The UP already has people at based at some terminals that are sent out to help trains in distress. On the former CNW side they are called MICs (Mechanic In Charge), on the former UP side they are called Foreman Generals. They are can make minor mechanical repairs, car or locomotive.
Usually for minor problems, you have to be fairly close to a terminal to have them sent out. For more serious problems they might sent them out further. The really serious problems get the full-fledged car men who are better equipped.
Most of the time it seems when they do send out the MIC/Foreman General, the conductor has already rectified the problem. At least they can give the condr a ride back to the head end.
Jeff
edblysard Ohhh, jet packs, yeah! Ever since the first “Lost in Space” season aired way back in the day, I have always wanted one…I know they are useless, don’t fly far or long, but still….yeah!
Ohhh, jet packs, yeah!
Ever since the first “Lost in Space” season aired way back in the day, I have always wanted one…I know they are useless, don’t fly far or long, but still….yeah!
It was the third episode that first featured the jet pack - though I was intrigued by the jet/rocket platforms on Johnny Quest episode about a year earlier (which were loosely based on a ducted prop flying platform developed for the Army)... Tis scary to think that Bill Mumy will be turning 60 early next year.
- Erik
-
They will improve the metalergy of couplers (llike Roles Royce rear axles) so they NEVER break, and brakes will be controlled electronically with a radio receiver in each freight car so there will be no need for hoses (air-tanks pressurized at terminals) and THEN we will have automatic operaion.
tree68 zugmann Give them helicopters. Or jet packs. Isn't there a Canadian line that's already doing that? One man crew, only way to bring in help is by air.
zugmann Give them helicopters. Or jet packs.
- Paul North.
erikem edblysard Ohhh, jet packs, yeah! Ever since the first “Lost in Space” season aired way back in the day, I have always wanted one…I know they are useless, don’t fly far or long, but still….yeah! It was the third episode that first featured the jet pack - though I was intrigued by the jet/rocket platforms on Johnny Quest episode about a year earlier (which were loosely based on a ducted prop flying platform developed for the Army)... Tis scary to think that Bill Mumy will be turning 60 early next year. - Erik -
Yeah,
Johnny Quest had the coolest stuff out there.
Will Robinson is 60?
That means Penny is….OMG!
23 17 46 11
zugmannZugmann loves how all these experts assume road trains just go from A to B with no work in between. Oh yeah, and when you reach "B", the work is done. No yarding the train or anything.
LION is not expert, but him likes to talk. Talking LIONS are not bad. When they stop talking they start stalking, and Wildebeests try to make themselves scarce.
When LION posts something "funny" him is probably looking for an answer. OK, then! What *do* you do when your train is split in two, the night is dark, the snow is deep, the winds are fierce (the only kinds of winds that we have in North Dakota) and the temperatures are twenty degrees below zero.
No doubt about it, the coupler is broken 3500 feet back. What is a conductor to do? How can he carry a 70 - 100 pound knuckle back through the drifts. Sometimes even Superman must wait for help.
ROAR
The Route of the Broadway Lion The Largest Subway Layout in North Dakota.
Here there be cats. LIONS with CAMERAS
BaltACDA train that is not moving is a virtual derailment - the line is blocked and nothing else will move until the stopped train moves. Railroaders get trains moving, while lions stay home in bed.
Solution of LION.
1) Pull the train that he has out of there, Park it on next siding
2) go back to broken half with new coupler, fix and pull it to the siding.
3) can put train back together again.
BroadwayLion BaltACDA train that is not moving is a virtual derailment - the line is blocked and nothing else will move until the stopped train moves. Railroaders get trains moving, while lions stay home in bed. Solution of LION. 1) Pull the train that he has out of there, Park it on next siding 2) go back to broken half with new coupler, fix and pull it to the siding. 3) can put train back together again. ROAR
1. Engineer drops off knuckle from engine. (Assuming extra knuckles available on engine.)
2. Pulls head end of train, with conductor riding rear car up to knuckle.
3. Conductor stops rear car at knuckle.
4. If rear car the one with the broken one, could replace right away.
5. If head car of rear section needs knuckle replaced, conductor places knuckle on rear car (Almost all cars have at least a crossover platform where a knuckle could ride.) and shoves back to train. Repairs knuckle.
Optional 5A. Repeats 1 through 5 because engineer dropped off wrong knuckle.
6. Recouple train and air hose. Cut the air in and hope EOT shows air all the way through. If not, more problems.
oltmannd schlimm My question is this: Did they do those 'other things" In terms of train control, not much. schlimm and if not, what was preventing them from doing so prior to the passing of the PTC mandate? Nothing, and doing something - or having a plan for something - might have headed PTC off. They basically messed around with PTC-like trials, expanded cab signalling in a very few spots and that was it. But, you have to remember, capital money was, and is, tight so it would have been borderline irresponsible to spend it on something with no payback to the RR. Of course, now, they have to pay that, and a whole lot more.
schlimm My question is this: Did they do those 'other things"
schlimm and if not, what was preventing them from doing so prior to the passing of the PTC mandate?
Of course, now, they have to pay that, and a whole lot more.
The key element would be comparison between the probabilistic assessments of the range of likely costs of:
To a limited extent, the intellectual issue and analysis seems similar to the decision of spending the money to prevent an asteroid from striking the Earth and annihilating us all - very small risk of a huge loss, vs. a certainty of high expenses to perhaps prevent it.
Paul_D_North_Jr The key element would be comparison between the probabilistic assessments of the range of likely costs of: Being pro-active and installing the then-Best Available Technology (ATC, ATS, etc.) on all of the many lines that are now required, and perhaps having to upgrade it a few times and ultimately replace it with PTC - though on a more measured pace - at some time in the future; vs. The mad rush that we have now, with a 22:1 (negative) cost / benefit ratio. To a limited extent, the intellectual issue and analysis seems similar to the decision of spending the money to prevent an asteroid from striking the Earth and annihilating us all - very small risk of a huge loss, vs. a certainty of high expenses to perhaps prevent it.
LION once took a course in economics 101. It is not about money. It is about compliance with a perceived need expressed by a government agency. Politicians are a few steps lower than reporters, but they do know one thing: How to get elected, ergo, what flies with the public and what does not.
Railroad will listen to government on this, because 1) public relations is a good thing, 2) smoother operation of railroad is good thing. 3) keeping employees alive is a good thing, 4) good union and labor relations is a good thing, --(And just what does the union want on this issue)-- and 5) reinvestment of funds in infrastructure rides well with the public and with stockholders, and besides it is tax deductible.
It is a win-win situation to do it with irrelevant costs on the other side. Besides, half of the infrastructure is there already (signals) and signals can be upgraded and the expense written off to PTC installation, and it is one more step on the road to full automation of some trains.
Mr. Lion, most of the same points could be said about a requirement to install fire sprinklers in your home, or a business, or a social club, etc. Suppose the cost would be $11,000 for each $500 of benefits, such as fire insurance premium savings, and/ or the avoided future costs of fire damage. More scaled up, having to spend $2.2 million for each $100,000 of savings in potential fire damage - when the house itself is worth only $300,000. How would you - or anyone else - feel about that ?
Why didn't they fight it more? Maybe they didn't really want to?
Something that has been mentioned in passing but not really developed (unless I missed it while quickly scanning the thread-note to self: don't open 7 page threads when you're getting ready to go to work.)...RR's have been resarching PTC for years and probably have confidence in the system. With the capital costs involved and the long term payback required, everyone is hesitant to be first to commit to something so vast and expensive. But, with a pending industrywide mandate, no one is going to be any worse off for their installation nor worse off for not making the investment while their competitor(s) did. It's like electrification. Even the most limited initial installation is going to tie up a lot of capital. If everyone makes the same move at the same time, no one is relatively at greater risk and everyone gets to share the benefits.
Paul_D_North_Jr Mr. Lion, most of the same points could be said about a requirement to install fire sprinklers in your home, or a business, or a social club, etc. Suppose the cost would be $11,000 for each $500 of benefits, such as fire insurance premium savings, and/ or the avoided future costs of fire damage. More scaled up, having to spend $2.2 million for each $100,000 of savings in potential fire damage - when the house itself is worth only $300,000. How would you - or anyone else - feel about that ? - Paul North.
WE *did* install fire sprinklers in most of our buildings. We like the idea very much. Ours is a complicated installation since some floors/wings in this building is not heated. We are glad to have them, the price was within our means, and we sleep a lot better at night.
The "Old Guest House" was torn down rather than to bring it into compliance. It was not worth putting any money into it.
LION (being an old NYC building superintendent) *likes* the idea of fire sprinklers. I look at floods, hurricanes and tornadoes, and I say "The Building must be able to protect the people in it."
Paul_D_North_JrTo a limited extent, the intellectual issue and analysis seems similar to the decision of spending the money to prevent an asteroid from striking the Earth and annihilating us all - very small risk of a huge loss, vs. a certainty of high expenses to perhaps prevent it.
That would be true if the reality were so small a probability. The question actually is: How many train collisions have occurred in the past 10 years that could have been prevented by PTC? Somebody might know,(I believe about 8 in the past 30 months) but I am certain it was many more than the zero incidence of "huge asteroids striking the earth and annihilating us all."
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Actually, we get hit all the time, only so far they are tiny bits and pieces of leftovers….
In galactic terms, Shoemaker Levy was just next door, and some of the pieces there were 1 +/- mile in dia.
Back in Sept. 2012, it got whacked again, so the zero incident probability you suggest is getting less likely…what we really need is PAT, Positive Asteroid Control….or maybe we can call it PAD, Positive Asteroid Deflection…
Maybe we could use Creative Repositioning of Asteroid Path….kinda like PTC, sounds great, you can hide it under a lot of paper, but it really smells bad.
Actually, the phrase in question, from Paul North, was "Huge asteroids striking the earth and annihilating us all" but I guess that got lost in your sea of sarcasm. But the real point (which the railroaders seem to be in denial of), is there are many collisions, many of which are preventable by PTC. Why the fear? Thinking this leads to remote or auto pilot trains on the road? Nowhere else that has advanced train control has moved in that direction.
http://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/2013/scott_city_mo/Chaffee_MO_10-Day_Preliminary%20Report_20130607.pdf
BroadwayLionLION once took a course in economics 101. It is not about money. It is about compliance with a perceived need expressed by a government agency. Politicians are a few steps lower than reporters, but they do know one thing: How to get elected, ergo, what flies with the public and what does not. Railroad will listen to government on this, because 1) public relations is a good thing, 2) smoother operation of railroad is good thing. 3) keeping employees alive is a good thing, 4) good union and labor relations is a good thing, --(And just what does the union want on this issue)-- and 5) reinvestment of funds in infrastructure rides well with the public and with stockholders, and besides it is tax deductible. It is a win-win situation to do it with irrelevant costs on the other side. Besides, half of the infrastructure is there already (signals) and signals can be upgraded and the expense written off to PTC installation, and it is one more step on the road to full automation of some trains. ROAR
From the present day perspective, PTC seems like an item that will one day be completed, like building a bridge or skyscraper. But in reality, PTC may not be a single item. Instead it may be a process that has no final objective or ending. Even from our present day view, the presumed endpoint is unknown. There is a deadline, but it seems obvious that it cannot be met. As far as I know, no new deadline has been set.
Extending the deadline will give more time to get the job done, but it also gives more time for the art to evolve. Portions of the system may be obsolete before it is finished. The installation may have a hard time keeping up with the advancing technology. Cost overrun is likely to be huge, and that will pose the prospect of making radical changes in direction in the ever-evolving installation.
So, I don’t think PTC will be like an item that is one day finished. It will be like a process that is ever becoming. And somewhere along the road of that process is full automation. And the road probably does not even end there. The entire railroad system is likely to evolve rapidly in many different ways that will include big changes in operation.
Here is a good article and conversation about the PTC controversy:
http://www.theverge.com/2013/4/15/4226264/positive-train-control-controversy
Quote from the article makes a good point about deaths in train wrecks versus deaths in car accidents:
It’s difficult, however, to argue against a technology that could save lives. A passenger on a derailed train in 2003 recently told the Chicago Tribune, "I think somebody’s life is a lot more important than dollars."
But Banks isn’t so sure.
"Yes, I think the railroads should be as safe as possible," he said. "But it’s insane to force railroads to spend billions in private capital on this project when less than 40 people have died in the last decade in [U.S.] rail collisions while nearly 40,000 people get killed on the highways every year."
Found this on the British experience:
The Ladbrooke Grove crash(1999, 31 killed, 520 injured) prompted the roll-out of TPWS acorss the network, which brings trains to a halt if they try and pass a signal at danger (or pass certain point too fast). TPWS doesn’t guarantee the train will stop before the signal – it may stop in the area beyond the signal (UK signals are always some distance in front of the area they protect, so that small over runs pose no safety risk). Every fatal train accident in the UK since 1999 has been caused by track problems rather than signalling issues.
UK: for the period 1991 to 2009, (includes the pre-Ladbrooke period of 9 years) one fatality for every 10.96 bn pass-km
UK: for 2000-2009, (since TPWS) the figure is one fatality for every 36.66 billion passenger-km.
US: for 1990-2010 one death per 3.4 billion passenger-km.
Two lessons: 1. Highly publicized accidents with a considerable loss of life have prompted government action elsewhere. 2. Our death rate is very high by comparison.
In thinking about PTC leading to automated operation, I went back and reviewed another thread from last year about crewless running. It has become one of the prominent references on the topic when you do a Google search.
However, I am puzzled by something. Why are many of the posts in this thread out of sequential order? When reading the thread the way it is displayed, comments quoted in some posts are quoted before the comments were actually made.
The dates of the posts clearly show that they are listed out of order in the thread. As a reference resource, its scrambled sequence makes much of it meaningless. Why have the posts gotten out of sequence?
Look at it here:
http://cs.trains.com/trn/f/111/t/203077.aspx?sort=DESC&pi332=1
As others have posted -- IMHO the NTSB warned the RRs that they were pushing PTC long before the Ca collision. But they ignored the calls and instead of expanding cab signaling, ATC, & ATS dropped them when the ICC & later the FRA allowed dropping. IC is an example.
So they are unfortunately having to pay the price.;
blue streak 1 As others have posted -- IMHO the NTSB warned the RRs that they were pushing PTC long before the Ca collision. But they ignored the calls and instead of expanding cab signaling, ATC, & ATS dropped them when the ICC & later the FRA allowed dropping. IC is an example. So they are unfortunately having to pay the price.;
Paul_D_North_Jr ...same points could be said about a requirement to install fire sprinklers in your home, or a business, or a social club, etc. Suppose the cost would be $11,000 for each $500 of benefits, such as fire insurance premium savings, and/ or the avoided future costs of fire damage. More scaled up, having to spend $2.2 million for each $100,000 of savings in potential fire damage - when the house itself is worth only $300,000. How would you - or anyone else - feel about that ?
...same points could be said about a requirement to install fire sprinklers in your home, or a business, or a social club, etc. Suppose the cost would be $11,000 for each $500 of benefits, such as fire insurance premium savings, and/ or the avoided future costs of fire damage. More scaled up, having to spend $2.2 million for each $100,000 of savings in potential fire damage - when the house itself is worth only $300,000. How would you - or anyone else - feel about that ?
Oddly, the biggest opponents of the sprinkler requirement are the building trades organizations. It's been opined that they'd rather see the house burn down (as new construction is wont to do) so they can build a new one...
That would be like the car builders (Greenbrier, et al), locomotive builders, and track construction companies coming out against PTC, because it might mean less business for them.
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...
schlimm blue streak 1 As others have posted -- IMHO the NTSB warned the RRs that they were pushing PTC long before the Ca collision. But they ignored the calls and instead of expanding cab signaling, ATC, & ATS dropped them when the ICC & later the FRA allowed dropping. IC is an example. So they are unfortunately having to pay the price.; Shortsightedness at its worst.
Perhaps they stopped listening because the NTSB/FRA had been droning on so long about it, it was falling on deaf ears.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
While the NTSB has been pushing things analogus to PTC for years, it is really only within the last decade that the carriers financial situation has warrented there being a mandate. Prior to 2000, while the carriers showed profits, they were not solid 'bankable' profits as there were concessions made from both the maintenance and investment sides of the business to insure that the stockholders were getting a return.
In today's financial world, the carriers are earning solid profits while putting record amounts into maintenance and plant enhancement projects. With that kind of financial footing, the carriers did not possess much of a 'financial defense' against the mandate, and they knew it and thus there was limited complaining about the mandate.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
There's a pretty good and good-sized article about this whole subject - written around the context of SEPTA and the other commuter carriers - in yesterday's (Tuesday, 18 June 2013) Wall Street Journal, starting 'below the fold' on page A-1 and continuing on page A-12 (I believe). It has a photo of the Bridgeport viaduct/ trestle (apparently in the Norristown area - the article doesn't say whether it's on the High Speed Line [ex=P&W interurban], or the Regional Rail line [ex-Reading RR] ) that SEPTA says it will have to close next month because of a lack of money to both install PTC and maintain existing infrastructure - a bridge, in this case. The article is titled "Rail Safety and the Value of a Life" by Ted Mann, and an on-line version appears to be 'datelined' as June 17, 2013. Unfortunately, it appears to be available on-line only to subscribers (which I'm not, either), so for those who are interested I suggest the nearest public library.
blue streak 1 blue streak 1 As others have posted -- IMHO the NTSB warned the RRs that they were pushing PTC long before the Ca collision. But they ignored the calls and instead of expanding cab signaling, ATC, & ATS dropped them when the ICC & later the FRA allowed dropping. IC is an example. So they are unfortunately having to pay the price.; As a follow up -- before the Chatworth accident was any RR other han NS planning or actually expanding any of the mentioned upgrades ? We know NS is putting cab signaling on at least one route and maybe more ? Any other RRs? Metrolink has added ATS on all their tracks after Chatsworth.
Prior to the Chatsworth incident, CSX was working on what they termed CBTC - Communications Based Train Control. A real world 'test bed' had been implemented on the Blue Ridge Sub (former Clinchfield) and was involved in day to day testing.
Some of the elements of CBTC remain existant in PTC as it is currently being developed.
schlimm Actually, the phrase in question, from Paul North, was "Huge asteroids striking the earth and annihilating us all" but I guess that got lost in your sea of sarcasm. But the real point (which the railroaders seem to be in denial of), is there are many collisions, many of which are preventable by PTC. Why the fear? Thinking this leads to remote or auto pilot trains on the road? Nowhere else that has advanced train control has moved in that direction. http://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/2013/scott_city_mo/Chaffee_MO_10-Day_Preliminary%20Report_20130607.pdf
From March, 2011 to march 2013, there have been 15 head on collisions, not all involving train on train collisions, of that group only 7 were train on train, 4 due to failure to observe restricted speed, 3 due to a improperly lined switch.
The rest involved Hi rail trucks exceeding track authority, blind shoves on main track, and what the FRA termed “other” motor vehicle exceeding authority, 1 still under investigation.
So we are basically looking at 7 collisions that might have been prevented by PTC.
7 out of how many thousands of train starts in that same 3 year period.
Bet if you looked, you would find that there are more aircraft running into each other on run way incursions than trains running into other trains.
Total
Total Year Counts
YTD Counts Jan -Mar
% Change Over Time
Accs
Pct of Total
2010
2011
2012
2013
2010to 2012
2011to 2012
To Mar 20122013
-----GRAND TOTAL.......
15
100.0
3
5
6
1
20.0
-66.7
H607 Failure to comply with restricted speed
4
26.7
.
2
H702 Switch improperly lined
H021 Fail to apply car hnd brks -rr emp
6.7
H221 Automatic block or interlocking signal d
H306 Shoving movement, absence of man
H402 Motor car/on-trk rules, fail to comply
H404 Fail to comply with trn order, etc.
H499 Other main track authority causes
M504 Fail by non-rr empto control spd of car
M505 Cause under investigation
Railroaders are not in denial….we simply work with this stuff every day, and have a good grasp on what will work and what will not.
PTC is one of the not too bright ideas…the money could be better spent and obtain much better results in other areas of our industry.
edblysard From March, 2011 to march 2013, there have been 15 head on collisions, not all involving train on train collisions, of that group only 7 were train on train, 4 due to failure to observe restricted speed, 3 due to a improperly lined switch. The rest involved Hi rail trucks exceeding track authority, blind shoves on main track, and what the FRA termed “other” motor vehicle exceeding authority, 1 still under investigation. So we are basically looking at 7 collisions that might have been prevented by PTC.
Head on collisions? Who said that's all we can look at? Running into the side of another train or the rear of another train also count and could also be prevented.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.