Miningmanhttps://m.imgur.com/nzaliE5 Too funny
Too funny
A couple of the videos in the comments are even funnier.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
[quote user="BaltACD"]
Miningman https://m.imgur.com/nzaliE5 Too funny
zugmannThey can't make up their minds anymore.
Two tiny little issues not addressed: grade crossings and cost.
How many trips will it take, realizing the alleged fuel savings, to offset the cost of the new system? And what railroads' Engineers was NYAB comparing itself with?
I also noticed in the newswire photo that the test train was a unit train of all hoppers, which almost any first-year Engineer could run, even without a multi-million dollar computer system. Instead, run this new system with a PSR-monster mixed-manifest train in hogback territory, with a kicker or two added for fun, and get the train over the road on a subdivision greater that 48 miles in snow and below-zero weather....then I'll be impressed.
https://www.wdbj7.com/content/news/As-rail-industry-changes-furloughed-workers-continue-search-for-a-way-forward--560842131.html
zardozI also noticed in the newswire photo that the test train was a unit train of all hoppers, which almost any first-year Engineer could run, even without a multi-million dollar computer system. Instead, run this new system with a PSR-monster mixed-manifest train in hogback territory, with a kicker or two added for fun, and get the train over the road on a subdivision greater that 48 miles in snow and below-zero weather....then I'll be impressed.
I think that the automatic self-driving system could handle the monster trains alright, but it will also spell the end of monster trains. This is because the reason for monster trains is reduce labor cost per ton, and that is also the purpose of the automatic self-driving system.
So the self-driving trains can accomplish what monster trains accomplish, but without the monster delays that actually drive up the cost, even as the monster consist under one engineer drives it down. There is no reason to try to get the most tonnage under the control of one engineer with self-driving trains because self-driving trains don’t have engineers.
PSR does not require monster trains if you give it self-driving trains.
Even without automated railroads, the number of workers is getting cut a lot.
EuclidSo the self-driving trains can accomplish what monster trains accomplish, but without the monster delays that actually drive up the cost, even as the monster consist under one engineer drives it down.
You need to add a detail to the pretty argument to make it work properly. The "logical" conclusion many monster-train proponents will make is that power per ton can be reduced on a long consist with judicious use of distributed power: you must prove that shorter trains moving the same tonnage with the same number of units will produce better fuel economy, power balancing, etc. than the monsters. Keep in mind that along with autonomous operation goes at least the possibility of automatic uncoupling at the distributed power (see Don Oltmann's vision of railroading in the 2040s) so that monster consists arriving at yards can be quickly and autonomously split to multiple leads, or powered blocks sent on, within no more than a few minutes with minimal 'boots on the ground' attention, so at least that part of the argument against monster autonomous consists becomes less valid.
Mind you, I still think full autonomous operation is a bad idea for fundamental reasons, and that even limited autonomous operation is likely to be 'inadvisable' (as opposed to developing appropriate working conditions and pay for at least one individual in reasonable physical health per consist).
I'll be waiting for the demonstrations of how the NYAB logic handles dynamiters, as a first cut. Then we can get to other details. (Keep in mind I had a system in the Eighties that could manipulate the brakes based on the makeup and response of the consist; that's not rocket science today, nor is developing AI based on engineers' operation as recorded by any of the current locomotive management systems.)
So far the cause this dramatic reduction of railroad labor force has not been explained well. Is it the leading indicator of a serious recession? And if so, what is causing the recession? Just last year we were said to be riding high with the best economy ever. So what happened? Usually, recessions have an identified cause such as the bursting of the housing bubble. But so far, there has been little explanation for a coming downturn, if that is what is happening.
Self-driving trains will contribute further to a reduction of railroad labor force. I guess we are heading into that wonderful service economy that the free traders were singing the praises of. Retraining is the answer –if—there are jobs to retrain for. Judging by the service rendered by the service economy, it does not require much training.
Automation is a sign that labor has priced itself out of business. In looking at videos of Rio Tinto automation of not only trains, but also in the mining sector, it becomes quite evident how powerful and motivated the industrial automation trend really is.
EuclidPSR does not require monster trains if you give it self-driving trains.
It does because the railroad has been configured for them. The longer signal spacing required for 'monster' trains limits the flexibility of handling shorter trains at higher speeds as on single track railroads there are still the existing passing sidings to meet trains. The train separation enforced by PTC is also a impedement to more trains on a territory. Additionally how will Personless trains handle operations when the signal system fails - it is made by man and IT WILL FAIL.
When I first went to Jacksonville in the early 1990's - when there was signal failure on a 'chunk' of railroad - top management was quick to impose DTC (Direct Traffic Control) on the now DARK territory, with their eyes on the fact that freight trains could then operate at 49 MPH. What was overlooked was that DTC effectively eliminated following trains as DTC rules don't permit one train to follow another into the same block if the lead train cannot provide flag protecton (EOT's have yet to be taught how to provide flag protection). In most cases the rush to DTC created a codlocked railroad with too many trains and not enough places to put them. Despite what bean counters may think, you can have 200 miles of railroad that is beyond full.
The pendulum has swung too far the other way perhaps. Back in the 70s it wasn't uncommon to see one locomotive.. two to seven boxcars and a caboose.. five crew members. Now were talking about one person or no person at all on monster trains..
Euclid Automation is a sign that labor has priced itself out of business. In looking at videos of Rio Tinto automation of not only trains, but also in the mining sector, it becomes quite evident how powerful and motivated the industrial automation trend really is.
The cynic in me wonders when - if ever - senior management will price itself out of business. Seems the cost reduction focus is always on the “Indians” and never on the “Chiefs”.
Quoting Balt "(EOT's have yet to be taught how to provide flag protection)." How long before a robot flagman will be housed in the EOT--to run back with a flag when necessary?
Johnny
DeggestyQuoting Balt "(EOT's have yet to be taught how to provide flag protection)." How long before a robot flagman will be housed in the EOT--to run back with a flag when necessary?
The prototype !
Aha! an EOT monkey--with red flag and lantern. The whole assembly may be a bit bulky, but if a monkey can be trained as a switch monkey (eventually promotable to superintendent) it should be possible to train them as flagmonkeys (with a supply of bananas n the housing?)
Monkey business won’t stop automation. It takes no breaks and has no union. It doesn’t wave.
Juniata Man The cynic in me wonders when - if ever - senior management will price itself out of business. Seems the cost reduction focus is always on the “Indians” and never on the “Chiefs”.
Not always!
The average tenure for a Fortune 500 CEO is just shy of five years, according to the Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance.
In the early 2000s the Fortune 225 Corporation that I worked for went through a major reorganization. More than 4,500 employees out of a total of 22,500 took a lucrative early retirement package or an equally attractive voluntary separation package.
One of my co-workers, who had been with the company for approximately seven years, got enough money to pay off her substantial mortgage. She wanted to be a stay at home mom so she could take care of her young children.
Prior to the reorganization the company had 13 layers of management. After the reorganization, just six layers of management, including the CEO, remained. Most of the managers that lost their jobs took early retirement or accepted reassignment to a professional position.
Even Amtrak has reduced the number of executives in its leadership team from 13 in 2015 to 10 in 2019.
People that have the skills and drive to lead large organizations are few and far between. They are difficult to find and frequently difficult to keep. This is one of the reasons that executive search firms make a lot of money helping to fill executive vacancies.
Middle management has been a favorite target for high priced consultants who are brought in to restructure.
JPS1Prior to the reorganization the company had 13 layers of management. After the reorganization, just six layers of management, including the CEO, remained. Most of the managers that lost their jobs took early retirement or accepted reassignment to a professional position.
It's been said that the military is now similarly top-heavy. IIRC, there are more generals now than during WW2, with a fraction of the total forces now in place.
At the beginning of WW2, the ratio of enlisted to officers was 13:1. Today it hovers in the 5:1 area...
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...
rdamon Middle management has been a favorite target for high priced consultants who are brought in to restructure.
Deggesty Aha! an EOT monkey--with red flag and lantern. The whole assembly may be a bit bulky, but if a monkey can be trained as a switch monkey (eventually promotable to superintendent) it should be possible to train them as flagmonkeys (with a supply of bananas n the housing?)
While there is still a flagging rule, it's never used anymore. Practices and other rules have been modified to make flagging a thing of the past. The first track warrants used to have a line to relieve the requirement of flag protection. They no longer do because track warrant limits, except when in ABS territory or in joint limits - all moves made at restricted speed, are exclusive. No other train/engine may occupy the same limits.
That being said...
Forty plus years ago when I was a young railfan, I spent many a Saturday afternoon at the local RI depot. One agent/operator I got to know always used to tease me, because he knew I wanted to work for the RR, that they were going to replace engineers with monkeys. 'Orangutan Go' he would say. They would have a monkey in the cab with a two light cab signal. When the light went green, the monkey would pull the lever to start the train. When it went red, the monkey would pull a lever to stop the train. (Sounds a lot like the exCNW ATC.)
Speaking of rules and practices. What happens when a rule conflicts with new technology? It gets changed. For example, engineers have been taught and it even was stated in the train handling rules that when using the automatic air brake, don't make a minimum reduction (which is about a 6 to 8 psi reduction) and then release it. Except when 'warming up the brakes' in anticipation of stopping, the engineer should make a total reduction of 10 psi or more before releasing the air brakes. This is to ensure you don't get brakes sticking on somewhere within the train. (The minimum reduction is supposed to be enough that they won't stick, but often isn't.) Those requirements have been removed because the EMS, while not yet directily operating the air brakes in current service, will advise when to set and release. It calls for a lot of minimum reductions and then wants them released before making a deeper application.
Another change is with AC engines. You no longer have to pause 10 seconds in idle when changing between power and dynamic braking. Many engines, even the AC ones have plates reminding the engineer to pause 10 seconds when changing modes. This change is also because of the EMS being deployed.
There are a few current rules which would conflict with operating with one person. If or when one person crews happen, don't worry. Those rules will be changed or eliminated. Just as providing flag protection in a cabooseless world became impractical, practices and rules changed.
Jeff
charlie hebdo Even without automated railroads, the number of workers is getting cut a lot.
A couple years ago a General Chairman of the trainmen's union, covering has I understood mostly former GN and NP lines, proposed to BNSF to go to one person crews in PTC territory with a 'master' conductor supervising trains within specified zones. It failed.
What wasn't widely discussed is that even if the Government eventually specified two person crews, the contract called for elimination of helpers in yards, on locals and on any train required to have a brakeman due to work enroute requirements. Even if they wouldn't have had one person crews, they stood to lose a lot of jobs if it had passed.
jeffhergert A couple years ago a General Chairman of the trainmen's union, covering has I understood mostly former GN and NP lines, proposed to BNSF to go to one person crews in PTC territory with a 'master' conductor supervising trains within specified zones. It failed. What wasn't widely discussed is that even if the Government eventually specified two person crews, the contract called for elimination of helpers in yards, on locals and on any train required to have a brakeman due to work enroute requirements. Even if they wouldn't have had one person crews, they stood to lose a lot of jobs if it had passed. Jeff
How long did the General Chairman retain his union position after his proposal was made known?
Quoting Jeff "While there is still a flagging rule, it's never used anymore. Practices and other rules have been modified to make flagging a thing of the past." Well, Balt, it looks like going to the monkey training buisness would be a losing proposition, I'll have to content myself with armchair railroading.
BaltACD jeffhergert A couple years ago a General Chairman of the trainmen's union, covering has I understood mostly former GN and NP lines, proposed to BNSF to go to one person crews in PTC territory with a 'master' conductor supervising trains within specified zones. It failed. What wasn't widely discussed is that even if the Government eventually specified two person crews, the contract called for elimination of helpers in yards, on locals and on any train required to have a brakeman due to work enroute requirements. Even if they wouldn't have had one person crews, they stood to lose a lot of jobs if it had passed. Jeff How long did the General Chairman retain his union position after his proposal was made known?
I think he may have since retired, but I believe he held his union position until he retired. He was one of the old guard, from the era when the two unions battled each other as much as, or maybe more than the carriers. It was said he had a strong dislike for the engineer's union. How he thought his proposal was going to hurt them is beyond me.
The proposed contract offered 'lifetime' proctection for trainmen adversely affected that could never be taken away. Every active trainman at the time of signing would either have a job, either as a trainmen or moving into engine service as such openings occurred, or income protection for times when there wasn't any job available. (Many in the industry wasn't happy that BNSF was agreeable to the contract as proposed. They didn't like the idea of 'lifetime' protection.) Yeah, right. There is no such thing as life time protection. The carriers already substitute the contracts they sign for toilet paper when the regular supply runs low. You can be sure if anyone collected income protection long term that in a few years the carriers would be calling for a new agreement. And, depending on who held power in the Government - maybe not even then, would probably get one throwing out the old provisions.
EuclidI think that the automatic self-driving system could handle the monster trains alright, but it will also spell the end of monster trains. This is because the reason for monster trains is reduce labor cost per ton, and that is also the purpose of the automatic self-driving system. So the self-driving trains can accomplish what monster trains accomplish, but without the monster delays that actually drive up the cost, even as the monster consist under one engineer drives it down. There is no reason to try to get the most tonnage under the control of one engineer with self-driving trains because self-driving trains don’t have engineers. PSR does not require monster trains if you give it self-driving trains.
Again I reassert that the other issues of operating--mainly weather and grade crossings--are not taken into account.
zardozSo your proposal would get us back to non-PTC operations; wouldn't that somewhat erase the purported savings?
I would opine that PTC would make short trains even easier (although the "safety rider" would slightly negate that) because they'd likely be able to run on shorter headways. On single track, it would be back to the days of "fleeting."
Or not.
Ultimately most of the big trains - mixed manifests - will go away. Autonomous/self driving trains work best with equipment that is of the same type. Unit trains of hoppers (open and covered), tank cars, and intermodal equipment - all equipment that doesn't have cushioned drawbars and the associated slack - are easiest to handle. For human or machine.
While short lines and regionals are keeping alive the mixed manifest business, most if not all the class ones are trying to kill it. At least when it comes to the class ones doing the first/last mile of it. One person crews (which I think you'll see long before any true autonomous freight train) or no person crew will be all the more impetus for the class ones to do more to kill it off. They may be willing to be the line haul between short lines/regionals, but won't want the first/last mile. It requires too many people.
zardozAgain I reassert that the other issues of operating--mainly weather and grade crossings--are not taken into account.
What type of response is needed for grade crossings that cannot be provided by self-driving trains?
tree68 On single track, it would be back to the days of "fleeting."
What is fleeting?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.