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....
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?
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
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.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
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 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.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
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.
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!
23 17 46 11
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...
AnthonyVIf the g-forces experienced by a railroad car are so high, how does any of the lading ever survive a trip?
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.
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...
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?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.