Norm48327 tree68 We're still waiting for you to state the railroad experience you said you have. I suspect Don will come up with the information before you do. Larry, I wish you luck getting information about Bucky's experience. It's likely to be a very cold day in you-know-where before he reveals the truth. His unwillingness to answer any questions regarding his "experience" speaks volumes.
tree68 We're still waiting for you to state the railroad experience you said you have. I suspect Don will come up with the information before you do.
Larry,
I wish you luck getting information about Bucky's experience. It's likely to be a very cold day in you-know-where before he reveals the truth. His unwillingness to answer any questions regarding his "experience" speaks volumes.
Right in there with some tax returns.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
tree68We're still waiting for you to state the railroad experience you said you have. I suspect Don will come up with the information before you do.
Norm
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.
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!
Maybe the time horizon for a robust ECP system is a bit longer off. The current system seem like a flawed dead-end to me.
Maybe wireless is a bridge too far. How about an inductive data connection built into the air hose glad hand?
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
EuclidIf ECP brakes work better than conventional air brakes for Rio Tinto, shouldn't the same be true for U.S. freight rail operations?
ECP brakes may be a truly wonderful thing when they work. What we're discussing here is impediments to having them work correctly, all of the time. Because if they can't be counted on to work when they are needed, they are worse than useless.
We also don't know why they work better for Rio Tinto than conventional brakes, and whether conditions for operation are comparable between the US and there. We know they are using unit trains. Anyone familiar with their profile?
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...
http://www.railwayage.com/index.php/regulatory/nas-trb-ecp-study-inconclusive.html
Electroliner 1935 Euclid What is it about the style differences that would invalidate the comparision between U.S. railroading and Rio Tinto railroading? Rio Tinto is a captive (ie, non interchange railroad) point to point (mine to dock) and operates unit trains that don't get switched except for repairs and that is not very often (on a schedule of failure occurence). Also, if you stay current on Newswire, you have seen that they have started operating without an Engineer. This (the railroad, not automatic operation) would be similar to the four corners generating station line in New Mexico or the line in Quebec.
Euclid What is it about the style differences that would invalidate the comparision between U.S. railroading and Rio Tinto railroading?
Rio Tinto is a captive (ie, non interchange railroad) point to point (mine to dock) and operates unit trains that don't get switched except for repairs and that is not very often (on a schedule of failure occurence). Also, if you stay current on Newswire, you have seen that they have started operating without an Engineer. This (the railroad, not automatic operation) would be similar to the four corners generating station line in New Mexico or the line in Quebec.
I understand that those differences in railroad application might affect the economics of choosing ECP versus conventional air brakes. However, this line of discussion was introduced by Don Oltmannd and his contention that ECP is less reliable than conventional air brakes. So we are comparing U.S. rail operations with Rio Tinto operations only in regard to brake system functioning to control trains. If ECP brakes work better than conventional air brakes for Rio Tinto, shouldn't the same be true for U.S. freight rail operations?
EuclidWhat is it about the style differences that would invalidate the comparision between U.S. railroading and Rio Tinto railroading?
Rio Tinto is a captive (ie, non interchange railroad) point to point (mine to dock) and operates unit trains that don't get switched except for repairs and that is not very often (on a schedule of failure occurence). Also, if you stay current on Newswire, you have seen that they have started operating without an Engineer. This (the railroad, not automatic operation) would be similar to the four corners generating station line in New Mexico or the line in Quebec. Therefore, connectors do not get frequent operation.
See: http://cs.trains.com/trn/f/111/p/2999895/editpost.aspx
and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bwrOHFHS-ms
and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pzsr3J-54js
BaltACD 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. Yes, failure data on the test trains is collected. Yes, it is catagorized and evaluated, But, no, there isn't an electrical engineer on the spot to forensicley analyze each failure. It ECP as reliable as regular air brake? No. Not close. Are the railroads pouring money of their own into R&D? Not much - other than provide the platform for test trains. What is the manufacturer doing about improving the design? I really don't know, but that's where the connector meets the juice, so to speak. I am not asking for forencic analysis, just a decription of the problem. If it is a real problem backed up with a large file of anectotal evidence, as you say, then let's see the evidence. You make it sound as though ECP is still on the drawing board and being tentatively evaluated by just U.S. railroads for possible use in the future, but only after much more development. I wonder if that is the way that Rio Tinto would describe it. You say that ECP is nowhere near as reliable as the regular air brake. Really? Give me an example of what you mean. How is ECP less reliable than regular air brakes? Rio Tinto is not involved in US style railroading and as such is a invalid example of operation.
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. Yes, failure data on the test trains is collected. Yes, it is catagorized and evaluated, But, no, there isn't an electrical engineer on the spot to forensicley analyze each failure. It ECP as reliable as regular air brake? No. Not close. Are the railroads pouring money of their own into R&D? Not much - other than provide the platform for test trains. What is the manufacturer doing about improving the design? I really don't know, but that's where the connector meets the juice, so to speak. I am not asking for forencic analysis, just a decription of the problem. If it is a real problem backed up with a large file of anectotal evidence, as you say, then let's see the evidence. You make it sound as though ECP is still on the drawing board and being tentatively evaluated by just U.S. railroads for possible use in the future, but only after much more development. I wonder if that is the way that Rio Tinto would describe it. You say that ECP is nowhere near as reliable as the regular air brake. Really? Give me an example of what you mean. How is ECP less reliable than regular air brakes?
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. Yes, failure data on the test trains is collected. Yes, it is catagorized and evaluated, But, no, there isn't an electrical engineer on the spot to forensicley analyze each failure. It ECP as reliable as regular air brake? No. Not close. Are the railroads pouring money of their own into R&D? Not much - other than provide the platform for test trains. What is the manufacturer doing about improving the design? I really don't know, but that's where the connector meets the juice, so to speak.
It's a real problem backed up with a large file of anecdotal evidence. Yes, failure data on the test trains is collected. Yes, it is catagorized and evaluated, But, no, there isn't an electrical engineer on the spot to forensicley analyze each failure. It ECP as reliable as regular air brake? No. Not close. Are the railroads pouring money of their own into R&D? Not much - other than provide the platform for test trains.
What is the manufacturer doing about improving the design? I really don't know, but that's where the connector meets the juice, so to speak.
I am not asking for forencic analysis, just a decription of the problem. If it is a real problem backed up with a large file of anectotal evidence, as you say, then let's see the evidence. You make it sound as though ECP is still on the drawing board and being tentatively evaluated by just U.S. railroads for possible use in the future, but only after much more development. I wonder if that is the way that Rio Tinto would describe it.
You say that ECP is nowhere near as reliable as the regular air brake. Really? Give me an example of what you mean. How is ECP less reliable than regular air brakes?
Rio Tinto is not involved in US style railroading and as such is a invalid example of operation.
What is it about the style differences that would invalidate the comparision between U.S. railroading and Rio Tinto railroading? We are talking about the operational effectivenss of ECP brakes in making this comparision.
I am not asking for forensic analysis, just a decription of the problem. If it is a real problem backed up with a large file of anectotal evidence, as you say, then let's see the evidence. You make it sound as though ECP is still on the drawing board and being tentatively evaluated by just U.S. railroads for possible use in the future, but only after much more development. I wonder if that is the way that Rio Tinto would describe it.
Euclid tree68 Euclid We are always told not to unplug by pulling on the cord. Yet it's done thousands of times each day with brake hoses... Yes it is perfected for brake hoses. It may also be perfected for the electrical connectors. They might have some type of steel rope woven in to provide the strength to resist the pullout force. If it has to work that way, I am sure it is doable and reliable. I would think these connectors would be shown on the manufacturer's websites
tree68 Euclid We are always told not to unplug by pulling on the cord. Yet it's done thousands of times each day with brake hoses...
Euclid We are always told not to unplug by pulling on the cord.
Yet it's done thousands of times each day with brake hoses...
Yes it is perfected for brake hoses. It may also be perfected for the electrical connectors. They might have some type of steel rope woven in to provide the strength to resist the pullout force. If it has to work that way, I am sure it is doable and reliable. I would think these connectors would be shown on the manufacturer's websites
From what I remember of pictures of the connector, it is designed for pull-aparts, but most of the problems are from dirt and moisture causing poor connections.
They are trying to push quite a bit of power down that trainline. I would concentrate on that as well as the connector itself.
EuclidBut for now, I just want to know if connectors are posing a real problem or if problems are just being theorized.
BaltACDFor HEP, the voltage is 480V, which seems to be a standard. The voltage is high enough to require the line to be de-energized when the train is changed from station power to head-end power.
480 V power can be much more deadly if mishandled than 120 or 240. At least in networked underground vaults where a 480 bus fire can and have cremated anyone near it. Unlike many ac faults which will extinquish at a zero crossing, a 480 volt fault can maintain its arc and the results can be fatal. I want no part of handling live 480 V connectors. The reasoning to deliven (shut off) before transitioning to/from shore power is because the locomotives three phase power is not in sync with the shore power. Synchronizing generators is similar to shifting gears without a clutch. Most manual transmissions today have synchronizers but if you remember grinding gears, think if each gear tooth being a wire at 480 volts differerential to its mating gear tooth. To mate they have to be turning at the same speed and at the same voltage. Otherwise, FAULT.
EuclidWe are always told not to unplug by pulling on the cord.
tree68 Euclid I picture an improvement in which the connectors are coupled loosely into a mated and locked position, but with contacts not made. Then as a second step, a lever is thrown that engages the contacts like throwing a switch. A few drawings, a prototype or two, a patent, and you could be a rich man. Or not.
Euclid I picture an improvement in which the connectors are coupled loosely into a mated and locked position, but with contacts not made. Then as a second step, a lever is thrown that engages the contacts like throwing a switch.
A few drawings, a prototype or two, a patent, and you could be a rich man. Or not.
Yes, there could be room for improvement in the connectors even if they have solved the earlier problems. Maybe it is time to introduce the fully automatic coupler with air and electrical connections that make when the automatic couplers join. I am curious as to what the current thinking about these ECP couplings is, particularly how the electrical connectors separate when the cars are uncoupled and pulled apart. Pulling on the cable to part the connectors seems just wrong. We are always told not to unplug by pulling on the cord.
EuclidI picture an improvement in which the connectors are coupled loosely into a mated and locked position, but with contacts not made. Then as a second step, a lever is thrown that engages the contacts like throwing a switch.
You can forget to unhook the pigtail on a trailer however the first time you forget to unhook that pigtail and get slapped on the back of the sleeper or cab you do remember to undo it all the time. We just have a little lip on the pigtail that goes into a spring loaded latched cover on the trailer. We just use 12 volt for power also.
Yes, I was thinking that the Amtrak passenger line voltage was 480 volts. And the change from station supply to engine supply explains the moments of "emergency" lighting when a train is about to start from its origin. Also, when cars are added or taken off enroute the supply from the engine must be interrupted.
Johnny
Balt, I think he’s talking about something else: the inability to plug in or disconnect ‘shore power’ while the actual HEP is still powering the load.
In a ’kid-glove passenger treatment’ world, one of the last things a crew would do would be cut off the lights and air conditioning while switching a consist. But that’s what happens now, and it’s possibly more irritating than coupling shocks would be, even for folks in sleeper accommodations at the time.
As I recall, we have discussed the detailed electrical and safety reasons why this is so.
CSSHEGEWISCH Deggesty What is the line voltage on Amtrak passenger cars? For HEP, the voltage is 480V, which seems to be a standard. The voltage is high enough to require the line to be de-energized when the train is changed from station power to head-end power.
Deggesty What is the line voltage on Amtrak passenger cars?
What is the line voltage on Amtrak passenger cars?
Passenger cars have always been handled with 'kid gloves' whenever switching was necessary. Car Department personnel are usually on hand to handle the coupling and uncoupling of the 'accessory' lines (steam in that day, HEP in today's world.)
Passenger cars are not humped or kicked in flat switching, as is normally done with freight cars.
BaltACD You can have anything you want - IF YOU ARE WILLING TO PAY THE PRICE. US railroads don't want to pay the price for something that does not have an immediate economic return as well as decreasing overall maintenance levels. If ECP is to be used in general interchange service electrical connectors must be able to separate without human interaction and without damage. I don't know that the carriers want thier line of road personnel to be working with 220 volts under the conditions that exist on line of road.
You can have anything you want - IF YOU ARE WILLING TO PAY THE PRICE.
US railroads don't want to pay the price for something that does not have an immediate economic return as well as decreasing overall maintenance levels.
If ECP is to be used in general interchange service electrical connectors must be able to separate without human interaction and without damage. I don't know that the carriers want thier line of road personnel to be working with 220 volts under the conditions that exist on line of road.
Yes, I agree that the connectors must work reliably and safely. I would tend to assume that they are expected to part on their own when the uncoupled cars separate, just like the air hoses do. But I don't know for sure whether that is how they are to be used, or if people are expected to use their hands to unplug the connectors before cutting the cars.
In any case, I assume the conectors do have to be connected by people using their hands just as air hoses are. It may be that in order to be robust enough with a reliable electrical contact, and have waterproof weather shielding, the connectors are too heavy and take so much force to connect and disconect that they are unreasonable for a person to handle.
I picture an improvement in which the connectors are coupled loosely into a mated and locked position, but with contacts not made. Then as a second step, a lever is thrown that engages the contacts like throwing a switch.
But for now, I just want to know if connectors are posing a real problem or if problems are just being theorized.
I am precisely of your mind regarding that 220V - I have always suspected it is a European-electricity off-the-shelf or design convention, RIGHT in the most lethal range for accidental human shorting. It shouldn’t be ‘mains current’ for consumers, and it shouldn’t be waiting at every war-weary, frayed, or pulled connection to make a carman’s or trainman’s life even more neurotic.
oltmannd Euclid tree68 Euclid Elon Musk is going to colonize Mars and he is not worried about connector problems. Trust me, he's worried about connector problems... Perhaps the problem with the ECP connectors is with frequent connections/disconnections. Corrosion notwithstanding, a connector that stays connected (ie, unit trains) isn't going to give you many problems. Connectors that must part and then be reconnected each time a car is switched, etc, are where the problems are going to arise. And a problem like this would be a showstopper for implementing ECP for the general freight car fleet. Well obiously, what I mean is that Musk is not going to throw in the towel on a big idea over some minor detail like a connector when the big idea is expanding our civilization to populate Mars. I do understand that connectors can be a problem. Trust me. I agee that connectors that stay connected will last longer than ones that are disconnected and reconnected frequently. But if this connector problem is acually holding up ECP, it should be well documented. So were is the documention? I would like to see the details of the problem. There are sets of ECP out running and failure data is gathered and categorized. The problem is, we're still talking about a small sample size. A failure rate an order of magnitude greater than regular air brakes would be hard to measure on the test fleet. The failure rate on regular air brake compontents is miniscule.
Euclid tree68 Euclid Elon Musk is going to colonize Mars and he is not worried about connector problems. Trust me, he's worried about connector problems... Perhaps the problem with the ECP connectors is with frequent connections/disconnections. Corrosion notwithstanding, a connector that stays connected (ie, unit trains) isn't going to give you many problems. Connectors that must part and then be reconnected each time a car is switched, etc, are where the problems are going to arise. And a problem like this would be a showstopper for implementing ECP for the general freight car fleet. Well obiously, what I mean is that Musk is not going to throw in the towel on a big idea over some minor detail like a connector when the big idea is expanding our civilization to populate Mars. I do understand that connectors can be a problem. Trust me. I agee that connectors that stay connected will last longer than ones that are disconnected and reconnected frequently. But if this connector problem is acually holding up ECP, it should be well documented. So were is the documention? I would like to see the details of the problem.
tree68 Euclid Elon Musk is going to colonize Mars and he is not worried about connector problems. Trust me, he's worried about connector problems... Perhaps the problem with the ECP connectors is with frequent connections/disconnections. Corrosion notwithstanding, a connector that stays connected (ie, unit trains) isn't going to give you many problems. Connectors that must part and then be reconnected each time a car is switched, etc, are where the problems are going to arise. And a problem like this would be a showstopper for implementing ECP for the general freight car fleet.
Euclid Elon Musk is going to colonize Mars and he is not worried about connector problems.
Trust me, he's worried about connector problems...
Perhaps the problem with the ECP connectors is with frequent connections/disconnections. Corrosion notwithstanding, a connector that stays connected (ie, unit trains) isn't going to give you many problems. Connectors that must part and then be reconnected each time a car is switched, etc, are where the problems are going to arise.
And a problem like this would be a showstopper for implementing ECP for the general freight car fleet.
Well obiously, what I mean is that Musk is not going to throw in the towel on a big idea over some minor detail like a connector when the big idea is expanding our civilization to populate Mars. I do understand that connectors can be a problem. Trust me. I agee that connectors that stay connected will last longer than ones that are disconnected and reconnected frequently.
But if this connector problem is acually holding up ECP, it should be well documented. So were is the documention? I would like to see the details of the problem.
There are sets of ECP out running and failure data is gathered and categorized. The problem is, we're still talking about a small sample size. A failure rate an order of magnitude greater than regular air brakes would be hard to measure on the test fleet. The failure rate on regular air brake compontents is miniscule.
I don’t really care about sample size or failure rates. I would just like to see some technical documentation that discusses the connector problem, its causes, and what can be done to fix them. I have heard of the connector problems emerging about ten or more years ago in the testing done by NS. But that is all the details I have ever heard. Yet it comes up all the time seemingly as an excuse to not adopt ECP.
Every time it comes up here, it is presented as being a showstopper. It sounds a lot like saying that you can’t have driverless trains because there will be nobody to fix broken air hoses.
Overmod It's fun to say "it'll break, so don't bother", and heaven knows there's been enough 'conventional wisdom' about engineers underestimating both the rigors and the culture of the railroad industry.
True enough. Lord knows I've seen my share of it. I'm not saying "don't bother, it will just break". I'm saying "not quite yet. This stuff ain't ready for prime time." I am sure all connector issues can solved.
And the 220 Volt trainline? Yuck.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.