Oil Train

[Wizlish]

Euclid

Which benefits do not apply to unit trains? I don’t see any. The writer does say that the benefit of preventing derailments and wheel side from slack run-in is greatest with mixed consists, but that does not mean that it is zero benefit to unit trains.

Don is noting that the FRA's current interest in ECP is in its use for HHFT service, and current HHFTs are essentially unit trains.

I think it is obvious that ECP has strong benefits for unit-train operations; note that most of the companies that have adopted ECP are, in fact, using it to facilitate unit train operations.

[Paul of Covington]

   Thanks, Wizlish.   I think I see what you're saying.   In a "big-hole" situation, the brakes on the front cars are set up hard, but not quite hard enough to cause sliding, then the extra jerk makes the wheels lose their grip on the rails. 

[Euclid]

 

oltmannd

[Responding to the email above in blue from the FRA] It's interesting that many of the benefits claimed don't apply to unit train operation.

Don,

Referring to the email comments to me above by the FRA, stating benefits of ECP brakes:

Which benefits do not apply to unit trains?  I don’t see any.

The writer does say that the benefit of preventing derailments and wheel side from slack run-in is greatest with mixed consists, but that does not mean that it is zero benefit to unit trains. 

 

 

[Wizlish]

Paul of Covington

I've seen this mentioned before, and I still don't understand how run-in forces can cause sliding. If the wheels are not already locked up by hard braking force, then no matter how hard you push or pull the cars, they aren't going to suddenly start sliding

It's almost as simple as how slack run-out in starting can throw people the length of a caboose.

Assume a 'standard' brake setup which is 'big-holed' at the locomotive valve.  While there is a 'shock' signal propagated down the trainline at the speed of sound, the actual pressure reduction is limited by the flow characteristics through the orifice and the increasingly long 'choke' represented by the brakepipes and fittings as you get further back in the train.  Brakes go on progressively from the front, but the cars at the rear continue to roll freely, and the slack can run in with what amounts to considerable relative acceleration, not just inertia.  It's that 'short sharp shock' that jars the wheels loose to slide, more than the mass of the unbraked train shoving against an insufficient number of braked axles.

[schlimm]

oltmannd

It's interesting that many of the benefits claimed don't apply to unit train operation.

As coal traffic declines precipitously and oil inevitably declines, that debatable distinction may well be a moot point.

[Paul of Covington]

Euclid

Under conventional braking, pneumatic brake signal propagation through the length of the train results in notable run-in forces on cars at the head end of the train, which may result in sliding (and potentially a derailment) of heavily braked and/or lightly loaded wheels.

   I've seen this mentioned before, and I still don't understand how run-in forces can cause sliding.   If the wheels are not already locked up by hard braking force, then no matter how hard you push or pull the cars, they aren't going to suddenly start sliding.   If this is a reference to load-sensing, which is not unique to ECP, run-in forces still are not the cause for wheel-sliding.

   (Edit)  This is the quote from FRA whom Euclid quoted; it looks like I'm quoting Euclid above. 

[oltmannd]

Euclid

THE BENEFITS OF ECP BRAKES:

 

I asked the FRA to explain the benefits of ECP brakes that pertain to oil train safety, and this is their reply:

 

Thank you for your message to the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) regarding the benefits of electronically controlled pneumatic (ECP) brakes.

Under conventional braking, pneumatic brake signal propagation through the length of the train results in notable run-in forces on cars at the head end of the train, which may result in sliding (and potentially a derailment) of heavily braked and/or lightly loaded wheels. Under ECP operation, the simultaneous brake application results in uniform braking and minimal run-in forces, resulting in no additional sliding propensity of the braked wheels. These reduced run-in forces between cars may result in less wear-and-tear on the cars over time and may reduce the potential of a derailment, especially in the case where the train is poorly assembled (for example, if too many empty cars are placed adjacent to each other).

Additionally, ECP brake systems allow for all cars in the train to brake at the same braking (or deceleration) rate even if they had varying physical brake configurations; which is something that cannot be achieved on conventional pneumatic systems. This ability of ECP cars to adjust their effective net braking ratio (NBR) further adds to ECP’s ability to keep run-in forces to a minimum and thus allow the railroad to potentially operate with a higher train-average NBR.

The increased level of control and ‘tunability’ offered by the electronic features of ECP brake systems allow requests, such as changes to braking ratios, car load states, and isolation of defective equipment to be executed more easily on ECP systems, compared to the manual or mechanical methods required for conventional pneumatic systems.

The benefits of ECP in terms of stopping distance will vary depending on a number of factors including the initial speed of the train, whether the train is on flat terrain or on a grade, the net braking ratio for each car on the train, as well as other factors. It is not really possible to come up with a single number (or percentage) that quantifies the benefits of ECP in terms of stopping distance as the benefit will depend on the scenario.

Thank you for your interest in railroad safety.

Sincerely,

Leith Al-Nazer

Motive Power & Equipment Division

Federal Railroad Administration

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE, Mail Stop 25

Washington, DC 20590

 

It's interesting that many of the benefits claimed don't apply to unit train operation.

[jeffhergert]

Euclid,

I don't know where I've read it, someones's link on these threads or just looking on my own at various sites, but some of the claims have been reduced fuel consumption, longer wheel and brake shoe life.  To get all the benefits, you have to use the brakes.  Using them you would think it would reduce wheel and brake shoe wear and increase fuel usage.  You are after all, power braking.  Possibly because of quicker reaction time and being able to modulate the brake application easier than conventional brakes it might give those benefits.

On another site, where I read about BNSF borrowing NS's train, an NS guy gave some tips to the BNSF guys.  ECP is great when it works.  They have had some problems with cars sequencing properly.  It takes a little time to get used to them.  They tend to apply harder, which could just be due to learning how to apply them.  (On conventional equipment you reduce air in terms of psi, on ECP braking is in percentage of brake.  I've seen a UP chart, IIRC a 10 psi reduction isn't a 10% application.)  When you go to release, everything releases at the same time.  You can't whiz away your air.

One other tip passed along.  Never rely on air brakes to hold unattended ECP cars.  (We have had locations where if a train is "attended" (a crewmember ready to take action) you didn't have to apply handbrakes on the portion cut away from and left in emergency.  On ECP trains, if they have been off their power supply for a couple of hours, the electronic control unit on the cars goes to "sleep" and releases the brakes.

I don't recall seeing that mentioned in any of the brochures I've read on line.  I would think it will be, and maybe it already has been, corrected to not do that.

Jeff 
    

[Euclid]

THE BENEFITS OF ECP BRAKES:

 

I asked the FRA to explain the benefits of ECP brakes that pertain to oil train safety, and this is their reply:

 

Thank you for your message to the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) regarding the benefits of electronically controlled pneumatic (ECP) brakes.

Under conventional braking, pneumatic brake signal propagation through the length of the train results in notable run-in forces on cars at the head end of the train, which may result in sliding (and potentially a derailment) of heavily braked and/or lightly loaded wheels. Under ECP operation, the simultaneous brake application results in uniform braking and minimal run-in forces, resulting in no additional sliding propensity of the braked wheels. These reduced run-in forces between cars may result in less wear-and-tear on the cars over time and may reduce the potential of a derailment, especially in the case where the train is poorly assembled (for example, if too many empty cars are placed adjacent to each other).

Additionally, ECP brake systems allow for all cars in the train to brake at the same braking (or deceleration) rate even if they had varying physical brake configurations; which is something that cannot be achieved on conventional pneumatic systems. This ability of ECP cars to adjust their effective net braking ratio (NBR) further adds to ECP’s ability to keep run-in forces to a minimum and thus allow the railroad to potentially operate with a higher train-average NBR.

The increased level of control and ‘tunability’ offered by the electronic features of ECP brake systems allow requests, such as changes to braking ratios, car load states, and isolation of defective equipment to be executed more easily on ECP systems, compared to the manual or mechanical methods required for conventional pneumatic systems.

The benefits of ECP in terms of stopping distance will vary depending on a number of factors including the initial speed of the train, whether the train is on flat terrain or on a grade, the net braking ratio for each car on the train, as well as other factors. It is not really possible to come up with a single number (or percentage) that quantifies the benefits of ECP in terms of stopping distance as the benefit will depend on the scenario.

Thank you for your interest in railroad safety.

Sincerely,

Leith Al-Nazer

Motive Power & Equipment Division

Federal Railroad Administration

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE, Mail Stop 25

Washington, DC 20590

[schlimm]

Jim200

according to Fred Frailey's accounting of 2014 stock buybacks, which largely benefits upper management and wall street: 

Stock buybacks harm long-term future earnings potential by diverting current income from proper investment in plant and equipment infrastructure to benefit upper management and stockholders in the very short term, aka, 'quarterly capitalism.'   Sadly, not limited to the railroads today.

[Jim200]

Euclid

It is well established that ECP increases train safety.  So the only thing to study is whether the cost is worth it.  Can this be determined in a way that is true, accurate, and unquestionable? What neutral party has the expertise do this study and also be trusted by both sides to come to a fair and objective conclusion? 

 

Booz, Allen, Hamilton analysed ECP in 2006. See Table I-1, (page I-11), and especially part III.4 fuel savings, part III.5 wheel savings and part III.6 brake Inspection savings. You need to double the numbers to have relevance to today, but the payback time for ECP is the same. 3 years times $170 million savings equals $510 million which more than pays for the ECP cost of $432 million for a Powder River Basin, (PRB), fleet of 2800 locomotives and 80,000 railcars owned by the railroad in 2006. Every year after that, the railroad pockets $170 million, (about $340 million in 2015). If the railroad doesn't own the cars, only the $78 million fuel savings and $45 million inspection savings minus some railcar repairs would be pocketed.

https://www.fra.dot.gov/eLib/Details/L02964 

 

If we say that today it costs about $900 million for a PRB fleet to be fitted with ECP, then according to Fred Frailey's accounting of 2014 stock buybacks, which largely benefits upper management and wall street: 

1. UP and BNSF could have each paid for 3 PRB fleets.
2. CP could have done 2 PRB fleets and put $300 million in the bank.
3. CN could do 1 fleet and put $600 million in the bank.
4. CSX and NS could each do 1 fleet, but would have to add cash from their bank.

Thus, 30,800 locomotives and more than half or 880,000 railcars of the North American fleet could have had the ECP brakes paid in just one financial year.  In 2020 and beyond, UP and BNSF could each be pocketing something like $1 billion extra each year, but presently we are only talking about the smaller oil train segment.

 

http://cs.trains.com/trn/b/fred-frailey/archive/2015/05/13/railroads-and-their-money.aspx

 

 (I can't light up the link. Look in Frailey's blog,"Railroads and their money" 5-13-15)

 

 

[Euclid]

Jeff,

I agree with all of your points, and definitely understand the railroads’ reaction to the mandate.  Although I am curious about your comment that ECP salesmen make claims that are counterintuitive.  What claims are you referring to?  I would not be surprised that salesmen may be exaggerating the benefits of ECP.  For instance, they always mention 70% shorter stopping distance without qualifying that it is only for service applications.  Without that qualifier, it leaves the clear impression that it applies to emergency stopping, since that is typically where the issue of stopping distance applies most.  So the claim, while true, is misleading.  I get the impression that DOT may have been misled by the claim.

My comment that you quoted is to ask who will do this ECP testing to determine the vital conclusion about whether the mandate stands.  Who would be the neutral third party to conduct the test?  I can’t think of any.  The question of the actual ECP performance would be complicated enough, but when you add in the question of cost/benefit, I doubt that any two parties would agree.   

[jeffhergert]

Euclid

It is well established that ECP increases train safety.  So the only thing to study is whether the cost is worth it.  Can this be determined in a way that is true, accurate, and unquestionable? What neutral party has the expertise do this study and also be trusted by both sides to come to a fair and objective conclusion? 

 

The railroads still are testing ECP.  There is a big difference between deciding to use something and being forced to use it.  If it wasn't for the PTC mandate, maybe you would be seeing more ECP equipped trains.

A lot of the benefits of ECP come from using them.  That is slowing the train using the train brakes.  Currently, that is the last of the three methods they want an engineer to do.  First is thottle modulation and using the lay of the land, second is dynamic braking, third is using air.  That third alternative is usually in conjuction with dynamics.  They do allow air alone in certain situations, but would rather see you in dynamics first.  (It's stressed so bad that I've had a couple of students who needed to use air right now due to unforseen circumstances, but wanted to get into dynamics first.  I've heard other engineers run across the same thing.)  It's all about saving fuel.  Power braking a train uses up fuel and I'm sure that's one thing they're trying to figure out.  Is it worth it?  Some of the savings touted by the salesman seem counterintuitive.  Maybe in reality it isn't, but I'm sure the railroads are going to make sure of it.

Some are going to say that the shorter stopping distance in emergency situations alone is enough to warrant the implimintation.  How often does an engineer use emergency to avoid hitting something?  I've been one for 10 years and I can only think of two instances when I had to throw it into emergency, other than when responding to in-train induced emergency applications. 

I think eventually you will see ECP on some trains, even without any mandate.  With all other demands for the railroad's money it just may take longer, absent an ECP mandate.  

Jeff       

[schlimm]

Yes.    And why (as one employee wants) should the taxpayer subsidize a long overdue safety appliance for private rails?

[Euclid]

It is well established that ECP increases train safety.  So the only thing to study is whether the cost is worth it.  Can this be determined in a way that is true, accurate, and unquestionable? What neutral party has the expertise do this study and also be trusted by both sides to come to a fair and objective conclusion? 

[BaltACD]

wanswheel

What’s the worse risk financially?  That too few ECP cars will be available at the deadline and the railroads’ common carrierness will compel them to transport oil everywhere at 30 or 40 mph?

Meanwhile on the political front, excerpt from Reuters, July 22

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/07/22/usa-train-regulations-oil-idUSL1N10224E20150722

Senator John Thune, Republican chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, had proposed repealing the ECP requirement last month with a measure that orders new research to justify the technology's benefits until a permanent decision is made.

But the legislation unveiled this week by Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell preserves the ECP requirement. It still requires the study of braking technologies, and calls on the transportation secretary to repeal the ECP requirement eventually if the research does not justify its use.

What kind of idiot does McConnell believe the railroads are?  Congressional!  You have to install ECP while we study to see if it is actually effective and at sometime of our choosing (after it has all been installed on the private dollar) Congress can say it's not effective and you should not have spent the billions to install it and you can remove it at further expense.  And the GOP is pro business!  BS  they are pro spending other peoples money, just like all the other parties.

[wanswheel]

What’s the worse risk financially?  That too few ECP cars will be available at the deadline and the railroads’ common carrierness will compel them to transport oil everywhere at 30 or 40 mph?

Meanwhile on the political front, excerpt from Reuters, July 22

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/07/22/usa-train-regulations-oil-idUSL1N10224E20150722

Senator John Thune, Republican chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, had proposed repealing the ECP requirement last month with a measure that orders new research to justify the technology's benefits until a permanent decision is made.

But the legislation unveiled this week by Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell preserves the ECP requirement. It still requires the study of braking technologies, and calls on the transportation secretary to repeal the ECP requirement eventually if the research does not justify its use.

[Wizlish]

schlimm

I would not be surprised to discover the same "kicking and dragging" resistance by the rails to most of the other major MANDATED safety appliance adoptions of the past

Don't be -- if anything, it was far worse (certainly with respect to Westinghouse brakes!)  We have no Lorenzo Coffin to take up the cudgels for ECP, and until we do I expect continued resistance.

The thing is that modern management is well aware of the advantages of ECP.  A number of for-profit companies, including the aforementioned firms in Australia, voluntarily paid to convert their equipment, and were there an effective way to provide 'dual-mode' ECP I suspect the changeover of HHFTs would not be so stringently resisted. For Janney couplers there were slotted 'universal' knuckles that took a pin for the link.  For air brakes it sufficed to put a blind hose from end to end, and use operating rules that bunched the unbraked stock to the rear (where, presumably, brakemen would still work them as long as necessary).  When gauge was converted, they could get 5000-plus men standing by with hammers and crowbars to pull spikes and bang them into predrilled holes to accomplish the thing in days.  There is, as yet, no comparable way to accomplish that sort of thing with 'standard'-compliant ECP systems.

I would note, however, that the operational benefits of knuckle couplers/internal buff gear, practical single-pipe pneumatic-control air brakes, and some other things -- roller bearings come to mind as a rather pointed example -- were not realized until there were scale or scope changes in railroading itself... that were made practical, or even possible, only after the technological change became reasonably pervasive.  (There is a similar reason for the widespread adoption of Walschaerts valve gear after the end of the 19th Century.)   I'd like to think that railroads learned that, but it is also clear from history that they dislike 'subsidizing' anything that gives their competition an easier ride.  Anyone remember the history of the BCR coal-turbine development?  The railroads involved 'kicked' increasingly at the idea that they would be subsidizing detail design fixes that they considered the responsibility of the for-profit locomotive manufacturers -- and I happen to agree with them in principle.  Nobody in that game wants to be the early adopter of an expensive technology with enormous stranded costs and limited applicability in most of its initial phase, unless there are recognizable, and perhaps justifiable-to-scockholders, benefits from that adoption. 

The Esch Act 'quasi-blackmail' imposition of ATS, and more recently the imposition of PTC, are attractive on the surface as examples of how to coerce the Class I community to 'do right' (or perhaps 'straighten up and fly right').  But if the FRA wants ECP mandated on its merits, the discussion needs to take that form, not reflect Sarah's preference that 'ECP's merits self-evidently warrant its mandated application to HHFT trains'.  Someone like Lorenzo Coffin might be persistent enough to get adoption of a properly 'convertible' ECP system on ECP's actual merits in modern railroading.  But it will take that level of persistence and access, and probably at least that span of time.

[schlimm]

Wizlish

The current argument about ECP is not that it doesn't provide some significant benefits.  It is that, for the cost and trouble, it does not provide 'enough' benefit in additional safety, in those areas that concern fireball explosions from HHFT accidents. Yes, I do think there is an element of 'kill this before it multiplies' to a mandate for ECP on all interchanged cars.  Yes, I think the very high cost of ECP as an unfunded mandate is a concern to railroad management. 

I would not be surprised to discover the same  "kicking and dragging" resistance by the rails to most of the other major MANDATED safety appliance adoptions of the past (Janney coupler, air brakes, etc.).

[Euclid]

Wizlish,

My point is that I do not believe that the BCM valve is a significant part of the oil train solution.  However NYAB is offering it as such, and that offering is the current news.  So why should I not mention that?  

When I say that the AAR has dismissed brake performance as being part of the oil train problem, I agree that that is not entirely true, as you suggest.  They do allow that it is somewhere between zero and 1% of the problem. 

I do believe that the 3-7% quicker stopping of ECP would add be a significant part of solving the oil train problem.  However, the AAR is apparently not accounting for that quicker stopping advantage in their pie chart showing how much of the derailment problem is related to braking.

As to ECP, I am not much advocating it as the whole or partial solution to the oil train problem.  I think it would be a partial solution, but maybe not cost effective overall.  I will leave that battle to AAR vs. FRA, and I will be an interested spectator.

You suggest that the discussion should be focused on DIFFERENTIAL BRAKING.  I have strongly advocated differential braking in this thread and others.  In early 2014, I started an extensive thread on a safer oil train concept, and differential braking was the centerpiece of that proposal.  I have made many posts here and elsewhere defending the feasibility and effectiveness of differential braking in the face of fierce criticism.  I have written proposals about differential braking and shared them with New York Air Brake and with Wabtec. 

As far as I know, nobody else has conceived of the concept or advocated it. I am currently working on a project to illustrate and describe the concept of differential braking.  I have revised the concept with new thinking since introducing it here in 2/2014.  That is why I was asking about dynamic braking a couple pages back in this thread.   

However, the solution of differential braking flies in the face of railroad paradigms.  The main one is that once the first wheelset leaves the rails, nothing can be done that will control or mitigate the derailment process.  It has been said so often that it has been accepted as truth.  But the same faulty logic might be applied to air bags in vehicles, for instance.        

[Wizlish]

Euclid

Therefore, overall, the AAR has backed themselves into a corner where they cannot come out in favor of the DB-60 II brake system valve as an alternative to ECP braking, as NYAB suggests, because they have dismissed brake performance as being part of the oil train problem.

I discussed the BCM (and its effective uselessness to any context we are discussing in this thread) several posts ago.  You seem to have missed this, or misunderstood what the BCM actually does.

No one has 'dismissed brake performance as being part of the oil train problem'.  What is being "deprecated", in a nutshell, is that a 3% maximum improvement in brake application time, without modulation, is worth a mandated $8-10K cost per car and loss of default compatibility with non-ECP locomotives or car consists.  I happen to agree that it is not.

In order for an ECP 'mandate' to make any sense, the actual, practical, improvements that ECP can make in emergency oil-train handling have to be expressed and then developed.  One of those things, in my opinion, is a system of differential braking after derailment detection.  Another might be a system that performs better 'active' monitoring and control of slack run-in and run-out, and perhaps drawbar forces (both longitudinal and torque).  THOSE are the things the ECP (or 'electronically-accelerated pneumatic') discussion ought to be focused on, in my opinion...

... and NYAB BCM is only peripherally concerned with that, regardless of the valve system to which it happens to be applied, so PLEASE stop mentioning it until you can describe just how it 'improves' stopping derailed trains in minimum time or distance, or with better safety.

[Euclid]

The following quote in blue is from Mike Hawthorn, president of New York Air Brake, and it appears in the Railway Age article cited on the previous page:

U.S. freight railroads are seeing a boom in the transport of crude oil from the oil fields to refineries and markets. However, a series of oil train accidents has raised questions about the safety of moving crude by rail. In response, U.S. freight railroads and car owners voluntarily proposed new safety standards that mandate the continued introduction of more robust tank cars and improved train control systems. These improvements are essential to the continued supply of safe, low cost energy for America and its economic engine.”

In response [to the oil train derailment problem], since the beginning of the oil boom, NYAB “has launched research and development efforts to introduce new technology to make oil trains, and all freight trains, safer,” said Hawthorne. “Beginning Jan. 1, 2015, a new and safer air brake control valve will be manufactured in Watertown that ensures there is always air pressure available to activate freight car brakes, regardless of how long the engineer applies the brakes. This new control device, called the DB-60 II, is the most significant improvement to pneumatic air brake control valves in 40 years. “

***************************************

 

So this means that while NYAB says ECP brakes are not a solution (or part of a solution) to the oil train problem, the new DB-60 II brake cylinder maintaining valve is part of the solution.  Clearly, the new valve would be much more preferable to the AAR than ECP brakes because it is far, far less costly.  The new valve can be put on any freight car and still operate in trains that have cars without the valve.  It does not require mass conversion like ECP does.  With the DB-60 II valve, the more of them you have in a train, the safer the train is.

So the natural inclination for the AAR would be to push the FRA to change the ECP mandate to a DB-60 II mandate.  But there is one little problem with that strategy.  The AAR has been promoting the fact that ECP brakes are not the proper solution.  To bolster that position, the AAR says in their literature that the entire category of brake failure is all but irrelevant to oil train derailments.  This is a bit misleading because if conventional air brakes produced a slack run-in that derailed the train, that would not be considered to be brake failure.  And yet ECP could prevent such a slack run-in.  So the premise of the AAR in disconnecting oil train safety from brake failure is somewhat flawed.  Here is what they say:

Safety Data Do Not Support an ECP Mandate

Less than 1 percent of all train accidents are related to a failure in brake equipment, and there have not been any brake-related accidents involving a crude oil or ethanol train.

**************************************

 

Therefore, overall, the AAR has backed themselves into a corner where they cannot come out in favor of the DB-60 II brake system valve as an alternative to ECP braking, as NYAB suggests, because they have dismissed brake performance as being part of the oil train problem. 

[Wizlish]

jeffhergert

It probably will eliminate most of those UDEs, but I wouldn't say all. Nothing is perfect, saying all sounds like a salesman's pitch.

And note that it wasn't the NYAB guy who said 'completely eliminates UDEs'.  They said 'reduces' -- which as I understand the system's operation, would be accurate.

For those of you that don't recognize a "UDE" the old term 'dynamiter' might be more evocative.  The brake valve on the car goes to the full emergency position, usually without warning, and sticks there until its attitude is adjusted.  To the extent that 'emergency' can be commanded by dumping the trainline pressure on an ECP-equipped train -- which I believe is the default way the standard calls for it to be achieved -- there will still be 'valve functionality' in the ECP brake valve that could create dynamiting, and especially with lower maintenance attention over the years that functionality might result in some level of problem.

On the other hand, at least part of the UDE problem stems from the fact that all the functions in the 'traditional' Westinghouse system have to be discriminated via control signals (pressure and shock) sent via the air in the line.  We've already commented on the fact that this is a large percentage of the 'difference' in emergency response between conventional air and ECP:  if you adjust the brake valves to respond quickly to an 'emergency' signal, it's like putting hair triggers on a large number of weapons, and it becomes more likely that somehow, somewhere, one of them will fire unexpectedly when riding over somewhat arbitrarily rough and wet country cocked and unlocked...

The current argument about ECP is not that it doesn't provide some significant benefits.  It is that, for the cost and trouble, it does not provide 'enough' benefit in additional safety, in those areas that concern fireball explosions from HHFT accidents.

Yes, I do think there is an element of 'kill this before it multiplies' to a mandate for ECP on all interchanged cars.  Yes, I think the very high cost of ECP as an unfunded mandate is a concern to railroad management.  Yes, I think everyone is being very careful to establish their positions without causing upset at powerful political agencies.  In my opinion this is part of the normal give-and-take involved in doing business in the current United States, and I'm not quite sure why so much simplistic 'solution' discussion keeps being made about it.

[jeffhergert]

On ECP equipment the control valve moves mechanically to an electronic signal instead of to pressure differential on conventional air brakes.  I think it's because of this it's thought ECP will eliminate UDEs caused by the control valve during a brake application. 

It probably will eliminate most of those UDEs, but I wouldn't say all.  Nothing is perfect, saying all sounds like a salesman's pitch.  

Jeff

[schlimm]

UDE - Undesired Emergency

When air pressure contained within the air brake system is released, resulting in the application of train brakes. [from  UPRR's glossary of terms]

 

So obviously that is one of the situations addressed by the newer equipment.

[narig01]

BaltACD

 

 

Euclid

It completely eliminated UDEs.

 

 

 

I'll call absolute BS to that particular statement!  Only God can eleiminate UDE's and he is still trying to get qualified as a Train Dispatcher.

 

A "UDE" is an UnDesired Emergency? 

The IGN 

[Anonymous]

Good Morning:

 

Here is an interesting article on recent New Yrk State train safety inspections in the Albany NY area:

http://blog.timesunion.com/business/nys-reveals-latest-round-of-train-safety-inspections/67917/

 

[schlimm]

That is a lot of valuable and likely definitive information from NYAB, which is more authoritative and valid than some posts on here.

[Euclid]

tree68

Nobody wants to be involved in the implementation of THE solution that down the road turns out to have been a wrong or incomplete solution.  What's going to be the reaction when an ECP equipped oil train wrecks?  "But we thought ECP would solve that problem!?!?!"

 

I think that is probably a part of it.  While it is not practically attainable, the basic premise of the oil train safety features is to fix the problem.  So any part of the fix might be expected to be infallible.  I can see why a company might be reluctant to promote their product that goes into that mandate with an implied promise of fixing the problem. 

I talked to someone at NYAB today and asked him about what their President, Mike Hawthorn had said and how the company can reconcile it with their product mission.  My contact said that their company believes that ECP improves safety in a variety of ways including better train handling, reduced slack action, quicker stopping, and reduced UDEs— all of which can prevent or mitigate derailments. However, with the mandate, they have to walk a fine line with their customers who are lining up in opposition to the mandate.  As I understood it, NYAB does not want to appear to be piling on along with the DOT and their ECP mandate.  So in order to support the customers’ cause, Hawthorn appears to be proactively backing off on ECP as an oil train solution.    

I asked the person I was conversing with if the slack control benefit of ECP does not apply to unit trains, but only to mixed-consist trains.  He said there is plenty of opportunity for severe slack action in oil trains even if they are unit trains with all cars the same.  He said train handling has a lot to do with causing slack action damage.  He said that ECP can prevent hard slack action both by improved train handling characteristics and by the instantaneous application of brakes.  He said that he believes slack action could have contributed to any of the recent oil train wrecks, and that he certainly would not rule out the ability of slack action to cause derailments of oil trains or other types of unit trains. 

[tree68]

Euclid

Then from that statement you and others here have clearly said that his statement confirms that the entire ECP industry agrees with Hawthorn and the AAR on the claim that ECP brakes will not provide any benefit to oil train safety. 

The quotes within my post are from you, or your quotes of others.

It's been my conclusion not that ECP is potentially a part of the solution with regard to oil train incidents.  And I think others will agree.

My conclusion (and apparently that of Hawthorn) is that ECP is not THE solution to the oil train incident issue.  There are other factors, most of which have already been noted here, which deserve equal consideration.

Nobody wants to be involved in the implementation of THE solution that down the road turns out to have been a wrong or incomplete solution.  What's going to be the reaction when an ECP equipped oil train wrecks?  "But we thought ECP would solve that problem!?!?!"