30 years ago they were asking "would you want a train with only two men on board and no caboose?" Seemed unthinkable at the time...but we've gotten used to it. Getting used to crewless trains might not be such a stretch as we become used to increasingly sophisticated technology and the emergence of artificial intelligence..
To expand on my previous post - there are really three factors that will govern such a move:
1. Technology. I would argue that the technology exists today to run trains "from a room somewhere." Between remotely controlled airplanes half a world away, GPS, telemetry, teleconferencing, and existing remote control of locomotives, it's all there. The integration hasn't occurred, but it could. The reefers that trains are hauling are already being controlled from "a room somewhere."
2. Economic. This will be a significant driver. If and when it becomes cheaper to put a single "driver" in a room than it is to put a crew on a train, it'll start to happen. I don't see that balance coming any time soon, however, if only because of the massive amount of technology that will need to be in place to make it happen. PTC, or a relative thereof will be a major part of such an implementation, and we've seen how that's coming along.
3. Social. This includes legal, environmental, and human factors and will be the biggest roadblock, as the discussion so far has so nicely illustrated.
Back in the 60's I saw a demonstration at GM's Proving Grounds of a guidance system for cars. Based on a wire laid in the pavement and a receiver under the front bumper of the cars, the system would make driving on the Interstates a dream. Drive onto the highway, get locked in, sit back and read your paper. The system will handle your steering, speed, spacing, and even warn you when you're approaching your exit.
I don't have that on my truck. That was 40 years ago...
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...
tree68>Now - how can we go about automating your job?
>Now - how can we go about automating your job?
You could have a recording that says, "Would you like fries with that?"
Seriously, though, the new jets can take off and land and fly to there destination w/o a pilot. That's why those pilots were busy on their computers and forgot to land at Minnesota a couple months back.
Ulrich 30 years ago they were asking "would you want a train with only two men on board and no caboose?" Seemed unthinkable at the time...but we've gotten used to it. Getting used to crewless trains might not be such a stretch as we become used to increasingly sophisticated technology and the emergence of artificial intelligence..
Actually the FEC was two man crew with no caboose in at least 1966.
Just a quick question, but let's suppose we have a train that is totally remote controlled - so we know the engineer can operate the train from a room, but suppose the train breaks in two, or for some other reason the air dumped, can you walk the train from a room?
I think that remote control drone train operation would require some on-the-ground support. This could be provided in a number of ways. 1. The section crew, trainmaster, road foreman could be called out to assist in changing knuckles and the like. 2. Jobs like a roving conductor, roving carman or emergency response team utilizing a four wheel drive vehicle could handle knuckle changing as well as enroute switching like setting out bad order cars. 3. Clearing a public crossing involves operating the pin lifter and closing the train brake pipe. Police and fire departments could be taught how to do that in order to clear public crossings in emergencies. This would require some communication links between the peace officer on the ground and the engineer of the train, where ever he is. 4. Electronic car air brakes could locate defective cars safer and faster than walking the train. 5. The "classic" Union Pacific built a lot of roadways next to their main tracks. It is a lot safer and faster to inspect a train from a motor vehicle than it is by walking the train. I recall Union Pacific operating people telling me that when a train went into emergency there was often UP employees in a motor vehicle there to assist within a few minutes. Personally, I think that walking the train should be avoided even in conventional train operations. Walking the sloping ballast is not fun.
The Beaverton, Fanno Creek & Bull Mountain Railroad
"Ruby Line Service"
KBCpresident"That's why those pilots were busy on their computers and forgot to land at Minnesota a couple months back" That's also why this isn't likly to happen. You always need eyes.
True Enough! Indeed, True Enough! We will always need "eyes".
However, those eyes can now be, and will be, "remote".
The pilots and engineers will be working from home offices. Regular hours with regular breaks and a lunch period. Regular time to watch the daughter's basketball game. And to walk the dogs.
Nirvana or Nightmare, take your pick.
I am sure glad you guys think you have it solved except for one thing. the last contract sign has it that there will always be a engineer on board all road trains and locals. it can be run by remote controll but a engineer will be on board.
Oh and there is still fireman on the railroads. just not on every job, sorta like brake man. the craft is still there just not used. but the second part of the no brakeman is that the company offered a buy out of senority for brakemen and to do away with the jobs and the men voted for it. thinking with the wallet and not the jobs.
And if the remote control drone operation ever became widespread, then there's the question of how the next generation of engineers obtains the 'seat of the pants' experience and 'feel' that is needed, and will be absolutely necessary to correlate what's on the computer or video screen with what's actually happening out there with or in the train. For example, how will the computer transmit the feel of the slack running in, 1 car at a time, as the head end of the train slows when it starts into a steep ascending grade ? Or the runout, as it gets into the main part of the grade ? Or a marginal wheelslip occurrence ? Etc.
But I can see this coming someday in like the next 10 to 20 years, on maybe up to half of the mainline trains eventually. Starting with the large-scale industrial operations such as the Canadian iron ore haulers, Quebec North Shore and Labrador, and the Cartier Railway, and then extending to long-haul remote operations in the US, such as across sparsely populated desert country, or the Dakotas, the Maine deep woods, and the like.
- Paul North.
wabash1I am sure glad you guys think you have it solved except for one thing. the last contract sign has it that there will always be a engineer on board all road trains and locals. it can be run by remote controll but a engineer will be on board.
Wabash - You're right, which is why I cite the "social" part of the whole issue.
But things can, and do, change. If you told the five member crew of a freight train fifty or so years ago that by 2000 there would only be two people on the entire train, and that there would be a little box hung on the last coupler to replace the caboose, you'd have been laughed out of the room. And probably told to read your contract, because it called for a five man crew.
I'm not advocating for the loss of jobs. I am pointing out that things change. Even things that we think never will.
tree68 wabash1I am sure glad you guys think you have it solved except for one thing. the last contract sign has it that there will always be a engineer on board all road trains and locals. it can be run by remote controll but a engineer will be on board. Wabash - You're right, which is why I cite the "social" part of the whole issue. But things can, and do, change. If you told the five member crew of a freight train fifty or so years ago that by 2000 there would only be two people on the entire train, and that there would be a little box hung on the last coupler to replace the caboose, you'd have been laughed out of the room. And probably told to read your contract, because it called for a five man crew. I'm not advocating for the loss of jobs. I am pointing out that things change. Even things that we think never will.
thats right never say never . I can tell you this its gonna cost them more than 40k to buy my senority as a conductor and engineer. I would take 100 k for my conductor senority but my engineer senority is gonna cost more.
You have nothing more to worry about than the next guy Wabash... we're all affected by changes in technology...if anything.. railroad people probably have more security in that regard than some other lines of work that don't require the physical dexterity of a railroader.. Like someone else stated..a person from a remote location can't deal with problems on the ground like broken air lines etc..
KBCpresidentkay... think about this You're on a Boeing 747 heading to Beijing. There is no one flying it, except a man in Beijing with an RC joystick. He's being very careful, and he's a well trained pilot. But would you feel comfortable, knowing that their isn't a living breathing human behind the wheel. At least for me, i'd like them to be sitting there. .
DennisHeldKBCpresidentkay... think about this You're on a Boeing 747 heading to Beijing. There is no one flying it, except a man in Beijing with an RC joystick. He's being very careful, and he's a well trained pilot. But would you feel comfortable, knowing that their isn't a living breathing human behind the wheel. At least for me, i'd like them to be sitting there. . The Boeing 747 does not need a guy with a joystick flying it remotely. The onboard computer can and does most of the flying. One can program the flight, put it on the runway and remove the pilot and co-pilot and it can take off, fly and land with no human whatsoever at any control. You can 'fly' a train the same way. If you wanted. Without a lot of infrastructure. Just a modern computer. Of course it could only be yard to yard without set outs anywhere. But you wouldn't need a dude in any control room. Though, I suppose one could be there monitoring 20 or 30 trains.
And I suppose the computer could be programed to land the 747 in Hudson River when a flock of birds knocked out the engines.
"We have met the enemy and he is us." Pogo Possum "We have met the anemone... and he is Russ." Bucky Katt "Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future." Niels Bohr, Nobel laureate in physics
jeatonAnd I suppose the computer could be programed to land the 747 in Hudson River when a flock of birds knocked out the engines.
Didn't you know? Technology is perfect----
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/
I'm not saying it'll happen. No one is going to board a pilotless plane. Amtrak w/o a human driver? Doubtful.
The Boeing 747 does not need a guy with a joystick flying it remotely. The onboard computer can and does most of the flying. One can program the flight, put it on the runway and remove the pilot and co-pilot and it can take off, fly and land with no human whatsoever at any control. You can 'fly' a train the same way. If you wanted. Without a lot of infrastructure. Just a modern computer. Of course it could only be yard to yard without set outs anywhere. But you wouldn't need a dude in any control room. Though, I suppose one could be there monitoring 20 or 30 trains.
Now if the 747 was towing about 50 to 100 unpowered aircraft, you might have something similar.
In theory, is is possible to automate operation of trains.
In practice, it is not even remotely feasible at this time. Nor any time in the near future. Nor in my lifetime. This is much harder than many people think. The operation of one train is easy. Now do it with thousands of trains, in a dynamic system that evolves from one day to the next. The systems management requirements to take in all that data, process it, categorize it, and publish it is quite difficult and costly.
Even if it was, I cannot imagine any regulatory environment in this country that would permit such a thing.
RWM
DennisHeldjeaton And I suppose the computer could be programed to land the 747 in Hudson River when a flock of birds knocked out the engines. Why not? A 'no engine subroutine'. It's just programming. NASA's unmanned probes are limited only by what the programmer can think of. I'm not saying it'll happen. No one is going to board a pilotless plane. Amtrak w/o a human driver? Doubtful.
jeaton And I suppose the computer could be programed to land the 747 in Hudson River when a flock of birds knocked out the engines.
True,
But there is one major difference.
If the programmer makes a mistake, and the probe pancakes into the Martian surface, 200 to 400 people don't die.
And tank cars full of fun stuff like chlorine don't rupture.
I think the metro in Vancouver BC has been operating driverless since the 1980s
As usual, this is way too long! Those who are feeling the pull TMI, feel free to skip.
I can't promise some of these sentiments and accounts have not appeared in the prior four pages. I deliberately did not look at them because I didn't want to "review the reviews," so to speak.
Hopefully, some little thing or things will add to the discussion. I am taking purely on faith that this massive thread is still on the original topic and we aren't discussing rusting cabooses in Rhode Island, so to speak.
Today, the big Seven are for-profit, but that wasn't already the case.
Penn Central under Stuart Saunders was virtually anti-profit with the appearance of profit done by crook -- bogus leasebacks, creating money out of thing air (quite illegal), deliberately letting the road(s) go to pot. When he had that power, under that technological and infrastural climate, he paid no more than lip-service to innovation. He probably said he was in favor of the AAR's backing of those (early color) bar codes on some freight cars, even at the time the corporation he headed integrated the Pennsy-NYC merger so poorly that it destroyed legitimate avenues to profit -- one example: even the best new yards got crowded with each other's "mystery freight." But money is money and profit was made to look legitimate, or at least it was enough to fool the complacent shareholders and the so-called "specilized financial accountants. (Did we learn? No. Enron pulled many of the same stunts ca. 30 years later.) So at one time it was possible to pluck the bones of two hitherto well-respected systems and add to the misery of whas was already turning into Rustbelt. It was a lesson hard-learned, the billions spent, the routes condemned -- but if it proves anything it gives a fine example of how money is made and profit is maximized by picking apart a profitable entity, not be streamlining technology without other contributing factors. If all the big RR's are in conspiracy, what motive would they have to innovate with the hope of (temporarily) getting the better of their competition?
Conrail actually turned a profit (after being given more latitude than other systems under ICC supervision) to abandon and consolidate routes. Technically it started out "socialist," but then it made a profit and offered shares. Perhaps the relative freedom and power it had when under full government control doesn't prove everything, but it does tend to show that a government is more likely to create and abuse (or fulfill, depending on one's point of view) a massive shift in ownership, control, and priorities of mission or service.
For your scenario to work, most if not all of the following would have to be true:
The railroads are competitive as to revenue (hence earnings and profit), yet at the same time are in utter conspiracy. How can both hold true?
A promising new technology is adopted nationwide without what today we'd call "beta testing." My hunch is that there was probably more of a tendency to that in the sixties, when the Interstate highway program couldn't or wouldn't be stopped and damm the railroads. That's because history and politics engender emotions, and today feelings seem to play a larger political role than reason. Even Ike disliked the railroads because he got (from a military point of view) what he thought was dilatory, poor service during both World Wars. Remember how quickly Bobby Kennedy yanked RPO's over most routes? I don't care whether or not one of his motivations was to p*** Jimmy Hoffa off by encouraging the spread of mail-hauling truck traffic thus Teamsters -- I don't think the physical shiftover could be done so quickly today.
FWIW I have been struck by several late-in-life interviews of people who at that time were at the highest areas of political power (appointed and elected) who in one way or another and much more recently cited NIMBY'ism -- the ability of new or ad hoc groups to stop what we used to call just "progress" or "city hall." -- to slow, hinder or stop politicians, engineers and economists had green-lighted. *(One example, the Embarcadero freeway halt in San Francisco was part of a nationwide spread into today's almost inevitable political groups -- and I for one fear the ad hoc's more than the PA' -- any two year building project now takes about five years. There are reasons for that, not destroying wetlands is one example, but apparently by resisting over-arching technocracy we wonld up near the other exteme -- these endless public hearings where any ignoramus with a self-given title and enough time can testify to his/her feelings and pass them off as fact, perhaps not even fully comprehending the distinction between fact and opinion. ("Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by incompetence," bridge players say.
That sudden switchover of one technology to an entirely different one hasn't been happening, has it? Thirty years ago "the experts" would have been thought wise if they had said that unit trains would all be staffed by robots by now, (assuming the loco's had to be staffed at all.) Didn't happen. There are many reasons for this, and I'm trying awkwardly to say that to blame it on unions or enviros or tenured radical is WAAAY too oversimplified.
America doesn't have the industrial capacity to switch even items industrial (as opposed to software) overnight. American RR's are not at the apex of our post-modern economy, but as an industry group, even today, they are massive. Even if we went abroad for our new or replacement parts, it would take years to gear up uniform production. Probably an econometrician could prove on paper that an absolutely uniform, coast to coast structure and language of color coding road signals would save not only lives but money -- for reasons that have been well hashed through less than a year ago, this might happen -- but not overnight.
We can learn from the lessons of the past, but it isn't easy. Humankind has been terrible at predicting the future, except for a few Cassandras, self-proclaimed profits and sages, many of whom may simply have guessed right. Do I think "planned expanding economy" is an oxymoron? More than I do not. Do I think the oxymoron "creative destruction" in terms of the competitive effects of capitalism has merit. More often than not. IMHO. Very much IMHO, but I hope any reader has seen a sketch of how I reached such opinions.
Maybe Warren Buffet is of the opinion that all BNSF unit trains should be completely robotized right away, and any extra injury or job termination is something he'd like to ignore. Maybe. But he is a pragmatic man and no matter how much "evil" anyone wants to attribute to this top-tier capitalist, he can't make it happen. (1) Forty percent control of one Big Six undoubtedly gives him enormous clout,but probably far less than the transportation secretaries and ICC during the Seventies. (2) BNSF has more money to spend on infrastructure, but it's not enough.) (3) Even if $$$$$ existed, there would have to be a break-in period, and the faster such a conversion is rushed through (and immediately is pretty rushed), UP would pick up some traffic, perhaps permanently. BNSF can't risk that. Again, consider the Penn Central merger! (4) Doing things strictly "for profit" begs the issue of the context of how the profit is gleaned. BNSF (or whatever) can't risk huge liability suits when robotized locomotive foul switches, or if their air hoses shatter in even an unnecessary emergency braking. Motive doesn't matter. If a screwup happened due to a massive power outage (which has happened), litigants would either include the electricity co's in their lawsuits or just go after the "deep pockets." We have all witnessed or read examples of that! Compare that to the Hill-Harriman days when quickly-built wooden trestles collapsed or caught fire and passenger trains much more often derailed with bad consequences, killing hundreds of Americans at a swipe in the worst cases. (5) There are going to be unintended consequences of any technological change, and if experience proves anything, it can't prove much. (Remember when a dozen computers was all the USA could possibly ever use?) (6) Unions may be emasculated compared to the time of the Truman Administration, but they still have clout. They can't virtually paralyze a whole country the way the two Canadian megasystems would have seized up, had they suffered a uniform strike (both systems, all brotherhoods) the past, but they can do damage. Ruthless capitalists have to consider contracts, and lawsuits, and yes sentiment both from labor and from citizen in general.
I respect the premises of the originating post and also find them interesting. It might also be interesting to see if examples of success and failure of the implementation of railroad technology in the past offer any lessons or analogies for today and the near future.
Perhaps a little of this is of use. BTW I always read my PM's, though it may take a couple of days. - a.s.
Railway Man In theory, is is possible to automate operation of trains. In practice, it is not even remotely feasible at this time.
In practice, it is not even remotely feasible at this time.
Exactly.
tree68 Railway Man In theory, is is possible to automate operation of trains. In practice, it is not even remotely feasible at this time. Exactly.
I totally agree! - al-in-chgo
Note that I'm referring to "open" systems such as the North American network. "Closed" systems such as the Pilbara iron ore lines that have rigid operational plans, essentially sealed corridors, and do the same thing day-in, day-out, are another matter.
blownout cylinder jeatonAnd I suppose the computer could be programed to land the 747 in Hudson River when a flock of birds knocked out the engines. Didn't you know? Technology is perfect----
Indeed, professional pilots aren't being paid to fly the planes, but to land the planes That's something I picked up pre-Capt. Sollenberger FWIW. - al-in- chgo
Ulrich You have nothing more to worry about than the next guy Wabash... we're all affected by changes in technology...if anything.. railroad people probably have more security in that regard than some other lines of work that don't require the physical dexterity of a railroader.. Like someone else stated..a person from a remote location can't deal with problems on the ground like broken air lines etc..
I never said i was worried and never was worried, in fact buy me out. but if they wont buy me out i guess ill just go to work and play on thier railroad
Railway Man In theory, is is possible to automate operation of trains. In practice, it is not even remotely feasible at this time. Nor any time in the near future. Nor in my lifetime. This is much harder than many people think. The operation of one train is easy. Now do it with thousands of trains, in a dynamic system that evolves from one day to the next. The systems management requirements to take in all that data, process it, categorize it, and publish it is quite difficult and costly. Even if it was, I cannot imagine any regulatory environment in this country that would permit such a thing. RWM
Agreed, including your subsequent post excluding 'closed' systems such as Pilbara.
But what about remote control as discussed above, and with the 'drones' ? Do you care to offer a prediction - which you are typically reluctant to do, I know - or any insight into that ? Thanks.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.