samfp1943 To what Jeff, said; SCARY, might be an underatement ! Just an observation: Train Handling is an ART... Irequires a level of skill, and a sense of understanding what is going on in each train. Things that cannot be learned in a classroom, they come from experience. IMHO. As nothing more than an interested observer, who lives beside a rail line, that line has a slight up grade, we have a number of trains,in eiither direction, passing each day. In a short time, it becomes loudly, obvious, when there is a rookie in the cab, as well as the experienced one who can handle a train smoothly....The differences between "Spike Jones and his Band' and a Lawrence Welk Band, playing similar pieces.
To what Jeff, said; SCARY, might be an underatement !
Just an observation: Train Handling is an ART... Irequires a level of skill, and a sense of understanding what is going on in each train. Things that cannot be learned in a classroom, they come from experience. IMHO.
As nothing more than an interested observer, who lives beside a rail line, that line has a slight up grade, we have a number of trains,in eiither direction, passing each day. In a short time, it becomes loudly, obvious, when there is a rookie in the cab, as well as the experienced one who can handle a train smoothly....The differences between "Spike Jones and his Band' and a Lawrence Welk Band, playing similar pieces.
A better comparison would be that of Florence Foster Jenkins and Beverly Sills singing opera. Mrs. Jenkins could not sing, and she had to hire an opera house for her performances.
Edited to correct spelling mistakes.
Johnny
erikem schlimm I suspect much the same was said about autopilots on aircraft. Developing an autopilot is a much simpler problem than developing control software for a long freight train. An airplane can be treated (mostly) as a rigid body with relatively simple flight dynamiics. As long as the plane is under maneuvering speed, flight control inputs are unlikely to break the airframe. The impetus for autopilots came from reducing the workload on the pilots, or in the case of high performance aircraft were stability augmentation systems that responded much faster than any human could. A long freight train is a whole different beast as it isn't a rigid body with respect to curves (horizontal AND vertical) and slack action. With regards to the latter, it is very easy to break the train with improper control inputs, either through slack action or stringlining (tank car of metam sodium?). In addition, the varations in train makeup will make for very significant changes in train dynamics. That said, even very recent autopilots have had problems dealing with unexpected events such as icing of the pitot tubes. (omitting long rant on control yokes versus side sticks on transport aircraft)
schlimm I suspect much the same was said about autopilots on aircraft.
I suspect much the same was said about autopilots on aircraft.
Developing an autopilot is a much simpler problem than developing control software for a long freight train. An airplane can be treated (mostly) as a rigid body with relatively simple flight dynamiics. As long as the plane is under maneuvering speed, flight control inputs are unlikely to break the airframe. The impetus for autopilots came from reducing the workload on the pilots, or in the case of high performance aircraft were stability augmentation systems that responded much faster than any human could.
A long freight train is a whole different beast as it isn't a rigid body with respect to curves (horizontal AND vertical) and slack action. With regards to the latter, it is very easy to break the train with improper control inputs, either through slack action or stringlining (tank car of metam sodium?). In addition, the varations in train makeup will make for very significant changes in train dynamics.
That said, even very recent autopilots have had problems dealing with unexpected events such as icing of the pitot tubes. (omitting long rant on control yokes versus side sticks on transport aircraft)
You are the engineering guy, but surely weather, velocity, acceleration, and horizontal and vertical changes are complicating factors not seen on trains. In the history of science and technology, generally certain developments happened earlier because they are simpler/easier.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
zugmann schlimm I suspect much the same was said about autopilots on aircraft. It's still a much - talked about topic. When autopilot systems fail- it goes to manual mode. And when the person that is supposed to be the safety manual backup has lousy skills because they barely ever operate, well....
It's still a much - talked about topic. When autopilot systems fail- it goes to manual mode. And when the person that is supposed to be the safety manual backup has lousy skills because they barely ever operate, well....
True. But in some crashes, it would have been better to let the autopilot continue even though it seemed counter-intuitive. Human interference made a bad condition worse.
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
We already, to some extent, have trains operating in the US that operate themselves. I know UP, NS and CP are using them. They are used for "fuel management", but I don't think they've been saving as much fuel as the salesman said it would. They currently are a clear block systems. That is, they don't see restrictive signals, they assume you are the only train out there. They do recognize permanent and temporary speed restrictions and work zones, provided they are in the system when intially logging in. Unforseen restrictions, radioed to the train, have to be acted upon manually.
UP has both NYAB's LEADER and GE's Trip Optimizer. I believe NS has LEADER and CP Trip Optimizer. (Not all routes of the railroads listed may be equipped.) IMO, both are scary, for different reasons.
LEADER has two versions. One only prompts the engineer to make throttle/dynamic settings. (Both systems prompt the engineer if using air brakes is needed.) If you are DP, it assumes the DP is in sync mode. The newer version, and slightly better, is an auto-throttle/dynamic operation. It actually runs the train. In auto throttle mode, it operates any DP separately from the lead. I feel it's scary because it's train handling isn't good. Especially the first version. It's caused people, myself included, to tear trains apart when following the prompts. About the only good thing about LEADER I can think of is the display. It's better than the Trip Optimizer display and will be close to what the PTC displays will be.
Trip Optimizer has been an auto-throttle system from the beginning. We just got it on our part of the system a few months ago. It's scary because it's pretty good when it's working. My MOP said the algorithims for our PTC will be the same used by the Trip Optimizer program.
If automatic and completely crewless freight trains happens before I retire, I guess I can always go drive truck. Oh, right....
Jeff
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I wrote the above in the thread about driverless trucks. I don't believe the claim that it hasn't caused any train seperations. Engineers aren't held responsible for energy management system caused seperations. I don't have their ad before me, but I think they've lowered the claim on how much fuel it will save. IIRC, the first version when new was supposed to save 11% but actual results were said to be 5 or 6%. I'm not even sure if those numbers weren't just tossed out to "save face."
IMO, it handles empty unit trains and intermodals best. Loaded unit trains and manifests are a mixed bag. It handles some good, others not so much. There are places where I usually won't let it run the train. I don't want the conductor to have to fix something.
A year or so back we were told at a union meeting that the railroad was thinking about suing because it wasn't delivering the promised benefits. I don't know that they ever did bring suit, maybe they just threatened to do so to leverage some kind of deal. I do now that it's use (whenever possible) is mandatory.
Preface: I am in no way trying to bash one of Trains advertisers; I am mostly seeking information and venting some irritation.
Since I've been retired for a while, I'm not too hip on the latest railraod tech. Which is why I ask my fellow railroaders for their input regarding the claims made by New York Air Brake in the ad on the back cover of the July 2017 Trains magazine.
Specifically, the claim that it "has never 'broken a train' over 1,200,000 trips and 190,000,000 miles". Are these real, on the road miles or are they 'simulated' software miles. Also, if they are indeed real miles, what types of trains are they quoting? Mixed manifest mega-tonnage or 100-car trains of empties? On flat terrain or in 'hogback' territory?
While I'm certainly no Luddite, I find it hard to believe any software could be written that could handle the many variations of tonnage, load/empty distribution, track profile (grade ups and downs, curves), wet rail, snowy rail, leaves on rail, cold temperatures, hot temperatures, malfunctioning locomotives (such as no sand, wheel-slip issues, load dropouts, etc), trainline 'kickers', air hose parting on crossings or from debris placed between the rails, train striking a vehicle or person, signal malfunctions (such as dropping from clear to red just as the train approaches); just to name a few.
Since each of the items mentioned above has various effects on a train, the combination of possible multiple events would seem to lead to such a large number of permutations of possible hazards that I cannot imagine any software being able to handle that level of computation in the time frame necessary to act.
I understand that to what I am referring is an advertisement (with all the veracity that goes with it), and maybe the NYAB really does have such a superb product.
But as a former engineer, and in defense of my fellow rails, it rather irritates me that the language in the ad seems insulting to engineers. I guess that is what put the bee in my bonnet.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.