return of ''B'" UNITS ?

1627 views
48 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    July 2008
  • 1,373 posts
Posted by rdamon on Tuesday, December 3, 2019 12:24 PM

According to Mr. Krug the GP60B did not have controls.

http://krugtales.50megs.com/rrpictale/GP60/GP60b.htm

  • Member since
    April 2007
  • 2,150 posts
Posted by Convicted One on Tuesday, December 3, 2019 1:34 PM

rdamon
According to Mr. Krug the GP60B did not have controls.

I don't doubt that there was not an onboard control stand tailored  to human use. but there had to be onboard servos, or valves or linkages that controlled such things as throttle, or sanders, or brakes....operated via the MU

 

  • Member since
    July 2008
  • 1,373 posts
Posted by rdamon on Tuesday, December 3, 2019 3:35 PM

I agree ..  wasn't that the basis of the UP CCRCLs

  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: US
  • 17,287 posts
Posted by BaltACD on Tuesday, December 3, 2019 6:47 PM

Convicted One
 
rdamon
According to Mr. Krug the GP60B did not have controls. 

I don't doubt that there was not an onboard control stand tailored  to human use. but there had to be onboard servos, or valves or linkages that controlled such things as throttle, or sanders, or brakes....operated via the MU

I believe all 'independent' B units have rudimentary 'hostler controls' for handling the units in and around engine shops and servicing facilities.  I personnaly saw 'hostler controls' in use on B&O F3's that were assigned to the Chicago Division between Willard and Chicago, when they being moved around the Roundhouse at Garrett in the late 1950's.

  • Member since
    September 2003
  • 8,960 posts
Posted by Overmod on Wednesday, December 4, 2019 7:57 AM

BaltACD
I believe all 'independent' B units have rudimentary 'hostler controls' for handling the units in and around engine shops and servicing facilities.

In this case, 'did not' does mean 'did not'.  There are no hostling controls, either for throttle or brake, on a GP60B, and no sensible way to manipulate the 'automatics' manually (except via something plugged into MU).  See the pictures, and Krug's note that the units had to be towed or connected to be moved.

It can be an interesting exercise to consider what would have to be added to one of these units to implement hostling control, including the necessary safe vision.

Premise with these high-horsepower B-B units was that they would always operate in multiple consists, the same way TR units would never be operated as 'a plurality of switch engines'.  That's still characteristic of how they're operated today.  It would make sense to 'economize' on the overall order by eliminating the hostling controls entirely, although providing a simple portable or semi-portable MU-box control of the sort applied to some steam locomotives would seem to me to be a common-sense alternative for facilities that regularly shopped these units.

  • Member since
    July 2008
  • 1,373 posts
Posted by rdamon on Wednesday, December 4, 2019 8:45 AM

More like,  how much could we save if we eliminated ..

  • Member since
    April 2007
  • 2,150 posts
Posted by Convicted One on Wednesday, December 4, 2019 9:51 AM

rdamon
wasn't that the basis of the UP CCRCLs

I'm afraid that you are over my head on that one, I don't have a qualified opinion to offer. 

  • Member since
    April 2007
  • 2,150 posts
Posted by Convicted One on Wednesday, December 4, 2019 9:56 AM

I believe there are photos floating around showing a Santa Fe A/B pairing of GP60s with the B unit in the lead...titled "long hood forward".

  • Member since
    March 2016
  • From: Burbank IL (near Clearing)
  • 11,593 posts
Posted by CSSHEGEWISCH on Wednesday, December 4, 2019 10:00 AM

rdamon

I agree ..  wasn't that the basis of the UP CCRCLs

 
UP's CCRCL's and similar equipment on other roads were basically RCO receivers which were MU'ed to locomotives in switching service that were not equipped with their own receivers for RCO.
The daily commute is part of everyday life but I get two rides a day out of it. Paul
  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: US
  • 17,287 posts
Posted by BaltACD on Wednesday, December 4, 2019 10:33 AM

rdamon
More like,  how much could we save if we eliminated ..

Without considering the corallary question - how much additional costs will be incured in special handling required and the loss of utility use?

  • Member since
    July 2008
  • 1,373 posts
Posted by rdamon on Wednesday, December 4, 2019 11:45 AM

CSSHEGEWISCH

 

 
rdamon

I agree ..  wasn't that the basis of the UP CCRCLs

 

 

 
UP's CCRCL's and similar equipment on other roads were basically RCO receivers which were MU'ed to locomotives in switching service that were not equipped with their own receivers for RCO.
 

Here is a link for some additional info:

http://utahrails.net/up-diesel-roster/upy-ccrcl.php

 

  • Member since
    April 2007
  • 2,150 posts
Posted by Convicted One on Wednesday, December 4, 2019 12:45 PM

rdamon
Here is a link for some additional info: http://utahrails.net/up-diesel-roster/upy-ccrcl.php

Thanks for posting that....and yes that certainly captures the function of what I was imagining.   I will have to say that at 256,000 lb, it exceeds what I had envisioned as a "dongle"......I was hoping more for  something in the size of a suitcase, but perhaps that is unrealistic? 

  • Member since
    July 2008
  • 1,373 posts
Posted by rdamon on Wednesday, December 4, 2019 2:07 PM
  • Member since
    September 2003
  • 8,960 posts
Posted by Overmod on Wednesday, December 4, 2019 3:45 PM

.

The usual impossible IT latency and stalling for ads.  Again.

  • Member since
    September 2003
  • 8,960 posts
Posted by Overmod on Wednesday, December 4, 2019 3:51 PM

You were wise to find them.

Note that there is no picture of the version in the NEMA weatherproof enclosure; the cabinet pictured is for hard-wiring/plumbing into a given locomotive.  They note that the unit can be easily moved between MU-capable locomotives in 'about 30 minutes' which indicates to me that it is bolted or screwed externally, probably with breakaway dedicated MU and brake hoses (with 27-pin and gladhand respectively at the 'business' ends)

The perceived use of the equipment is for slow-speed materials handling, probably similar to traditional 14mph-maximum RCO operation.  It would NOT be difficult to integrate multicamera/sensor-fused feed from the locomotive or wireless sensors to a screen on the device, a HUD, or other similar "legal" interface device; companies now produce color LCD screens good down to very cold temperatures.  I personally see no overt technical reason it could not be extended to provide both full proportional independent and dynamic braking, or notchwise speed control, or DPU radio communications to attached units not connected with the MU cable (for example, coupled to the opposite end from the receiver box).

What needs to be established is whether this device gives 'smooth' performance rather than the typical jerky RCO throttle and brake response.  Note the specific mention of being able to bail off the independent brake.  There is no reason that high-speed or extended functions could not be restricted to 'tethered' operation (with the remote being physically attached to the locomotive at some 'crew-safe' points without having to rely on radio LOS for runaway safety shutdown).

  • Member since
    September 2003
  • 8,960 posts
Posted by Overmod on Wednesday, December 4, 2019 4:17 PM

SD70Dude
But there are no windows, making it difficult for a human operator to take over even if there was a full set of controls in there.

That is why God invented the CCD camera and sensor fusion.

There are some issues that need to be provided, including the need for jitter and edge detection in the image, and probably a good way to pan and zoom the images, but nothing of the difficulty of sensing wires in low-level low-light flight guidance.

You'll probably appreciate the value of a couple of properly-hooded lenses in the NEMA external enclosure referred to in the Magnetek post.  Or slap on a wireless camera or two using an appropriately encoded protocol over WiFi or Zigbee (to name two).

This also, incidentally, is the answer for steam-locomotive conversions that need PTC 'at the leading end' of the locomotive. 

Note how quiet I become about the practical uses of outward-facing cameras on these setups.  Or a FaceTime-like camera on the remote box... with a convenience-store style thumbnail feed showing hands on the remote controls, with a running text of the control actions and time taken...

  • Member since
    December 2017
  • From: I've been everywhere, man
  • 1,848 posts
Posted by SD70Dude on Wednesday, December 4, 2019 9:27 PM

Overmod
SD70Dude
But there are no windows, making it difficult for a human operator to take over even if there was a full set of controls in there.

That is why God invented the CCD camera and sensor fusion.

I've been involved in a couple employee investigations where the outward-facing camera footage has come into play.  The current locomotive cameras are not good enough to see the indications on signals when the sun is out. 

And remember, once you install the camera you have to maintain it and keep it clean.  Railroads are terrible at both of those things.

Greetings from Alberta

-an Articulate Malcontent

  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: US
  • 17,287 posts
Posted by BaltACD on Wednesday, December 4, 2019 10:51 PM

SD70Dude
 
Overmod
SD70Dude
But there are no windows, making it difficult for a human operator to take over even if there was a full set of controls in there.

That is why God invented the CCD camera and sensor fusion. 

I've been involved in a couple employee investigations where the outward-facing camera footage has come into play.  The current locomotive cameras are not good enough to see the indications on signals when the sun is out. 

And remember, once you install the camera you have to maintain it and keep it clean.  Railroads are terrible at both of those things.

Watching many of the cab ride video - both foreign and domestic - I am unable to detect the signal colors most of the time.  It is difficult to figure out a signal system when you can't even see to colors.

A second thing, many light displays these days are becoming LED's.  While our eyes can't detect it - certain of our video cameras can - LED's have a frame rate - the video camera's frame rate may make the LED disappear.

  • Member since
    September 2003
  • 8,960 posts
Posted by Overmod on Wednesday, December 4, 2019 11:51 PM

BaltACD
Watching many of the cab ride video - both foreign and domestic - I am unable to detect the signal colors most of the time. It is difficult to figure out a signal system when you can't even see the colors.

This is correct, but most people have never seen the picture from a good commercial camera.  It might also be mentioned that the camera can be designed to be particularly sensitive to light of particular LED colors, or respond to genlocked modulation of the LED arrays in the signals.

It is also possible to incorporate phosphors into the envelope of the LED elements, so they 'glow' between strobe cycles and give the effect of persistence of vision.  This is part of why pseudowhite 'ambient' lighting using LEDs is no longer as cold and irritating as it was, and also a reason why the current generation of LED vehicle headlights does not have the selective-emission problems that earlier generations did.

A second thing, many light displays these days are becoming LED's. While our eyes can't detect it - certain of our video cameras can - LED's have a frame rate - the video camera's frame rate may make the LED disappear.

It is not the LEDs that have a rep rate, it's the cheap (or power-saving, or low-heat) multiplexing drivers that do.  There are two different versions of this: one is the kind of 'strobing' that you see in, say, ACS64 lighting, which at "modern" high CCD clock rates with very short effective 'exposure time' per frame can look as though out (this is done more for heat reasons with high-power LEDs than for cheapness), and the other is the kind that rapidly switches one driver circuit between many diodes or segments (you may remember this from older red-segment alarm clocks when you quickly move your head or eyes in the dark).

Note that even if the existence of fluorescence or phosphors turns out to be nonfeasible, genlocking the firing of the LED diodes to the 'readout' of the CCD element is a well-established technology.

I'm NOT going to say that reasonable PTC with CBTC eliminates the need to see color signals.  I easily expect a number of situations, including any involving autonomous trains, where the sensor suite must reliably and unambiguously resolve "legacy" signal aspects, and both the considerations Balt mentioned are significant in that respect.

Join our Community!

Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.

Search the Community

Newsletter Sign-Up

By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy