Taking this topic off the oil-train thread: There would only be three displays in the cab. Normally all FREDs give the same message, so one display would be sufficient. If controls for mid-train power are flexible so that when a train is cresting a summit, the part going downhill can be in brake mode while power still is applied to the rear half (as an example) then two displays would obviously be required. A third display only lights up when there is an errant FRED that is not presenting data like the rest of its group, and the display tells which FRED it is.
Power for the FREDS might be charging batteries with small wind turbines that use the air draft under cars driving small alternators and rectifiers.
Again each FRED would connect to two air hoses as well as joining them mechanicaly. Each would hang off of a grab iron on the end of either car and would both transmit data and respond to brake commands of the engineer.
EOTDs are mainly air-powered anymore. So that's already done.
Have to change the federal rules before you hang them off grab irons. FRA is pretty picky about that - safety device and all. (not a huge deal, but one more small issue to resolve).
Locomotive head end boxes are going to have to be redesigned to accept multiple EOT IDs. Then will each one have to be in working order? If one craps out and gives a front-to-rear no comm message, are you now restricted in your operations? All kinds of rules about EOTD failure currently on the books. And then would each EOTD have to be tested to make sure it can dump the air from the head end? That's required now.
Again, not insurmountable objects, but objects none the less. And EOTDs aren't cheap, so by the time you do this - it may be cheaper just to install ECP brakes.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.
Redesigning the head end boxes is a very easy fix. You wouldneed to change the software to accept multiple EOT information and keep track of what is going on. No big deal for a good programmer..
Biggest issue I see is the time and logistics to mount and dismount multiple EOTDs on every train.
I agree with all the comments. This would not preclude having new cars built with all the stuff built-in and still compatible with the portable stuff. Regarding the logistics, the first application would be for unit oil trains where the consist stays together and the FREDs would be removed only for the required inspection and testing cycle, which would probably affect the tankcars themselves. The last application of this equipment would be when most of the total freightcar fleet has electronic control braking, many years from now, and this portable equipment will be used to make older cars usable with newer cars.
Irony is that unit trains will probably be the easiest (and first) to get ecp brakes.
You can't mount the MTD's (mid train devices) on the side of the car, that would provide clearance problems to structures and adjacent tracks.
You would have to have some way of connecting it to the air lines without the hose dragging on the track, but adjust to mulitple variations of mounting arrangements and still have flex to adjust to different draft gear arrangements.
How do you make a set out with this arrangement? The set out has an MTD in it, if you turn the angle cock at the joint and come off with the head end, the EOT and rear MTD's going in emergency will put the head end in emergency.
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
At least the railroads will have a choice, take the newest and otherwise compliant cars out of service and equip them or add the EOTD-modifieds to existing consists, even while they are loading or unloading.
You really don't need any special way to mount an eotd in the middle of a train. They latch on to the side of the coupler, so they can be hung even if the cars are coupled.
daveklepper If controls for mid-train power are flexible so that when a train is cresting a summit, the part going downhill can be in brake mode while power still is applied to the rear half (as an example) then two displays would obviously be required.
.
The 3 variations of modern conventional air brake valves. What in Euclidspeak = "Westinghouse".
EuclidThis is shown with the stopping distances in slide #7 of this slideshow:
Be sure to go on to Slide #8, which shows that ECP offers only a slight improvement over straight air with an emergency application.
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...
EuclidWabtec has a chart that gives the emergency application stopping distance of several test trains, including one with ECP brakes. They identify those test trains by the following designations: ABDX ABDW ABD ABDX+1 EOT-ES ABDW+1 EOT-ES ABD+1 EOT-ES DIST. POWER +1 REMOTE ABDX+2 EOT-ES ABDW+2 EOT-ES ABD+2 EOT-ES ABDX+3 EOT-ES ABDW+3 EOT-ES ABD+3 EOT-ES ECP You can see that the last one is a train with ECP braking. I am not sure what the first three designations mean.
Read the description in this patent application and you will be educated:
http://www.google.com/patents/WO2013181189A1?cl=en
Shame on you, Dave, for not just telling him the distinctions.
And we can't forget that while the sole purpose of the brake line under ECP becomes keeping the reserviors charged, there is still a finite amount of air that can be supplied, so it is still possible to "p!ss away" one's air... Might have to work harder at it, but it's still possible.
BigJimI fail to see the purpose or even why you would want two EOT's.
The devices Mr. Klepper is describing aren't EOTDs (except insofar as parts of existing EOTD systems could be used OTS or with minor and cost-effective modification to produce them). They represent only a limited part of the EOTD functionality, the ability to provide an air-brake control valve at some point in the trainline. In the simplest version of the system, all these valves would be slaved to the brake valve in the cab, giving the advantage of 'lightspeed' actuation at distributed points in the train. The abbreviation MTD is a good one.
I think Mr. Klepper is planning to have these valves be individually addressable and to have the capability of at least a limited amount of differing modulation (I have to be careful not to say 'differential' as that has a different technical sense in the present discussion!) There are a number of ways that multiple MTDs could be 'connected', and how the system could determine the relative number and position of devices in a consist. The head-end device (as reprogrammed cf. Caldreamer) would then be able to address each of the devices appropriately, for example to modulate the rate or amount of application at each point, or to close one or more valves while permitting further exhaust by others.
Note that even a slow and 'quantized' version of graduated release would be difficult to implement on this kind of system -- unless I'm nisunderstanding how the valves work. So it's strictly applicable to the scenario of better-controlled rapid or emergency braking down to a full stop. The thing I have to wonder is this: that scenario is almost 100% of what the Feds are calling for from a 'safer' HHFT brake system. (We all know graduated release, differential braking, etc. can improve train handling in some respects, but we've also begun to disagree pronouncedly on whether that improved train handling provides cost-effective improvement in the kinds of 'safety' that politicians care about... or that AAR member railroads care to pay for...)
tree68 Euclid This is shown with the stopping distances in slide #7 of this slideshow: Be sure to go on to Slide #8, which shows that ECP offers only a slight improvement over straight air with an emergency application.
Euclid This is shown with the stopping distances in slide #7 of this slideshow:
But the full service application distance is only marginally more than the emergency stop distance with ECP, from slide 7. Surely stopping in a significantly shorter distance in normal service is at least as important as the performance in the less likely emergency situation.
The stopping distance for a full service application with ECP is effectively half that of a train with ABD valves and no EOT valves, and better than any of the non ECP options.
ECP works, it is proven in applications identical to normal USA operation and it is made by local USA suppliers. It was invented here (if here is the USA).
It is not an untried system being forced on the railroads. It is a proven system that works well, particularly with unit trains (like oil trains).
No alternative is needed.
M636C
M636CSurely stopping in a significantly shorter distance in normal service is at least as important as the performance in the less likely emergency situation.
Why? During "normal" stops and reductions in speed,the majority of the braking will be done with dynamic braking.
M636C tree68 Euclid Be sure to go on to Slide #8, which shows that ECP offers only a slight improvement over straight air with an emergency application. But the full service application distance is only marginally more than the emergency stop distance with ECP, from slide 7. Surely stopping in a significantly shorter distance in normal service is at least as important as the performance in the less likely emergency situation. The stopping distance for a full service application with ECP is effectively half that of a train with ABD valves and no EOT valves, and better than any of the non ECP options. ECP works, it is proven in applications identical to normal USA operation and it is made by local USA suppliers. It was invented here (if here is the USA). It is not an untried system being forced on the railroads. It is a proven system that works well, particularly with unit trains (like oil trains). No alternative is needed. M636C
tree68 Euclid Be sure to go on to Slide #8, which shows that ECP offers only a slight improvement over straight air with an emergency application.
Euclid
ECP has been TESTED in controlled enviornments - as such it it wholely untested in the real world of loose car railroading - every car, even those in dedicated unit train service get incorporated into the loose car world from time to time and end up away from their dedicated service center. To date, my understanding is, there are competing forms of ECP that are not compatible with each other.
The braking that is being taught to Engineers at present is Dynamic Braking, with air brakes almost becoming the brake of last resort.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
BaltACDECP has been TESTED in controlled enviornments - as such it it wholely untested in the real world of loose car railroading - every car, even those in dedicated unit train service get incorporated into the loose car world from time to time and end up away from their dedicated service center.
Many people seem to think that "unit train" means it is exactly the same set of cars always traveling together trip after trip. That's just not what's really happening.
Just for giggles, a couple months ago in another discussion I picked an oil car and then looked at the last 20 or so trains it was on. No more than 2 or maybe 3 trains in row had the same number of cars on them. That means that cars were being added and subtracted, the consist was changing, that the exact same set of cars were NOT traveling together. The changes ranged from a couple cars to 10 or more cars total car count between successive trains.
That is similar to the experience with grain trains and coal trains, they are frequently having cars cut out, cars added, the train size going up and down, if by only a few cars every couple of trips. The drawbars are not welded together, the EXACT same consist doesn't ping pong for months at a time.
An added cost, typically not taken into consideration, is managing a small, restricted fleet that can't be part of the "loose car" network (and the associated smaller, restricted feet of engines to haul those cars).
dehusmanMany people seem to think that "unit train" means it is exactly the same set of cars always traveling together trip after trip. That's just not what's really happening.
Also known as "single-bulk commodity trains". Although "unit trains" is just easier to say.
BaltACD To date, my understanding is, there are competing forms of ECP that are not compatible with each other.
To date, my understanding is, there are competing forms of ECP that are not compatible with each other.
I believe everything in use in NA meets the AAR wire line ECP interoperability spec. The only competing system was the GE Harris wireless system that they gave up on more than a decade ago.
dehusman Many people seem to think that "unit train" means it is exactly the same set of cars always traveling together trip after trip. That's just not what's really happening. ...
...
This would be a real problem for multiple "EOT"s. Each EOT has to be dialed into the control unit in the engine. If you start to add and switch units between trains, it will be hard to keep them all dialed in correctly.
"ECP has been TESTED in controlled enviornments - as such it it wholely untested in the real world of loose car railroading - every car, even those in dedicated unit train service get incorporated into the loose car world from time to time and end up away from their dedicated service center. To date, my understanding is, there are competing forms of ECP that are not compatible with each other.
The braking that is being taught to Engineers at present is Dynamic Braking, with air brakes almost becoming the brake of last resort."
It is way beyond testing.
Fortescue Metals in Western Australia ship 155 million tonnes per annum (170 miliion US tons) entirely in ECP braked trains. I honestly don't know how many ore cars they have, but Roy Hill who are setting up a parallel railroad to ship 55 million tonnes per annum have 1400 cars (all ECP), so 5000 cars on Fortescue is a likely number...
A couple of hundred miles away Rio Tinto are converting their fleet to ECP brakes and driverless operation. ECP brakes is a requirement for the operation, which is really remote rather than driverless, like drone aircraft.
Rio used to run 220 car trains with conventional Westinghouse, with 125 tons in each car. They had to put new cars on each end of the train to avoid problems with brakes not releasing.
Back in the East Coast, Newcastle, New South Wales is the largest coal export port IN THE WORLD. Maybe one third (or more) of the trains are now ECP braked, with two main operators Aurizon and Freightliner (now part of G&W) running only ECP braked trains. The other main operator, Pacific National, has only purchased ECP cars for some years. In the last three months they purchased 400 hopper cars of 120 tonnes (132 tons) all up mass and three locomotives (4300HP EMDs) all fitted for ECP and 15 existing GE 4400HP units with EPIC brake controllwers are being upgraded to ECP.
In Queensland, Pacific National only run ECP coal trains (with 52 diesel and 42 electric locomotives) and BMA (BHP Billiton Mitsubishi Alliance) have 13 electric locomotives. Trains run with three or four units in distributed power using the ECP line for control with 200 cars of 105 tonnes (115 tons).
Aurizon are converting to ECP. They have had at least three serious derailments where the Locotrol radio signal was lost in rough mountainous country and mid train units pushed the front section of the train off the track. This doesn't have to happen often for ECP to be cost effective. At least four electric units were lost in these derailments.
And the ECP operation is all done with Wabtec and NYAB equipment and standard AAR connectors.
It isn't testing. It is full time heavy haul railroading with ECP as a basic part.
If it doesn't work in the USA, the USA railroads must be doing something wrong...
dehusman M636C Surely stopping in a significantly shorter distance in normal service is at least as important as the performance in the less likely emergency situation. Why? During "normal" stops and reductions in speed,the majority of the braking will be done with dynamic braking.
M636C Surely stopping in a significantly shorter distance in normal service is at least as important as the performance in the less likely emergency situation.
I often can go an entire trip without touching the air until the final stop. With a loaded coal train I may need to use air only in one spot to control speed. All the rest is throttle modulation and dynamics.
It's all about saving fuel. They don't like power braking although grudgingly realize there are times it needs to be done. I think to get the most benefits out of ECP, like graduated release, you will need to power brake more often. With the modern dynamics we have now and distributed power, I think the case for ECP isn't as good as it once was.
Jeff
Euclid The 2006 FRA report on ECP brakes says that ECP can totally eliminate the need for power braking due to the benefit of graduated release. It seems to me that ECP has many advantages over current practice, but the railroads do not believe the benefits are worth the enormous cost of a universal conversion.
Extended range dynamic braking on today's locomotives has virtually ended the need for air brakes, except for the final stop. Dynamic Braking power can be increased and decreased as necessary by the engineer - dynamic braking does not put thremal stress on any wheels - engine or cars. Air brakes put thermal stresses on the wheels of the cars (engine brakes are normally bailed off). ECP increases wheel stress if it were to be used in place of Dynamics.
Well, I guess if the FRA says it's so, it must be true. We all know the government never lets those who have no real world experience make recommendations, rules or regulations.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.