Lithonia Operator I can’t believe they’re even thinking about this. I have a tire pressure sensor in my car that has basically always been wrong. The mechanics at the dealer say sure we’ll re-set it but ignore it because those things don‘t work. So we want trains and autos dependent on all kinds of sensors? Crazy.
I can’t believe they’re even thinking about this. I have a tire pressure sensor in my car that has basically always been wrong. The mechanics at the dealer say sure we’ll re-set it but ignore it because those things don‘t work. So we want trains and autos dependent on all kinds of sensors? Crazy.
Rio Tinto's driverless train automation and their use of ECP brakes, enable the use of expanded sensor technology that receives performance data from each ore car in a train. What's crazy about that?
If you want to know about overheated bearings, how would you do it? Railroad sensor technology is widely used and regarded as very worthwhile, not only in Australia, but here as well.
If your tire pressure sensor is not reliable, that does not mean that is the case with all sensors.
Euclid Lithonia Operator I can’t believe they’re even thinking about this. I have a tire pressure sensor in my car that has basically always been wrong. The mechanics at the dealer say sure we’ll re-set it but ignore it because those things don‘t work. So we want trains and autos dependent on all kinds of sensors? Crazy. Rio Tinto's driverless train automation and their use of ECP brakes, enable the use of expanded sensor technology that receives performance data from each ore car in a train. What's crazy about that? If you want to know about overheated bearings, how would you do it? Railroad sensor technology is widely used and regarded as very worthwhile, not only in Australia, but here as well. If your tire pressure sensor is not reliable, that does not mean that is the case with all sensors.
Rio Tinto operates in the middle of nowhere - instead of the US rail reality that most trains operate in the middle of somewhere.
Accidents in the middle of nowhere have little impact except monetary. Accidents in the middle of somewhere involve much more than money.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
BaltACDAccidents in the middle of nowhere have little impact except monetary. Accidents in the middle of somewhere involve much more than money.
So automate the trains and you will have fewer accidents in the middle of somewhere.
Euclid BaltACD Accidents in the middle of nowhere have little impact except monetary. Accidents in the middle of somewhere involve much more than money. So automate the trains and you will have fewer accidents in the middle of somewhere.
BaltACD Accidents in the middle of nowhere have little impact except monetary. Accidents in the middle of somewhere involve much more than money.
Only in your dreams.
EuclidSo automate the trains and you will have fewer accidents in the middle of somewhere.
The middle of somewhere is where all the hazards are. Sheer probability says there will be more accidents there...
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...
Fred M Cain I’ve given a lot of thought to this over the years and what I believe really out to be done in the railroad industry is the development of self-driving CARS.
I’ve given a lot of thought to this over the years and what I believe really out to be done in the railroad industry is the development of self-driving CARS.
I don't think that's completely out of the question. If the cars only need to go a few miles, power could come from on board batteries that are kept charged from traction motors in regenerative braking mode.
I'd also think this could useful for yards, where the cars could self assemble into trains.
Erik_Mag Fred M Cain I’ve given a lot of thought to this over the years and what I believe really out to be done in the railroad industry is the development of self-driving CARS. I don't think that's completely out of the question. If the cars only need to go a few miles, power could come from on board batteries that are kept charged from traction motors in regenerative braking mode. I'd also think this could useful for yards, where the cars could self assemble into trains.
What is being smoked in this thread?
Track time is the one resource that permits the operation of railroads - it is not a unlimited resource. Thousands of independent cars operating 'on their own' is the best way I know of to have continuously happening collisions and derailments.
tree68 Euclid So automate the trains and you will have fewer accidents in the middle of somewhere. The middle of somewhere is where all the hazards are. Sheer probability says there will be more accidents there...
Euclid So automate the trains and you will have fewer accidents in the middle of somewhere.
Of course there will be more accidents in the most populated areas compared to the most unpopulated area, no matter whether trains are driverless or manually driven.
Johnny
BaltACDWhat is being smoked in this thread?
I think some people think the RR is a lot more high tech than it is.
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
These are the big advancements on the horizon:
Positive train control.
Precision scheduled railroading.
Electronically controlled pneumatic brakes.
Self-driving trains.
I notice that railroad management generally opposes #1 and specifically opposes #3, whereas they generally are in favor of #2 and #4. I expect to see U.S. class-1 railroads testing self-driving trains within 5 years. Mark that on your calendar.
Of course a railroad like Rio Tinto is the low hanging fruit of driverless train application. But although their conditions are a lot more ideal for driverless application than are some U.S. conditions; there are a lot of U.S. conditions that are similar to those of Rio Tinto. There is plenty of “nowhere” in western U.S. that matches what is found along Rio Tinto.
Driverless train application is not just going to be dropped into the existing U.S. rail system on a universal and instantaneous conversion. Instead, it will be converted where it easiest and most advantageous first, and gradually spread at its own pace. And this transition will be accompanied by changes in the railroad and its operation as well to match the change to self-driving trains per se. It will all be a part of a wave of change. The self-driving mode will probably be switched off and on during long trips over multiple divisions. It has that flexibility. Also, monster trains can easily be handled with self-diving technology.
Back when diesels were first developed and put to work as yard switchers, they used to say that they will work okay for yard switching, but that is a lot different than working on the mainline. So they said that diesels would always be confined to yard switching and never be used in road service.
BaltACD What is being smoked in this thread?
I understand the issue with track time, self powered cars would primarily be useful in an industrial park setting and would not be a good idea for anything like a main line. Cars would also have to be dedicated, so would not be a replacement for a general purpose boxcar.
Using traction motors as generators for recharging propulsion batteries is pretty much the same thing as axle driven generators on pre-HEP passenger cars which may raise a lot of hackles with the power desk.
Keeping in "could, would and should", this is something could be done, whether it would be done or should be done is a different matter.
PTC is already here. It is and will be constantly upgraded. No brainer there.
PSR, like other tools can be used for good or bad. Bad being short term gain at the cost of long term stability. CN, and it appears CP, has found this out and while not totally abandoning PSR, they have started rebuilding to grow their business. Actually spending money for growth, sometimes undoing what EHH did. Eventually, when the gravy train stops running and the short term investors leave like a rat on a sinking ship, the other class ones will come around to this conclusion too.
ECP will eventually appear. Sooner if they can truly abandon single and small block shipments. Longer if they can't. Trains of equipment that tend to stay together will be equipped first. Many of the hoppers, covered and not, built the last few years have some of the extra infrastructure for ECP. Spending on other items in a time of not wanting to spend money at all (see PSR) is the real thing slowing the use.
I don't doubt they will soon be testing fully self driving trains. They already have to a point self driving trains. LEADER and Trip Optimizer are in use every day. Or rather they are on many equipped engines, integrated with PTC. While I don't think you'll see fully autonomous (crewless trains), you'll see the system deployed and the use of it required by the one person left in the cab. Just like the use EMS is required, under the threat of discipline, unless the system fails or does things inconsistant with good train handling. (Running 10 mph or more is OK.) The instructions say we are to use our "best judgement" with EMS. The idea is that they know that the EMS has a tendancy to have problems under certain circumstances. I counter that by requireing my usage of the EMS to the utmost degree, they are saying my judgement is bad. Evidently they agree, because no engineer who has had a break in two or worse has yet been held responible for the incident. If you were running with the EMS operating, it's a mechanical failure.
I just wonder how Rio Tinto was able to buy a system that works well enough all the time to go to a crewless train. Our EMS works great some of the time, that is when they work at all. Often it has issues. How did they get the good stuff?
Jeff
I doubt if Rio Tinto bought their system here. I still maintain we would have been a lot better off adopting a PTC proven abroad than a hybrid evolving here. But then we seem to favor reinventing the wheel over and over.
charlie hebdo I doubt if Rio Tinto bought their system here. I still maintain we would have been a lot better off adopting a PTC proven abroad than a hybrid evolving here. But then we seem to favor reinventing the wheel over and over.
The NYAB, the maker of LEADER and the system that was tested out in Colorado, had a part in the automation of Rio Tinto. And it, like many other former American railroad suppliers, is owned by a company from outside the US.
Yes, we like reinventing the wheel. Just look at some of the posters on this forum.
+1
Yup! Ptc will make it possible. Unions will sure put up a fight.
chicagorailsYup! Ptc will make it possible. Unions will sure put up a fight.
From what I've seen of PTC... it has a LONG way to go before we should trust it to do much of anything.
zugmann chicagorails Yup! Ptc will make it possible. Unions will sure put up a fight. From what I've seen of PTC... it has a LONG way to go before we should trust it to do much of anything.
chicagorails Yup! Ptc will make it possible. Unions will sure put up a fight.
I don't know to what extent, if any, self-driving trains technology depends on current PTC technology, but self-driving technology appears to be ready today, considering examples such as Rio Tinto.
8300 ft-14000ton mixed manifest freight, LEADER in auto throttle. Approaching a diverging clear signal governing movement over a 60 mph turnout. Maximum train speed was 50 mph, actual train speed was 35 mph. On the PTC screen the next target, 30 mph due to a signal requirement (we were following a train) was about 4 1/2 miles away. LEADER in light dynamics prompted a minimum service set. No reason for it, but I complied. About the time the EOT registers the change, LEADER prompts a release. I complied as well. At least it stayed in dynamics until the air had time to fully release. It got us down to 20mph before it started pulling again.
A couple trips later. 5800 foot intermodal, I forget the tonnage, but not real heavy-dynamic braking could handle slowing for speed restrictions with no problems. Three times approaching speed restrictions, even when in dynamics, it prompts for a minimum set. I comply. The first time, it prompted for a release of the air brake. I complied again. The next two times, after setting the minimum service, before it could prompt I increased the application to get a good 10 or 12 psi off the rear end. (Minimum service reduces the brake pipe pressure by about 7 or 8 psi. On paper, it's supposed to be enough that if you released the brakes, they won't stick on. In the real world it's not unusual for brakes to stick from a minimum application. Our air brake-train handling rules used to call for a total reduction of 10 or more psi before releasing except in limited circumstances. Those instructions changed with the coming of LEADER and Trip Optimizer.) LEADER may be a computer program, but don't do exactly what it wants and it gets an attitude. Both the 2nd and 3rd time, I released the air on my own-it was running the throttle/dynamic controls. It slowed us way down below the required speed before pulling again.
All three times, it could've handled the speed restrictions just by getting out of the power a little earlier, getting into and staying in dynamics, and getting into dynamics a bit harder than it did. One time it was in dynamics and started reducing dynamics and then called for air. The use of air was not needed any of these times. It used the most fuel ineffecient methods that trip for those restrictions. For the rest of the trip, it did OK.
Again, I would like to know how things are really working out on Rio Tinto's railroad. Not from press releases from the company or the different vendors who are too busy patting themselves on the back.
Oh, about PTC itself. I took all my vacation in August, off for most of the month. Since I've been back, about half of my trips have been with inoperative PTC. I don't know why, before while there were failures, it seems not as many.
jeffhergertOh, about PTC itself. I took all my vacation in August, off for most of the month. Since I've been back, about half of my trips have been with inoperative PTC. I don't know why, before while there were failures, it seems not as many. Jeff
I suspect PSR implementation has reduced maintenance forces for PTC as much as they have for the other crafts. PSR's maintenance philosophy is primarly based on the 5 year air brake COTS interval - nothing should be touched for 5 years.
jeffhergert 8300 ft-14000ton mixed manifest freight, LEADER in auto throttle. Approaching a diverging clear signal governing movement over a 60 mph turnout. Maximum train speed was 50 mph, actual train speed was 35 mph. On the PTC screen the next target, 30 mph due to a signal requirement (we were following a train) was about 4 1/2 miles away. LEADER in light dynamics prompted a minimum service set. No reason for it, but I complied. About the time the EOT registers the change, LEADER prompts a release. I complied as well. At least it stayed in dynamics until the air had time to fully release. It got us down to 20mph before it started pulling again. A couple trips later. 5800 foot intermodal, I forget the tonnage, but not real heavy-dynamic braking could handle slowing for speed restrictions with no problems. Three times approaching speed restrictions, even when in dynamics, it prompts for a minimum set. I comply. The first time, it prompted for a release of the air brake. I complied again. The next two times, after setting the minimum service, before it could prompt I increased the application to get a good 10 or 12 psi off the rear end. (Minimum service reduces the brake pipe pressure by about 7 or 8 psi. On paper, it's supposed to be enough that if you released the brakes, they won't stick on. In the real world it's not unusual for brakes to stick from a minimum application. Our air brake-train handling rules used to call for a total reduction of 10 or more psi before releasing except in limited circumstances. Those instructions changed with the coming of LEADER and Trip Optimizer.) LEADER may be a computer program, but don't do exactly what it wants and it gets an attitude. Both the 2nd and 3rd time, I released the air on my own-it was running the throttle/dynamic controls. It slowed us way down below the required speed before pulling again. All three times, it could've handled the speed restrictions just by getting out of the power a little earlier, getting into and staying in dynamics, and getting into dynamics a bit harder than it did. One time it was in dynamics and started reducing dynamics and then called for air. The use of air was not needed any of these times. It used the most fuel ineffecient methods that trip for those restrictions. For the rest of the trip, it did OK. Again, I would like to know how things are really working out on Rio Tinto's railroad. Not from press releases from the company or the different vendors who are too busy patting themselves on the back. Oh, about PTC itself. I took all my vacation in August, off for most of the month. Since I've been back, about half of my trips have been with inoperative PTC. I don't know why, before while there were failures, it seems not as many. Jeff
So do the EMS people regularly solicit input from engineers on obvious shortcomings in the systems’ operation like the situations you outlined above?
We are to fill out a feed back/problems encountered form when some problem is encountered with EMS and/or PTC. It has an option to receive an e-mailed response. I chose it once. I don't remember now what the issue was, but I asked for a reply because it seemed like a serious or possibly a reoccuring issue. The reply I received was just a, "Thank you for your input."
People have said that self-driving trains are not possible yet because the technology is not ready. The basis of this claim seems to be that there are too many variables and possible incursions along railroads that need complex sensors and software to recognize. They compare this to the challenge of self-driving road vehicles, which most agree are not be ready yet due to these same challenges.
I would say that the sensing challenges of self-driving trains is way less challenging that the sensing challenges of self-driving road vehicles. Road vehicles do not have flanged wheels to guide them like trains do. And trains already have much of their movement under strict control of signals and orders authorizing every foot of their travel.
However, road vehicles have no control except for the driver discretion. Road vehicles also share a complex system of lanes converging and diverging as well as crossing each other with each vehicle under the independent control if its driver. There are also many contingencies with road vehicles such as other vehicles losing control and inadvertently moving from their roadway to a nearby roadway; and suddenly imposing themselves as an obstacle to vehicles on that roadway. All of this requires quick recognition, judgement, and quick reaction on the part of drivers who are able to avoid obstacles in many cases.
Railroads have nothing like this. There is not much that can threaten a train by encroaching on its path. And even if there were, there is not much a train can do to avoid it because they are not able to take defensive action by braking and swerving as motor vehicles do. About all that a train sensor can do with a grade crossing is detect whether or not the crossing is fouled. It might also detect how long the fouling has persisted, and then cause train braking if the fouling appears to be lasting dangerously long. Other than that, there is little need for detecting all of the imaginable wayside hazards facing trains.
Today we have PSR which is an acronym in search of a meaning. What PSR is in a marketing sense is a revolution toward ultra-modern. According to the hype, it satisfies the customer with perfect service, it satisfies investors with a money making machine of lean and mean efficiency. It cuts cost. It conflicts with labor. PSR is about precision something, but the something needs to be defined. What part was not precision before? I believe that PSR is the sense of a new feeling in which railroad management sees itself as really taking charge to be proactive and smash all old paradigms. That’s your PSR. It is a bold mission in search of a method.
The modern purpose for PSR naturally includes automatic trains. What could possibly be more modern than that? I have no interest in promoting automatic trains. It is just something that I expect to happen despite all the controversy. ECP brakes are also ultra-modern, but they require a nationwide, instant conversion that is just a bridge too far in terms of cost/benefit. The benefit is great, but existing air brake technology works. So the industry will never accept ECP as a way of improvement. They hope it will just go away, and really hope it never gets mandated.
But automatic trains are the complete opposite. They offer even more benefit than ECP brakes, including major cost reduction, but their real advantage is that they can be added incrementally, unlike ECP which is an all-or-nothing proposition. So I expect management to have a great reception for automatic trains. They will be the modern symbol that makes PSR complete with a purpose, and convert the acronym from a platitude to something people can understand and admire.
EuclidI believe that PSR is the sense of a new feeling in which railroad management sees itself as really taking charge to be proactive and smash all old paradigms. That’s your PSR. It is a bold mission in search of a method.
PSR is about how little you can spend and how much you can cut, and still make a shred of profit. Period.
Has nothing about being modern.
EuclidToday we have PSR which is an acronym in search of a meaning.
Euclid What part was not precision before?
Virtually every operational concept of PSR is old news. In other words, it's all been done before. Even looting the treasury.
I would opine that the problem with self-driving trains is sheer scale. I've been on self-driving trains in the form of airport shuttles. Dedicated ROW, near zero chance for incursions and a highly regulated environment. None of those exist today in the railroads we are discussing.
An errant self-driving car may cause some limited property damage, possibly some injuries, maybe even a death.
An errant self-driving train has the potential to wipe out entire buses, or neighborhoods. People aren't going to accept that eventuality, especially if the situation could have been mitigated by having a real person at the controls.
tree68 Euclid Today we have PSR which is an acronym in search of a meaning. I think it's been defined here pretty well - the moving of assets/cash to the bottom line where they can be harvested for the benefit of investors.
Euclid Today we have PSR which is an acronym in search of a meaning.
I think it's been defined here pretty well - the moving of assets/cash to the bottom line where they can be harvested for the benefit of investors.
I disagree with that definition of PSR. PSR is a marketing tactic supposedly composed of strategic actions that are claimed to improve operating efficiency. What those strategic actions are, however, and how they are organized is not clear from any reporting that I have seen. I believe PSR actually is mostly being used as a means of modernizing a corporate image or brand.
That is why I believe that new technology will be especially tantalizing to companies that have embraced the image of PSR as being revolutionary modernization. Otherwise, for the most part, PSR has become identified with discarding facilities that are said to be made obsolete by PSR. But this does not really convey a feeling of new thinking. If anything, conveys the idea that excess dead wood has been allowed to accumulate, so not it is time to clean house—not exactly the right image for a modern transformation. What’s needed for the modern image is new technology, new hardware, and a new way of operating.
Also setting the stage for this radical transformation is the current dispute over crew size as it relates to cost reduction versus safety reduction. The change to crewless operation will completely defeat that dispute over crew size, thus making automatic trains especially attractive to management.
So I believe there is a natural and powerful attraction between the concept of automatic trains and management—a kind of unique convergence or “perfect storm.”
Euclid tree68 Euclid Today we have PSR which is an acronym in search of a meaning. I think it's been defined here pretty well - the moving of assets/cash to the bottom line where they can be harvested for the benefit of investors. I disagree with that definition of PSR. PSR is a marketing tactic supposedly composed of strategic actions that are claimed to improve operating efficiency. What those strategic actions are, however, and how they are organized is not clear from any reporting that I have seen. I believe PSR actually is mostly being used as a means of modernizing a corporate image or brand.
You are right - it is a marketing strategy ... to loot the carriers of as much or more cash as possible and send it to the Hedge Funds. The Marketing Strategy is designed to cover up the embezzlement.
EuclidAlso setting the stage for this radical transformation is the current dispute over crew size as it relates to cost reduction versus safety reduction. The change to crewless operation will completely defeat that dispute over crew size, thus making automatic trains especially attractive to management.
Which is my other point: how many Conductors/Engineers/Sectionmen/Signalmen (you know--those people that do actual work to keep the railroad operating) could you employ for the costs of all those vice-presidents and assistant vice presidents of those myriad sub-divisions of corporate structure?
zardozWith all of the costs of running a train (fuel, dispatchers, track maintenance, signal maintenance, locomotive repair and servicing, clerical staff, etc),
They're doing their best to get rid of those costs as well.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.