Taking the oil train derailment under discussion as an example there were about 9 cars that derailed prior to the pile up. At 40 mph a train travels about 60 ft per sec, which is about a car length in this case. So its reasonable to say that there was between 8 and 10 sec between the first wheel hitting the ground and the general pile up.
If the system just notifies the train crew and takes no action, it will take a couple seconds for the trucks to skew enough to trip the sensors, another sec or two for the electronics to communicate to the head end. Then the crew will have to realize they have an alert, do whatever they have to do to acknowledge it, then take whatever action they are going to take. Realistically they are down to maybe 4-5 sec before the pile up occurs. Even if they plugged it and had ECP, it would still take a couple sec for the brakes to actually apply.
In this case the difference between the derailment putting the train in emergency and the crew putting the train in emergency is 2-3 sec. If the system applied a penalty or full service reduction, the train would have gone in emergency 4-6 sec seconds later.
The real benefit of this type of system is with a train like the ones in some of the other videos where the empty cars are drug for long distances without the train going in emergency. As has been pointed out several times before, the situations where a car will travel upright and in line in a train with one end derailed for miles are situations where the car is an empty. If the car is a load, our friend gravity will cause it to dig in and result in a pile up much quicker.
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
Isn't reality amazing!
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
If you are going to introduce a thirty second delay, you might as well not put the sensor on the car in the first place. A lot will happen in thirty seconds. A train travelling at 30 MPH will travel a quarter mile in that time.
Remember that the Lynchburg derailment only involved about 1200 feet of track...
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...
Depending on how you are measuring it, you will need somewhere in the 7-9 degree range of travel. You want it to go through a #9 frog without alerting. A #7 frog has an angle exceeding 8 degrees.
With only 2 degrees you will most likely get a false positive through every diverging route on a swtich with a speed less than 30 mph.
Every false positive will un-necessarily stop and delay the train about 2 hours.
ruderunner2 degrees off the centerline
So, how is that going to work on a 5 degree curve (or tighter)? Not all lines are straight as an arrow.
OK oltmand, a little more information on what I'm thinking. The switches could mount to the center will or bolster near the kingpin, a truck mounted arm would trigger the switches as the truck rotates. I've thought more about the limits I originally proposed, and determined that tighter limits of say 2 degrees off the centerline of the car would work. We only need to know if the truck is pointed in the direction of the cars travel. If it is, then the truck is most certainly on the rails, if not then the truck is like off the rails. The 2degree limit should allow some slack for things like sloppy installation, looseness in the kingpin, truck hunting and such. A timer would be added to prevent false alarms when entering curves, switches, crossovers etc. Say a 30 second delay.
The logic circuit will use readings from 4 switches per car (2 per truck) and compare the position of those switches to each other. Certain combinations indicate all is well, some indicate the cars is in a curve, some can indicate a wheel set off the rails, some can indicate the car is dog tracking or jackknifing, and some would indicate a failed switch.
More to the points you brought up: rate of change would be great for studying what happens in a derailment, but we only need to know a yes or no as to whether the truck is in line relative to the car.
There is absolutely no need to detail a car in testing, jacking the car and rotating the truck proves out the detection circuit.
Since this detection system doesn't tie into the brakes directly, a failed system will not disable the car. Remember I'm proposing a system that will alert the crew to potential wheels off track events. To fully outfit the national fleet will take years to be sure, but starting in dedicated trains makes the most sense. 100 sets of switches,a 100 logic board, and 100 transmitters and just one receiver outfits a unit train.
For proof of concept and prototyping, we can forgo air generators and just use battery power(cheaper in short term). I suspect the batteries to last about 3 months before recharging is needed.
I really need to find a real computer to type this stuff out, maybe this weekend I can expound on the details.
Modeling the Cleveland and Pittsburgh during the PennCentral era starting on the Cleveland lakefront and ending in Mingo junction
oltmannd ruderunner Here's a thought for a cheap simple and rugged derailment sensor: a set of limit switches located near the kingpin and contacted by an arm mounted to the truck. Set them so that the arm contacts a switch if the truck rotates too far from straight ahead. Example if one truck rotates 10 degrees but the other stays straight ahead that indicates a truck off the rails. 10 degrees is just an example number, the actual number would vary by car length and track curvature. This wouldn't have to effect a brake application but just an alarm to alert the crew. Heck it could even include a "switching" setting to prevent false alarms when working tight trackage at low speeds. It doesn't need to be extremely precise either, if the truck is within normal range of rotation then its likely tracking correctly. But once outside of that range we need to stop the train and find out what happened. I'm not looking to prevent derailments but rather prevent simple wheels off rails from turning into a flaming pileup. No doubt something like this could be worked out. I'd look for rate of change rather than absolute limits. It could react faster. Lots of research needed, however. Not simple or easy to do. Expensive to validate since you have to actually derail a car at speed, on purpose. But, that's not the biggest problem. The biggest problem is failed compontents. Mainline derailments are exceedingly rare. Component failures are not. How you mount them, wire them, etc. Are you allowed to run with failed components? What do you do when a train stops for a failed sensor? The trick is not to create more trouble than you solve.
ruderunner Here's a thought for a cheap simple and rugged derailment sensor: a set of limit switches located near the kingpin and contacted by an arm mounted to the truck. Set them so that the arm contacts a switch if the truck rotates too far from straight ahead. Example if one truck rotates 10 degrees but the other stays straight ahead that indicates a truck off the rails. 10 degrees is just an example number, the actual number would vary by car length and track curvature. This wouldn't have to effect a brake application but just an alarm to alert the crew. Heck it could even include a "switching" setting to prevent false alarms when working tight trackage at low speeds. It doesn't need to be extremely precise either, if the truck is within normal range of rotation then its likely tracking correctly. But once outside of that range we need to stop the train and find out what happened. I'm not looking to prevent derailments but rather prevent simple wheels off rails from turning into a flaming pileup.
No doubt something like this could be worked out. I'd look for rate of change rather than absolute limits. It could react faster.
Lots of research needed, however. Not simple or easy to do. Expensive to validate since you have to actually derail a car at speed, on purpose.
But, that's not the biggest problem. The biggest problem is failed compontents. Mainline derailments are exceedingly rare. Component failures are not. How you mount them, wire them, etc. Are you allowed to run with failed components? What do you do when a train stops for a failed sensor?
The trick is not to create more trouble than you solve.
Suffice to say the failsafe for the sensor system would be to run the car as we do today, as of its not there at all.
BaltACD Euclid & Rude - sell the FRA on your ideas. Simple! Once they are sold it can be mandated by the end of the year!
Euclid & Rude - sell the FRA on your ideas. Simple! Once they are sold it can be mandated by the end of the year!
Especially the current version of the FRA!
No, wait, the current version of the FRA can't do anything that fast!
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
ruderunnerHere's a thought for a cheap simple and rugged derailment sensor: a set of limit switches located near the kingpin and contacted by an arm mounted to the truck. Set them so that the arm contacts a switch if the truck rotates too far from straight ahead. Example if one truck rotates 10 degrees but the other stays straight ahead that indicates a truck off the rails. 10 degrees is just an example number, the actual number would vary by car length and track curvature. This wouldn't have to effect a brake application but just an alarm to alert the crew. Heck it could even include a "switching" setting to prevent false alarms when working tight trackage at low speeds. It doesn't need to be extremely precise either, if the truck is within normal range of rotation then its likely tracking correctly. But once outside of that range we need to stop the train and find out what happened. I'm not looking to prevent derailments but rather prevent simple wheels off rails from turning into a flaming pileup.
cx500 Don't you see your example of the computer controls on the AC4400 (or equivalent EMD for that matter) shows how the railroaders do adapt, and enthusiastically embrace new technology. Consider DPU operation; it has become widespread, but it took years of development and technological refinements before it became fully reliable. What once required bulky equipment in a dedicated piece of rolling stock is now merely a piece of software in a micro-processor. Those track geometry cars that can measure track surface, gauge, rail wear while travelling at 60mph are another example of how, in this case, the track department is embracing new technology as soon as it becomes available. The railroads are not resistant to change, or technology. They do, however, want to ensure that any new development is robust enough to enhance safe operations in a way that is both close to 100% reliable and affordable. If the benefit is marginal and the cost is significant there are better ways to improve safety. Several railroads have tested electric controlled braking systems on dedicated unit trains. They were willing to commit a fairly significant investment to outfit several hundred cars and a number of locomotives, and run them in regular service to gain experience with the benefits and problems that may occur in real world operation. It would appear that the test results were not compelling. Many things would be "nice to have" but cost is always an issue. A few thousand dollars a car doesn't sound like much, until you multiply it by the number of cars roaming the rails of North America. It just became billions of dollars of extra cost. While home computers have become very powerful and affordable, try using one outside in the pouring rain, or a dust storm, and see how long it remains trouble free. Drop it a few times each day to simulate slack action and bouncing over frogs and diamonds. Any electronics on freight equipment face a tough environment. Ideally they should survive trouble free for the 50-year lifespan of the car. And that's not realistic.
Don't you see your example of the computer controls on the AC4400 (or equivalent EMD for that matter) shows how the railroaders do adapt, and enthusiastically embrace new technology. Consider DPU operation; it has become widespread, but it took years of development and technological refinements before it became fully reliable. What once required bulky equipment in a dedicated piece of rolling stock is now merely a piece of software in a micro-processor. Those track geometry cars that can measure track surface, gauge, rail wear while travelling at 60mph are another example of how, in this case, the track department is embracing new technology as soon as it becomes available.
The railroads are not resistant to change, or technology. They do, however, want to ensure that any new development is robust enough to enhance safe operations in a way that is both close to 100% reliable and affordable. If the benefit is marginal and the cost is significant there are better ways to improve safety.
Several railroads have tested electric controlled braking systems on dedicated unit trains. They were willing to commit a fairly significant investment to outfit several hundred cars and a number of locomotives, and run them in regular service to gain experience with the benefits and problems that may occur in real world operation. It would appear that the test results were not compelling.
Many things would be "nice to have" but cost is always an issue. A few thousand dollars a car doesn't sound like much, until you multiply it by the number of cars roaming the rails of North America. It just became billions of dollars of extra cost.
While home computers have become very powerful and affordable, try using one outside in the pouring rain, or a dust storm, and see how long it remains trouble free. Drop it a few times each day to simulate slack action and bouncing over frogs and diamonds. Any electronics on freight equipment face a tough environment. Ideally they should survive trouble free for the 50-year lifespan of the car. And that's not realistic.
Also I'm not really pushing for ECP .
Nor did I say a home PC would be applicable to railcar use, it was just an example of how technology costs come down as useage goes up. You yourself pointed out that former DPU controls used to require a separate CSR to contain them and now fit comfortably into the operator's console.
I think there is a disconnect between what Euclid is attempting to describe and how everyone is perceiving it. He's not advocating adding kinetic energy but rather controllinig it, and attempting to dissapate it in directions that will help minimize how much goes into a pileup.
Euclid That would be something less than a full force application at first, and then ramp up to full force. The point would be to perturb the derailment as little as possible with the brake application so as not to encourage the development of jackknifing and a pileup. I would call that a modulated brake response.
If the system were further equipped with differential braking, upon sensing a derailment, the default brake response would be to apply more brake force to the cars behind the derailment than to the cars ahead of it.
Maybe you don't understand that emergency IS the maximum braking effort available.
The point would be to prolong the car dragging for as long as possible without a jackknifing and pileup. The longer the dragging, the more kinetic energy can be dissipated before a pileup begins. So it works to either prevent a pileup, or to reduce the energy that is fed into a pileup if one occurs.
Only in your imaginary world. In the real world the more cars you drag through the derailed area the worse the track damage is. If it takes 8 cars then its going to take 8 cars. If you drag them faster then they will do more damage and then they might pile up even faster.
Pouring more kinetic energy into a wreck is not helpful. The idea is to get everything stopped as fast as possible. If derailment detectors do that, that contributes. If ECP does that, then that contributes. Digging a bigger hole in the track faster doesn't help anything.
Zug maybe railroaders need to adapt to changing technology. Maybe they need to learn a new skill set. And if they are already smart enough the repair a locomotive then this newer technology shouldn't completely stymie them. Geez look at the computer controls on an ac44 for example. That makes the rest of what were discussing nearly stone age in terms of complexity.
I kind of understand the resistance to change and technology, I deal with it daily. Then I hop into my non computerized car and drive home. I dont care for vehicles that coddle the driver and activate brakes and steering for them. But those drivers would be just as well served to ride the bus,er, tram.
Let's face it though, train brakes haven't changed too much since old man Westinghouse came up with air brakes 100+years ago. Its time to take another look.
tree68 ruderunner As for how an engineer could sense a derailment well isn't that what derailment sensors are for? Or perhaps its time to bring back rear end crews? I know the snowball is getting bigger... Reference the story in trains some time back (and a more recent incident I know of but won't get into), where a derailed car ran for several miles and then re-railed itself. This was in the days of cabeese, no less. The only reason the derailment was discovered as soon as it was was the fact that a signalling junction box was damaged, preventing the remote operation of a switch. Granted, a derailment detector might have sensed the derailment and stopped the train, if the car was so equipped. On the other hand, the line would have been tied up until the car was manually re-railed. As it was, the train arrived on time, and if it weren't for the damaged signal equipment, MOW would have been the first to discovere the evidence, perhaps days later...
ruderunner As for how an engineer could sense a derailment well isn't that what derailment sensors are for? Or perhaps its time to bring back rear end crews? I know the snowball is getting bigger...
Reference the story in trains some time back (and a more recent incident I know of but won't get into), where a derailed car ran for several miles and then re-railed itself. This was in the days of cabeese, no less. The only reason the derailment was discovered as soon as it was was the fact that a signalling junction box was damaged, preventing the remote operation of a switch.
Granted, a derailment detector might have sensed the derailment and stopped the train, if the car was so equipped.
On the other hand, the line would have been tied up until the car was manually re-railed. As it was, the train arrived on time, and if it weren't for the damaged signal equipment, MOW would have been the first to discovere the evidence, perhaps days later...
Here's a thought for a cheap simple and rugged derailment sensor: a set of limit switches located near the kingpin and contacted by an arm mounted to the truck. Set them so that the arm contacts a switch if the truck rotates too far from straight ahead. Example if one truck rotates 10 degrees but the other stays straight ahead that indicates a truck off the rails. 10 degrees is just an example number, the actual number would vary by car length and track curvature. This wouldn't have to effect a brake application but just an alarm to alert the crew. Heck it could even include a "switching" setting to prevent false alarms when working tight trackage at low speeds. It doesn't need to be extremely precise either, if the truck is within normal range of rotation then its likely tracking correctly. But once outside of that range we need to stop the train and find out what happened.
I'm not looking to prevent derailments but rather prevent simple wheels off rails from turning into a flaming pileup.
NorthWest I may be misunderstanding what you are saying, but how can the engineer tell how cars are derailing in the middle of his train? It would likely be out of sight.
I may be misunderstanding what you are saying, but how can the engineer tell how cars are derailing in the middle of his train? It would likely be out of sight.
The engineer would not see the derailment happening in many cases, and I don’t mean to suggest that he do anything with the braking in response to the derailment. The system with ECP and derailment sensors would detect a derailment and automatically react with a default brake application. That would be something less than a full force application at first, and then ramp up to full force. The point would be to perturb the derailment as little as possible with the brake application so as not to encourage the development of jackknifing and a pileup. I would call that a modulated brake response.
If the system were further equipped with differential braking, upon sensing a derailment, the default brake response would be to apply more brake force to the cars behind the derailment than to the cars ahead of it. The point would be to prolong the car dragging for as long as possible without a jackknifing and pileup. The longer the dragging, the more kinetic energy can be dissipated before a pileup begins. So it works to either prevent a pileup, or to reduce the energy that is fed into a pileup if one occurs.
With either the modulated braking or differential braking, the train stopping distance is increased because full braking force is withheld to some extent. So, just in case the train derails and starts this specialized braking, and the engineer happens to spot a gasoline tanker truck stalled on a grade crossing 2000 feet ahead; he can override the automatic default ECP derailment braking to stop before hitting the gasoline truck.
That is the reason for the engineer having the option to override the automatic default application caused by a derailment. The default application would be only in response to a derailment, and to any application not intended by the engineer.
zugmann Euclid One advantage that I see with ECP brakes is that they are not restricted to just an emergency brake application upon a derailment, or anything else that would cause the so-called UDE application. Not only do ECP brakes have less potential for producing UDEs, but they also could be programmed to make a modulated application in response to what would normally cause a UDE, as opposed to making an emergency application. ECP also has the advantage of applying all brakes simultaneously, as opposed to propagating the application in two directions from a mid-train UDE. Here's the million dollar question: When do you program (and how?) the brakes to go into emergency vs. not? For every one time where you may not want the brakes to dump, there's probably many more times when you do.
Euclid One advantage that I see with ECP brakes is that they are not restricted to just an emergency brake application upon a derailment, or anything else that would cause the so-called UDE application. Not only do ECP brakes have less potential for producing UDEs, but they also could be programmed to make a modulated application in response to what would normally cause a UDE, as opposed to making an emergency application. ECP also has the advantage of applying all brakes simultaneously, as opposed to propagating the application in two directions from a mid-train UDE.
Here's the million dollar question: When do you program (and how?) the brakes to go into emergency vs. not?
For every one time where you may not want the brakes to dump, there's probably many more times when you do.
I would say they should go into a non-emergency braking mode any time there is an application initiated by the system without the intent of the engineer. Then the engineer would have the ability to override that application with maximum braking if it were deemed necessary. I am speaking of ECP brakes without any differential braking system that I have descibed. If you had differential braking, the ECP would automatically go into that mode for all unintended brake applications, and that too could be overriden if necessary.
Euclid tree68 So, how fast was the Lynchburg train going when the derailment occurred? (It's probably been stated, but to review...) Euclid Therefore, if the trailing cars were to shove against the derailing cars, where would the resistance strong enough to cause jackknifing come from? That force would come from the first car that jacknifed going from X MPH to Zero MPH in about two seconds flat (or less). The reason for the jacknife in the first place would be because the car dug into the ballast. The faster it's going, the harder it's going to dig in. The head end stopped when it did because the coefficient of friction between the cars and the ballast was much higher than what the brakes would have provided. 1200 feet is less than a quarter mile - peanuts when you're talking about a loaded, 100 car (more or less) train. Once again - go back and look at the tornado derailment. About six cars were blown off the track, amounting to some 300 feet. I would opine that it's unlikely that even if there were 1200 feet between the locomotive and the cars still on the rail at the point that the derailed cars were clear of the rail, that the cars still on the rail would have stopped in time. A derailment detector would have done nothing in that incident. The remaining cars would clearly have been in emergency (or at least beginning the application), yet look at the speed with which the trailing cars collided with the locomotive. Had that been an oil train, there would likely have been spills and a fire. I think the ninth car did dig into the ballast. You can see the track getting progressively torn up as the eight cars were dragged over it. The ninth car derailed and jackknifed either before or after it separated from the eighth car. If it jackknifed before it separated because the ninth car dug into the ballast, then that ninth car would have become the sole obstacle of resistance to cause the jackknife. So the jackknifing would have begun between the ninth and tenth car as the ninth car dug in and became the obstacle to the tenth car. That would have induced the eighth car to separate from the ninth car. Or the jackknifing may have come after the separation as the ninth car dug in and thus caused the separation prior to any jackknifing. So the ninth car either began to jackknife and then separated because of that; or it separated first and jackknifed because it was no longer being pulled. Either way, the jackknifing and the separation were nearly simultaneous, and either way, it does not change the point I am making about the derailment. My point is that eight cars were pulled ahead and kept in line, and prevented from piling up. I do not follow the point you make in comparing the tornado derailment to this Lynchburg derailment. You say that a derailment sensor would not have helped. I agree because the brakes went into emergency the instant the train derailed, so there would have been no advantage offered by quicker brake response as is the normal advantage of derailment sensors. But I do see two points in the tornado wreck that I had not considered before. One is that the video shows the effect of derailed cars being dragged at high speed while staying coupled together and in line without digging in and jackknifing (just like with the Lynchburg wreck). And those cars are being dragged while on their sides and completely off of the track bed. That supports my ideas about the effect of differential braking just like the Lynchburg derailment does. The other point I see in the tornado derailment is that the tank car is derailed and being shoved down the track without jackknifing. I had considered that to be impossible, so I will have to revise my thinking about that type of action. Granted, the track was apparently undamaged ahead of the tank car, but still I would not have expected a derailed car leading a cut to remain in line. I suppose the derailed truck could have sat down on the rails in a way that continued the guidance by skidding on the rails.
tree68 So, how fast was the Lynchburg train going when the derailment occurred? (It's probably been stated, but to review...) Euclid Therefore, if the trailing cars were to shove against the derailing cars, where would the resistance strong enough to cause jackknifing come from? That force would come from the first car that jacknifed going from X MPH to Zero MPH in about two seconds flat (or less). The reason for the jacknife in the first place would be because the car dug into the ballast. The faster it's going, the harder it's going to dig in. The head end stopped when it did because the coefficient of friction between the cars and the ballast was much higher than what the brakes would have provided. 1200 feet is less than a quarter mile - peanuts when you're talking about a loaded, 100 car (more or less) train. Once again - go back and look at the tornado derailment. About six cars were blown off the track, amounting to some 300 feet. I would opine that it's unlikely that even if there were 1200 feet between the locomotive and the cars still on the rail at the point that the derailed cars were clear of the rail, that the cars still on the rail would have stopped in time. A derailment detector would have done nothing in that incident. The remaining cars would clearly have been in emergency (or at least beginning the application), yet look at the speed with which the trailing cars collided with the locomotive. Had that been an oil train, there would likely have been spills and a fire.
So, how fast was the Lynchburg train going when the derailment occurred? (It's probably been stated, but to review...)
Euclid Therefore, if the trailing cars were to shove against the derailing cars, where would the resistance strong enough to cause jackknifing come from?
That force would come from the first car that jacknifed going from X MPH to Zero MPH in about two seconds flat (or less). The reason for the jacknife in the first place would be because the car dug into the ballast. The faster it's going, the harder it's going to dig in.
The head end stopped when it did because the coefficient of friction between the cars and the ballast was much higher than what the brakes would have provided.
1200 feet is less than a quarter mile - peanuts when you're talking about a loaded, 100 car (more or less) train.
Once again - go back and look at the tornado derailment. About six cars were blown off the track, amounting to some 300 feet. I would opine that it's unlikely that even if there were 1200 feet between the locomotive and the cars still on the rail at the point that the derailed cars were clear of the rail, that the cars still on the rail would have stopped in time. A derailment detector would have done nothing in that incident.
The remaining cars would clearly have been in emergency (or at least beginning the application), yet look at the speed with which the trailing cars collided with the locomotive.
Had that been an oil train, there would likely have been spills and a fire.
You cannot calculate what will happen in a derailment BEFOREHAND. You can see what happened afterwards, but the instant to instant of what is happending during the incident cannot be accurately predicted.
Just like ACCURATELY predicting earthquakes; you can calculate the stresses afterwards, but have no REAL handle on the stresses beforehand and what the actual breaking point is and where the weakest point is.
EuclidOne advantage that I see with ECP brakes is that they are not restricted to just an emergency brake application upon a derailment, or anything else that would cause the so-called UDE application. Not only do ECP brakes have less potential for producing UDEs, but they also could be programmed to make a modulated application in response to what would normally cause a UDE, as opposed to making an emergency application. ECP also has the advantage of applying all brakes simultaneously, as opposed to propagating the application in two directions from a mid-train UDE.
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
Johnny
The beauty of railcars is their simplicity. It doesn't matter if you have a multi-billion dollar high-tech class 1 shop, or a weed-choked siding on uncle billy bob's shortline - both places can do just about any repairs needed on a railcar. As was mentioned earlier, railcars are expected to perform no matter the temperature, humidity, weather, or experience of the crew slamming them around.
When cars fall outside of the basic and proven form, their success has been limited. (Think roadrailers). Maybe if enough money and trials are given, there could be success. But how much are we willing to invest?
ruderunnerAs for how an engineer could sense a derailment well isn't that what derailment sensors are for? Or perhaps its time to bring back rear end crews? I know the snowball is getting bigger...
And fair enough as well Zugman. But you sound just like mechanics from the early 80s when computer controls started to appear. But the industry adapted to the technology and now its second nature as well as far less expensive. For reference personal computers cost hundreds of dollars when they can out and weren't very powerful. Today the price is the same but when adjusted far inflation the cost is half or less for computers that are a 100 times more powerful.
I think we need to look past the hhuge initial costs of some of these technologies and look forward to how the costs drop per unit as the number of units increase. Outfitting one car today with all the bells and whistles can indeed run to 1,000,000 but a large run of them may make the added cost only a couple thousand per car. Think mass production versus custom built.
Load empty sensors can be purely mechanical and self contained. They have been around for a long time already I'd just like to see more implementation of them.
Are dynamic brakes a substitute for ECP? I dont think so. Dynamic brakes dont have the future capabilities that ECP can offer. Things like built in load/empty capability, Euclid's differential braking idea, or even antilock braking. Practical now? No but sometime in the future it may be.
Moving on, thanks for the clarification on how capable FRED is. I should have guessed it was tried al tree already. And pointing out the DPU angle.
As for how an engineer could sense a derailment well isn't that what derailment sensors are for? Or perhaps its time to bring back rear end crews? I know the snowball is getting bigger...
It seems that my comments on load/empty valves are crossed up with ecp. Load/empty can be fully mechanical and reliable. Its also car centric not caring if its loose car or unit train. And to me proven means functional and reliable.
The transmitter problem may not be as bad as you think. It can be setup such that a few failed transmitters won't disable the train. That would be a programming issue. Even looking at a dead transmitter between t good ones, I picked 100 feet as a number that could jump the distance of a car without a transmitter/broken transmitter. If that needs to be raised to 200 fett that's still not a large,powerful,or expensive unit. And the temperature angle doesn't fly for me. Many modern electronics are on daily use under such temperature ranges. Automobile computers deal with this everyday all over the world. Sure vibration from rough track or hard coupling is more severe but a cushioned or sprung mounting would be easy to design and implement.
Air generator, that's a better idea than axle mounted and the kind of feedback I think we need to share. Working together to solve the problems instead of bickering over them.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.