The tipping point will be when on major routes track capacities reach limits and automated systems advance to a point where that capacity could be increased considerably with its implementation.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Bucyrus 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.
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.
Really? So what part of this new tech will make broken knuckles only happen at grade crossings? There are plenty of places where the only way the right of way can be gotten to is on the rail.
An "expensive model collector"
n012944 Bucyrus: 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. Really? So what part of this new tech will make broken knuckles only happen at grade crossings? There are plenty of places where the only way the right of way can be gotten to is on the rail.
Bucyrus: 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.
I think they can mechanize the process to the point where they can get power equipment to the site of the break no matter where it is. They might not get a truck to the spot, but they could develop power equipment that would be an extension of what the truck can reach.
I don't think this will happen overnight. And it won't happen in a vacuum. It will just be a gradual part of a much larger process of development. And it won't just happen as a universal changeover. And because it is a labor issue, there will be tremendous resistance, aside from the technical hurdles.
But they are working on coupling and uncoupling freight cars by remote control in order to reduce danger. That seems like a rather far fetched objective with lots of technical issues. If they are serious about that, remote running doesn't seem like that big of a reach. There are people working on developing almost everything you can imagine. I am not advocating remote or automatic running. I am not even sure what the cost benefit would be. But it does seem to be a idea that continues to germinate.
And every big change that can be seen coming is always met by disbelief that it is possible.
Helicopters already get where there are no roads. They can drop men and equipment and they can either ride with the rerailed or repaired train or wait for a pick up. Then there are quite a few prototype jet packs which can carry a man in; and by remote control, it could become a drone carrying things needed. It is amazing where we are and how close we are to so much more. If automation can be used to make money, then yes, do it, as long as it improves the product quality or safety of delivery. But there has to be a point where it might not be worth it and that point has to be defined and identified.
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.
henry6If automation can be used to make money, then yes, do it, as long as it improves the product quality or safety of delivery.
The reasons Rio Tinto is said to be going driverless are shortening journey times by eliminating stops for crew changes, and reducing energy consumption and CO2 emissions. They don’t say anything about eliminating crew cost.
Bucyrus The reasons Rio Tinto is said to be going driverless are shortening journey times by eliminating stops for crew changes, and reducing energy consumption and CO2 emissions. They don’t say anything about eliminating crew cost.
Do they have to say so? Or since it is a one man crew, he will actually be "operating" the train with a joy stick from a safe, warm, non moving, all amentites room in the Carribean? Or someplace similar.
Excerpt from The Automated Times Square-Grand Central Shuttle by Mark Feinman
The automated train was actually running during the fall of 1961 without passengers, running tests to ensure its safety and operation. On January 4th, 1962 at 3:17 pm lasting until about 7 pm, the first automated train in the US began revenue service. Although not needed, in deference to the TWU, a motorman rode the train at all times but did not operate it. The following day the train ran according to the regular shuttle timetable for track 4. Signs were posted all over track 4 indicating that the train was being automatically operated. The motorman did not ride in his cab. The public didn't seem to care (except, of course, for the railfans).
http://www.nycsubway.org/lines/irtshuttle.html
Automated trains mean that there would be no reason to hold trains for tonnage, no running out of crews at a terminal, easier to run trains to a schedule since a manifest could be dispatched on time with the cars that were ready and a portion of the locomotives that would be allocated. Say the manifest was scheduled for three locomotives and as departure time approached one third of the cars weren't ready, you would dispatch the two-thirds that are ready with two of the locomotives, and send the remaining third with the final locomotive when its ready.
henry6 Bucyrus: The reasons Rio Tinto is said to be going driverless are shortening journey times by eliminating stops for crew changes, and reducing energy consumption and CO2 emissions. They don’t say anything about eliminating crew cost. Do they have to say so? Or since it is a one man crew, he will actually be "operating" the train with a joy stick from a safe, warm, non moving, all amentites room in the Carribean? Or someplace similar.
Bucyrus: The reasons Rio Tinto is said to be going driverless are shortening journey times by eliminating stops for crew changes, and reducing energy consumption and CO2 emissions. They don’t say anything about eliminating crew cost.
If railroads are going to have a human actually operating the train, they are going to have him/her on board the train. It's not that they couldn't operate a train by R/C, but if you are going to have a person operate the train he might as well be on the train to trouble shoot and repair minor problems. You don't really gain anything by moving the engineer from the cab to India and it may actually cost more to do so on a wide spread basis. No, if they are crewless, they will be automatic, run by computers between terminal points. Any people at the master computer at a central location would only be overseeing the entire operation, making sure everything was working and notifying field personnel of any problems to be checked. Terminal switching would be done by people on the ground, either conventionally or by RCO.
The thing that's going to make it unattractive to have completely crewless trains in the US is the wait time for a utility man to reach a disabled train and fix the problem. Doesn't matter if it's next to the highway or they have to use ATVs to drive over hill and dale. At times one U-man will be too many, others when 5 are not enough on each territory. (The railroad bean counters will only see the times when one is too many to figure their staffing levels.) With the delay cost to the railroad in the 5 figures per hour range, getting the trains moving ASAP will be imperative. You can't wait 5 hours because the U-man is checking out 3 other trains that have broke down.
Oh, we talk about burst air hoses and broken knuckles but often the problems needing attention are mechanical. Some things can be reset, which could be done by remote. Others actually require the services of person. This happens more often than one would think. If you are superstitious, you would say these things happen in groups because it seems either no one is having problems or everyone is having problems.
Jeff
Au Contrair - No automated train will EVER be run without the full tonnage it is scheduled - it would not fit the efficiency model. You are overlooking that railroads, real, imaginary or automated do have a real finite capacity in the number of trains that can be operated. Bean counters may not believe it, but they only have to work with numbers - not reality.
beaulieu Automated trains mean that there would be no reason to hold trains for tonnage, no running out of crews at a terminal, easier to run trains to a schedule since a manifest could be dispatched on time with the cars that were ready and a portion of the locomotives that would be allocated. Say the manifest was scheduled for three locomotives and as departure time approached one third of the cars weren't ready, you would dispatch the two-thirds that are ready with two of the locomotives, and send the remaining third with the final locomotive when its ready.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
It is doubtful your assessment has any validity. Crewless trains are more a function of on the road operation rather than pre departure make up and availablity. I would think that with automation the number of trains and scheduling would determine its efficiency and that afterthoughs would mess up the system in the long run.
There's only so many engines available at most terminals at any one time. Shorting a train to wait for more tonnage at one location could cause delays at the next location because they don't have the available engines to move the tonnage they have ready.
It may not be as much of a problem at the larger terminals that originate/terminate many trains a day. It's those that only originate a few trains per day could be caught short.
I think it is a valid point raised that crewless trains would eliminate trains running out of hours on the crew and the subsequent delays in getting a new crew to the train. If anything yard capacity would have to be further increased because the trains would not be delayed as often due to human considerations, meaning trains might get to their destinations faster, putting more stress on yard functions.
I would also think that the railroads would consider contracting out their train running repairs. They might start stashing a knuckle every 5-10 cars or so, or on a particular type of car, so that the parts are available for use (I am not sure why this is not done now except for the expense, but when you consider the need and the lack of crew at the head end, then it becomes more cost effective). A repair service would bid and contract for a set territory. The contractor would have to meet repair times, worry about getting their people to and from the job site (which would probably be pinpointed by the sensors on the train itself, probably including the problem and a suggestion about what needs to be fixed), and all the associated costs of keeping a set of employees ready to go 24/7, including insurance and retirement. The railroads would be free of that cost too.
One would think that the train would still carry event recorders, and should the sensors on the train detect an impact they would still stop and automatically download video to a central location for immediate evaluation. Trains are going to hit things with or without a crew.
As far as a computer failure, isn't is common practice now for signals and brakes to fail to the safe position? Why would the train not fail to stop? That is what it does now.
I know computers don't wave back. Maybe that is the problem.
I can't foresee local switch jobs being automated. Having them automatically couple and uncouple could happen though. That might just eliminate another person from train service.
Seems that Rio Tinto has announced their system implementation " Auto Haul"
TRAINASNewswire of this date carries the article:
"...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...."
M636C
So what is the point of it? The article offers no explanation of that seemingly obvious question. The Rio Tinto position seems rather ambiguous about the issue of saving labor. They are removing the labor needed to run the trains, and yet they say they are not cutting labor because the operation will grow elsewhere and that will require new labor. That strikes me as fuzzy math. Even if new operations require new labor, there would be still more labor in total if they did not remove labor from running the trains. I get the impression they feel that it would be insensitive to say they are automating trains to eliminate jobs.
If a train operation had a lot of variability, I could see where removing the crew might save money by eliminating complications in coordinating operations with crews. But with a single purpose operation like theirs, running almost like a conveyor belt, it seems to me that they would have such a high level of consistency in train operation and scheduling that it is hard to see the advantage of running without an engineer other than saving the wages.
BaltACD Au Contrair - No automated train will EVER be run without the full tonnage it is scheduled - it would not fit the efficiency model. You are overlooking that railroads, real, imaginary or automated do have a real finite capacity in the number of trains that can be operated. Bean counters may not believe it, but they only have to work with numbers - not reality.
No track capacity is determined first by train braking ability. However it usually is further degraded by a poor match between signal block length with train length, limitations of the signalling system, Sluggish trains (very low hp/weight ratios), poor crew utilization, etc. NS trialling of GE's LEADER system suggests that at least they are trying to balance fuel costs against the value of track capacity. Future integration of software like LEADER with CAD (Computer Aided Dispatching, and PTC, should allow better utilization of track capacity. Maybe someday Precision Scheduling might become more than just a slogan for public disinformation.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.