Electronic Braking

[Euclid]

schlimm

 

Euclid

I would think that if Westinghouse announced that he was against electricity and for compressed air, that would indicate that there were a lot of people advocating electricity for train brakes at that time-- for both powering and controlling.    

 

 

If we see evidence, so much the better.  But keep in mind railroad engines did not have generators for lighting passenger cars until well after Westinghouse introduced his triple valve.  Pintsch lighting systems were commonly used on many lines into the 20th century, when electric lights replaced them for safety reasons.  So it seems highly unlikely that others were advocating electric braking in the 1875-1890 period.

 

During the power brake development era, one method was the so called momentum brake, or buffer brake.

In his book, The American Railroad Freight Car, author John White says this on page 538 in a section about the development and trials of the buffer brake:

“Electrical control was an old idea going back to the 1860s.  It was revived in the early 1880s by the Waldumer Electric Brake Company of Cincinnati.  But there were others living in the Queen City who felt that dependence on batteries and wires was not the right way to overcome the failings of the buffer brake.”

[schlimm]

Thank you both for the research.  The idea of using electricity to activate braking in some manner did not seem to catch on here, although it did in Great Britain in passenger services.

[erikem]

PoC,

Another reference is White's The American Railroad Passenger Car pages 555-556. This was after the original triple valve but contemporary with the quick action valve. WABCO introduced the HSC electro-pneumatic brake in 1932 for high speed passenger car service.

Compressed air does have a lot of advantages for powering brakes - the compressed air by itself is a form of stored energy, just needing a pressure vessel of some sort. An additional advantage is that an air leak does not create an environmental problem.

 - Erik

[Paul of Covington]

   First, I'm not getting into a discussion of the meaning of electric vs electronic.

   In the book "The American Railway" (about 1889), H. G. Prout, editor, "Railroad Gazette" writes of the Burlington brake-trials of 1886 & 1887.   He says that in 1887 "it was shown that by bringing in electricity to activate the air valves, the application of the brakes could be made practically simultaneous throughout the train."   He then adds that Westinghouse made improvements to his system that made his system practical.

   The book is here:

https://archive.org/details/americanrailway00clargoog

   I loaded it in PDF.   Go to page 200 in the book (PDF page 235).

[schlimm]

Euclid

I would think that if Westinghouse announced that he was against electricity and for compressed air, that would indicate that there were a lot of people advocating electricity for train brakes at that time-- for both powering and controlling.    

If we see evidence, so much the better.  But keep in mind railroad engines did not have generators for lighting passenger cars until well after Westinghouse introduced his triple valve.  Pintsch lighting systems were commonly used on many lines into the 20th century, when electric lights replaced them for safety reasons.  So it seems highly unlikely that others were advocating electric braking in the 1875-1890 period.

[M636C]

SD70M-2Dude

 

 

 

 

Interesting, can the ECP-equipped cars be mixed with conventional ones in a train, or are they not interoperable?

And even if ECP can be made interoperable with conventional air brakes there will still be a big obstacle to its adoption over here:  the Class I's love of the status quo and resistance to change of any kind.

 

 

Cars equipped with ECP braking only are not interoperable in normal terms since electrical power from the 250 v DC train bus line is needed to actuate the brake valves. There is an "emulation" mode where the cars can be switched and transferred short distances using the ECP system reacting to brake line pressure with power supplied by batteries on the car.

This is generally enough to move cars to workshops for maintenance.

Some cars are dual fitted with both ECP and conventional triple valves but require to be switched between modes (I believe manually, car by car). One operator in Australia, Centennial Coal have two rakes which are dual fitted.

The first batch of Glencore hoppers arrived with full ECP equipment but were set up to use triple valves so that they could be hauled by conventional locomotives until the new locomotives were available, when the triple valves were removed and they used ECP exclusively.

While it would cost more to fit both ECP and conventional braking, it would meet the requirements of interoperability. Procedures would have to be instituted to ensure that the vehicles were in the correct mode for whichever type of train it is to be included.

The downturn in coal traffic has reached Australia, and in addition, Pacific National has lost a major haulage contract to Freightliner. Apart from involving a change from conventional to ECP trains, it is suggested that Pacific National with withdraw many of its ballasted non ECP DC traction coal locomotives, since they cost more to run than AC units hauling ECP trains.

M636C

[Euclid]

schlimm

 

Wizlish

he point I wanted to establish, and missed, was that electrically-controlled proportional operation of brakes was developed prior to the invention of the triple valve.  erikem has, I think, corroborated this. 

 

 

I read Erik's comments.  I do not think he corroborated your modified contention.  He said, "As for electrically controlled braking, one of Westinghouse's chief motivation for improving the triple valve was that he didn't want to use electrical control of the air brakes."     So what electrically controlled air brake system existed at the time of Westinghouse's invention?  I would say there was NONE.  As in history and most/all other fields, show us the evidence.

 

 

This raises the question of whether we are talking about specifically Westinghouse’s air brake development; or if we are talking about the general state of the art development, as Wizlish seems to be referring to.  I would think that if Westinghouse announced that he was against electricity and for compressed air, that would indicate that there were a lot of people advocating electricity for train brakes at that time-- for both powering and controlling.    

I wonder what the patent files show for the appllicaton of electricity and compressed air for the time of railroad power brake development.

[schlimm]

Wizlish

he point I wanted to establish, and missed, was that electrically-controlled proportional operation of brakes was developed prior to the invention of the triple valve.  erikem has, I think, corroborated this. 

Getting facts straight is not a 'pissing contest' regardless of some peoples' discomfort.  I read Erik's comments.  I do not think he corroborated your modified contention.  He said, "As for electrically controlled braking, one of Westinghouse's chief motivation for improving the triple valve was that he didn't want to use electrical control of the air brakes."     So what electrically controlled air brake system existed at the time of Westinghouse's invention?  I would say there was NONE.  As in history and most/all other fields, show us the evidence.

Robinson's 1872 ATC used a DC current and detection, essentially a signaling/train occupation detection advance.  https://www.princeton.edu/~ota/disk3/1976/7614/761411.PDF   Its use was totally unrelated to the modern electronic pneumatic braking, an advance on electro-pneumatic braking (ECP), in the article which was linked by sandiego.  Frank Sprague's contributions were reliable electric streetcar overhead current catching devices and MU controls. 

[Electroliner 1935]

Wizlish

George O. Smith had an interesting 'take' on the legal definition of information vs. power transfer in one of his "Venus Equilateral" stories ... where he brought up, btw, the functional overlap in the applicable technologies (albeit for somewhat melodramatic plot purposes!)

When I got my EE degree from Univ. of Cincinnati, my major was in power. But I got into communications and worked with Microwave System and then Fiber Optic System design. So information does not require an electrical medium to transmit information. New disciplines come into being and you see that in your new cell phones. They outdo Dick Tracy and Star Treks communicators. In the 60's transisters couldn't work reliably under the hood of a car, (temperature extremes and rf noise) but those have been overcome. (In less than ten years) Your car today has more computing power than the early astronaughts. The early electical systems on locomotives have been replaced by sophisticated computer controls that do more than was dreamed of back in the1930's and even the 1960's. It's easy to talk about the many issues with ECP but trial and error will find the things that need improvement. While steam locomotives are great to see and ride behind, does any body think the way we used to do things is the best. While the KISS principle still has merit, I think its time to move forward with ECP and see whether the bugs can be found and removed, and determine if the benefits justify the cost. 

[Convicted One]

CMStPnP

Are railroads going to eventually replace compressed air with electronics

It's not really the type of investment that offers an attractive ROI, especially when you consider the number of cars out there that would have to be retrofitted to achieve universal deployment. And just consider what such a move would do the the value of all the disused cars sitting out on leased dormant lines.  I'd guess that it will primarily be used in specialty applications  and/or in dedicated use trains.

My guess is that you will have crewless trains before there will be a universal adoption of ECP.

[Wizlish]

Euclid

Why not expect details of the two ECP installations on a public forum? Are you referring to details that you cannot provide due to proprietary reasons? Or are you referring to something more general?

Mostly the former, although (as you are aware of, in different context) there are patentable elements that must be protected against 'premature disclosure'.

I suspect most of the actual "competitive advantage" in implementation has more characteristics of trade-secret than actual patentable innovation -- but again, there is a reason why 'trade secrets' are kept secret...

What are the ECP technologies that have become obsolete over the years, as you mention?

Not to pick a nit, but I said 'obsolescent', not 'obsolete', and there is what I consider to be an important difference between those terms.

'Obsolescent' technology is still perfectly workable, and still worth supporting (if you have the interest or, for example, are 'heavily invested' in older technology, like NS was with DC traction motors).  It just isn't the 'best' solution in modern terms -- it's becoming outmoded, but isn't 'there' yet.  A somewhat remarkable example of this in action was the Republic Locomotive (?) 'starship' FL-9 rebuilds, which were meant to be amazingly state-of-the-possible when built, but had become difficult to maintain, and essentially unsalable to other potential FL-9 users, less than a decade later...

For examples of obsolescence in ECP over the years, start with just about ANY instantiation of actual electronic equipment or devices, and proceed directly to programming environments, test tools, magnetic materials, RF spectrum allocation, etc.

Proceed to look at how the development of consumer electronics, and common standards for industrial systems, have evolved over the years, making OTS technologies using some standards much more cost-effective even when they offer far more effective functionality.  One example would be RFID, another the advances in differential GPS.  At least some reasons for 'wireline' connection between cars (apart from 220V power) are no longer as 'necessary' as they were when the technology was 'frozen' and marketed.  

[Euclid]

Wizlish

 

Euclid

I am generally interested in ECP brakes, but the part I currently find most interesting is the fact that they will be put into use in the U.S. That will be only for oil trains, but still, it seems like really big news. That is a MAJOR change in the railroad industry. And yet strangely, I find no news update on the plan or conversion underway since it was announced last spring.

 

 

 

On the other hand, there are coherent efforts to provide ECP installations on HHFT or other consists, with high assurance and within an appropriate timeframe to meet the mandate if it stands.  I know of at least two.  Do not expect details on any public forum.

 

Both in the short run that so many financial 'analysts' ruin their analysis by emphasizing, and in the potential long run if ECP use doesn't become prevalent 'enough' or the technologies they adopt become obsolescent ... as so many technologies in ECP over the years have indeed become.

 

Why not expect details of the two ECP installations on a public forum?  Are you referring to details that you cannot provide due to proprietary reasons?  Or are you referrring to something more general?

What are the ECP technologies that have become obsolete over the years, as you mention?

[zugmann]

Euclid

If the 2021 deadline arrives unmet, will the railroads threaten to stop hauling oil by rail because it would be illegal after the deadline? How would Congress and the FRA react to a shutdown of just oil trains? I suspect the answers to these questions will be greatly affected by the perception of oil train safety as operating effects unfold over the next five years.

 

With the number of oil trains reduced dramatically the past year or so, the task to convert them to ECP isn't anywhere as gargantuan as it once was. So the issue is nowhere near as MAJOR unless oil prices shoot back up.

[Wizlish]

Euclid

I am generally interested in ECP brakes, but the part I currently find most interesting is the fact that they will be put into use in the U.S. That will be only for oil trains, but still, it seems like really big news. That is a MAJOR change in the railroad industry. And yet strangely, I find no news update on the plan or conversion underway since it was announced last spring.

Some of this involves the ongoing objection to 'mandated' ECP in general that we've been commenting on.  I suspect that as long as ECP is being resisted in general, the cost of its actual application to HHFT consists will be avoided or at least 'put off a while'.

On the other hand, there are coherent efforts to provide ECP installations on HHFT or other consists, with high assurance and within an appropriate timeframe to meet the mandate if it stands.  I know of at least two.  Do not expect details on any public forum.

I would like to see ECP adopted for certain traffic; indeed, I'd like to see some system of it adopted for general train handling.  But that decision does come with substantial financial 'consequences', and you can readily observe that, for example, any decision by NS or CSX to start spending money on anything more than general feasibility studies would be used by Ackman and Co. or a group like the Children's Fund as a substantial proof of 'waste of shareholder value'.  Both in the short run that so many financial 'analysts' ruin their analysis by emphasizing, and in the potential long run if ECP use doesn't become prevalent 'enough' or the technologies they adopt become obsolescent ... as so many technologies in ECP over the years have indeed become.

[Euclid]

 

I am generally interested in ECP brakes, but the part I currently find most interesting is the fact that they will be put into use in the U.S.  That will be only for oil trains, but still, it seems like really big news.  That is a MAJOR change in the railroad industry.  And yet strangely, I find no news update on the plan or conversion underway since it was announced last spring. 

With the railroad industry seeming so bitterly opposed to the ECP oil train mandate, I wonder if they will get it done by the 2021 deadline.  Will it be a repeat of the PTC deadline fiasco? 

If the 2021 deadline arrives unmet, will the railroads threaten to stop hauling oil by rail because it would be illegal after the deadline?  How would Congress and the FRA react to a shutdown of just oil trains?  I suspect the answers to these questions will be greatly affected by the perception of oil train safety as operating effects unfold over the next five years. 

[Wizlish]

schlimm

Again, returning to the point here, to state that electronic brakes were used as far back as the triple valve is an obvious falsehood.

Yes, it is, and I have tried to correct that impression by editing the previous posts.

The point I wanted to establish, and missed, was that electrically-controlled proportional operation of brakes was developed prior to the invention of the triple valve.  erikem has, I think, corroborated this.  I do not think we need to proceed further with a pissing contest of any kind.

As it turns out, I have been informed that the most likely 'formal' distinction between 'electric' and 'electronic' appears to be a bit different.  "Electronics" is the discipline formerly known as "radio engineering", and when the American organizations for radio engineering and electrical engineering merged, the current name (IEEE) was chosen to reflect this.

George O. Smith had an interesting 'take' on the legal definition of information vs. power transfer in one of his "Venus Equilateral" stories ... where he brought up, btw, the functional overlap in the applicable technologies (albeit for somewhat melodramatic plot purposes!)

[schlimm]

sandiego

Instead of arguing endlessly about :"electric" vs. "electronic" it would make more sense  for people to actually find out something about ECP braking.

 

Here is a link to a good article about ECP braking—and yes, it is an electronically controlled system:  http://www.railway-technical.com/brake3.shtml

Kurt Hayek

 

Thank you.  That was the article I read.  I should have linked it.  Sorry if calling somone out on their preposterous statement ["There is at present no better system for APPLYING the brakes on trains than compressed air.  ECP, which has a documented history that goes back before Westinghouse invented the triple valve, simply uses an electrically controlled valve to control the airflow to and from the brake cylinder"] is so irritating to certain posters.

[Norm48327]

sandiego

Instead of arguing endlessly about :"electric" vs. "electronic" it would make more sense for people to actually find out something about ECP braking.

But..... But..... But..... Some posters love to argue for the sake of argument alone, never mind accuracy.

[sandiego]

Instead of arguing endlessly about :"electric" vs. "electronic" it would make more sense  for people to actually find out something about ECP braking.

 

Here is a link to a good article about ECP braking—and yes, it is an electronically controlled system:  http://www.railway-technical.com/brake3.shtml

Kurt Hayek

[erikem]

Electroliner 1935

I I detect nits being picked.

 

Picking nits is so much fun

As for "electric" vs "elecronic", my B.S. degree from UC Berkeley was for Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, though very few of the EECS majors at Cal did much with either electric power systems or electrical machinery.

To add a bit more fuel to the fire, an EE professor at Stanford, Tom Lee, stated that the field of electrical/electronic engineering got started from a gigantic screw up with the early trans-atlantic telegraph cables. Note there were no active devices (vacuum tubes, transistors, thyristors, etc) at that time. The chief focus of study in that work was the propagation of the signal through the transmission - which is a subject that still catches a lot of EE's unaware.

As for electrically controlled braking, one of Westinghouse's chief motivation for improving the triple valve was that he didn't want to use electrical control of the air brakes.

Electropneumatic braking for passenger cars was available in time for use on the early streamliners (mid to late thirties) and many of those installations had some form of anti-lock braking.

 - Erik

[edblysard]

No,no...let them go at it!

Its like Snidely Whiplash vs Boris Badenov..... 

[Electroliner 1935]

I I detect nits being picked. Lighten up boys. 

[BaltACD]

schlimm

Wizlish

schlimm

Electric / electrical systems use electricity to transmit and manipulate power. Electronic systems use electricity to transmit and manipulate information.

Your definition is oversimplified, and your understanding of the difference shows a marked ignorance of this field.

Strictly electric devices can, of course, be proportional: the existence of rheostats and potentiometers will establish this very simply.  Relay logic, using nothing but magnets and coils, is used regularly to transmit 'information' such as MU signals.  The eleectropneumatic systems in the Thirties (well-established long before that whatever-it-is reference you cobbled up for Great Britain) were proportionally controlled by mechanical devices (Decelakron and Decelostat being two makes).

Electronics, meanwhile, is defined as the use of electron currents (hence the name, capiscs?) for control purposes -- as mentioned, in thermionic devices or their more recent solid-state analogues.  There is a well-defined field of 'power electronics' which your definition only covers with the most tortured of logical interpretation: the purpose of a thyristor, for example, is to control power, often in the form of a simple output voltage.

It's always fun when academics out of their field try to 'put one over' on the ordinary folks, but in this case your qualifications appear to be coming up distinctly short.

I was keeping it simple.  You attempted to obscure your inaccurate statement about electronics with a bunch of irrelevant puff.  And then you compound it by character attacks and condescending sneers.   Yes, I am an academic, not a high school kid who tries to impress one and all.   I have never pretended to be an expert on this topic , and have no need to.  But I can read.

Again, returning to the point here, to state that electronic brakes were used as far back as the triple valve is an obvious falsehood.

How far has your urinary competition line moved from the toilet boys?

[schlimm]

Wizlish

 

 

schlimm

Electric / electrical systems use electricity to transmit and manipulate power. Electronic systems use electricity to transmit and manipulate information.

 

 

Your definition is oversimplified, and your understanding of the difference shows a marked ignorance of this field.

Strictly electric devices can, of course, be proportional: the existence of rheostats and potentiometers will establish this very simply.  Relay logic, using nothing but magnets and coils, is used regularly to transmit 'information' such as MU signals.  The eleectropneumatic systems in the Thirties (well-established long before that whatever-it-is reference you cobbled up for Great Britain) were proportionally controlled by mechanical devices (Decelakron and Decelostat being two makes).

Electronics, meanwhile, is defined as the use of electron currents (hence the name, capiscs?) for control purposes -- as mentioned, in thermionic devices or their more recent solid-state analogues.  There is a well-defined field of 'power electronics' which your definition only covers with the most tortured of logical interpretation: the purpose of a thyristor, for example, is to control power, often in the form of a simple output voltage.

It's always fun when academics out of their field try to 'put one over' on the ordinary folks, but in this case your qualifications appear to be coming up distinctly short.

 

I was keeping it simple.  You attempted to obscure your inaccurate statement about electronics with a bunch of irrelevant puff.  And then you compound it by character attacks and condescending sneers.   Yes, I am an academic, not a high school kid who tries to impress one and all.   I have never pretended to be an expert on this topic , and have no need to.  But I can read.

Again, returning to the point here, to state that electronic brakes were used as far back as the triple valve is an obvious falsehood.

[Wizlish]

schlimm

Electric / electrical systems use electricity to transmit and manipulate power. Electronic systems use electricity to transmit and manipulate information.

Your definition is oversimplified, and your understanding of the difference shows a marked ignorance of this field.

Strictly electric devices can, of course, be proportional: the existence of rheostats and potentiometers will establish this very simply.  Relay logic, using nothing but magnets and coils, is used regularly to transmit 'information' such as MU signals.  The eleectropneumatic systems in the Thirties (well-established long before that whatever-it-is reference you cobbled up for Great Britain) were proportionally controlled by mechanical devices (Decelakron and Decelostat being two makes).

Electronics, meanwhile, is defined as the use of electron currents (hence the name, capiscs?) for control purposes -- as mentioned, in thermionic devices or their more recent solid-state analogues.  There is a well-defined field of 'power electronics' which your definition only covers with the most tortured of logical interpretation: the purpose of a thyristor, for example, is to control power, often in the form of a simple output voltage.

Note that I have edited the original post to reflect that I should not have used the abbreviation "ECP" to refer to earlier systems if that 'E' represents 'electronics'.  While there is justification for observing the idea behind electronics as early as 1881, practical use of the effect did not take place until after 1900, and of course was not used by any method of braking control 'invented' or proposed prior to then.  To that extent, schlimm is correct.

[Euclid]

I think it would be accurate to say that ECP brakes use electronic signals to switch electrically powered valves which control compressed air for braking power. 

[Euclid]

Wizlish,

Okay, I see what you mean.  I do recall Dave Klepper advocating track brakes for quicker stopping.  However, as I recall, he was proposing this quicker stopping as a way to shorten the derailment sequence in oil train derailments in order to limit the tank car breaching. 

[schlimm]

Westinghouse did invent the triple valve air brake in 1887.   Even so, to suggest anything using electronic brake systems before that time is not supported by facts.

The Southern Region of BR introduced the electro-pneumatic system for suburban passenger service in Britain in 1950.  Still electric, not electronic.

ECP came later.  http://www.railway-technical.com/brake3.shtml

Electric / electrical systems use electricity to transmit and manipulate power.

Electronic systems use electricity to transmit and manipulate information.

[Wizlish]

Euclid

 

 

Wizlish

It's a bit like emergency brakes that make trains 'stop short' at crossings.  There is technology that could do this, and we've discussed it in a couple of fairly long threads. 

 

 

I don't recall anything like that ever being discussed here.  How would this be accomplished?  Under what terms would "stopping short" occur?

Dave Klepper, I think, started a thread on electromagnetic track brakes, in which I think you participated.  Interestingly enough, erikem did an engineer's analysis on the requirements to actually make such a thing work at full scale and concluded it could be made to function.

The basic idea (correct me anyone if this is wrong) is to provide an electromagnet of appropriate field strength and characteristics that 'rides' along the railhead, with enough cross-sectional area to produce both 'clamping' friction and eddy current induction in the rail steel.  When a high current is applied through this magnet it produces a strong retarding force, independent of any braking being applied to the wheels, and under some circumstances it can exert a restoring force to keep a carbody (or truck frame, perhaps) in line with the rails.  There is a limit as to energy dissipation (in part set, I think, by the Curie point of the railhead) and there are some potential problems with rail lifting or activation on curves or crossovers, and of course with dramatic problems in train handling if there is any differential slack or disproportionate braking level in different parts of the train.

A version of this is and was applied historically to streetcars, where it has I believe been demonstrated to work quite well, at the (unexpected to me) cost of increasing rail corrugation when used more than intermittently.

Apparently modern Li-ion battery tech has gotten to the point that it can store enough energy to brake a given loaded car down to a reasonable speed in a respectably short time ... once.  It may not matter if parts of the system, or indeed parts of the track, require even expensive repairs when the emergency track brake is 'fired'.  The more important consideration -- which as I mentioned would be difficult if not impossible to substantiate -- is whether the system introduces more danger or risk than it relieves.

[carnej1]

SD70M-2Dude

 

 

M636C

 

 

SD70M-2Dude

 

NS and CP have both been testing unit coal trainsets with ECP for several years now, another thing to watch for is modifying locomotives so they have the ability to control the ECP brakes.  NS seems to have been ordering all their new power like this, those units can be identified by the prescence of a couple large electrical plugs and heavy-duty cables mounted on either side of the drawbar.

 

 

 

 

As I've posted elsewhere ECP is in extensive use in Australia in the heaviest duty unit train traffic.

In the Hunter Valley in NSW, two major operators run ECP coal trains exclusively, Aurizon and Glencore (whose trains are operated by the British Freightliner company, a subsidiary of Genessee and Wyoming). The biggest operator, Pacific National have converted about half their fleet (actually, that half was purchased new during recent expansion).

In Central Queensland where Pacific National were the newcomer, their entire coal fleet has ECP braking and Aurizon have mainly conventional brakes.

ECP trains can run faster through yards since they can reliably stop more quickly and have fewer "flat wheels". I'd expect that wheel life and brake block life would be better.

In Australia, nobody is forcing, or even asking these operators to use ECP. They have purchased ECP trains because it is cost effective to do so.

M636C

 

 

 

 

Interesting, can the ECP-equipped cars be mixed with conventional ones in a train, or are they not interoperable?

And even if ECP can be made interoperable with conventional air brakes there will still be a big obstacle to its adoption over here:  the Class I's love of the status quo and resistance to change of any kind.

 

 From my reading the electronic component of an ECP system is in addition to the standard air brake operating mode; In failure mode the air brakes can respond conventionally. So you can couple ECP equipped cars to non-ECP equipped and they will operate in conventional mode but the ECP electronics will not function.

 The Electronics only work if the whole train is so equipped (keep in mind that this is not a wireless system and data must be transmitted from car to car by cables) which is why the current applications are in Unit Train service........