BNSF will require all leaders in a consist starting in 2021 to be equipped with Trip Optimizer. At least that's the plan as of now. Any unit without TO will be restricted to trailing.. Get your photos now just in case.
Besides running the train itself, the TO screen gives you a track profile (including slow orders and some foremen's limits) and shows you where your train is on it, as well as where any DP units are within the train. Quite helpful sometimes.
CN does not allow us to use the auto control part of TO if we have throttle notch restrictions (so far our version of TO isn't programmed to obey them), but it is still supposed to be initialized for those other safety benefits.
Greetings from Alberta
-an Articulate Malcontent
Thanks for the detail. I've never seen TO in operation though I have read about the features you mentioned, and have seen photos of the display. Does it produce any real fuel savings as claimed?
The railroads and system manufacturers will of course claim that it saves X amount of fuel, and I'm sure it does save some. Just like how driving at 55 mph really does save fuel.
Personally, I think that the savings from fuel are eaten up by congestion-related costs that are exacerbated by slower trains. But these are hard to measure and assign, unlike fuel consumption.
TO does find new and creative ways to break knuckles, but somehow it has yet to get any demerits. I refuse to use it in certain areas for this reason.
My understanding is the Trip Optimizer is a product that was installed on GE manufactured locomotives. EMD equipped their locomotives with a similar product by a different manufacturer.
So is this BNSF 'rule' mandating that only GE engines can be leaders on BNSF?
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
I wonder if this is also in line with not installing PTC on older equipment
BaltACD My understanding is the Trip Optimizer is a product that was installed on GE manufactured locomotives. EMD equipped their locomotives with a similar product by a different manufacturer. So is this BNSF 'rule' mandating that only GE engines can be leaders on BNSF?
That's correct Balt. If this plan follows through. None of BNSF's ACe, or MACs have TO.
rdamon I wonder if this is also in line with not installing PTC on older equipment
TO is integrated into PTC so I imagine that's a driving factor.
Both energy management systems are integrated into PTC. They don't show the entire train on the screen if it's over about 7200 feet long. (Supposedly they are working on that.) It doesn't show where DP consists are on the part of the train that does show on the screen. Before PTC, the screens did indeed show the entire train and location of DP consists.
The systems can be manipulated from the central office as to how "hot" or "cold" they run. LEADER (the EMD system) is better than Trip Optimizer at train handling. Trip Optimizer "plans" it's trip and then runs the train to that plan. That is, it runs the train to reach the speed it's estimated to do at a particular location. (TO shows it's estimate on the screen, LEADER doesn't.) If it feels it needs to go into dynamics going up hill or into power going down hill, it will do so. LEADER seems to be more flexible in changing plans as necessary.
We have spots that are challenging for train handling for some trains, mostly large manifests and the double coal trains. They are called "break in two" zones for obvious reasons. The EMS has torn up so many trains in these locations that we are now required to disengage EMS and run manually through these zones.
Jeff
Jeff always appreciate the info. Between LEADER and TO which one do you prefer? I understand LEADER was developed by New York Air Brake. What do you think about BNSF requring all leaders to have TO?
The first version of LEADER only prompted the engineer to change throttle/dynamic brake settings. It was bad with some trains. At the time Trip Optimizer which always has been auto throttle was better.
The current version of LEADER is auto throttle and it is better. It handles the train better. At least most of the time. I've recently had a couple where they waffle back and forth between power and dynamics. That was something the first version did quite often when cresting and starting down a hill. The current version usually, until recent experiences, didn't do that. Both systems do have a problem of not wanting to get into dynamics too deeply.
Both systems, although LEADER seems to do it more, will call for a minimum set on the air brakes when had they just gone into dynos, stayed in them and increased as needed, they wouldn't have needed the help of air brakes. They both also only call for a minimum set. (It's funny to see them say make a 6.5 psi reduction. As if we had precise enough control to do that.) Rules used to require at least a 10psi set before releasing the brakes. They changed that rule to reflect what EMS does, wants to have the minimum set released.
This is, so far, the only place I've seen saying BNSF requires TO lead engines. I would think if they wanted EMS lead engines, they would use both systems. Since PTC uses the same screen that the prePTC LEADER used, I would expect BNSF"s EMD (newer) engines to have LEADER.
Did Uncle Warren buy some Wabtec stock?
jeffhergert This is, so far, the only place I've seen saying BNSF requires TO lead engines. I would think if they wanted EMS lead engines, they would use both systems. Since PTC uses the same screen that the prePTC LEADER used, I would expect BNSF"s EMD (newer) engines to have LEADER. Did Uncle Warren buy some Wabtec stock? Jeff
SD60MAC9500 jeffhergert This is, so far, the only place I've seen saying BNSF requires TO lead engines. I would think if they wanted EMS lead engines, they would use both systems. Since PTC uses the same screen that the prePTC LEADER used, I would expect BNSF"s EMD (newer) engines to have LEADER. Did Uncle Warren buy some Wabtec stock? Jeff BNSF started this requirement in 2019. Next year they expect to have full compliance. At least that's their plan right now. I'm wondering the same thing about Uncle Warren.. Or maybe since Wabtec produces both TO and I-ETMS. Using a complete package from a single source prvides for easier trouble shooting/support(lower cost), etc. ..
Will 'Uncle Warren' be having the Leader units converted to Trip Optimizer? Wasn't BN one of the earliest purchasers of EMD's SD70 MAC's in quantity? Has Uncle Warren purged most of the Leader equipped locomotives?
BaltACD Will 'Uncle Warren' be having the Leader units converted to Trip Optimizer? Wasn't BN one of the earliest purchasers of EMD's SD70 MAC's in quantity? Has Uncle Warren purged most of the Leader equipped locomotives?
SD60MAC9500 BaltACD Will 'Uncle Warren' be having the Leader units converted to Trip Optimizer? Wasn't BN one of the earliest purchasers of EMD's SD70 MAC's in quantity? Has Uncle Warren purged most of the Leader equipped locomotives? Stay tuned.. Far as the MAC's go. It's expected they will eventually be retired.
The first of the AC traction locomotives are now approaching 25 years old.
The reality is that we are overdue on the next 'quantum leap' in locomotive technology and efficiency.
Watching the webcams .. still see green and cream first gen MACs ..
They recently had Progress Rail rebuilt several into SD70ACes units with new Mitsubishi inverters.
jeffhergert We have spots that are challenging for train handling for some trains, mostly large manifests and the double coal trains. They are called "break in two" zones for obvious reasons. The EMS has torn up so many trains in these locations that we are now required to disengage EMS and run manually through these zones.
Has of the other day, they removed the manual requirement through the "B-I-T" zones. They want EMS to run those areas again.
Along with this change were some enhanced "do's" and "dont's" for train handling. A few of the "dont's" are things that both TO and LEADER systems do all the time. Those B-I-T zones have specific guidelines, some of which most of us don't completely agree with. (But then we only know running actual trains in real life situations, not so much virtual trains on an enhanced video game, i.e. simulators.) The EMS auto throttle does not run those types trains subject to the guidelines anywhere close to them. I figured that's why they wanted us to run manually in the first place.
If a human tears a train up, and wasn't following the instructions, it's a possible disciplinary event. If EMS tears a train up, it's a mechanical failure.
jeffhergert jeffhergert We have spots that are challenging for train handling for some trains, mostly large manifests and the double coal trains. They are called "break in two" zones for obvious reasons. The EMS has torn up so many trains in these locations that we are now required to disengage EMS and run manually through these zones. Has of the other day, they removed the manual requirement through the "B-I-T" zones. They want EMS to run those areas again. Along with this change were some enhanced "do's" and "dont's" for train handling. A few of the "dont's" are things that both TO and LEADER systems do all the time. Those B-I-T zones have specific guidelines, some of which most of us don't completely agree with. (But then we only know running actual trains in real life situations, not so much virtual trains on an enhanced video game, i.e. simulators.) The EMS auto throttle does not run those types trains subject to the guidelines anywhere close to them. I figured that's why they wanted us to run manually in the first place. If a human tears a train up, and wasn't following the instructions, it's a possible disciplinary event. If EMS tears a train up, it's a mechanical failure. Jeff
Have they enabled any form of 'artificial intellegence' as a train handling learning tool to upgrade TO & Leader's understanding of the territories they are operating over and the results of prior train handling strategies those programs employed and then ungraded to account for the bad outcomes those programs have experienced from time to time.
No Engineer knows everything he needs to know the day he first marks up - he knows enough to get by, and every trip thereafter he learns more and more and more. Every engineer continues the learning process to the day he makes his last trip. TO & Leader should also be learning from every trip they handle - the consist data for the train as well as the operating parameters those programs have utilized SHOULD be saved data in the grand scheme of things, as should the outcomes over a particular territory - both good and bad.
We were told that LEADER, when engaged but in manual mode, was able to "learn" from what the engineer was doing. The LEADER program was supposedly built on data collected from multiple trips and engineers on a given territory. They were going to take the "best practices" from the data available. I don't know about Trip Optimizer. I know we have company employed LEADER techs that can work with the system, upgrades, etc. All changes to Trip Optimizer must come from GE/Wabtec.
I've heard from two different sources that the techs, who come out from time to time and ride trains, have admitted that the systems aren't as good as they are made to be. I've had techs ride with me, but I've never engaged them about how well they do or don't work. I did get the impression that these people don't understand how things work out in the field. They think a train can run up to and stop at a red signal. They don't understand about stopping off crossings or other operational considerations.
rdamon Watching the webcams .. still see green and cream first gen MACs .. They recently had Progress Rail rebuilt several into SD70ACes units with new Mitsubishi inverters.
The MAC's still in executive paint will be the first ones to be retired as some have already. As far as the MACe program that's in limbo currently. Only 20 have been uprgraded so far since the program started in 2016.
How well does the EMS operate with PTC?
The with PTC, the EM systems can "see" the signals coming up. They will get you down to 30 mph for the Approach signal before a Stop or signal requiring restricted speed. Depending on EMS' braking calculations, it will require the engineer to take manual control either at, or before the Approach. It depends on how long the block is from the Approach to the Stop/RS signal.
EMS assumes the train is going to go right up to the signal. Most of the time, that's not possible if you want to stay off crossings. So you have to take control earlier. That's the nicest thing about PTC. You can "see" 5 miles ahead (PTC can see 6 miles ahead but only displays 5 on the screen.) and can pick the best place to stop if you need to.
Ok OP so where's your proof of this? Cus I haven't heard or seen anything about this at all. the only thing is that if you don't have TO on certain trains and subdivisions then you have a 0/40 Restriction which is you can only use power below 40 mph to go faster than 40 you have to either coast or be in dynos.
GBSD70ACe Ok OP so where's your proof of this? Cus I haven't heard or seen anything about this at all. the only thing is that if you don't have TO on certain trains and subdivisions then you have a 0/40 Restriction which is you can only use power below 40 mph to go faster than 40 you have to either coast or be in dynos.
The information I got was from a few hoggers on the Seligman Sub. The plan is tentative so far..
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.