ports or in replacing truck drayage and short and intermediate truck routes between cities.
https://arstechnica.com/cars/2022/01/moving-more-with-less-freight-startup-bets-on-autonomous-electric-rail-cars/
It looks imaginative but I'm not sure how practical the concept would be. Moving one container at a time would devour track capacity pretty quickly.
System abandons any economies of scale as it is being described.
Besides, the freight train has not yet attained the age of 200.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
CSSHEGEWISCHMoving one container at a time would devour track capacity pretty quickly.
Perhaps as a short-distance solution on dedicated track to move containers in and out of ports to nearby handling areas. That would free up space at the ports.
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...
It seems like we just had this discussion about a start up doing this not too long ago. Is it the same company? The proposed pictures of the eqiupment is different.
Jeff
As in the other post: even remotely practicable operation requires tremendous gains in real-world level 4 operation matched with three or more orders of magnitude costing down the enabling technology, including sensible GPS/GIS coordination for railroads in addition to roads.
For the prospective gains over dedicated block consists handled by autonomous road power, not worth it in any real world I see developing.
I don't want to be in a long line at a road crossing. I imagine the crossing gates will be going up and down like yo-yos.
York1 John
York1I don't want to be in a long line at a road crossing. I imagine the crossing gates will be going up and down like yo-yos.
For over 50 years it has been practical to run separate PRT vehicles with zero headway; if they are not in fact coupled, they can be designed and operated to keep a given level of pressure in contact with each other.
In all probability, if there is heavy traffic during a particular daypart the 'platoons' will be deployed to a length relative to speed that gives a peak wait time net of approach and clearing delay for the crossing protection, with a reasonable spacing between platoons to allow stopped traffic to clear 'in between'.
Traffic exceeding that density would call for grade separation or selective crossing closure anyway.
To get to a 'sensible' vehicle, we don't need more than a hybrid version of Kneiling's skeleton-construction articulated sets (or updated HPIT for TOFC) with modern AC motor drive instead of hydrokinetics and the option of fuel cells in addition to microturbines. It would be vanishingly simple to motorize three- or five-car well units, too, as the necessary equipment fits on the end platforms.
The thing some people seem to be missing is not that equipment like this can be built, or made to operate as needed. It is that to make the technology adequately pervasive would require colossal capital investment, at least on the order required for RailRunners or one of the endless self-loading container chassis schemes. In a world where ECP kits bring screams of excessive cost, but most of the revenue above commodity level has been squeezed out of intermodal, I don't see the large and fundamentally unsubsidized investment even being made -- look at the ROI even before maintenance of autonomous systems starts becoming an issue as the equipment ages.
I personally would like to see some mention of potential lanes where the equivalent of Triple Crown RoadRailer service could be provided by a manageable number of first-generation trainsets. That would include the guaranteed traffic, the guaranteed minimum-time or cheap-dwell intermodal handling, and the end-to-end provision of 'windows' at the right time the platooned 'consists on the main' can be accommodated.
BaltACD System abandons any economies of scale as it is being described. Besides, the freight train has not yet attained the age of 200.
"To make really simple...When the autonomous 'whatever it is' starts to move around... WHO blows the whistle? Just askin for a Union friend...
Pure autonomous trains would be 'blowing the whistle' automatically, based on a database of crossings in the GIS part of the guidance 'infrastructure'. This in fact simplifies some aspects of designing "safer" private or ungated crossings. Of course the massive sensor-fused system in a Level 4 Parallel Systems train (mostly sourced from automotive practice, modified to suit likely rail conditions) would blow the horn (including the special Canadian-style emergency alerts) where there is something on the track, but that isn't really any different from any other autonomous train, including 'cruise control' intermediate types of operation. Look for quite a bit of fun as Parallel Systems engineers independently rediscover all the interesting sources of confusion in a 'railroad environment'.
What is going to be interesting to watch is unionization of the programmers and support engineers for the autonomous rail infrastructure. If I were BLE/T I'd be looking carefully at that.
Down the road, with practical implementation of AI in the autonomous operation, I think the railroad unions should have 'a seat at the table' when design and operational development of those systems are made.
Here's another take on it. It makes sense to me.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJNvpG5gktM
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.