But, just for the sake of arguments:
Everything American railroads do is to make money.
Mechanical bells were illiminated to save money
same with mars lights
and rotary beacons
Classic locomotives werre retired for the sme reason.
So, just for the sake of argument, wouldn't it save them a lot of money, I'm tlking over half of their expenses, if they ilmiminate manned locomotives, and switched the ENTIRE north American system to RC or even, heaven forbid Computer Contrlled. This way they wouldn't have to pay any employees.
Again I'm not advocating this at all, I'm just playing devil's advocate. I know that many of you work for railroads, and I want to know what you'll say.
The Beaverton, Fanno Creek & Bull Mountain Railroad
"Ruby Line Service"
That's happening, where it's possible - stuff like people movers at airports.
However, the one example of a captive railroad that runs fully automated (Black Mesa and Lake Powell Railroad) eventually put a human on board. I'm not sure if they're still even running automated.
Never mind saving jobs, there are just too many factors involved to allow a railroad to run unmanned. Even on the almost crossing-free CSX Chicago line, they've managed to hit a pedestrian or to and pile up some cars. That's not a slam on CSX - just an example I know of a current "best possible" situation.
Besides - there's a lot more to running a railroad than running trains between point A and point B. Trains have to be assembled and broken apart. Brake hoses have to be connected. Trains have to be inspected, and someone has to walk back a mile from the locomotive to figure out why the air dumped while they're a million miles from nowhere.
There's a large museum layout in Chicago that's fully automated. But it doesn't switch, hump, or any of the hundreds of other things railroads do. All they do is run mainline trains around a loop that has no automobiles at crossings, animals in the gage, or even brake lines connected between the cars.
It's a pie in the sky dream that is so far from being feasible that it's hardly worth talking about.
Now - how can we go about automating your job?
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 dont matter what we have to say, We will be heavily edited, post deleted and ridiculed for about anything we have to say anyways , like now there is someone smoking the report me button.
Some operations managers would just love it if we got to the point of matter transfer a la Star Trek.
There was some kind of an announcement that a transfer of a sort did occur at a particle physics lab in Europe recently. So maybe----?
Just think of it--
You place all your shipment in a room --close the door--hit a button--a voila! it appears at the destination
Any argument carried far enough will end up in Semantics--Hartz's law of rhetoric Emerald. Leemer and Southern The route of the Sceptre Express Barry
I just started my blog site...more stuff to come...
http://modeltrainswithmusic.blogspot.ca/
KBCpresident But, just for the sake of arguments: Everything American railroads do is to make money. Mechanical bells were illiminated to save money same with mars lights and rotary beacons Classic locomotives werre retired for the sme reason. So, just for the sake of argument, wouldn't it save them a lot of money, I'm tlking over half of their expenses, if they ilmiminate manned locomotives, and switched the ENTIRE north American system to RC or even, heaven forbid Computer Contrlled. This way they wouldn't have to pay any employees. Again I'm not advocating this at all, I'm just playing devil's advocate. I know that many of you work for railroads, and I want to know what you'll say.
This forum ain't what it used to be, the wiseacres aren't even as good as they once were . . .
Gabe
It's been fun. But it isn't much fun anymore. Signing off for now.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.t fun any
KBCpresidentSo, just for the sake of argument, wouldn't it save them a lot of money, I'm tlking over half of their expenses, if they ilmiminate manned locomotives, and switched the ENTIRE north American system to RC or even, heaven forbid Computer Contrlled.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
I had the privilege of being assigned by Trains to cover a Washington, DC presentation by the AAR on positive train control. I specifically asked those present if the technology could be developed to the point of operating crewless trains. I was told "That's not our goal. That's not even our vision. We have no desire whatsoever along those lines." The development engineers also replied with a long list of reasons why it couldn't happen--in short, PTC and other "automation" does nothing about the unexpected or unforeseen such as a washout, an obstacle on the tracks, a trespasser, a fault on the locomotives, a problem on the train, etc.
Suffice it to say the ONLY place such crewless automation has a chance is a completely closed, insular system such as an underground mine railroad, a mine-to-dock shuttle, etc.
Probably not feasible or economical today..but never say never. Look at where computer technology was in 1970.. and look at where it is today. Who knows if on board train crews will ever be eliminated entirely, but one thing is for certain...our lives and jobs (railroad as well as others) will continue to change radically..and the pace of change will probably continue to accelerate. I look at my own career...15 years ago I couldn't even turn the internet on...now my business can't run without it..and I need it for alot of personal stuff too.
LNER4472 I had the privilege of being assigned by Trains to cover a Washington, DC presentation by the AAR on positive train control. I specifically asked those present if the technology could be developed to the point of operating crewless trains. I was told "That's not our goal. That's not even our vision. We have no desire whatsoever along those lines." The development engineers also replied with a long list of reasons why it couldn't happen--in short, PTC and other "automation" does nothing about the unexpected or unforeseen such as a washout, an obstacle on the tracks, a trespasser, a fault on the locomotives, a problem on the train, etc. Suffice it to say the ONLY place such crewless automation has a chance is a completely closed, insular system such as an underground mine railroad, a mine-to-dock shuttle, etc.
This has already been implemented on a couple of electrified coal to powerplant RRs as far as back as the 1960's, the now closed AEP Muskingum mine and plant in Ohio for one. I seem to recall reading recently that one of the Australian iron ore mine-to-port operations is going to go crewless in the near future..
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
Wasn't there a coal mine to power plant railroad in Ohio that ran automated trains? Muskigum? I think that went back to the 60s. It is possible to run automated trains. Is it wise to do so? -- that is an other question.
Today, a few miles from me, pilots are using drones to fly missions in Afghanistan. I could envision locomotive engineers all sitting in a room operating drone trains by remote control. It would be cheaper: no more crew hauling, no lodging at then other end of the run, no more sitting on the engine waiting to get in or out of the yard, no more sitting at a red flag waiting for the trackmen to put the track back together. If your train is going to be delayed for an hour or so you just start running some other train. It would be safer; certainly an office environment is safer than a locomotive cab. Even in a head-on collision no one would get hurt, that is besides feelings and maybe job security. Instant communication links could be established between the engineer and local police and fire departments. If there was a hazardous material derailment the "office engineer" could be in instant communication with local authorities. There would have to be some on-the-ground support. A section crew or a roving conductor could change a knuckle. A police officer could close an angle **** and pull a pin to cut a crossing in an emergency. This may be pie in the sky, but, I think it could be feasible.
For the 2nd time, I'm trying to reconstruct my post, but I need to be short now, so please understand.
BMLP's automation never did work right - today, it runs with 2-person crews. See -
Ohio's robot railroad Trains, March 1979 page 22 Muskingum Electric at age 10 ( AUTOMATION, COAL, "CORNS, JOHN B.", ELECTRIFICATION, MER, TRN )
In the same vein, the Iron Ore Company of Canada - ''IOC also operates a fully automated, driverless, electric railway between the main extraction site and the crusher plant.'' See - http://sinfin.net/railways/world/canada/lab-qns.html
The PATCO High-Speed Line from Phialdelphia to South Jersey was intended to be automated, but I don't believe that ever quite occurred. Don/ oltmannd can likely add more about that.
All of these are described with photos in William D. Middelton's book, When the Steam Railroads Electrified.
However, consider the following:
- U.S. Air Force drones with GPS and videos cameras are controlled from half a world away by pilotrs seated at central consoles;
- The U.S. DARPA's contest for robot vehicles to cross the desert keeps getting better.
I can forsee remote-control trains similar to the drones, and perhaps also automated like the auto-pilot on airliners, or even computer-assisted dispatching. People still manually handle the 'exceptions' and can override them, as well as landings and takeoffs, but the computer does most of the routine work.
That could greatly simplify crew changes and 'outlaws' - no need to even stop the train, just change controllers in command central while still 'on the move'. But there will still be a need for personnel in the field - either riding the trains, or 'floating' in a pick-up truck nearby - to deal with contingency events.
- Paul North.
clarkfork Wasn't there a coal mine to power plant railroad in Ohio that ran automated trains? Muskigum? I think that went back to the 60s. It is possible to run automated trains. Is it wise to do so? -- that is an other question. Today, a few miles from me, pilots are using drones to fly missions in Afghanistan. I could envision locomotive engineers all sitting in a room operating drone trains by remote control. It would be cheaper: no more crew hauling, no lodging at then other end of the run, no more sitting on the engine waiting to get in or out of the yard, no more sitting at a red flag waiting for the trackmen to put the track back together. If your train is going to be delayed for an hour or so you just start running some other train. It would be safer; certainly an office environment is safer than a locomotive cab. Even in a head-on collision no one would get hurt, that is besides feelings and maybe job security. Instant communication links could be established between the engineer and local police and fire departments. If there was a hazardous material derailment the "office engineer" could be in instant communication with local authorities. There would have to be some on-the-ground support. A section crew or a roving conductor could change a knuckle. A police officer could close an angle **** and pull a pin to cut a crossing in an emergency. This may be pie in the sky, but, I think it could be feasible.
Hmmm..I can see it now...more jobs outsourced to India..You know that this is where your idea will go.
Methinks the question lies not in the technical feasibility, but in the social desireability.
There's no question that we can (or will be able to), but do we want to?
Following along the lines of comments by clarkfork above:
It is one thing to go completely crewless and leave the operation of the train to sensors and computers. It is entirely another thing to take the engineer out of the locomotive, and placing him in a stationary office to operate the train remotely. But would there be any economic advantage to doing that? It would be safer for the engineer.
Bucyrus Following along the lines of comments by clarkfork above: It is one thing to go completely crewless and leave the operation of the train to sensors and computers. It is entirely another thing to take the engineer out of the locomotive, and placing him in a stationary office to operate the train remotely. But would there be any economic advantage to doing that? It would be safer for the engineer.
Economic advange..sure..hire someone in India or Bangladesh to do it..
Ulrich Bucyrus Following along the lines of comments by clarkfork above: It is one thing to go completely crewless and leave the operation of the train to sensors and computers. It is entirely another thing to take the engineer out of the locomotive, and placing him in a stationary office to operate the train remotely. But would there be any economic advantage to doing that? It would be safer for the engineer. Economic advange..sure..hire someone in India or Bangladesh to do it..
I wonder if a stationary-office engineer could run more than one train at a time.
Outsourced to India? Well, the union contracts would be a huge hurdle. Right now it is safe to say that union engineers "own" the job of running locomotives.
clarkfork Outsourced to India? Well, the union contracts would be a huge hurdle. Right now it is safe to say that union engineers "own" the job of running locomotives.
a hurdle maybe..but I doubt it would be a huge one..
Ulrich clarkfork Outsourced to India? Well, the union contracts would be a huge hurdle. Right now it is safe to say that union engineers "own" the job of running locomotives. a hurdle maybe..but I doubt it would be a huge one..
LOL yea right Tell me what Info do you have that could support that statement.
past history.. what happened to fireman..brakeman..etc..they too had strong union affiliation and support..
Prediction: If/when remote control of mainline locomotives comes to pass, expect to see either a law enacted and/ or an FRA regulation promulgated that requires the engineer to actually be within the U.S., the same as was done for dispatchers when CN or CP proposed moving some to Canada a few years back.
See the FRA regulation on that - Title 49--Transportation, CHAPTER II--FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, PART 241--UNITED STATES LOCATIONAL REQUIREMENT FOR DISPATCHING OF UNITED STATES RAIL OPERATIONS, at - http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_08/49cfr241_08.html
Sec. 241.1 Purpose and scope. (a) The purpose of this part is to prevent railroad accidents and incidents, and consequent injuries, deaths, and property damage, that would result from improper dispatching of railroad operations in the United States by individuals located outside of the United States.
(b) This part prohibits extraterritorial dispatching of railroad operations, conducting railroad operations that are extraterritorially dispatched, and allowing track to be used for such operations, subject to certain stated exceptions. This part does not restrict a railroad from adopting and enforcing additional or more stringent requirements not inconsistent with this part.
Plus - can you just imagine the reaction when someone asks, ''What's to prevent the Al Quaeda terrorists - or others with evil motives - from attacking or at least disrupting such a center - either physically or in cyber-space via the computers, etc. - especially those trains with HAZ-MATS, or near commuter lines ?'' Since 9-11 and the recent airplane bombing attempt, I doubt that public sentiment would be anything other than absolutely against that.
Actually, the best argument against such remote control operation - even if not entirely rational or logical, in my view - could be the general perception of less than perfect reliability and security of the computer and communications systems that would be needed to support it. Just look around for the latest large-scale computer crash, cyber-attack, power outage, phone system malfunction, etc., etc.
Great..but manufacturing CAN be exported...where's the terror angle on that?
Above FRA regs relate to the dispatching of trains...nothing in there says they can't be operated from outside the country. You could have Billy dispatching from Dallas and Gurjit running the train from is office in Mumbai..
UlrichBucyrus Following along the lines of comments by clarkfork above: It is one thing to go completely crewless and leave the operation of the train to sensors and computers. It is entirely another thing to take the engineer out of the locomotive, and placing him in a stationary office to operate the train remotely. But would there be any economic advantage to doing that? It would be safer for the engineer. Economic advange..sure..hire someone in India or Bangladesh to do it..
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
I am certain in the Lawyers would have great interest in accidents involving crewless trains.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
BaltACD I am certain in the Lawyers would have great interest in accidents involving crewless trains.
But would they really be crewless if an engineer was operating the locomotive remotely from a stationary office? Anything the engineer could do from onboard the locomotive, he could do from the office.
If anything goes wrong there's no escaping the lawyers anyway...they got you coming and going..nothing you can do about it other than have a shark for a lawyer yourself.
Bucyrus BaltACD I am certain in the Lawyers would have great interest in accidents involving crewless trains. But would they really be crewless if an engineer was operating the locomotive remotely from a stationary office? Anything the engineer could do from onboard the locomotive, he could do from the office.
This probably hits the nail on the head as to why it won't be outsourced beyond the country's borders. Operating crews can easily be held legally responsible for their actions, and if they violated the law, extradition would come into the picture.
Funny, while reading this thread, just as I started thinking about Canadian National's failed attempt to move the Illinois Central train dispatchers to Canada and Canadian Pacific's similar attempt with the Soo Line and ex-Milwaukee Road dispatchers going to Winnipeg, Paul North cites the subject. Thank you Paul!
-----------------------------------------
Unmanned trains? Fuhgeddaboudit. To achieve that goal would require eliminating all highway grade crossings, installing AND MAINTAINING thousands of miles of secured fencing, fighting with the tree huggers over restricting the migration patterns of wildlife, and maintaining locomotives to a higher standard of reliability than what is found in current practice.
To make those trains more reliable and easier to control would require running shorter, faster trains with higher horsepower per trailing ton ratios. Higher hp/tt leads to greater fuel consumption per revenue ton mile and that would mean violating one of the most holy of modern shibboleths rigidly adhered to by too many railroad managements. As long as the top brass wants to keep driving down the gallons-consumed per gross ton-mile figure, long, heavy, difficult-to-control freight trains will prevail.
Lastly, there's the question of politics. Would you want to have freight trains carrying hazardous materials barreling through your village with absolutely nobody on board? Would you want to have trains hauling hazardous materials meeting unmanned freight trains? Getting past these types of political hurdles is probably the toughest one of all.
blownout cylinder Some operations managers would just love it if we got to the point of matter transfer a la Star Trek. There was some kind of an announcement that a transfer of a sort did occur at a particle physics lab in Europe recently. So maybe----? Just think of it-- You place all your shipment in a room --close the door--hit a button--a voila! it appears at the destination
Blownout Cylinder's fantasy speculation is mildly amusing, and it brings to mind a news item I read a little over 40-years ago.
Sometime in the mid-to-late 1960s Consolidated Edison installed and fired-up what was then the world's largest combination steam turbine and electric generator. "Big Allis," named after its manufacturer, Allis-Chalmers, when operating at full capacity, required an energy input greater than all of the muscle power - both man and beast - available to the armies of ancient Rome at its height.
As for the Starship Enterprise and the feats its capable of performing, my guess is that all of the wooden fires burned by man, all of the fossil fuels consumed by man, and all of the atoms either split or fused by man over the last 10,000-years wouldn't even begin to meet the energy requirements of anything flown by Captain Kirk, Han Solo, Luke Skywalker, or Darth Vader.
Theoretically teleportation is possible. As a practical matter with the technology and energy resources we have today - highly unlikely.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.