I notice that SD70ACe's are being built with a modernized control stand while only a few years earlier they were running into the new and modern desktop controls. While I do like the appearance of a control stand better then desktop, why did they go back.And is it just the SD70ACe's or is it all locomotives these days?
thanks
The Beaverton, Fanno Creek & Bull Mountain Railroad
"Ruby Line Service"
I recall the answer from seeing it on other threads. The control stand is returning because it is easier to use on long reverse moves or multiple short ones in road switching situations. Sitting facing forward and depending on the cab mirrors doesn't seem as safe to engineers as being able to turn with their backs and heads out the windows and then reaching to the control stand.
Bruce
So shovel the coal, let this rattler roll.
"A Train is a Place Going Somewhere" CP Rail Public Timetable
"O. S. Irricana"
. . . __ . ______
Locomotives don't spend their entire lifetime being operated in the forward direction. When being operated in the reverse direction, for either long shoves or in switching service, engineers found the desktop controls very uncomfortable and almost unusable. Desktop controls were designed by those who live at desks, not those who operate locomotives.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
If F's (and cowls) were still part of our daily lives, I could see it there. Amtrak's units are also an appropriate candidate.
As Balt says, running a locomotive backwards (something we do here all the time) would be/is an absolute pain with a console.
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...
BaltACD Locomotives don't spend their entire lifetime being operated in the forward direction. When being operated in the reverse direction, for either long shoves or in switching service, engineers found the desktop controls very uncomfortable and almost unusable. Desktop controls were designed by those who live at desks, not those who operate locomotives.
But I bet the people that thought up the idea of desktops thought it was a good idea, since they sit at desks all day, and, oh, um, yeah, nevermind.....
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
Because desktops suck. I highly doubt that those who came up with the idea ever ran a locomotive...
It's offered as an option to the purchaser I believe.
The newer "stand" that I saw had the computer screens in a ledge or desk top type of arrangement in front of the engineer, but the stand was placed where they always have been, on an angle that allows the engineer to swivel in his seat and run backward while still being able to keep both hands on the controls.
23 17 46 11
I've heard that it was because of ergonomics. That after a few years of desk top use there was a rise in FELA lawsuits for carpal tunnel syndrome.
Jeff
I could believe ergonomics and FELA suits was a reason - but instead of carpal tunnel syndrome, it was probably wrenched backs or twisted necks instead ! (Not frequent enough repetitive twisting motions of the wrist while running to cause carpal tunnel for most engineers - compare with a carpenter and a hammer, or a machine operator doing 'piecework' on an assembly line, etc.)
- Paul North.
Georgia Railroader Because desktops suck. I highly doubt that those who came up with the idea ever ran a locomotive...
Actually, the idea came from Europe where everything is a desktop, and, at least at Conrail, the guy who coordinated the design with GE and EMD was a former locomotive engineer (from a long line of them, to boot). It was one of many changes that came about with the "wide" cab design.
On top of this, the design was vetted by both the UTU and BLE when they got a chance to see the GE prototype B40-8W #809 in Cleveland.
However, desktop controllers do suck. The biggest problems are that you have to lean forward to grab a handle and the throttle is just the old drum switches turned on their side which creates a "knee-knocker" should you decide to slide the cab seat up to ease the reach.
But, some of the other changes turned out OK. The cab design was stronger and more collision proof. The train control equipment all fit on the inside of the cab in an organized way. The toilet compartment was an actual compartment with forced ventilation. The cab was quieter and has AC. And, at least on Conrail, a whole new generation of cab seat was developed.
An aside. How in the world can anyone operate a Dash 8 or Dash 9 wide cab with the long hood leading? The radiator cab "wing" is right at eye level! It was bad on the Dash 8s. It has to be horrible on the Dash 9s with split cooling.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
I always thought the desktop controls seemed like a fashion developed by non-railroaders, but I never gave any thought to the functional objections. The conventional controls seem so correct.
What were the advantages claimed for converting to desktop controls?
I hated desktop controls with a passion, fortunately, one thing that NS did do correctly was not buy fleets of these hideous designs. I've no idea what advantages were claimed to sell these controls to the public but I do know that one well known engineer, prominent in railfan circles, was a proponent while serving on a committee examining the pros and cons of desktop controls. He seemed to think they were a good idea, despite the fact that he was most likely never going to run one. Never understood that and won't name him, even though he, like myself, is now retired.
Maybe the desktop design was just a fashion statement to convey a revolutionary, modern sense of being advanced for locomotive controls. Makes it look kind of like a computer work station. It is also sort of automotive or aircraft style with the desktop being somewhat like a dashboard.
It was probably a product of industrial designers who develop product style. They probably had lots of ergonomic claims about how it was more comfortable. But to my perception, those desktop controls come off like the Earth Shoe in terms of design.
When we first started to see the GE Gash 9s, with the desktop, it became apparent the people who designed them intended them to run with the nose as front, with the engineer facing that way all the time, watching back up moves in the side mirrors, which are pretty big, and if you turn around in the engineers seat, the radiator is in the way, the engineer can't see much beyond it, nothing above it, so signal bridges are out of sight.
With those big radiators in the way, no real reason for the engineer to turn around any way, he can't see much.
The newer ones have the radiators higher up; you can see, not well, but better than in the older Dashs.
I am pretty sure the designers realized most crews would either turn the motor if it was a single, or MU them tail to tail so there would always be a cab facing the direction of movement, these things were not really designed as road switchers,
On the PTRA, we are not allowed to ride to the joint,(coupling) on these, the engineer can't see you in the foot boards if you're on the front, and the rear view is not that great anyway.
Definitely NOT a fashion statement....
The problem that desktop controls solved was the existing "clean cab" control stand had become obsolete. There was not place in it to hold all sorts of new things that had come and were coming along. The solution had been to build a "brick wall" on top of the control stand to house all the equipment and snake the wiring up through the control stand. All that stuff took a real beating - the EOT and voice radio connectors, in particular.
That equipment included the EOT head end box, LSL equipment, Locotrol, electronic airbrake, pacesetter/hump control, airflow indicator and probably some stuff I've forgotten. Also, there was a strong desire to integrate all this stuff and use flat panel displays. The overall cost of maintaining an integrated control and display system should be less, in the long run, it was thought. (It is now, but wasn't at first)
With the new cab layout, there was an opportunity to fix all these problems, simplify the controls and set things up for what was coming in the future, like ATCS/PTC. The first step in a redesign is to decide on the goals and scope. These were to improve reliability, lower costs, support future expansion, simplify modifications and improve crew environment. The next step is to look at the state of the art. Desktop controls existed in Europe and were popular with the crews. It looked like a natural solution.
There was a lot of thought about the "operating long hood forward" issue but the consensus was there was so little of it everywhere except on NS, that is was a non-factor. NS was going to do their "own thing" anyway. They rarely joined in on industry-wide efforts on the mechanical side. Of more immediate concern was dealing with air conditioning - keeping it running and not having to jump through hoops to try to get AC equipped locomotives leading all the time.
The trouble came in the execution. Sticking with the existing mechanical throttle/reverser and airbrake valve made it difficult to make the desk a true desk. The controls were not placed ergonomically, but where they would fit and little consideration was given to finding a cab seat that worked well with the desktop controls. If you did happen to have a seat that moved up and back easily and slid the cab seat close enough to easily reach the throttle, your legs were jammed in under the desk and your knees would knock the bulge housing the throttle.
Meanwhile, NS wanted to stick with the std. cab and they worked to fit the IFC/ICE displays into a highly modifiied "clean cab" control stand. This proved to be a workable, popular design. Rather than work through the issues with the desktop design, it was simpler and easier just to go with the new "clean cab" design.
I suspect that if the RRs and manufactures had stuck with it, they could have improved the desktop design and cab seat to a point where it would be well liked. They would have had to ditch the mechanical throttle and brake controls, improve the layout and integrate the seat design better. After all, there are very successful desktop designs all over the place. Nearly every European locomotive, Amtrak's electric locomotives and Acela, and just about every transit/light rail/streetcar vehicle in the world has one.
A lot of thought and effort went into the new cab design - just not enough and not enough follow-through.
Oltmannd, it sounds like the composite desktop model was an evolutionary dead end. European locos seem to be car-body types that call for cabs at each end, so reverse moves are not an issue. If US railroads adopt a European style desktop, there would still be the problem with backing up, trying to see past all the appurtenances that obstruct the rear view. Maybe reverse moves could be handled with video technology on a level somewhere between what is used for automobile back-up cameras, and what is used for flying drone airplanes.
MidlandMike Oltmannd, it sounds like the composite desktop model was an evolutionary dead end. European locos seem to be car-body types that call for cabs at each end, so reverse moves are not an issue. If US railroads adopt a European style desktop, there would still be the problem with backing up, trying to see past all the appurtenances that obstruct the rear view. Maybe reverse moves could be handled with video technology on a level somewhere between what is used for automobile back-up cameras, and what is used for flying drone airplanes.
Yes, there is almost no line of road pick up/set off in Europe...and trains don't double in and out of yards, either. That's a pretty big difference.
You could have solved the back-up move issue with a hand-held tether device - sort of like a model railroad walk-around throttle, but you'd have to get rid of the mechanical throttle and air brake valves first.
NYAB has already solved the air brake issue with an electric over air set-up. The controls are still located in their familiar positions, but all there is in the control stand is switches and potentiometers.
If an RCO can control the throttle of a locomotive from a radio belt pack, then an electronic solution throttle control can't be far behind.
In fact, it just occured to me that it would probably be entirely possible to build the controls right into a seat which could then swivel to meet needs. Right hand throttle, left hand brakes...
So the next generation of cabs will look like the bridge of the starship Enterprise..... I'm game..
Randy Stahl So the next generation of cabs will look like the bridge of the starship Enterprise..... I'm game..
Will Warp 8 = 8th notch?
That is kind of what I mean by, "Fashion."
Make it so.
zardoz Randy Stahl: So the next generation of cabs will look like the bridge of the starship Enterprise..... I'm game.. Complete with phasers for those pesky trespassers, and deflector shields for projectiles thrown at the cab, and a tractor beam to remove stalled vehicles? Sounds good to me! Will Warp 8 = 8th notch?
Randy Stahl: So the next generation of cabs will look like the bridge of the starship Enterprise..... I'm game..
Complete with phasers for those pesky trespassers, and deflector shields for projectiles thrown at the cab, and a tractor beam to remove stalled vehicles? Sounds good to me!
And you can just beam out to the home terminal. No hotels or vans needed! But only Canadien roads will get food replicators. And they will only speak french.
oltmannd MidlandMike: Oltmannd, it sounds like the composite desktop model was an evolutionary dead end. European locos seem to be car-body types that call for cabs at each end, so reverse moves are not an issue. If US railroads adopt a European style desktop, there would still be the problem with backing up, trying to see past all the appurtenances that obstruct the rear view. Maybe reverse moves could be handled with video technology on a level somewhere between what is used for automobile back-up cameras, and what is used for flying drone airplanes. Yes, there is almost no line of road pick up/set off in Europe...and trains don't double in and out of yards, either. That's a pretty big difference. You could have solved the back-up move issue with a hand-held tether device - sort of like a model railroad walk-around throttle, but you'd have to get rid of the mechanical throttle and air brake valves first.
MidlandMike: Oltmannd, it sounds like the composite desktop model was an evolutionary dead end. European locos seem to be car-body types that call for cabs at each end, so reverse moves are not an issue. If US railroads adopt a European style desktop, there would still be the problem with backing up, trying to see past all the appurtenances that obstruct the rear view. Maybe reverse moves could be handled with video technology on a level somewhere between what is used for automobile back-up cameras, and what is used for flying drone airplanes.
That's funny, I thought the back-up move issue when setting out/picking up or doubling in/out of yards had already been solved. We use something called trainmen. They are the "eyes" of the engineer on such moves as those. With the almost universal use of radio, you don't even need to see them. (Not that it isn't nice to use hand signals.)
I do like the control stands over the desk-top controls. That being said, I don't mind the desk top set ups on most models. (I don't like the raised pedastal under the throttle/brake and air brake controls on the SD9043 we have, but I already hate those engines for a lot of other reasons too.) I can't say that I have to reach more for those controls as compared to the control stand. It's just a different way of reaching. I think gripping the throttle/dynamic controls is also different between the two types. I could see where prolonged use of the desk top models might cause repetitive motion injuries. I also don't know of anyone who has ever claimed that in person either. Contrary to popular lore, we don't have our hand on the throttle constantly for either type of controller.
Today, we doubled a train out of the yard with desk-top controls. I turned my seat so I was sitting facing the window. The engine had seats that went far enough back to do this, not all would. (At least for us larger types) If I would have had to run that train with the engine long hood forward, while a bit awkward it would be possible. And probably not much more awkward as compared to the engines with the control stand. Except for some foriegn line (NS, maybe some others) engines that are set up to be able to lead in either direction and have a second speedometer on the back wall, most new engines use computer screens on the front dash instead of gauges on the control stand. (I think I have seen some NS ones that had the screens integrated onto the control stand.) Even running backwards with these, to view things on screen you'll have to twist around. Which leads to the question of how often will modern line haul engines be leading long hood forward? Except for the aforementioned ones set up for this, most only will in emergencies. Mainly because not all railroads equip them to regularly lead long hood forward. No ditch lights on the back end, not equipped with the proper pick up/receiver equipment to activate the cab signals in those territories. Sure, they still will run backwards just as well as forwards, but the rules that come into play with the lack of the proper equipment makes it ineffecient or next to impossible except under unusual (emergency type) situations.
KBCpresident - to answer your question as to why desktop control stands were dropped in the US. We engineers demanded it. This one issue was probably one of the top complaints management would receive every time they came face to face with an engineer. Desktop control stands may be okay for subway trains but they are a nightmare for diesel-electric locomotives here in the US. This was just another case where someone in the office with zero experience behind a throttle thought it was a great idea. Reminds me of the complaints US pilots made during the Viet-Nam war about taking the guns off all of their fighter jets and relying solely on missiles. The folks back on the ground thought guns mounted on jets were out-dated. Sound familiar?
After spending all day running a desk-top control stand equipped engine your back and neck aches from the unnatural position your put in when operating one. The horn is activated by pushing a button which gets old in a hurry. The brake system (Independent and Automatic) is backwards compared to the North American control stand. And the throttle is harder to manipulate to control one notch at a time. On a desktop when switching cars you control the throttle with your left hand and the brakes with your right. On a North American control stand it it just the opposite. Actually most of the time on a North American control stand it only takes your left hand to control everything unless your attempting to position railcars on an exact spot where you need to control power and brake at the same time.
I for one am glad new locomotives are no longer being built with desktop control stands and I look forward to the day when all of the older desktop control stand locomotives are either rebuilt with standard control stands or retired all together!
Tim
NS Locomotive Engineer
The desktop controls appear to cause disinterest and distraction for the engineer, like in the case of the engineers who are running the subways.
Andrew Falconer
Watch my videos on-line at https://www.youtube.com/user/AndrewNeilFalconer
EMD#1 [snipped - PDN] . . . On a desktop when switching cars you control the throttle with your left hand and the brakes with your right. On a North American control stand it it just the opposite. Actually most of the time on a North American control stand it only takes your left hand to control everything unless your attempting to position railcars on an exact spot where you need to control power and brake at the same time. . . . Tim, NS Locomotive Engineer
Tim, NS Locomotive Engineer
So why haven't the controls been placed on the engineer's right side ? Well, I suppose that then the control stand would be between the engineer and the side window, so it would be harder or impossible to lean out to see signals and look down the train, etc.
But with the advances in technology mentioned by Larry/ tree68 above, at least the throttle could be mounted on or in the right cab wall, and ahead of the engineer's seat, so he/ she could still lean out the window.
And with that, the principal [edited] operating controls on the arms of the seat starts to look more practical and usable.
And with RCO, you control speed with your right hand, independent brake with your left. Train brakes are closer to the center.
(Slot for quarters is in the back)
zugmann zardoz: Randy Stahl: So the next generation of cabs will look like the bridge of the starship Enterprise..... I'm game.. Complete with phasers for those pesky trespassers, and deflector shields for projectiles thrown at the cab, and a tractor beam to remove stalled vehicles? Sounds good to me! Will Warp 8 = 8th notch? And you can just beam out to the home terminal. No hotels or vans needed! But only Canadien roads will get food replicators. And they will only speak french.
zardoz: Randy Stahl: So the next generation of cabs will look like the bridge of the starship Enterprise..... I'm game.. Complete with phasers for those pesky trespassers, and deflector shields for projectiles thrown at the cab, and a tractor beam to remove stalled vehicles? Sounds good to me! Will Warp 8 = 8th notch?
Northern Quebec accents included.....
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/
Guess we know who us geeks are on this forum...
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.