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.
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 ?.
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.
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?
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.
Semper Vaporo
Pkgs.
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.
Johnny
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.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
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.
- Erik
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.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
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.)
Jeff
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.