SD70ace's vs AC 4400

[Anonymous]

it would be nice to see some B unit versions of the locos to save A units
i think UP & BNSF should consider this maybe even CP & CN or all 6 mountain RR's should this would help UP with there coal trains between Gillette Wy & north platte to sanantone train they use 3-4 locos on these they could use 1 A unit leading & 2 B units 1 front trailing & 1 rear helper . RR's like CSX & NS & some class 2's could use some better power in the apalachicola
mountains this would cut back on cab units and they couls retire some of there
old GEEPS they have served there purpose i think some B unit versions of the SD 50 - SD70 or even a B unit version of a SD45-2T would even help [8D]
whats your opinion[:D]

[Hugh Jampton]

in the overall scheme of things B-units would probably be more expensive as they'd be special orders.
Not having cabs on every unit reduces operational flexibility.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Hugh Jampton

in the overall scheme of things B-units would probably be more expensive as they'd be special orders.
Not having cabs on every unit reduces operational flexibility.

Unless you have a small video camera broadcasting LIVE from the front of the train. Then all of a sudden maintenence of bazillion of cabs becomes an expense :D You can run short hood, long hood, 3 b-units in front and 140 cars in front and still have a perfect (night) vision ahead. Actually - you can sit comfortably at the dispatch center and drive a train 300 miles from you :p

And imagine all railheads before their monitors watching that stuff on the internet :D

[Anonymous]

If the railroads wanted B units thjen GE and EMD would probably make them.

[M636C]

I think the last B units in the USA were BN's B30-7A1s from GE and ATSF's GP60Bs. Most of the GEs are out of service and there were very few offers for them when BNSF stopped using them, and it is understood that some have been broken up for parts.
BHPBilliton had the last three of their 40 GE CM40-8s delivered without cabs, but had cabs built and fitted to them about a year later, because it reduced the flexibility of the locomotives. BHPBilliton generally run the Dash-8s in back to back pairs, each with about 100 cars each carrying 125 tons of ore, and run up to three of these rakes in distributed power mode. They prefer to have each locomotive with a cab, although only one cab of six will be used when the train is made up. The trains are broken up again for running through the dumpers at Nelson Point, and sometimes the pair of locomotives is reversed if they are detached for servicing before the train runs through any of the dumpers (which lead to a balloon loop). So it is worth having cabs on each unit. As a temporary measure, BHPBilliton have purchased some ex SP SD40s which are not used as cab units (the cabs are not air conditioned) but they can be used in an emergency since all the controls and basic radios are provided. All the SD70 ACe units on order will have cabs.

Peter

[arbfbe]

Cabless units barely made sense when trains were powered with 4, 5 or 6 units. Now trains are down to 2 or 3 on the head end and the loss of flexibility of having a cabless unit in the consist is glaring. Probably no more cabless units until the trains go crewless.

Uzurpator, you idea lacks technical merit at this point.

[ValorStorm]

QUOTE: Originally posted by arbfbe


Uzurpator, you idea lacks technical merit at this point.

It certainly lacks union merit. And as for railfans enjoying online railroading, since 9/11 it ain't happenin'. Railroad equipment tracers used to be available to the public online. For the last 4 years only shippers have had access.

[GMS-AU]

Sort of a misleading subject heading for this one. I thought it may have been the age old question of which breed was better. However yes B units if noticeably cheaper then there might be a reason to use them. I see one of those GE B units BN had made its way to Michigan Central and lives behind an old Geep. Surprising more didn't go that way, but in the end its real handy to have that cab on board to drive with. In Australia double cab diesels are still common so when using only one loco on a train the loco doesn't need to be turned like steamers used to be.

G M Simpson

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by arbfbe
Uzurpator, you idea lacks technical merit at this point.

Care to elaborate? I know of some video installations on poli***EM-2 that ease the job when running long hood forward. Afair crews love it...

[Overmod]

The potential problems with video on locomotives (at least in the United States) are more with the practical implementation than with the technology. It's been practical, and technologically cost-effective, to put multiple video cameras of appropriate resolution, glare tolerance, etc. on locomotives for quite a few years. But this was also true of the elements of automatic train control as far back as the 1880s (I can document this directly from the Frank Sprague archives).

One important issue, for example, is how the signal from the cameras is relayed to the person in control (or in a single-crew scenario, in command) of the train. We have seen in a recent thread here that the (FRA-mandated) radio signal from two-way EOTs is often lost in spots around Chicago, e.g. through interference from electrical noise. There are modern methods used in data communications and digital television that overcome these problems -- but they have to be incorporated into a railroad video system rather than 'tacked on' as an option. There may be problems with the equipment that involve critical loss of detail or resolution without advance warning. What, may I ask, is the method by which a 'cabless' train on a busy main line is handled to a terminal when its leading camera fails? (More amusing, what if the same problem occurs if the train, God forbid, is being driven from a remote facility hundreds of miles away in Florida, Texas, or wherever...)

You can be pretty sure that any grade-crossing accident (or other incident) involving leading cameras on cabless units would be an invitation to plaintiff's bar, whether or not justified.

There isn't any doubt in my mind that video used as uzurpator indicated, to "ease the job when running long hood forward", is a positive thing. Keep in mind, too, that video need not be limited to one camera, or one range of light wavelength or even electromagnetic radiation alone. However, I do NOT think its purpose should be to eliminate safe cabs on locomotive consists -- if there's a question, keep the 'people box', just don't put a full set of fixed equipment and control desks in each and every locomotive...

My proposal for PTC in the 1980s involved putting the logic for practical freight emergency braking in a module that would be assigned to, and carried by, an individual engineer. The only thing required on each locomotive to implement the PTC control was a proportional air valve cut in around the train brake, a few sensors (such as speed and draft-gear extension and strain), and appropriate power supply, sensor, and communications connections. A similar paradigm could be applied to video and sensor systems (which, not coincidentally, might help address potential questions of confidentiality, etc. on the part of trainmen!)

At least one remote-control system that is actively being advertised and marketed today is capable of controlling MUed consists -- adding video to this would be a trivial exercise in DFM. Whether this stuff is actually a stalking horse for single-man crew for long-distance operation will be interesting to see. Hopefully the early experiments will only be amusing, and not tragic...

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by uzurpator

QUOTE: Originally posted by arbfbe
Uzurpator, you idea lacks technical merit at this point.

Care to elaborate? I know of some video installations on poli***EM-2 that ease the job when running long hood forward. Afair crews love it...

i kinda get the point way[#offtopic] but it sounds right crewless trains is near[8D]