RMEThat does not change either the mechanical consequences of equipment failure, or the required cost per car/locomotive to provide 'automatic' "parking-brake" application.
You are not taking into account the costs of long delays in traffic flow caused by these maneuvers even if a derailment does not occur. Before automatic airbrakes and couplers were mandated the cost per car of implementation was objected to as well. And monster trains in length and weight also hav a cost as well as a savings of labor.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
schlimm RME This is completely aside from the safety questions inherent in any kind of locking 'safety brake' that applies itself automagically when there is some nominal failure condition. Think about the bigger picture. It's 2017 and we're talking about applying and releasing manually 50 or more sets of handbrakes as though it were ~1920! But now there is a crew of two as opposed to many more able bodies back then at the front and rear of a much shorter train.
RME This is completely aside from the safety questions inherent in any kind of locking 'safety brake' that applies itself automagically when there is some nominal failure condition.
Think about the bigger picture. It's 2017 and we're talking about applying and releasing manually 50 or more sets of handbrakes as though it were ~1920! But now there is a crew of two as opposed to many more able bodies back then at the front and rear of a much shorter train.
It would not be difficult to develop a freight train securement brake that could be set or released from one control in the locomotive cab. It could be incapable of any accidental full application while moving and would be operated solely by compressed air. It would also be incapable of losing its set by air leakage. This improvement would require some extra equipment with its cost. There would also be maintenance cost. It would also be one more thing that can fail and cause delays.
It may be easier to execute with ECP brakes, but I have not thought that through. In any case, rolling stock changes that affect the standard practice are almost impossible to introduce because the change has to be implemented on such a vast number of freight cars in order maintain the standard practice.
For this reason, I doubt that even the compelling ECP brakes will ever become standard practice in the U.S.
Euclid schlimm RME This is completely aside from the safety questions inherent in any kind of locking 'safety brake' that applies itself automagically when there is some nominal failure condition. Think about the bigger picture. It's 2017 and we're talking about applying and releasing manually 50 or more sets of handbrakes as though it were ~1920! But now there is a crew of two as opposed to many more able bodies back then at the front and rear of a much shorter train. It would not be difficult to develop a freight train securement brake that could be set or released from one control in the locomotive cab. It could be incapable of any accidental full application while moving and would be operated solely by compressed air. It would also be incapable of losing its set by air leakage. This improvement would require some extra equipment with its cost. There would also be maintenance cost. It would also be one more thing that can fail and cause delays. It may be easier to execute with ECP brakes, but I have not thought that through. In any case, rolling stock changes that affect the standard practice are almost impossible to introduce because the change has to be implemented on such a vast number of freight cars in order maintain the standard practice. For this reason, I doubt that even the compelling ECP brakes will ever become standard practice in the U.S.
One thing that when people think about ECP in braking - they are overlooking that air pressure is what provides the braking power. Electronic controls do not do anything about the necessity of recharging the resevoirs (where the power actually resides). Yes, you can initiate an application or release at near the speed of light - but the resevoirs will get recharged at the speed of the trainline air pressure increase.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
schlimmYou are not taking into account the costs of long delays in traffic flow caused by these maneuvers even if a derailment does not occur. Before automatic airbrakes and couplers were mandated the cost per car of implementation was objected to as well.
The issue here is not spending about $3 trillion or whatever the inflated figure is -- it's spending a large fraction of that amount on a spring-brake system of very dubious utility instead of implementing ECP properly, with a much wider range of synergistic benefits and the ability to work correctly in one-pipe service with a simple configuration change until whole blocks of rolling stock converted to ECP can be assembled and operated.
As we discussed several years ago, it has become technically possible to implement electromagnetic track 'emergency' brakes that will actually take substantial momentum off an 'equipped' consist without relying on friction tread braking at all. I'd prefer implementing such a thing, dollar for dollar, over anything involving spring activation of tread brakes -- and I'd prefer ECP over both of them.
I believe we have had discussions about 'motorizing' handbrakes (really wheel brakes; I doubt there's any reliable way to apply and release a 'pump' brake as found on many locomotives). There have been many proposals over the years for doing this; the Loughridge chain brake of pre-Civil War memory essentially wound up a customized sprocket-equipped version of brakewheels. One catch is that any power assist in application is likely to make manual release extremely difficult; another is that power application and release may interfere with a crew's manual actions while leaving that crew responsible for the way the brakes were set. In both cases you have mechanical fiddling with the foundation of levers and rods that the air-brake cylinders will move to perform any trainlined power-brake function, and coordinating the degree of mechanical application (through whatever form of slack adjustment comes to be used) between 'power hand' and 'power air', particularly with regard to how the brakes are released, may be (is, in my opinion) a mechanical exercise best left to the theoretical.
BaltACDOne thing that when people think about ECP in braking - they are overlooking that air pressure is what provides the braking power. Electronic controls do not do anything about the necessity of recharging the resevoirs (where the power actually resides). Yes, you can initiate an application or release at near the speed of light - but the resevoirs will get recharged at the speed of the trainline air pressure increase.
The speed of light electronics with ECP is only for the controlling and not for the supply of air, as you say. However, the electronic control of ECP removes the control function from the pneumatics of the conventional train line or brake pipe. So with ECP, the train line has the communication and control function removed from it, and it is left with only the purpose of charging air to the car reservoirs.
Relieving the conventional pneumatic train line of the control function allows it to deliver air to the reservoirs full time. There is no need to stop charging reservoirs when a service application is made by lowering the train line pressure as a control function, for instance. So the train line can charge reservoirs faster than a conventional pneumatic train like can.
Euclid It would not be difficult to develop a freight train securement brake that could be set or released from one control in the locomotive cab. It could be incapable of any accidental full application while moving and would be operated solely by compressed air. It would also be incapable of losing its set by air leakage. This improvement would require some extra equipment with its cost. There would also be maintenance cost. It would also be one more thing that can fail and cause delays. It may be easier to execute with ECP brakes, but I have not thought that through.
It may be easier to execute with ECP brakes, but I have not thought that through.
I should add to this description of the ideal, simple, single control, securement brake: This system does not wind up the hand brakes. It has absolutely nothing to do with the handbrakes. It works at the level of the basic braking foundation. If the securement braking is set, and someone sets a handbrake, nothing changes with the winding of the brake wheel. If the securement braking is released, and someone sets a hand brake, the handbrake goes from released to set in the conventional manner.
EuclidHowever, the electronic control of ECP removes the control function from the pneumatics of the conventional train line or brake pipe. So with ECP, the train line has the communication and control function removed from it, and it is left with only the purpose of charging air to the car reservoirs.
"Yes, but" it's a bit more complicated. The trainline is used as a source of continuous 140psi air in normal operation. When brakes are applied, it will take some time to recharge the reservoirs from this source, but it happens continuously (the main reservoir essentially becoming a 'buffer' between air being passed to the brake cylinder and supply from the high-pressure line). There is no need for accelerated release (and concomitant loss of any reliable graduated release) as the electronics can control cylinder pressure directly.
Now, for emergency braking, the same action as in one-pipe braking is used: the triples open fully to apply as much reservoir pressure as the system permits, as quickly as possible. The action is a tad quicker with ECP because all the triples open at essentially the same time (the speed is about .93C if I remember right), rather than each triple starting its cycle as the sonic signal triggers it while propagating down the trainline, but the actual difference first for full application of shoes to wheels and then for the train to stop is comparatively minor (and is the reason why there is only about a 3% observed improvement for ECP over one-pipe for emergency braking, while full service shows much more radical improvement).
You can recharge much faster with ECP. Currently, the air is throttled into the trainline slowly so that it doesn't "pretend" to be a control signal. If you take the control function out of the trainline, you can charge very rapidly and keep it charged regardless of brake valve state.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
RME"Yes, but" it's a bit more complicated. The trainline is used as a source of continuous 140psi air in normal operation.
Just to be clear, now, all the MRs on the consist are MUed and the trainline is fed (slowly) from the brake valve on the lead unit. MRs are nominally 140 psi, freight train brake pipe is 90 psi. With ECP might not need as high a brake pipe. Also, the concept of "emergency" might be able to go away. All you need is break-in-two protection. Doesn't have to be trainline initiated...necessarily.
RME believe we have had discussions about 'motorizing' handbrakes (really wheel brakes; I doubt there's any reliable way to apply and release a 'pump' brake as found on many locomotives).
http://www.grahamwhite.com/main/product.php?C1=15&P1=170&P2=-1
Some of our remote power even have it programmed so you can set or release the above power handbrakes from the RCO box.
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
oltmanndMRs are nominally 140 psi, freight train brake pipe is 90 psi.
On a pure ECP system? That's what I was talking about ... the 'normal operation' refers to normal operation of pure-ECP consists with proper control equipment on the locomotives.
With ECP might not need as high a brake pipe.
Why would you not want the highest possible delivered volume at best approximation of main-reservoir full recharge pressure?
All the air line 'needs' to do on an ECP system is provide makeup air for what is valved to the equipment on the cars. A break-in-two will also separate the 220V power/data cable, and that event can trigger a more 'intelligent' response than a sonic signal propagating from the separated connection would likely do.
I do not think a 'conversion kit' ECP valve arrangement would be configured to allow pass-through of sonic signals from a parted 'pressure-only' trainline to the (retained) mechanical triple valve. (The same trainline would be used for one-pipe functions, specifically including big-hole emergency, when the valve is locked in the 'conventional' position, so it is at least feasible to incorporate a valve that responds to pressure differential regardless of selected mode.) That might be a good question to ask the tech staff at one of the manufacturers. I'll look into it in more detail.
zugmann http://www.grahamwhite.com/main/product.php?C1=15&P1=170&P2=-1
I stand happily corrected.
Do you have a link either to the provider of the programmed equipment or to a description of the system you're using?
It shouldn't be difficult to adapt that code or its API to work with 'trainlined' versions of handbrakes, or to recognize properly-equipped manual applications that have been fitted with appropriate sensors...
Shadow the Cats ownerIt would take another brake valve in the cab 1 extra valve a car one extra spring loaded cylinder a car and locomotive and that's it for the air side. Then a system to override it for moving the car or being without air in it.
So how do we hump cars?
And what about all the industries that need to move railcars around on their property? Unless that's what you mean with the last sentence? Sounds a bit complicated.
Now roadrailers did have spring brakes from what I understand. And caused massive headaches when they acted up.
Zug the current system is to bleed air from the brakes am I correct maybe keep the air on the parking brakes until the train is made up then release it. The system would be complete with gladhands shutoffs and such. So when switching pump up the parking brakes close all the gladhand shutoffs on both service and the new parking brakes. Then when your done switching pop the valves open and bang there goes the air for the parking brakes. How hard is it to hook up an airhose to move a car then know when it is moved the brakes are not going to back off like they can with the current system or be released by vandals. This system would have stopped the runaway in Canada of the crude oil train why No air pressure in the line the brakes would have come on trainwide and stayed on. If there is a failure in the chamber that does provide the braking force it is a simple swap it out and go not see what part of it has failed. Yes it would take some adjustment for the railroads to get used to however the labor savings just in lost time accidents from not having people fall off cars in the winter would be worth it from releasing handbrakes.
RME zugmann http://www.grahamwhite.com/main/product.php?C1=15&P1=170&P2=-1 I stand happily corrected. Some of our remote power even have it programmed so you can set or release the above power handbrakes from the RCO box. Do you have a link either to the provider of the programmed equipment or to a description of the system you're using? It shouldn't be difficult to adapt that code or its API to work with 'trainlined' versions of handbrakes, or to recognize properly-equipped manual applications that have been fitted with appropriate sensors...
From the website ...
That could add up quickly on a long train ..
rdamonThat could add up quickly on a long train ...
... if you released them all at the same time with a single command, rather than sequencing them via addressed commands over the power bus. (Which is part of my interest in zug's RCO box system.)
Suspect that a 'trainlined' version would be designed to be compatible with the ECP 220V line rather than straight locomotive standard voltage, which was no doubt chosen 'because it was there'.
RME rdamon That could add up quickly on a long train ... ... if you released them all at the same time with a single command, rather than sequencing them via addressed commands over the power bus. (Which is part of my interest in zug's RCO box system.) Suspect that a 'trainlined' version would be designed to be compatible with the ECP 220V line rather than straight locomotive standard voltage, which was no doubt chosen 'because it was there'.
rdamon That could add up quickly on a long train ...
Not sure I would want to be a Conductor dealing with a UDE in inclement weather with hot 220v electricity being involved. Remember, Murphy was a railroader - If it can fail, it will fail at the most inopportune location, time and weather conditions. If it can't fail - see 'if it can fail'. All the vehicles and devices are made by man - if man buit it, it will fail - it is only a matter of where and when!
As I mentioned earlier, I think most ideas for improving railcars are dead on arrival because of the great standardization that generally requires a committment to full fleet conversion. For as great an idea as ECP is, and considering the oil tank car ECP mandate, I don't think ECP will ever be adopted as standard universal application. I would not even be surprised if the oil car ECP mandate is removed before it gets implemented.
Given this headwind, I think any concept for things like train parking brakes has to be a concept of the utmost simplicity. If I understand what is being proposed here now it is the addition of a 220 volt motorized power brake on each car with an electric cable feeding these brake motors throughout the the train. That brake system with its variety of control functions seems like way more than what would be considered an acceptable addition to the standard freight car.
When I look at freight car brake rigging, I am amazed by the rugged simplicity of brackets, levers, pins, rods, and brake cylinder. There are no bearings on the pivots, no bushings, no lubrication, and no rust control. Yet it is engineering elegance because it is exactly what is needed to do the job and no more.
Shadow the Cats owner Zug the current system is to bleed air from the brakes am I correct maybe keep the air on the parking brakes until the train is made up then release it. The system would be complete with gladhands shutoffs and such. So when switching pump up the parking brakes close all the gladhand shutoffs on both service and the new parking brakes. Then when your done switching pop the valves open and bang there goes the air for the parking brakes. How hard is it to hook up an airhose to move a car then know when it is moved the brakes are not going to back off like they can with the current system or be released by vandals. This system would have stopped the runaway in Canada of the crude oil train why No air pressure in the line the brakes would have come on trainwide and stayed on. If there is a failure in the chamber that does provide the braking force it is a simple swap it out and go not see what part of it has failed. Yes it would take some adjustment for the railroads to get used to however the labor savings just in lost time accidents from not having people fall off cars in the winter would be worth it from releasing handbrakes.
How do industries move around their own cars? Many move cars without using a locomotive. Your system would make that near impossible if I understand you right.
As far as handbrakes - it's called a brakestick. No climbing required. Well, unless you are unfortunate enough to work for EHH.
zugmannAs far as handbrakes - it's called a brakestick. No climbing required. Well, unless you are unfortunate enough to work for EHH.
Brake sticks were required at 'normal' train tie down points inside terminal limts. Line of road incidents, such as this one would not normally have a brake stick available to use in securing the train 'on the side of the mountain'. That would have been one tired conductor having tied down 58 hand brakes, then continuing to inspect the balance of the train and finding defective condition 100 cars further back in the train.
I don't know if EHH has changed the brake stick instructions.
BaltACDI don't know if EHH has changed the brake stick instructions.
From what I understand, he banned their use.
We had to take brakesticks with us for road trains.
Not really. Our shop uses bottled air and nose jacks to be able to move trailers around deep in the shop. All an industry that doesn't have a locomotive or trackmobile to move a car is a air hose setup with a glad hand hooked to an air tank. They apply the needed pressure move the car then release the air. It is the kiss principle the air pressure releases the brakes and also applies them. However below a certain point the pressure is to low and the parking brakes automatically apply. Tomorrow if I get time I'll post a link to a diagram on an OTR braking system. Then you can see how simple and robust they are.
Trains are not trucks.
Being able to drop a car is the simplest of KISS.
I have a question about truck brakes that's really unrelated to this topic. Back in the '50's it was common to see stenciled on the back of trucks: "CAUTION -- AIR BRAKES." Why? Why would it matter to other traffic what kind of brakes the truck had? The only thing I can come up with is that the sudden "PSSSSHH" might startle the driver behind him.
_____________
"A stranger's just a friend you ain't met yet." --- Dave Gardner
Paul prior to 1950 the OTR industry used vacum brakes on the trailers there was a 50 50 chance the freaking things would not work properly however the tractor brakes where setup with Hydraulics and oversized to compensate for the issues. Then in the 50's when diesel engines started to take over in the industry prior to that gasoline was used also they realized that a straight air system would be more reliable and safer than vac brakes on the trailers.
Here is how easy it is for one of my drivers to drop a trailer for a customer. He spots it in the location our customer wants it. Lowers the landing gear disconnects 2 airlines climbs in the cab pulls a knob on his dash and pulls away. No climbing to crank a brakewheel or using a brake stick to crank it on it either. Just crank the dolly legs down disconnect 2 airlines and remotely pull his 5th wheel and they are gone.
Paul of CovingtonBack in the '50's it was common to see stenciled on the back of trucks: "CAUTION -- AIR BRAKES."
I had this explained to me at about age 5, when I read this on the back of the fuel-oil truck that periodically serviced our house -- it was on a White 3000 chassis with that wonderfully funky cylindrical cab.
A truck with air brakes can STOP VERY FAST, especially if unloaded, compared to a truck with older forms of brake system. Faster, in fact, than many cars still on the road in the '50s, especially considering reaction time. So it became critically important either to make cars keep greater following distance (hence the note under "Caution-Air Brakes" like "keep back 200 feet") or otherwise warn them not to tailgate.
Of course, nowadays almost any car will stop more quickly, since it's tire contact patch characteristics that limit most modern brake systems in normal traffic, and we all know what happens when an OTR driver hits the trailer brake controller hard... But it's still wise to remember that air-braked trucks can stop fast.
Shadow the Cats ownerHere is how easy it is for one of my drivers to drop a trailer for a customer. He spots it in the location our customer wants it. Lowers the landing gear disconnects 2 airlines climbs in the cab pulls a knob on his dash and pulls away. No climbing to crank a brakewheel or using a brake stick to crank it on it either. Just crank the dolly legs down disconnect 2 airlines and remotely pull his 5th wheel and they are gone.
Ok, then can the customer throw a chain around the trailer and drag it over top an unloading pit? Then let it roll down via gravity so it is out of the way for the next one? I can probably crank a brake on faster than it takes someone to lower landing gear, BTW.
Mrs. B., not to sound disrepectful - but there's a pretty large difference how railcars are handled vs. trucks. Namely restricted space of where there are actual rails. Then you have the trucks that think those shiny things make great parking spaces. Ugh.
But on a broader scale, it's not a matter of the actual brakes. It's a matter of how railcars are handled at many industries. It would be like you taking the wheels off your trailer when you drop it off. It still can be moved - but it isn't practical.
We routinely drop trailers all over the place in holes 106 inches wide with trailers with doors open that are 104 inches wide. Also we do have customers move our trailers without releasing the brakes it is hard on the tires but it can be done. Have you ever picked up a trailer from an IM yard they drop those things so tight together even a mouse can't get inbetween them. My normal driver can crank the landing gear down in about 2 minutes or less I have personally done it in less helping around the terminal when we were moving trailers around when we expanded the shop. Trust me zugman the normal OTR trailer gets the living hell beat out of it on a normal basis. The worst part is this system works and is foolproof on the saftey issue of losing air for loss of brakes but the costs for the Railroad industry to adapt it would more than likely to high to adapt it. Even though the tech issues are not that severe. It is compatible for any truck in the nation to hook up to any trailer and they can pull it we have 2 air lines one feeds the air into the system the other is the brake pressure signaling line. You lose air pressure the parking brakes are on that simple.
Yes the moving without air could be overcome but something has to be done to prevent accidents like this one or the one in Canada. How would this have prevented the one in Canada if trains had this system he could have set trainwide parking brakes and that train would not have moved an inch. It is a pipe dream I know however it could still happen if someone pushes the idea.
A lot of industries use varying means of moving their railcars on their property that do not involve railcar movers/locomotives/railkings/trackmobiles, etc. It's not an issue of beating up cars. It's an issue of them being able to move their cars to get their product. Any new brake system we invent on this forum has to take that into account.
We are not talking about Lac-Mégantic. That was a whole different issue. But any brake system devised in repsonse to that needs to take into account normal railcar operations over the entire system. And yes, that involves being able to easily and economically move cars sans air. Having parking brakes come on automatically does not allow that. I mean, I'm sure your profession would love that as it would make shipping by rail even more difficult, but that's a story for another day.
And two minutes? I can do a couple brakes in that time.
You also presuppose that the shipper/receiver who has to move the railcar has a supply of compressed air available, with a connection at the physical location of the car. Remember, it could have been a string of cars set off at the siding. Some use trackmobiles, a lot may use cable winches, especially smaller grain elevators. And then the occasional tow by rope and pick-up truck in a pinch. You can even move rail equipment by hand with a "carmover"; slow but surprisingly effective, several inches at a time.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.