Norm48327 Semper Vaporo Who cares about his experience? I certainly don't! If you have an answer to his question, please provide it. If you dissagree with his assertions, please address them with what you know. If you only want to "feed the troll" as you all seem to assume he is, then you are the "bully" at fault here. Why cannot we have a discussion where all can learn without the acrimony and bullying that constantly occur. SV, I don't think anyone here is trying to bully Euclid. He posts stuff he claims to have intimate knowledge of while posting considerable misinformation and anecdotal claims/evidence while consistently refusing to answer questions about his experience or proficiency in railroading. If you feel it is wrong of several of us challenge him and ask for his qualifications you are entitled to that opinion. Others have different thoughts. We seek accurate information such as that Houston Ed and Jeff along with other long term experienced railroaders provide. I don't think it is bullying to ask Euclid about his qualifications/experience. His lack of willingness to share leads most to believe he has never been a 'rail". I admit to having limited experience; I only what my track foreman friend and signal maintainers have taught me. I know absolutely nothing of train handling. I don't think it is in the least disrepective to ask Bucky to reveal his claims of having "experience". IMO. being politically correct sucks.
Semper Vaporo Who cares about his experience? I certainly don't! If you have an answer to his question, please provide it. If you dissagree with his assertions, please address them with what you know. If you only want to "feed the troll" as you all seem to assume he is, then you are the "bully" at fault here. Why cannot we have a discussion where all can learn without the acrimony and bullying that constantly occur.
Who cares about his experience? I certainly don't!
If you have an answer to his question, please provide it.
If you dissagree with his assertions, please address them with what you know.
If you only want to "feed the troll" as you all seem to assume he is, then you are the "bully" at fault here.
Why cannot we have a discussion where all can learn without the acrimony and bullying that constantly occur.
SV,
I don't think anyone here is trying to bully Euclid. He posts stuff he claims to have intimate knowledge of while posting considerable misinformation and anecdotal claims/evidence while consistently refusing to answer questions about his experience or proficiency in railroading.
If you feel it is wrong of several of us challenge him and ask for his qualifications you are entitled to that opinion. Others have different thoughts. We seek accurate information such as that Houston Ed and Jeff along with other long term experienced railroaders provide. I don't think it is bullying to ask Euclid about his qualifications/experience. His lack of willingness to share leads most to believe he has never been a 'rail".
I admit to having limited experience; I only what my track foreman friend and signal maintainers have taught me. I know absolutely nothing of train handling. I don't think it is in the least disrepective to ask Bucky to reveal his claims of having "experience".
IMO. being politically correct sucks.
Norm48327IMO. being politically correct sucks.
Yes, you have the right to be rude, but others have the right to request that you be courteous.
_____________
"A stranger's just a friend you ain't met yet." --- Dave Gardner
Gee there seems to be a lot of generalizations flying around about what I always say about stuff and how I won’t take no for an answer. My work is coming up with new ideas, and I am very familiar with how common it is for people to not want to adopt them. I question everything, and disagree with a lot of it. I question authority. I think we should all do that.
I have no problem with the laws of physics. I find that when people tell me I running against the laws of physics, they do not understand how those laws apply to what I am doing. You cannot violate the laws of physics. The laws won’t let you.
So yes, I disagree with people if I feel they are wrong. I certainly don’t cave in and agree just because the other person claims to have more experience or more education, especially if the person telling me I am wrong comes off as indignant, arrogant, or condescending (which they often do).
But still, I try to be reasonable and see if we are just failing to communicate about some part of it. Maybe we really don’t disagree, and it just seems like we do. Maybe we are not quite hearing each other. So, sometimes, I say “yes, but…” meaning that I do agree up to a point, but there is this area here that I cannot quite reconcile with what you seem to be saying. I do not do this with arrogance or condescension. And yet this is not good enough. I must agree period. No buts allowed. How dare I have the audacity to disagree even one little bit with those most important ones with superior knowledge and so many credentials!
That is basically what goes on here a lot. Anybody looking in can see what is going on. All you have to do is look where the insults and personal attacks are coming from.
Euclid oltmannd Euclid But for now, I just want to know if connectors are posing a real problem or if problems are just being theorized. It's a real problem backed up with a large file of anecdotal evidence. Is ECP as reliable as regular air brake? No. Not close. Don, I am still waiting for some reference source, or other documentation, or even some anecdotal examples of this contention.
oltmannd Euclid But for now, I just want to know if connectors are posing a real problem or if problems are just being theorized. It's a real problem backed up with a large file of anecdotal evidence. Is ECP as reliable as regular air brake? No. Not close.
Euclid But for now, I just want to know if connectors are posing a real problem or if problems are just being theorized.
It's a real problem backed up with a large file of anecdotal evidence. Is ECP as reliable as regular air brake? No. Not close.
Don,
I am still waiting for some reference source, or other documentation, or even some anecdotal examples of this contention.
I’m sitting in my bed in the big building where sick people go trying to get some sleep and several odd thoughts have occurred to me. Here’s one.
Buslist oltmannd Buslist oltmannd If I were the king of ECP, I'd do my darnest to try to go wireless. i would suggest you take a drive down to Melbourne and have a discussion with the GEHarris folks to understand why their darnest couldn’t deliver. Was a bit of an embarrassment to the AAR as they held a spot open in the spec for GEHarris’ development that never materialized. There have been lots of developments in wireless since then, but I suspect potential suppliers are gun shy. Thanks. A trip to Melbourne FL? Nice beach! Pretty much all of GEHarris research and testing into their wireless system was performed at their lab in Melbourne as well as limited road tests on the FEC.
oltmannd Buslist oltmannd If I were the king of ECP, I'd do my darnest to try to go wireless. i would suggest you take a drive down to Melbourne and have a discussion with the GEHarris folks to understand why their darnest couldn’t deliver. Was a bit of an embarrassment to the AAR as they held a spot open in the spec for GEHarris’ development that never materialized. There have been lots of developments in wireless since then, but I suspect potential suppliers are gun shy. Thanks. A trip to Melbourne FL? Nice beach!
Buslist oltmannd If I were the king of ECP, I'd do my darnest to try to go wireless. i would suggest you take a drive down to Melbourne and have a discussion with the GEHarris folks to understand why their darnest couldn’t deliver. Was a bit of an embarrassment to the AAR as they held a spot open in the spec for GEHarris’ development that never materialized. There have been lots of developments in wireless since then, but I suspect potential suppliers are gun shy.
oltmannd If I were the king of ECP, I'd do my darnest to try to go wireless.
If I were the king of ECP, I'd do my darnest to try to go wireless.
i would suggest you take a drive down to Melbourne and have a discussion with the GEHarris folks to understand why their darnest couldn’t deliver. Was a bit of an embarrassment to the AAR as they held a spot open in the spec for GEHarris’ development that never materialized. There have been lots of developments in wireless since then, but I suspect potential suppliers are gun shy.
Thanks. A trip to Melbourne FL? Nice beach!
Pretty much all of GEHarris research and testing into their wireless system was performed at their lab in Melbourne as well as limited road tests on the FEC.
I did visit once, in the early days of the movement planner piece of their UTCS dispatching system.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
tree68 Larry, sometimes"that's the way it is" is that way because noone is really looking for a different way. Or at least hasn't perfected it yet. Going to my automotive background, did you know that ABS and air bags were around in the early 70's? Possibly earlier. Yet they didn't become common or practical till the 90's. Sure it took a long time but someone was working on it for 20 years, they didn't give up after it didn't work the first time. How many light bulbs did Edison make before getting something functional? Don, thanks for shedding light on what appears to be the major problem with the electrical connection. The ease of use and weather sealing are a couple of bugaboos to work out. But I believe they are not insurmountable problems, just going to take a few tries. Here's a thought, rather than have the electrical connection use it's own securement method, how about attaching the connectors to the glad hands? Use the locking of the glad hands to secure the electrical connection as well? Solves two problems at once, the ease of connection and the breakaway issue. Still leaves weather sealing unresolved but a move forward. ruderunner I agree with SV. I've read plenty of threads where Bucky is trying to make a point but it seems like no one is interested in moving the conversation forward, rather it's just the same old "that's the way it is". Alas, oftimes "that's the way it is" is because that's the way it is. Bucky strikes me as an idealistic teen who simply can't believe that his wonderful idea won't work, even though things like the laws of physics say otherwise. As well, there's his continued belief that ECP is a panacea that will cure all of the railroad's problems, if they'll just listen to what he says. If someone points out the technical and economical reasons why ECP isn't happening tomorrow, he just returns to how ECP will cure all the railroad's problems... "Yes, but..." I can't say as I can remember very many (if any) times when he's conceded that he see's someone else's point. And sometimes what he posts is simply factually wrong.
Larry, sometimes"that's the way it is" is that way because noone is really looking for a different way. Or at least hasn't perfected it yet.
Going to my automotive background, did you know that ABS and air bags were around in the early 70's? Possibly earlier. Yet they didn't become common or practical till the 90's. Sure it took a long time but someone was working on it for 20 years, they didn't give up after it didn't work the first time.
How many light bulbs did Edison make before getting something functional?
Don, thanks for shedding light on what appears to be the major problem with the electrical connection. The ease of use and weather sealing are a couple of bugaboos to work out. But I believe they are not insurmountable problems, just going to take a few tries.
Here's a thought, rather than have the electrical connection use it's own securement method, how about attaching the connectors to the glad hands? Use the locking of the glad hands to secure the electrical connection as well? Solves two problems at once, the ease of connection and the breakaway issue.
Still leaves weather sealing unresolved but a move forward.
ruderunner I agree with SV. I've read plenty of threads where Bucky is trying to make a point but it seems like no one is interested in moving the conversation forward, rather it's just the same old "that's the way it is".
Alas, oftimes "that's the way it is" is because that's the way it is.
Bucky strikes me as an idealistic teen who simply can't believe that his wonderful idea won't work, even though things like the laws of physics say otherwise.
As well, there's his continued belief that ECP is a panacea that will cure all of the railroad's problems, if they'll just listen to what he says. If someone points out the technical and economical reasons why ECP isn't happening tomorrow, he just returns to how ECP will cure all the railroad's problems... "Yes, but..."
I can't say as I can remember very many (if any) times when he's conceded that he see's someone else's point.
And sometimes what he posts is simply factually wrong.
Modeling the Cleveland and Pittsburgh during the PennCentral era starting on the Cleveland lakefront and ending in Mingo junction
ruderunnerGoing to my automotive background, did you know that ABS and air bags were around in the early 70's? Possibly earlier. Yet they didn't become common or practical till the 90's. Sure it took a long time but someone was working on it for 20 years, they didn't give up after it didn't work the first time.
Yes, I did know that. I have several high-speed pictures of an airbag test from GM's Proving Grounds taken in the late 1960's when my late father worked there. He was in the Experimental Engineering section at the Grounds. Safety was a big topic at the time and there were a number of ongoing efforts there.
What bugs me about about Bucky is that he comes across as wanting to know why ECP isn't being installed NOW. Any attempt at an explanation as to why it is not (several of which you so nicely enumerated) is met with incredulity.
It might take another twenty years for ECP to be implemented, by which time the known and unknown bugs will be largely worked out. New technologies may come into play. People are working on it. But it's not ready to fly in the current railroad environment today. I don't think anyone here works in that portion of the industry, so we can't answer technical questions, although we try to provide any information we do know.
But that's not good enough for Bucky.
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...
The 'ideas' for new technologies are in many cases as old as time. Why it takes years, decades or centuries for those technologies to become 'real' is the development process. It generally takes many supporting technologies to be developed in concert with the 'idea' for it to approach the level of it being a viable product - able to take on all comers.
Maxwell Smart's shoe phone was a 'idea' in the middle 1960's, in the 21st Century the cell phone is a staple of Western Civilization and far exceeds the ideas of Maxwell Smart.
ECP is still in the development phase of it's life cycle - when the issues that have been identified in it's limited implementations are resolved to the industries satisfaction it will be adopted as a proven technology.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
ABS has been around since the Sixties. On American automobiles (and on drum brakes, no less?) since at least the 1972 model year; it made the Lincoln Mark IV FAR more ‘driveable’ than it otherwise would have been. As with contemporary port fuel injection, cost-effective all-wheel ABS needed the advent of cheap fast semiconductor logic to work; very little of that originated in an ‘industry’ context. A direct parallel imho is the current Siemens push to implement evolving IIoT into rail contexts. But it also needs to be mentioned that ABS was not ‘widely’ adapted until many more cars sold for more than they did in the early era.
Air bags, on the other hand, are easily achieved with 1920s tech and chemistry, if you are stupid enough to think safety is derived from firing a pyro charge in the driver’s face. First started killing test animals in the ‘70s at Ford, still would kill children today if you were fool enough to strap them in the front passenger seat face-forward, only work as intended in single-impact collisions with little or no subsequent motion ... oh yes, and result in many vehicles being totaled by insurance when there is little more other than cosmetic damage. They were in essence ‘adopted’ only because folks like Claybrook got them mandated, and if I did not risk going to the pokey for it I would promptly remove them from anything I drive. This brings up the other side of rail innovation, with a specific brake tie-in, which is Coffin et al. arranging to get the Power Brake Law enacted. (And the improvements like accelerated release being compatible with that context).
Now remember that electrically controlled braking considerably predates invention of the triple valve, both in concept and practicability, and there is very little ‘new’ or particularly relying on 21st-Century technology in the AAR-standardized version of ECP. Yes, I think there are great things to come out of application of modern technologies to railroading, but they had better be more effective than, say, certain alloys for boiler steel, or front-end stokers, or using proprietary control-card FRUs in ‘80s diesels, to name but a few less-obvious examples. (Note how carefully I leave positive train control out of this discussion! we have new forum rules about even nonpremeditated trolling...)
ruderunnerBucky strikes me as an idealistic teen who simply can't believe that his wonderful idea won't work, even though things like the laws of physics say otherwise. As well, there's his continued belief that ECP is a panacea that will cure all of the railroad's problems, if they'll just listen to what he says. If someone points out the technical and economical reasons why ECP isn't happening tomorrow, he just returns to how ECP will cure all the railroad's problems... "Yes, but..." I can't say as I can remember very many (if any) times when he's conceded that he see's someone else's point. And sometimes what he posts is simply factually wrong.
ruderunnerAlas, oftimes "that's the way it is" is because that's the way it is. Bucky strikes me as an idealistic teen who simply can't believe that his wonderful idea won't work, even though things like the laws of physics say otherwise. As well, there's his continued belief that ECP is a panacea that will cure all of the railroad's problems, if they'll just listen to what he says. If someone points out the technical and economical reasons why ECP isn't happening tomorrow, he just returns to how ECP will cure all the railroad's problems... "Yes, but..." I can't say as I can remember very many (if any) times when he's conceded that he see's someone else's point. And sometimes what he posts is simply factually wrong.
Ruderunner,
I do not consider asking for one's qualifications rude.
Would you hire an aircraft mechanic who would not reveal his background and experience when applying for a job at an airline? Having been in that industry (small aircraft was my occupation) for thirty years and having an awareness of things that could affect passenger safety I surely would not.I've seen the incompetent quickly weeded out.
Bucky's unwillingness to give even the slightest hint of his qualifications raised red flags regarding his 'expertise and experience' among many of us. That is why I believe he is mostly 'blowing smoke'.
I would expect someone to challenge me if I said I knew train handling well. I know nothing of that and only have minimal knowledge of MOW and signal maintenance that have been given by the people who are responsible for those tasks. My mentors in those trades did their best to educate me but I am not fully informed about their responsibilities.
Thanks to another poster's evaluation of Bucky's posts I agree with his assessment. Obsessive/compulsive best describes him. Snappin Turtles are noted for not letting go of their prey, and although I believe Bucky is not a teen his tenacity fits the mold.
Yes, I have been taken to task by several for challenging Bucky, but I ask if it would be better if I let it slide and newbies take his posts as gospel?
Let the chips fall where they may.
Norm
Norm48327I would expect someone to challenge me if I said I knew train handling well.
Hell, there's some that would challenge me on the same thing!
Euclid tries to gain victory by dragging out an argument for so long that his opponents drop out due to frustration or exhaustion. It's a victory; albeit a hollow one.
I only play his mind games if I'm bored. I'm not bored right now, so I'll pass on this whole rediculous ECP debate.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.
ruderunner i agree with SV. I've read plenty of threads where Bucky is trying to make a point but it seems like no one is interested in moving the conversation forward, rather it's just the same old "that's the way it is". Ok, if everyone thought like that, where would the internet be? Your car? Ekectricy? Maybe I just keeping an open mind and think about the possibilities of what he's asking. Maybe I'm not preprogrammed to disagree with someone who just has a different idea. I'm the new guy at work. I've had the lufers tell me I can't do it that way on many occasions. Guess what, my different idea let's me get it done faster and safer than the way they've always done it. Open your minds, Bucky's questions might be grating sometimes but if you stop to think of an actual answer beyond that's just the way...
i agree with SV. I've read plenty of threads where Bucky is trying to make a point but it seems like no one is interested in moving the conversation forward, rather it's just the same old "that's the way it is".
Ok, if everyone thought like that, where would the internet be? Your car? Ekectricy?
Maybe I just keeping an open mind and think about the possibilities of what he's asking. Maybe I'm not preprogrammed to disagree with someone who just has a different idea.
I'm the new guy at work. I've had the lufers tell me I can't do it that way on many occasions. Guess what, my different idea let's me get it done faster and safer than the way they've always done it.
Open your minds, Bucky's questions might be grating sometimes but if you stop to think of an actual answer beyond that's just the way...
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
norm, since Bucky isn't giving a lecture or professing the truth to us, what does his credentials matter? I see him asking questions, trying to get information. I see him looking at things from a different perspective than many others, never heard the saying about fresh eyes?
What I do see are others here that do claim credentials or experience basically shouting him down, the name calling and jokes, even in threads he's not participating in, get old. Some of us like to play what if, how would this change things? Practical answers are few but every once in a while there is a nugget.
Or let me point this out, you have credentials and experience in the airline field, what right do you have to post on a railroad forum? I guess you're no more worthy than Bucky. By your standards, only professional railroad workers should be here.
Murphy, yes I've seen that. But I've also seen that the ones who complained the most seem to gang up. This thread is a perfect example. It's quite clear who started it, it was up to the naysayers to decide to join in. Noon tricked them into reading it, no one forced them to respond.
There are some who do want to see a conclusion beyond what were stuck with now. Nothing wrong with throwing impractical ideas out there, note impractical not impossible or just fanciful.
RR - I do tend to challenge Bucky's posts. And as Norm pointed out, that's because some of them, if not based on a misconception, are just plain incorrect. And he then bases his conclusions on that incorrect information. If someone points out that his initial conclusion is factually incorrect, we hear "yes, but" and he tries to backpedal out of it.
Bucky's credentials have been called into question a number of times - but never so much as when he stated that he had been directly involved in kicking cars. That brought a very simple request - where and for whom? A simple enough question, and a simple answer would suffice - "it was the X&Y Railroad in Podunk, Iowa. If he has no railroad experience, let him say so, as so many here on the forum have acknowledged about themselves in the past.
The question that triggered my reiteration of the previous experience question, which was "what's the nature of the failures of the ECP connectors," was answered, presumably to the best of that poster's knowledge.
As for this thread, numerous posters have noted that ECP brakes just are not yet ready for the big time in this country. Bucky has a long history of believing the ECP brakes will cure all of the railroad's problems, and an equally long history of disbelief that the railroads don't share his opinion to the point of pulling out all of the stops to make it happen.
That it might take 20 years (or some other equally interminable period) to make it happen, well...
So, as long as Bucky posts inaccurate stuff, people will step up to call him on it.
Regardless of what some here say, I have never expressed that I think the U.S. railroads should adopt ECP now, or anything of the sort. I have never asked why they don’t adopt it. In fact I have given the reason why they will probably never adopt it. I have stated the advantages of ECP, and have advocated it for oil trains in combination with a new idea I have to extend ECP into a new function for oil train safety. But I have never asked why they are not adopting ECP. I already know the reason why.
And the reason is understandable. There is a massive system of cars and locomotives, all standardized to be used in universal interchange. The larger that system is, the harder it is to change anything about it; because the change has to be done while that whole system is in service. So the change has to be done at lighting speed so as to not disrupt the standard interchange system.
There is great cost to the new ECP hardware and labor to install it. There is also great cost to the loss of value in obsoleting existing hardware and scrapping it; and the labor to do that. And there is astronomical cost in taking the interchange system out of service for the time needed to make the conversion. There is also cost in the delay in reaping full benefit newly installed ECP during the time it takes to get the full system converted.
Look at it this way. Say you spend the money to convert the first 10,000 interchange cars to ECP brakes. That is a lot of money, and the day it is done, those 10,000 cars will be out of service waiting for the majority of all the rest of the cars to be converted. Only then will it be possible to group these converted cars together so they can form full trains of ECP cars moving around from train to train in interchange service.
As I understand, initially, the industry had originally planned on implementing ECP gradually, by converting rolling stock to a dual-purpose system of ECP and conventional air brakes. I also understand that that approach is now seen to be impractical. A dual system costs more than either ECP or conventional air brakes, and until the changeover to complete ECP is finished, there would be complications and compromise in handling trains that blend ECP and conventional air brakes. There would also be cost in ultimately changing the dual purpose systems over to pure ECP once the massive system conversion is completed. This is all without any system-wide mandate, but such a mandate takes the problem into a whole new danger.
A system-wide mandate would clearly define the massive scope of the entire project, and everyone knows that the railroads have the money. This will send a signal to all developers and vendors that a profoundly lucrative market has been flung open, and they will go on a feeding frenzy. The fact that this new market is mandated as if at gunpoint will make the market even many times richer and more lucrative than a normal business market. There would be no end to the skyrocketing cost overrun. The technology itself would suddenly shift into high gear with new development. That will change the technology during the time it is being implemented. So after some time into the phase of implementation, all of the finished work could become obsolete due to being passed up by better technology.
But just the prospect of that mandate is driving the process today. Because the conversion is practically economically impossible even without a mandate, the threat of forcing the painful conversion by the use of a mandate is leading to strong pushback from the industry. It is hard to push back against what is being sold as safety. That is why so many agendas are hitched to public safety.
So the industry has resorted to pushing back against the claim that ECP provides more safety. To some extent, I think this pushback is accurate. The ECP agenda itself has put forth propaganda that is greatly misleading in regard to stopping distance improvement with ECP. It is the low hanging fruit for them. If the public has been educated about anything regarding trains, it is that they are hard to stop. So along comes ECP with the claim of a 70% reduction in stopping time and distance. Naturally, the public hears this and assumes that it applies to stopping trains in emergency applications where stopping is most urgently needed. Why else would you care how quickly you can stop?
Yet the asterisk to the ECP stopping distance advantage is that it mostly is achievable in only service applications of train brakes. The public would have no chance of grasping this technical detail because it is entirely outside of their experience with driving vehicles. If you are rolling up to a red light with brakes lightly applied over a long distance, who cares if you could stop twice as fast if you wanted to? Nothing could be more disingenuous that this ECP stopping distance claim. Even the FRA has fallen for this deception, and they have lots of experts with credentials.
So the industry should certainly pushback against that. But they are also pushing back in other ways such as saying that ECP is not perfected. They say it is unreliable, and unproven. They say it does not make operation safer. I think this is very risky, because it won’t be hard for the makers of ECP to convince regulators that ECP is highly perfected, highly reliable, and ready to go with off-the-shelf components. Reliability is one of the selling points of ECP over conventional air brakes.
Also, even though the stopping distance claim is intentionally misleading, ECP does provide quicker stopping. While it may not be anywhere near 70% quicker than conventional brakes, it is a significant improvement in the actual emergency application stopping where the seconds count in safety.
The point of my first post here was that the ECP oil train mandate has placed the industry in a very defensive position, and they run the risk of losing credibility if their pushback seems exaggerated. In one of those threads about the Hyndman, PA derailment, someone asked whether ECP would have prevented it. According to how I assume the AAR defines "brake related accidents," I assume their answer to the question would be no. I think this proves that they are intentionally defining "brake related accidents" too narrowly in order to statistically result in fewer of them. Few would argue that a brake system that would have prevented the Hyndman derailment would not make the world a safer place.
I think that the reliability problem with ECP is another exaggeration. It may be hard to uphold a charge ECP of being unreliable and unproven when it is in full use on other railroads with no complaints about reliability.
At the risk of getting back on topic, I thought I'd say a bit about Rio Tinto and ECP brakes:
Rio Tinto were operating at the limit of conventional Westinghouse brakes. They were running trains of 220 vehicles and by the late 1960s had converted their fleet to bar coupled pairs of ore cars in order to halve the number of triple valves in the train. Even so, they arranged the trains with the newest vehicles at the ends to reduce the chances of a sticking triple valve at the rear of the train.
In 1978 I was aboard a (then Hamersley Iron) loaded train which had to make an emergency application due to an error in the tower at Seven Mile yard. The train broke apart in five places, one at a drawbar between a pair of ore cars, despite being on a straight trak with slack bunched. I've described before a similar occurrence with an (admittedly empty and only 80 vehicle) ECP brake Aurizon coal train at Tarro in the Hunter Valley which stopped in its own length from 50mph and restarted without a skidded wheel.
All the Australian operations use the standard ECP power cables and connectors. Aurizon have been operating in the Hunter Valley since 2005. Much of this line is four or three tracks to cope with the traffic density, and this line includes commuter trains running every 15 to 30 minutes, long distance passenger trains and intermodal and general freight. The coal trains themselves run as close together as every 15 minutes at peak times. Only the coal trains use ECP brakes, but there have been no more failures with ECP trains than the declining number of similar coal trains with conventional two pipe Westinghouse.
I say this to indicate that Rio Tinto, who have a good public relations team, were not the first to use ECP brakes in Australia and its use is not confined to remote areas. In fact there are very serious noise restrictions on locomotives in the Hunter Valley because it runs through dense suburban development.
Rio only introduced ECP trains from 2008 onward, and they were not even the first system in the Pilbara to use ECP brakes, Fortescue having started up with ECP in 2007. BHP, the other large operators in the Pilbara use ECP too, as does the new operator Roy Hill. These organisations could all choose to stay with Westinghouse if it were cheaper to operate in the long run, or if ECP was less reliable.
The ECP equipment that all the Australian operators use is available today off the shelf to any USA operator who wants to use it. There is nothing to suggest that US unit trains with ECP brakes would cause any more trouble to the rest of the system than they do in Australia. If the inter-car connectors on the much derided 250v DC bus line have hung togther (literally) in Australia for twelve years of very intensive service, they will work in the same unit train service in the USA.
Peter
Peter,
Thanks for your insight. It sheds a lot of light on the discussion.
M636CThe ECP equipment that all the Australian operators use is available today off the shelf to any USA operator who wants to use it. There is nothing to suggest that US unit trains with ECP brakes would cause any more trouble to the rest of the system than they do in Australia. If the inter-car connectors on the much derided 250v DC bus line have hung togther (literally) in Australia for twelve years of very intensive service, they will work in the same unit train service in the USA. Peter
How many blizzards and days of below 0 F weather have the Australian users experienced with their implementations? What kind of air brake inspection intervals are authorized? How much mountain railroading is involved in the territories where ECP is used? Is Distributed Power and/or manned helpers used on these trains?
BaltACD How many blizzards and days of below 0 F weather have the Australian users experienced with their implementations? What kind of air brake inspection intervals are authorized? How much mountain railroading is involved in the territories where ECP is used? Is Distributed Power and/or manned helpers used on these trains?
Australia doesn't have really cold weather. ECP trains will have experienced temperatures below 0 degrees C but not below -20 degrees C. The ECP system is used in the tropics and has been through a number of tropical cyclones in Queensland. The Pilbara area is very hot, consistently hotter than the hottest deserts in the USA, often above 45 degrees C in summer. The GE locomotives of the ES44 type have radiators of the size used on the AC 6000.
There are mountains, not the size of the Rocky Mountains, but with steep grades. I've commented elsewhere that Rio Tinto tested a uncrewed empty train climbing its steepest grade rather than a loaded train descending.
BHP used locotrol with blocks of two locomotives and 110 cars in groups of three forming a train. With AC locomotives and ECP braking, this has changed to two locomotives and 132 cars, but generally in groups of two. Roy Hill use distributed power, two locomotives leading with a third at the halfway point using the ECP cable.
Rio Tinto have manned pushers on the line from Paraburdoo to the junction with the line to Tom Price. These were converted to automatic operation early on, since the locomotives were just put in notch 8 and left there until the junction. But crews stayed aboard, I believe.
In Queensland there had been two serious accidents in mountain country where the terrain cut the locotrol radio link and the (ovehead electric) pushers kept pushing until the catenary was pushed down. ECP is inuse by one operator there now and the other is converting the hopper cars, the locomotives being already equipped.
But realistically, ECP brakes are likely to be more reliable in cold conditions compared to Westinghouse where the air actuated triple valves would be subject to condensation in the air pipes freezing.
None of the ECP equipped systems are short runs in flat country. Rio Tinto's longest lines are about 400 miles, BHP's and Fortescue's are about 300 miles long and Roy Hill about 250 miles. The lines in Queensland are about the same length as those in the Pilbara and those in NSW vary from under 50 miles to around 200 miles for the longest haul. Major mountain ranges are involved in all areas.
M636, so the Australian use is essentially just unit trains correct? Based on that the local contention about the connections between cars being the weak point is left unaddressed.
They're not fiddled with very often, other than the locomotive connections. How do those compare to the intercar connections? Are there more failures of the end connections than inter train? How much difference?
It is fairly easy to make a connection that will last a long time if not constantly opened. But every opening is a chance for wear and and contamination.
tree68 ruderunner Going to my automotive background, did you know that ABS and air bags were around in the early 70's? Possibly earlier. Yet they didn't become common or practical till the 90's. Sure it took a long time but someone was working on it for 20 years, they didn't give up after it didn't work the first time. Yes, I did know that. I have several high-speed pictures of an airbag test from GM's Proving Grounds taken in the late 1960's when my late father worked there. He was in the Experimental Engineering section at the Grounds. Safety was a big topic at the time and there were a number of ongoing efforts there. What bugs me about about Bucky is that he comes across as wanting to know why ECP isn't being installed NOW. Any attempt at an explanation as to why it is not (several of which you so nicely enumerated) is met with incredulity. It might take another twenty years for ECP to be implemented, by which time the known and unknown bugs will be largely worked out. New technologies may come into play. People are working on it. But it's not ready to fly in the current railroad environment today. I don't think anyone here works in that portion of the industry, so we can't answer technical questions, although we try to provide any information we do know. But that's not good enough for Bucky.
ruderunner Going to my automotive background, did you know that ABS and air bags were around in the early 70's? Possibly earlier. Yet they didn't become common or practical till the 90's. Sure it took a long time but someone was working on it for 20 years, they didn't give up after it didn't work the first time.
The interesting parallel is that, despite the auto industry developing air bags, like seat belts, we probably wouldn't have them if they hadn't been mandated. I remeber at that time, the industry stated the cost-benefit wasn't there. The mandate reduced unit cost and the industry and the public caught on.
...except for Takata.
The same could be true for ECP. Even with 20 years of testing, I think it's still too early.
or a different parallel, seat belts have been installed for decades yet many still don't use them. Chicken or egg? Is the lack of blank safety device due to mfr not offering or buyers not wanting?
Just because the govt mandates the production doesn't mean folks will buy. Just like CAFE standards. Unfortunately I feel this one punishes the producer for following the rules though it's the buyers who broke them.
And I agree that ECP isn't fully developed, but that doesn't mean we can't discuss what should be done to help develop it. Or discuss wether it should be developed at all.
So to make this a little more consiicse, iis it safe to say that other than the cost of changover the biggest failing is the connection and it's durability and ease of use? I'm setting cost aside for the moment since we don't know what the cost of fixing the problems are just yet. Once one figures out the individual costs it's easier to figure the total cost. Having a n unknown factor could have drastic effect on total cost.
Fwiw, I'm a proponent of ECP, more specifically what it can lead to. Not so much the safety aspect which is dubious at best but from the productivity increase it may allow through better train handling, better car routing or tracking etc. Apparently so are the Australian roads.
ruderunneror a different parallel, seat belts have been installed for decades yet many still don't use them. Chicken or egg? Is the lack of blank safety device due to mfr not offering or buyers not wanting?
Ford made a big push, selling seat belts and safety in the mid 50s. Chevy sold small block V8s and performance. Guess what won?
Seat belts were mandated in the front seat in the mid 60s, everywhere with front shoulder belts in the late 60. Useage was minimal.
Usage now is around 90% as most places have laws requiring. Deaths per 100M miles are way, way down from the 60's. From about 3.5 to 1.1.
oltmanndFord made a big push, selling seat belts and safety in the mid 50s
Electroliner 1935 oltmannd Ford made a big push, selling seat belts and safety in the mid 50s Yup, and in 56, my brother & I installed aircraft type seat belts in our parents 52 ford and I have never not used seat belts since. Ford was promoting their safety steering wheel that wouldn't spear you. But people didn't want to think about mortality. But back to ECP. The Australian unit trains make good use of the technology and have significant experience. There, the companies determined the benefits outweighed the costs. And for the most part, the customer and the railroad were one and the same. So in the US, is it the division of ownership and costs the stumbling block. If a train derails, does the shipper, car owner, incur any costs or are they all borne by the RR? When crude is shipped, DOT 117 cars are now required. Who owns and supplies them? What benefit for having ECP would accrue to each party. As said in one movie, Follow the money.
oltmannd Ford made a big push, selling seat belts and safety in the mid 50s
good point. In addition the industry is loath to have 2 seperate systems (a large hidden cost). To get over this hurdle the ECP system needs to be backward compatable or some other migration strategy needs to be developed.
don, valid comparison between performance and safety. But let's be honest, deaths per are not solely due to seat belt use. Abs, air bags street lights, better guardrails and others contribute.
Lots of folks don't wear seatbelts law or not. Texting while driving and drunk driving are illegal (distracted driving laws cover them already) but their still common problems. Laws don't necessarily fix problems though to your point, yes mandating things help.
ruderunner M636C, so the Australian use is essentially just unit trains correct? Based on that the local contention about the connections between cars being the weak point is left unaddressed. They're not fiddled with very often, other than the locomotive connections. How do those compare to the intercar connections? Are there more failures of the end connections than inter train? How much difference? It is fairly easy to make a connection that will last a long time if not constantly opened. But every opening is a chance for wear and and contamination.
M636C, so the Australian use is essentially just unit trains correct? Based on that the local contention about the connections between cars being the weak point is left unaddressed.
M636CI haven't heard of a failure due to a failed ECP bus connector. These are pretty strong plugs, each with male and female connectors and they lock such that pressing a button on each connector is needed to separate them in normal service.
You mentioned that the connectors have an unlocking button. Does that mean that you have to push and hold the unlocking button while pulling the connectors apart with your hands? Is there any way that the cars can be uncoupled, moved apart, and have the electric connectors just pull apart due the pull of the separating cars, like air hoses do?
To couple the electric connectors, do you just hold both connectors in your hands and push them together? If so, I assume they have a lock that snaps closed when they are pushed together all the way. Then that lock would be released when the button is pushed to separate the connectors. Is that correct?
Just in general, about how many times per year would a connector be separated? Is there any application where they are separated approximately once a day?
Peter, your "skidded wheels" are the same as our "flat wheels?"
Johnny
M636CI would be amazed if there was more interaction between unit trains in the USA and grain or mixed freight or intermodal.
I've heard reports that under EHH's guidance, some unit train/intermodal cars are being used to fill out those long trains CSX is running.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.