Buttered popcorn or plain?
Beer or soda?
23 17 46 11
Bucyrus Doing? What do you mean?
Doing? What do you mean?
No, no, no... you go ahead. I'll sit back and watch.
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
zugmann Bucyrus But why does a grade crossing matter to driverless trains? They can't stop in time to yield to road traffic anyway. I see what you are doing here.
Bucyrus But why does a grade crossing matter to driverless trains? They can't stop in time to yield to road traffic anyway.
But why does a grade crossing matter to driverless trains? They can't stop in time to yield to road traffic anyway.
We were discussing the eventual full automation of the railroad the other day in the crew room. It was agreed that eventually, when the already exsisting cameras focused out the front of the locomotive indicate that a crossing accident has occured, a computer program will access the damage and an ATM on the side of the locomotive will dispense the proper compensation. Perhaps a nice sympathy card in the case of fatalities.
I see what you are doing here.
BaltACD Bucyrus But why does a grade crossing matter to driverless trains? They can't stop in time to yield to road traffic anyway.But they can stop to take names and notify authorities and render human assistance.
I see what you mean, but couldn't that human assistance be called out as an automatic response to a locomotive colliding with something significant? Generally, it would seem that taking the crew off of a train would require added auxiliary support. ie: Lots of guys in trucks spread out along the way to take names, render assistance, replace knuckles, etc.
But they can stop to take names and notify authorities and render human assistance.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Public access as in grade crossings. The "driverless" trains in Australia are operated on the Pilbara ore lines on the far side of nowhere, where grade crossings don't exist because nobody lives there.
traisessive1 Bucyrus I could not see the point of driverless cars, but driverless commercial trucks makes lots of sense, especially when we all know that there will NEVER be driverless trains (unless they can develop a robot that can replace knuckles). There already are driverless trains. Australia started testing in 2008 and are still using the technology today. The technology is there and if Australia can send a train across the desert with a computer controlling it then any railroad here can too. The public access is the issue.
Bucyrus I could not see the point of driverless cars, but driverless commercial trucks makes lots of sense, especially when we all know that there will NEVER be driverless trains (unless they can develop a robot that can replace knuckles).
I could not see the point of driverless cars, but driverless commercial trucks makes lots of sense, especially when we all know that there will NEVER be driverless trains (unless they can develop a robot that can replace knuckles).
10000 feet and no dynamics? Today is going to be a good day ...
Yes, it is essential that the switch points be in the proper position and be locked in the proper position. However, as I recall, if the points are not in the proper position even if the hand throw lever is in the proper postion for normal traffic the block signals will show red.
I may not remember correctly, but, as I recall, if only one crossover switch is lined for a cross over movement the signals for both directions go to stop.
As to being locked, the night that I lined both switches back after a freight that had had to back over onto the wrong main to let the City of New Orleans was back on the right main, the conductor shone his light on what I was doing until I had locked both switches. The engineer did not have to stop for the rear end men to line the switches back; the conductor had told the fireman that I was going to line the switches and thus expedite the train on its way. Note: this took place forty-eight years ago, at a time when non-railroad employees who were known to employees could do things that are absolutely unheard of now.
Johnny
The issue is not so much that they are 'connected to the signal system' as that the method by which they are is redundant and tamperproof. I have said elsewhere that there needs to be positive indication that the throw has been made completely (and perhaps relocked) and separate positive indication that the points are actually hard over and the rod not bent, etc. The usual method of activating the signal system won't assure either of those things.
Meanwhile, all that discussion 'back in the day' of ATC testing about what happens when you have relay-based ABS and back into the wrong block is still relevant in many places. If the ABS indication is the only input to PTC, the system is no more 'positive' than ABS+ATC is. And many sources have indicated that in this day and age, that's insufficient.
I do not have any idea as to how many of us non-railroad employees have had an opportunity to really look at hand throw switches used in signaled territory, but I did have such an opportunity when I was living in Wesson, Mississippi. There was a crossover (trailing points) between the two main tracks (double track) of the IC, and I saw that the switches (just as all others for the main tracks) were connected to the block signal system--they HAD to be, for safety's sake.
jeffhergert Hand throw switches in signalled territory aren't unmonitored, they are interlocked (for lack of a better word) into the signal system.
Hand throw switches in signalled territory aren't unmonitored, they are interlocked (for lack of a better word) into the signal system.
Hand throw switches in dark territory have no signal system with which to interface. If the railroad sees no reason to install signals, yet has to include some manner of PTC, then some interface has to be added.
The line of which I speak is single track - a GPS based system won't have to discern which track the trains are on. All it has to know is where the front and rear of the trains are.
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...
Going have to spend something as "doing nothing" is no longer going to cut it.
zugmann While I agree there is no 100% solution, I still think that there has to be something better than a piece of paper for running on a track that allows speed greater than 10mph. Just my opinion.
While I agree there is no 100% solution, I still think that there has to be something better than a piece of paper for running on a track that allows speed greater than 10mph.
Just my opinion.
Like the old saying, "Speed costs money. How fast do you want to go?"
Hand throw switches in signalled territory aren't unmonitored, they are interlocked (for lack of a better word) into the signal system. So are some derails. When the main track switch or derail is opened, it is supposed to shunt the signal system. It didn't happen in the instance that appeared in Trains. It wasn't known at that time if a component had failed, or had been intentionally tampered with so as not to shunt the signal system.
The component, which I have seen called a "circuit controller," I don't know if that's the correct name though, is probably what will be added to switches in dark territory to show the position of the points for PTC.
Jeff
Overmod tree68Methinks that such switches will become a thing of the past in PTC territory. Probably not. What WILL happen is more thoroughgoing installation of positive position indication on these switches, and some form of robust communication on switch position AND lock status to the "PTC system".
tree68Methinks that such switches will become a thing of the past in PTC territory.
Probably not. What WILL happen is more thoroughgoing installation of positive position indication on these switches, and some form of robust communication on switch position AND lock status to the "PTC system".
That's pretty much what I meant. I don't see manual switches going away, for cost reasons, as you point out - but totally unmonitored switches will be come exceedingly rare, at least on main track.
There are far too many places on current Class 1s where power-operated crossover switches aren't cost-effective. This is far more than just a 'siding' situation. But it's comparatively cheap and easy to instrument the switches (and most PTC systems I've studied have just that functionality implemented).
I feel that we need a less 'brittle' control modality if PTC is to work, and part of making the system better is to have positive indication when switches stop 'responding' or start providing improper data for any reason. Most of the 'rest' of the issues with these switches is already well addressed in operating and safety rules -- the PTC would just be doing supervisory checking on that activity...
jeffhergert In one of the front columns of Trains (Technology column?) a couple months back there was an incident in territory where the PTC (or near PTC) system Amtrak uses overlayed on an existing signal system failed to detect an open hand throw switch. (It sounds like the signal system failed to detect the switch.) I was surprised that I didn't see (unless I missed them) any comments on here about that. Since the signal system didn't "see" the open switch, the PTC didn't "see" it either, allowing a train to go into a side track at an unsafe speed. So maybe PTC would've prevented Graniteville, and maybe it wouldn't have.
In one of the front columns of Trains (Technology column?) a couple months back there was an incident in territory where the PTC (or near PTC) system Amtrak uses overlayed on an existing signal system failed to detect an open hand throw switch. (It sounds like the signal system failed to detect the switch.) I was surprised that I didn't see (unless I missed them) any comments on here about that. Since the signal system didn't "see" the open switch, the PTC didn't "see" it either, allowing a train to go into a side track at an unsafe speed. So maybe PTC would've prevented Graniteville, and maybe it wouldn't have.
Methinks that such switches will become a thing of the past in PTC territory. I'm seeing shelters going up along a line near here in the vicinity of switches. This is dark territory.
I have come to the conclusion, though, that while PTC will likely prevent another Graniteville, it will do nothing to prevent another Oneonta, Kingman, or Rockford.
None of the four railroad incidents in my immediate area that I'm aware of would have been prevented by PTC. No lives were lost, but they did tie the railroad up for a while and definitely caused damage to track and rolling stock.
I don't know what level, if any, GPS will be used in PTC. My consumer level GPS on my daily driver has a option to display the elevation in feet of the device. Personal observations of this function over time at the same locations shows a variation plus & minus 100 feet, as I have observed the same location (my driveway) have elevations between 300 & 500 feet and many of the 200 feet that are in between.
The Devil will be in the details.
henry6 PTC does more than save lives, it saves equipment and property and business and operations. If you don't have collisions you don't kill or injure people, you don't damage or destroy equipment, you don't stop doing business by not being able to operate for long periods of time. . PTC also allows for more frequent traffic depending on the system.
PTC does more than save lives, it saves equipment and property and business and operations. If you don't have collisions you don't kill or injure people, you don't damage or destroy equipment, you don't stop doing business by not being able to operate for long periods of time. . PTC also allows for more frequent traffic depending on the system.
I thin there is a misconception of what the first generation (the one they are working on deploying) can and can't do. Going by what I've read the first generation uses fixed points (block signals, mile posts, switches, etc) used either in signalled territory or movement authorities in ABS/dark territory. It won't have movable or "rolling " block capabilities, where the location of the preceding train changes and the system updates braking distances for a following train. That capability doesn't exist yet. Not in the US and I don't think anywhere else either. (I'm not sure that the rest of the world is really that much farther ahead of us in PTC development. Besides, many of the signal system vendors in the US are now global. Sometimes now owned by foriegn companies.)
It may not even prevent slow speed (within the parameters of restricted speed) rear end collisions like those that have happened within the last couple of years. And some of them resulted in fatalities.
We, the general public have become used to seeing the wonders of technology. We see the latest personal electronic gadgets or hear of the latest developments, both at home and in other countries. We see things on TV or in movies, things that have a kernal of reality and may actually be in development, and think those things or applications exist right now. Then when reality hits, we think it's because of the cost of something that technology isn't being adopted.
One has to wonder, too, about the unanticipated failure, like a mouse chewing through a cable in a shelter or an errant backhoe operator digging up a cable. I'm sure that such eventualities have been considered, but Murphy's Law dictates that something that can happen will not have been considered (whodathunk?), and Gumperson's Law dictates that it will happen at the worst possible time.
PTC is great in it's glittering generalities as presented by the media (and Congress for that matter). Like anything else in REAL LIFE, the devil is in the details and the details in the PTC mandate are near endless. Until gets put in play FOR REAL, we won't even uncover half the details.
Over the years I have been involved with myriad of operational change over in a number of areas of railroad operations. You can diligently work and think you have covered every possible happening that is germaine to the particular operation - within 8 hours of cut over - a raft of problems will be waiting for a solution. With PTC, the solution had better be a solution, as a mere 'work around' in such a system becomes a accident waiting to happen. As PTC gets implemented on additional territories - additional details will pop into the picture.
I agree, Graniteville was a preventable accident, which PTC could have prevented, or at least slowed the collision. I'm not sure what restricted speed under PTC control converts to. I'd venture to guess 15mph maximum, not forgetting the most important "stopping within one half the range of vission". I'm kind of wandering here, but I guess with PTC in place, the crew of the through train which ran into the local would have had at least the warning that signaled territory gives you. I started my railroad career on dark railroad back in the days of 4/5 man crews. The conductors all had decades of experience as did most of the engineers. Railroad knowledge was acquired primarily from on the job training, i.e. getting yelled at alot by people who had tons of experience and were genuinly interested in getting the job done without a rookie killing himself or anyone else and gumming up the works. Nowadays with instant conductors, who are almost immediatly assigned a student to train, I fear we have lost much of the art of railroading. How much experience did the NS local crew have?
rfpjohn I find the entire PTC mandate to be an enormass cost to the railroad industry with very little net possitive safety effect. We have, as a whole a very safe railroad system in this country. It is just an unfortuate fact that train wrecks, when they occur, make a spectacular mess. And as someone has previously stated, very few of these wrecks are as the result of a PTC preventable event. I have worked in the railroad industry for over 35 years, 32 as a locomotive engineer. What I have observed over the years is that rather than address the problem of a few bad apples, we tend to make more rules and restrictions. This is how we end up with manditory drug and alchohol testing, courtesy of a Conrail engineer known to be a problem. In the Metrolink case the underenforcement of cell phone restrictions appear to be a main cause. PTC is another huge response to problems that could be addressed on a railroad by railroad basis. Of course, then congress wouldn't look like heros and the FRA would be stymied in its attempt to dictate and moniter every facit of rail activity.
I find the entire PTC mandate to be an enormass cost to the railroad industry with very little net possitive safety effect. We have, as a whole a very safe railroad system in this country. It is just an unfortuate fact that train wrecks, when they occur, make a spectacular mess. And as someone has previously stated, very few of these wrecks are as the result of a PTC preventable event. I have worked in the railroad industry for over 35 years, 32 as a locomotive engineer. What I have observed over the years is that rather than address the problem of a few bad apples, we tend to make more rules and restrictions. This is how we end up with manditory drug and alchohol testing, courtesy of a Conrail engineer known to be a problem. In the Metrolink case the underenforcement of cell phone restrictions appear to be a main cause. PTC is another huge response to problems that could be addressed on a railroad by railroad basis. Of course, then congress wouldn't look like heros and the FRA would be stymied in its attempt to dictate and moniter every facit of rail activity.
[emphasis mine - zug]
One word: Graniteville.
Yes, there are isolated incidents, but I don't want to be that isolated crew. Without going into detail, I've even been in situations where PTC would have made a huge difference. Maybe the PTC mandate is too much, but I personally think there has been too much feet dragging on upgrading existing dark territory. But that's just my opinion.
Overmod In my opinion, the "problem" with Popular Science is that it's gotten away from being about science, and scientific basis, to "oooooohh! Shiny!!" aspects of tech.
In my opinion, the "problem" with Popular Science is that it's gotten away from being about science, and scientific basis, to "oooooohh! Shiny!!" aspects of tech.
I would argue that is not a problem with just Popular Science, but society as a whole.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.