We all know of passenger operations that are completely automated. Two that come to mind are the shuttle between terminal 1 and 3 at Beijing's International airport and the LRT in Vancouver, B.C. I had always thought that freight trains would be safe from this at least in the forseeable future since track profiles and train consists are so variable. Well, we are one step closer to saying good bye to the occupation of locomotive engineer.
A news release came out on CP's employee website describing a new technology named FTO (fuel trip optimizer). Basically, it is cruise control for freight trains and the purpose of this technology is to operate a train with as little fuel as possible. The software is an upgrade to the current software on GE's Evolution series locomotives.
Of course we all know about PTC. That technology stops the train. FTO drives the train.
Here is a snip from CP's news release that better describes the technology.
"FTO is an advanced train management system that optimizes fuel consumption based on each train's marshalling and locomotive configuration and the challenges and constraints of the route being traveled. The system calculates the optimal speed profile for the trip using GPS data, a digital track database and advanced algorithms to automatically adjust the train’s speed throughout the trip. By evaluating train length and weight, grade, track conditions, weather and locomotive performance, the system can accurately calculate the most efficient way to run the train and maintain smooth handling. System operations are similar to the cruise control feature in today’s automobiles. "
Opinions?
How will FTO respond to the uncoupled air hose that hit a road crossing 100 cars from the engines and inspect the train after it has activated a wayside defect detector?
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
There's no way freight trains will ever become remote controlled as long as there are grade crossings and the potential of trespassers on the tracks. A human being will still be required to watch for hazards and take corrective action as necessary.
Just like remotely piloted aircraft, its possible but it will never happen in our lifetime. Well at least not in this country with the ratio we have of lawyers to people (sorry gabe).
Explain to me how its going to work in 3% grade and curves at the same speed? What about crossing thru a town?
that program has been out there for years not to worry it wont replace engineers
As wabash1 said, I believe NS has something similar - I'll see if I can find a post a description or link.
EDIT - ADD; It's NS' 'LEADER' system, as follows from the March/April 2009 issue of BIzNS, Vol. 1, No. 2, at pp. 19, right col. [21 of 28], and 22, right col. [24 of 28], at - http://www.nscorp.com/nscorphtml/bizns/bizNS1-2.pdf
''Keeping an eye on fuel consumption also is essential to NS’ success. One way the company is doing that is by installing a computer system on its locomotives called Locomotive Engineer Assist Display and Event Recorder, or LEADER. Equipped with a computerized track profile that includes such things as grade, curvature, and track speed, and using satellite-based GPS coordinates to pinpoint location, the system is designed to provide engineers with train-handling instructions for maximum fuel efficiency. The system generates instructions, such as optimal speed, that engineers can use in handling the train to achieve maximum fuel savings.
“LEADER is all about fuel conservation,” Lawrence said. “We burn nearly 500 million gallons of fuel annually, so every percent we can reduce consumption is about 5 million gallons. At today’s cost of fuel, that adds up to a lot of value, plus it makes Norfolk Southern even better from a sustainability perspective.”
“Using new technologies to better manage our assets to operate more safely and more efficiently will position us to continue to be the leader in the transportation industry,” Lawrence said. “We will continue working on newer and better ways to benefit our customers and our shareholders.”
Locomotive Engineer Assist Display and Event Recorder
''LEADER helps our engineers make better train handling decisions by providing real-time coaching on performance against an optimal “golden run” for a route. LEADER monitors the train’s location, track topology, speed, acceleration, and in-train forces and recommends optimal operations for throttling, braking, and minimum and maximum speeds.''
It's more like an auto-pilot for aircraft, to take over most of the routine in-flight stuff. You still need the pilots for the takeoffs, landings, bad weather, system breakdowns, terminal maneuvers, and extraordinary events - Capt. Chesney 'Sully' Sullenberger [sp Q] landing the US Airways plane that hit the birds and lost all engines in the Hudson River, and the Continental Airlines pilot who died in mid-flight over the Atlantic last month are two easy examples.
Anyone who has dealt with a GPS navigation system that tells you to "Turn here !" will also understand why.
The 'worst case' for that system would be something like a poorly made-up train with heavy cars on the rear, on a hog-back profile, with lots of high-profile cars in a heavy quartering wind, maybe a rainstorm or snowstorm to add to the fun, and then an undesired emergency brake application - a 'dynamiter'. You'll still need an engineer to put that train back together after the knuckles are broken.
- Paul North.
It's going to take time and money to develop the specifics for each route. The return on investment will have to be there. Thus, on a heavily travelled line, you might see something like this implemented. On that twice-a-week line, not so much.
The technology has existed for years to automate our highways - I saw it demonstrated in the 60's and things have certainly progressed since then. But I have yet to see it implemented.
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...
Technology is great but removing the "human factor" from many procedures takes a lot away, often things not understood by technogeeks (for lack of a better term). Digital music is a good example. Although the sound reporduction is perfect most musician (and quite a few listeners) will agree that something is missing; and that is "air" or "atmosphere" or "ambiance" or something to that effect which only the human ear can percieve but something that makes the sound "whole". The same goes for automating moveing objects like trains: there has to be a human element: eyes, ears, nose, and emotion or intitution (again for lack of better terms) to allow the technology to function at its best yet be safe for the equipment itself, property, and people. So we propose a human aboard to baby sit and override the system. But this human cannot be just a baby sitter; he or she has to have as much skill and acumen and knowledge as the technology and thensome. So have we actually gained anything for the additional expense of technology, besides witholding taxes, social security payments, and a health plan?
RIDEWITHMEHENRY is the name for our almost monthly day of riding trains and transit in either the NYCity or Philadelphia areas including all commuter lines, Amtrak, subways, light rail and trolleys, bus and ferries when warranted. No fees, just let us know you want to join the ride and pay your fares. Ask to be on our email list or find us on FB as RIDEWITHMEHENRY (all caps) to get descriptions of each outing.
System lost my last reply here, so I'll try again . . .
henry6, it's called 'SOP' - for 'Seat-Of-Pants'. I'm sure our locomotive engineer members here can tell us more about that skill set.
I wonder, though, if it will allow sometimes useful but nevertheless frowned-upon techniques such as 'power-braking' or 'stretch braking' to continue to be used ? To what extent can the system be 'over-ridden' to do that ?
NS thinks it will gain from saving 5 million gals. of diesel fuel a year - at 3.00 per gallon, that's saving around 15 million dollars a year, or about 42,000 a day, for each year going forward. I don't know how many 'train starts' NS has on a typical day, buit with each modern unit consuming 150 to 200 gals. per hr. in Run 8, the savings per trip are several hundred to maybe a thousand dollars, 'depending'. And that's even with still keeping the engineer onboard and on the payroll
Here's the summary:
No-man is probably not economically feasible without a secured corridor (no at-grade crossings, fenced). That's way off because grade-separations are very expensive.
The goal is increasing productivity.
RWM
Technology is great...but the human capacity to think and to solve problems is far greater, and we're a long way yet from replicating that in technological form. I don't see it happening for a number of reasons that have already been stated...however one person crews are a distinct and likely possibility.
Automation is possible in some simple operations...the Black Mesa operation in AZ for example was automated 30+ years ago...but these are exceptional operations that involve simple routing much like your HO trainset.
Ulrich Technology is great...but the human capacity to think and to solve problems is far greater, and we're a long way yet from replicating that in technological form. I don't see it happening for a number of reasons that have already been stated...however one person crews are a distinct and likely possibility. Automation is possible in some simple operations...the Black Mesa operation in AZ for example was automated 30+ years ago...but these are exceptional operations that involve simple routing much like your HO trainset.
Just to make sure we're not talking past each other, the software I discuss above is a speed-control system only. It picks the best speed for network fluidity, train handling, and fuel economy for the given train, the specific location, and the traffic ahead and behind. It's already in place and working on a number of railway systems.
Stated another way, it provides guidance to the locomotive engineer to operate the train much like your grandmother drives her car - no 'jack-rabbit starts' but instead accelerating slowly and gradually from stops. At signals, easing off on the throttle long before the red light and coast up to it, avoiding using the brakes - and maybe it'll turn green in the meantime, so a full stop won't be needed. In between, cruise at a speed to take advantage of the next opening in the traffic pattern, without having to go too fast or too slow or delaying the following traffic, etc.
I believe the BMLP automation had to be discarded, shortly after it started - not sure why. The only fully automated such operation of which I'm aware was the now-dismantled Muskingum Electric coal line in eastern Ohio, which was a much shorter run and in a more-closed environment, if I'm not mistaken.
BMLP was a much bigger reach than what we're talking about here. It was not only a an automated train-handling system but also an automated dispatching system AND an automated train-control system, all in one package. Radio and processor technology was not sufficiently sophisticated to manage all the data flows, or even know if it had a valid data flow, in the 1960s when this was designed. (PTC is not an automated train-control system or an automated dispatching system, FYI).
Railway Man (PTC is not an automated train-control system . . . FYI). RWM
What is the difference, then, aside from the semantics ? I infer that PTC is primarily restrictive only - it will tell or make sure the train slows down or stops as much as is needed to assure safey, but doesn't do anything to tell it or make it 'Go'. In contrast, an automated train control system would have that latter 'Go' function equally important as the 'Slow' and 'Stop'. Is this correct ? Or, is there some other nuance that I'm mmssing here ?
- PDN.
Paul:
Three steps happen before a train turns a wheel:
PTC as it is now envisioned is simply a safety overlay on Step 2 (train-control) and Step 3 (train-handling). It doesn't know diddly about priority or direction or juggling competing economic needs, which are accomplished in Step 1. In the future, there will be stand-alone PTC which will simply envelop the existing ABS-APB system of Step 2, but fundamentally all it does is replace the field hardware with other hardware that does the same exact thing (but at lower cost for buying and installing the hardware). No additional automation has occurred.
The simplest place to automate is Step 3, because automation at this step doesn't have to know anything about Step 2 or Step 1, it just has to obey its rules. In other words, it consists of blocks of software. Block 1 is a recapitulation of GCOR or NORAC or whatever rule book applies. Block 2 is a recapitulation of the railway's train-handing rules, using real-world inputs about train TPOB, braking horsepower, the vertical and horizontal profile en route, weather and temperature, and some expert-level decision-making matrices.
It's possible to automate Step 1, 2, and 3, but only in a very simple, very repititious system, where train operations are about as complicated as dropping identical marbles down a tube into a bucket, one after another. Basically, that's a description of the Pilbara iron-ore lines. Trying to do this on a complex corridor with variable operations, where all the marbles are different sizes, weights, densities, smoothness, and shape, and they all want to end up in different buckets, and there's some trying to climb back up the tube ... that's a little harder.
Txhighballer: I and many like me agree with you 100%. But there is a lack of good engineers, and a lack of people who are willing to be railroaders for the wages that will make railroads competitive with other transportation modes, or, keep the cost of rail transportation low enough to retain shippers who will find alternatives to any transportation mode if the price of transportation rises $0.0001 a ton-mile. Rail rates have fallen dramatically since 1980 but rail market share has scarcely budged, which indicates how much rail pricing and costs had to be slashed just to retain the market share rail already had. The future is hard to predict, but my best guess is that pressure on rail rates will not abate but actually get much worse. Thus the interest in finding developing train-handling, dispatching, and train-control automation.
I have looked with equivalent interest and dread at the efforts to automate dispatching offices. My experience from the office is that about 1 in 10 dispatchers are outstanding, another 1 in 10 are good enough most days, 6 are mediocre, 1 is bad, and another 1 is wretched. Mediocre is no longer sufficient as the need for reliability, efficiency, and cost reduction becomes more intense every day. I seriously doubt it is possible to create a dispatching automation tool that is any better than the mediocre dispatcher, and frankly I think it will be somewhat worse than that. But given the increasing difficulty in finding and retaining good dispatchers (the good ones soon get promoted or find a better-paying job in another industry), the quality is slowly sinking and I doubt there's any way to reverse it.
cptrainman"FTO is an advanced train management system that optimizes fuel consumption based on each train's marshalling and locomotive configuration and the challenges and constraints of the route being traveled. The system calculates the optimal speed profile for the trip using GPS data, a digital track database and advanced algorithms to automatically adjust the train’s speed throughout the trip. By evaluating train length and weight, grade, track conditions, weather and locomotive performance, the system can accurately calculate the most efficient way to run the train and maintain smooth handling. System operations are similar to the cruise control feature in today’s automobiles. " Opinions?
I would look beyond management systems. I think autonomous vehicles are a lot closer than some of the skeptics here think. Over the past several years DARPA has held contests for autonomous unmanned vehicles to navigate over a course not revealed to the entrants until the actual day of the contest. In 2005 five vehicles actually completed the 132 miles course through the Mojave Desert. Programming a car, truck, or motorcycle to maneuver over an unknown, undeveloped road is in many ways a far more difficult task, in my mind, than programming a train.The 2005 contestCurrent urban challenge
There must be some very interesting concepts on why man works so hard to find machines to do all the work. It is easy to understand the mechanical parts of digging, pickingup, etc. But the more cerebral work has to have some kind of philosophical if not spiritual take. Is it because man is lazy? unsure of himself? unsure of fellow men? likes gadgets? wants to shun resposniblity? is just too cheap to hire fellow man? needs to be "in control" but with "hands off"? something else? Is it really a pursuit for safety and economy or is there something sinsiter about letting microchips run the world?
Back to fuel economy. Could or does a computer system have a display on the console that shows the recomended speed at this location, at this time for the best fuel economy? That seems like a good idea. Some computer system can look at the traffic, grade etc. and just make a suggestion rather than any type of direct control over the train. The engineer would then have some data the represents the "big picture". Could or does a computer system also make suggestions to the dispatcher like which trains should go into or out of which sidings in order to be fuel efficient. Would something like this help schedule MOW better?
NP Red Back to fuel economy. Could or does a computer system have a display on the console that shows the recomended speed at this location, at this time for the best fuel economy? That seems like a good idea. Some computer system can look at the traffic, grade etc. and just make a suggestion rather than any type of direct control over the train. The engineer would then have some data the represents the "big picture".
Back to fuel economy. Could or does a computer system have a display on the console that shows the recomended speed at this location, at this time for the best fuel economy? That seems like a good idea. Some computer system can look at the traffic, grade etc. and just make a suggestion rather than any type of direct control over the train. The engineer would then have some data the represents the "big picture".
Could or does a computer system also make suggestions to the dispatcher like which trains should go into or out of which sidings in order to be fuel efficient.
Would something like this help schedule MOW better?
In theory it's possible to design a dispatching automation system that accounts for maintenance-of-way, balancing productivity cost of maintenance against productivity cost of trains versus service commitments and financial incentives of trains versus capacity of the railway versus cost penalty of slow orders versus 1,000 other things. Very hard to do, because there are billions of possible combinations that have to be calculated, and it all rests on top of a mountain of assumptions most of which are in turn based on assumptions that are all entangled with each other. I am fairly confident I will not see it in my lifetime.
Railway Man A very good dispatcher reaches back to level 20 or so. The software usually blows up when it tries to think about level 4.
[RWM quotation from another post]Speaking as a former dispatcher, I have looked with equivalent interest and dread at the efforts to automate dispatching. My experience is that about 1 in 10 dispatchers are outstanding, another 1 in 10 are good enough most days, 6 are mediocre, 1 is bad, and another 1 is wretched. Mediocre is not good enough any more as the need for reliability, efficiency, and cost reduction becomes more intense every day. I seriously doubt it is possible to create a dispatching automation tool that is any better than the mediocre dispatcher, and frankly I think it will be somewhat worse than that. But given that the trend I see in dispatching offices is towards greater and greater difficulty in finding and retaining dispatchers (the good ones soon get promoted or find a better-paying job in another industry), the quality is slowly sinking and I doubt there's any way to reverse it.
It is sad that there is so little dedication to their work on the part of so many people. There have always been, of course, people who thought of their "jobs" simply as sources of income and took no pleasure in their work, but it seems that such people now form a greater proportion of the work force.
At my graduate school, when the president's secretary retired, at least two, if not three, people had to be hired to handled all the work that she had taken care of.
Johnny
Deggesty It is sad that there is so little dedication to their work on the part of so many people. There have always been, of course, people who thought of their "jobs" simply as sources of income and took no pleasure in their work, but it seems that such people now form a greater proportion of the work force. At my graduate school, when the president's secretary retired, at least two, if not three, people had to be hired to handled all the work that she had taken care of. Johnny
I have not yet drawn that conclusion from my years in railroading. I think that all we are seeing is the outcome of expanding job opportunity. Fifty years ago, a railway job was a very good job compared to all the other possible jobs a young man might take, in terms of pay, job security, job satisfaction, and amount of manual labor. Today, railway jobs are not competing with hoeing beet tops under the 100-degree sun, or mind-numbing factory assembly jobs in brutal heat, noise, and danger. They are competing against all sorts of nice jobs in an office building, in businesses or services that do not operate around the clock, do not have far-flung operations, do not ever go outdoors for anything, and have equal or better job satisfaction, security, chance for advancement, and pay. Fifty years ago railways could take the very best people because the best people had few other good options, and the rest of the job pool ended up in manual labor on a farm or factory.
I have a dozen 20- and 30-somethings working for me today in my little part of the railway, and with one exception, they are all people who are smarter, harder-working, and more dedicated than I was at that age. But we also pay them competitively with the software firms, the insurance firms, the pharmaeutical firms, the engineering firms, too, with starting salaries out of college of $50,000 and plenty of opportunity to advance to $130,000 in today's dollars. I really do not think we can hire the cream of the crop -- which is what railways used to be able to choose for their trainmen, dispatchers, operators, and clerks -- for $30,000 a year, work them 7 days a week, 24 hours a day, wherever on the system we need them, and tell them that if they work hard and don't complain and become expert in their craft, we might be able to advance them to $50,000 by the time they are retirement age. Our choice is either we double our salaries for train service, track forces, shop forces, dispatchers, and clerks, or accept that we won't get the best like we used to. But if we double our salaries, while we will get a better class of employee, it won't result in doubling our productivity, which means we'll then go bankrupt and liquidate the business, because the customers sure won't take a massive increase in rates. And that is why automation has been steadily making inroads in railways for the last 100 years.
In your Grad school example, I would be willing to bet that the President's secretary had been in that position long term. Being in the position long term she had come to grips with the various timings of all the routine occurrences that affected the Presidents office and would anticipate the needs for certain things to occur at particular times through the year and already have 95% of all the needs handled when the time came. Those hired to replace the secretary have yet to learn the timing and the needs that are coming through the door....as a consequence they are having to think their way through the occurrence 100% in real time while performing the actions. A persons efficiency decreases when, for every step of the way, he has to think about 'what is next and how do I do that'. You can act or you can think...but you can't do both at the most effective level together.
To revert to RWM's assessment of Dispatcher's abilities. In today's Dispatching Offices you have about 10/15% of dispatchers that began their railroad career's as Telegraph Operators in the various towers that existed 20-30 years ago; jobs in which they had a first hand view to the Dispatching profession and it's interaction with trains and the crews that operate them. The rest of the dispatchers have come through the various railroads dispatcher training programs, where prior railroad experience was not a requirement in acceptance to the program. Additionally, as most of those accepted to such programs are under 30, they are members of the video game age and relate the tools of the Computer Aided Dispatching systems more to the video games they know than to the cold hard steel of the trains that they have have very little if any experience with. Some of those accepted to the dispatcher train programs do have prior railroad experience, some from various clerical positions and some from Train & Engine service. Those from T&E service, when on their trains, found it very easy to dispatch their own train....once in a position of having to dispatch 20-30 or more trains on their territories their views of dispatching changed from what it was when they were in the field.
Dispatching is a learning experience. There is an old saying - Good Judgement comes from experience; Experience comes from bad judgement. The biggest thing that a good dispatcher brings to the job is vision. Vision to see his territory as it is this instant, and how it will be in another 2 hours, another 4 hours, another 8 hours, another 16 hours - knowing from experience what trains will be entering his territory and what if any station work they are scheduled to perform, what their relative priority is in relation to the trains that are already on his territory, all the while keeping in mind the Hours of Service situation for each train on the territory, all of which is easy so long as there are no engine failures, no undesired emergency brake applications, no defect detector activations that require on the ground train inspections, no trains flagging passing trains for on ground inspections account a defect that has been observed. It is a great profession with each and every day a learning experience, the same old thing is never the same.
Too many people today have jobs and not careers...and it is not all thier fault as companies feel that anybody can be hired to do a given job at any time for any pay and be glad they have a job; if you don't like it, leave because there are ten people in line who want a paycheck. If you do choose a career there is no guarantee, no matter how dedicated and sincere you are, that you will be able to hold onto the job, or the employer for that matter, as budget cuts, consolidations, mergers, and big mania cuts so many off at the start. There is no loyalty or respect from the ranks because there is no loyalty or respect from management. If you're out of work and somebody's hiring, go get it even if it isn't what you're trained to do or want to do, because that's all thats left in this town or that. It is hard for employers to find good, hard working, dedicated employees today because those prospective employees know they are being offered empty promises of any kind of future...just hope they can hang on until they qualify for unemployment benefits before the promise fizzles out. Employers don't get dedicated, loyal, qualified employees seeking careers if they merely merely jobs instead of real career opportunities. I see kids coming into my business everyday starry eyed and optimistic only to find they were promised things unatainable in positions they are totally not qualified to do; they last but months a flee to another business. Even those "qualified" run when they are expected to perform well beyond their experience or understanding of the trade.
I was with two dedicated railroaders the other day who love thier work but hate their jobs....pay is good but the hours aren't. They have stuck things out because of seniority and pay, but realize they don't have the private lives they or their families would really like. If we were in better economic times, many of these railroaders would jump to better job opportunities; they are dedicated to a paycheck, but not to a career
Railway ManTxhighballer: I and many like me agree with you 100%. But there is a lack of good engineers, and a lack of people who are willing to be railroaders for the wages that will make railroads competitive with other transportation modes, or, keep the cost of rail transportation low enough to retain shippers who will find alternatives to any transportation mode if the price of transportation rises $0.0001 a ton-mile. Rail rates have fallen dramatically since 1980 but rail market share has scarcely budged, which indicates how much rail pricing and costs had to be slashed just to retain the market share rail already had. The future is hard to predict, but my best guess is that pressure on rail rates will not abate but actually get much worse. Thus the interest in finding developing train-handling, dispatching, and train-control automation. RWM
Railway Man, do you think that the problem might be the fact that the railroads have locked themselves into being only able to serve a market that has become highly competitive, might be part of the problem? Consider the BNSF, how many total customers did the constituent companies have in the 1950s versus how many they have now, and consider how many shipments. As I see it, the railroads have gotten more efficient at moving what they move, the problem is that the have done this by concentrating continually on a smaller and smaller portion of the market. Railroads have achieved efficiency by raising the minimum size of their basic unit of production. To raise Railroad's market share significantly they will have to accomplish two things, first they have to find a way to handle smaller shipments, and second they have to find a way to reach smaller shippers. And as a corollary they need to stop pulling back to fewer and fewer, and more widely dispersed terminals.
As a retired software engineer/developer as well as a railfan and streetcar fan I would like to offer my opinion on this most interesting issue:
Total computer controlled operations of a rail line that maintains its way through public territory appears to be totally unfeasible. Of course, you can run trains computer controlled and optimized towards a variety of criteria, including fuel usage optimization, but to really be efficient a whole bunch of conditions would need to be met. Amongst these were: all trains need to be controlled the same way, including thrufare of yards, etc. No human access to the tracks had to be possible, i.e. conditions that could be met on a Maglev line or elevated Monorail, etc. Of course no crossings whatsoever, other than strictly computer controlled. The whole system needed to be made failsafe as much is possible, meaning that the whole network needed to be controlled by the same center using several computers that all need to have independent power supply, several GPS satellites, etc. At least three independent circuits necessary. What an effort! I doubt that it were cheaper than to employ a few thousand loco engineers. Also, the characteristics of locos that are mued today are very different. I am truly amazed to see that sometimes old Alcos get mixed with more modern EMDs etc. If I am not totally wrong, all the remote controls today are achieving is common throttle positions and braking power. Also, if some mid or end train helpers are employed they are controlled by radio devices whose signals will be transformed again into throttle and break positions, and this already with some delays. And if we are unlucky they are just in a tunnel and don't react immediately at all.
Now with the envisaged operatorless operations practically all locos need to get their signals at the same time, meaning that all railway tunnels need to be equipped with fail safe relay transmitters, etc.
If we look at the software required at the various levels, in the locos, the relay stations, the central ops center and its simultaneous backup and knowing my fellow software engineers I'm sure that development and testing will takes ages and will be very expensive.
Long will last the profession of loco engineer!
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.