I was thinking the same.
Norm
All the objections I was gonna raise were already stated...so I'll add one more: jobs. At the risk of going political...one of the hot buttons in the country right now is the loss of "good paying jobs". It's my belief that the US has automated itself out of many of those jobs on the altar of the almighty buck. This would merely be the latest (if/when it happens) of that.
What happens when a unit shuts down on the main? Gotta ring the Diesel Doc and check all kind of things behind closed doors. Yeah a computer can do that and follow logic to troubleshoot things...but then you gotta automate and put sensors on every single engine block, fuse panel, traction motor, etc. Those break too...I see nothing but cascading expenses and in the end...a greasy pair of hands, sharp eye and experienced mind still gotta put boots on steel to fix it and get it running. I'd rather keep the crews in the cab & pay a couple bucks more for stuff.
Dan
After having read this thread in its entirety I have come to one conclusion.
Broadway Lion needs to watch the movie "Fail Safe:"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-6xcIUwPtohttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-9R3w8wDrmM&feature=related
I think there has been a move toward full automation that began at least 100 years ago. But the challenge of controlling automatic operation was insurmountable. That challenge took a big leap toward feasibility when diesels replaced steam. At about that point, we have seen small examples of automated running in specialized applications. The next big leap toward feasibility is underway now with computers and microprocessors sprouting up on locomotives. I believe that the greatest accelerator of all toward automation will be PTC.
Right now, PTC appears to be a collision avoidance system. But collision avoidance is the very control that is needed for heart and brains of automatic operation. I do not know of any advancement in railroading that has matched the size and scope of the PTC mandate. I do not expect that its execution will simply amount to installing the system and walking away finished. PTC will begin a process that will continue into areas where it originally was not intended to go. It will be unstoppable.
No, PTC will not be unstoppable....
That is exactly what it is *supposed* to do! That is to STOP a train.
NYCT has had positive train control for over 100 years. Rather primitive, an arm reaches up when the signal is RED, If a train passes a tripper puts the train BIE.
OIf course that was 100 years ago now brakes a re composite rather than iron, and so the stopping distances are greater, and so the signals can no longer stop a train soon enough. *THEY* blame it on the signal system, but the problem is the brakes. Installing track brakes for emergency use would be the easiest way to bring the system back into compliance, but NYCT does not listen to me.
ROAR
The Route of the Broadway Lion The Largest Subway Layout in North Dakota.
Here there be cats. LIONS with CAMERAS
I am saying that the technological whirlwind created by the execution of PTC will be unstoppable. And it will lead into areas as yet unimagined. At one end of PTC is collision avoidance. At the other end is automated running (if I may be so ingrained in my thinking).
http://www.railwayage.com/index.php/operations/the-science-of-train-handling.html
This article just appeared in Railway Age. Part of it talks about the LEADER system on the NS. The UP, and maybe a few others are also trying it. It's not PTC, but in the present incarnation the assist mode "tells" the engineer what throttle or dynamic brake position to use, when to set air and how much. When PTC is deployed, it will be integrated with it.
The next generation of LEADER sounds like it will be able to control the train itself directly. Not having to involve the engineer unless something goes wrong. (Right now it's a "clear block" type system. It doesn't know what signals the train is operating on, or even what track it's on. Future developments will address that.)
Jeff
Automated freight trains were operated by Columbia Geneva Steel in Wyoming in the late 50's. I was Program Mgr for WABCO in this Joint WABCO-US&S venture. It was a tough task. The line included 12 miles of undulating 12% grades and the trains were a hundred cars long hauled by 5 old. F7 Units. The trailing load was 10,000 tons of peletized ore. There was no such thing as vital solid state devices so the whole system was done with relays. The cabinet replaced the ballast block on the A-units and it was just about as big if not as heavy. The mine elevation was 7000 ft and the winter weather defied description.The biggest problem was the slow response of the train to changes in speed. It gave new meaning to feedback. The program was scheduled to be completed in 6 months. It took 3 years. Columbia Geneva's goal was to show the union that the trains could be run with a crew of two, rather than four. The two would monitor the operation and take over if the automation shut down. We found that they watched what our program was doing and copied it. In the final winter of automated operation the snow was so bad that rotary plows from the UP wre called on to clear the cuts. They did this very well but tore out all of the imbedded automation devices, The crews were educated by that time so that ended the demonstration.
Using the things learned in this program. automated freight operation was successfully implemented in Canada from Great Slave Lake to the rail head. In this case, automation provided a significant improvement in fuel consumption.
Electronic Brakes and silid state technology should make it much easier today.
Jerry Pier:
A lot of what I remember about San Francisco's BART is that a lot of the automation was relay driven. Did what you described about Columbia Geneva work the same way?
Kind of curious. BART's signal communication between rail and wheel was an early problem from what I heard about it.
Thx IGN
samfp1943 I know it is not real 'Railroading'. But do not the BART Trains in San Francisco operate without a live person on the train? I am not 100% certain but the coal trains on the Black Mesa (?) line operate under computer control, but have an operator riding for safety(?) Also, Hundreds of thousands ride on the railroad at Atlanta's Airport every year. Those trains operate in close proximity and multiple trains on the same loop servicing the various terminals. I am certain that there are many more examples of total computerized operations moving all sorts of people all over the world. Point being, the technology is out there, and could be tailored for Heavy Rail operations, seems as if the only problematic issue is the Incursions of errant drivers at crossings, and trespassers on the ROW. Lion, I think, pointed out earlier that Coal trains seldom stop in his area due to crossing accidents, and trespassing incidents(?). So if the ROW were pretty much fenced, and crossings gated and/or otherwise protected, unless there was a derailment, the RR Police, and the local LEO'S would just be there to pick up the pieces and any resultant debris. It might sound good, but a plan like that would require a serious reduction in the number of Lawyers around.
I know it is not real 'Railroading'. But do not the BART Trains in San Francisco operate without a live person on the train? I am not 100% certain but the coal trains on the Black Mesa (?) line operate under computer control, but have an operator riding for safety(?)
Also, Hundreds of thousands ride on the railroad at Atlanta's Airport every year. Those trains operate in close proximity and multiple trains on the same loop servicing the various terminals.
I am certain that there are many more examples of total computerized operations moving all sorts of people all over the world. Point being, the technology is out there, and could be tailored for Heavy Rail operations, seems as if the only problematic issue is the Incursions of errant drivers at crossings, and trespassers on the ROW.
Lion, I think, pointed out earlier that Coal trains seldom stop in his area due to crossing accidents, and trespassing incidents(?). So if the ROW were pretty much fenced, and crossings gated and/or otherwise protected, unless there was a derailment, the RR Police, and the local LEO'S would just be there to pick up the pieces and any resultant debris. It might sound good, but a plan like that would require a serious reduction in the number of Lawyers around.
In many respects, automatic control of rapid transit trains is a lot simpler than automatic control of conventional trains. It may well come someday to conventional railroads, but we are a long way from it now.
In the meantime, this update:
Washington Metro's (WMATA) computer system has had several failures over the last few days, resulting in partial and total shutdowns of the system. Many news reports on this - here's a link to just one, titled "Metro Increasing Staff for Today's Commute After System-Wide Failures":
http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/Computer-Issue-Causes-Systemwide-Metro-Delays-162470196.html
Note: Increasing staff after system-wide failures . . . How's that automation thing working out for you now ?!?
- Paul North.
Ain't technology wonderful?
I think it could be made to work but there is always going to be the 'dangerous supplement'...the human who is needed to make the thing work
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/
A few words of wisdom that has been passed down through the ages
'Just because you can, doesn't mean you should.'
additionally
'Just because you did it once, doesn't mean you can do it all the time.'
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Nobody is going to fence in the BNSF in North Dakota. Ranchers fence in their cattle, but that is all. If there is a fence along the rail road, then the farmer put it there, and it is on his property.
As an EMT the last guy to have an encounter at the grade crossing said "I did not know those things moves so fast."
Well Duh!
He did not get hit by the train, but he did loose control of his car taking out the far gate and wrapping his car around a pole in the middle of a frozen drainage ditch.
And I did not know that ETOH could be so much fun. Railroad called in the accident so we were on scene before the driver could figure out what to do. The State Patrol had no problems in figuring out waht to do with this guy.
As technology presently stands, automating train operations is probably barely feasable at best and downright dangerous at worse. But that is not to say that technology will stand still and that some new technology will fill the bill tomorrow and make it feasable AND safe.
Consider the telephone system. Back when it required an Operator using a telephone switchboard ("NUMber PLEEEeezze?") to patch your pair of wires to someone else's pair of wires, the idea of "automating" such a process was probably considered impossible... "How are you going to build a machine to pull those cords out and stick them in the appropriate hole?... Impossible!"
But technology advanced in another direction and the telephone system is pretty much automated now. (I haven't dialed "0" in years, does it still work?) Granted, the phone system does still sometimes fail, (and those failures do not involve tons of metal, and possibly hazardous materials, moving at high speed) but it has redundancies to take care of most of the failures system wide and we don't notice most of them.
Train automation may very well become a reality, someday.
Semper Vaporo
Pkgs.
In 1968 American Electric Power Co opened the Muskingum Electric, which ran an automated crewless 5000 hp electric loco and coal hoppers on a 15 mile shuttle route in Ohio. Apparently it automatically blew the horn every few seconds in its travels.
"ETOH" = Ethanol (alcohol) intoxication ?
Although you make a good point about automation, more manufacturing jobs have been lost to "cheap third world labor" than machinery in recent years.
It's interesting (and off topic) to read some of the predictions from 4 or 5 decades back that automation would lead to the US population either leading a "life of leisure" with 3 day work weeks a la' George Jetson or crushing unemployment and then realizing that lots of manual labor is still necessary in much of the manufacturing sector and much of that labor is done in other countries.
One of the major factors in this change in labor practices was the revolution in long distance transportation which came with containerization, something that ultimately was a boon to the RR industry..
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
Watch Dr. Strangelove. Colonel Jack Ripper explains the rationale behind the design of the system.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qr2bSL5VQgM&feature=fvwrel
Most discussion that I have seen on this topic fails to get into why a railroad would run trains without crews. Money seems like the obvious answer, but is the cost of all that extra technology really worth eliminating onboard crews? It doesn’t seem likely.
Quote from Railway Age about Rio Tinto:
"The AutoHaul programme to be completed in 2015 is expected to increase rail throughput significantly, shortening journey times by eliminating stops for crew changes, and reducing energy consumption and CO2; emissions through more efficient operation."
Interestingly, it does not say a thing about eliminating the cost of employing drivers. But the reasons that it does give are costs that stand out for their unpredictability. Energy cost is subject to the whims of the world market, not only with its constant upward pressure, but also the destructive spikes that it can produce. The cost of emitting CO2 is a complete wildcard with ominous economic implications hanging over it, and the potential to wreak havoc with the world economy and standard of living.
So, it is no wonder that companies like Rio Tinto would find it cost effective to make the investment to bring about these savings in efficiency. When you face the prospect of practically unlimited rising costs of operation, any automation investment cost to offset the future operating costs is worth the investment.
Eliminating crew stops is part of the cost of employing drivers.
I wonder what those other "savings" really will be? In the article I linked to, the NS says they are experiencing fuel savings in the "mid-single digits" using the LEADER computer assist system. They are saving 6%. I bet they expected the savings to be more. The UP is expecting to save 11% on fuel with the same system. I haven't heard if they are experiencing those savings yet.
Even if those expected savings are miniscule, they are still saving on labor and all costs associated with it. Especially if they have to pay more and provide services that would otherwise be available in populated areas.
I have followed this forum for years but this is my first post. I finally decided to post to correct errors in air brake comments from various post in the past. "BroadwayLion" wrote that stopping distances would increase with composition brake shoes. The inference being that the coefficient of friction for composition brake shoes was less than cast iron brake shoes. This is absolutely an incorrect statement of fact. Composition brake shoes do in fact have a higher coefficient of friction than cast iron shoes at speeds greater than about 5 mph; however, the curve for composition brake shoes is flatter all the way down to zero; whereas the coefficient of friction for cast iron shoes suddenly spikes below 5 mph, which in the cast iron era caused many slid flat wheels especially during emergency brake applications. During the 1960's and 70's, and probably after that, WABCO marketed a liner for the 10" brake cylinder to reduce the inside diameter so that a freight car could be upgraded to composition brake shoes without having to have the entire brake rigging replaced or reworked.
KassiBoxer - Welcome to trains.com!
Darren (BLHS & CRRM Lifetime Member)
Delaware and Hudson Virtual Museum (DHVM), Railroad Adventures (RRAdventures)
My Blog
KassiBoxer I have followed this forum for years but this is my first post. I finally decided to post to correct errors in air brake comments from various post in the past. "BroadwayLion" wrote that stopping distances would increase with composition brake shoes. The inference being that the coefficient of friction for composition brake shoes was less than cast iron brake shoes. This is absolutely an incorrect statement of fact. Composition brake shoes do in fact have a higher coefficient of friction than cast iron shoes at speeds greater than about 5 mph; however, the curve for composition brake shoes is flatter all the way down to zero; whereas the coefficient of friction for cast iron shoes suddenly spikes below 5 mph, which in the cast iron era caused many slid flat wheels especially during emergency brake applications. During the 1960's and 70's, and probably after that, WABCO marketed a liner for the 10" brake cylinder to reduce the inside diameter so that a freight car could be upgraded to composition brake shoes without having to have the entire brake rigging replaced or reworked.
LION did not say that they *WOULD* increase, he said that the stopping distance *DID* increase.
But LION admits there is more than one factor at work here, the trains are heavier. In any event tripping a train will no longer stop it before the next signal. NYCT keeps talking about that the problem is with the signal systems, but the signals worked for 75 years. It seems easier to the LION that braking distances could be improved to what it used to be. It is simpler to install track brakes on the fleet than to change all of the signals on the railroad.
But you do not need to worry about it, they did not listen to be either.
All the talk of automating train operation is great!
NOW - what happens when the train stops! And they do, or must, for a variety of reasons - all of which require human manpower to begin moving again.
Simple problem, tree across tracks - and I mean TREE, not tree. Does the automated train hit it and damage the engine beyond it's ability to move? Does it stop short and wait for personnel to remove the obstruction?
Hot Box Detectors - currently FRA regs reqire trains to be inspected by a HBD every 50 miles, many carriers installed their HBD's every 25 miles so they could have one detector out of service and still be in compliance with the regulations (note - the regulations require the train to be stopped and visually inspected if it exceeds 50 miles between operating detectors). While I have no doubt that the HBD's could configure a electronic message to stop the automated train - Who performs the inspection? Who handles the set out of the bad order car?
Air applies on train in the middle of nowhere - who inspects and rectify's the parted air hose coupling?
These three things are just the tip of the iceberg of things that cause REAL TRAINS to come to a stop much to frequently. There are hundereds of others that have the train just as stopped and in need of human assistance to get moving again.
If an automated train needs human assistance, can’t you just bring the human assistance to it as needed? How does Rio Tinto do it? They run big trains and surely must have problems with brakes, hot bearings, broken knuckles, trees on the track, etc.
If automation happens, a whole lot of other things will change along with it to develop a support system for automation.
Most automated operations, particularly the long ones, have included an attendant to take care of the things that might occur enroute. If the fault is easily correctable, the attendant takes care of it and pushes the start button. If it is something that requires external assistance, he calls for it and once again pushes the start button when the fault is cleared. The attendant is not an engineman, he's at most a technician and an ecomomical part of the automation.
Most of the automated operations cited in this thread are on highly controlled ROWs such as transit or isolated mining operations. As general rail operations thru open developed areas and across public grade crossings become more automated, I don't see desirability or regulatory probability that qualified engineers will disappear.
Rio Tinto operates over public grade crossings.
But at I mentioned above, if automation happens, a whole lot of other things will change along with it to develop a support system for automation. A more secure right of way will be one of those supporting developments for automation.
It is easy to look at today's railroading and find all kinds of obstacles to automation. But a part of accomplishing automation will be changing today's railroads in areas that do not have anything directly to do with adding the automation control. Those indirect changes will just support automation.
So, by the time automation goes into effect, it will no longer be today's railroad.
Forget trains - let's automate the trucks.
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
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.