tree68 I'm sure ECP will have its day - probably when PTC increases capacity.
I'm sure ECP will have its day - probably when PTC increases capacity.
And when pigs get airborne with their own aerodynamics and propulsion.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
M636CSuppose 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.
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...
M636C tree68 ECP may offer a reduction of stopping distance, but most of the time - who cares? Would you spend an extra 10% on an automobile that had special equipment that allowed you to stop just that much faster and extended the life of your brakes and tires by some amount? Or would you settle for planning ahead as you do now and being able to stop in the current distances? Do you spend so much on brake shoes/pads and tires that the extended life would pay for the extra cost of the fancy system? Suppose this car needed a dealer service every six months which you had to pay for, but by buying the special equipment this stretched out to every two years with the same cost per servicing. And you found that you could get where you were going consistently in 75% of the time you took without the special equipment. Would you think twice? 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%. On a couple of occasions on different systems, I've been driving alongside empty ECP coal trains on a parallel road where the road and rail speed limits were similar and watched as the empty coal trains accelerated away from a restriction quickly (not having to wait for the final cars to release) and drew well away from me while I was driving slightly above the speed limit. In both cases, the locomotives were new and their speed indicators probably read low because of new slightly oversize wheels... I can't think of any cases where the same occurred with Westinghouse trains. The higher speed and greater availability do count... M636C
tree68 ECP may offer a reduction of stopping distance, but most of the time - who cares? Would you spend an extra 10% on an automobile that had special equipment that allowed you to stop just that much faster and extended the life of your brakes and tires by some amount? Or would you settle for planning ahead as you do now and being able to stop in the current distances? Do you spend so much on brake shoes/pads and tires that the extended life would pay for the extra cost of the fancy system?
ECP may offer a reduction of stopping distance, but most of the time - who cares?
Would you spend an extra 10% on an automobile that had special equipment that allowed you to stop just that much faster and extended the life of your brakes and tires by some amount?
Or would you settle for planning ahead as you do now and being able to stop in the current distances? Do you spend so much on brake shoes/pads and tires that the extended life would pay for the extra cost of the fancy system?
Suppose this car needed a dealer service every six months which you had to pay for, but by buying the special equipment this stretched out to every two years with the same cost per servicing.
And you found that you could get where you were going consistently in 75% of the time you took without the special equipment.
Would you think twice?
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%.
On a couple of occasions on different systems, I've been driving alongside empty ECP coal trains on a parallel road where the road and rail speed limits were similar and watched as the empty coal trains accelerated away from a restriction quickly (not having to wait for the final cars to release) and drew well away from me while I was driving slightly above the speed limit.
In both cases, the locomotives were new and their speed indicators probably read low because of new slightly oversize wheels...
I can't think of any cases where the same occurred with Westinghouse trains.
The higher speed and greater availability do count...
M636C
M636C,
Do they use derailment sensors on the car trucks of the ECP-equipped trains in Australia?
M636CEven if ECP does nothing to reduce emergency stopping distances, it might result in fewer cars derailing in an emergency brake application since the influence of longitudinal train action ir removed from the equation. Since derailments of oil trains is the problem to be avoided, ECP braking can only help.
ECP may somewhat increase capacity slightly on capacity constrained lines - but if a line only entertains a few trains a day, that's no advantage. If a line is signalled for a certain speed and train spacing, it doesn't really make a difference.
Maybe after PTC is fully implemented on capacity contrained lines, allowing slightly closer train spacing...
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 ?
Euclid What difference does it make how old the Cartier reference is? It is still pertinent. And is also making your argument. In any case, I was not offering the reference to Cartier as part of a competition between the U.S. and Australia. Regarding your question as to whether stopping distance is the only measure of merit: No, there are other measures of merit, but again, I was not referring to stopping distance as part of a compilation of pros and cons in a competition between ECP and conventional air brakes. I have no stake in either one. My point was only about stopping distance, and my feeling that it has been used to misrepresent ECP. The stopping distance is around 5% shorter with ECP in the “Emergency” application, as you say. But I have seen many references that simply state that the stopping distance with ECP is around 60-70% less than with conventional air brakes. They never say that is the stopping distance for “Service” applications only. Regardless of all the other benefits, quick stopping is the one that the most people can relate to in regard to safety concerns. And at the same time, they will have absolutely no clue that there are TWO different kinds of stopping distance. As you must know, the U.S. railroads vigorously argued against the need for ECP brakes on oil trains when the mandate loomed up. Their strongest argument was that the conventional air brakes could stop in “Emergency” almost as quickly as ECP brakes; if the train with conventional air brakes were equipped to dump the air from the road engine, the EOT, and the distributed power locomotives simultaneously. You ask why U.S. railroads are not enthused about ECP. Whatever their reasons, I would say they elaborated on them with the greatest clarity in the month or so leading up to the oil train ECP mandate. Prior to that, I don’t recall much argument against ECP.
You ask why U.S. railroads are not enthused about ECP. Whatever their reasons, I would say they elaborated on them with the greatest clarity in the month or so leading up to the oil train ECP mandate. Prior to that, I don’t recall much argument against ECP.
BaltACD First off - whoever took the signal down without contacting the engineer of the train to see if he could make a controlled stop of the train BEFORE passing the signal should be FIRED! Taking a signal away without notice is a sure way to create the mess you discribed - no matter the braking system.
First off - whoever took the signal down without contacting the engineer of the train to see if he could make a controlled stop of the train BEFORE passing the signal should be FIRED! Taking a signal away without notice is a sure way to create the mess you discribed - no matter the braking system.
I wasn't involved in the enquiry followng the incident but I believe they started off by blaming the locomotive crew.
The operator in the yard tower should have been able to see our headlight although he might not have realised how close we were.
The same situation can be created by a motor vehicle driving onto a grade crossing without looking.
My view is that the yard controller was at fault, but my point was that the stopping distance in emergency braking is not the only consideration. Emergency is just that. It isn't one more step in controlled braking, it is intended for life or death situations and the current air brake system does an excellent job of stopping a train in a minimum distance.
I've seen ECP trains stop just as quickly. What impressed me was the much greater degree of control during maximum braking.
The same sort of yo-yo effects occur on the road every time a long train brakes, and problems can occur in starting if the rear of the train hasn't released its brakes by the time it starts moving.
I actually had instrumented couplers measuring train forces on that particular train but of course the equipment was turned off at the time. I would have loved to know what the forces were. It might not have been recorded anyway. There was 2000 metres of coaxial cable strung down the side of the train which just disappeared in the whiplash. We never found any of it and it cost then a dollar per metre.
Don't locomotives still have independent brakes? The engineer must be sure to use the train brake if he needs to stop quickly. Fifty-three years ago, I was going up to Bristol on the Pelican. Just before we were ready to leave Birminghm by heading out to the main, an L&N train began coming down to the crossing with the Southern--and the L&N gate watchman threw the gate across the Southern track almost in the face of the engineer of a freight that was headed for Sheffield. Sad to say, the engineer of the Southern freight must have had his hand on the independent brake valve, for he stopped the engine in time--and derailed some of the cars and blocking both tracks to the main. As it was, we were able to back to North Birmingham and then use another track to Woodlawn Junction and take the main from there. I do not doubt that the L&N watchman and the Southern engineer were spoken to sharply.
Johnny
M636C Euclid The Cartier Railway in Canada uses ECP brakes: http://www.canadianminingjournal.com/features/quebec-cartier-pioneers-safer-more-efficient-railroad-brakes/ Clearly ECP offers benefits, but there is one factor of performance that I believe has been misrepresented in bad faith. That factor is stopping distance. ECP is typically promoted as offering a dramatic reduction in stopping distance. But the claim carefully avoids the condition that it only applies to “Service” applications. For “Emergency” applications, the ECP stopping distance advantage is minor. It is an odd stipulation that would only come into play with train brakes. For any other type of vehicle, “stopping distance” naturally implies “shortest stopping distance.” So I conclude that ECP promoters have been intentionally disingenuous in the claim of shortening stopping distance. Perhaps that is one reason why we now have an ECP mandate for oil trains. That Quebec Cartier reference is nine years old.... There are four similar railroads in Australia that are fully ECP: BHP Billiton, Rio Tinto, Fortescue and Roy Hill. But none in the USA? Is shortening the stopping distance the only measure of merit for emergency braking?
Euclid The Cartier Railway in Canada uses ECP brakes: http://www.canadianminingjournal.com/features/quebec-cartier-pioneers-safer-more-efficient-railroad-brakes/ Clearly ECP offers benefits, but there is one factor of performance that I believe has been misrepresented in bad faith. That factor is stopping distance. ECP is typically promoted as offering a dramatic reduction in stopping distance. But the claim carefully avoids the condition that it only applies to “Service” applications. For “Emergency” applications, the ECP stopping distance advantage is minor. It is an odd stipulation that would only come into play with train brakes. For any other type of vehicle, “stopping distance” naturally implies “shortest stopping distance.” So I conclude that ECP promoters have been intentionally disingenuous in the claim of shortening stopping distance. Perhaps that is one reason why we now have an ECP mandate for oil trains.
M636CPerhaps many USA railroad managers have never been on a locomotive
Fixed that for you.
Norm
M636C I was on a Rio Tinto (then called Hamersley Iron) iron ore train that made an emergency application in 1978. The train was within sight of the "Seven Mile" yard when the yard controller changed his mind about which track we were to use and a signal reversed from green to red as we approached at about 40 MPH. To avoid passing the signal at red, the driver applied emergency braking. The train consisted of a C36-7 leading and two M636 with 220 cars carrying 100 long tons of ore each. These cars were married pairs with drawbars, so there were only 110 triple valves. It was a warm fine clear day. The load behind the locomotives would have been around 25 000 long tons. We were lucky not to derail. The train broke in five places, one being a drawbar that pulled out of a broken yoke. Fortunately we were on double track so we didn't block the line but it took hours to get the train into the yard. M636C
M636C All the Australian equipment involved uses couplers and brakes that reflect AAR standards and the ECP equipment is from US suppliers. It is no more difficult to convert to ECP in the USA than Australia but in Australia, much, maybe most of the total freight task by weight is carried on ECP trains while in the USA, as far as I can tell none is.... If there is a positive return on investment from ECP in Australia, the same must apply in the USA. So why is there a ten year lead in applying ECP brakes in Australia? The only reason I can see is reluctance by US railroads to use equipment they could buy off the shelf, today, in large enough quantities from US suppliers to fit entire unit trains they are already operating. M636C
http://cs.trains.com/trn/b/fred-frailey/archive/2015/05/13/railroads-and-their-money.aspx
(Fred Frailey blog May 13,2015)
Euclid My point in asking for further information was simply to see verification that such a system has been in use, as was said to be the case by someone earlier. Why do you think there is reluctance to adopt ECP for the U.S. railroad system?
My point in asking for further information was simply to see verification that such a system has been in use, as was said to be the case by someone earlier.
Why do you think there is reluctance to adopt ECP for the U.S. railroad system?
M636C Euclid Backing up a bit: Does anybody have a further explanation or a link to information about using an EOT to mirror a service application of air brakes when one is initiated from the cab? Would an End of Train Device be able to replicate all of the actions of a locomotive brake controller? It would need a pretty complex air brake valve and serious control data arriving by radio link... Has anyone done a survey to see if Railroads resisted the Westinghouse automatic air brake when first intoduced as seriously as they are trying to avoid ECP brakes. All these suggestions about how to get a result not quite as good as ECP by adding complications to the existing system sound like saying that by using more brakemen spaced down the train and developing a better set of whistle signals would give you a result nearly as good as air brakes (as an excuse for not adopting air brakes).....
Euclid Backing up a bit: Does anybody have a further explanation or a link to information about using an EOT to mirror a service application of air brakes when one is initiated from the cab?
Would an End of Train Device be able to replicate all of the actions of a locomotive brake controller? It would need a pretty complex air brake valve and serious control data arriving by radio link...
Has anyone done a survey to see if Railroads resisted the Westinghouse automatic air brake when first intoduced as seriously as they are trying to avoid ECP brakes.
All these suggestions about how to get a result not quite as good as ECP by adding complications to the existing system sound like saying that by using more brakemen spaced down the train and developing a better set of whistle signals would give you a result nearly as good as air brakes (as an excuse for not adopting air brakes).....
Just to be clear, I was not advocating such an EOT alternative to ECP. I agree with your assessment of the complications of making a service application with the EOT that mirrors one made from the head end. I mentioned those complications earlier. My point in asking for further information was simply to see verification that such a system has been in use, as was said to be the case by someone earlier.
NorthWest I don't think actual speeds will increase, but ECP's quicker brake application and release rates will allow trains to travel at track speed for longer and thus get over the road faster.
I don't think actual speeds will increase, but ECP's quicker brake application and release rates will allow trains to travel at track speed for longer and thus get over the road faster.
On a visit to Jilalan in Central Queensland a few years ago, when Pacific National had just started running their ECP trains and Aurizon were only operating non ECP trains, I was waiting at the north end of this big yard to photograph coal trains on their way to Dalrymple Bay (the second largest coal export port in Australia).
Owing to congestion at the port, these trains may have to stop at any of four or five signals between the yard and the port, and the Aurizon trains with their three electric locomotives crept through at maybe ten miles an hour ready to stop at any signal ahead.
The Pacific National trains rolled through at 30 miles an hour, not track speed but relatively much faster. I recall this because I missed a photo of the PN train as I'd not left myself enough time to get in position.
The difference was that the ECP train could run faster confident that it could stop in a much shorter distance without damage to the train.
Another demonstation in the Hunter Valley was a signal failure at Tarro. At the time, there was a crossover to allow loaded trains to use the westbound (empty) track if the eastbound (loaded) track was congested with standing loaded trains.
I had observed a signal technician working at the crossover and the associated westbound signal protecting the crossover.
An Aurizon westbound empty coal train approached pretty much at track speed (50 MPH for unit trains) and headed under the road bridge I was standing on.
The next thing I noticed, as I turned to look at the receding train was that the westbound train had stopped well clear of the crossover signal. There was no run in or even noticeable noise. The train just stopped silently from 50 MPH in less than its length (it was empty).
I looked at the signal and it was displaying red, amber and green aspects at about one second intervals in succession continuously. It is clear why the train made what must have been an emergency stop, but it did so without any longitudinal train action and it departed without a single skidded wheel as soon as Control explained that the track was clear and the signal had failed.
Both these examples support North West's contention that trains will get over the road faster with ECP braking.
And remember, this isn't theory. These trains run like this every day, and the owners are happy to spend whatever extra it costs to get both the improved performance and the reduced maintenance. Suppose the train affected by the failed signal had been a conventional train with eighty empty hoppers. Even with the relatively new Westinghouse equipment with empty/loaded detection, I don't imagine they would have avoided a few skidded wheels in an emergency stop from 50 MPH.
None of this is theory. It works every day. The equipment comes from US suppliers like Wabco. It is off the shelf. All you have to do is buy it and watch your operating costs fall away.
Don't count on it with the implementation of PTC and the use of 'Trip Optimizer' and similar applications.
It's been my understanding, perhaps wrongly, that the first cars equipped with ECP equipment will be be capable of operating in either ECP or conventional mode. That is, if a car is in a train made up of all ECP capable cars and operated in that mode, the car's brake system would be in ECP mode. If that car is set out for mechanical reasons, it would be able to be picked up by a conventional train. It's brake system then working conventionally. (It's the same with the locomotive brake valves. They will be able to work in one mode or the other, but not both at the same time.)
I've seen some newer equipment over the last few years (mainly hoppers, both open and covered) that have air brake equipment with some extra hoses and other hardware that I've been told has to do with ECP. Those cars aren't fully equipped, but the extra items make a conversion to ECP that much faster later on.
I'm not sure that ECP will allow faster freight trains in the US. While it might eliminate or modify some tons per operative brake restrictions for some trains, I don't think it will make heavy bulk commodity trains less damaging to the track structure. I don't see them raising the speed for loaded coal trains above the current 50 mph for us.
Jeff
One thing I may not have mentioned it that while the Iron Ore lines in the Pilbara in Western Australia have pretty much fully converted to ECP being the "captive lines running unit trains" Tree68 mentioned, the Hunter Valley lines carry passenger trains and the coal trains of the three major operators and other freight (intermodal, grain, cement and heavy metal concentrates mainly) from at least three additional operators. There are dedicated "coal lines" for about twenty miles from the port, but these were opened a hundred years ago to separate trains of privately owned coal wagons with no air brakes from the passenger trains. They now keep the ECP brake coal trains from being delayed by commuter trains.
So the ECP coal trains run among non ECP coal and non ECP general freight and passenger trains (all of which have EP brakes).
The same situation applies in Central Queensland where ECP coal trains (both diesel and electric hauled on the same lines) and non ECP coal trains (both diesel and electric) from three operators Aurizon, Pacific National and BMA share with general freight and passenger traffic.
On both systems, the need to set out ECP cars has been almost negligible, partly at least because ECP makes the cars more reliable by reducing brake wear and wheel defects caused by sticking triple valves at the rear of long trains.
Before they converted to ECP Rio Tinto made up their trains with the oldest cars in the middle, and put their newest cars on each end so that the newest triple valves were always trailing, and they didn't do that because someone thought it looked good.
A straight ECP car can be run in a normal train under battery power with the ECP valve emulating a triple valve and this should cover most emergencies. A car which might need to operate for extended periods could be fitted with both ECP and conventional brakes (at the extra cost of only the triple valve) but this requires manual changeover.
In Australia, there is almost no loose car traffic. Cars are switched between trains en route, but most trains are dedicated intermodal, steel, coal or grain. Pacific National started adding steel cars to intermodal and vice versa at the beginning of the last economic downturn so that they could maintain the same service with fewer trains.
But in Australia, the need for interoperability is no less, the operators have just decided that ECP will save them money and went ahead with it.
I would expect that there will be a gradual decline in loose car operation in the USA. I believe more freight goes in intermodal trains than loose cars now.
And since the USA railroads own their own track, they must have fewer external reasons not to adopt ECP.
Electroliner 1935By the way, is your house sprinkled?
Unfortunately, no.
Then, again, it was built in 1840 with real lumber (as opposed to the toothpicks and cardboard they use these days).
And there is the cost - while new construction can run $1.50 a square foot, retrofits are closer to $5.00 a square foot (and up). At this point in my life, I'll settle for safe practices and working smoke detectors.
If I built a new one, I'm sure I'd include sprinklers.
tree68The fire service has been campaigning for years for residential sprinklers (in the house, not on the lawn). This is also a proven technology which will save lives and property. Chief objection (from the builders) is the additional cost to the home buyer (around $1.50 per square foot).
I had an experience while in college. I was a student stage electical operator and ran the light board. Back when the auditoium was built, the board had wiring that was rubber and cloth insulation and the light dimmers were big pancake rheostats that put out a lot of heat. The head stage electrician was a former pullman conductor, (Dry campus, he still loved his whiskey) but he was off, and another student was left in charge one day. Got a call from him that the board just burned up. When I got there, it seemed like all of Cincinnati's fire department was there. Sprinklers contained it. Only casualty was the board. Smoke damage clean up and aquiring a new board put the place OOS for about five month's. Turned out that someone had installed an outlet by the board but had just fed it from the bus bars with #12 wire and NO FUSE. Plug in a defective cord and the wire overheated, burst into flame and ignighted the boards wiring. Made an impression.
By the way, is your house sprinkled?
Probably one thing holding back implemation of ECP on unit trains (aside from cost and the fact that the money is needed for PTC right now) is the fact that unlike captive lines running unit trains, any car in any train must be capable of being handled as a single car.
Inasmuch as general traffic will likely be the last to get ECP, an ECP equipped car must be able to be handled by a non-ECP train should it need to be set out for any sort of problem. If it can't be handled as standard brakes, it needs to be handled as a car without brakes, which has its own set of conditions.
Of course, this issue has been discussed before.
Railroads aren't the only industry facing such issues. The fire service has been campaigning for years for residential sprinklers (in the house, not on the lawn). This is also a proven technology which will save lives and property. Chief objection (from the builders) is the additional cost to the home buyer (around $1.50 per square foot).
Someone correct if wrong. Early EMUs including subways migrated to electric braking control from air only. Only with separations of a train would air system apply brakes in emergency.
Now almost all EMUs being built have provision for most braking to be regenerative. For those transit systems or some system routes not yet with provisions for regeneration the regeneration is disabled. Now only if regeneration is not working for any reason is electrical braking used with the air backup.
Amtrak has provisions thru the car control ( not loco control ) 27 point connectors to apply brakes electrically. But with the extended range dynamic / regeneration now available Amtrak has not pursued that option. The blended brake system seems to work fine. Now it could be the if a lenghtened Amtrak Autotrain is allowed then electric braking might be activated on those trains in certain conditions.
M636CHave BNSF and UP (or third parties providing vehicles for coal trains) not purchased new coal wagons in the last ten years?
I don't have any idea on their equipment purchases but both BNSF and UP in the progressive railroad article I read have ECP equipped freight trains they have tested in Coal Unit Train service. Not sure about intermodal as I only scanned the article.
Norm48327 Euclid but the grim reality of universal conversion has set in. More like the grim reality of congress mandating the railroads spend their own money on something that is of little benefit to them. PTC is a huge expenditure that the railroads have to cover. There is just so much money in the coffers yet congress thinks the rails have unlimited budgets.
Euclid but the grim reality of universal conversion has set in.
More like the grim reality of congress mandating the railroads spend their own money on something that is of little benefit to them. PTC is a huge expenditure that the railroads have to cover. There is just so much money in the coffers yet congress thinks the rails have unlimited budgets.
Euclidbut the grim reality of universal conversion has set in.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.