One good thing about machines is that they don't have any emotions (yet)... when things go badly wrong they just kind of just sit there helplessly (well...actually...alot of people do that too)..
The Carol Lake Mine railroad in Canada has been running unmanned since the early 60's. That being said, it is a unit train shuttling back and forth over a short distance with some meets on the way. It is electrified and relatively short (20 cars or so if I remember right.) It is also in an area where the right of way is remote and very controlled.
That being said, let's jump ahead 50 years. The technology for normal operation unattended has been here a long time. The Rio Tinto trains will be in an extremely remote area and will have very little chance of unintentional interference on the right of way. The trains are very large, but with distributed power and ECP brakes, this isn't so much of a problem anymore. The local BNSF engineers liked the ECP brakes on their ore trains when they had them. They could bring a 20,000 ton train to an emergency stop just like a passenger train.
Now, we have this 40,000 or 60,000 ton train crossing mostly uninhabited desert at slow speed with no one in the cab. There is no work along the way and now with roller bearings hot boxes are very rare. By the way, weather isn't a problem 364.8 days of the year.
Think about it, just like some airplanes, the engineer already controls the locomotive through a computer, as well as controlling distributed power. Heck, they've been controlling second, third, and fourth multiple units from one location since the late 30's. Some version of PTC can keep trains aware of where each other are and avoid conflicts. Radio control of locomotives has been around for 60 years. GPS can keep track of both the front and rear of a train and make sure they are both going the same speed. CTC has been around for over 100 years and can remotely control switches and signal aspects. Computer vision has developed to a point where it can detect an obstruction on the track, though it is unlikely to be avoided any more than it is today with human engineers. The foundations have been around for a long time.
So, 99% of the time everything works fine. 1% of the time something goes wrong and the train stops. If it can't be remotely diagnosed and worked around, send someone out in a helicopter to see what the problem is (this country is that remote). If it involves a derailment, well, that happens whether there is someone on the train or not.
I suspect that what will happen is that the main line run will either be fully unmanned or will be supervised remotely in an office. Someone will probably take over direct control at the terminals, though they may still not be on the locomotive.
It certainly makes sense on a line like this running many hundred miles at low speed with no civilization en route to provide crew change points to put the operator in an office in a town. Pity the poor maintenance guys that have to live in the Outback because they have to physically be there.
Automation isn't always a good thing . Look at the lowly receptionist...that job seems to be making a comeback as people grow ever more frustrated with having to deal with machines and voicemail. Having someone friendly who can think in that role beats the most sophisticated machine any time of day. Same is probably true of most jobs.. anything that requires thought and judgement is best left to a person, at least for the time being.
It is interesting how much resistance there seems to be about crewless trains. I thought change and progress were good. It almost sounds like denial of the inevitable like when they used to say that you could not run freight trains without cabooses.
I would say that automated running is just as inevitable as cabooseless trains. It will come in stages though. With an open right of way, watching for intrusions will always be an issue. So until spotting irregularities becomes automated, human eyes will have to do it. However, they can do it from a stationary office just as well as they can from the locomotive cab. Switching too will be automated. The whole railroad plant is heading toward something like a giant vending machine.
Bucyrus It is interesting how much resistance there seems to be about crewless trains. I thought change and progress were good. It almost sounds like denial of the inevitable like when they used to say that you could not run freight trains without cabooses.
This is clearly a very controversial thread. But Bucyrus makes a good point about cabooses. The same was true with regard to the necessity of firemen on diesel locomotives. The end of those practices did not lead to a sharp increase, if any, in accidents. increased automation seems inevitable, though the pace will be slow.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Every advance in technology has it's corresponding costs - costs that may not be readily apparent to a outsider.
The replacement of the $100K + staff cost caboose with the $5K EOT has the hidden costs of excessive line of road delay times when trains have mechanical issues. With a staffed caboose inspection of the train was performed on two fronts - from the front and the rear of the train - when the problem was found and resolved in many instances the train would pull ahead and both crewmen would get on the caboose thus keeping delay to the absolute minimum. With the EOT, the inspection of the train can only occur from the head end, the problem must be minor enough that a single man with very minimal tools can resolve it and after the problem is resolved the crewman must then return to the head end of the train. With normal train lengths being 9000 feet and greater, you have now shut you mainline down for the length of time it takes for the crewman to walk over 3.5 miles on main track ballast most frequently at night in all forms of weather including knee high snow - you have saved the expense of the caboose and it's staffing at the cost of tying up the mainline for a extended period of time - on a high volume line that cascading effect of the delays grows like the wave effect of throwing a rock in the middle of a still pond.
What will be the costs of a unmanned train that experiences mechanical issues from either the train itself or from its motive power. No form of transportation is free from mechanical issues - manned or unmanned.
Bucyrus It is interesting how much resistance there seems to be about crewless trains. I thought change and progress were good. It almost sounds like denial of the inevitable like when they used to say that you could not run freight trains without cabooses. I would say that automated running is just as inevitable as cabooseless trains. It will come in stages though. With an open right of way, watching for intrusions will always be an issue. So until spotting irregularities becomes automated, human eyes will have to do it. However, they can do it from a stationary office just as well as they can from the locomotive cab. Switching too will be automated. The whole railroad plant is heading toward something like a giant vending machine.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Yes there will be drawbars breaking, air hoses needing replacement, brakes that need to be cut out, and lots of other things that go wrong with locomotives and cars. These problems will need a network of men in trucks staged and ready to descend on any mechanical problem. Communications, mobility, preparedness, manpower, and teamwork will be ready to fix anything in short order. They will drive right to any problem along the train.
There will be no more carrying knuckles through the snow. The mobil repair service will be like a traveling pit stop that goes where it is needed. This is an added expense that must be paid for by the elimination of trainmen, but it will also be paid for by the fact that it will get the repair job done much faster than trainmen do.
For now at least reducing crew size or eliiminating on board crews altogether sounds like the perfect solution to a problem that doesn't exist. There's no pressing need to cut crew size.. the real cost savings are questionable as the work itself still needs to be done regardless of who or what does it. Are machines that much cheaper? Is someone working in an office cubicle instead of a locomotive cab that much cheaper and more effective than onboard personnel? Who knows.
You overlook the reality of staffing - there isn't any. When, and if, the carrier would go to crewless trains, they will also to with crewless maintenance. People that talk about maintenance crews at the ready to perform any necessary function are smoking something illegal...such crews cost money and the name of the game is to cut cost. Secondly, many locations are not accessible by off track means - you either get there on track or not at all.
At present, with the mechanically declined nature of new hire crewmen, Mechanical Department assistance is frequently called - even with personnel on duty - average response time is 2-4 hours to get on scene; without increased staffing that will not get any faster.
Bucyrus Yes there will be drawbars breaking, air hoses needing replacement, brakes that need to be cut out, and lots of other things that go wrong with locomotives and cars. These problems will need a network of men in trucks staged and ready to descend on any mechanical problem. Communications, mobility, preparedness, manpower, and teamwork will be ready to fix anything in short order. They will drive right to any problem along the train. There will be no more carrying knuckles through the snow. The mobil repair service will be like a traveling pit stop that goes where it is needed. This is an added expense that must be paid for by the elimination of trainmen, but it will also be paid for by the fact that it will get the repair job done much faster than trainmen do.
Bucyrus It is interesting how much resistance there seems to be about crewless trains. I thought change and progress were good. It almost sounds like denial of the inevitable like when they used to say that you could not run freight trains without cabooses. You dont work for the railroad do you? Resistance, yea you could say that although I call it something else, something they wont let me say on this forum.
LMAO! What ? Funniest thing I've read all day.
don't worry about it...these crewless posts come along about every year or so, the prognosticators have their say, people get mad, and its all back to normal after that...
They used to say that diesels would never replace steam except for maybe yard work.
In my business, radio broadcasting, managers and owners embraced automation to get rid of payroll and insurances and ego's. They did it to save money not to make money. Importing newscasts from 500+ miles away, replacing local talent with some guy who's never heard of the burg he's all of a sudden supposed to be the big star, commercials now written by the salesperson and sent to the next state to be recorded. If there were to be local voices, minimum wagers with stars in the eyes but not a real bent fo the business, were hired. In short, listeners and advertisers have been short changed in quality and real quanties of news and entertainment. A few, however, very few in fact, looked at automation as a chance to make rather than save money. They got two good, talented, local people to split by overlapping a whole day, being able to do in 12 hours what used to be up to five to 10 people 24/7. So, if railroads are going to fully automate to save money, they are doing it for the wrong reasons. If they are going to do it to make money...then they'll be creative and apply the new technologies to make things happen and happen to the benefit of the customers and the bottom line at the same time. Too many who concentrate on the bottom line fall below it and never recover.
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.
schlimm Bucyrus: It is interesting how much resistance there seems to be about crewless trains. I thought change and progress were good. It almost sounds like denial of the inevitable like when they used to say that you could not run freight trains without cabooses. This is clearly a very controversial thread. But Bucyrus makes a good point about cabooses. The same was true with regard to the necessity of firemen on diesel locomotives. The end of those practices did not lead to a sharp increase, if any, in accidents. increased automation seems inevitable, though the pace will be slow.
Bucyrus: It is interesting how much resistance there seems to be about crewless trains. I thought change and progress were good. It almost sounds like denial of the inevitable like when they used to say that you could not run freight trains without cabooses.
Here is a good example of applied technology used to make money. Yes, the crew was able to be reduced but safety was gained while the costs went down; the cost of owning and maintaining the car was gone, too. while train size was able to be increased because you didn't have a whipping jerk when the quarter mile of slack ran out at the caboose's coupler. And by moving the conductor to the locomotive cab, you had that second set of eyes ahead and company for the engineer (time, motion, monotony studies like two people instead of one for long periods of time).n Trackside detectors were able to monitor the train's hardware and EOTD kept an eye on the train line and connections. It in fact, did improve to product and service while making a safer working environment for the employees and allowed the railroad to make more money by being able to control rates better.
Keep in mind that the engineer is not controlling the train right now - he (or she) is telling a computer what they want and the computer controls the train. And as others have said, sometimes the engineer is simply doing what some other computer tells him (or her) is the best thing to do. The technology is already there.
As far as taking jobs away - the railroad is there to do a job in the most cost effective way possible, it's not there to provide jobs. If the railroad is ineffcient, then another mode of transportation will take over and there will be no jobs for you at all.
If the railroads, govt, and unions hadn't stuck their heads in the sand in the early 20th century, they would have been more competitive with trucks and maybe, just maybe, there would be way more freight traveling on railroads and less on trucks today - and more railroad jobs.
AndrewDickey Keep in mind that the engineer is not controlling the train right now - he (or she) is telling a computer what they want and the computer controls the train.
Keep in mind that the engineer is not controlling the train right now - he (or she) is telling a computer what they want and the computer controls the train.
Really? Could you please elaborate on this, and how it works.
Jeff
Well, look at it this way. By the time we completely automate the railroads and trucking industry, we won't need them since no one in this country will be working (except a few computer people), so there will be no need to move large amount of goods.
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
AndrewDickey Keep in mind that the engineer is not controlling the train right now - he (or she) is telling a computer what they want and the computer controls the train. And as others have said, sometimes the engineer is simply doing what some other computer tells him (or her) is the best thing to do. The technology is already there.
It's a very efficient way of ripping trains into multiple pieces. There has yet to be a computer program that can calculate as well as an engineer's buttcheeks.
zugmann It's a very efficient way of ripping trains into multiple pieces. There has yet to be a computer program that can calculate as well as an engineer's buttcheeks.
In 1978 I was riding a Hamersley Iron loaded train that broke in five places. The train was approaching Seven Mile yard when the yard tower decided to change our allocated track, in the process reversing the approach signal from green to red. The driver made an emergency application and the train broke in five places. Four of the breaks were coupler knuckles but the fifth was a rigid drawbar between a married pair of cars. The drawbar was fine but the draft gear yoke had failed. But we stopped short of the signal.
That was 220 100 ton cars hauled by a C36-7 and two M636 units.
We had instruments on the 199th and 200th cars with coaxial cable rigged down the train, held on by five cable ties on each car. That was two kilometres of cable at one dollar per metre in those days. We never saw any of it again.
Of course the operation is called Rio Tinto now...
But they have been investigating the effects of train handling for nearly forty years to my own personal knowledge. Probably hundreds of trains have been recorded, measuring coupler tension and compression forces, train speeds at different locations, truck angles in curves locomotive power setting and many other details.
They no longer use fixed signals. There is an in cab signalling system that tells the driver where he is, what the maximum allowed speed is and what is the recommended speed for existing conditions.
Combining this with a computer control system based on the decades of accumulated train handling information, and the ability to match the control inputs to the exact location on the track, I would be very surprised if a train was to break now.
There have been experimental systems running on the line since 2006 or earlier. They were close to introducing the system in 2008 when they decided to cancel the project due to the Global Financial Crisis and the consequent downturn (not that that had any effect on Rio Tinto iron ore production, which just kept increasing owing to demand in China).
The system they are using is quite elegant. The control system is contained in a box that fits into the walkway at the front of the lead unit and it is connected to the locomotive through the multiple unit cables. So the locomotive reacts as though connected to a unit ahead with a normal crew. No permanent change to the locomotive at all.
There is a distinctive antenna mast mounted against the locomotive nose on the left side.
Interestingly, I have seen a photo of exactly that system mounted on a Union Pacific unit at GE's test track in Erie Pennsylvania in 2007. So this isn't a strange foreign experiment. It is an American system, tested in the USA. And it can be fitted easily to any standard locomotive....
While the Hamersley line runs through sparsely settled areas, it has serious grades, a rising 0.42% against loaded trains, but a ten mile long 2% falling grade where good train control is important.
Rio Tinto don't use distributed power. It is the parallel line to the East, BHP Billiton that does that. The trains on Rio Tinto generally have two locos at the head and about 240 cars of 100 ton capacity.
M636C
zugmann AndrewDickey: Keep in mind that the engineer is not controlling the train right now - he (or she) is telling a computer what they want and the computer controls the train. And as others have said, sometimes the engineer is simply doing what some other computer tells him (or her) is the best thing to do. The technology is already there. "...It's a very efficient way of ripping trains into multiple pieces. There has yet to be a computer program that can calculate as well as an engineer's buttcheeks..."
AndrewDickey: Keep in mind that the engineer is not controlling the train right now - he (or she) is telling a computer what they want and the computer controls the train. And as others have said, sometimes the engineer is simply doing what some other computer tells him (or her) is the best thing to do. The technology is already there.
"...It's a very efficient way of ripping trains into multiple pieces. There has yet to be a computer program that can calculate as well as an engineer's buttcheeks..."
Maybe, Zug, that is your calling....To develop a 'dyno/sensor feed' that can measure the tractive effort of the Engineer's relation to his seat cushion as a method to determine train handling applications(?)
samfp1943Maybe, Zug, that is your calling....To develop a 'dyno/sensor feed' that can measure the tractive effort of the Engineer's relation to his seat cushion as a method to determine train handling applications(?)
While I'm not looking to put anyone out of of job, I would submit that the computing power exists today to allow for an autonomous train. What's lacking is the data necessary to do so.
Such an operation would require precise data on the track - grades, curves, etc. This would be fairly easy to acquire - a trip over the territory in question with the appropriate sensors would provide all the information needed.
Even the "seat of the pants" sensor could be had.
What's needed is a way to accurately measure the parameters of each individual car - weight, slack dynamics, braking capabilities, you name it. Given the number of cars in circulation, this is an almost insurmountable barrier. One that makes continuing to put human crews on board the trains more appealing.
Given the appropriate data, the motive power (as well as the individual cars) could be commanded to take the appropriate action at the appropriate time.
Taking electronic braking to the next level, cars could be commanded to apply or release their brakes individually as needed/appropriate. This could serve to minimize slack run-ins, especially in "hogback" profiles.
Of course, this requires railroading in a fairly sterile environment, as has already been discussed. Adding in all the other variables we know exist (crossings, pedestrians, etc) is another issue entirely, but a significant one.
The horizon is a long, long way off...
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 samfp1943: Maybe, Zug, that is your calling....To develop a 'dyno/sensor feed' that can measure the tractive effort of the Engineer's relation to his seat cushion as a method to determine train handling applications(?) While I'm not looking to put anyone out of of job, I would submit that the computing power exists today to allow for an autonomous train. What's lacking is the data necessary to do so. Such an operation would require precise data on the track - grades, curves, etc. This would be fairly easy to acquire - a trip over the territory in question with the appropriate sensors would provide all the information needed. Even the "seat of the pants" sensor could be had. What's needed is a way to accurately measure the parameters of each individual car - weight, slack dynamics, braking capabilities, you name it. Given the number of cars in circulation, this is an almost insurmountable barrier. One that makes continuing to put human crews on board the trains more appealing. Given the appropriate data, the motive power (as well as the individual cars) could be commanded to take the appropriate action at the appropriate time. Taking electronic braking to the next level, cars could be commanded to apply or release their brakes individually as needed/appropriate. This could serve to minimize slack run-ins, especially in "hogback" profiles. Of course, this requires railroading in a fairly sterile environment, as has already been discussed. Adding in all the other variables we know exist (crossings, pedestrians, etc) is another issue entirely, but a significant one. The horizon is a long, long way off...
samfp1943: Maybe, Zug, that is your calling....To develop a 'dyno/sensor feed' that can measure the tractive effort of the Engineer's relation to his seat cushion as a method to determine train handling applications(?)
The train handling part is definitely doable now - has been for quite a while. The part that isn't is the "real life" stuff. What happens when real world intrudes on the railroad is the trick. If all you had to do was go from A to B and whistle for the road Xings, we could do that right now. But everything from sweeping out switch points in the snow to reacting to a road Xing... that's the rub.
I can see getting to quite a few one man crews with PTC-based safety controls as a back up, but crewless is quite a bit more than that.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
I don't like this idea. Anything computerized can malfunction and then what happens. Runaway trains?
Even remote control locos are a concern to me. Sometimes things happen that only a human on site can take care of, not a computer or someone sitting in front of a computer terminal.
And there have been enough job losses in this country with outsourcing and now they want to try this. Just so the "big bosses" can put more money in their pockets and the heck with the lowly working man/woman.
Any project that involves more than two people tends to get balled up in hurry as well.
I would thnk crewless trains on the whole would require inch by inch east/west (seeing in both directions as well as peripheral views) visual monitoring along with sattellite GPS and visual. WHen does it cost too much, where is the break point, the point of no return? What an engineering nightmare! What a progamming nightmare! This system will buy a lot of health insurance, pay for a lot of cars, houses and refrigerators, and buy a lot of victuals perhaps with more value than getting rid of a person on the payroll!
oltmannd tree68: Of course, this requires railroading in a fairly sterile environment, as has already been discussed. Adding in all the other variables we know exist (crossings, pedestrians, etc) is another issue entirely, but a significant one. The horizon is a long, long way off... The train handling part is definitely doable now - has been for quite a while. The part that isn't is the "real life" stuff. What happens when real world intrudes on the railroad is the trick. If all you had to do was go from A to B and whistle for the road Xings, we could do that right now. But everything from sweeping out switch points in the snow to reacting to a road Xing... that's the rub. I can see getting to quite a few one man crews with PTC-based safety controls as a back up, but crewless is quite a bit more than that.
tree68: Of course, this requires railroading in a fairly sterile environment, as has already been discussed. Adding in all the other variables we know exist (crossings, pedestrians, etc) is another issue entirely, but a significant one. The horizon is a long, long way off...
Exactly what is a driver expected to with a train with 25000 tons of iron ore approaching a grade crossing at 50 mph if a vehicle tries to cross too close in front of him? Not even ECP brakes will do much there (although the couplers probably wouldn't break).
The adjacent BHP Billiton line had some notices at grade crossings. They stated "Our trains take five minutes to pass through this crossing, whether or not your vehicle is on it at the time."
I think so...from what I've read PTC borders on the impossible by the mandated deadline, and crewless trains would be several orders of magnitude more complex and expensive... I can see it for simple remote operations, but not for awhile in heavily congested corridors.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.