charlie hebdo Some don't trust automatic trains from a safety perspective. To a limited degree, DP units share some similarities. They are operated remotely by a human. How many accidents have they caused because of throttle or brake remote control problems? With proper PTC, a human in a control room could do the same. Or the train could be totally autonomous.
Some don't trust automatic trains from a safety perspective. To a limited degree, DP units share some similarities. They are operated remotely by a human. How many accidents have they caused because of throttle or brake remote control problems? With proper PTC, a human in a control room could do the same. Or the train could be totally autonomous.
A coworker experienced a case when he had the energy managment system, I forget which one, engaged and needed to take manual control because of upcoming signals. The system wouldn't disengage. IIRC, he ended up having to drop the computer control breaker, shutting down the computer and causing a penalty air brake application.
You wouldn't be able to do that from some control room.
Jeff
System design would need to be more sophisticated to accomplish that.
Jeff, I hope your coworker was not called on the carpet for doing what he had to do. Did the signals indicate that he had to slow the train, and the system would not respond to his efforts to obey the signals?
Johnny
Deggesty Jeff, I hope your coworker was not called on the carpet for doing what he had to do. Did the signals indicate that he had to slow the train, and the system would not respond to his efforts to obey the signals?
It happened some time back. I think it was before the current crop of PTC integrated EMS. So, I think he was approaching less favorable signals. Before the EMS was integrated with PTC, the EMS operated on the assumption that all the block signals were clear. If you encountered less than clear signals, you had to take manual control.
Nothing can go wrong, Nothing can go wrong, Nothing can go wrong....
Or
Darling, why is the pilot walking to back of the plane with a parachute on?
I don’t think the exact manner of operating automatic trains has been completely developed yet. Anything that could confront a human engineer and call for some type of safety response from the engineer could likewise be detected and acted upon by the automatic system. There is no reason to think that these unusual occurrences require a human to realize the problem and act to solve it.
I expect the trains will be running on the line while automatically responding to control speed limits, power application, and braking, etc. Also everything imaginable will be monitored by sensors and feeding data into the system. While there won’t be anyone in the cab, there will be people in operation centers keeping a watch on things. Any emergency response will be registered in these control centers where humans may make some of the response decisions. The trains will also be shepherded by road vehicles carrying trouble shooters, repair parts, test equipment, and technicians available to act on any train contingency or emergency. So between these road crews and the people in the operation centers, there will be a lot of human support.
When that Australian ore train ran away while the engineer was on the ground, people in the control center made the decision to run the train through a crossover, so that it would derail due to the speed it was traveling. This was their choice rather than to just let the train come right into the terminal, pile up there, and do a lot more damage than it did out in the country where they derailed it. And they could have not even done this if there were a man in the cab.
There is also plenty of evidence that automatic trains will increase safety by a wide margin by eliminating human error, and by running trains not subject to human fatigue.
Electroliner 1935 Nothing can go wrong, Nothing can go wrong, Nothing can go wrong.... Or Darling, why is the pilot walking to back of the plane with a parachute on?
zardoz Electroliner 1935 Nothing can go wrong, Nothing can go wrong, Nothing can go wrong.... Or Darling, why is the pilot walking to back of the plane with a parachute on? "Open the pod bay doors, HAL".
"Open the pod bay doors, HAL".
Sort of a play on those "Famous Last Words" ...
It is Artificial Intelligence [Computers?]
" What could possibly go wrong? "
Electroliner 1935Nothing can go wrong, Nothing can go wrong, Nothing can go wrong....
You misspelled the last word...
or, as the humor thread would say:
"What could possibly go wrong?"
Murphy and Finagle: "Hold our beers..."
LONG TRAINS SAVE FUEL?
The simple question I pose is this:
Does freight train fuel efficiency rise as the number of cars increases?
This question is subject to all other things being equal.
I conclude that the answer is no. The fuel efficiency does not rise or fall as the number of cars increases. It stays the same.
However, there is a claim being made in this article that says that fuel efficiency rises as the train length rises. Here it is:
“Companies have plenty of reasons to keep adding train cars. Long trains save on fuel and crews, reducing the cost of rail transportation.”
https://www.wsj.com/articles/why-railroads-are-making-freight-trains-longer-and-longer-1529055002
I believe this point about saving fuel is simply being stated in this context as a marketing platitude, so I dismiss it for addressing my question above.
There is only one reason for major increases in train length, and that is to reduce labor by putting more tonnage under the control of a crew. Because this eliminates jobs, the unions oppose it. In order to strengthen their opposition by making it not appear to be self-serving; the unions want to extend their opposition beyond just the loss of jobs. So they have surrounded their basic objection of job loss with satellite objections such as jeopardizing public safety by blocking grade crossings and the heightened risk of derailment due to potentially greater in-train forces.
Likewise, the industry does not want to appear to base their preference for long trains only on the savings from crew reduction. So they surround that reason with their own satellite reasons such as improved customer service, and fewer crossing accidents and delays due to fewer crossing encounters with trains. They also claim that longer trains amount to PSR, and that is supposed to be a good thing.
The industry's claim that “long trains save fuel” is one of those satellites. They are implying that monster trains save fuel compared to shorter trains, but they don’t come right out and say that because it is not true. What the statement is really based on is the recent widely promoted virtue of freight trains saving fuel compared to trucks. We have seen this marketing campaign in promotions such as the “lonely gas can” commercial.
But in any case, the idea of saving fuel is virtuous because it is linked to the popular theme of saving the planet, so this same cloak of virtue is being used now to offset the objection to longer trains such as increasing public danger.
I would opine that the truth is somewhere in the middle.
The goal is to hit a certain horsepower per ton ratio. That varies (and always has) by the train and it's priority.
Too short a train (ie, one with more HP than it needs) is likely wasteful, if one assumes there is a certain overhead when it comes to power.
There's another way to look at this, too. Speed requires horsepower. This is why you saw the "fast forties" and their ilk. Three thousand HP on four axles gets slippery if you're trying to haul tonnage, but is great for those hot intermodals.
A 600 HP SW1 will move a lot of cars - just not very fast.
So maybe the hidden message here is that the railroads would rather run "slow" drag freights than anything hot. This would also play into the fact that many former priority trains are now having their cars mixed into manifest freights instead of running on their own.
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...
Just to be clear, the title of this thread is not what I believe. It is just an example of the marketing slogan I see applied to long trains. My conclusion actually applies to short trains versus long trains. I offer this conclusion because I expect automatic trains to reduce the need for the so called monster trains because automatic trains do not need to be long in order to reduce crew cost because there are no crews with automatic trains.
However, my prediction may fail if there is some other advantage to monster trains that shorter trains cannot overcome. One such possibility is fuel savings resulting from monster trains replacing shorter trains. As I am explaining here, I do not believe such a fuel saving advantage exists with monster trains replacing shorter trains because it does not seem logical and I have not seen any analytical proof.
So my conclusion is that long trains do not save fuel compared to short trains.*
I realize that there are many operational variations in that equation which vary the results between saving fuel and not saving it. But I am interested in the fundamental answer without all the variables. So, this might be called an apples-to-apples comparison.
So I am comparing one long train to a group of shorter trains that equal the tonnage and car count of the long train. The long train and the series of short trains have identical cars, each carrying identical loads of identical tonnage each. The series of short trains are also identical to each other. The comparison trains are tested on the same track, in the same weather. All of them run at the same speed, braking, acceleration and other operating parameters. All have exactly the same horsepower per ton. There is no variation due to locomotive models not matching the tonnage. All of them may use DP as deemed necessary.
Then in this full comparison, the one long train will be compared to the series of identical short trains that equal the total tonnage of the long train.
*The only factor that will cause a difference in the comparison of apples-to-apples fundamentals is that the series of short trains will each present a front face to the atmosphere, whereas the long train will present only one face. So because of this, the multiple short trains will encounter more air resistance than the long train. This will cause the long train to me more fuel efficient in this comparison. But I believe this difference in air resistance would be relatively small, and so for this comparison, I consider the difference to be inconsequential.
EuclidThe only factor that will cause a difference in the comparison of apples-to-apples fundamentals is that the series of short trains will each present a front face to the atmosphere, whereas the long train will present only one face.
You missed one. The time operating through speed restrictions is longer for long trains. A three mile long train takes 3 miles to traverse a crossover vs. one mile for a one mile long train. Shorter train can start accelerating sooner. Lower speed = lower train resistance.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
oltmannd Euclid The only factor that will cause a difference in the comparison of apples-to-apples fundamentals is that the series of short trains will each present a front face to the atmosphere, whereas the long train will present only one face. You missed one. The time operating through speed restrictions is longer for long trains. A three mile long train takes 3 miles to traverse a crossover vs. one mile for a one mile long train. Shorter train can start accelerating sooner. Lower speed = lower train resistance.
Euclid The only factor that will cause a difference in the comparison of apples-to-apples fundamentals is that the series of short trains will each present a front face to the atmosphere, whereas the long train will present only one face.
Don,
I am not comparing a long train to a short train. I am comparing a long train to a series of individual short trains that together equal the size of the long train.
So if we have one train 3 miles long, we may compare that to 6 shorter trains, each ½-mile long. So the one long train and the 6-train set of short trains are each in the crossing for 3 miles.
Euclid oltmannd Euclid The only factor that will cause a difference in the comparison of apples-to-apples fundamentals is that the series of short trains will each present a front face to the atmosphere, whereas the long train will present only one face. You missed one. The time operating through speed restrictions is longer for long trains. A three mile long train takes 3 miles to traverse a crossover vs. one mile for a one mile long train. Shorter train can start accelerating sooner. Lower speed = lower train resistance. Don, I am not comparing a long train to a short train. I am comparing a long train to a series of individual short trains that together equal the size of the long train. So if we have one train 3 miles long, we may compare that to 6 shorter trains, each ½-mile long. So the one long train and the 6-train set of short trains are each in the crossing for 3 miles.
Each 1/2-mile train can accelerate after only a half mile of train traverses the speed restriction. The three-mile train cannot accelerate until the entire three miles of train traverses the crossing. Thus the three-mile train does travel slower on average, given the specifics of Don's example.
AnthonyV Euclid oltmannd Euclid The only factor that will cause a difference in the comparison of apples-to-apples fundamentals is that the series of short trains will each present a front face to the atmosphere, whereas the long train will present only one face. You missed one. The time operating through speed restrictions is longer for long trains. A three mile long train takes 3 miles to traverse a crossover vs. one mile for a one mile long train. Shorter train can start accelerating sooner. Lower speed = lower train resistance. Don, I am not comparing a long train to a short train. I am comparing a long train to a series of individual short trains that together equal the size of the long train. So if we have one train 3 miles long, we may compare that to 6 shorter trains, each ½-mile long. So the one long train and the 6-train set of short trains are each in the crossing for 3 miles. Each 1/2-mile train can accelerate after only a half mile of train traverses the speed restriction. The three-mile train cannot accelerate until the entire three miles of train traverses the crossing. Thus the three-mile train does travel slower on average, given the specifics of Don's example.
However, each of the shorter trains, operating under signal indication or Track Warrant Authority, requires 'safe space' ahead of an behind the shorter trains.
If we consider the shorter train to be a mile in length, and the signal spacing to be one mile. A preceding train must be AT LEAST two miles (or signal blocks) ahead for the following train to get a Clear signal. To operate three Mile length trains will require a minimum of 7 miles in track space, 1/2 mile trains would only streach out the track space required. To operate a single Three Mile length train on the same track structure would only reqire 5 miles of track space.
The reality is that most Class 1's have signal spacing at a minimum of 2 miles and in many cases 3 to 4 miles, as even mile length trains require more than one mile signal spacing for safe and efficient operations.
In Track Warrant Territory, since flag protection cannot be provided since there is no caboose or employees to man a caboose - whatever length of the Warrant that is issued by the Train Dispatcher will hold only a single train - no matter its length. If the Train Dispatcher issues short length Warrants to multiple trains he will spend most of his time on that single line (and most Dispatching territories have multiple subdivisions under their control) just issuing the warrants and copying the release of on warrant to be able to reissue that warrant to the next train and on and on. Men can only speak so many words per minute and Train Dispatchers must also think about every word he is saying in communication concerning Mandatory Directives (handling track warrants and other official instructions concerning the movement of trains.)
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Comparing the following two items:
Train consisting of 240 cars.
Group of 6 identical trains consisting of 40 cars each.
Item #1 and #2 transport identical cars and tonnage for the same distance over the same track in the same weather, and the same speed.
Items #1 and #2 have the same horsepower per ton and same operating characteristics throughout.
The only difference is that item #1 moves as one train and item #2 moves as 6 separate trains.
Purpose of comparison: to compare fuel consumed by item #1 and #2.
EuclidComparing the following two items: Train consisting of 240 cars. Group of 6 identical trains consisting of 40 cars each. Item #1 and #2 transport identical cars and tonnage for the same distance over the same track in the same weather, and the same speed. Items #1 and #2 have the same horsepower per ton and same operating characteristics throughout. The only difference is that item #1 moves as one train and item #2 moves as 6 separate trains. Purpose of comparison: to compare fuel consumed by item #1 and #2.
Reality of any segment of track - there is a finite number of the trains that can be effectively operated - even multiple track territory has a finite capacity.
#2 at a minimum requires 6 locomotives and 6 oprating crews. Depending upon the territory #1 could be handled by a single engine (unlikely, however, using 6 of todays locomotives may exceed train handling restrictions on specific routes) and single operating crew.
BaltACD Euclid Comparing the following two items: Train consisting of 240 cars. Group of 6 identical trains consisting of 40 cars each. Item #1 and #2 transport identical cars and tonnage for the same distance over the same track in the same weather, and the same speed. Items #1 and #2 have the same horsepower per ton and same operating characteristics throughout. The only difference is that item #1 moves as one train and item #2 moves as 6 separate trains. Purpose of comparison: to compare fuel consumed by item #1 and #2. Reality of any segment of track - there is a finite number of the trains that can be effectively operated - even multiple track territory has a finite capacity. #2 at a minimum requires 6 locomotives and 6 oprating crews. Depending upon the territory #1 could be handled by a single engine (unlikely, however, using 6 of todays locomotives may exceed train handling restrictions on specific routes) and single operating crew.
Euclid Comparing the following two items: Train consisting of 240 cars. Group of 6 identical trains consisting of 40 cars each. Item #1 and #2 transport identical cars and tonnage for the same distance over the same track in the same weather, and the same speed. Items #1 and #2 have the same horsepower per ton and same operating characteristics throughout. The only difference is that item #1 moves as one train and item #2 moves as 6 separate trains. Purpose of comparison: to compare fuel consumed by item #1 and #2.
I understand your point, but the point of my question is only about a comparison of fuel consumption of the two train items #1 and #2. The comparison in my example is only based on the physics of the two trains. So to make just this apples-to-apples comparison of fuel consumption, I want to set aside all of the other variables of train operation such as what long and short trains require for block and siding length, crews required, whether locomotive horsepower matches train weight, etc. All of those variables can be factored in later in other comparisons.
So in this comparison, my conclusion is that there is no difference in fuel consumption.
Euclid BaltACD Euclid Comparing the following two items: Train consisting of 240 cars. Group of 6 identical trains consisting of 40 cars each. Item #1 and #2 transport identical cars and tonnage for the same distance over the same track in the same weather, and the same speed. Items #1 and #2 have the same horsepower per ton and same operating characteristics throughout. The only difference is that item #1 moves as one train and item #2 moves as 6 separate trains. Purpose of comparison: to compare fuel consumed by item #1 and #2. Reality of any segment of track - there is a finite number of the trains that can be effectively operated - even multiple track territory has a finite capacity. #2 at a minimum requires 6 locomotives and 6 oprating crews. Depending upon the territory #1 could be handled by a single engine (unlikely, however, using 6 of todays locomotives may exceed train handling restrictions on specific routes) and single operating crew. I understand your point, but the point of my question is only about a comparison of fuel consumption of the two train items #1 and #2. The comparison in my example is only based on the physics of the two trains. So to make just this apples-to-apples comparison of fuel consumption, I want to set aside all of the other variables of train operation such as what long and short trains require for block and siding length, crews required, whether locomotive horsepower matches train weight, etc. All of those variables can be factored in later in other comparisons. So in this comparison, my conclusion is that there is no difference in fuel consumption.
Don't let reality intrude on your pipe dreams.
The one long train should consume a bit less fuel than the multiple short trains because of less total wind resistance.
daveklepper The one long train should consume a bit less fuel than the multiple short trains because of less total wind resistance.
Yes, I agree that the wind resistance would higher in total with the series of shorter trains. As I mentioned a couple posts up, I am dismissing that just for the simplicity of a decisive conclusion without any stated qualifiers. In total consideration, there are hundreds of qualifiers related to operation, and they throw the result in so many ways that the question has no practical answer.
I am posing the question ultimately for the consideration of automatic trains, and with them, many of the operational factors will change to something entirely different from current operational factors.
But yes, the air resistance will be higher with the series of short trains because they each will present a leading face to the atmosphere, whereas the single long train will present just one face. However, I consider the difference to be practically negligible.
This question is part of exploring the pros and cons of automatic trains. And the argument includes red herrings in the pros and cons to provide advantages to both sides of the negotiation.
See that Euc has changed the title of this thread.
BaltACD See that Euc has changed the title of this thread.
COMPARING RAILROAD INDUSTRY OPERATIONAL TRENDS
1. ELECTRONICALLY CONTROLLED PNEUMATIC BRAKES
Management completely opposed
Labor neutral
2. PRECISION SCHEDULED RAILROADING
Management completely favors
Labor completely opposed
3. AUTOMATIC FREIGHT TRAINS
4. POSITIVE TRAIN CONTROL
5. ONE-PERSON CREWS
Labor completely opposes
6. MONSTER TRAINS
Management favors, but recognizes pros and cons
In this comparison, #4 (PTC) is underway because of a mandate, and will move forward with development, implementation, and upgrade indefinitely.
#1 (ECP BRAKES) will never be implemented unless it is part of #3 (AUTOMATIC FREIGHT TRAINS), and its wider transformation of train operation logistics.
#5 (ONE-PERSON CREWS) will be partly implemented as an intermediate stage leading to #3 (AUTOMATIC FREIGHT TRAINS) (see #3 below).
This issue is directly related to #3 in that the job loss objection of #3 will not be directly argued because the safety issue will carry more weight with public opinion. However, the safety issue favors the position of labor far more than the position of management. This is because it is quite convincing that two people in the cab are safer than just one person. One main point in the Labor position of this argument is that with such a large vehicle as a freight train, the cost of the second person seems irrelevant to the public.
The only safety advantage of reducing crew size that can be cited by management is that reducing the number of people in the cab reduces distraction.
#2 (PSR) is unclear as to how it works and what it accomplishes. The Management position of favoring PSR is that it improves operating efficiency by lowering the cost of transportation. The position opposing PSR is claimed to be that it is a disguise for the real motive of reducing capital and labor in order to increase profit for the investors at the detriment of weakening the company.
#3 (AUTOMATIC FREIGHT TRAINS) is a big change with the primary challenge coming from Labor under the objection that it compromises safety. Management will adopt the counter position that it greatly enhances safety. This dispute over adding or subtracting safety will be used as a substitute for the real issue which is implementing automating trains to eliminate crew costs. Neither side will argue this job loss issue because the safety issue will carry more weight with public opinion and its influence on regulators who have the power to ban the use of automatic trains.
Compared to #5, (ONE-PERSON CREWS), where the safety argument strengthens the position of Labor over Management, with #3, (AUTOMATIC TRAINS), the safety argument strengthens the positon of Management over Labor. This is because #3, with its elimination of human workers completely eliminates the railroad fatigue problem, which is a large cost to the industry and seems to have no solution as long as humans operate trains.
The safety risk that favors the Labor position is the lack of a person on the train to take over in case of a malfunction of the automatic system.
One primary advantage of automatic trains is that they can be implemented gradually starting with specially selected areas having the least complications.
In addition to the debate between Labor and Management in advancing these improvements, there is also the lobbying force of the manufacturers and suppliers of equipment and technical expertise. This force has a tremendous interest and influence on the implementation of automatic trains just as it does with PTC and ECP BRAKES, although as mentioned above ECP is a moot point unless it becomes mandated. But the lobbying force of manufactures and suppliers will certainly be a major force in advancing the concept of automatic freight trains because it is in their financial interest.
#6, the (MONSTER TRAIN) trend of increasing freight train length to unprecedented levels, is being driven only by saving crew costs by moving more tonnage with the same size crew. Just like their opposition to #3 (AUTOMATIC TRAINS) and #5, (ONE-PERSON CREWS), Labor opposes this longer train trend because it causes a reduction of jobs.
However, although Management favors this trend for its reduction of crew costs, they recognize some of its disadvantages such as the greater time and space necessary for handling these ultra-long trains in yard/terminal trackage, longer delays resulting from break downs, and risks of damage or derailments due to higher in-train forces.
Labor opposes the longer trains due to their greater chance of derailments caused by the greater in-train forces which poses a risk to public safety and crew safety. Labor opposition avoids the issue of job reduction caused by increasing the tonnage handled by one crew for the same reason they do not debate that issue with #2, #3, and #5.
#3 (automatic trains) will cancel the one advantage of #6 (monster trains) because automatic trains require no crews. Therefore the one advantage of monster trains reducing crew size per tonnage disappears.
The abovementioned negative aspects of monster trains all diminish as trains get shorter. So for maximum railroad fluidity, there should be a shift from monster trains to shorter trains running more frequently on closer headway. This shift would be facilitated by #3, (AUTOMATIC FREIGHT TRAINS) eliminating the need for longer trains to reduce crew size because automatic trains do not require crews. This opens the door to a truly new and revolutionary operating system in which PTC is blended into the AUTOMATIC TRAINS, enabling them to operate fast and at close intervals.
Then, the shorter trains in constant use may evolve away from loose-car railroading and toward smaller, articulated trainsets. Upon reaching that point, ECP braking may be implemented on a per-train basis where it can provide performance advantage to one train without the need to convert the entire U.S. fleet of rolling stock to ECP brakes in a short time. So then ECP could be implemented incrementally just like automatic trains.
The view from WW II -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XnrgtEzblOE
BaltACD Reality of any segment of track - there is a finite number of the trains that can be effectively operated - even multiple track territory has a finite capacity.
Isn’t the finite capacity of a track also dependent on the length of trains in addition to just the number of trains?
I conclude that the finite capacity is basically the maximum number of cars that can be moved over the track in a given time. The actual trains can be long or short. When they get longer, they take more time for handling events, but they move more cars per train. When they get shorter, the handling events take less time, but they don’t move as many cars per train.
However, I suspect that the time spent on handling events for short trains versus long trains is not proportional to the number of cars as one might expect. Instead, on a per car basis, the time spent for handling events for a given car will be higher for a car that moves in a long train versus moving in a short train.
In other words, if you have one smaller train with a given time of handling events being 1 hour; then with all other factors being equal, a train that is 10 times longer will have handling events totaling MORE than 10 hours. Again, this is because on a per car basis, the handling events for a given car take more time if it is running in a long train versus running in a short train.
So the short train concept has much greater potential to move tonnage over the railroad than doses the monster train concept because the short trains offer a track velocity that is not slowed by handing events as is the case as train lengths increase.
However, in contrast to this principle, the cost of labor is higher per car with a short train than with a long train. This is because the multiple short trains that equal one long train will each need a crew, whereas if the short trains are combined into one long train, it will only need one crew.
So the lower cost of labor with the long train more than offsets the higher cost of handling event time with the long train. And it then follows that if you automate the trains, the advantage shifts from the long train to the short train because automation eliminates the labor altogether, thus eliminating the labor advantage of long trains over short trains.
Therefore, with future practice of full automation, more trains can be run closer together with less time lost to handling events, so train operations and handling potential is extended to the true maximum capacity of the track. Then if you run the short trains head to tail, the railroad concept is like a conveyor belt filled with short, nimble trains that can operate with the closest spacing.
Euc -
Train Dispatcher for a livng for a period of time and find out the error of your thoughts.
BaltACD Euc - Train Dispatcher for a livng for a period of time and find out the error of your thoughts.
The kind of railroad I am talking about doesn’t need dispatchers.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.