Trains.com

Electronic Braking

11797 views
168 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    January 2002
  • 4,612 posts
Posted by M636C on Tuesday, February 23, 2016 4:30 AM

SD70M-2Dude

M636C, would I be correct in assuming that the connector cables pull apart automatically just like air hoses when cars are uncoupled?  If yes, and combined with the dual ECP/mechanical triple valve setup discussed earlier that would solve interoperability issues, and the successes in Australia and on Cartier would suggest a lack of sensitivity to hot/cold/dry/wet conditions.  Sounds proven to me, now the only remaining issue preventing widespread North American implementation is the ultra-conservative attitude of Class I upper management.

 

 

I've never actually seen them pulled apart but I believe the design does allow that.

They can be separated manually by depessing the spring loaded buttons on the latches, but these should also allow the connectors to pull apart without damage.

However, I belive that the Australian experience shows that unit trains can be progressively converted with little or no disruption to the remainder of the conventional traffic.

As an aside, the standard AAR connectors are used by all systems operating  ECP in Australia, even those on different gauges where there is no possibility of interchange.

I think that if USA railroad managers had closely inspected the operating ECP trains in Australia last June they would have had to reconsider their position.

 

M636C

  • Member since
    March 2013
  • 711 posts
Posted by SD70M-2Dude on Tuesday, February 23, 2016 12:11 AM

M636c, would I be correct in assuming that the connector cables pull apart automatically just like air hoses when cars are uncoupled?  If yes, and combined with the dual ECP/mechanical triple valve setup discussed earlier that would solve interoperability issues, and the successes in Australia and on Cartier would suggest a lack of sensitivity to hot/cold/dry/wet conditions.  Sounds proven to me, now the only remaining issue preventing widespread North American implementation is the ultra-conservative attitude of Class I upper management.

Greetings from Alberta

-an Articulate Malcontent

  • Member since
    January 2014
  • 8,221 posts
Posted by Euclid on Monday, February 22, 2016 9:35 AM
M636C

I don't understand the emphasis on emergency braking. ECP is significantly better in normal service braking that in general occurs much more often than emergency braking, and improved service braking is where the improvements in throughput and savings in operating costs come in.

Have any oil tank car derailments occurred in a scenario where greatly improved emergency braking would have avoided the problem? Certainly where a rail has broken, the emergency application occurs after the damage has been done.

But it seems to me that the US railroads are "cherry picking" data to support the conclusion they have already reached that ECP braking poses insurmountable problems.

 

The emphasis on emergency stopping for ECP came during the development of the new U.S. federal tank car standards which were completed and announced in May 2015.  The advantages of ECP were summed up in two points:

1)   Simultaneous application throughout the train.

2)   Quicker stopping.

 
The quicker stopping was cited as an advantage of stopping short of collisions; and for stopping quicker during a pileup, thereby reducing the number of cars in the pileup, thereby reducing the potential tank car breaching, fire and explosions.
Once again, I do not recall the FRA/USDOT ever stating how much stopping advantage ECP has over conventional air brakes.  I believe there statements were based on the highly popular claim that the ECP stopping advantage is 60-70% with the always omitted qualifier that this applies only to service applications.  I believe that at the highest levels of the bureaucracy where the new rules were approved, this distinction between the two different types of stopping was never understood; as amazing as that may seem.  Clearly, the stopping advantage cited by the FRA/DOT would only apply to “Emergency” braking. 
The railroads tried to offset the FRA/DOT argument by saying their use of distributed power to dump the air from multiple points in the train would speed up the stopping distance to nearly equal to that of ECP.  As I recall, they were talking about reducing the small stopping advantage of ECP from around 5% down to 2-3%.  In any case, their argument fell on deaf ears, perhaps because so many have been falsely educated that the ECP advantage is 60-70%.  Oddly, the railroads overlooked the opportunity to clarify this matter in their response. 
During the development of the new tank car rules, railroads knew that an ECP brake mandate on tank cars might be part of the package.  They made it obvious that they were adamantly opposed to such a mandate, and backed up their position by reaching for every conceivable way to refute an ECP advantage.  Clearly, they had already decided that they do not favor the universal conversion to ECP due to the cost.  They reason that the trains get over the road now with conventional air brakes, so why spend all that money? 
At the same time, they realize that a government that will mandate safety systems such as PTC might do the same with ECP.  Therefore an ECP mandate on just tank cars might very well be the slippery slope to a universal mandate.  So the industry came up with every conceivable argument to oppose ECP.  I think that is what is behind the worries about cross-talk, connector failures, and corrosion.    
  • Member since
    July 2006
  • 9,610 posts
Posted by schlimm on Monday, February 22, 2016 7:58 AM

M636C
I was at the Heavy Haul Conference in Perth last June... Where did you post last June - not on this thread which is much more recent.....

Rather different views on ECP in Australia and likely even the conference in Perth by two folks in the field.

C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan

  • Member since
    January 2002
  • 4,612 posts
Posted by M636C on Monday, February 22, 2016 3:22 AM

Buslist

Perhaps a repeat of my post of last June touching on some aspects of the ECP session at the Heavy Haul Conference in Perth might be of help here.

 

Some interesting takeaways from sessions at the recent international heavy haul conference. In a conversation with Gary Wolf, probably the best independent derailment investigator in North America, he felt that the advantage of ECP brakes in emergency is so small that he felt the mandate was totally unjustified. This was further reinforced by a paper from China that, among other things compared emergency stopping distances of ECP and conventional braked trains for a variety of train sizes and speeds. On the graphs shown, the distance difference was almost imperceptible.              

 

In a bit of a surprise they showed a graph (that was not in the published paper) that seemed to show that longitudinal forces were higher in the ECP trains in emergency braking. Unfortunately the graphs shown had Chinese legends and the author was unable to understand questions in English, so that's a bit of a mystery.

 

The chairperson of the AAR air brake committee made a presentation on the state of the art in ECP. One of the issues related to unreliability of the system is cross talk between trains. Yes I know it's a wire line system, but when passing train A can hear messages leaking from train B and vice versa. If a locomotive detects a message from a car not in its consist it will initialize a penalty application. The spec is being revised so messages now include train number as well as car number. This is said to mitigate but not eliminate the problem as crossover messages will be ignored but will still consume coms capacity and may result in a time out penalty application. There have also been some issues with the connectors as they get older and wear, resulting in moisture penetration and ground fault failures. There is a search for a new connector.

It was noted that the committee feels that the tank car mandate will need to be an overlay resulting in dual systems on board the affected cars. The current cost estimate is in excess $6000 per car.

 

Sharma & Associates presented some work they did on predicting the probable number of punctures in various tank car derailment scenarios. They noted that there were so many variables and a wide range of potential values for each that an exact value was impossible to predict. The study used chaos theory ( noting that derailments are chaotic events) to estimate a most likely result but noted for any given derailment an exact value was impossible to determine.     

 

 

I was at the Heavy Haul Conference in Perth last June...

Where did you post last June - not on this thread which is much more recent.....

I didn't go to the Chinese presentation of ECP braking, partly because I felt (and still feel) that we in Australia would be way ahead of China in the application of ECP braking and I felt (and still feel) that the advantages of ECP braking are so well established as to not need academic papers in support.

I had just spent a full week in the Pilbara where most of the trains are ECP equipped. I must have seen thirty ECP trains pass eachother at speed on double track or more slowly in sidings on single track, and not one suffered from an unexpected emergency application of the brakes while I was watching.

Did you take up the offer of the side trip to Port Hedland to inspect Fortescue Metals which run an all ECP operation. Even their ballast hoppers have ECP brakes.

I have been watching ECP trains pass in the Hunter Valley and in Central Queensland, where many sections of line have four or three tracks and the main lines are double track for the eleven years that ECP trains have been operating and I have never heard of, let alone seen a brake application initiated by crosstalk from the cables. I myself must have seen hundreds of empty and loaded ECP trains pass eachother at both high and low speeds on normally spaced double tracks. Clearly these trains did not have any new software to prevent crosstalk, certainly not back in 2005, and my feeling is that the probability of this occurring must be very small, since I've never heard of it happening on any of the systems using ECP in Australia. Where was this problem experienced, and how often has it occurred?

However, a colleague who was with me at the conference is fluent in both Cantonese and Mandarin, and if you can give me the Title of the paper and the name of the Presenter, I might be able to get details of the offending diagram translated, and we can know for sure whether the forces are higher or lower with ECP braking. He has good contacts with the organisers of the conference, and might be able to get a copy of the slide from them.

I don't understand the emphasis on emergency braking. ECP is significantly better in normal service braking that in general occurs much more often than emergency braking, and improved service braking is where the improvements in throughput and savings in operating costs come in.

Block oil trains would be a good place to start using ECP braking, since the tank cars are almost all owned by leasing companies and converting the tank car fleet would cost the railroads very little, even if the tank cars were all dual equipped.

Have any oil tank car derailments occurred in a scenario where greatly improved emergency braking would have avoided the problem? Certainly where a rail has broken, the emergency application occurs after the damage has been done.

In earlier posts I've suggested that the faster application of brakes on the trailing section of the train AFTER a derailment would reduce the damage, and this feature of ECP braking might not be reflected in a theoretical calculation of braking distance compared to a Westinghouse system.

But it seems to me that the US railroads are "cherry picking" data to support the conclusion they have already reached that ECP braking poses insurmountable problems.

Meanwhile, the railroads in the rest of the world are fitting ECP brakes conforming to AAR standards using their own money simply because they expect to get an early return on their investment.

If you look hard enough, you'll probably be able to find some possible technicality that might cause problems.

But in Australia, the ECP trains just keep running, day in day out, with no cross talk, no unexpected brake applications, running faster and saving money on wheels and brakes.

M636C

  • Member since
    November 2013
  • 1,097 posts
Posted by Buslist on Sunday, February 21, 2016 6:45 PM

Perhaps a repeat of my post of last June touching on some aspects of the ECP session at the Heavy Haul Conference in Perth might be of help here.

 

Some interesting takeaways from sessions at the recent international heavy haul conference. In a conversation with Gary Wolf, probably the best independent derailment investigator in North America, he felt that the advantage of ECP brakes in emergency is so small that he felt the mandate was totally unjustified. This was further reinforced by a paper from China that, among other things compared emergency stopping distances of ECP and conventional braked trains for a variety of train sizes and speeds. On the graphs shown, the distance difference was almost imperceptible.              

 

In a bit of a surprise they showed a graph (that was not in the published paper) that seemed to show that longitudinal forces were higher in the ECP trains in emergency braking. Unfortunately the graphs shown had Chinese legends and the author was unable to understand questions in English, so that's a bit of a mystery.

 

The chairperson of the AAR air brake committee made a presentation on the state of the art in ECP. One of the issues related to unreliability of the system is cross talk between trains. Yes I know it's a wire line system, but when passing train A can hear messages leaking from train B and vice versa. If a locomotive detects a message from a car not in its consist it will initialize a penalty application. The spec is being revised so messages now include train number as well as car number. This is said to mitigate but not eliminate the problem as crossover messages will be ignored but will still consume coms capacity and may result in a time out penalty application. There have also been some issues with the connectors as they get older and wear, resulting in moisture penetration and ground fault failures. There is a search for a new connector.

It was noted that the committee feels that the tank car mandate will need to be an overlay resulting in dual systems on board the affected cars. The current cost estimate is in excess $6000 per car.

 

Sharma & Associates presented some work they did on predicting the probable number of punctures in various tank car derailment scenarios. They noted that there were so many variables and a wide range of potential values for each that an exact value was impossible to predict. The study used chaos theory ( noting that derailments are chaotic events) to estimate a most likely result but noted for any given derailment an exact value was impossible to determine.     

  • Member since
    January 2014
  • 8,221 posts
Posted by Euclid on Sunday, February 21, 2016 9:04 AM
M636C,
I did look at the links you posted above including the illustrations of the connectors which show them very clearly, including how to clean them and handle them.  It was this link on page 19-20:
My only point in posting the other image was to show that they are apparently unchanged since 1999, and at that time, it acknowledges connector problems occurring prior to that date.  So generally, I conclude that the “connector problem” often cited in the U.S. is a long gone thing of the past. 
However, it may be true that there still is a connector maintenance and longevity issue if the connectors are used in loose car railroading where they are more frequently coupled and uncoupled. If there is such a problem, I would think it would show up in the references somewhere.  As I recall during the run-up to the recent ECP mandate for oil trains, the Union Pacific was cited as saying they have experienced electrical reliability problems or possibly even connector problems.  But at that time, all of the industry was looking for any way possible to talk the FRA out of the mandate. 
Whatever the facts are, I cannot imagine that the connectors are incapable of being made sufficiently reliable.  So far, I have not heard a peep about work underway to convert tank cars to ECP ahead of the U.S. mandate.  It will be interesting to see how the industry chooses execute it.  An overlay system would permit the current loose car style to continue, but at the highest cost of conversion.  Whereas, without the overlay features, the system will cost less, but will require tank cars to only move with other ECP tank cars or ECP locomotives. 
The industry has highlighted the cost issue of the mandate while indicating the overlay system for tank cars and the conversion of ALL locomotives.  However, when push comes to shove, I wonder if they will take that most costly approach or figure out a way to dedicate locomotives and tank cars, thus limiting the cost of conversion. 
Incidentally, you had earlier asked if derailment detectors are used in the U.S.  As far as I know, there are no onboard derailment detectors used in the U.S. 
  • Member since
    January 2002
  • 4,612 posts
Posted by M636C on Saturday, February 20, 2016 6:07 PM

tree68

 

 
Euclid
Here is a USDOT report from 1999 showing a connector

 

Some indication of scale would have been nice in the picture - as it is, one can't tell if it's a half inch across or 6" (not Euc's fault).

This image shows that a little better: 

ECP Connector

 

 

There were similar views in the NYAB operator manual I posted a link to...

Of course, I can see the real thing on trains with an empty and a loaded passing East Maitland every fifteen minutes each and more than half the trains having ECP, so I hadn't considered the scale as being important.

The point is that you don't have to find a seventeen year old photo, the connectors and the rest of the system are in daily use, everything is off the shelf ready to use and all that has to happen is to decide to use it.

M636C

  • Member since
    December 2001
  • From: Northern New York
  • 25,026 posts
Posted by tree68 on Saturday, February 20, 2016 5:31 PM

Euclid
Here is a USDOT report from 1999 showing a connector

Some indication of scale would have been nice in the picture - as it is, one can't tell if it's a half inch across or 6" (not Euc's fault).

This image shows that a little better: 

ECP Connector

LarryWhistling
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...

  • Member since
    January 2002
  • From: Canterlot
  • 9,575 posts
Posted by zugmann on Saturday, February 20, 2016 5:30 PM

The GPS-assisted Herzog ballast trains have electrical connectors between the cars.  They uncouple themselves when you cut the train.  They look similar to the ones in the report Bucyrus cites.

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

  • Member since
    January 2002
  • 4,612 posts
Posted by M636C on Saturday, February 20, 2016 4:53 PM

Euclid
The only critical feedback that I have ever heard about ECP brakes in the U.S. testing experience has been about the connector problem.
Here is a USDOT report from 1999 showing a connector on pages 17 and 18.
It says that the earlier connector design had experienced problems during testing on Conrail, and had been redesigned to overcome those problems, and the new design is shown on page 18.  I conclude that the problem has been solved. 
Are these connectors made to decouple by the pull of the cars when cars are uncoupled and separated?  Or must an operator depress the spring button, and pull the two connectors apart by hand?
 

 

All the connectors in Australia are the AAR standard design.

I believe the connectors are designed to pull apart but I would expect that they would normally be disconnected manually by depressing the buttons.

I note that positive locking was one of the deficiencies raised in the USDOT report.

Of course, the trains don't get pulled apart very often. In the Hunter Valley, a train is given a number, painted on a small metal plate displayed on the nose of the lead locomotive, so the actual rake of cars can be identified, rather than the train's numerical identity in the timetable. Service tracks are provided so that empty trains can be inspected end to end while the locomotives can be refuelled and sanded still coupled to the train.

I expect that the connectors that see the most use would be between the locomotives and the train and between locomotives and I'd expect that these would be disconnected the same way as MU cables between locomotives.

M636C

  • Member since
    January 2014
  • 8,221 posts
Posted by Euclid on Saturday, February 20, 2016 8:07 AM
The only critical feedback that I have ever heard about ECP brakes in the U.S. testing experience has been about the connector problem.
Here is a USDOT report from 1999 showing a connector on pages 17 and 18.
It says that the earlier connector design had experienced problems during testing on Conrail, and had been redesigned to overcome those problems, and the new design is shown on page 18.  I conclude that the problem has been solved. 
Are these connectors made to decouple by the pull of the cars when cars are uncoupled and separated?  Or must an operator depress the spring button, and pull the two connectors apart by hand?
  • Member since
    January 2002
  • 4,612 posts
Posted by M636C on Saturday, February 20, 2016 4:09 AM

tree68

 

 
BaltACD
Would have to be totally reengineered for a rail use...

 

No doubt in my mind that they'd have to be ruggedized and then some.  The cable would probably have to have a strengthening cable within it which would be tied to both the plug and the car as well.  

The main thing is that there is no latch, as such, so the two connectors could easily be pulled apart, and that they are sexless.

On the other hand, if the ruggedized version was anything like the HEP cables we use, what a pain...  

 

 

I think these are the ones we use in Australia...

http://www.uic.org/cdrom/2001/wcrr2001/pdf/sessions/1_6/465.pdf

See figure 4. It is sexless, has a latch but is designed to survive being pulled apart.

As far as I've heard there have been no problems.

There is apparently a radio alternative illustrated (figure 3). While I spent much of my wasted youth looking at that exact type of ore car from that angle, I know nothing about radio ECP brakes and that company uses the standard connectors on their cables now.

There are details on pages 19 and 20 of

http://www.nyab.com/media/nyab_1/documents_1/technical/instructionpamphletsip/IP-237.pdf

Nothing needs to be developed. It's all there waiting to be purchased from well established USA companies.

It's been used for 11 years in Australia in daily service with no particular problems, and I don't believe our crews are any more gentle than those in the USA.

M636C

  • Member since
    December 2001
  • From: Northern New York
  • 25,026 posts
Posted by tree68 on Saturday, February 20, 2016 1:49 AM

BaltACD
Would have to be totally reengineered for a rail use...

No doubt in my mind that they'd have to be ruggedized and then some.  The cable would probably have to have a strengthening cable within it which would be tied to both the plug and the car as well.  

The main thing is that there is no latch, as such, so the two connectors could easily be pulled apart, and that they are sexless.

On the other hand, if the ruggedized version was anything like the HEP cables we use, what a pain...  

LarryWhistling
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...

  • Member since
    January 2014
  • 8,221 posts
Posted by Euclid on Friday, February 19, 2016 10:41 PM
I have read that there were problems with the connectors holding up during the testing of ECP brakes in the U.S.  I don’t know where it stands now, but I cannot see why the problem would be insurmountable.  They were probably just under designed for the application and its full range of wear, breakage, corrosion, etc. 
It would be interesting to see the current state of the art for these connectors, the older ones that failed, and the modes of failure. 
  • Member since
    October 2014
  • 1,644 posts
Posted by Wizlish on Friday, February 19, 2016 10:33 PM

blue streak 1
Could it be that the only way to maintain a good electrical connection would be for the connection become part of the air hose connection ?  Then a car knocker when hooking up the air hoses would have to spray contact cleaner on the electrical connection part.

It's worse than that.  Remember that this connection carries 220V power, so any sideways or rotating engagement could not project forward to where any errant hand or other body part would contact it -- might even need to be a safety shutter over the contacts.  Then you'd have to 'make' them firmly enough not to induce spark erosion if the connection vibrates.  I would suspect the car-knocker's solution would be to use some kind of dielectric grease for the 'surround' lubrication, rather than blowing it off clean.

Another consideration has to be the number of terminations and potential areas of QoS loss with all the connections in what amounts to a data network.  I suspect that the BITE equipment in the various valves and controllers of the brake system can work with this... but probably only if explicitly designed recognizing the problem.

My understanding was that a very large amount of thought and effort had gone into the current 'standard' for the Freight-Mate connectors and the design of the 'pigtails' back to the junction boxes on the car frames.  These are rigged so that if anything hangs up the pigtail pulls loose safely at the box end, and then can be easily field-replaced ... or so goes the theory.  I would think that if industry could have evolved either a modern Tomlinson approach to the electrical conductors, or incorporate them as noted into the air-hose gladhand, for loose-car-compatible operation or for blocks of cars intended to be run when necessary in normal service, the approach would have been either better tried or better documented.  (Passenger railroading is distinctly different...)

  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: US
  • 25,292 posts
Posted by BaltACD on Friday, February 19, 2016 10:26 PM

tree68

There actually is an electrical connector that would be analogous to the glad hand in that it would have to be "made" but would break easily.  I'm using a small version of the connectors (the Anderson "PowerPole") for my ham radios.  I'll let you look them up.

Those type connections are used for connecting external batteries for starting cars in racing.  Would have to be toally reengineered for a rail use and as they exist would experience a high level of wear, as well as weather problems over time.

Electrical connections and unattended disconnection of them sould like they have a high potential for recurring failure in the railroad world.

Never too old to have a happy childhood!

              

  • Member since
    December 2001
  • From: Northern New York
  • 25,026 posts
Posted by tree68 on Friday, February 19, 2016 9:29 PM

There actually is an electrical connector that would be analogous to the glad hand in that it would have to be "made" but would break easily.  I'm using a small version of the connectors (the Anderson "PowerPole") for my ham radios.  I'll let you look them up. 

Assuming that appropriate stress relief could be arranged, I'd suspect they would work.  

I'm only worried about a two conductor plug for supplying power to my radios.  If more electrical conductors were needed, it could probably be arranged, although it may be possible to code the braking signal on top of the supply voltage.

Properly designed, changing out a cable wouldn't be any more difficult than changing out an air hose.  They could easily be designed with appropriate metals to combat corrosion.

LarryWhistling
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...

  • Member since
    December 2007
  • From: Georgia USA SW of Atlanta
  • 11,919 posts
Posted by blue streak 1 on Friday, February 19, 2016 7:57 PM

Posted by blue streak 1 on Friday, February 19, 2016 8:53 PM

Could it be that the only way to maintain a good electrical connection would be for the connection become part of the air hose connection ?  Then a car knocker when hooking up the air hoses would have to spray contact cleaner on the electrical connection part.  UGH ! !.

 

  • Member since
    January 2014
  • 8,221 posts
Posted by Euclid on Friday, February 19, 2016 7:18 PM
M636C
 
Euclid
  
The main point of derailment detectors is to set the brakes as early as possible.  The type that are completely mechanical and used with conventional air brakes, must dynamite the brakes if they detect a derailment.  That has the potential to perturb the derailed-dragging car enough to cause a pileup, whereas, if left to drag without the “Emergency” application, the train may just stop for some other reason, resulting in the derailment being discovered. 
Last summer, a tank car load of acrylonitrile caught fire on the CSX in Tennessee.  As it was later learned, that car had been derailed and dragging for NINE MILES.  A derailment detector would have stopped the train as soon as the car derailed, and thus prevented the eventual fire that started from friction in the derailed truck.
The benefit of combining derailment detectors with ECP is that there need not be an emergency application initiated upon derailment.  A lighter application could be made in order to not upset the fragile equilibrium of a derailed-dragging car. Even if an “Emergency” application were initiated, it would apply simultaneously throughout the train, and thus reduce the risk of slack run-in perturbing the derailed-dragging car into causing a pileup. 
 

 

 

I'm certainly not opposed to derailment detectors, I've just never seen one....

Do many US freight cars carry these detectors?

It would seem to be a good idea to equip new oil tank wagons with these devices as a standard fit, given the likelihood of avoiding some derailment accidents.

Of course, the Lac Megantic disaster would not have been avoided by a derailment detector, since by the time the derailment occured, the unmanned train was travelling at a high speed and by definition was out of control.

The combination of ECP braking and derailment detectors on all cars of a block oil train would have positive results in the case of rails breaking under the train or an axle bearing failure. This might be regarded as justifiable on block oil trains and other tank cars of hazardous substances. Non tank cars carrying Ammonium Nitrate, preferably not mixed with oil tank cars, might be worth fitting.

But for general freight trains, unless all cars were fitted with derailment detectors, they will only work if a detector fitted car derails. A car with a detector could run for miles a few cars away from a derailed car without the actuator working.

M636C

 

M636C,
I did not mean to imply that you are opposed to derailment detectors.  I was just further elaborating on them and wanted to emphasize the nine mile incident of derailed-dragging.  It is the longest one that I have ever heard of but it may not be a record.
But aside from preventing the long drag event, I suspect that many pileups begin with some length of derailed-dragging and the application of brakes without waiting for the pileup to begin would reduce the number of cars joining the pileup.     
I agree that derailment detectors must be on every car, and perhaps every truck; unless there is some way of covering the whole train with derailment detection from a continuous lineside detector. 
As we are discussing, it is particularly advantageous to combine ECP brakes with derailment sensors because ECP provides a superior brake response to the derailment sensors compared to the mechanical response to derailment sensors from conventional air brakes.   
  • Member since
    September 2003
  • From: Omaha, NE
  • 10,621 posts
Posted by dehusman on Friday, February 19, 2016 1:22 PM

Probably the biggest objection to ECP is the "electronic control" part.  I would guess that the railroads view the weak link as the connections in the electrical control line through the train.  With a ore or maybe a coal train, that only couples, uncouples once or twice a trip, its not that bad.  But with other types of trains there will be more frequent coupling and uncoupling of the signal line. 

Think about a hump yard.  The electrical connection needs to stay reliable coupled but when the car is uncoupled, it has to part automatically without damage.  The connection has to be reliable enough that if it is uncoupled and then sits in a track for 3 months, exposed, without coupling into another car, it can at a moments notice be used again.

Not saying it isn't possible, just saying I think that was percieved by the railroads as the weak spot in the system.  Unit coal or ore trains might stay together (they don't always, only those on balloon loop loaders and unloaders.  All the other trains (unit or otherwise) couple and uncouple frequently and the connection reliability is a concern.

Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com

  • Member since
    January 2002
  • 4,612 posts
Posted by M636C on Thursday, February 18, 2016 7:48 PM

Euclid
  
The main point of derailment detectors is to set the brakes as early as possible.  The type that are completely mechanical and used with conventional air brakes, must dynamite the brakes if they detect a derailment.  That has the potential to perturb the derailed-dragging car enough to cause a pileup, whereas, if left to drag without the “Emergency” application, the train may just stop for some other reason, resulting in the derailment being discovered. 
Last summer, a tank car load of acrylonitrile caught fire on the CSX in Tennessee.  As it was later learned, that car had been derailed and dragging for NINE MILES.  A derailment detector would have stopped the train as soon as the car derailed, and thus prevented the eventual fire that started from friction in the derailed truck.
The benefit of combining derailment detectors with ECP is that there need not be an emergency application initiated upon derailment.  A lighter application could be made in order to not upset the fragile equilibrium of a derailed-dragging car. Even if an “Emergency” application were initiated, it would apply simultaneously throughout the train, and thus reduce the risk of slack run-in perturbing the derailed-dragging car into causing a pileup. 
 

I'm certainly not opposed to derailment detectors, I've just never seen one....

Do many US freight cars carry these detectors?

It would seem to be a good idea to equip new oil tank wagons with these devices as a standard fit, given the likelihood of avoiding some derailment accidents.

Of course, the Lac Megantic disaster would not have been avoided by a derailment detector, since by the time the derailment occured, the unmanned train was travelling at a high speed and by definition was out of control.

The combination of ECP braking and derailment detectors on all cars of a block oil train would have positive results in the case of rails breaking under the train or an axle bearing failure. This might be regarded as justifiable on block oil trains and other tank cars of hazardous substances. Non tank cars carrying Ammonium Nitrate, preferably not mixed with oil tank cars, might be worth fitting.

But for general freight trains, unless all cars were fitted with derailment detectors, they will only work if a detector fitted car derails. A car with a detector could run for miles a few cars away from a derailed car without the actuator working.

M636C

  • Member since
    January 2014
  • 8,221 posts
Posted by Euclid on Wednesday, February 17, 2016 7:15 PM
M636C
 
Euclid

 

M636C
I agree that the simultaneous application of ECP brakes would give an advantage over conventional air brakes in reducing the number of cars that enter a pileup resulting from a derailment. 
Even though that quicker stopping advantage of ECP is only a matter of 4-6 seconds; that is a major advantage in the timespan of a pileup.
Derailment sensors can add to that ECP advantage by eliminating the delay between the first wheelset to leave the rails, and the moment the pileup begins.
Derailment sensors can add a similar advantage with conventional air brakes, but ECP offers the communications cable to communicate the derailment sensor signal to the controller that sets an “Emergency” application.  Without the instant communication of the cable, derailment sensors with conventional air brakes typically work to dump the air on the first car to derail, and being the typical sequential application.
The potential slack run-in associated with this sequential “Emergency” application might actually trigger a pileup in a derailment that might otherwise not progress beyond the derailed-dragging phase.
With conventional air brakes, the pileup has to begin before the brake application can begin.  With ECP + derailment sensors, the application begins when the first wheelset derails which might be considerably earlier than the commencement of the pileup.  In some cases, the earlier application of ECP can actually prevent the pileup from beginning, as well as reducing the pileup if it does begin.   
 

 

 

 

I agree with every point here.

As I've said, I've not seen a derailment detector on a car.

There are fixed "dragging equipment detectors" which consist of cast iron bars beside and between the rails which wil be broken by a derailed wheel and send an alarm to the train crew and train controller.

Derailments are not a really big problem in Australia, certainly not with unit trains, although clearing up a loaded iron ore train which derails in a deep rock cutting is a real challenge.

Heavy rain undermining track is a problem. We had two bad incidents, a block train of concentrated sulphuric acid derailed the locomotive and thirty cars, all of which were on their sides and one tank car lost its load into the local river....

And an intermodal train rolled onto its side in remote Western Australia following heavy rain.

But derailment detectors of any kind don't help once the locomotives are lying on their side in the dirt.

In Australia the track is owned by the state governments and the main lines are maintained by the Federal government (what could possibly go wrong, I hear you say!).

One result of this is strict control of axle loading: Intermodal trains are allowed 22 long (2240lb) tons, grain is allowed 23 long tons and coal is allowed 25 tons or 30 tons on specific routes with heavier rail.

When the Federal government took over, a massive campaign to improve track took place with concrete ties on all main lnes and the replacement of automatic semaphore signalling (about a hundred years old) with LED light signals.

In some places, only a third of the ties were able to be pulled out without crumbling to dust. The ballast was basically dirt with a covering of crushed rock. Serious ballast cleaning is still taking place, but the removal of temporary speed restrictions, particularly in summer for fear of heat kinks has saved hours on the main intercity trips.

But I believe that limiting track loadings and improving the infrastructure has contributed to a significant reduction in "random" derailments.

M636C

 

The main point of derailment detectors is to set the brakes as early as possible.  The type that are completely mechanical and used with conventional air brakes, must dynamite the brakes if they detect a derailment.  That has the potential to perturb the derailed-dragging car enough to cause a pileup, whereas, if left to drag without the “Emergency” application, the train may just stop for some other reason, resulting in the derailment being discovered. 
Last summer, a tank car load of acrylonitrile caught fire on the CSX in Tennessee.  As it was later learned, that car had been derailed and dragging for NINE MILES.  A derailment detector would have stopped the train as soon as the car derailed, and thus prevented the eventual fire that started from friction in the derailed truck.
The benefit of combining derailment detectors with ECP is that there need not be an emergency application initiated upon derailment.  A lighter application could be made in order to not upset the fragile equilibrium of a derailed-dragging car. Even if an “Emergency” application were initiated, it would apply simultaneously throughout the train, and thus reduce the risk of slack run-in perturbing the derailed-dragging car into causing a pileup. 
  • Member since
    January 2002
  • 4,612 posts
Posted by M636C on Thursday, February 11, 2016 6:04 PM

Euclid

 

M636C
I agree that the simultaneous application of ECP brakes would give an advantage over conventional air brakes in reducing the number of cars that enter a pileup resulting from a derailment. 
Even though that quicker stopping advantage of ECP is only a matter of 4-6 seconds; that is a major advantage in the timespan of a pileup.
Derailment sensors can add to that ECP advantage by eliminating the delay between the first wheelset to leave the rails, and the moment the pileup begins.
Derailment sensors can add a similar advantage with conventional air brakes, but ECP offers the communications cable to communicate the derailment sensor signal to the controller that sets an “Emergency” application.  Without the instant communication of the cable, derailment sensors with conventional air brakes typically work to dump the air on the first car to derail, and being the typical sequential application.
The potential slack run-in associated with this sequential “Emergency” application might actually trigger a pileup in a derailment that might otherwise not progress beyond the derailed-dragging phase.
With conventional air brakes, the pileup has to begin before the brake application can begin.  With ECP + derailment sensors, the application begins when the first wheelset derails which might be considerably earlier than the commencement of the pileup.  In some cases, the earlier application of ECP can actually prevent the pileup from beginning, as well as reducing the pileup if it does begin.   
 

 

I agree with every point here.

As I've said, I've not seen a derailment detector on a car.

There are fixed "dragging equipment detectors" which consist of cast iron bars beside and between the rails which wil be broken by a derailed wheel and send an alarm to the train crew and train controller.

Derailments are not a really big problem in Australia, certainly not with unit trains, although clearing up a loaded iron ore train which derails in a deep rock cutting is a real challenge.

Heavy rain undermining track is a problem. We had two bad incidents, a block train of concentrated sulphuric acid derailed the locomotive and thirty cars, all of which were on their sides and one tank car lost its load into the local river....

And an intermodal train rolled onto its side in remote Western Australia following heavy rain.

But derailment detectors of any kind don't help once the locomotives are lying on their side in the dirt.

In Australia the track is owned by the state governments and the main lines are maintained by the Federal government (what could possibly go wrong, I hear you say!).

One result of this is strict control of axle loading: Intermodal trains are allowed 22 long (2240lb) tons, grain is allowed 23 long tons and coal is allowed 25 tons or 30 tons on specific routes with heavier rail.

When the Federal government took over, a massive campaign to improve track took place with concrete ties on all main lnes and the replacement of automatic semaphore signalling (about a hundred years old) with LED light signals.

In some places, only a third of the ties were able to be pulled out without crumbling to dust. The ballast was basically dirt with a covering of crushed rock. Serious ballast cleaning is still taking place, but the removal of temporary speed restrictions, particularly in summer for fear of heat kinks has saved hours on the main intercity trips.

But I believe that limiting track loadings and improving the infrastructure has contributed to a significant reduction in "random" derailments.

M636C

  • Member since
    March 2003
  • From: Central Iowa
  • 6,901 posts
Posted by jeffhergert on Thursday, February 11, 2016 5:55 PM

M636C
 
jeffhergert

 

 
blue streak 1

It may be the triple valves on unit trains do not cause many flat wheels ? The ECP appears to reduce triple valve failures of individual cas. So if mixed trains had ECP then maybe there would be much fewer flat wheels which could dramatically reduce wheel changes ?  Since many unit trains are private cars there is not incentative of freigh RRs to require ECP on private car trains. Their repair costs may be a profit center for the RRs ?

.Along that train of thought maybe the RR owned cars might give more bang for the buck ?

 

 

 

I would agree that manifest trains, with mixed equipment types might benefit more from ECP.  It would aid in controlling slack for trains that have a lot of long/cushioned drawbars.  Especially when they want to build them 9000 feet or more.    

Jeff

 

 

 

 

I'm not sure why general freight trains would benefit more from ECP.

The car utilisation is much lower and the return on investment would take longer to occur since the brakes and wheels and couplers and draft gear will last longer on individual cars.

The cost would be higher since virtually all the freight cars in North America would have to be fitted with ECP before it could be used in general freight trains and the introduction date would move so far right to be out of sight.

However, a unit train can start using ECP once one rake of cars (say 100) have been fitted and compatible locomotives are available. Most recent locomotive have brake controllers suitable for ECP. just needing the connecting cables to be fitted.

There may be more benefits in fitting general freight but the cost will be higher and timescales will be longer.

M636C

 

Train Handling.

Jeff

  • Member since
    January 2002
  • 4,612 posts
Posted by M636C on Thursday, February 11, 2016 5:28 PM

jeffhergert

 

 
blue streak 1

It may be the triple valves on unit trains do not cause many flat wheels ? The ECP appears to reduce triple valve failures of individual cas. So if mixed trains had ECP then maybe there would be much fewer flat wheels which could dramatically reduce wheel changes ?  Since many unit trains are private cars there is not incentative of freigh RRs to require ECP on private car trains. Their repair costs may be a profit center for the RRs ?

.Along that train of thought maybe the RR owned cars might give more bang for the buck ?

 

 

 

I would agree that manifest trains, with mixed equipment types might benefit more from ECP.  It would aid in controlling slack for trains that have a lot of long/cushioned drawbars.  Especially when they want to build them 9000 feet or more.    

Jeff

 

 

I'm not sure why general freight trains would benefit more from ECP.

The car utilisation is much lower and the return on investment would take longer to occur since the brakes and wheels and couplers and draft gear will last longer on individual cars.

The cost would be higher since virtually all the freight cars in North America would have to be fitted with ECP before it could be used in general freight trains and the introduction date would move so far right to be out of sight.

However, a unit train can start using ECP once one rake of cars (say 100) have been fitted and compatible locomotives are available. Most recent locomotive have brake controllers suitable for ECP. just needing the connecting cables to be fitted.

There may be more benefits in fitting general freight but the cost will be higher and timescales will be longer.

M636C

  • Member since
    January 2014
  • 8,221 posts
Posted by Euclid on Thursday, February 11, 2016 2:43 PM
M636C
 
Euclid

 

M636C,

Do they use derailment sensors on the car trucks of the ECP-equipped trains in Australia?

 

 

 

I've never seen a derailment sensor on any freight car truck...

Lots of empty/loaded detectors, but that's it.

In my statements earlier I was assuming the automatic feature of an emergency application following a break in the air pipe would initiate braking on all cars before and after the break instantaneously, reducing the run in and force on the derailed cars from the following cars still on the track.

While this automatic braking would also occur with a conventional train, the reduction in delay for the braking to take effect on the following cars should reduce damage in a derailment.

M636C 

 

M636C
I agree that the simultaneous application of ECP brakes would give an advantage over conventional air brakes in reducing the number of cars that enter a pileup resulting from a derailment. 
Even though that quicker stopping advantage of ECP is only a matter of 4-6 seconds; that is a major advantage in the timespan of a pileup.
Derailment sensors can add to that ECP advantage by eliminating the delay between the first wheelset to leave the rails, and the moment the pileup begins.
Derailment sensors can add a similar advantage with conventional air brakes, but ECP offers the communications cable to communicate the derailment sensor signal to the controller that sets an “Emergency” application.  Without the instant communication of the cable, derailment sensors with conventional air brakes typically work to dump the air on the first car to derail, and being the typical sequential application.
The potential slack run-in associated with this sequential “Emergency” application might actually trigger a pileup in a derailment that might otherwise not progress beyond the derailed-dragging phase.
With conventional air brakes, the pileup has to begin before the brake application can begin.  With ECP + derailment sensors, the application begins when the first wheelset derails which might be considerably earlier than the commencement of the pileup.  In some cases, the earlier application of ECP can actually prevent the pileup from beginning, as well as reducing the pileup if it does begin.   
  • Member since
    March 2003
  • From: Central Iowa
  • 6,901 posts
Posted by jeffhergert on Wednesday, February 10, 2016 11:07 PM

blue streak 1

As far as this poster can see the jury is still out on ECP.  However maybe it needs to be looked at in a different way.  It may be mixed freight trains need ECP much more than unit trains. 

1. Unit trains of Coal, grain, oil, iron ore, pipe line, and to a lesser extent intermodal all share common characteristics.

2.  They are all either full cars or empty tare weight cars throughout the train.

3.  Weight of each car for a specific train is nominally the same.

4.  Normal hearing of a train allows observer to determine if a unit train.

5.  The lack of the usual rattling of a mixed train is usually only on none or just a few cars for unit trains.

It may be the triple valves on unit trains do not cause many flat wheels ? The ECP appears to reduce triple valve failures of individual cas. So if mixed trains had ECP then maybe there would be much fewer flat wheels which could dramatically reduce wheel changes ?  Since many unit trains are private cars there is not incentative of freigh RRs to require ECP on private car trains. Their repair costs may be a profit center for the RRs ?

.Along that train of thought maybe the RR owned cars might give more bang for the buck ?

 

I would agree that manifest trains, with mixed equipment types might benefit more from ECP.  It would aid in controlling slack for trains that have a lot of long/cushioned drawbars.  Especially when they want to build them 9000 feet or more.    

Jeff

  • Member since
    January 2002
  • 4,612 posts
Posted by M636C on Wednesday, February 10, 2016 11:02 PM

tree68

 

 
M636C
Suppose that in the case of unit coal trains being able to run faster allows one more return trip per week, say nine rather than eight, your return on investment has gone up 12.5%.

 

Methinks this is where the ROI is - on unit trains.  With loose car railroading, the "who cares" factors in.  I've read that for many customers, it's not the speed with which the load arrives, it's the consistency.  The length of the trips makes a difference, too.  

If ECP can do something about terminal dwell, then your 75% faster factors in.  Otherwise, the car just gets to the yard that much faster - so it can sit or otherwise be processed.

And speed has less to do with ECP and more to do with the capabilities of the track over which the trains run.  That new, fancy brake system in my personal vehicle won't get me to where I'm going in 75% of the time unless the state decides to raise the speed limits.  And if I'm running a little 4 cylinder engine in my Rolls Kanardly, it doesn't make any difference how quickly the brakes release.

I'm sure ECP will have its day - probably when PTC increases capacity.  

 

 

All of my arguments are based on fitting ECP to unit trains, partly because that is all I have any experience with.

Many of the Hunter Valley unit coal trains make a return trip in 24 hours or less.

Those in Queensland generally run further with longer journeys.

In the Hunter Valley, the trains are all hopper cars with automatically triggered air operated bottom doors and the trains move continuously through both the loader and unloaders. Unloading takes about two hours for 80 cars carrying 100 tonnes (about 110 US tons) each. There are about ten separate unloaders.

Recently five storage tracks were built for loaded trains to allow for delay at the unloaders without tying up the main lines.

A lot of the journey time for a freight train is involved in stopping at junction points or at signals while following other trains. ECP trains and conventional trains run interspersed with eachother. Being able to accelerate from a signal check more quickly using the power you already have reduces the delay for following trains regardless of the brakes they use.

I'm sure you've experienced the "compression effect" driving on a freeway where long after some event caused a car to brake, following cars slow and speed up again. On double track automatic signalled track (which makes up a lot of the Australian coal routes) ECP brakes reduce delays to following trains. In Queensland where a lot of the network is electrified, this effect is greater still.

So in the case of unit trains, I believe ECP brakes reduce journey time without the top speeds needing to be raised.

M636C

  • Member since
    January 2002
  • 4,612 posts
Posted by M636C on Wednesday, February 10, 2016 10:37 PM

Euclid

 

M636C,

Do they use derailment sensors on the car trucks of the ECP-equipped trains in Australia?

 

I've never seen a derailment sensor on any freight car truck...

Lots of empty/loaded detectors, but that's it.

In my statements earlier I was assuming the automatic feature of an emergency application following a break in the air pipe would initiate braking on all cars before and after the break instantaneously, reducing the run in and force on the derailed cars from the following cars still on the track.

While this automatic braking would also occur with a conventional train, the reduction in delay for the braking to take effect on the following cars should reduce damage in a derailment.

M636C 

Join our Community!

Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.

Search the Community

Newsletter Sign-Up

By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy