rdamonSome great things have been designed on PowerPoint!
But were they actually built and delivered to their target market on Power Point. Power Point creates great demonstration images - it doesn't make real hand gripping articles.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Some great things have been designed on PowerPoint!
jeffhergertI don't believe ECP has to be an overnight, wholesale change. It can be an overlay on the existing conventional brake system on cars and the controls on the engine. The electronic brake valves being delivered on new engines, for the past few years, are compatible with ECP. That being said, everyone seems to listen to promises of the techies and sales people on what their technology will deliver. It used to be things had to prove themselves before wide scale adaption. Now when some entity or person hears what they want to hear, it's like it MUST BE adopted NOW! Whether that technology actually delivers the benefits promised. Jeff
That being said, everyone seems to listen to promises of the techies and sales people on what their technology will deliver. It used to be things had to prove themselves before wide scale adaption. Now when some entity or person hears what they want to hear, it's like it MUST BE adopted NOW! Whether that technology actually delivers the benefits promised.
Jeff
I had 10 years of working in the Tech enviornment - it is absolutely amazing the 'yarns' Tech Salesmen can spin that their technicians can't deliver on - at least not had the time the salesman said it was real. Maybe after 4 or 5 years of all out development efforts some of the 'sales features' will come into a basic reality. Workable, reliable applications lag far behind the creation of high tech electronic creations.
PTC is a specific case in point - pulling together a number of diseparate technologies to create a workable, hopefully reliable and 24/7 functioning application. Bringing that many 'moving part' together in one application that must operate in a fail safe manner has been a much larger undertaking than anyone that concieved the mandate understood.
jeffhergertI don't believe ECP has to be an overnight, wholesale change.
You're right, but not in quite the way you mean.
It can be an overlay on the existing conventional brake system on cars and the controls on the engine.
None of the existing commercial systems work this way, and while it is possible to achieve some of the effects of 'electronic brake control' on one-pipe Westinghouse systems (I have designed at least two) they are not "ECP" in some critical details (including graduated release) and the equipment remains incompatible when running in interchange.
There is a fundamental difference in how ECP uses the 'one pipe' between cars. In a Westinghouse system all the brake commands and logic go through this pipe, either as a function of pressure or of transitions between pressures. ECP runs the pipe at full pressure almost all the time, only using it for 'emergency' application by dumping the pressure (the 3% 'gain' from ECP coming from the pipe venting to atmosphere at every car instead of only at the valves)
Both manufacturers have developed 'conversion kits' for freight cars that can be installed between the standard Westinghouse brake valve and its mount. These then allow simple changeover between ECP and one-pipe, for interchange during the 'transition era', so you don't recreate the transition era in the years following passage of the Power Brake Law.
The electronic brake valves being delivered on new engines, for the past few years, are compatible with ECP.
That just means that when an ECP logic signal is provided to the valve, it can configure itself accordingly and then function 'as expected' (and ideally tell the engineer exactly why if it can't). Problem is that there's lots more detail that has to be changed on or installed in each locomotive to actually implement ECP, and I expect even with PSR there will be limits on how effectively (let alone cost-effectively) the 'equipped' engines can be lined up with the early full-ECP trains... the default in either case being 'simple in principle' but requiring all cars and engines to be manually transitioned to one-pipe. "Theoretically" cars can be equipped with a simple harness for ECP passthrough, analogous to through air lines in the air-brake transition era, but on ECP those cars could not be braked, and I don't really see anyone's FRA or AAR condoning x percent of unbraked cars with the excuse that ECP will still stop the whole shebang in less time, and that 'emergency will work even faster because all brakes on all cars will apply faster. Of course in this modern age they could try to get that one across...
On top of this is a logistical issue: Who will install the millions of conversions? I do know a couple of car-repair outfits that increased their size expecting Sarah's FRA to mandate conversion, but to really do it in reasonable time to justify the investment requires many new entities and the training, vetting, supervision, and no-Mickey-Mouse government oversight to make them work.
At least some of these would then be field contractors to track the equipment, monitor status, and do PM and emergent repairs. I'm sure Progress Rail would gear up to 'own this segment' but I don't think their culture can handle the relationship-based service that's going to be necessary.
The problem is that until essentially the whole interchange fleet in the general system of transportation is converted, none of the safety advantages of ECP will be available. Modular harness development has not really been done, and while I think the brake companies would provide lower cost equipment as demand ramps up and economies of scale begin to present themselves predictably, I don't see the cost of the kits plus associated QA going much under $5000 a car.
How much of this the railroads themselves would pay for the added convenience is unclear. So is the amount that could be essentially extorted from them for the increased perceived safety. I doubt there's anywhere near the trillions required even for the most conservative implementation (accelerated application to tank and then unit-train fleets; modular harnesses on everything else) without significant "assistance" either in the form of Federal money or Federal incentives (probably including significant tax credits, perhaps extending to the firms that own or control particular railroads or suppliers)
I don't believe ECP has to be an overnight, wholesale change. It can be an overlay on the existing conventional brake system on cars and the controls on the engine. The electronic brake valves being delivered on new engines, for the past few years, are compatible with ECP.
The decline in coal and PSR does not lend itself to captive unit trains that can be set up with ECP
SD60MAC9500The RR's should not wait to act on advancements.. Just like the forced implementation of PTC. Which cost more than if the RR's would have took an incremental approach to installing over time could have been reduced. When ECP is eventually forced by congress on the RR's. It will be the same again. High cost for a system that could've been done on the cheap over time..
I believe the railroads will never enact ECP braking unless they are mandated to do so. It is a problem like railroads changing their gage overnight because a gradual change would have required the highly disruptive use of two gages during a prolonged changeover.
Initially, the railroads were very interested in ECP because it is a valuable improvement whose time has come. But the logistics of changing the North American fleet of rolling stock in one fell swoop are a deal breaker.
The standardization of the rolling stock fleet is a great benefit, but it also freezes improvement to the fleet. So the destiny of ECP is in future braking disasters and their ability to propel Congress into making an ECP mandate.
SD60MAC9500ECP allows brake test to be sped up by quite a bit. Any troubles with the air can pinpointed to the exact car. No more guessing about where a problem in the train line would be. Plus the time charging the train line is reduced significantly. So while the cost of implementing such a system will be costly the gains in productivity can't be denied.
As is previously stated - air issues can be pinpointed and diagnosed much easier than electrical and electronic issues. Improperly acting electrons don't bring attention to themselves except by some element of the equipment not working. Yes, a particular electrical component can be replaced, however, the component that fails and gets replaced may not have been the cause of the failure - just the end result of what is actually failing.
tree68 Overmod There are more benefits from ECP than those of a nominally shorter stopping distance, notably the use of graduated release from any degree of application. Being able to take a little 'too much' brake without subsequent need to 'release to recharge' is surely a useful thing in train handling. It also becomes practical to modulate the brake systems on the cars independently with a little added equipment, which should make the issue of 'getting a knuckle' a thing of the past even for sudden full-service applications. That's all fine and dandy, and I fully appreciate those advantages. The question remains - what is the economic gain from installing ECP? Even if we discount the cost of installation, and the cost of maintenance, does ECP add anything to the bottom line? It can be argued that air brakes reduced headcount - no need for brakemen to walk the roofs of the cars setting and releasing brakes - probably two or three people no longer necessary on the crew. Mind you, I'm not opposed to ECP. As noted by others, though, in this day of penny pinching, what does it do for me?
Overmod There are more benefits from ECP than those of a nominally shorter stopping distance, notably the use of graduated release from any degree of application. Being able to take a little 'too much' brake without subsequent need to 'release to recharge' is surely a useful thing in train handling. It also becomes practical to modulate the brake systems on the cars independently with a little added equipment, which should make the issue of 'getting a knuckle' a thing of the past even for sudden full-service applications.
It also becomes practical to modulate the brake systems on the cars independently with a little added equipment, which should make the issue of 'getting a knuckle' a thing of the past even for sudden full-service applications.
That's all fine and dandy, and I fully appreciate those advantages.
The question remains - what is the economic gain from installing ECP?
Even if we discount the cost of installation, and the cost of maintenance, does ECP add anything to the bottom line?
It can be argued that air brakes reduced headcount - no need for brakemen to walk the roofs of the cars setting and releasing brakes - probably two or three people no longer necessary on the crew.
Mind you, I'm not opposed to ECP. As noted by others, though, in this day of penny pinching, what does it do for me?
The economic gains would come from improved schedules as the outcome of greater velocity which leads to high car turns per month.. Since PSR wants to keep cars turning instead of sitting in yards and at shipper/receivers for a period of time. ECP allows brake test to be sped up by quite a bit. Any troubles with the air can pinpointed to the exact car. No more guessing about where a problem in the train line would be. Plus the time charging the train line is reduced significantly. So while the cost of implementing such a system will be costly the gains in productivity can't be denied..
The RR's should not wait to act on advancements.. Just like the forced implementation of PTC. Which cost more than if the RR's would have took an incremental approach to installing over time could have been reduced. When ECP is eventually forced by congress on the RR's. It will be the same again. High cost for a system that could've been done on the cheap over time..
OvermodThere are more benefits from ECP than those of a nominally shorter stopping distance, notably the use of graduated release from any degree of application. Being able to take a little 'too much' brake without subsequent need to 'release to recharge' is surely a useful thing in train handling. It also becomes practical to modulate the brake systems on the cars independently with a little added equipment, which should make the issue of 'getting a knuckle' a thing of the past even for sudden full-service applications.
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...
jeffhergertI'm not so sure that using the wire for ECP to also control DPs would be much better. It should, but you'll have a connection between every car. Much more places on a 300 car train to have problems. You have to remember that the way most railroads maintain things leaves a lot to be desired. Makes me worry about all the technology being developed. It'll work great when new, but how about a few years down the line? Jeff
You have to remember that the way most railroads maintain things leaves a lot to be desired. Makes me worry about all the technology being developed. It'll work great when new, but how about a few years down the line?
Remember the CARDINAL rule of PSR - reduce head count! Doesn't make any difference which department - Operating, MofW, Signals, Car Dept., Accounting, Supervision you name it - REDUCE HEAD COUNT.
Installation and maintenance of ECP would invariably increase head count - at what offeseting continuing expense? None that I can think of.
It is already difficult enough to maintain air lines and other air braking equipment, now throw on top of that the electronics and other associated electrical equipment and train line connectors. Air faults are realatively easy to locate and correct - electrical faults not so much, unless is ECP is designed by England's Lucas Electric and always faults in smoke mode.
Gramp This all seems to support the notion that the railroad is a centralizing technology. Some thinkers see our future as the highly urbanized city (the auto requires lots of acreage in today’s cities that would be freed up with fewer of them) with rural areas returning to wilderness to the benefit of the overall environment. Urban food production is growing with aeroponic Tower Garden technology.
This all seems to support the notion that the railroad is a centralizing technology.
Some thinkers see our future as the highly urbanized city (the auto requires lots of acreage in today’s cities that would be freed up with fewer of them) with rural areas returning to wilderness to the benefit of the overall environment. Urban food production is growing with aeroponic Tower Garden technology.
And I've read where some think eventually the cities won't be sustainable. (I came across the article by accident and it didn't appear to be from a rightward leading entity.)
I'm not so sure that using the wire for ECP to also control DPs would be much better. It should, but you'll have a connection between every car. Much more places on a 300 car train to have problems.
Lithonia OperatorBut seems like they’d let you acces a single story.
The problem I have with it is not access to the story; it's that I can't read it without completely disabling my ad blocking. Which, in the complete absence of any information from the Post regarding its advertisers or the code they may be planning to shovel across, I am extremely reluctant to do.
We subscribe to online Washington Post. I had forgotten that when I posted the link. But seems like they’d let you access a single story. Dunno.
OvermodThe Washington Post didn't recognize that link for a while, but it seems to be working now. Have not read it, as I'm not disabling my adblocker for an unvetted site that seems intent on pushing content. Would have PMed but Kalmbach and Firefox haven't ironed out their little 'issue'.
Would have PMed but Kalmbach and Firefox haven't ironed out their little 'issue'.
Working fine W10 + Chrome
The normal BS of the FRA/NTSB trying to spend OPM (Other peoples money) in mass quantities.
Worked for me using Winders 10, IExplorer.
Semper Vaporo
Pkgs.
The Washington Post didn't recognize that link for a while, but it seems to be working now. Have not read it, as I'm not disabling my adblocker for an unvetted site that seems intent on pushing content.
I found this to be an informative article:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/railroads-regulators-clash-over-braking-system-for-trains-carrying-flammable-liquids/2016/12/19/68071650-9ad4-11e6-b3c9-f662adaa0048_story.html
tree68The question being this - what is the benefit of shorter stopping distances in daily operations? How much time can be saved if a train can be stopped in half a mile instead of a mile? How does the occasional broken knuckle balance out with the savings gained from that time saved?
There are more benefits from ECP than those of a nominally shorter stopping distance, notably the use of graduated release from any degree of application. Being able to take a little 'too much' brake without subsequent need to 'release to recharge' is surely a useful thing in train handling.
SD60MAC9500 ECP test have proven train stopping distances can be greatly decreased.
The question being this - what is the benefit of shorter stopping distances in daily operations? How much time can be saved if a train can be stopped in half a mile instead of a mile? How does the occasional broken knuckle balance out with the savings gained from that time saved?
Yard capacity has been mentioned - is there a gain if the train can be stopped in a shorter distance at it's hold-out spot because there's no room in the yard?
SD60MAC9500My issue with PSR is how much innovation and infrastructure improvements it's stifiling due to: sharebuy backs, increased focus on dividends, and short term gains?
Indeed - I've said before that PSR has been tainted by those who see it as a way to enrich themselves (ie, the "vulture capitalists," or whatever term you want to use). Much of what is PSR has been done before - preblocking, longer trains, etc - but with the capital spending necessary to make it work.
[quote user="jeffhergert"]
Ultimately, the class ones (for now) may have the goal of having nothing but intermodal trains. PSR isn't about getting to that goal, rather how to handle the remaining car load business until it can be converted or eliminated. If they ever reach that goal, about the only customers they'll be serving are those located near a major metropolitan area where most of their IM terminals are. I think rail customers outside of whatever is a reasonable drey range will end up sending their shipments entirely by highway.
Jeff. Your caption here echos my sentiments as well.. PSR is about eventually dumping the carload network. Build it into a effcient machine for the shortlines to handle. Open access? maybe not.. Or expanded trackage rights...While PSR has sound operating principles. This should have been the last straw. The RR's didn't need PSR to become efficient in handling carload freight or eventually their IM networks. Technology should have been at the forefront of making the RR's an efficient effective way to transport freight..
Once upon time when BN was testing ARES back in the 80's the system proved itself with: Moving blocks, GPS, and digital radio communications. The 90's approached.. Changes in BN staff, and further research and testing halted at other RR's concluded the systems's cost was excessive and provided no benefit could be had from it's implementation? ARES R.I.P... Fast forward to 2008.. PTC was forced onto the RR's
Someone mentioned ECP.. Another positive benefit to train handling that has proven itself in Heavy Haul applications such as the Pilbara region iron ore rail lines. ECP test have proven train stopping distances can be greatly decreased. ECP also provides a more robust, responsive, and simplified air brake system..Another benefit of ECP. It also provides comm access. This would solve Jeffs DP signal issues, with hard wire instead of wireless communication. How long before congress forces the RR's to install ECP???
ARES(Called PTC now of course), ECP, combined with: Dispatching, Car scheduling/real-time tracking, MoW authority, and Rolling stock maintenance would've have provided a much greater benefit as all could be brought under one platform. My issue with PSR is how much innovation and infrastructure improvements it's stifiling due to: sharebuy backs, increased focus on dividends, and short term gains?
Euclid jeffhergert Euclid What is the practical maximum length of trains using distributed power? If there is a maximum practical length, what causes the length limit, and what happens if the limit is exceeded? What's going to limit length is how far can communication be maintained between the head end and the DP consists. For us, 10000' is allowed between the lead engine and remote consist east of the Rocky Mountains, 8500' west of the dividing line. System limit for length is 18000', no more than 6000' between DP consists and there must be a DP on the rear. If no DP on the rear, than length is limited to 15000'. Conventional trains are limited to 10000'. There can also be subdivision length restrictions. Usually because of siding lengths. If a train shows up and the length, either system or subdivision limit is exceeded, they can either make you correct the problem if possible. For example, repositioning a DP consist. More likely they'll have someone, usually the corridor manager, give you time and initials to take it as is. It's amazing what can be done with time and initials. Jeff Is there a technological solution to the problem of not being able to maintain communication between the head end and the DP consists? If so, is it too costly? Is there work being done to develop such a solution? If it were possible to run longer trains, would there be a need for that? Or would train length be absolutely limted by siding length?
jeffhergert Euclid What is the practical maximum length of trains using distributed power? If there is a maximum practical length, what causes the length limit, and what happens if the limit is exceeded? What's going to limit length is how far can communication be maintained between the head end and the DP consists. For us, 10000' is allowed between the lead engine and remote consist east of the Rocky Mountains, 8500' west of the dividing line. System limit for length is 18000', no more than 6000' between DP consists and there must be a DP on the rear. If no DP on the rear, than length is limited to 15000'. Conventional trains are limited to 10000'. There can also be subdivision length restrictions. Usually because of siding lengths. If a train shows up and the length, either system or subdivision limit is exceeded, they can either make you correct the problem if possible. For example, repositioning a DP consist. More likely they'll have someone, usually the corridor manager, give you time and initials to take it as is. It's amazing what can be done with time and initials. Jeff
Euclid What is the practical maximum length of trains using distributed power? If there is a maximum practical length, what causes the length limit, and what happens if the limit is exceeded?
What is the practical maximum length of trains using distributed power? If there is a maximum practical length, what causes the length limit, and what happens if the limit is exceeded?
What's going to limit length is how far can communication be maintained between the head end and the DP consists.
For us, 10000' is allowed between the lead engine and remote consist east of the Rocky Mountains, 8500' west of the dividing line. System limit for length is 18000', no more than 6000' between DP consists and there must be a DP on the rear. If no DP on the rear, than length is limited to 15000'. Conventional trains are limited to 10000'.
There can also be subdivision length restrictions. Usually because of siding lengths.
If a train shows up and the length, either system or subdivision limit is exceeded, they can either make you correct the problem if possible. For example, repositioning a DP consist. More likely they'll have someone, usually the corridor manager, give you time and initials to take it as is. It's amazing what can be done with time and initials.
Is there a technological solution to the problem of not being able to maintain communication between the head end and the DP consists? If so, is it too costly? Is there work being done to develop such a solution? If it were possible to run longer trains, would there be a need for that? Or would train length be absolutely limted by siding length?
Siding length only limits train length in one direction.
Don't know what cell tower installations cost - using such towers as repeaters 'should' solve any communications issues - if they are strategiclly placed.
My experience indicates that excessive length trains screw terminals into the ground in their current configurations. It takes multiple yard tracks being coupled together to build the train - fouling out strategic locations in the terminal for long periods of time. The same thing when attempting to yard the train. I am not aware of PSR wanting to spend the money requried to reconfigure terminals to handle the 10K - 12K - 15K - 18K long trains.
Hauling long trains between terminals is not the big deal. The bigger deal is having crews available to crew change locations, however, part of the PSR plan is to limit the number of crews as PSR works to minimize the employed head count.
Better more reliable radios. The biggest thing IMO, is maintaining the equipment. Especially the little things like wire connections and antennas. One of the first things many mechanics do when he climbing on board to try to fix comm problems is to unscrew the wire out of the radios and blow on them. Trying to dislodge dust or dirt particles that may have accumulated.
I'm also wondering about electronic interference from non-railroad sources. For us, Missouri Valley IA seems like a communications black hole. If you are already having DP comm problems, that area makes it worse. Trains that don't have DP comm problems else where seem to have them there.
Siding length only becomes a real problem when you run no-fitting trains in both direction. As long as at least one direction can fit, or hold the main between the switches, an overlength train isn't a problem.
greyhounds zardoz Disclaimer: I retired before DP, thus certain aspects of train handling relating to DP are unfamiliar to me. However, I've run trains with 6BL and 24RL automatic brake valves (and trains with only AB brakes and friction bearings), using the feed valve to effect a small enough reduction as to not trigger a kicker, and then using straight air to trigger a quick release. And, it's going to take a while to figure out how to do this. And, it will largely be done by trial and error.
zardoz
Disclaimer: I retired before DP, thus certain aspects of train handling relating to DP are unfamiliar to me. However, I've run trains with 6BL and 24RL automatic brake valves (and trains with only AB brakes and friction bearings), using the feed valve to effect a small enough reduction as to not trigger a kicker, and then using straight air to trigger a quick release.
And, it's going to take a while to figure out how to do this. And, it will largely be done by trial and error.
With Dad being a company operating department official, he was required to have a Private telephone line - for those 2 and 3 AM derailement calls and other issues he had to be involved in.
When we moved to Baltimore, we moved to the Catonsville area, just West of the City/County line - we had a dial phone. My Grandfather lived in Severna Park, 6 miles exactly (as the crow fly's) from the Golden Dome of the Naval Academy in Annapolis - Severna Park did not have dial service. He was Severna Park 45. A couple of years later, Severna Park did get dial service - his number was the Severna Park prefix + 4545.
The first telephone system we had when I was growing up was a dial system--with three digits (small town). One day, some cousins from the small city 10 miles up the road were visiting, and one asked me how the dial system worked; at the time I did not realize that her telephone calls involved asking the operator for the number wanted, so I did not explain the wonders of dialing.
When I went off to college, Bristol, Tennessee, and Bristol, Virginia, still used operators. During my time there, a dial system was installed, with NO the prefix for Virginia numbers, and SO the prefix for Tennessee numbers--you had to be careful to not use zero for the second letter of the prefix.
Johnny
jeffhergertPS. I forgot about party lines. We had one, too. You know you're old when you go into an antique store and remember having and using many of the items for sale.
We had a party line as well. At least we didn't have to remember which ring was ours....
I can remember having to go through the operator to complete a connection.
Every now and then FB will have one of those posts which say that "only X percent of people know what these items are." I'm usually in the X percent.
As an off-topic aside - during the big festival in Milford, MI this past weekend, one vendor had old pictures of the village - it was fun hanging out there a bit and telling the newbies what some of the places in the pictures were.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.