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.
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.
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
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.
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.)
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
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.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
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.
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?
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...
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.
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..
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.
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.
The decline in coal and PSR does not lend itself to captive unit trains that can be set up with ECP
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.
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.
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)
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
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.
Some great things have been designed on PowerPoint!
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.
Keep in mind that ECP and PTC are radically different in proven value. There's concrete experience back before the 1920s in electrically-controlled braking, and most -- notice I emphasize most -- of the bugs in North American-appropriate systems were worked out in applications like the mining railroads in Australia. I see little either difficult or misdesigned in the current approaches, with the primary difficulty being the hard connections of the trainlined power/data cable. But I don't think these count as unproven vaporware/betaware provisions.
PTC was from the beginning four separate functions, which really needed different systems to provide them, being rolled into one mandate and then turned loose on techies to build and code. Somewhere along the line the decision was made to provide "it" as overlay to physical signaling systems, which is in practice not only a 'fifth function' but one that substantially complicates both the tech and the maintenance with few if any actual safety or operating benefits. It was bad enough to see a camel being designed by a committee; now we're beginning to see some of the relatively unpatchable holes in the "safety" coverage.
Just think: if we'd passed timely legislation against pedophiles using cell phones improperly, we'd probably not have this mandate this way in the first place...
ECP is analogus to that 300 light string of Christmas lights, wherein when one fails they all go out. You only have to find the one that failed.
Except that if I understand correctly, being a data link, it can tell you how far down the string, it is able to communicate.
With a wireless bridge to a DPU or EOT you could go right to the fault probably not even have to stop until the next terminal since you have a back-up path.
Aircraft are starting to use Ethernet for this purpose.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avionics_Full-Duplex_Switched_Ethernet
The other thing we discussed on other threads was if you had an electric trainline you could have power or power assisted hand brakes.
Of course I could see all the 'artists' putting down the spray cans becoming copper rats.
jeffhergert 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. 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
I'd be really worried about that many trainline connectors. I really hated that the current ECP tries to push power down the same trainline.
Each car has to have its own power, for starters. Maybe a battery with a generator integral to the roller bearing plus some solar.
For the trainline, I'd hope someone could come up with something like bluetooth, but with some sort of wave guide so that cars would have to be coupled for the communication to take place.
I think there would also have to backward compatibility - an ECP equiped car could operate in an unequipped train - but forward compatibility? I can't see a way to accomplish that.
So, to implement, you'd have to do it in phases. Start with some unit trains, expand to all intermodal equipment, then perhaps ML equipment by pool. Let that stuff run around for a couple of years until you have a chance to get things thorougly de-bugged, then equip the rest of the fleet. Maybe five years start to finish?
Once that is in place, start adding all the "jewelry" to make full use of that data backbone.
But, it has a much better system that the goofy one the RRs have been playing with for a couple decades.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
There were cars, covered and uncovered hoppers/coal gondolas that were being delivered with equipment for ECP operation. They weren't ready, but had some hardware in place to make the addition of ECP easier. I haven't paid attention to the latest new covered hoppers to see if they are still doing this.
I believe the supposed technical problems and suggestions that ECP is not adequately reliable are being exaggerated by the industry in order to push back against the prospect of a government mandate. If the connectors are unreliable, then make them more reliable. These issues are always presented as being showstoppers for ECP adoption.
The problem with ECP is that it is an all or nothing proposition requiring the spending of a gigantic amount of money to install and maintain ECP before learning how much actual benefit comes out of it when applied to loose car railroading.
How do the Australian heavy haul ore railroads deal with unreliable ECP connectors? Are they simply more reliable because they are connected and disconnected less frequently when used on their unit trains? What makes a connector unreliable? What type of operator care is required in connecting and disconnecting the cable connectors? What is the exact technique used for connecting and disconnecting the connectors? Do the Australian ore railroads get their ECP power from batteries carried on each car?
EuclidHow do the Australian heavy haul ore railroads deal with unreliable ECP connectors? Are they simply more reliable because they are connected and disconnected less frequently when used on their unit trains? What makes a connector unreliable? What type of operator care is required in connecting and disconnecting the cable connectors? What is the exact technique used for connecting and disconnecting the connectors?
With unit trains, you don't cut atn couple much.
For US, "loose car" service, I think we really need a wireless trainline. Another alternative would be some sort of inductive connection in the glad hands. I believe someone was messing around with this a couple decades ago...
oltmannd Euclid How do the Australian heavy haul ore railroads deal with unreliable ECP connectors? Are they simply more reliable because they are connected and disconnected less frequently when used on their unit trains? What makes a connector unreliable? What type of operator care is required in connecting and disconnecting the cable connectors? What is the exact technique used for connecting and disconnecting the connectors? With unit trains, you don't cut atn couple much. For US, "loose car" service, I think we really need a wireless trainline. Another alternative would be some sort of inductive connection in the glad hands. I believe someone was messing around with this a couple decades ago...
Euclid How do the Australian heavy haul ore railroads deal with unreliable ECP connectors? Are they simply more reliable because they are connected and disconnected less frequently when used on their unit trains? What makes a connector unreliable? What type of operator care is required in connecting and disconnecting the cable connectors? What is the exact technique used for connecting and disconnecting the connectors?
With wireless, where would you get the power to operate all the car valves?
Also, consider that the Australian ore roads don't have the extremes of weather that North American roads must contend with. Heat, yes, but bitter cold and blowing snow will not be an issue over there.
You need electronic devices that can withstand brutal cold, brutal heat, getting soaked, getting frozen, getting covered in grain/limestone/potash/whatever dust, being slammed around in a hump yard or industry, and be made of things (or completely inaccessible) so vandals/druggies/thieves won't want to destroy or steal, be easily servicable, and last more than a few weeks at a shot.
Is that all?
I don't think it's pure connicdence that railcars have stayed so low tech for so long.
It's been fun. But it isn't much fun anymore. Signing off for now.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.t fun any
zugmannYou need electronic devices that can withstand brutal cold, brutal heat, getting soaked, getting frozen, getting covered in grain/limestone/potash/whatever dust, being slammed around in a hump yard or industry, and be made of things (or completely inaccessible) so vandals/druggies/thieves won't want to destroy or steal, be easily servicable, and last more than a few weeks at a shot. Is that all? I don't think it's pure connicdence that railcars have stayed so low tech for so long.
And on bulk commodity cars in winter - don't overlook the means used to heat the commodity so that it will flow from the car. Open flame is not unheard of.
BaltACDAnd on bulk commodity cars in winter - don't overlook the means used to heat the commodity so that it will flow from the car. Open flame is not unheard of.
open flame, thaw sheds, steam lines, rotary dumps - list keeps growing.
Euclid oltmannd Euclid How do the Australian heavy haul ore railroads deal with unreliable ECP connectors? Are they simply more reliable because they are connected and disconnected less frequently when used on their unit trains? What makes a connector unreliable? What type of operator care is required in connecting and disconnecting the cable connectors? What is the exact technique used for connecting and disconnecting the connectors? For US, "loose car" service, I think we really need a wireless trainline. Another alternative would be some sort of inductive connection in the glad hands. I believe someone was messing around with this a couple decades ago... With wireless, where would you get the power to operate all the car valves?
oltmannd Euclid How do the Australian heavy haul ore railroads deal with unreliable ECP connectors? Are they simply more reliable because they are connected and disconnected less frequently when used on their unit trains? What makes a connector unreliable? What type of operator care is required in connecting and disconnecting the cable connectors? What is the exact technique used for connecting and disconnecting the connectors? For US, "loose car" service, I think we really need a wireless trainline. Another alternative would be some sort of inductive connection in the glad hands. I believe someone was messing around with this a couple decades ago...
Keep in mind that the 'current' wired trainline connector (which is an industry standard) is said to be robust over a wide range of conditions and carefully wear-tested.
Hey Euc, I see you didn't find and read AAR standard S-4210 when I pointed you to it a few years ago. If you had, you wouldn't need to ask connector questions... Looking back in the history of freight-ECP evolution, y'all might find this reference of interest. Note that this is now more than a decade old, and we've had the Sarah years in the intervening time.
I don't think that the actual connector per se is a particular source of trouble; one of the things I think important is that the 'breakaway' at the equipment junction box needs to be weatherproof after separation, and easily restorable in the field ideally with no tools and people wearing gloves. And perhaps needless to say, that there be plenty of "FRUs" from junction box to connector readily at hand at any time for replacement.
Power to operate the equipment with noncontact trainlines is from the usual range of sources used for powering unconnected equipment: mostly self-power from motion augmented by sunlight. Rather obviously this is not as good a solution as 220V trainlined power. Note the recent disaster caused by witless programming of the ECP controllers, where conserving battery power was more important than conserving the train.
I think a better place to locate the inductive intercar connection is on the coupler, rather than the gladhands, for a variety of reasons. I thought long and hard about actually running meaningful power through the gladhands at one point (having grown up with Electrolux vacuums and then having read about the GE "point contact" streetcar system switching methods of the early 20th Century) but there are too many potential (pun intended) pitfalls once you get a few years of typical railroad 'attention' on them.
In my opinion, you will have a reliable DPU wireless connection long before you have a reliable as-encountered-in-interchange wireless trainline. There are too many ways it can hard and soft fail, in every case forcing a decision about whether to make the train stop, perhaps as fast as possible, with every failure, or whether to ignore glitches that may cause disaster without further warning.
The approach I was using has a different set of (redundant) transponder equipment at each end of each car (they are associated with the truck instrumentation at each end) and during initialization they automatically determine both the actual consist and the direction each car is facing/moving. Actual wireless radio transmission backs this up, and the logic in the car controllers distinguishes the two modalities. It's a lot of fun, and I mean a lotta lotta fun, to design modulations that are resistant to likely hacking strategies and transient environmental conditions. Hint: the correct solution, as with PTC, involves several interlocking AI systems.
OvermodHey Euc, I see you didn't find and read AAR standard S-4210 when I pointed you to it a few years ago. If you had, you wouldn't need to ask connector questions... Looking back in the history of freight-ECP evolution, y'all might find this reference of interest. Note that this is now more than a decade old, and we've had the Sarah years in the intervening time.
Well, as I tried to indicate, I don't think that connectors are as big of a problem as they are said to be. The problem with ECP is not technical. It is that the industry believes the current air brake art is good enough, and does not want to spend the money on ECP.
With all the time that has passed, I think that if there really was a connector problem it would have been solved by now. And if solving it has not been possible, I think there were be a lot of available documentation detailing the problem and what has been done in an attempt to solve it. So where is that documentation?
The industry ignores all of the benefits of ECP, and focuses only on the question of whether EPC can prevent accidents by better stopping performance. Then they say that only 1% of accidents are related to brake failure, so they conclude that problem is so small that any benefit from ECP cannot do much good.
So the industry has its mind made up and the only thing that they have to worry about is a government mandate. They almost got that with the tank cars, but they dodged that bullet. I am sure they feel very lucky because ECP on tank cars would have been the "camel's nose under the tent" of incremental ECP by more mandates.
For a time, CPR was testing ECP brakes on one or two unit coal train sets, with a group of GE AC4400s also equipped. That was probably 10-15 years ago now. The trial ECP did not last long. I have no idea as to results and why it ended. Equipment issues, negative cost/benefit, or management resistance to innovation; could be any of them.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.