Electroliner 1935 SD60MAC9500 Electroliner 1935 How does the man balance himself on the end of the car he is riding and not hold on to something? Watch the video again on youtube's website so you can get a larger picture, and look closely there's a grab iron he has his arm wrapped around. You can see it on his right side. Thanks, I see it now. It folds up from the front of the car. Looks more user friendly than the US platforms. Is he operating a remote controlled switcher?
SD60MAC9500 Electroliner 1935 How does the man balance himself on the end of the car he is riding and not hold on to something? Watch the video again on youtube's website so you can get a larger picture, and look closely there's a grab iron he has his arm wrapped around. You can see it on his right side.
Electroliner 1935 How does the man balance himself on the end of the car he is riding and not hold on to something?
How does the man balance himself on the end of the car he is riding and not hold on to something?
Watch the video again on youtube's website so you can get a larger picture, and look closely there's a grab iron he has his arm wrapped around. You can see it on his right side.
Thanks, I see it now. It folds up from the front of the car. Looks more user friendly than the US platforms. Is he operating a remote controlled switcher?
Yes
beaulieu Remember that railroading in Europe is quite different to that in the US. Organizationally and operationally. SBB Cargo already is operating a test fleet of locomotives and freight cars in domestic carload service. They use a beefed-up version of the Scharfenberg coupler. Pending the results of these tests, Hupac(the second largest Intermodal provider in Europe) intends to convert their entire fleet of flatcars to this equipment. Kombiverkehr(the largest) will likely follow, with many trains being dedicated to a single customer. It will be relatively easy to convert, especially with all the freight companies using their own freight cars or leased from a few leasing companies like GATX, or VTG.
Remember that railroading in Europe is quite different to that in the US. Organizationally and operationally. SBB Cargo already is operating a test fleet of locomotives and freight cars in domestic carload service. They use a beefed-up version of the Scharfenberg coupler. Pending the results of these tests, Hupac(the second largest Intermodal provider in Europe) intends to convert their entire fleet of flatcars to this equipment. Kombiverkehr(the largest) will likely follow, with many trains being dedicated to a single customer. It will be relatively easy to convert, especially with all the freight companies using their own freight cars or leased from a few leasing companies like GATX, or VTG.
Here's the coupler in action.
EuclidBut on a forum that takes such great pains to make sure there is never any topic drift, I know how distressing it must be to touch on ECP in a topic started on couplers.
If we continue the conflated discussion, it's difficult to think, on more than a moron level, that the technical implementation of ECP, (aside from first costs, which is not really a technical issue in the sense important here of rapid conversion) necessarily resembles the implementation of automatic couplings not fully compatible with existing knuckle couplers, draw bars, and air, and with future electric and radio connections. It is probably best to have actually looked at the systems involved before pontificating on their similarity.
The relationship of ECP brakes to new coupler design is that both have the same mass changeover dilema. With U.S. railroads, that dilema is a showstopper with current pure loose car operation. So when we hear of other countries doing these changes of either new couplers or ECP brakes, we ask why we are not doing it here if other countries can do it. It feels like we are being passed up by the technological advancement of the rest of world railroads.
But on a forum that takes such great pains to make sure there is never any topic drift, I know how distressing it must be to touch on ECP in a topic started on couplers.
Overmod If this discussion is going to morph from couplers in Europe to brakes in North America it needs to be put in its own specific thread, so named.
If this discussion is going to morph from couplers in Europe to brakes in North America it needs to be put in its own specific thread, so named.
Inasmuch as the mass changeover is a comparable dilemma, the comparison is apt.
OTOH, if the discussion is going to move in to brakes, yeah - needs its own thread.
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...
What we need is at least two more threads on this topic!!
OvermodIf this discussion is going to morph from couplers in Europe to brakes in North America it needs to be put in its own specific thread, so named.
That is no fun at all!
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Euclid beaulieu Remember that railroading in Europe is quite different to that in the US. Organizationally and operationally. SBB Cargo already is operating a test fleet of locomotives and freight cars in domestic carload service. They use a beefed-up version of the Scharfenberg coupler. Pending the results of these tests, Hupac(the second largest Intermodal provider in Europe) intends to convert their entire fleet of flatcars to this equipment. Kombiverkehr(the largest) will likely follow, with many trains being dedicated to a single customer. It will be relatively easy to convert, especially with all the freight companies using their own freight cars or leased from a few leasing companies like GATX, or VTG. I agree that the key to making conversions in standardized compoents such as couplers and ECP brake features is to group rolling stock into captive bodies that can be converted as a relatively smaller group, and not have to be loose car, interchange-compatible with an entire national pool of railcars. Perhaps this is somewhat the case with EU railroads. Unless that same trend happens in the U.S., I don't see any possibility of ECP and/or new couplers with automatic air coupling happening in the U.S.
I agree that the key to making conversions in standardized compoents such as couplers and ECP brake features is to group rolling stock into captive bodies that can be converted as a relatively smaller group, and not have to be loose car, interchange-compatible with an entire national pool of railcars. Perhaps this is somewhat the case with EU railroads.
Unless that same trend happens in the U.S., I don't see any possibility of ECP and/or new couplers with automatic air coupling happening in the U.S.
Oh it will happen.. At least in regards to ECP there will be a government mandate. Just like PTC. Let there be a few more major derailments, and just like Chatsworth back in 2008. ECP will be forced. The C1's don't like investing money in incremental upgrades. So just like PTC cost billions more than if the C1's would've installed PTC overtime. ECP will add billions more than if it would've been introduced into captive service first. With the entire NA car fleet gradually getting ECP over time.
At least until PSR has run its course
When I speak of rapid changeover as being the showstopper, I am referring to its cost as being the objection.
I am referring to its cost of taking equipment out of service for the change, and keeping it out of service until the last car is changed—or some degree of that principle. Basically, the “change” is to remove the old coupler equipment and replace it with the new equipment.
The fundamental reason it has to be rapid is that as each car is changed, it is no longer usable until all the cars are changed. Although, this change can be done in car groups that are smaller than the whole national pool. But most likely, it will not be rapid enough to be viable. It cannot be as viable as moving one rail over in one day. So it is not a viable option.
This problem is unique because of the standardization of components for both ECP brakes and couplers. There is no similar problem with things like buying new locomotives, new cars, or new rail and ties, for example. Those items can be changed one at a time, and each one that is changed improves the entire system immediately.
However with the standardized interoperating components such as couplers and ECP brakes, when you spend the money to change the first car, nothing has been improved. So the high cost is not just for the new equipment, but also due to the long delayed benefit and return of investment of the changed system.
The most attractive alternative to the full rapid changeover is the dual system changeover in which you add the new system to each car while leaving the old system intact and operational. With this approach, there are two different options of the method as follows:
Add the new equipment and leave it inoperable until all cars have been thus modified.
Add the new equipment in a way that can be operated while compatible with the older equipment in the same train.
It sounds like the EU is pursuing the option #2. Of course the economic viability of this method depends on the number of cars in the interchange pool. The downside of option #2 is that you are adding the cost of an entire second system to the cost of the first system. Also, providing this kind of interchangeability between two different systems forces limitations and compromises on the design perfection of the new system by forcing it to be compatible with the old system.
Also, these compromises to the new system are only needed temporarily while it has to work with the old system. So once the changeover is complete, it may be desirable to go back and redesign the new system to get rid of the now unnecessary compromises it needed in order to be compatible with the old system.
And of course, the redesign of the new system would have to be done in a way that keeps it compatible with the first compromised version of the new system. Otherwise, you would be starting this compatibility rat race all over again to perfect the uncompromised new system once it replaced the initial compromised new system.
It would be very interesting to see the EU detailed plan for this new coupler system and how it will be introduced into the interchange car pool.
It's tough to drag a horse to water. Most of the safety appliances were not voluntarily adopted. Besides, judging by their actions, the freight rails seem to be cutting back, moving into an under-a-siege mentality. We may see going out-of business sales unless some clever idea guys who want to get into new markets move into positions of control. Don't hold your breath.
charlie hebdoOM: Remember, we're talking about two major changeovers in a very hidebound business.
The issue with couplers is that freezing design at any point might result in wacky design features or missing a whole technological revolution. Imagine if more than just motor electronics had been built with early-80s proprietary electronics, or the couplers designed with near-field RFID using only Kar-Trak data exchange; we recently saw an appalling failure of what I consider common sense with ECP technology...
It might be interesting to see an activist Congress come up with some rationale to involve automatic service couplers in 'safety' and then mandate a design effort, perhaps like that for ATS in the 1920s, coupled with a combination of mandate and support to stage it in. But I think you'll see the push for ECP much earlier; I hope it doesn't devolve into mere politics and divide the communities still further.
OM: Remember, we're talking about two major changeovers in a very hidebound business.
EuclidThe idea is dead on arrival for U.S. rail industry because of need for a very rapid changeover.
In both cases, a considerable part of the engineering part of the changeover is handled asynchronously ... just like preparing for a line change of gauge. You do not do this by building 1000 enormous shop buildings with multiple tracks and running all the equipment through them on the designated 'flag days'.
In the case of ECP, if you read the manufacturers' offerings they have conversion kits for one-pipe that let you switch back and forth between accelerated-release Westinghouse and their version of constant-pressure-trainline supply. Gradually over time, and probably with the assistance of third-party contractors, the work would be done until whole consists are assembled in 'key' services, and then later for various kinds of interchange acceptance.
With couplers, any 'automatic' design would still be capable of mating with existing forms of knuckle, the difference being (as with older attempts) having the air and electrical connections make and break mechanically and protected from weather and other damage. For conversion you install the new devices with the air gagged off, and keep the older hoses and gladhands for brake and any other connections (such as ECP 220V) as they are for 'standalone' cars; then cut over to integrated air when desired, and integrated other connections when appropriate. All of this essentially doable any time a carman accesses the end of a car, or when a switchman makes a joint...
Euclid The idea is dead on arrival for U.S. rail industry because of need for a very rapid changeover. However, this raises the question of how it can be accomplished in the EU rail system. Basically, what is needed is to keep current couplers in operation as the new couplers are added as the conversion. Then when the conversion is complete, you make a rapid switch to the new couplers. It is kind of like changing gage by moving one rail over in one day.
The idea is dead on arrival for U.S. rail industry because of need for a very rapid changeover.
However, this raises the question of how it can be accomplished in the EU rail system. Basically, what is needed is to keep current couplers in operation as the new couplers are added as the conversion. Then when the conversion is complete, you make a rapid switch to the new couplers. It is kind of like changing gage by moving one rail over in one day.
The C-AKv coupler was created for this purpose. It's compatible with link and chain, also the Russian SA3 coupler. Until Europe rolls the dice on a center buffer coupler.
Think something like ECP Brakes would be first on the list.
Overmod I remember reading this exact same story in Trains Magazine, before 1966. Of course that was UIC, and it came as a great surprise to me to find, when I first actually went to Europe, that in fact they were not all using optimized Scharfenberg doohickeys on all their government-subsidized trains. Better late than never, probably with greatly improved reliability and certainly greatly-improved materials and fabrication. Perhaps when we get fully-funded socialism under Kamala and successors to pay for sweeping improvements in the best interests of shortsighted-financier-owned railroads, we can have these for a mere couple of trillion on top of transition to ECP. (Problem for the other thread is that precisely 0% of this would apply to a 'government' administration of a separated iron-ocean running infrastructure, except as an unachievable mandate for competitors to existing operators...)
I remember reading this exact same story in Trains Magazine, before 1966. Of course that was UIC, and it came as a great surprise to me to find, when I first actually went to Europe, that in fact they were not all using optimized Scharfenberg doohickeys on all their government-subsidized trains.
Better late than never, probably with greatly improved reliability and certainly greatly-improved materials and fabrication. Perhaps when we get fully-funded socialism under Kamala and successors to pay for sweeping improvements in the best interests of shortsighted-financier-owned railroads, we can have these for a mere couple of trillion on top of transition to ECP. (Problem for the other thread is that precisely 0% of this would apply to a 'government' administration of a separated iron-ocean running infrastructure, except as an unachievable mandate for competitors to existing operators...)
You just can't stop your political bias from leaking through, can you, even in a thread as apolitical as this?
If network managers in Europe could get on the same page..Begin to offer near or seamless slots across the continent for freight trains, increase length from the current 800m limit to 1600m, and increase axle load to at least 30 metric tonne (66,000 lbs.). They could hammer the road freight market over there.. This coupler is big news. Passing us up as far as network productivity goes. SNCF has already tested 1600m trains with success using DPU. I believe one test involved MU'ed motors as well.
EU is pushing for a digital automatic coupler EU wise by 2030. Included will be air brakes, Electronic brake control, digital info bus , Etc. Evidently car knockers will not have to lace up couplings and air lines. That will put the EU ahead of north America.
https://www.railwaygazette.com/technology/european-digital-automatic-coupler-deployment-planned-by-2030/57402.article
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.