tree68 M636C I 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.
M636C I 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.
prepare to be amazed. Spend some time on the Rochelle web cam.
Peter, your "skidded wheels" are the same as our "flat wheels?"
Johnny
John,
My understanding is that wheels are made from harder steel than the rails and that the "skids" pick up material from the rail rather than wearing a flat on the wheel. This allows the damage to be fixed by careful use of a portable grinder rather than removing and turning the wheels.
At least, that what I was told when I worked for the rail research section of a steel company...
Peter
M636C,. From that more in-depth explanation of the trains running ECP, it seems that there is more difference between US unit trains and yours. In my opinion, what you witness would be more like a shuttle train rather than a unit train.
The Australian version has multiple cars drawbar connected, consists stay mostly the same, from the sounds of it they travel between 2 points constantly and maybe use the same locomotives for long periods of time (months?)
US unit trains are much different. The only constant trait they share are that they are long strings of similar cars hauling the same cargo at one time. At any other time, the individual cars can be placed into other trains, used to haul other commodities, the locomotives may or may not stay with the train for even one complete trip.
Balloon tracks are quite rare here though more are being built. It's more common for unit trains to be broken into several chunks at each end of the trip.
Outside of commuter transit and some experimental unit trains shuttle type trains are few. ECP seems to work great in shuttle train use but maybe not as good in US style unit trains.
Modeling the Cleveland and Pittsburgh during the PennCentral era starting on the Cleveland lakefront and ending in Mingo junction
M636C 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. Firstly, the ECP fitted trains are indeed unit trains, but in the Hunter Valley, the biggest operator is Pacific National. They run the full range of freight trains and they provide locomotives for the long distance passenger trains. They haven't tried to fit ECP brakes to their other vehicles. That is because the unit trains don't affect the other traffic. I would be amazed if there was more interaction between unit trains in the USA and grain or mixed freight or intermodal. So the unit trains of coal, oil or iron ore in the USA could be fitted without affecting the other services. Oil tank wagons could be dual fitted for ECP and Westinghouse if they are often used in non unit trains. To return to the Hunter Valley, the third biggest operator was the second to go all ECP after starting with conventional brakes but buying new coal hoppers that were fitted with ECP but temporarily using triple valves. They have only 33 locomotives and around 900 coal hoppers but ship a lot of coal due to the fast turnaround and increased reliability. And the name of this enthusiastic ECP operator? Genessee and Wyoming Australia! They report their returns to shareholders in the USA. I 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. As to connectors at the ends of unit train rakes, while these cars run together, they are serviced progressively and the serviced vehicles are always added at the end of the rake, so those connectors won't see much more use than the others since they will only be on the end for a short while. The Hunter Valley has servicing areas set up so that locomotives need not be removed from the empty train for refuelling, sanding and other regular servicing, so the locomotives can remain with the train until a more major inspection is needed, months in the case of modern AC traction power (which most of these are). So frequent separations don't occur, since the mines and unloaders are all on balloon loops. In the early days, you could tell an ECP train because it had no skidded wheels at all. These days, there can be one skidded wheel on an ECP train which is run until convenient to remove. But the number of such skidded wheels is fewer than in the days of all Westinghouse brakes, even though the hoppers were in groups of up to eight with only a few triple vavles in the group. ECP hoppers are generally in groups of two or four with drawbars, which reduce the cost and remove points of failure. The ECP cables and connectors and air hoses are the same whether there is a drawbar or coupler, but these are separated far less often. The point I'm trying to make is that Australian operations are not that different to the USA. We don't have train crew that point to signals and call the indication even when there is no-one to hear as they do in Japan. I don't believe our maintainers are better. This is not a laboratory demonstration. ECP was adopted in Australia after the US railroads started limited tests using the same components exactly as available in the USA, from Wabtech and NYAB. It is regarded as a good move commercially, despite the fact that the coal and iron ore wagons can't be run in normal freight trains. This isn't a problem because it isn't often necessary to run these cars in normal trains. There is an "emulation mode" that allows ECP cars to run in Westinghouse trains in an emergency, but only while battery power is available. I don't know if this has ever been used in the twelve or so years of ECP operation. Peter
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.
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.
Spend some time with Mike Darby (retired BHP nee CN) if you get a chance. He can amaze you with stories of trains in the Rockies or on the plains. Yes operations are not that different but just different enough to keep the investors from adapting the technology enthusiasticly.
M636C Peter, your "skidded wheels" are the same as our "flat wheels?" Johnny John, My understanding is that wheels are made from harder steel than the rails and that the "skids" pick up material from the rail rather than wearing a flat on the wheel. This allows the damage to be fixed by careful use of a portable grinder rather than removing and turning the wheels. At least, that what I was told when I worked for the rail research section of a steel company... Peter
This gives me the impression that the rails are damaged by the skid; is there periodic inspection of rails for skid marks, and when such are found a railgrinder is used to repair the damage?
ECP hoppers are generally in groups of two or four with drawbars, which reduce the cost and remove points of failure. The ECP cables and connectors and air hoses are the same whether there is a drawbar or coupler, but these are separated far less often.
The point I'm trying to make is that Australian operations are not that different to the USA.
It is regarded as a good move commercially, despite the fact that the coal and iron ore wagons can't be run in normal freight trains. This isn't a problem because it isn't often necessary to run these cars in normal trains.
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
ruderunner M636C,. From that more in-depth explanation of the trains running ECP, it seems that there is more difference between US unit trains and yours. In my opinion, what you witness would be more like a shuttle train rather than a unit train. The Australian version has multiple cars drawbar connected, consists stay mostly the same, from the sounds of it they travel between 2 points constantly and maybe use the same locomotives for long periods of time (months?) US unit trains are much different. The only constant trait they share are that they are long strings of similar cars hauling the same cargo at one time. At any other time, the individual cars can be placed into other trains, used to haul other commodities, the locomotives may or may not stay with the train for even one complete trip. Balloon tracks are quite rare here though more are being built. It's more common for unit trains to be broken into several chunks at each end of the trip. Outside of commuter transit and some experimental unit trains shuttle type trains are few. ECP seems to work great in shuttle train use but maybe not as good in US style unit trains.
It's a little worse than that, in that FRA 'mandate' will only apply initially to oil/fuel trains and to PIH hazmat cars. While in the latter case I also saw some agitating to run all the PIH traffic in specific trains, I don't think that is practical (and imagine the screaming from NIMBons in the Blast Zone if it were begun!) so we are reduced to equipping all the 'alternate cars' that might be needed, or setting up arrangements that put all the ECP and 'through-wired' cars adjacent to the controlling and powering units, and using a "conversion" module to any Power Brake Law-compliant cars to be handled elsewhere in a consist. Now, perhaps that is easier to accomplish with EHH's favorite flat switching than trying to build and then assemble consists on hump-yard tracks, but it's still much more tinkering, and specifically much more electrical make-and-break opportunity, than for block consists (in my opinion).
Note the three-point protection requirement and perhaps craft involvement in electrical-trainline connection or disconnection made 'between the cars' - and where else would it be made?
M636C Surely the unit trains from the Powder River Basin, the cars of many of which are owned by the power companies, could run more or less independently of surrounding traffic. I understood that the power often ran through on different systems on these trains. However, it would not be difficult to operate these trains as they are run in Australia, as long as there was a pool of ECP equipped locomotives that could be drawn upon from the operators involved. Most recent locomotives would have ECP compatible brake controllers (Wabco EPIC or similar). Certainly the Australian operators such as Pacific National would have many locomotives in other traffics that can't run ECP trains, but use ECP units freely in other traffic. During the ECP changeover, a number of units were fitted with through cables for the ECP signal. These could only be used as middle units in ECP trains, but could lead conventional trains as required. These units had EPIC controllers and were soon fitted to lead. Some units don't have the low speed control for loading and unloading despite being fitted with ECP brake control, and these are usually trail units but can be used as lead in case of failure. Aurizon are giving up intermodal services by the end of the year. They have decided the return on investment isn't sufficient. The weekend before last I saw an Aurizon coal train hauled by three units from the intermodal pool. They had been built with ECP brakes and just moved across to meet demand. There are no big problems with ECP. You just have to decide to do it, starting with the services that need it most. The railroads can make it happen as soon as they realise it can save them money. As I said earlier, there is limited backward compatibility using "emulation mode" for ECP only vehicles. This is limited by the on board battery power when disconnected from the ECP train line. It would be easy to have larger batteries that could be plugged into cars when they needed to run in standard Westinghouse trains, like the backup batteries many of us have for our cell phones. It might be possible to have portable solar charging units that could be added to ECP cars going on standard trains in out of course service (to and from repair, for example). As I've said before, I don't think the Australian systems are very different from those in the USA. I heard people say before ECP started that ECP brakes would be a step backwards because there would be two incompatible standards and that the sky would fall. It appears to be still up there. Australians don't take risks commercially. They are very conservative with new ideas, but they got ECP to work. Find a niche where it will work without upsetting too many people and start there. Then laugh all the way to the bank. Peter
We’re telling you why the system hasn’t been adopted here in North America system wide. You won’t accept it. Perhaps you should get a job here in North America that will grant you a position on the AAR Air Brake Committee. This will allow you to tell the decision makers how wrong they are. Until then don’t expect the current situation to change in the near future.
DeggestyThis gives me the impression that the rails are damaged by the skid; is there periodic inspection of rails for skid marks, and when such are found a railgrinder is used to repair the damage?
While the wheels may be harder than the rail, dragging a wheel over any distance will certainly create flat spots - I've seen the results. There are rules for how big they can be before the wheels must be replaced, and how a car must be handled if a flat spot is discovered, depending on the size and placement of the flat spot(s).
A car that's been dragged for several miles with the brakes stuck will have a significant flat spot. And once it gets sliding, it will be hard to notice from the head end.
In the meantime, one part of the wheel is in constant contact with the rail - and may well be melting. The rail, however, is in only brief contact with the wheel, so damage to the rail will be negligible.
I've heard that the rule of thumb is if you can hear a flat spot from more than seven cars away, it's a problem.
That's why the railroads include impact detectors with their defect detectors.
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...
dehusman ECP hoppers are generally in groups of two or four with drawbars, which reduce the cost and remove points of failure. The ECP cables and connectors and air hoses are the same whether there is a drawbar or coupler, but these are separated far less often. Our cars are all individual cars and not semi-permanently coupled sets. The point I'm trying to make is that Australian operations are not that different to the USA. Our unit trains operate differntly than the Australian ones do. Many of our trains operate from multiple loading points to multiple unloading points. that means the trains can operate on widely separated routes. I believe that they also swap out cars more frequently than the Australian trains do. Back a few years ago when this came up and I worked for a US railroad (retired now) I looked at how many trips a "unit train" operated with the same consist of cars and it was only about 2 trips for a coal or oil train. Grain trains were even worse, they varied all over the place. The railroads in the Powder River Basin have spare coal sets on hand, and if a spec loading comes up, the railroads can inject a set of cars into a service so there are railroad owned sets that literally can go to a different origin and destination every trip. It is regarded as a good move commercially, despite the fact that the coal and iron ore wagons can't be run in normal freight trains. This isn't a problem because it isn't often necessary to run these cars in normal trains. On the other hand we run "unit cars" in regular freight trains all the time. If the demand goes down for a car in a particular service its shifted to another service, so a car could be in a 100 car unit one month and then next month be in 10 car units in manifest service the next month. Also you have to consider that in the US, some of the cars are owned by the railroad and most of the cars are NOT owned by the railroad, so the railroad doesn't get to decide where the cars go, its where the industry bills them or what service it puts them in. Just to put it in perspective, if you look at the yard at N Platte, NE, on the north side of the yard towards the west end is the "spare" yard (near Splinter Rd). It is an entire yard devoted to doing nothing but filling out coal trains to standard size when they come back with a car missing due to being bad ordered enroute. Virtually all of those cars arrive back in the yard in manifest service as single cars. The railroads have similar yards for grain service. Many of the oil trains do not load in a "loop", they break the train up into cuts to spot it at racks to unload. The cars are connected and disconnected. None of this is how Rio Tinto operates. Not only are you going to have to mechanically and operationally change the trains, but you are also going to have to change the way the trains and the cars are managed, so it not just a swapping out equipment thing. The Australian iron ore roads are a special case that is not exactly duplicated in the US. Another consideration is demand. How many oil trains were operating when this was a big deal? How many oil trains are still operating? How many oil train accidents have we had in the last year? In the last two years? Why would the railroads and the industry want to spend millions of dollars to install technology for a market that is so volatile? They could spend big bucks to equip 30 units trains and then 6 months later be only operating 15 train sets, and be left with 15 trains sets of equipment that can't be broken up into the carload market. Not real smart.
None of my recent references are about Rio Tinto.
Rio have one dumper at Cape Lambert and 1200 cars dedicated to the Robe River line which uses single cars with Westinghouse brakes, hauled generally by two ES44ACi units, while most other trains like the Autohaul train illustrated have ECP cars in pairs and most are hauled by three ES44DCi units. Some ES 44ACi pairs run on the main line trains.
Rio has two Dumpers at Dampier and three (counting the odd one) at Cape Lambert and apart from the Robe River cars, trains serve maybe eight widely separated mines (off the top of my head) separated by up to 150 miles.
Fortescue has three mines and one port with three dumpers, BHP has maybe eight mines and two ports with four dumpers total. The trains run to mine or port as required.
BHP and Fortescue have loops each end. Rio reverse trains at every dump. They would be the people to ask about connector life. I no longer have contacts within Rio Tinto, although I check out their operation whenever I'm on the diagonally opposite side of the country.
On my last visit in June I counted 4000 new ore cars on Rio alone. Lucky the boom has passed, or there would be more.
The Hunter Valley, which I've said earlier shares its track with all other types of train, would have maybe fifty mines separated by up to two hundred miles, and three unloading loops on two sides of the harbour in Newcastle.
The trains, while fixed rakes, can serve any of the mines served by that operator. One train belongs to Whitehaven Coal with 80 hoppers and three GT46C-ACe units and this stays together although Pacific National provide a locomotive when one needs major service.
Otherwise a train can serve any of the mines that that operator serves, so can run forty miles out and back or 200 miles out and back on successive runs and will be directed to whichever terminal needs the coal from that mine, either to ship straight away or to blend to meet specification. Both thermal and metallurgical coal is shipped from Newcastle, although the highest qualirty thermal coal comes from the Hunter.
There are dual fitted coal trains with some of the smaller operators in the Hunter and west of Sydney. As I said, oil tanks might need to have both types of brake, with manual changeover.
I don't think oil trains would be the best place to start, because I don't think brakes cause many accidents (Lac Megantic aside, of course).
I think coal unit trains must be able to be operated like those in Australia without causing too much disruption, and that would be a good place to really test ECP.
Buslist We’re telling you why the system hasn’t been adopted here in North America system wide. You won’t accept it. Perhaps you should get a job here in North America that will grant you a position on the AAR Air Brake Committee. This will allow you to tell the decision makers how wrong they are. Until then don’t expect the current situation to change in the near future.
It is less that I won't accept it than I can't understand it.
The hardware involved is the same, give or take a few details.
The commodities being hauled are the same.
The houses by the tracks are the same, with the same percentage of people who think the railroad should move away despite having been there 150 years before they moved in.
I'm a bit old to look for a new job and I doubt that the AAR would think that my qualifications were suitable (although I have a university degree in mechanical engineering and years of experience on two railways.)
I've been impressed by the operation of ECP brake trains and what seems to an observer great reliability.
In Australia, there was no concern about dividing up the fleets into ECP and non-ECP and just getting on with it. This is not a recognised national characteristic, since we are regarded as risk averse.
I don't believe that there would be any more difficulty in introducing ECP in unit trains in the USA compared to Australia. As the sportswear advertisement says: "Just Do It".
I'm just expressing an opinion and I won't be upset if nobody listens. I'm used to that after 45 years as a professional engineer. I've often been proved right after the event, but not always.
tree68 Deggesty This gives me the impression that the rails are damaged by the skid; is there periodic inspection of rails for skid marks, and when such are found a railgrinder is used to repair the damage? While the wheels may be harder than the rail, dragging a wheel over any distance will certainly create flat spots - I've seen the results. There are rules for how big they can be before the wheels must be replaced, and how a car must be handled if a flat spot is discovered, depending on the size and placement of the flat spot(s). A car that's been dragged for several miles with the brakes stuck will have a significant flat spot. And once it gets sliding, it will be hard to notice from the head end. In the meantime, one part of the wheel is in constant contact with the rail - and may well be melting. The rail, however, is in only brief contact with the wheel, so damage to the rail will be negligible. I've heard that the rule of thumb is if you can hear a flat spot from more than seven cars away, it's a problem. That's why the railroads include impact detectors with their defect detectors.
Deggesty This gives me the impression that the rails are damaged by the skid; is there periodic inspection of rails for skid marks, and when such are found a railgrinder is used to repair the damage?
I have seen illustrations of really bad wheel flats but these are rare in my experience. I was thinking about Australian unit coal trains and iron ore trains. On my last visit to the Pilbara I can't recall a single skidded wheel on any of the trains, and this might be due to the use of ECP brakes on trains of 250 cars or so. The sound you hear is just the humming of the roller bearings on continuous welded rail, once the locomotives have passed.
In the Hunter, there were a few examples of skidded wheels but these were often at the end of trains where the train had started moving before that last few triple valves released the brakes.
I clearly remember how the first ECP brake train I saw accelerated away much faster than conventional trains since the crew was confident that all the brakes had released (and they had two brand new 4000HP AC locomotives).
In the case of the small skids, there can be a mark on the rail head which can be corrected with grinding. Such marks are more often due to a short wheel slip on a locomotive wheel and are generally seen as a small dark mark the size of a small coin (maybe a nickel). These can sometimes be heard as sounding like a rail joint where none is present.
Has the AAR defined a standard for ECP installations? Are there multiple manufacturers building equipment to comply with those standards?
I am not aware of a standard having been written. I believe there are competing ECP products in the marketplace and they are not compatible with each other.
I could be wrong on one or both of these statements. Nothing will happen until Standards are forumulated and competing manufacturers are building products to those standards.
M636C - are the various ECP systems being used on each Austrailan carrier compatible with the other carriers?
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
I was under the impression that the ECP connectors were an AAR standard (or perhaps a recommendation). They are all to the same design on all systems in Australia, regardless of location (or rail gauge, since there are many ECP trains on 3'6" gauge in Queensland.) These 3'6" trains have cars of 106 tonnes gross (116 US tons) compared to 120 tonnes (132 US tons) on standard gauge coal trains and 140 tonnes gross (154 US tons) in the Pilbara.
Most coal wagons have Wabco equipment but the locomotives often have NYAB equipment. In the Pilbara I have seen both Wabco and NYAB equipment on ore cars.
As far as I know the equipment from these two companies is completely interchangeable as far as operation is concerned, although it might not be possible to fit a Wabco part to an NYAB equipped car.
Chicago Freight Car Leasing Australia purchased 12 GE C44ACi locomotives (basically ES 44s fitted with FDL engines). All 12 were used by Pacific National in the Hunter Valley initially, but six were moved to the Pilbara where they are used as switchers by Rio Tinto. Two of these returned and were picked up by Aurizon for further Hunter Valley service.
The ECP connectors worked on all three operator's trains.
If there is incompatible equipment I've not seen any of it (except possibly individual components on cars fitted with one brand or the other).
Edit:
Check https://www.rissb.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Code_ECP-Brakes-DRAFT-V3.11.pdf
This draft appears to quote AAR Standard S-4200.
This seems to also be an Australian standard.
M636CThis draft appears to quote AAR Standard S-4200.
I found the same AAR Standard. I wonder if the concern is that said device is not up to the job, standard or no.
tree68 M636C This draft appears to quote AAR Standard S-4200. I found the same AAR Standard. I wonder if the concern is that said device is not up to the job, standard or no.
M636C This draft appears to quote AAR Standard S-4200.
There's the rub. The level of reliabilty of freight car components is ridiculously high. It's gotten there by itteration after itteration of changes to design details based on failure analysis and testing. The AAR has regular committees - and has had for a century) that create and ammend standards to this effect.
Getting something entirely new up to the reliability level of the existing stuff is not simple or quick.
In the middle of doing PTC and playing the "how low can your OR go" game, I don't see railroads having the wherewithal to take on much ECP work.
Given that the simulation results for oil trains with and without ECP were inconclusive, I can't see much more time and money being spent on an ECP mandate. I'm not really disappointed. I think the current ECP systems are an evolutionary dead end.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
M636C tree68 M636C This draft appears to quote AAR Standard S-4200. I found the same AAR Standard. I wonder if the concern is that said device is not up to the job, standard or no. It seems to work in Australia on tens of thousands of rail vehicles in all parts of the country. While there is no experience in really cold weather, ECP should be less affected than Westinghouse by cold temperatures. I think concerns about cost and lack of interchangeability would be more likely than any concern about equipment reliability. The applications in Australia would seem to have proved the suitability of the standard. You would expect the AAR to only adopt a standard that would work in the USA.... Peter
What are the regular air brake inspection intervals in Australia? Are there separate inspection intervals for ECP equipment? What are the repair intervals and costs for ECP equipment in Australia?
M636CI think coal unit trains must be able to be operated like those in Australia without causing too much disruption, and that would be a good place to really test ECP.
I generally agree and that's generally what has been happening.
Not all unit coal trains are created equally, however. Some of the NS train sets in ECP testing work out of the the Monogahela area. There are some good, solid, mine to power plant cycles there, but quite a few mines still load cars in relatively short cuts and then assemble the train after loading. Some mines don't have measured loading systems often generate overloaded cars that have to be switched out later at the serving yard. Some "unit" trains aren't really that at all, but are built at the serving yard from smaller cuts that arrive from the mine. The mine might load 90 car trains, but the yard will built 135 car trains for the mainline.
Poky coal is even worse. Mines are scattered all over the place and typically load small cuts that are dragged back to the serving yard for assembly into trains of various sized depending on the destination, and even some "loose cars" carrying industry coal for merchandise service.
This is in contrast to the flood loading to rapid discharge unloading unit train sets that run to and from the Power River Valley.
The net result is that those connectors are getting worked a bit more in the east than one might otherwise suspect. I don't think this data has been anaylzed. (although it wouldn't be all that hard to do.)
The following information from the linked pdf pertains to the disagreement over ECP reliability.
http://www.gao.gov/assets/690/680408.pdf
There is disagreement on the reliability of ECP brakes and the extent to which railroads can achieve operational—or business—benefits from ECP brakes. DOT expects that because ECP brakes enable trains to start faster after stops, ECP brakes will increase railroad operational efficiencies, resulting in improved utilization of tank cars and a reduced quantity of tank cars in HHFUT service. According to DOT in the final rule, ECP brakes are a reliable and “proven technology” and “concerns related to maintenance and repair issues that arise during normal operations will be resolved through adequate training of operating crews and maintenance personnel.” DOT officials noted that the reliability of ECP brakes has improved in recent years. In addition, representatives for both ECP brake manufacturers stated that ECP brakes have become more reliable over time. One of them told us that reliability continues to improve over time; for example, that manufacturer is now developing new ways to address failures with ECP brakes’ inter-car connectors.50 We did not identify any additional, credible third-party data on the reliability of ECP brakes in the United States. In addition, crosstalk51 was a problem, but according to DOT officials and representatives from the two ECP brake manufacturers, the issue has been addressed. Furthermore, according to DOT, certain features of ECP brakes, such as graduated release, will improve operations as they enable railroads to run trains closer together and to operate for longer distances between brake inspections.52
AAR representatives, however, told us that there will be only minimal operational benefits that are outweighed by operational burdens and that reliability issues will cause network disruptions. Representatives we interviewed from all five Class I railroads that have used ECP brakes stated that poor reliability would prevent them from achieving any operational efficiencies. These representatives confirmed that their railroads stopped or reduced their ECP brakes operations in part due to challenges related to their reliability. For example, one railroad representative said that the railroad stopped using ECP brakes after experiencing reliability problems including crosstalk and issues with the ECP inter-car connectors that connect the ECP cable down the length of the train. Another railroad official said that problems such as issues with the ECP cable and inter-car connectors resulted in delays that caused network disruptions; this railroad said that failures on ECP-equipped trains resulted in delays that lasted an average of about 7 hours compared to less than 2 hours on trains with conventional air brakes given the additional time needed for repairs.53 Of the class I railroads we interviewed that have used ECP brakes, only two railroads were able to provide us with data on these reliability problems; the rest instead provided anecdotal support.
Generally experts we interviewed thought that while ECP brakes have experienced reliability challenges, their reliability should improve over time. Six of the 8 experts who commented on reliability-cited problems that railroads have experienced with ECP brake use to date, including some of those noted above. One of these six experts also noted that freight railroads are always looking to improve their efficiency and the fact that most U.S. railroads that have used ECP brakes stopped doing so indicates that they may be unreliable.54 However, many international railroads continue to use ECP brakes in some of their operations, and some have expanded their use. The remaining two experts did not believe that ECP brakes have been unreliable. More than half the experts we interviewed (8 of the 13) said the reliability should improve over time as the technology continues to mature and railroads gain more experience with ECP brakes; three of these experts added that improved reliability could lead to efficiency improvements.
Representatives we interviewed from other countries with experience operating trains equipped with ECP brakes found them to be reliable. Representatives of two Australian railroads and one South African expert said ECP brakes are more reliable than conventional air brakes. AAR representatives noted that unlike in the United States, railroads in Australia and South Africa are running closed loop operations55 and keep their locomotives and cars together, not moving cars around, making their operations better suited for ECP brakes. Furthermore, some railroads in these countries use standalone ECP brake systems; while both DOT and AAR anticipate that the U.S. industry will likely use ECP overlay systems to meet the ECP brake requirement. A representative from one Australian railroad and a South African rail expert stated that ECP overlay systems tend to be less reliable because the existence of two braking systems creates additional complexity and introduces additional components that are subject to failure.
BaltACD What are the regular air brake inspection intervals in Australia? Are there separate inspection intervals for ECP equipment? What are the repair intervals and costs for ECP equipment in Australia?
The Australian operators are private companies and operating cost data is regarded as commercial in confidence.
I'm not sure what you mean by inspection:
RISSB state the following:
A Static Brake Test shall be conducted prior to the departure of an ECP braked Train from its point of origin, just as for conventionally braked Trains. An in-service Static Brake Test conducted on a Train shall establish whether its Brake System will function and perform as specified when placed in service.
The Driver can verify the number and sequence of Vehicles on the Train and the status of their CCDs. Refer AAR Standard S-4200 for the procedure to sequence Train and the procedure for seeing the status of ECP equipment in the train.
Other relevant data might be found in the RISSB document.
The Australian trains, with only one exception, are all-ECP trains without conventional Westinghouse equipment. RISSB state:
Where Vehicles with an Overlay Brake System are operated in a Train, Operators should be prepared to demonstrate that Service Brake applications of the electronic brake on a wagon do not actuate the pneumatic brakes on this or adjacent wagons by causing a localised drop in Brake Pipe Pressure, and that any resultant risk of dragging brakes is managed.
For Vehicles fitted with an Emulator CCD, Operators should be prepared to demonstrate that the communications protocols and functionality of the Vehicles are compatible with the other equipment used in Trains when operated on a Network.
This might indicate where the differences in reliability occur between Australian regular operation and tests in the USA. By retaining the Westinghouse equipment on unit trains using ECP brake, you are adding more opportunity for failure, both of the Westinghouse equipment and inadvertent operation due to interference between the ECP and conventional systems.
Wikipedia, quoting the GAO report states:
Federal rules limit normal air brake inspection to once every 1600 kilometers, but with ECP this increases to 5600 kilometres, allowing a coast-to-coast return trip on a single inspection at home base.
I assume that Australian operators would follow that, as they do with the AAR standards and recommendations.
In the US air brakes on each car must be 'shop' inspected and tested every 5 years. The date and location of the testing gets stencilled on the car. (Not being a carman, I don't know all the procedures that are used in doing this testing and inspection.) In many cases for private owner unit trains, these inspections are performed on a train basis at a facility of the owners choosing (which may be the consignees plant). Railroad owned cars are normally inspected at the owners facilities.
All trains have a Class 1 Initial Terminal Brake test done before departure.
The Class 1 brake test can be done with locomotive or with ground air. After the test is completed, the cars tested must remain on air to keep the test 'current'. If the train or cars, are off air for more than Four Hours, the test must be performed again for the cars that were off air. A 'brake slip' is issued to the train or cut of cars and must be in the possession of the crew that is handling the cars.
Current FRA regulations require trains to have a 1000 mile brake test - these get scheduled for terminals that have Car Department personnel on duty to perform the test (and make any repairs that may be necessary [replace brake shoes, adjust piston travel, etc.])
In the US air brakes on each car must be 'shop' inspected and tested every 5 years. The date and location of the testing gets stencilled on the car.
I think the same period applies in Australia.
In fact, Rio Tinto and BHP iron ore cars arrive from the factory in China with a brake test date stencilled on the body which is never updated, since both operations rely on computer records but it provides an excellent reference to the car's delivery date.
I really can't understand why ECP equipment built to a given standard woks so well in Australia and causes problems in the USA.
We are grateful to the AAR for their excellent standards which have provided a significant productivity improvement to Australian rail operations. In fact, a significant proportion of Australia's exports by value are carried by unit trains with ECP brakes.
I think that fitting ECP brakes to unit tank car trains would be a good idea, but not in order to reduce the effect of a derailment caused by track conditions or other causes than braking itself.
Having looked at the GAO report again, I'm bemused by the discussion of brake applications caused by "crosstalk". I've seen two loaded ECP trains side by side climbing a steep grade while a third empty ECP train descended under dynamic braking. None was affected by the others, so crosstalk can't be a major problem in Australia. A normal ECP coal train in the Hunter Valley would pass maybe forty other trains with ECP brakes in a normal return run. In the Pilbara each train might pass another twenty trains on a normal return trip.
At least Australian operators have been able to make good use of the advantages provided by ECP brakes.
M636CI think that fitting ECP brakes to unit tank car trains would be a good idea, but not in order to reduce the effect of a derailment caused by track conditions or other causes than braking itself.
Why would you not want to include the objective of reducing the effect of a derailment?
There is over one million freight cars in the North American fleet. Not every one may need conversion, but those that do will require a dual capability. (I don't think you will be able to have a train with mixed equipment. It will have to be in one mode or the other.) As long as cars exist with only conventional equipment, all new equipment will still have to have a dual mode capability. Once the number of old cars gets low enough, you could mandate (like has been done before) the phase out of conventional brake equipment. Then you could have all ECP equipment in service.
Besides freight cars, locomotives are going to need to be converted. All the new ones (that I have seen) now have electronic brake valves that are compatible for ECP. Older ones, and there are probably more of them out there then the new, would need more extensive modifications.
All that leads to spending money. A lot of money. So far, it seems the railroads don't see enough of a benefit, that is a savings or return on the money spent, to go whole hog on ECP. Especially with the money they are spending on PTC. Which, IMO, without the Federal mandate would not be getting installed for the same reason. A lot of money for not much return.
Jeff
BaltACDIn the US air brakes on each car must be 'shop' inspected and tested every 5 years. The date and location of the testing gets stencilled on the car. (Not being a carman, I don't know all the procedures that are used in doing this testing and inspection.)
I'm not a carman either, but I did hang around with some for a few months, once upon a time....
The test is a "single car test". You hook the car up to a test device - a manifold with valves and what-not. You basically put the car's brake valves through it's paces, testing that each portion functions as intended. Will it react to a minimum reduction? Will it react to emergency, etc.
Euclid M636C I think that fitting ECP brakes to unit tank car trains would be a good idea, but not in order to reduce the effect of a derailment caused by track conditions or other causes than braking itself. Why would you not want to include the objective of reducing the effect of a derailment?
M636C I think that fitting ECP brakes to unit tank car trains would be a good idea, but not in order to reduce the effect of a derailment caused by track conditions or other causes than braking itself.
Has it not been found that emergency braking with ECP offers little advantage over conventional air?
tree68 Euclid M636C I think that fitting ECP brakes to unit tank car trains would be a good idea, but not in order to reduce the effect of a derailment caused by track conditions or other causes than braking itself. Why would you not want to include the objective of reducing the effect of a derailment? Has it not been found that emergency braking with ECP offers little advantage over conventional air?
Emergency stopping is a little faster with ECP although not as much faster as service application stopping is. But ECP also applies simultaneously whereas conventional air brakes apply sequentially car by car. The simultaneous application prevents derailments by limiting slack force.
But, I am not sure I understand the comment by M636C. I would like to know exactly what conditions he is talking about, whether he believes ECP would prevent those conditions, and if so, why he would not want to include those conditions as part of the justification for ECP.
Euclid tree68 Euclid M636C I think that fitting ECP brakes to unit tank car trains would be a good idea, but not in order to reduce the effect of a derailment caused by track conditions or other causes than braking itself. Why would you not want to include the objective of reducing the effect of a derailment? Has it not been found that emergency braking with ECP offers little advantage over conventional air? Emergency stopping is a little faster with ECP although not as much faster as service application stopping is. But ECP also applies simultaneously whereas conventional air brakes apply sequentially car by car. The simultaneous application prevents derailments by limiting slack force. But, I am not sure I understand the comment by M636C. I would like to know exactly what conditions he is talking about, whether he believes ECP would prevent those conditions, and if so, why he would not want to include those conditions as part of the justification for ECP.
You are overlooking the fact that 2-way EOT's are the norm these days. When the locomotive detects a desired or undesired emergency brake application, a radio signal is sent to the EOT that initiates emergency braking from the rear end forward. Where Distributed Power is in use, I suspect, but don't know that a emergency application will be initiated from the DPU also.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.