UlrichTying down a train by having someone climb aboard each locomotive and car to turn a hand brake sounds like something out of the dark ages. In this day and age can't that somehow be done by flipping a switch in the locomotive?
All that is needed is a way to guarantee that air brake leak-down cannot release the brakes. I would accomplish that by adding a form of deadbolt or cam action to the linkage system coming out of the air brake cylinder.
To set the parking brake, you set the air, and then set a mechanical lock to hold the linkage in the set position. This mechanical lock could be held in release by the air, and set by spring force.
That way if you are running the train, and the brake lock release air fails, and the spring tries to set the lock, it can only insert the lock when the air brakes are fully set. It cannot insert the lock when the air brakes are released and the train is underway.
So there is no way that an inadvertent setting of the brake lock can cause a derailment by locking the brakes when they are released.
So this would be a spring activated locking mechanaism that would hold the air brake cylinder when fully applied, and keep it applied even if the air pressure in the cylinder leaked off. This locking device would be pneumatically powered. It would have to be explored further to see if it could be powered off of the train line as a normal part of the brake function. I am thinking that it would need a separate train line.
The fact is, because it is so simple and “primitive” it works better and faster…imagine every time you wanted to start your car, you had to call someone to flip a switch.
Having a manual hand brake allow us to place cars where we want this when we want them, and then move them quickly to another location.
The electronics wouldn’t survive flat switching, you really have to be standing right there to understand the forces applied to a coupler, so the automatic air and brake and un- coupler idea, while suitable for light mass transit, wouldn’t live on a freight train, and with each new doodad, the cost of maintaining the cars goes up, as does the odds of something breaking and needing repair.
As it stands, I can change a coupler knuckle with nothing more than a pair of pliers, if that, and the same for a cut lever.
While most of the newer locomotives do have electric hand brakes, the mechanics of adding that to a freight car gets expensive…you need a power supply to begin with, then a way to activate it, then a way to protect it from the elements, and place it in a manner that makes it serviceable….and each car would have to have some form of radio or Wi-Fi identification, a receiver, and a transmitter to tell you the brakes applied.
As odd as it sounds, we are more efficient with the manual devices than with all the gadgets.
I can set a hand brake in the yard to act as a bumper, a car we can kick against, and I can tell how tight I need it by the way it feels, I want it to be tight enough to retard the motion or absorb the impact of the cars I kick, but not so tight as to slide the wheels.
I doubt you could invent a self-winder that could “feel” the brake setting as well as I can.
The whole idea is the less “parts” or stuff you have to use, the faster and easier it is.
Just like in the hardware/hand tool industry, someone is always trying to reinvent the hammer, but the truth is, nothing works better for pounding a nail into a board but a good old 16oz Stanley hand hammer.
23 17 46 11
There's much to be said for keeping things simple and primitive, I agree, but at some point simple and primitive no longer becomes better and faster. How long does it take a conductor or engineer to properly tie down a train? I really don't know. But if he/she has to walk back to each locomotive and car I would guess its a significant amount of time. What if the law states a minimum of 11 handbrakes need to be set and the train starts to roll after the seventh one was set... the conductor hasn't had the time to set the minimum number and he/she is ultimately blamed for not securing the train properly. An admittedly more complex system that would set all hand brakes instantaneously with a flip of the switch would eliminate that scenario and would be preferable and perhaps more efficient as no time would be lost in having people doing this cumbersome and sometimes dangerous task.
But your point is well taken. Perhaps its more a question of employing technology intelligently verses keeping things as simple as possible or using technology just because its available. At some airports now they have laser activated paper dispensers in their washrooms. That's a good example of needless technology overkill, in my opinion. On the other hand simple star charts served mariners well for centuries yet are no longer relied upon to navigate super tankers. It comes down to applying the latest technology intelligently.
I agree that everything should be as simple as possible. But that does not rule out some incredibly complex systems to get the job done if that is what is needed. I am not suggesting powered, simultaneous parking brakes for universal application to all freight cars. I see it as an exclusive feature for oil unit trains.
I only think it might come to past because oil trains will come under intense scrutiny in the wake of this Lac-Megantic crash and the backdrop of activism fighting to end shipping oil by rail by piling on new safety regulations.
For the industry, it will be either sink or swim. And if they manage to swim, we will be looking at a whole new breed of crude oil train. Powered, simultaneous parking brakes will be just one of many new and innovative features. I don’t see these brakes as being delicate or electronic. They could be pneumatic powered, and robust enough to stand up in service. They don’t have to be something that is presently used in transit systems.
These new trains would likely be made up of semi-permanently coupled cars that are not interchanged. Being in such captive service, they would be ideal candidates for ECP brakes, and all the operation monitoring that that system enables.
The cars themselves will probably be much different than today’s sinister looking straight black cylinders sitting completely atop the truck bolsters.
Ulrich The other thing I don't understand is how a massive train can get away without any bells and whistles going off all over the place, in dispatch and at headquarters, and why brakes could not be applied from a remote location . One has to wonder if badly outdated technology had a part to play in the Lac Megantic accident.
The other thing I don't understand is how a massive train can get away without any bells and whistles going off all over the place, in dispatch and at headquarters, and why brakes could not be applied from a remote location . One has to wonder if badly outdated technology had a part to play in the Lac Megantic accident.
If you have a system such as CTC, A movement past a signal would be seen on the dispatcher's board. However, the MM&A is all dark territory, under Occupancy Control System, which requires direct communication, by radio usually, between the dispatcher and the crew of the engine/train. So, if there is no one with the engine or train, the dispatcher has no immediate way to know of any movement.
Johnny
edblysard {SNIP} The electronics wouldn’t survive flat switching, you really have to be standing right there to understand the forces applied to a coupler, so the automatic air and brake and un- coupler idea, while suitable for light mass transit, wouldn’t live on a freight train, and with each new doodad, the cost of maintaining the cars goes up, as does the odds of something breaking and needing repair. {SNIP}
{SNIP}
The company I worked for got into the business of electronics to be put on individual RR cars. In order to understand the "G"-forces the equipment would be subjected to, they sent some of the members of the Metrology department to a RR to put their instruments on the cars to measure what happens in normal use.
These are guys and the equipment that did the testing of the electronics we built for Space Shuttle to prove it could take the stress of "blast-off" and "re-entry".
The instruments registered forces that were OFF THE SCALE! They had to come back and get equipment that would measure higher "G"-forces!
You guys play rough with your toys! (And for the most part, your toys take it in stride!)
Semper Vaporo
Pkgs.
Every Class 1, 2 and 3 railroad will have the same phrase in their rule book about securing cars.
The crew is to apply sufficient hand brakes, (no mention of air brakes) to prevent movement.
The crew is not to take into consideration the application of the air brake, nor are they allowed to assume the air brakes are sufficient to hold the cars or train.
We apply the air as an additional safety measure, but the train must be secured with a sufficient number of manually applied hand brakes on the cars, (not including the engines) to prevent movement.
The carriers want the crews down there doing this by hand simply because this relies on the crew, not the technology to secure the train.
None of the carriers rules books I have ever seen give a specific number of brakes beyond a required minimum…on my railroad, outside of yards, any train must be secured with at least 2 working hand brakes, the brakes must be tested before the locomotives are cut away, and the crew is required to observe the standing cut to insure the cars remain in place.
If a locomotive(s) is to be left attached to the train, there must be sufficient hand brakes applied to the cars to prevent movement of the entire train, locomotives included, once that is determined and tested, the engineer must make a minimum 20lb brake pipe reduction, and apply the independent, waiting until the locomotive brakes are fully exhausted, then apply a hand brake to each locomotive, and isolate each locomotive.
All of these steps are backups to the step just taken.
I grasp the “flip the switch” concept, but in essence, once we make sure the train is secure, we do, in a manner of speaking, flip a switch, we exhaust all the air out of the brake pipe, setting all the air brakes on the cars, as a backup to the hand brakes original test.
Done properly, no train should ever roll away on its own.
Think about how many trains get parked every day with none rolling away….this is one instance out of how many thousands of tie downs every day, and no one has yet to offer any proof that this train was not tied down properly, so the only alternative is some outside force altered the situation.
What that force may have been is the real question…like I mentioned in another thread, I doubt the engineer would have walked away from his train, knowingly leaving it un-secured, and pointing directly at the place he was planning on sleeping in.
Could this have been caused by a mechanical defect?
Maybe, but every freight train gets a serious inspection before it ever leaves a yard or industry, and an initial terminal brake test, required every thousand miles after the
Could this be an operational defect?
Again, maybe, parking a crude oil train on a down grade pointed towards an inhabited area might be taking an un-necessary risk, although the siding used has been used to park trains for years and years with none running away.
Could someone later have accidentally done something to cause the runaway?
Yes.
Could this have been done on purpose?
Yes, there is a possibility someone was that stupid, misguided or evil.
And by the way, my father was a quartermaster in the US Navy, responsible for the navigation equipment on his ship, and the training of navigators, and I still have two of his sextants.
With that one tool, a good accurate watch, a "true" compass and an accurate set of charts, he taught me enough that I can get you into any port in the world, and I bet most of the Marines here who served before the advent of GPS can get you within a hundred yards of a land based target with a wristwatch, a compass and a good map.
They still teach navigation at the Academy for a good reason.
1. Compasses don't measure true north. (Can Dead Men Vote Twice? Compass Deviation Magnetic Variance True)
2. As stated above the brutal environment of railroading lead to very simple and effective control systems.
3. Even the simple Westinghouse Air Brake needs special attention and will fail for a number of reasons.
4. The thousands of trains that are successfully tied down each day is testimony to the effective system and rules in place.
5. Why wasn't there a derail on the downhill side of the parked train? That is common practice on most sidings and yards.
petitnj 5. Why wasn't there a derail on the downhill side of the parked train? That is common practice on most sidings and yards.
Derails protect Main Tracks from unwanted movements on sidings and spurs - my understanding is that the train was tied down on the Main Track.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Don't Roadrailers have spring-loaded brakes on the bogies?
But the question is: how can you hump cars with spring loaded brakes?
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
With OTR trailers if there is any way of Bottling the air in the system they will roll Freely. You only need the service line to apply the brakes. A simple Valve where they can save the air when the brakes are released is enough.
Sorry called lost my old Job and for employment I just enrolled in OTR Training and am amazed the RR's are not using this system
And when that air bleeds out?
KISS principle.
When that air is gone the Parking brakes are ON and then you have to recharge them to move them
UPrailfan When that air is gone the Parking brakes are ON and then you have to recharge them to move them
That'd be neat on a hump. Or when the brake system breaks at a neat spot on the mainline. I guess you'd have to cage the brakes or something. Sounds like a nightmare.
If anything, I can see greater use of ECP brakes (already existing technology), with electric handbrakes tied into the system. Press a button, and KA-CHUNK, 100% handbrake application.
What I was talking about is a locking dog that would act like a deadbolt to lock the air brake in the applied position. The locking dog would be held in release by air, and moved to lock position by spring when the air is removed.
For switching where a cut is broken up, the air in the cars would be bled so the brake pistons retract and release. Then when you let the air out of the locking dogs, they cannot lock the brakes when the brakes are in the released position.
Semper Vaporo The company I worked for got into the business of electronics to be put on individual RR cars. In order to understand the "G"-forces the equipment would be subjected to, they sent some of the members of the Metrology department to a RR to put their instruments on the cars to measure what happens in normal use. These are guys and the equipment that did the testing of the electronics we built for Space Shuttle to prove it could take the stress of "blast-off" and "re-entry". The instruments registered forces that were OFF THE SCALE! They had to come back and get equipment that would measure higher "G"-forces!
While we're at it, and to put this in some (still-astounding-to-me) context, Amtrak did some accelerometer testing of VERTICAL shock forces for an Acela running between Boston and New York. What was the peak reading determined during this test? (special recognition to the first one who knows it)
Out of curiosity: what WAS the magnitude of the actual force measured by your metrology people?
Overmod Semper Vaporo The company I worked for got into the business of electronics to be put on individual RR cars. In order to understand the "G"-forces the equipment would be subjected to, they sent some of the members of the Metrology department to a RR to put their instruments on the cars to measure what happens in normal use. These are guys and the equipment that did the testing of the electronics we built for Space Shuttle to prove it could take the stress of "blast-off" and "re-entry". The instruments registered forces that were OFF THE SCALE! They had to come back and get equipment that would measure higher "G"-forces! While we're at it, and to put this in some (still-astounding-to-me) context, Amtrak did some accelerometer testing of VERTICAL shock forces for an Acela running between Boston and New York. What was the peak reading determined during this test? (special recognition to the first one who knows it) Out of curiosity: what WAS the magnitude of the actual force measured by your metrology people?
If the g-forces experienced by a railroad car are so high, how does any of the lading ever survive a trip?
Anthony V.
AnthonyVIf the g-forces experienced by a railroad car are so high, how does any of the lading ever survive a trip?
Much of what railroads carry is not too sensitive to such forces. If the cargo is sensitive, the car will usually be noted "do not hump."
It should be noted, too, that a given lading may not be subject to many such moves, but the car itself will be subject to such movements somewhat frequently.
And damage to lading does occur.
As I recall, coupling speed is generally supposed to be under something like 4 mph. That's still a pretty good knock.
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...
To give you an idea of the force unleashed during a normal, controled slow speed coupling…as an example to one of my trainees, I put a 4x4 oak post in the mouth of an open knuckle, then coupled into the car….it crushed the oak so much that the moisture oozed out of the end, and the post ended up being less than ½ of an inch thick.
He got the point.
Most of the lading is either a bulk commodity, or a liquid.
You really can’t hurt a load of plastic pellets, a hopper of corn, a tank car full of tallow or a load of I beams in a gondola.
As for box cars, most of what’s in them is secured with internal dividers and tie downs, pretty protected.
I doubt you will find delicate things such as TVs, glass ware or such moving by anything other than an intermodal box, and those cars are rarely humped or flat switched to begin with.
See the FRA's webpage on the "Advanced Concept train" at: http://www.fra.dot.gov/Page/P0317
It mentions an "Advanced Hand Brake", and elsewhere are mentions of actuators for same, but there are no further links or information there that I could find quickly.
- Paul North.
When I was doing a 'handheld' PTC system in the late '80s, the test of the unit was going to involve tossing it out of the offices at Suburban Square (8th floor, with appropriate crowd control 'down below') to show that the device as designed could handle such an impact.
Remember that the mass that is most important to protect in deceleration is ONLY that of the package of interest, not the device as a whole. The purpose of the filling is not so much to 'cushion' the item(s) of interest so that if the external shell for any reason decelerates quickly, the item inside is decelerated through a smooth profile, with whatever peak g is required, to match velocity with the shell before the compliance of the filling is exceeded. (There are some other considerations but I think you get the idea)
Very large shock accelerations, as with the Amtrak testing (179g was the recorded number I remember, by the way) are almost by necessity very short. That means that the actual distance traveled while actually responding to the shock force is relatively slight, and in most cases outside rocketry, the subsequent distance available to decelerate the momentum acquired during the shock acceleration is large enough to permit 'bleeding off' the excess energy before the motion can cause difficulty.
The situation is mathematically a bit more complicated if the device rebounds from the impact; in this case the packing will have to deal with more energy absorption and hence likely require a longer travel ... but the reaction involved will tend to limit the rebound acceleration, which is probably a good thing as far as it goes.
Working without access to my notes: I calculated what would be necessary to allow passengers to 'walk away' from a 225 mph train collision with a bridge abutment or similar object that was assumed to produce near-instantaneous longitudinal deceleration. We used peak deceleration rate somewhere between 6 and 10g (the force is only applied very briefly, but we need to consider things like bone damage, some forms of bruising and induced hydraulic shock, and of course aortic shearing dissection) and about 33" of compliance is necessary (assumed that the load can be spread across a large portion of the mass to be decelerated, not concentrated just in the area of a belt or harness). Naturally, in an actual collision this worst-case deceleration would not be observed, but it was interesting to determine how it could be done.
With careful design, and the right sort of materials and potting (including proper lead design and routing), I have seen peak acceleration tolerance as high as 20,000g. There are papers in the IEEE library and elsewhere that discuss optimizing designs for very high shock acceleration.
Short conclusion: Properly hardened electronics packaging will be tolerant of any normal forces encountered in railroading, and probably no few unusual ones.
Here is something to think about if the US Military can come up with an 155MM Arty round that can be Fired out of a Howitzer equipped with GPS and have it home in on the spot they want it to hit within 1 meter I think this should be easy to do. Try looking up the Excalibur Arty round they can use it in Cities to target the Exact Building they want to hit instead of having to blanket the area with rounds now.
petitnj1. Compasses don't measure true north. (Can Dead Men Vote Twice? Compass Deviation Magnetic Variance True)
Just a quick note: you need to say that MAGNETIC compasses don't measure true north.
The derived compass function in GPS inherently measures true north, and moreover can do so with very low latency if the vehicle is moving or rotating, and needs no declination adjustment, etc.
Inertial navigation systems indicate true north as well, but are dependent on initial setting or external corrections for their precision and accuracy. They are certainly 'good enough' for those aspects of normal railroading where, for whatever reason, a GPS compass system loses satellite lock.
There's another factor in magnetic-compass adjustment ("compensation"), which has to be made for large masses of magnetic material -- say, 710 or 7FDL-sized masses -- near the compass. Techniques for fluxgate-magnetometer compasses can accommodate some of these effects, and operate more precisely at high latitudes where the magnetic field begins to show steep declination along the z axis ... but they are still limited, as noted, by the inherent imprecision in the geometry of the Earth's magnetic field.
Aside from this: all notable points. I would not advocate a derail off the main line for every substantial downgrade, as it is far more likely to produce a derailment disaster than prevent one unless -- possibly -- it is located where it acts to prevent the train from acquiring momentum sufficient to damage the car structures. Having said that: a portable derail applied 20' downgrade from a standing train, perhaps attached by cable to a wheel chock on the opposite rail to give a fixed 'standoff', might be a very wise precaution for future high-risk operations like these oil trains.
better not leave them unattended, should be crewed at all times.
UPrailfan Here is something to think about if the US Military can come up with an 155MM Arty round that can be Fired out of a Howitzer equipped with GPS and have it home in on the spot they want it to hit within 1 meter I think this should be easy to do. Try looking up the Excalibur Arty round they can use it in Cities to target the Exact Building they want to hit instead of having to blanket the area with rounds now.
What's even more amazing was that "Deke" Parsons of the USN was able to design a proximity fuze in 1940-41 that would withstand being shot out on the nose of a 5" naval rifle shell and by the end of the war were mounting the fuze's on 40mm shells. Your point is correct in that electronics can be designed to take some tremendous shocks, however the operative phrase is that they need to be designed and tested to do so.
- Erik
The answer to the original question really becomes another question - when will a technological advance be as simple and reliable as the current technology? Further, when will the cost of that technological advance be such that it becomes economically worth the cost.
Bearing in mind that we're not talking about the introduction of such items as Janney couplers or Westinghouse brakes and the safety they brought to railroading. Rather we're looking at replacements for such items, most specifically brakes.
Are railroads behind the technology curve? Maybe, but I'll bet most of us still just tie a square knot instead of reaching for a handful of nylon zip ties...
As I sit here typing this it occurs to me - what if we were to take PTC to another level - each individual car equipped with PTC? Then each car could become an enforcer of speed limits specifically. Then even a runaway car (if it were able to apply brakes) would be held to the speed limit.. Of course, the buff and slack forces in a train might then become totally unpredictable.... Probably not a good idea. I think we'll forget about that one.
In a broad and general sense, I would not say that railroading is behind the curve of technological development. But I would say that the curve is suddenly about to radically change. Two things are going to change it. One is the rapid increase in crude oil shipping by rail, and other is the rapid increase in public demand for greater oil train safety. I don’t think there is any time in history when the need to change has come on so strong and rapidly.
"New and Improved" often isn't.
Jeff
I doubt that the actual need for improvement or the effectiveness of the improvements will be all that important. What will be important is to look like they are doing something about the problem. And it is not like the industry is going to have the privilege of deciding what is cost effective.
Look what the Chatsworth wreck did for advancing PTC. What is coming will be much more powerful than the fallout from the Chatsworth wreck.
Getting back to my original point, we in the trucking industry use a SPRING brake mechanism which is activated when air pressure in the system DECREASES. It works in a manner opposite to how the service brakes work. Air pressure is used to compress a heavy duty spring on each wheel. When the air pressure in the system drops the air in the brake chamber containing the spring can no longer hold the spring, and the spring brake is applied. I see no reason why a brake like that could not be adapted for railway purposes. You simply need to bleed air out of the system through a valve on the locomotive in order for all "parking" brakes on the train to apply instantaneously. . It works like a charm on trucks, and I've have had the dubious pleasure of first hand experience to attest to that.
UlrichYou simply need to bleed air out of the system through a valve on the locomotive in order for all "parking" brakes on the train to apply instantaneously.
Unfortunately, you just made Houston Ed's workday a lot longer. When kicking cars, the brakes need to be completely released so the car is free rolling. It would appear that your idea would require bottling the air on each car so it could be kicked, and possibly connecting and pumping up a car before it could be switched.
We usually put our passenger cars on air to move them, and we don't kick them - we couple them up under power. We're normally only switching a couple of cars when we do - I can't imagine the chaos if one was trying to switch hundreds of cars a day.
No bottled air required. All you need to do is to charge the system. with air. The air pressure holds each spring in a compressed state so long as there is sufficient air in the system.
No, they are not.
An "expensive model collector"
Ulrich Getting back to my original point, we in the trucking industry use a SPRING brake mechanism which is activated when air pressure in the system DECREASES. It works in a manner opposite to how the service brakes work. Air pressure is used to compress a heavy duty spring on each wheel. When the air pressure in the system drops the air in the brake chamber containing the spring can no longer hold the spring, and the spring brake is applied. I see no reason why a brake like that could not be adapted for railway purposes. You simply need to bleed air out of the system through a valve on the locomotive in order for all "parking" brakes on the train to apply instantaneously. . It works like a charm on trucks, and I've have had the dubious pleasure of first hand experience to attest to that.
That is a natural idea for a fail-safe brake. If you lose the air, the brakes still set. The original railroad air brakes were straight air, and the obvious problem was that if the train breaks in two, you lose all braking on both halves because the train line is open at the break. So Westinghouse invented the triple valve, and a whole new pneumatic strategy that applies the air brakes by reducing the train line pressure, as opposed to the straight air system where you pressurize the train line to apply the brakes.
The spring loaded cylinder system would also apply with a reduction of train line pressure. Whatever all the pros and cons of the spring system versus the triple valve system, the industry adopted the triple valve system at a time when the spring system was an obvious alternative. I don’t think that the spring system will replace the triple valve system at this point.
The advantage of the spring system over the triple valve system is that the springs will not disengage over time like the triple valve system will disengage due to leakage. Assuming the current air brake system is here to stay, a parking brake could still be developed as an addition that would leave the standard air brake system intact.
I am sure there a bunch of patents of workable systems of parking brakes. While a parking brake system should be an add-on to the standard air brake system, it could still utilize the pneumatic cylinders of the standard air brake system for the application of brakes when functioning as the parking brakes. But when you disengage the add-on parking brake system, it leaves the standard air brakes to function as they presently do.
Ulrich No bottled air required. All you need to do is to charge the system. with air. The air pressure holds each spring in a compressed state so long as there is sufficient air in the system.
So how would you kick a car?
zugmann Ulrich No bottled air required. All you need to do is to charge the system. with air. The air pressure holds each spring in a compressed state so long as there is sufficient air in the system. So how would you kick a car?
You build the system that I described.
A "smart" freight car with it's own energy source and communication scheme could do all sorts of things. Technically feasible. Not mature technology. Expensive. Soft benefits and hard costs are generally a non-starter for companies that have hard savings/increased revenue from alternative investments - like building intermodal terminals.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Bucyrus Ulrich Getting back to my original point, we in the trucking industry use a SPRING brake mechanism which is activated when air pressure in the system DECREASES. It works in a manner opposite to how the service brakes work. Air pressure is used to compress a heavy duty spring on each wheel. When the air pressure in the system drops the air in the brake chamber containing the spring can no longer hold the spring, and the spring brake is applied. I see no reason why a brake like that could not be adapted for railway purposes. You simply need to bleed air out of the system through a valve on the locomotive in order for all "parking" brakes on the train to apply instantaneously. . It works like a charm on trucks, and I've have had the dubious pleasure of first hand experience to attest to that. That is a natural idea for a fail-safe brake. If you lose the air, the brakes still set. The original railroad air brakes were straight air, and the obvious problem was that if the train breaks in two, you lose all braking on both halves because the train line is open at the break. So Westinghouse invented the triple valve, and a whole new pneumatic strategy that applies the air brakes by reducing the train line pressure, as opposed to the straight air system where you pressurize the train line to apply the brakes. The spring loaded cylinder system would also apply with a reduction of train line pressure. Whatever all the pros and cons of the spring system versus the triple valve system, the industry adopted the triple valve system at a time when the spring system was an obvious alternative. I don’t think that the spring system will replace the triple valve system at this point. The advantage of the spring system over the triple valve system is that the springs will not disengage over time like the triple valve system will disengage due to leakage. Assuming the current air brake system is here to stay, a parking brake could still be developed as an addition that would leave the standard air brake system intact. I am sure there a bunch of patents of workable systems of parking brakes. While a parking brake system should be an add-on to the standard air brake system, it could still utilize the pneumatic cylinders of the standard air brake system for the application of brakes when functioning as the parking brakes. But when you disengage the add-on parking brake system, it leaves the standard air brakes to function as they presently do.
Springs are a bad idea. They lose their temper, crack and break from low cycle fatigue. They also have variable force with distance - not ideal when dealing with brake shoes that can wear a couple inches. You'd either need a super-reliable slack adjuster or some other system to adjust for this.
A worm and screw parking brake would be better. They already exist on locomotives.
I am not advocating springs; at least not as the working force to apply brakes; either for service or parking.
I guess I'm at a loss here. It sounds like you want to turn the current brake system on it's ear. Where does the air come from if the car has been sitting for several days? What holds the air in the car to keep the brakes released?
As it is, if the railroad wants to switch a bunch of cars, they can just dump the air from the cylinders in each of the cars - something that can be done by any crewman or member of the car department. Once the car is bled, it's free rolling (if the handbrake is released).
If the air leaks off a spring system, does the car stop mid-kick? Or halfway down the hump? That would put a definite damper in switching operations.
The current "Westinghouse" brake system works just fine, except there's no way to remotely initiate a "parking brake" mode. As noted, the railroad industry went that route, rather than the spring application route for reasons we don't necessarily have handy.
Is it really necessary to have such a system to set the "parking brakes." Sure, it might have helped with the Quebec incident, but so would have properly tying down the train. Methinks we're trying to solve a problem that really doesn't exist.
We in the trucking industry like springs. In 28 years I can count on one hand the number of problems we've encountered with a faulty spring. To the point made about springs supplying a variable force, true, but that doesn't matter in the application its designed for. After all the spring is only used for two purposes: parking and for emergency stops. In both cases you need something that is either OFF or fully applied...i.e. you never need a slight amount of parking brake or a gentle application of the emergency brake. Its all or nothing, and the spring is fine for that.
To your point Trees, starting with a clean sheet of paper and redesigning the entire system for railroads might not be such a bad idea. As an industry outsider looking in, I see the need for people to climb all over equipment to set brakes as outdated and archaic. Sure it works.. but I think we can do much better. We landed men on the moon almost 50 years ago now. We are able to remotely control rovers on other planets, yet for some reason a train brake that doesn't require someone to laboriously climb all over equipment continues to allude us. We should be able to do that by flipping a switch, and that system should also be flexible enough to allow the kicking of cars and whatever else is required in normal day to day railroad operations. I think it CAN be done!
tree68what if we were to take PTC to another level - each individual car equipped with PTC? Then each car could become an enforcer of speed limits specifically. Then even a runaway car (if it were able to apply brakes) would be held to the speed limit.. Of course, the buff and slack forces in a train might then become totally unpredictable.... Probably not a good idea. I think we'll forget about that one.
Instead of equipping each car with full PTC, why not supply wireless equipment that is self-powered and that can communicate simple things like brake pressure or state of handbrake tension. This is not difficult to attach to, say, the kind of sensor box that is glued to a 3-piece sideframe over the bearing and measures wheel vibration and potential bearing failure. Now every car becomes a reporter of its condition. And if it starts rolling down the main accidentally -- it can send its position and speed, activate the equivalent of calling post to railroad departments and, if desired, public agencies, set off lights or horns, and yes, activate some form of braking if equipped.
It might be interesting for some of you to look here for a few interesting concepts -- interesting because people have proposed things very similar in a number of recent threads. As a further reference if anybody wants to ask what the current state of development is: here are the official contacts:
Monique.Stewart@dot.gov 202-493-6358John.Punwani@dot.gov 202-493-6369
Overmod Now every car becomes a reporter of its condition. And if it starts rolling down the main accidentally -- it can send its position and speed, activate the equivalent of calling post to railroad departments and, if desired, public agencies, set off lights or horns, and yes, activate some form of braking if equipped. Monique.Stewart@dot.gov 202-493-6358John.Punwani@dot.gov 202-493-6369
Now every car becomes a reporter of its condition. And if it starts rolling down the main accidentally -- it can send its position and speed, activate the equivalent of calling post to railroad departments and, if desired, public agencies, set off lights or horns, and yes, activate some form of braking if equipped.
That's exactly what I mean. We already have all that in my industry. Example.. the onboard diagnostic system has identified that the left inside rear tire is running hot. An email is automatically sent to us and to the nearest shop in our network, and the driver is notified. The vehicle is routed in (or a service person is sent out to meet the truck) and the problem is taken care of. All we had to do is contact the receiver to notify them of a short delay, but I'm sure that within months those diagnostic systems will take care of that small detail as well. Thanks to ever smarter technology, unexpected events like fires will become less frequent because any malfunction that would lead up to a fire would be identified and corrected early on.
Everything I am reading here comes from the present 'aura' of since a rule was (or appears to have been) violated - lets do 20 other things - 20 other expensive things to prevent a person from not performing their duties. And we wonder how there end up being $600 toilet seats and $300 hammer handles.
Didn't we have a problem with a Mars lander several years ago - where part the calculations were done in metric and part were done in feet and inches - and the lander crash landed because Mars wasn't as far away as the sum of the calculations indicated it was.
Men have to be held accountable for their actions - be it applying sufficient hand brakes to hold a train - paying attention to a planes flight status so as not to fly hundreds of mile past the destination - stopping for activated railroad crossing protection.
The world's economy exists for the benefit of MAN. It supports MAN, it provides employment for MAN, it is driven by the wants and needs of MAN Take MAN out of the economy and the world, as we know it, collapses.
BaltACD Everything I am reading here comes from the present 'aura' of since a rule was (or appears to have been) violated - lets do 20 other things - 20 other expensive things to prevent a person from not performing their duties. And we wonder how there end up being $600 toilet seats and $300 hammer handles.
This was a big problem. I think we need at least 40 technologies. Maybe 50.
We have an obligation to intelligently use the best technology available. If the test was that any new technology must never fail then we would all still be riding horses and cooking over an open flame.
The Lac Megantic accident was, I believe, caused in part by outdated technology. A modern self diagnostic system would have alerted someone to the potential of a fire long before it happened. As it was, some guy in Nantes who happened to be walking his dog noticed the fire and alerted the fire department. That (to me anyway) should never happen. An oil train should be equipped with the latest technology. That doesn't excuse the engineer for any mistakes he may have made; however, we can't expect him to be efficient when we provide him with old locomotives, sketchy track, and technology that was outdated 50 years ago.
I find it interesting that there's always so much pushback on new technology. I recall when power steering came in for trucks back in the 70s. Although I wasn't yet involved in the industry at that time, I recall vocal opposition from many drivers... because power steering is too complex for trucks..power steering is for sissies, and power steering is dangerous and unreliable.
Now we get the same about automated transmissions. I have drivers who want nothing to do with them because (they say) it takes the control away from the driver. That's nonsense of course. Getting back to trains, over the last two or three decades we've decimated employment on the railroads while overall tonnages have increased substantially. We owe it to those few remaining workers to provide them with the best technology available.. sending one man into the backwoods of Quebec with 75 loads of oil on outdated fire prone equipment is just not acceptable..
The brakemen of the late 1800s resisted the introduction of the air brake because it made their job less manly. Switchmen resisted the link and pin coupler safety paddles for the same reason.
I am not advocating a need for changing anything. Hand brakes are the perfect technology if people use them properly. What I am talking about has nothing to do with just another train wreck. The industry is not going to have the luxury of arguing that their system is already perfect. The incident in Quebec has started its own runaway train of public opinion. Change is going to be demanded whether it is needed or not. A perceptive industry will recognize the marketing that will be needed just to survive this onslaught public and regulatory scrutiny that is rolling their way.
But I suspect the naysayers are probably right that there will be so much resistance in such a big system of entrenched ways of doing things that they will not be able to comply with the new mandates. Just giving up the oil business will be much easier than changing their way of doing things.
BucyrusThe incident in Quebec has started its own runaway train of public opinion.
You couldn't put it any better than that, Bucyrus. When public opinion and engineering become intertwined strange things have been known to happen. This will certainly be one of those cases. It isn't just about railroads; it is about our society and the politics of technological innovation.
John
Well, that's your opinion! It would be rather strange if there were no public discussion after an accident like this...no? And discussions almost always involve opinions. Railroads don't operate in a vacuum...they run through towns and the folks in those towns are voters who have a right and a responsibility to voice their concerns. That's how its supposed to work.
Regardless of how 'High Tech' and automatic and simple and easy to operate a system is implemented - there is one step that still falls to the operator - testing that the system did what it was intended to do.
No matter the man devised and built technological system - it will FAIL, a part will break, a uncharted decision path will be followed, a untested decision path will produce the wrong outcome.
The final step in all automated technologies is testing and observation to ensure that things are proceeding as they should. We have had the WMATA collisions because the automated features of their system were relied upon until manual override was implemented too late to avoid the collision.
In transportation employees are paid a good wage to DO THEIR JOB. Until the Canadian investigative bodies publish their final reports, it would appear that MM&A had a employee that 'short cut' his responsibilities in testing that his train was IN FACT secured, with his short cut (and it's reliance on 'automatic' technologies as they exist in current air brake technology) costing many lives and significant amounts of money. There is no technology that is fully FOOLPROOF, technology may raise the level of the fool required - but that high level fool will surface and defeat the technology.
I recall the writing of Peter Senge in The Fifth Discipline. So few people default to, or are trained in, systems-thinking, and the worst of the bunch are the members of the public who are angry and outraged crtics of the system when the system's weaknesses are revealed.
Beware of the quick fix that backfires was one of Senge's archetypes in problem resolution and systems analysis if I recall correctly.
Crandell
Ulrich Well, that's your opinion! It would be rather strange if there were no public discussion after an accident like this...no? And discussions almost always involve opinions. Railroads don't operate in a vacuum...they run through towns and the folks in those towns are voters who have a right and a responsibility to voice their concerns. That's how its supposed to work.
Who are you responding to?
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Almost 50 years ago in the pages of Trains - and his book, Integral Train Systems - John Kneiling recommended a braking system similar to what we now know as Electronically Controlled Pneumatic ("ECP") brakes, with a dual air line - including one that allowed parking the train on the "high air" pressure line - and sophisticated 'train-lined' monitoring and control systems, etc.
And, many times John wrote and argued that yes, the railroads are behind the curve on technological innovation. "You could look it up . . . "
Ulrich asked, are railroads behind the curve on technological innovation? And I will answer yes and no.
It seems our old friend "Operating Ratio" is rearing its' ugly head again. It seems to boil down to two sides of an equation; does the new tech increase throughput(increase revenue), or cause a decrease in expenses, or at least have them stay the same.
Or, does it increase expenses, or decrease throughput due to some new regulation that hampers operation. I think railroads have always embraced the former, and only do the latter under protest.
I can think of two examples where the CPR embraced new technology because of the former. The first being Distributed Power. It was the single biggest improvement to freight hauling capability over the Rocky Mountains ever invented. It became so important to CP's operation, that as I understand it, at one point for about a year in the late '70's they were the only RR in North America using it. Others used it first, but at one point or another all of them had to suspend using it due to operational or reliability problems. But CP had no choice, they had contracts to fulfill and DP was the only way to do it. And now it is mainstream technology.
The second is Canadian, Wide, or Whisper Cabs. In the mid-eighties CP was about one contract away from having a serious engine crew problem. As the old heads who had come up under steam began to retire, younger men were no longer prepared to work under the same conditions their elders did. And in Canadian winters, conventional cab diesels had a serious problem. At -20 or -30° with a quartering head wind, that flat metal plate under the windshield ahead of the engineer transmitted cold into the cab like a restaurant grill transmits heat into hamburgers. CN did a wide cab first, but CP immediately realized if they didn't do something similar(SD40-2F) that their wage expense graph line was going to assume a vertical trajectory.
Under the right conditions RR's will embrace new technology.
Bruce
So shovel the coal, let this rattler roll.
"A Train is a Place Going Somewhere" CP Rail Public Timetable
"O. S. Irricana"
. . . __ . ______
Paul_D_North_Jr Almost 50 years ago in the pages of Trains - and his book, Integral Train Systems - John Kneiling recommended a braking system similar to what we now know as Electronically Controlled Pneumatic ("ECP") brakes, with a dual air line - including one that allowed parking the train on the "high air" pressure line - and sophisticated 'train-lined' monitoring and control systems, etc. And, many times John wrote and argued that yes, the railroads are behind the curve on technological innovation. "You could look it up . . . " - Paul North.
I have the book and have read it..interestingly one of Kneiling's suggestions was adapting transit type couplers just as the Lion has been advocating, although in his concept blocks of self-propelled cars would use drawbar connections with couplers only at the control cabs at either end oif each sub unit.
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
Yep. And wow ! Now I know of a grand total of 3 people who have a copy of said book (and of those 3, I gave the book to the other one . . . ).
Instead of going to an incompatible coupler use the present couplers. > On these cars provide a connection either above or below the coupler that wold be opened when a new type connection is encountered. I have seen this system on some transit cars now. A decision to either place the connector above or below would be necessary probably below like present transit types. One item would be protection from debries a. another would be to locate cut levers to opposite the connector. air hoses would still need to be provided for conection to standard coupler only cars and possibility of train separations ?.
so if I'm a small local elevator where the local dropped off several cars yesterday, the air has leaked off and this "parking brake" has been set. My track mobile now needs to pump up the air to get a car to move? More and time and effort on my part as a customer? What's in it for me?
Buslist Ulrich No bottled air required. All you need to do is to charge the system. with air. The air pressure holds each spring in a compressed state so long as there is sufficient air in the system. so if I'm a small local elevator where the local dropped off several cars yesterday, the air has leaked off and this "parking brake" has been set. My track mobile now needs to pump up the air to get a car to move? More and time and effort on my part as a customer? What's in it for me?
Overtime.
Sorry for coming so late on this discussion, but after reviewing this thread in the last couple of days there are some basic practical facts that are being missed.
First it is almost impossible for an innovation to be introduced into the industry unless it is backward compatable, and if not there must be a clear migration path to the new technology. Remember there are 1.5 million plus or minus freight cars out there. The lack of implementation of ECP is a victim of this fact. It's difficult to make ECP backward compatable and the several attempts to do so have been less than successful. The only real solution is to create two different fleets of equipped cars (ain't going to happen) or equip cars with dual systems until the change over is complete. Any guesses why after 15 years of final specs it's still under study? (PS DP did a lot to kill it's benefit)
Another thing being missed is that any rule change on the part of the AAR Interchange Standards requires a very rigorous cost benefit analysis. The it's more modern argument won't cut it, there must be actual and demonstrable cost savings to justify the rule change.
Finally there are the Private Car Owners (PCO)s that fight almost any change to their fleet. Remember 70%+ of cars are owned by entities other than the railroads. Requiring them to change to a new braking system would, to make an understatement, create a major revolt. Witness the almost open warfare between the PCOs and the AAR over the use of wayside detectors to require component replacemen. I can only imagine their pushback on a new parking brake proposition.
Deggesty Buslist Ulrich No bottled air required. All you need to do is to charge the system. with air. The air pressure holds each spring in a compressed state so long as there is sufficient air in the system. so if I'm a small local elevator where the local dropped off several cars yesterday, the air has leaked off and this "parking brake" has been set. My track mobile now needs to pump up the air to get a car to move? More and time and effort on my part as a customer? What's in it for me? Parking brake? Is this the handbrake that is set by hand and released by hand?
Parking brake? Is this the handbrake that is set by hand and released by hand?
Actually, he doesn't understand how brakes work on a RR car. Once you bleed off all the air, the brakes are totally released unless the hand brake is applied (Parking brake?)... to move the car you just release the hand brake then the brakes are then gone. To park it again you have to apply the hand brake again. if you are going to put the car into a train, out on the main line, then you do need a pump to add air so that the whole Train brake can operate, but you won't be moving a train of cars on the mainline with a "Track mobile".
erikemhowever the operative phrase is that they need to be designed and tested to do so.
Repeatedly
Any device used on the railroad has to have incredibly high reliability to survive. Because rail systems are so simple, any failure is normally enough to stop the whole train (a brake pipe ruptures, a triple valve fails in emergency, ...) So reliability is compounded by the hundreds of devices that could fail. Even with mean times between failures of millions of hours on each component, combining them in one train divides the failure rate by the number of components. And, as mentioned, the harsh environment of railroad equipment will ensure that otherwise reliable devices are stressed to their most probable failure point.
Devices you and I use on a daily basis (cars, computers, phones, ...) have Mean Time Between Failures (MTBF) of 100,000 hours at best. That will not do for a rail car. A rail car with 100,000 hour MTBF coupled to 100 other cars and dragged across the U.S. would cause every train to fail every 40 days. (100,000 divided by 100 cars and 24 hours/day). This means that on a busy main line, a train would fail every day (that is fail to a stop and not just a bad order).
This is what makes railroading so difficult! This also gives on an appreciation for just how reliable a complex system must be to even work at all!
Semper Vaporo Deggesty Buslist Ulrich No bottled air required. All you need to do is to charge the system. with air. The air pressure holds each spring in a compressed state so long as there is sufficient air in the system. so if I'm a small local elevator where the local dropped off several cars yesterday, the air has leaked off and this "parking brake" has been set. My track mobile now needs to pump up the air to get a car to move? More and time and effort on my part as a customer? What's in it for me? Parking brake? Is this the handbrake that is set by hand and released by hand? Actually, he doesn't understand how brakes work on a RR car. Once you bleed off all the air, the brakes are totally released unless the hand brake is applied (Parking brake?)... to move the car you just release the hand brake then the brakes are then gone. To park it again you have to apply the hand brake again. if you are going to put the car into a train, out on the main line, then you do need a pump to add air so that the whole Train brake can operate, but you won't be moving a train of cars on the mainline with a "Track mobile".
Read the beginning of the thread! It's about a spring actuated air released parking brake.
To me, a "parking brake" is what is used when you are parking your car, and are not certain that the engine and drive train will be able to hold it in place.
I think I have called for a “parking brake” for trains. But I am not using the term in reference to handbrakes. I intend it to mean a powered, single control brake system that holds the freight car brakes applied.
“Parking brake” is more of a vehicular term, but I think this brake for trains would have the convenience of a vehicle parking brake. So I think the name fits. The engineer just sets or releases the brake from a locomotive cab control.
Traditionally, handbrakes are used for every type of car securement that needs to be independent air, including whole train securement when standing on grades. The Parking Brake would replace handbrakes as a means for whole train securement.
Handbrakes would be retained for securing individual cars or small cuts where needed. I would still call them handbrakes. But the single control “Parking Brake” would be a powered system that would set all the car brakes in the train without relying on air pressure that could leak off.
Euclid I think I have called for a “parking brake” for trains. But I am not using the term in reference to handbrakes. I intend it to mean a powered, single control brake system that holds the freight car brakes applied. “Parking brake” is more of a vehicular term, but I think this brake for trains would have the convenience of a vehicle parking brake. So I think the name fits. The engineer just sets or releases the brake from a locomotive cab control.
Call for for it all you'd like. The industry isn't behind it and will not support it at this point. John Punwani at FRA has always been a gadget guy so his work on the next generation train is not unexpected ( but his boss doesn't like it and has threatened to cancel it).
Trains already have a powered single control brake - the air brake system that is effective on all cars in the train.
The second manually operated braking system must be manually applied to ensure it's effectiveness on each vehicle it is applied to. 'Automatic' systems must still be tested on each car to ensure it's effectiveness.
Paul_D_North_Jr Yep. And wow ! Now I know of a grand total of 3 people who have a copy of said book (and of those 3, I gave the book to the other one . . . ). - Paul North.
Apologies for the delayed reply, but was I one of the "three"? I just checked to make sure my copy was still around.
P.S. Decided to do a quick look through the book for the first time in 8 1/2 years, interesting to see Kneiling's point to think "logistics" not "transportation".
Buslist Euclid I think I have called for a “parking brake” for trains. But I am not using the term in reference to handbrakes. I intend it to mean a powered, single control brake system that holds the freight car brakes applied. “Parking brake” is more of a vehicular term, but I think this brake for trains would have the convenience of a vehicle parking brake. So I think the name fits. The engineer just sets or releases the brake from a locomotive cab control. . Call for for it all you'd like. The industry isn't behind it and will not support it at this point. John Punwani at FRA has always been a gadget guy so his work on the next generation train is not unexpected ( but his boss doesn't like it and has threatened to cancel it).
.
1) Make it about saving money.
2) Make it about public safety and convince the regulators, so they will force the railroads to buy it.
The whole problem of doing anything different with the braking system on freight cars comes down to the whole issue of power and control.
Where do you get the power to apply the brakes?
How do you control the power?
The genius of the Westinghouse air brake is that it used a single pipe to supply power and control, storing air in each car for power and varying the pressure in the pipe for control.
Pnuematic control systems were not uncommon even a few decades ago, but time has pretty much passed pneumatic control systems by. So, it's probably time to replace it with ECP braking where the air only has to supply the power.
There are big hurdles to overcome, but potentially big advantages once you get there.
The hurdles are:
1. Getting the fleet equipped. Dual equipment is expensive - quite a bit more than doing a straight conversion, but then you have interoperability issues
2. Robust, standard data trainline. Really need one. Don't have one yet. I wonder if a low power, directional radio based system might be better than wires.
3. Hidebound AAR process for setting standards. The railroad folk are good people, but they don't really trust each other, fully. There have been too many instances in the past were one road "got one over" on another.
4. Lack of understanding of all the potential benefits and ancillary benefits. "It's just an airbrake system, right? We already have on of those that works just fine." Actually, no and no.
5. Too many other things to do. Install PTC. Fight or push mergers. Quarrel with Amtrak. Figure out how to move oil trains....
I can't think of a single piece of technology that would do more to improve freight car velocity than EPC braking. I wish the industry was working a bit harder to make it a reality.
petitnj MTBF coupled to 100 other cars and dragged across the U.S. would cause every train to fail every 40 days. (100,000 divided by 100 cars and 24 hours/day). This means that on a busy main line, a train would fail every day (that is fail to a stop and not just a bad order).
I believe it's about this bad now. It's just accepted as the cost of doing business. Nobody thinks too hard about it...
Euclid1) Make it about saving money.
Yep. Old habits die hard.
Euclid 2) Make it about public safety and convince the regulators, so they will force the railroads to buy it.
Actually that probably wouldn't cut it either as even FRA regs are subject to a cost/benefit analysis which I don't believe this would pass. To avoid this you would need a new a law as with PTC. I don't think the in coming business friendly Congress is up for that.
Buslist Euclid 2) Make it about public safety and convince the regulators, so they will force the railroads to buy it. Actually that probably wouldn't cut it either as even FRA regs are subject to a cost/benefit analysis which I don't believe this would pass. To avoid this you would need a new a law as with PTC. I don't think the in coming business friendly Congress is up for that.
oltmannd The whole problem of doing anything different with the braking system on freight cars comes down to the whole issue of power and control. Where do you get the power to apply the brakes? The hurdles are: 2. Robust, standard data trainline. Really need one. Don't have one yet. I wonder if a low power, directional radio based system might be better than wires. 3. Hidebound AAR process for setting standards. The railroad folk are good people, but they don't really trust each other, fully. There have been too many instances in the past were one road "got one over" on another. 4. Lack of understanding of all the potential benefits and ancillary benefits. "It's just an airbrake system, right? We already have on of those that works just fine." Actually, no and no. 5. Too many other things to do. Install PTC. Fight or push mergers. Quarrel with Amtrak. Figure out how to move oil trains.... I can't think of a single piece of technology that would do more to improve freight car velocity than EPC braking. I wish the industry was working a bit harder to make it a reality.
Some issues here, as to number 2 there is in fact a very robust data train line in the AAR ECP spec. Proven over and over again, the brakeing data only requires about 30% of the coms capacity so lots of room for car health data and, as some have suggested, MU info to get rid of the 27 pin ( talk about outdated) connector and radio DP. As to radio ECP GE Harris tried desperately to get one to work and even threatened to sue the AAR if it wasn't included in the ECP spec. They failed miserably. But all this was 15+ years ago, so I'm sure some technology advancements might be relevant.
Relevant to #3 I don't think this was an issue as the primary proponent was a CSX guy even though most of the benefit went to the western roads (graduated release).
For #4, lots of AAR research $ went to study the benefits and I think they were well understood around 2000. But as I said before there was no clear and accepted migration path and the more uniform application of brakes was more cheaply accomplished with radio repeater air brake cars and DPU. Last I knew there were 2 ECP test trains in operation, one from the PRB, and one from the Mon Valley in PA to a power plant in the same state on I believe, your railroad, perhaps you know more.
#5 is dead on!
EuclidI don’t expect ECP will ever by applied to loose-car railroading.
That's where the greatest benefit is....
Buslist As to radio ECP GE Harris tried desperately to get one to work and even threatened to sue the AAR if it wasn't included in the ECP spec. They failed miserably. But all this was 15+ years ago, so I'm sure some technology advancements might be relevant.
Interesting! I can get my mouse to talk to my computer by radio...you'd think....
BuslistBut as I said before there was no clear and accepted migration path and the more uniform application of brakes was more cheaply accomplished with radio repeater air brake cars and DPU.
Except the many, many places can't run DPU in the east because of train length and stuff in the way.... and all those ancillary benefits not counted, like retiring every hot box detector and never having a burn off again (for starters...)
And, getting to a point where you don't have to tie down handbrakes manually, or have "kickers", or handbrakes left on sliding wheels flat and all the other "stuff" that happens every day that we just call "railroading" and don't think twice about it.
Or derailments from hunting or stuck trucks, or getting pickups and setouts down to 20 minutes instead of an hour and a half, or commisioning a DPU set taking minutes instead of an hour.
I think that one reason ECP isn't being more actively pursued is that the railroads (or some departments) feel it would encourage or require stretch/power braking to get the most out of it. That's the last thing they want you to do, behind throttle modulation and dynamic braking. (Except in emergency or near emergency situations.)
oltmannd Buslist As to radio ECP GE Harris tried desperately to get one to work and even threatened to sue the AAR if it wasn't included in the ECP spec. They failed miserably. But all this was 15+ years ago, so I'm sure some technology advancements might be relevant. Interesting! I can get my mouse to talk to my computer by radio...you'd think....
Is your mouse 9000+ feet from your computer around 3 curves and over two hills and moving?
BaltACDIs your mouse 9000+ feet from your computer around 3 curves and over two hills and moving?
And in the rain, pelted by gravel, having been maintained indifferently for umpteen years?
BaltACD oltmannd Buslist As to radio ECP GE Harris tried desperately to get one to work and even threatened to sue the AAR if it wasn't included in the ECP spec. They failed miserably. But all this was 15+ years ago, so I'm sure some technology advancements might be relevant. Interesting! I can get my mouse to talk to my computer by radio...you'd think.... Is your mouse 9000+ feet from your computer around 3 curves and over two hills and moving?
Each car only needs to talk to the next. Bluetooth range would do it. Just needs a directional antenna.
jeffhergert I think that one reason ECP isn't being more actively pursued is that the railroads (or some departments) feel it would encourage or require stretch/power braking to get the most out of it. That's the last thing they want you to do, behind throttle modulation and dynamic braking. (Except in emergency or near emergency situations.) Jeff
I hear you. Some railroads would have you think that they are in the business of saving fuel to the exclusion of being in the transportation business. Turning assets is the name of the game - burning a bit more fuel might be a good trade-off.
Reading this thread provides a clear answer to the title question and the major reason why that is so. It isn't because the technology is lacking or lagging.
oltmannd Each car only needs to talk to the next. Bluetooth range would do it. Just needs a directional antenna.
IIRC GE Harris had problems linking the cars in a train and not talking to cars on adjacent tracks. Their radio was strong enough the carry about 3 cars in either direction (GE Harris felt that going only to the next car was not sufficiently reliable). As I said this was 15 years ago and I'm sure some technology advances might be applicable, but I'm not sure Bluetooth solves the problem.
Another issue was on board power. This meant a generator (Timken has one in a roller bearing they'd be glad to sell you) and a battery. Both of which were seen as problematic by the Braking committee members.
BaltACD Is your mouse 9000+ feet from your computer around 3 curves and over two hills and moving?
If you're implying that adjacent train parts are moving significantly relative to each other something's extremely wrong, and I'd hope even the simplest wireless control system would at least try to communicate a warning.
Buslist IIRC GE Harris had problems linking the cars in a train and not talking to cars on adjacent tracks. Their radio was strong enough the carry about 3 cars in either direction (GE Harris felt that going only to the next car was not sufficiently reliable). As I said this was 15 years ago and I'm sure some technology advances might be applicable, but I'm not sure Bluetooth solves the problem.
I would have thought even 15 years ago there must have been reasonable technology that should have let cars broadcast enough identifying info for the system to tell which ones belonged to a particular train, and not a train on an adjacent track.
Buslist Another issue was on board power. This meant a generator (Timken has one in a roller bearing they'd be glad to sell you) and a battery. Both of which were seen as problematic by the Braking committee members.
Patrick Boylan
Free yacht rides, 27' sailboat, zip code 19114 Delaware River, get great Delair bridge photos from the river. Send me a private message
BuslistIIRC GE Harris had problems linking the cars in a train and not talking to cars on adjacent tracks. Their radio was strong enough the carry about 3 cars in either direction (GE Harris felt that going only to the next car was not sufficiently reliable). As I said this was 15 years ago and I'm sure some technology advances might be applicable, but I'm not sure Bluetooth solves the problem.
Of course Bluetooth won't solve the problem -- it's explicitly a short-range protocol! (In any case, its methods for connection and data security are fundamentally ill-suited for railroad data applications, and while they could be patched it makes little sense to adapt them when there are better (and with cheaper enabling technology!) RF systems available.)
One thing that is practical now is to bundle intelligence into a very cheap on-car module. Something as simple as a multiaxis vibration detector on a car truck can easily handle identifying the car it's on, verifying brake-system state and condition and interconnection integrity, and controlling communications with other electronic systems on the car, in the train, and in wayside or connected systems. Power management (both of the equipment and of the RF links) has made enormous strides in OTS electronics (mostly in the personal-device markets) in the last few years. It's common now to look at active power drains in the microamp range for equipment that would have effectively zero full-power-on latency in a typical ECP railroad-braking application.
In my opinion, it makes far better sense to use mechanical charging power (vibration/TAC or generators like Timken's bearing) than relatively fragile solar panels that only work well when clean and in good sun, and would probably require fairly long armored leads down to where the system batteries are located on a particular car. Also in my opinion, the required panel size to provide power to drive ECP valves and such would be excessively high. In the event of critically low battery the car itself would call for attention... over a period of weeks or even months... so having the passive assurance of solar charging might not be as necessary as in many 'unattended' applications.
The issue of discriminating consists on adjacent tracks is best handled (in my humble opinion) with distributed intelligence. I assume that the RF has long enough effective range to bridge any 'dumb' cars in the train -- while there might be some Government mandate to provide wired or wireless-antenna passthrough (analogous to the compatibility air hoses used during the introduction of air braking) it should be obvious that provision of such a thing can NOT be a precondition to reliable use of ECP features on a train. And if the ECP features cannot be reliable to the train crew, they are more likely than not to become a source of danger or failure, sooner or later.
The 24/7/365 high impact nature of the rail environment with the expectations of NO MAINTENANCE between inspections required by law is a tough nut for 'new technology' to crack.
BaltACDThe 24/7/365 high impact nature of the rail environment with the expectations of NO MAINTENANCE between inspections required by law is a tough nut for 'new technology' to crack.
Here's the thing that's so important (IMHO). It's really the failure of the technological innovators to match actual railroad needs that's the problem ... not so much the railroads being hidebound about the possibilities of new or kewl technologies.
We recently had a thread about laser ablation of leaves, etc. on tracks. There are three separate generations of laser involved in this (discriminatable by year range) -- each of which was virtually cutting-edge in its application. The first generation was manifestly unsuited to a railroad environment, even a test environment. The second wave (diode-pumped YAG) was still too fragile, both in the laser design and the optics. The current version, probably using disk lasers and modern optics, MIGHT be robust and efficient enough to work for the intended purpose ... now come the unintended consequences of using high power in short bursts on organic material -- I'll be interested to see the metallurgical changes in the railhead contact patch, for instance...
Similar achievement of enabling technology in first-generation dieselization, and perhaps to an even greater extent in some subsequent generations -- I think the history of 'midtrain power' from the early Southern experiments up to DPU is an interesting case to examine.
This is the 21st Century, and technologies develop and evolve much faster (and perhaps cheaper when wisely approached) with each passing year. What needs to happen is for the 'wizards' doing research to accommodate railroad conditions and actual railroad needs as fundamental elements in systems design, rather than seeing nails that their hammers are supposed to be good at driving.
Buslist oltmannd Each car only needs to talk to the next. Bluetooth range would do it. Just needs a directional antenna. IIRC GE Harris had problems linking the cars in a train and not talking to cars on adjacent tracks. Their radio was strong enough the carry about 3 cars in either direction (GE Harris felt that going only to the next car was not sufficiently reliable). As I said this was 15 years ago and I'm sure some technology advances might be applicable, but I'm not sure Bluetooth solves the problem. Another issue was on board power. This meant a generator (Timken has one in a roller bearing they'd be glad to sell you) and a battery. Both of which were seen as problematic by the Braking committee members.
No pain, no gain. You can't get a better outcome without doing something different. The braking committee is the one to make it happen, not the ones who should be figuring out if it's worth it or not. The scope is bigger than just braking performance.
It only becomes worth tackling the pain if you can see through to the end game. If you think the "end game" is merely slack action control and graduated release, then why bother.
Freight cars with batteries and solar panels? Herzog ballast train anyone?
WizlishOf course Bluetooth won't solve the problem -- it's explicitly a short-range protocol! (In any case, its methods for connection and data security are fundamentally ill-suited for railroad data applications, and while they could be patched it makes little sense to adapt them when there are better (and with cheaper enabling technology!) RF systems available.)
The only point I was trying to make was that if my mouse can talk to my computer, there's no reason one freight car can't talk to the next via radio.
WizlishIn my opinion, it makes far better sense to use mechanical charging power (vibration/TAC or generators like Timken's bearing) than relatively fragile solar panels that only work well when clean and in good sun, and would probably require fairly long armored leads down to where the system batteries are located on a particular car. Also in my opinion, the required panel size to provide power to drive ECP valves and such would be excessively high. In the event of critically low battery the car itself would call for attention... over a period of weeks or even months... so having the passive assurance of solar charging might not be as necessary as in many 'unattended' applications.
Cars spend more than 80% of their time sitting - often weeks at a time. If you can keep the battery close to fully charged before idle periods you'd be okay. But, you really don't want to regularly pull cars with inoperative brakes. It would be looking at those Herzog cars...
oltmannd 2. Robust, standard data trainline. Really need one. Don't have one yet. I wonder if a low power, directional radio based system might be better than wires.
What is lacking in the ECP wire trainline? I recall reading that there were problems in getting sufficiently robust connectors. Is that the only problem?
oltmanndThe only point I was trying to make was that if my mouse can talk to my computer, there's no reason one freight car can't talk to the next via radio.
But the situation is more complex than that. If 'one freight car can't talk to the next by radio', for whatever reason, in a system relying on short-range intercar links, it can't talk to any car from there on back in the train's consist, either. If that doesn't make you think about a certain angle cock on a certain New Haven train going to Washington...
Dumb radio links are also, as noted, indiscriminate about what they are actually communicating with. Imagine you have two mice communicating with the same receiver on your computer. And you are running a safety-critical application on that computer. Now hand the mice to two separate people doing radically different things...
Wizlish oltmannd The only point I was trying to make was that if my mouse can talk to my computer, there's no reason one freight car can't talk to the next via radio. But the situation is more complex than that. If 'one freight car can't talk to the next by radio', for whatever reason, in a system relying on short-range intercar links, it can't talk to any car from there on back in the train's consist, either. If that doesn't make you think about a certain angle cock on a certain New Haven train going to Washington... Dumb radio links are also, as noted, indiscriminate about what they are actually communicating with. Imagine you have two mice communicating with the same receiver on your computer. And you are running a safety-critical application on that computer. Now hand the mice to two separate people doing radically different things...
oltmannd The only point I was trying to make was that if my mouse can talk to my computer, there's no reason one freight car can't talk to the next via radio.
"Yes, but"...∞
Whaaaat?
You made a funny!
gardendanceI've long wondered why more rail, trucking and bus companies don't put electric solar panels on top of their vehicles. On my sailboat I have 1 panel of a 3 panel set that Harbor Freight sold $145, regular price is around $200, which gives me a bit of peace of mind that when I wake up one morning and realize I left the lights and stereo on all night that I'll be able to get the batteries recharged before the next sunset. So let's add lack of solar panels on rolling stock another item in the question of railroads possibly behind the technology curve.
Those solar panels would be an easy target for thieves any time the car is sitting in a relatively secluded spot; especially at night.
schlimm"Yes, but"...∞
That was cold.
Deserved, but cold...
It's not so much "g-force" as it is shock measured as acceleration (and denominated in g units). Naturally the actual duration of the 'acceleration' is extremely short, or you would see pronounced motion (bouncing wheelsets, etc.). Often what you see is the effect of shock on a comparatively light moving part (such as an instrumented wheelset, or the structure that is managed by the primary suspension.
The results of shock on car lading in the longitudinal direction are well established -- look at the history of the Hydra-Cushion system for some further substantiation. For the damage to lading to be significant, the amount of shock to the car structure is greater still.
corwinda Those solar panels would be an easy target for thieves any time the car is sitting in a relatively secluded spot; especially at night.
Euclid As I understand this, you would transmit ECP control data wireless. Then you would carry a battery on each car, and generate the battery charge on each car. This electrical power would transmit the data; and also, power the solenoid valves on each car that would control the air functions. This way, there would be no electric/electronic cable to connect and maintain. I suspect that the power needed to transmit data is very small compared to the power needed to operate all of brake solenoids on each car throughout the train. Having each car generating its power and storing it in a battery seems overly fussy for a railcar. But I suppose anything can be done.
The carrot with the wireless ECP was a reasonable migration path. The plan was with the car being power self sufficient the electronic valve could function in two different modes. If the car was initialized into a train network it would function in ECP mode. If however air pressure was applied in the train line without initialization, it would function like your favorite triple valve. This way cars so equipped could be gradually introduced into the system, and if a BO was set out on line of road, it could be brought home by the local. IIRC they had a test train equipped on the QCM. But alas GE Harris was never able to get the system to perform "as advertised" And threw in the towel. Nobody else has picked up the effort.
What is the preferred way of handling this data/power function in today’s thinking about ECP?
Unless something has changed recently the common power/data bus continues to be the preferred choice but there is no clear migration path to get the fleet equipped. Air Brake Committee is content with the system and has been for a decade, now its up to the operating and investment types to decide if the benefits are sufficient, but they are somewhat otherwise occupied.
Hi Wizlish
Maybe I am mistaken, but I always thought g-forces were a measure of acceleration.
Also, I don't understand how are the longitudinal accelerations on the car are greater than those imposed on the lading, exluding the effects of damping created by packing materials surrounding the lading.
Thanks
AnthonyV
"G-force" can be translated via F = ma. "g" itself is the acceleration due to 'standard' Earth gravity, 32 fpsps or metric equivalent. What I was saying is that an acceleration corresponding to 178g, as measured in Acela testing, is necessarily of very short duration, and is perhaps best considered as a datum for calculating the peak force (and rate of change of the force).
In order for the lading to move, something either had to kick the car hard enough to move it relative to the inertia of the lading, or to get enough energy into the lading that its subsequent momentum, decelerated only by what it's packed in or what it collides with, causes damage. In either case, unless the "coupling" between the lading and the applied force is perfect (which almost certainly won't be the case!) there has to be more force exerted on the car than winds up moving the lading.
gardendance corwinda Those solar panels would be an easy target for thieves any time the car is sitting in a relatively secluded spot; especially at night. Why would they be an easier target for thieves than any of the solar panels that are already on lots of structures, railroad related or not, which use solar panels specifically because those structures sit in relatively secluded spots? Does anybody have statistics on existing solar panel vandalism and theft? Why would they be an easier target for thieves than the railcars' cargo?
Actually the industry has been quite successful at using solar panels to power the electric friction modifier (the currently preferred technical term amoung tribologists for lubricant) way side pumps, particularly those in the Portec line. I recall seeing one in London, at Waterloo East IIRC, powered by a small windmill, what else to do in that climate?
BuslistActually the industry has been quite successful at using solar panels to power the electric friction modifier (the currently preferred technical term amoung tribologists for lubricant) way side pumps, particularly those in the Portec line. I recall seeing one in London, at Waterloo East IIRC, powered by a small windmill, what else to do in that climate?
Stop signs and other warning signs are more and more often equipped with a surround of (LED) lights that flash and are powered by a battery and solar panel on top. Theft does not seem to be an issue.
I don't think theft of solar panels will be an issue until their value reaches the point where they can be used as currency (think copper pipe). As it stands now, you may well have to pay to have one disposed of, and making use of one involves more than just plugging it into the wall. That makes it nearly useless to the average opportunist/thief.
Like everything else, though, there are those who might consider acquiring their "living off the grid" materiel at no cost (unless they're caught).
Too, most solar panels are installed in locations where simply carting them off isn't an easy proposition. Getting a relatively fragile 100+ pound panel off a roof ain't easy.
But then there's sport. Some around here get a kick out of shooting them or throwing things at them from a moving car.
_____________
"A stranger's just a friend you ain't met yet." --- Dave Gardner
That's exactly what happened at Lac Megantic.Engineer flipped a switch, (valve actually) to apply trainline and independent brakes.
IF he had gone back and set the hand brakes he would have KNOWN not ASSUMED that the brakes would work. What better system could there be?
How about quantifying that. How much damage do solar panels get from vandalism? And although we've heard a post or two here that they might be a bit too fragile to be cost effective on rolling stock, how likely is it that a vandal will want to try to throw rocks up from the ground onto the top of a boxcar where they won't be able to see the damage they cause?
gardendance How about quantifying that. How much damage do solar panels get from vandalism? And although we've heard a post or two here that they might be a bit too fragile to be cost effective on rolling stock, how likely is it that a vandal will want to try to throw rocks up from the ground onto the top of a boxcar where they won't be able to see the damage they cause?
It's not throwing things up on top of a car - it's throwing things down from an overpass or a cut.
That's one reason why they put roofs on auto carrier cars.
If the solar panels were to be covered with a relatively impervious material (like the 229 glass specified for locomotives), it would certainly help, but even that might not be enough to counter a cinder block dropped (or thrown down) from overhead.
That apparently hasn't been an issue in fixed installations, so far.
If they could have used more modern, well-maintained locomotives and have had these modern locomotives distributed at each end of the tank car train, then the train would have been much less likely to roll away because the braking power of distributed locomotives is better.
Watch my videos on-line at https://www.youtube.com/user/AndrewNeilFalconer
Andrew Falconer If they could have used more modern, well-maintained locomotives and have had these modern locomotives distributed at each end of the tank car train, then the train would have been much less likely to roll away because the braking power of distributed locomotives is better.
Yes, but....
If the Train Operator had actually secured his train it would still have been there when the next crew came on duty for it. Distributed power had nothing to do with the Train Operators failure to secure the train. Especially since the Train operator did not understand that locomotive hand brakes do not have the same braking power as freight car hand brakes and he did not set enough of either kind of hand brakes.
The locomotives on the MMA were not new or maintained properly.
Absolutely nothing to do with it. The man failed to secure his train. That is the cause of everything. It does not matter if the power was the newest thing from the factory floor or the Best Friend of Charleston. If he had done his job properly that train would not have moved.
The trucking company figured this out years ago, and if the air does leak down, it won't release the brakes, but if it does it will take a little bit longer to build the air back up, when they need to move the train, this has been in affect for over 30 years now in the trucking industries
tdmidget Absolutely nothing to do with it. The man failed to secure his train. That is the cause of everything. It does not matter if the power was the newest thing from the factory floor or the Best Friend of Charleston. If he had done his job properly that train would not have moved.
EuclidPerhaps that one additional handbrake would have prevented the train from rolling away
[Edited to remove unnecessary snarkiness that did not contribute to the discussion]
You have a train that runs away to 50 mph, and you think that ONE AXLE (on a locomotive that did not derail, to boot) would have made the difference in its starting to run away?
I think it was mentioned in one of the reports that a minimum of 17 'handbrakes' (four braked axles apiece, unless they were counting one brake per end of the tank cars) would have been required to keep that train from moving. Seven were applied. That is the singular reason the train ran away after the independent leaked down (ironically enough, IIRC, largely due to the turbine loss in the train's FRED). There is little need to rehash what I now see is a whole herd beaten to death in past threads.
[Note that this original post addresses the train starting to move, not its behavior once started, contrary to later assertions in posts to this thread...]
trains577 The trucking company figured this out years ago, and if the air does leak down, it won't release the brakes, but if it does it will take a little bit longer to build the air back up, when they need to move the train, this has been in affect for over 30 years now in the trucking industries
I've never seen a hump yard for trailers though. Nor trailers getting kicked. there are many times and places you don't want brakes to set up on a car.
zugmann trains577 The trucking company figured this out years ago, and if the air does leak down, it won't release the brakes, but if it does it will take a little bit longer to build the air back up, when they need to move the train, this has been in affect for over 30 years now in the trucking industries I've never seen a hump yard for trailers though. Nor trailers getting kicked. there are many times and places you don't want brakes to set up on a car.
One of these days those that point to what the truckers do will realize what has been pointed out in this thread several times is that there is a need to move rail cars "off air" so all those "what the trailers have" responses aren't relevant.
Wizlish Euclid Perhaps that one additional handbrake would have prevented the train from rolling away Of all the nonsensical things that have been said about that accident, this comment ranks at the top. You have a train that runs away to 50 mph, and you think that ONE AXLE (on a locomotive that did not derail, to boot) would have made the difference in its starting to run away? I think it was mentioned in one of the reports that a minimum of 17 'handbrakes' (four braked axles apiece, unless they were counting one brake per end of the tank cars) would have been required to keep that train from moving. Seven were applied. That is the singular reason the train ran away...
Euclid Perhaps that one additional handbrake would have prevented the train from rolling away
Of all the nonsensical things that have been said about that accident, this comment ranks at the top.
I think it was mentioned in one of the reports that a minimum of 17 'handbrakes' (four braked axles apiece, unless they were counting one brake per end of the tank cars) would have been required to keep that train from moving. Seven were applied. That is the singular reason the train ran away...
Wizlish What I was saying is that an acceleration corresponding to 178g, as measured in Acela testing, ....
What I was saying is that an acceleration corresponding to 178g, as measured in Acela testing, ....
Sure would like to see a reference to that 178g measurement as would some folks at Amtrak. Here's a comment from one of Amtrak's test engineers that has been involved if not directed, most every load environment test with the Acelas (recognizing that Amtrak contracts out these tests, usually to TTCI but could be NRC or Ensco as well). The measurement might also have come from the builders consortium (but with TTCI's IWS).
EuclidI don’t think it nonsensical at all. We do NOT know what amount of securement braking would have been necessary to hold the train. All we know is that it was not enough.
[Edited 1.1.2015 to remove exasperated comments that did not contribute to the discussion, and for a bit more on-point clarity. Original is still visible quoted in Norm's subsequent post.]
The reason the acceleration is significant is that it indicates a massive lack of retarding power, [demonstrated no later than by a fairly early point] in the train's acceleration downgrade. Calculate the adhesion limit of one (1) axle taken right up to the point the wheeltread skids, then tell me that would materially change the acceleration [...]
Engineers have calculated how many wheelsets would have to have been braked to secure a consist of that weight on that grade. If they were so inclined, they could [also] easily provide numbers to achieve given speeds at the bottom of the grade, or figure out (roughly) how many brakes would have kept terminal speed below that causing the massive derailment. There was, and is, little point in such an exercise, however.
I took mention of the 'one brake that did not work' to be intended for quite a different purpose than the straw that broke the camel's back [to allow the train to start rolling]. It establishes part of a demonstration of MMA's alleged negligence to safety items, perhaps with an eye toward shifting civil action off the Canadians involved, and for you to be [claiming the partial inactivation of that axle's handbrake application to be a significant contributory factor] indicates to me that the Canadian attempt has at least partially succeeded.
In short, if you want to assert 'maybe' in the sense of plausible denial, the denial has to be actually plausible. [I don't think that plausibility has been established, and I would need to see harder evidence than an assertation of implied 'possibility' before accepting that it has.]
BuslistSure would like to see a reference to that 178g measurement as would some folks at Amtrak.
IIRC it was published in the report on the brake-disc spoke cracking. I wouldn't have mentioned it if I hadn't read it in what I considered a definitive reference.
I don't have it ready to hand, but I will check and provide the reference when I have found it. Will have more comments then.
Wizlish Euclid I don’t think it nonsensical at all. We do NOT know what amount of securement braking would have been necessary to hold the train. All we know is that it was not enough. This just gets sillier and sillier. Do you just not understand physics, or common sense, or engineering, or anything people are trying to point out to you? The reason the acceleration is significant is that it indicates a massive lack of retarding power, occurring fairly early in the train's acceleration downgrade. Calculate the adhesion limit of one (1) axle taken right up to the point the wheeltread skids, then tell me that would materially change the acceleration. Engineers have calculated how many wheelsets would have to have been braked to secure a consist of that weight on that grade. If they were so inclined, they could easily provide numbers to achieve given speeds at the bottom of the grade, or figure out (roughly) how many brakes would have kept terminal speed below that causing the massive derailment. There was, and is, little point in such an exercise, however. I took mention of the 'one brake that did not work' to be intended for quite a different purpose than the straw that broke the camel's back. It establishes part of a demonstration of MMA's alleged negligence to safety items, perhaps with an eye toward shifting civil action off the Canadians involved, and for you to be obsessing over it indicates to me that it has at least partially succeeded. In short, if you want to assert 'maybe' in the sense of plausible denial, the denial has to be actually plausible.
Euclid I don’t think it nonsensical at all. We do NOT know what amount of securement braking would have been necessary to hold the train. All we know is that it was not enough.
This just gets sillier and sillier. Do you just not understand physics, or common sense, or engineering, or anything people are trying to point out to you?
The reason the acceleration is significant is that it indicates a massive lack of retarding power, occurring fairly early in the train's acceleration downgrade. Calculate the adhesion limit of one (1) axle taken right up to the point the wheeltread skids, then tell me that would materially change the acceleration.
Engineers have calculated how many wheelsets would have to have been braked to secure a consist of that weight on that grade. If they were so inclined, they could easily provide numbers to achieve given speeds at the bottom of the grade, or figure out (roughly) how many brakes would have kept terminal speed below that causing the massive derailment. There was, and is, little point in such an exercise, however.
I took mention of the 'one brake that did not work' to be intended for quite a different purpose than the straw that broke the camel's back. It establishes part of a demonstration of MMA's alleged negligence to safety items, perhaps with an eye toward shifting civil action off the Canadians involved, and for you to be obsessing over it indicates to me that it has at least partially succeeded.
In short, if you want to assert 'maybe' in the sense of plausible denial, the denial has to be actually plausible.
Norm
Buslist Wizlish What I was saying is that an acceleration corresponding to 178g, as measured in Acela testing, .... Sure would like to see a reference to that 178g measurement as would some folks at Amtrak.
Sure would like to see a reference to that 178g measurement as would some folks at Amtrak.
The FRA final report on the Acela brake cracking (Volume I) says this on p. 100:
"The highest vertical acceleration observed on the WABTEC/SAB-WABCO test axle during Phase 3 testing was 189 g, measured on the left end of the axle on June 17 near MP 56 of the Metro-North Rail Road while the test train was traveling at 48 mph. At this same location, the Knorr test axle experienced its highest vertical impact on the northbound trip, 172 g. During the southbound test conducted on June 18, the Knorr test axle experienced its highest vertical impact of the test, a 178 g impact on the left end of the axle in the vicinity of Transfer Interlocking near MP AB 218.5 while traveling at 131 mph."
OMG, the things that get said by WABCO and ENSCO people that seem to escape some Amtrak people...!
Nobody is saying or implying that any such measurement would be recorded on the far side of the secondary suspension, "in the vehicle body" -- of course it wouldn't, for a host of rather obvious reasons. I'd be surprised to see any high-G acceleration make it past the primary suspension to the truck frame. But to imply that someone is off the wall for quoting a reference of 178G acceleration, when it has been substantiated in the literature, appears to be rather plainly mistaken.
If this 83 year old dinosaur can butt in ... I just skimmed thru a condensed report (Canadian) on the Lac Megantic Accident Report. The conclusion: not enough brakes set. The report contains a recommendation for some kind of auxiliary brake system.
This discussion contains several very workable suggestions so please allow me to approach this from a different direction. Its gotta be workable by the guys runnin' the trains.
I was not there at a certain Society of Automobile Engineers Annual Convention which was held shortly after WII. The guest speaker was a high-ranking U.S. Army General who had directed logistics in that war. He spoke of a design situation where a rod was connected to the end of a lever. German engineering would develop an exotic system which allowed extreme pre-tensioning of this connection, but, should it break down, the machine was out of action until a factory-trained mechanic could be found and brought to make the needed adjustments. The American design for the same connection was to drill a small cross hole near the end of the rod and install a cotter pin. Then any farm kid could keep the machine running. In the words of the general, that's how we won the war !!!
Works for railroads too. KISS Make it so them running the trains can keep the trains running. This would suggest a second airline for the "parking brake" and a new, double chambered air brake cylinder (similar in function to that used by trucks) where one chamber applies the "service brakes" (today's air brake system) and a second system uses the "parking brake chamber" to set the "parking brakes" (Same brake rods, brake levers, brake shoes, wheels, etc.) Tie this new system to a new valve on the locomotive similar to the straight (independent) air valve and & the knowledge of how to use it are already there. Best yet, this "parking brake" can't leak off. Once set, (air exhausted from the brake chamber) the spring in the parking brake chamber holds the brakes on until the engineer pumps them off. Total fail-safe and on the whole train.
{True, the electronic blue-tooth stuff with solar panels probably could be made to work, but how does it work when the car's air reservoir is empty? Not my first choice !!}
This old dinoraur remembers when unit coal trains begn to roll, to be unloaded at rotary dumpers. This took special cars with special rotary knuckles & a small change in the location of an air hose. It all got done. Similar for moving the crude oil safely. The second line for the parking brake need only be added to those cars moving crude oil and the locomotives dedicate to this sevice. And it all can be done, I'm guessing, at the lowest cost of the various proposals.
Wizlish Buslist Sure would like to see a reference to that 178g measurement as would some folks at Amtrak. IIRC it was published in the report on the brake-disc spoke cracking. I wouldn't have mentioned it if I hadn't read it in what I considered a definitive reference. I don't have it ready to hand, but I will check and provide the reference when I have found it. Will have more comments then.
Buslist Sure would like to see a reference to that 178g measurement as would some folks at Amtrak.
What I was using was this FRA report (.pdf download. I was presuming that the numbers quoted here had been reviewed before the report was published, and effects of 'shock' taken into account.
Wizlish What I was using was this FRA report (.pdf download. I was presuming that the numbers quoted here had been reviewed before the report was published, and effects of 'shock' taken into account.
171 pages of engineering speak far above my abilities to fully comprehend
wccobb Works for railroads too. KISS Make it so them running the trains can keep the trains running. This would suggest a second airline for the "parking brake" and a new, double chambered air brake cylinder (similar in function to that used by trucks) where one chamber applies the "service brakes" (today's air brake system) and a second system uses the "parking brake chamber" to set the "parking brakes" ... Once set, (air exhausted from the brake chamber) the spring in the parking brake chamber holds the brakes on until the engineer pumps them off. Total fail-safe and on the whole train.
More spring brakes. Spring brakes capable of keeping a loaded car arrested on any conceivable grade, but that 'can't' become accidentally applied. A whole second circuit just for the parking brake, I assume with intercar connections that can be field-serviced with simple tools... and if any one of those connections goes bad, the brakes 'fail safe' by springing on, and 'the guys runnin' the trains' have to get out and get under to gag every single applied spring brake, or play 'let's find the leak' in the dark and the rain. And this is supposed to be railroad-sensible KISS?
If you are going to apply a second air line to dedicated consists or unit trains, add some simple wiring and antennae and make it full-proportional ECP. If you want a dedicated parking brake, you could do worse than use some of the parking-brake systems discussed in the earlier (occasionally ad nauseam) threads on that subject in these forums -- most of which were specifically designed NOT to apply strong and irreversible brake force to cars in the train unexpectedly.
If I remember correctly, Ralph Nader had what he considered an illustrative example of your cited 'over-design' in Unsafe at Any Speed -- it was a throttle linkage with a bunch of levers and springs, which Mr. Nader noted did a job expensively that could be handled much more cheaply with a simple lever and spring. What got lost in the argument was what the extra levers and springs did -- for example, ensure that the throttle failed safe by closing under anomalous failure conditions. I have not forgotten Mr. Feynman's point about the relative stupidity of using O-rings with the wrong glass-transition temperature, either.Part of KISS is knowing when simplicity is stupidity. Spring brakes on railroad cars are just stupid, in my opinion. Ask most any guy who actually runs trains and I'd expect you'll get a similar opinion.
The rails have been plenty innovative. It doesn't require further innovation to not be a cheapskate, wooden-axle short line that parks a bomb unattended for hours, with insufficient brakes, on a hill above a town.
Crew your damn trains and set the brakes, as railroads were smart enough to do 100 years ago, and nobody will reproach you with insufficient technology.
Actually the report has it even higher @ 189g I'll pass this along and see what they say. Thanks.
dakotafred Crew your damn trains and set the brakes, as railroads were smart enough to do 100 years ago, and nobody will reproach you with insufficient technology.
You really only have to do one or the other.
Wizlish Euclid I don’t think it nonsensical at all. We do NOT know what amount of securement braking would have been necessary to hold the train. All we know is that it was not enough. This just gets sillier and sillier. Do you just not understand physics, or common sense, or engineering, or anything people are trying to point out to you? The reason the acceleration is significant is that it indicates a massive lack of retarding power, occurring fairly early in the train's acceleration downgrade. Calculate the adhesion limit of one (1) axle taken right up to the point the wheeltread skids, then tell me that would materially change the acceleration.
EuclidThe only reason I brought up the defective locomotive handbrake is in response to the comment by Andrew Falconer about the condition of the equipment playing a role in the Lac Megantic runaway. He said this (my emphasis in red): “If they could have used more modern, well-maintained locomotives and have had these modern locomotives distributed at each end of the tank car train, then the train would have been much less likely to roll away because the braking power of distributed locomotives is better.”
[In case the Forum software loses the color attribute in quotes, the highlighted words were "well-maintained"]
We have to distinguish a couple of things. First, in what sense does Andrew think 'the braking power of distributed locomotives is better'? Second, it's immaterial to speculate whether a DPU-equipped locomotive would have the necessary valve or control to apply the train brakes if the brakepipe pressure fell below an effective level -- so in any relevant scenario, the trailing independent would slowly release just as the head-end independent did. Third -- how would you propose a tired engineer, so tired he couldn't get more than a few cars back in his train, is going to set handbrakes on the distributed power? (We might also look at whether the DPU locomotive would have been shut down as the other locomotives were, for economy reasons, or how MMA would justify the added costs to put DPU on its trains, but I don't think all that speculation is germane to the issue at hand.)
This is nothing more than a red herring anyway. One of the reports mentions the blued wheels on the locomotives with applied handbrakes. The only thing controlling the early acceleration of the train at Lac Megantic downhill was the remaining retardation due to the independent application; as that bled down further (at the rate determined by the examiners) you observe rapid acceleration, and as we know from accidents like those on Cranberry Grade once you get above the 23-25 mph range ablation from composition shoes makes their retarding force insufficient regardless of how powerfully they are applied by the power-brake equipment (let alone some manual pump-up or ratchet mechanism.
It's a truism that if any one of a number of stupid maintenance or operational decisions had not been made, the incident would not have occurred. All of us Monday-morning quarterbacks have been commenting on this for many months. The point here, however, is limited to one particular issue: that the single axle unbraked by the QRB valve malfunction had nothing to do with the outcome of the Lac Megantic accident.* I continue to stand by that statement, and all the available hard evidence and science backs me up in making it.
[* Edit -- either in terms of the accident starting, with the train running away, or in terms of the severity of the derailment and subsequent damage and fire.]
In this context, I'm not concerned about the railroads (they have their own issues). I'm more concerned about the clueless & "out of touch with reality" folks trying to dictate terms outside their level of expertise with unfunded mandates.
Wizlish The point here, however, is limited to one particular issue: that the single axle unbraked by the QRB valve malfunction had nothing to do with the outcome of the Lac Megantic accident. I continue to stand by that statement, and all the available hard evidence and science backs me up in making it.
EuclidCertainly you are the only one who asserts that the defective handbrake made no difference.
What I meant is that the defective handbrake made no MEANINGFUL difference. By the time the oil cars were derailing in downtown Lac Megantic, it didn't really matter whether one axle's worth of additional locomotive handbraking would have kept the train a couple of mph slower, when the speed at the point of accident was well over the critical speed that produced the derailment, generated the momentum that tore the cars open, and started the fires. It's a bit like dropping an egg from 17 feet instead of 16 feet; there's a difference in the shock, but the egg is terminally damaged either way.
Don't limit yourself to the science in the reports. Do the math yourself -- calculate the range of adhesion limits for wheel-to-rail and wheel-to-brake-shoe for the locomotive in question. Calculate the resultant of train weight giving gravitational acceleration on the reported grade. See how many braked axles would be required to keep the train at a balancing speed going downgrade (someone has already calculated what would have been necessary to keep the train from moving, and IIRC at what independent pressure the train started moving). If you can't or won't do the calculations, ask someone knowledgeable like MC to do them or approximate them. And then to explain them if you find that to be necessary.
Wizlish said: The point here, however, is limited to one particular issue: that the single axle unbraked by the QRB valve malfunction had nothing to do with the outcome of the Lac Megantic accident. I continue to stand by that statement, and all the available hard evidence and science backs me up in making it.
Euclid said: Certainly you are the only one who asserts that the defective handbrake made no difference.
Wizlish: You're paraphrasing badly again. Stop that. What I said is that the defective handbrake made no MEANINGFUL difference.
Putting aside the merits of the technical discussion, in term of clear syntax I fail to see where Euclid misrepresented your statement, since you had not used the term "meaningful" prior to your last in a series of rather snarky putdowns.
schlimmPutting aside the merits of the technical discussion, in term of clear syntax I fail to see where Euclid misrepresented your statement, since you had not used the term "meaningful" prior to your last in a series of rather snarky putdowns.
You are correct. Original post has been modified accordingly.
Wizlish, I don't think you modified your post sufficiently. I didn't see it before you modified it, but it sure seems still to be extremely condescending.
Euclid said that 1 more brake MIGHT have KEPT THE TRAIN PARKED.
Wizlish insultingly and off point several times said that it was NONSENSE ranked at the top, 1 more brake would not have stopped THE ROLLING TRAIN FROM DERAILING. "Might have helped keep it from moving" is extremely different from "definitely would not have prevented the derailment once it had already started rolling".
schlimm posted what I assume was a part of Wizlish's original sentence wording, which accused Euclid of "paraphrasing badly", and I got the impression Wizlish was trying to say Wizlish had always said "no MEANINGFUL difference".
Wizlish's apparently edited post has several paragraphs that condescendingly, in my opinion, ask Euclid to go to a lot of effort to research why Wizlish is right, that "just one more brake" would have made no difference. If those paragraphs are "modified accordingly" I shudder to think how horribly insulting they were before modification.
Wizlish Euclid Certainly you are the only one who asserts that the defective handbrake made no difference. What I meant is that the defective handbrake made no MEANINGFUL difference. By the time the oil cars were derailing in downtown Lac Megantic, it didn't really matter whether one axle's worth of additional locomotive handbraking would have kept the train a couple of mph slower, when the speed at the point of accident was well over the critical speed that produced the derailment, generated the momentum that tore the cars open, and started the fires. It's a bit like dropping an egg from 17 feet instead of 16 feet; there's a difference in the shock, but the egg is terminally damaged either way. Don't limit yourself to the science in the reports. Do the math yourself -- calculate the range of adhesion limits for wheel-to-rail and wheel-to-brake-shoe for the locomotive in question. Calculate the resultant of train weight giving gravitational acceleration on the reported grade. See how many braked axles would be required to keep the train at a balancing speed going downgrade (someone has already calculated what would have been necessary to keep the train from moving, and IIRC at what independent pressure the train started moving). If you can't or won't do the calculations, ask someone knowledgeable like MC to do them or approximate them. And then to explain them if you find that to be necessary.
Euclid Certainly you are the only one who asserts that the defective handbrake made no difference.
The only modifications I made originally were to fix the issue that schlimm identified. I'll look at going back to do more.
What is being missed here -- since we are now discussing what Euclid considers the actual substance of his comments -- is that the one brake 'not applied' by the QRB failure would not have made a difference in holding the train with the independent released. Euclid said yesterday
"However, you seem to be making the point that the total handbrake securement was so insufficient that the addition or subtraction of just one handbrake could not have made any difference."
What irritated me, I think, about Euclid's original comments were that he kept indicating that the train might have stayed parked had the failed-QRB axle been effectively braked. That is what I considered nonsense in the context of this discussion, and the relative uselessness of a single braked locomotive axle to change either the holding or the development of the Lac Megantic accident were what my comments about looking at science and mathematics were intended to address. I regret not having the patience to calmly address repeated assertions that successful application of that one brake "might" have made a critical difference in not having the train run away in the first place. I will do so now.
There is no particular 'magic' in static vs. sliding coefficients of friction. There are limits to the amount of (static) braking force that a handbrake can apply to wheel treads, and limits to the amount of braking that the contact patch on two wheels can develop vs. the railhead. I suspect that even if the locomotive axle in question had been fully locked by braking, it would have commenced sliding by the time the independent had fully bled off, but I do not think it is likely that a tired Tom Harding would have accomplished this even with a properly-functioning QRB setup -- the other locomotive axles he handbraked appear to have blued by slipping against their brake shoes rather than skidding their wheels.
I don't have the time to go through the reports this morning, but there is a section in one of them that indicates what the range of remaining independent pressure was when the train commenced moving -- IIRC that was still substantial at the instant the train started to roll, and you could calculate a measure of the retarding brake force for 'critical balance' between standing and rolling from that. This is across all the axles on which the independent was applied, and in particular can be seen to be considerably greater than what one properly-applied single-axle GE handbrake linkage would provide.
To me, that establishes that the one handbraked axle was not a critical factor in the runaway starting. There would be a range of independent pressure where the additional more-succesful handbraking would have kept the train from rolling, but it would have been essentially metastable, and as the independent kept bleeding off, the handbraking would have been less and less likely to hold -- this being contingent on how fast the independent was bleeding off (and that rate is in the reports). I think no one reading this discussion thinks that the 'seven brakes' Tom thought he had set would have kept the consist from rolling with no other effective brakes -- so the issue comes down to the range of additional time the "QRB-braked" axle would have afforded before the train started to move. This could be measured in minutes ... and would only be important in this case if Tom Harding or a knowledgeable person from MMA were to have returned to the train and taken some action during that interval. (As others have so helpfully noted now, the additional rolling retardation of that axle would not have materially reduced either the likelihood or the magnitude of the derailment accident itself, which I seem to have mistaken as a point of discussion here).
Euclid seems to be saying in one of his latter posts that he can claim there "might" have been no train movement without actually doing math to see how likely (or unlikely) that would actually be. Mr. Boylan seems to think I was asking Euclid to do "a lot of effort to research why Wizlish is right". There is not much math involved in showing the physics involved, and it has nothing whatsoever -- well, hardly whatsoever -- to do with whether I am "right" or not. On the other hand, if Euclid chooses not to believe what the physics says, or doesn't believe what I said about the physics involved, he's going to have to do at least some analysis to show why he thinks the effectiveness of one additional partial handbrake application would have kept the whole train from rolling. That doesn't have to involve complicated or precise numbers, but it does involve looking at some detailed information critically, and understanding some fundamental principles of (Newtonian) physics at least in proportion.
Newtonian physics, my aching hindquarters! Give us a break on New Year's Day, at least.
Yes, but .....
BaltACDYes, but .....
Hey, guys, as dakotafred said, it's New Year's. I went back and de-snarked the egregious ad hominems; I think it would be good if we all did the same going forward.
I begin to see the 'yes, but...' applying to me as well, so I'll spare everyone further expostulation on this subject, unless there are specific issues that others need to see addressed.
wccobb If this 83 year old dinosaur can butt in ... I just skimmed thru a condensed report (Canadian) on the Lac Megantic Accident Report. The conclusion: not enough brakes set. The report contains a recommendation for some kind of auxiliary brake system. This discussion contains several very workable suggestions so please allow me to approach this from a different direction. Its gotta be workable by the guys runnin' the trains. I was not there at a certain Society of Automobile Engineers Annual Convention which was held shortly after WII. The guest speaker was a high-ranking U.S. Army General who had directed logistics in that war. He spoke of a design situation where a rod was connected to the end of a lever. German engineering would develop an exotic system which allowed extreme pre-tensioning of this connection, but, should it break down, the machine was out of action until a factory-trained mechanic could be found and brought to make the needed adjustments. The American design for the same connection was to drill a small cross hole near the end of the rod and install a cotter pin. Then any farm kid could keep the machine running. In the words of the general, that's how we won the war !!! Works for railroads too. KISS Make it so them running the trains can keep the trains running. This would suggest a second airline for the "parking brake" and a new, double chambered air brake cylinder (similar in function to that used by trucks) where one chamber applies the "service brakes" (today's air brake system) and a second system uses the "parking brake chamber" to set the "parking brakes" (Same brake rods, brake levers, brake shoes, wheels, etc.) Tie this new system to a new valve on the locomotive similar to the straight (independent) air valve and & the knowledge of how to use it are already there. Best yet, this "parking brake" can't leak off. Once set, (air exhausted from the brake chamber) the spring in the parking brake chamber holds the brakes on until the engineer pumps them off. Total fail-safe and on the whole train. {True, the electronic blue-tooth stuff with solar panels probably could be made to work, but how does it work when the car's air reservoir is empty? Not my first choice !!} This old dinoraur remembers when unit coal trains begn to roll, to be unloaded at rotary dumpers. This took special cars with special rotary knuckles & a small change in the location of an air hose. It all got done. Similar for moving the crude oil safely. The second line for the parking brake need only be added to those cars moving crude oil and the locomotives dedicate to this sevice. And it all can be done, I'm guessing, at the lowest cost of the various proposals.
You bring up some good points. I think that is basically the right approach to the “parking brake” for trains. You add a second air line and a second cylinder on each car. I believe that a compression spring under each car could play an effective role in the operation of this system. But I also agree with what others have said about springs breaking, and being a maintenance issue. That vulnerability certainly exists, but it has to be overcome. It can be done. All the cars and locomotives ride on springs. And there are piston return springs in all car brake cylinders.
In any case, I would be careful about relying too much on springs. And also, I would not use the springs to directly force the brakes to apply, as is done with truck brakes.
I see the addition of some new parts made as the conventional air brake system of levers, pins, rods, etc. It would also need one additional pneumatic cylinder per car and a separate pneumatic pressure line extending throughout the train as pipe attached to each car and flexible hose couplings between each car.
The added pneumatic cylinder under each car would be pressurized by the added pneumatic “train line.” When the cylinders are pressurized, they pull open a spring loaded locking pin. That locking pin acts as a deadbolt to prevent the train brakes from releasing. To insert that deadbolt, the train brakes must first be set by conventional air application.
Then, you exhaust the second train line, depressurizing the second pneumatic cylinders, thus allowing the spring to insert the lock pin. To release the parking brake, you pump up the brake pipe, and set the automatic brakes; then you charge the second “train line,” which retracts the locking pins. They you can release the automatic brakes.
But the need for parking brakes for freight trains will be a hard sell on pure economics. It will require substantial new hardware on every railcar, added maintenance costs, new equipment on locomotives, etc. This might be justifiable with hazardous trains, and so the conversion to this parking brake system might be confined to just certain rolling stock such as crude oil tank cars.
Nevertheless, cost would be very significant. And also, the emerging need for a hazardous train parking brake might just suddenly go away by a federal decree that hazardous cars shall not be parked unattended; or they may be subject to a whole host of other new restrictions and securement rules.
There are many ways to slay this dragon. For one, have the car inspector tell each car who it's neighbor is when lacing up the train.
EuclidWhat is lacking in the ECP wire trainline? I recall reading that there were problems in getting sufficiently robust connectors.
That's a biggie!
oltmanndThere are many ways to slay this dragon. For one, have the car inspector tell each car who it's neighbor is when lacing up the train.
Which is OK for through trains. Who handles the pickups and setouts out on the road? A westbound CSX manifest routinely picks up 10-20 cars at Utica, sometimes at oh-dark-thirty. Someone has to ensure that all of those cars are configured, and let the existing car in the consist know who its new neighbor is.
Likewise, when making a drop, the remaining car in the consist has to be informed that it's neighbor isn't there any more.
One reality that outsiders overlook when insisting they have the 'great idea' when it comes to railroading in the field - human requirements to hook up, configure or maintain the equipment in the 'great idea'.
Form the railroad perspective today, if you have to hire additional personnel to specifically care for the 'new idea' in addition to the personel that already exist - the idea is a non-starter for industry wide adoption.
Railroads have been squeezing costs out of their operations for generations - anything that increases overall costs will not be adopted industry wide - unless mandated by law or FRA rule making.
The industry will test many ideas - they adopt very view as they increase costs during testing and thus run up a very big red flag.
BaltACDForm the railroad perspective today, if you have to hire additional personnel to specifically care for the 'new idea' in addition to the personel that already exist - the idea is a non-starter for industry wide adoption.
But forunately was not the case when computers and IT came on the scene? Or were the rails slow/;ate to adopt that technology, given that new staff had to be hired?
schlimm given that new staff had to be hired?
It's been mentioned here in one thread or another that the railroads were, in fact, early adopters of computer technology. I would opine that they saw that punched cards, printed lists, and bits and bytes over wires would actually eliminate people (and thus expense). Yes, they had to hire new staff, but those were different positions - which essentially replaced many other jobs.
This would be roughly analogous to the Diesel mechanics and electricians that had to be hired when Diesels replaced steam. Granted, many employees likely made the jump from one skill set to another when the jobs were available, but in the end, the workforce was much smaller.
schlimm BaltACD Form the railroad perspective today, if you have to hire additional personnel to specifically care for the 'new idea' in addition to the personel that already exist - the idea is a non-starter for industry wide adoption. But forunately was not the case when computers and IT came on the scene? Or were the rails slow/;ate to adopt that technology, given that new staff had to be hired?
BaltACD
Schlimm,
I strongly suggest that you find a copy of STEEL TRAILS, The Epic of the Railroads (c) 1933 by Martin D. Stevers and read the sections on how space was reserved on passenger trains and how waybills were processed. The railroads needed a large clerical staff to handle that prior to the introduction of computers and while the computers needed some extra staff for initial set-up, the ranks of the clerical staff could be reduced afterwards.
This book was one of the first to be sold through the Trains "bookstore" as a reference to the business of railroading.
BaltACD Form the railroad perspective today, if you have to hire additional personnel to specifically care for the 'new idea' in addition to the personel that already exist - the idea is a non-starter for industry wide adoption.
New staff was hired with the knowledge that more than the number hired would become unnecessary for operations after the new staff had 'completed' their activities. Railroads used to have hundreds if not thousands employed in accounting their various functions - with the coming of computers and the successful implementation of their various programs the staffing in those accounting departments was reduced 10 to 20 fold - where at department may have had 100 employees, after computerization one or two could manage the function.
tree68 oltmannd There are many ways to slay this dragon. For one, have the car inspector tell each car who it's neighbor is when lacing up the train. Which is OK for through trains. Who handles the pickups and setouts out on the road? A westbound CSX manifest routinely picks up 10-20 cars at Utica, sometimes at oh-dark-thirty. Someone has to ensure that all of those cars are configured, and let the existing car in the consist know who its new neighbor is. Likewise, when making a drop, the remaining car in the consist has to be informed that it's neighbor isn't there any more.
oltmannd There are many ways to slay this dragon. For one, have the car inspector tell each car who it's neighbor is when lacing up the train.
The RR car inventory system is another possibility. It knows the train consist and is responsible for creating wheel reports. It's verified by line of road scanners. It can update the head end which can then query the train. If every car can "talk" to the car that's supposed to be it's neighbor, then you're good to go. The conductor is ultimately responsible for the consist being correct on line of road work.
You HAVE to have good consists for the braking algorithm in PTC....
erikem The railroads needed a large clerical staff to handle that prior to the introduction of computers and while the computers needed some extra staff for initial set-up, the ranks of the clerical staff could be reduced afterwards.
From what you and BaltACD answered, it sounds similar to what I experienced (before I went back to grad school) in management as a buyer at Marshall Fields in Chicago. We had a huge number of full-time clericals working in order checking, and accounts payable and receivable, with a cumbersome system, all on paper. While I was there, the switchover to IT started (with great resistance from some of the old-timers and deadwood in management). After it was completed, the number of clericals was ~5% of what it had been, but in that roughly 5-year transition, expenses and errors went up (again to the delight of the naysayers).
oltmannd tree68 oltmannd There are many ways to slay this dragon. For one, have the car inspector tell each car who it's neighbor is when lacing up the train. Which is OK for through trains. Who handles the pickups and setouts out on the road? A westbound CSX manifest routinely picks up 10-20 cars at Utica, sometimes at oh-dark-thirty. Someone has to ensure that all of those cars are configured, and let the existing car in the consist know who its new neighbor is. Likewise, when making a drop, the remaining car in the consist has to be informed that it's neighbor isn't there any more. You HAVE to have good consists for the braking algorithm in PTC....
And before the 1st time the brakes are used in 'anger'.
schlimm From what you and BaltACD answered, it sounds similar to what I experienced (before I went back to grad school) in management as a buyer at Marshall Fields in Chicago. We had a huge number of full-time clericals working in order checking, and accounts payable and receivable, with a cumbersome system, all on paper. While I was there, the switchover to IT started (with great resistance from some of the old-timers and deadwood in management). After it was completed, the number of clericals was ~5% of what it had been, but in that roughly 5-year transition, expenses and errors went up (again to the delight of the naysayers).
I would guess that the experience of the RR's was similar to what you observed at Marshall Fields. IIRC, the RR's employed about one million at the start of WW2, all those people had to have been doing something. Reading the Stevers book was a bit of an eye opener, having never really thought through what was involved in the reservations process in the pre-computer era.
In this case, the clerical staff was a major cost center, so the decision to install IT was driven more by cutting costs than operational improvement (e.g. electopneumatic brakes on reight trains).
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.