Our Trip Optimizer is pretty good. Sometimes scary good. LEADER is the worthless pile of stuff. LEADER version 2, the auto throttle version, is better than version 1 that only prompts the engineer but not by much.
There are times both run towards the slow side, but T-O has brought me up to slow orders where I thought it would be over speed going in. But it got it down to the listed speed right where the slow began.
i was told by my supervisor that the algorithims for PTC will be the same used by T-O.
When reporting issues with any of the energy management systems, we receive a ticket number. At a union meeting a few months back we were told these tickets are being compiled because they are contemplating suing the maker of LEADER because it isn't delivering the savings promised. But we're still required to use it as much as possible.
Jeff
traisessive1Trip Op is the devil. Throttling off 10-13 miles away from a slow so it can coast in and maybe use dynamic. It's awful. It's so slow. It's all over the place. I don't know how any official can say with a straight face that is really is more optimal than an engineer.
Throttling off 10-13 miles away from a slow so it can coast in and maybe use dynamic. It's awful. It's so slow. It's all over the place.
I don't know how any official can say with a straight face that is really is more optimal than an engineer.
Allegedly they justify it by fuel savings. I just love when Trip Optimiser knuckles a train!
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Trip Op is the devil.
10000 feet and no dynamics? Today is going to be a good day ...
jeffhergert BaltACD Is GE's 'Trip Optimiser' in operation when being used in a engine consist with Distributed Power? Yes. Trip Optimizer (and LEADER auto-throttle version) will put up the fence and operate the DP consist independently of the lead consist. When going back to manual control it leaves the fence up and requires the engineer to take it down, as needed. Jeff
BaltACD Is GE's 'Trip Optimiser' in operation when being used in a engine consist with Distributed Power?
Is GE's 'Trip Optimiser' in operation when being used in a engine consist with Distributed Power?
Yes. Trip Optimizer (and LEADER auto-throttle version) will put up the fence and operate the DP consist independently of the lead consist. When going back to manual control it leaves the fence up and requires the engineer to take it down, as needed.
My carrier is heavy on having Engineers run with Trip Optimiser in operation. They are just starting to talk about using Distributed Power to eliminate 4 manned helper areas.
jeffhergert traisessive1 On CN you're not allowed to have the lead unit isolated unless there is a defect requiring such. We aren't either, unless they tell us to do so. It's amazing what can be done with Time and Initials. EMD has a thing called "Smart Consist". Smart is the last thing I would use to describe it. At least it's been tweaked so when balancing the loading of units (up to 3) in a consist it no longer drops the load completely on the lead engine. It's supposed to run each engine in a consist separately to deliver the power called for. For example if the engineer places the throttle in notch 5, SC may run the lead engine in notch 3 and a trailing unit in notch 7 to deliver the power. (I just used those notchs for an example. There's a chart on how it's supposed to work the units but I don't have it handy.) I've had the feeling from observing it that all it's really doing is making the older, less fuel-efficient units do more of the work. Making the new SC equipped engine look like it's using less fuel. A MOP told me that SC will be going bye-bye in the future. Fine with me. When setting up the SC system, you enter the type (model) of trailing units to be controlled by the lead engine. It has an option for a GP9 on the list. I bet that choice isn't used very often. Jeff
traisessive1 On CN you're not allowed to have the lead unit isolated unless there is a defect requiring such.
On CN you're not allowed to have the lead unit isolated unless there is a defect requiring such.
We aren't either, unless they tell us to do so. It's amazing what can be done with Time and Initials.
EMD has a thing called "Smart Consist". Smart is the last thing I would use to describe it. At least it's been tweaked so when balancing the loading of units (up to 3) in a consist it no longer drops the load completely on the lead engine. It's supposed to run each engine in a consist separately to deliver the power called for. For example if the engineer places the throttle in notch 5, SC may run the lead engine in notch 3 and a trailing unit in notch 7 to deliver the power. (I just used those notchs for an example. There's a chart on how it's supposed to work the units but I don't have it handy.) I've had the feeling from observing it that all it's really doing is making the older, less fuel-efficient units do more of the work. Making the new SC equipped engine look like it's using less fuel. A MOP told me that SC will be going bye-bye in the future. Fine with me.
When setting up the SC system, you enter the type (model) of trailing units to be controlled by the lead engine. It has an option for a GP9 on the list. I bet that choice isn't used very often.
traisessive1On CN you're not allowed to have the lead unit isolated unless there is a defect requiring such.
That is not unique to the CN.
blue streak 1But better yet have some way to just use the extra HP when needed. So how to idle unneeded front end power?
That was a premise of Harmon Select-A-Power.
Didn't we have an exhaustive discussion of how CP handles specific power requirements for its trains via (very intricately modeled) computer programs, including when to isolate units and do effective throttle notch restrictions right down to milepost granularity?
The situation with a traditional 'one-unit wonder' is very different from the situation where you're power-balancing, or have units isolated or dead in consist, or are running with the head-end unit isolated to cut down on the cab noise, and are using only one locomotive for power but if that one were to die you have another one almost instantly available. (I am tempted to observe how obviously different the situation at Lac Megantic would have been if any other unit in the consist had been started when the burning one was shut down...)
As noted many times here, yes, if you can use the higher speed effectively, more power to you! (pun intended) but you will need a well-advanced computer system that tracks the state of the railroad to determine what the 'optimal' speed will be and, from that, derive the cheapest way to achieve that.
And provide the crews with a good interactive display that explains all about why the throttle, isolation etc. decisions are being made, lets them override it by category and not just 'switching it off', and that gives them good control over all the aspects of power management on a consist of any number of locomotives no matter how they are set up and MUed. That part isn't quite there yet, perhaps because a generation and a half of whiz-kid programmers haven't seen a need for it yet. But it's even more essential now than the Miller train-control 'user interface' was back before the First World War...
You don't spend a lot of time on CN. CN is all about putting the least amount of power on a train as they possibly can.
My train on the way home today was a 14000 ton, 100 car grain train with an SD75i and a C40-8 for power. We were restricted to throttle 7.
CN has severe throttle restrictions on their trains. On my territory most of the westbound trains, with exceptions of the intermodals, are carrying mostly empty cars.
Most of these westbounds are 9-11000 feet and in the 7-11000 ton range.
A train that is 11k feet at 11000 tons will be Notch 6 or 7 restricted on two units with a max grade of .6%.
Most empty grain trains will be Notch 5 or 6 restricted, on one unit, with any other trailing units isolated.
Aside from our two priority westbound intermodals, they don't care how fast you're going. Everything gets tucked to the side for these two trains well in advance but other than those two, they'll keep a fast train behind a slow train and simply not care.
So, you could see a train with 2 or 3 units but the crew may only be allowed to use one of them, and even still be further restricted on the throttle.
CN has ditchlights and a rear pilot on the long hood of nearly all of their road fleet (cowl units and BC Rail units don't) so the reversing restrictions which are move restrictive in the US than in Canada, wouldn't be a bother on single unit trains where the power can't be turned.
BaltACD Subdivisions end up running at the speed of the slowest regular traffic on the subdivision. When you try to inject 'high speed' and slow speed trains on the same territory everybody gets screwed. There are only so many 'hiding' spots to hold the slow trains for the fast trains and 'codlocking' is the frequent result.
We call those trains one unit wonders.If it breaks down you wonder what happened.Also have seen multiple times of trains with units DOT(Dead in Tow).Then the crew calls the next yard or dispatcher to say hey can you give us another unit.Also have seen where the lead unit has run out of fuel.
stay safe
Joe
Deshler Ohio-crossroads of the B&O Matt eats your fries.YUM! Clinton st viaduct undefeated against too tall trucks!!!(voted to be called the "Clinton St. can opener").
BaltACD CMStPnP schlimm True. However: Higher sustained speeds = increased track capacity = increased efficiency + more competitive timeliness for other, time-sensitive servives I think I read somewhere that CP was considering raising it's speed limit across it's entire system by 10 mph for high speed freight. No idea what that is going to cost them or if it is just one of those trial balloons they float to investors. Read it somewhere though. Subdivisions end up running at the speed of the slowest regular traffic on the subdivision. When you try to inject 'high speed' and slow speed trains on the same territory everybody gets screwed. There are only so many 'hiding' spots to hold the slow trains for the fast trains and 'codlocking' is the frequent result.
CMStPnP schlimm True. However: Higher sustained speeds = increased track capacity = increased efficiency + more competitive timeliness for other, time-sensitive servives I think I read somewhere that CP was considering raising it's speed limit across it's entire system by 10 mph for high speed freight. No idea what that is going to cost them or if it is just one of those trial balloons they float to investors. Read it somewhere though.
schlimm True. However: Higher sustained speeds = increased track capacity = increased efficiency + more competitive timeliness for other, time-sensitive servives
I think I read somewhere that CP was considering raising it's speed limit across it's entire system by 10 mph for high speed freight. No idea what that is going to cost them or if it is just one of those trial balloons they float to investors. Read it somewhere though.
Subdivisions end up running at the speed of the slowest regular traffic on the subdivision. When you try to inject 'high speed' and slow speed trains on the same territory everybody gets screwed. There are only so many 'hiding' spots to hold the slow trains for the fast trains and 'codlocking' is the frequent result.
Q: What's worse than being on a slow train?
A: Being on a train that is behind a slow train.
Just because you see multiple locomotives on a train doesn't mean thay are all working. Fuel conservation often as some, or sometimes all, trailing units just along for the ride. You may be seeing more "single engine" trains than you realize.
schlimmTrue. However: Higher sustained speeds = increased track capacity = increased efficiency + more competitive timeliness for other, time-sensitive servives
petitnj The economics of train operation means that the longer the train the less it costs per car to move. Train lengths are limited by siding length, yard track size, etc. Since horsepower of an individual locomotive is limited by the weight of locomotive you have to add more tons (ie locomotives) to get more horsepower. This has little to do with reliability and more to do with how much train you can move down the tracks. Conveniently you can have locomotives pointed both ways and have a cab on the front. Now with distributed power trains can even be longer as the stress on the couplers is distributed and not so dependent on the one coupler at the front of the cars.
The economics of train operation means that the longer the train the less it costs per car to move. Train lengths are limited by siding length, yard track size, etc. Since horsepower of an individual locomotive is limited by the weight of locomotive you have to add more tons (ie locomotives) to get more horsepower. This has little to do with reliability and more to do with how much train you can move down the tracks. Conveniently you can have locomotives pointed both ways and have a cab on the front. Now with distributed power trains can even be longer as the stress on the couplers is distributed and not so dependent on the one coupler at the front of the cars.
True. However:
Higher sustained speeds = increased track capacity = increased efficiency + more competitive timeliness for other, time-sensitive servives
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
This thread reminds me--a little over a month ago, on the Rochelle cam I happened to catch an EB double-stack on the UP pulled by a single EMD unit. I don't know for sure what it was, but it looked like an SD70MAC. I expected it to be either a short train or to have DPU's, but no to both. I didn't count the cars, but there were well over 100 cars.
Next day about the same time there was a single GE unit doing the same thing, and this time I counted 131 cars, again with no DPU. I figure these two units thought they were steam locomotives.
_____________
"A stranger's just a friend you ain't met yet." --- Dave Gardner
MP173 NS regularly runs 1 unit on their EB 20N intermodal train which is an international container train for Detroit. The train typically has 50-75 containers. Also on that line CP regulary has one unit on their auto rack trains, as does NS on their auto rack train for Gibson Yard - 31M. Ed
NS regularly runs 1 unit on their EB 20N intermodal train which is an international container train for Detroit. The train typically has 50-75 containers. Also on that line CP regulary has one unit on their auto rack trains, as does NS on their auto rack train for Gibson Yard - 31M.
Ed
"... BNSF seems to favor multiple unit head-end Power on trains (to a combo of 3 to 4 units), generally. If a train(on BNSF) has any DPU's they are generally a pair, very seldom is a DPU a single unit..." Such practices seem to point to a Company(BNSF) Policy, as to powering trains(?)
It might bear mentioning, as well, BNSF, for several years, before the Triple Crown service was terminated through this area; BNSF handled it out of KC area and to final at Ft.Worth. Only on one occasion did i see a BNSF/NS unit on the point of one of those T/C trains. All the others always seemed to have NSx2 as head-end power.
Even the auto parts trains seem to have paired power going westbound.. If not 2 BNSFunits, then you'll see 2 CSX units, 2 NS units, or even a couple of CPR units; can't speak for eastbounds, they seem to get what ever units the power desk has available in the area of origin back(?)
At least some RoadRailers - see at 6:30 in this Triple Crown Services video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BnKxBKrSbrU
Many slow-moving, day-long MOW trains - tie & OTM distribution & pick-up, ditching, etc. But those tend to use older power which is a little easier to run in both directions.
- Paul North.
Altho' mentioned, if one locomotive alone failed, or ran out of fuel with long, heavy train, and nearest 'Rescue' locomotive and crew a hundred miles away in either direction, and no road to get to disabled unit w/shop or fuel truck, things could be tied up for a long, long time.Doesn't take long for traffic to back up for Subdivisions these days.If very cold weather, and no heat, the crew could be in for a bad time, as no longer cabeeses to retreat to.Back in the day, a train hit a rock exiting a tunnel and the Engineer was trapped in cab. Took 8 hours for rescue train to arrive with equipment to free him. He never worked again.Some 'Mountain' crews preferred Long Nose Diesels for that reason. A units dealt with rocks better, too.Thank You.
Ulrich Looking at it one knows that every horsepower counts as the train slowly grinds its way upgrade!
Emphasis on SLOWLY.
Makes running easy. Notch 8 throttle or dynamic. Count the ballast stones as they pass.
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
If my subdivision has:---
1. a route with no priority freight in each direction including the one engine train.
2. Balt's being able to turn loco
3. no other trains will be delayed due to single loco train failing
The reliability issue and lightweight rail and sharper curves also plays in the decisions made. (GE's are a menace in the backtracks)
The problem with current 'wide body' high horsepower single engine train is that one has to be careful of what facilities are at the destination of the train for turning power.
Wide bodies, for the most part, do not have ditch lights on the long hood end and thus are restricted in how they are permitted to operate over road crossings. Additionly with the 'desktop' control set up they are a monumental pain for an Engineer to operate backwards. Frequently Engineers will refuse to operate wide bodies backwards for any signifigant distance on the grounds of SAFETY. Do not argue with the S word. All the savings by operating a single engine train can be thrown away in not being able to use that same engine to move a train back to where the engine came from.
I've noticed more single engine trains over the last few years. A diesel engine is most efficient when operating at max output, a fact that apparently isn't lost on the rail operators around here. It has become quite common to see one ES4400CW on a 100 car train (for example), and lifting that tonnage upgrade out of Toronto. It's quite something to watch.. and to me more impressive than watching a train that has more than enough horsepower to spare doing the same thing. Looking at it one knows that every horsepower counts as the train slowly grinds its way upgrade!
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.