SD60MAC9500 So it appears UP has developed software to help terminals build trains called Precision Train Builder, or PTB. It suppposedly simulates how a train will handle over any given territory. I guess UP is going to throw generations of passed down train building knowledge out the window? While this might be nice to simulate. The real world will show otherwise. Waiting to see the feedback on this one.. https://siliconprairienews.com/2021/02/new-up-developed-technology-builds-better-safer-trains/
So it appears UP has developed software to help terminals build trains called Precision Train Builder, or PTB. It suppposedly simulates how a train will handle over any given territory. I guess UP is going to throw generations of passed down train building knowledge out the window? While this might be nice to simulate. The real world will show otherwise. Waiting to see the feedback on this one..
https://siliconprairienews.com/2021/02/new-up-developed-technology-builds-better-safer-trains/
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
Unlike Vaccine tests, it's hard to do a double blind test. Or could one do a test some how?
It will be interesting to see how this simulation places cars loaded and empty based on draft gear or eocc(end of car cushioning) end units. Placement of DPU in relation to empty draft gear and eocc. I imagine a portion of derailments from these land barges can be attributed to "incorrect" placement of loads and empties along with the type of end unit the cars are equipped with.. Then again with the block swapping involved with PSR I maybe wrong on what's incorrect placement of cars..
Operations software always end up with unintended consequence.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Euclid In the meantime, this system invites skepticism.
While your entire response is doubtlessly valid, that point in particular caught my attention. Are the people being "asked" to use this new feature simply being resistant to change, or are they feeling more like "oh great, another boss who doesn't know the drill"?
I doubt they are concerned that the computer is going to go out in the yard and take "boots on ground" jobs away from them, so where is the risk?
I used to work for a company where the one rationale that you dared not use (as a subordinate) was "well, we've always done it this way"...DESPITE the fact that the corporate officers had no inhibitions whatsover to saying "what's the matter with you? surely you must know the way things are done around here!" to subordinates triyng to innovate.
Something about the inevitability of certain things rolling down hill.
I say use it for 6 months and then make an informed decision as to it's worthiness for the intended purpose.
Lithonia OperatorIt seems like an excellent concept. But is the software up to the job? I guess time will tell.
It is one of those 'tools' that is great in concept, but may be well less than that in operation.
CSX's CADS software for train dispatching had a package to be used for the meeting and passing of trains that Dispatchers could implement on their territories at their own discretion and thus 'run their territory in automatic'. Many tried, many failed and after several were fired for codlocked territories it was rearely ever used again. Observing some of the decisions the package would make were absolutely mind boggling.
Part of the problem in 'debugging' such operational software is that those in charge of the program don't want to believe users when they state their observations; they want to see the operation locked down so they can 'back track' the logic the led to the lock down - a operation cannot afford getting to the point of lock down for the sake of debugging a program.
Sounds like a fancier version of CPR's program that checks the train marshalling for various territories (TrAM; Train Area Marshalling). Essentially it aims to prevent stringlining by preventing lots of tonnage on the drawbar behind long empty cars, including consideration of the placement of DPUs. Once the train is made up it checks for violations. Heavy grades and curvature make a volatile combination that can challenge even the best engineer.
Where it failed was mostly when management was reluctant to accept the delay inherent in remarshalling the train and ignored the warning. I'm sure that temptation will exist with UP's version too.
John
It seems like an excellent concept. But is the software up to the job? I guess time will tell.
Convicted One I really don't see what all the resistance is about? Rather than seeing the program as a threat, why not see it as a support tool? Pull aparts are going to happen regardless. But, for the guy building trains, IF one of those trains pulls apart, AND he has used the prescribed software, he just says "hey, I used the UBER TOOL that I was told to use" And it seems to me like an extra layer of insulation between his hind end and anyone inclined to chew it. Meanwhile, anyone whose better judgement tells them the program has made a mistake, can always speak up, and have a nice "I told you so" coming after they are over ruled, and the expected problem comes up later. Seems like "win-win" to me.
I really don't see what all the resistance is about? Rather than seeing the program as a threat, why not see it as a support tool?
Pull aparts are going to happen regardless. But, for the guy building trains, IF one of those trains pulls apart, AND he has used the prescribed software, he just says "hey, I used the UBER TOOL that I was told to use" And it seems to me like an extra layer of insulation between his hind end and anyone inclined to chew it.
Meanwhile, anyone whose better judgement tells them the program has made a mistake, can always speak up, and have a nice "I told you so" coming after they are over ruled, and the expected problem comes up later.
Seems like "win-win" to me.
It might be of great benefit, but it seems to enjoy the protection from critical evaluation because there is no way to know how much benefit it does provide. So the issue is that the tool applied at great cost could just be a form of patent medicine.
It is not a win-win if there is no way to know whether it is actually preventing derailments. Maybe eventually, there will be enough empirical evidence. It would also help if they explained exactly what kind of train makeup conditions this system would flag and require to be changed in order to prevent a derailment. Presumably, some of these dangerous conditions are ones not likely to be recognized by humans. They could explain that too. In the meantime, this system invites skepticism.
Without having the answers to these questions, there is no way to know if the developers have properly addressed all of the train operation variables in their programing. So the application of the system could very well cause derailments until the problem is discovered, and the system is revised.
There is also the question of what happens if the system's advice is overridden by railroad empolyees in order to address some unforseen variable en-route, as has been mentioned. What if that enroute change is made and then there is a derailment? The system makers will say it is not there fault because their advice was not followed. But the railroad officials may determine that the derailment was not caused by their makeup modification, but rather by the part of the makeup that they did not change.
I should think this will cost more than it will save.
Who can override the program? If re-arranging the train to fit the program's plan will cost hundreds of dollars more than running it the way it usually runs, does that count against the program, or the poor crew stuck with making sure car #7 is where it should be according to the program. Especially when said car would normally be at the other end of the train for efficiency's sake, and it's never caused a problem there before...
Of course, if there is a breakapart or derailment, it couldn't possibly be the fault of the program...
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...
Face it; senior management at the railroads (or any company, for that matter) have convinced themselves technology can replace everyone on the railroad except, of course, the senior management. THOSE are the FTE's who are absolutely irreplaceable. (Insert sarcasm emoticon here.)
My understanding is that you would feed the car list into the program and it would arrange the car order for optimum running performance. I assume that would only require a few seconds for the program to accomplish.
However, the program is only as good as the basic assumptions of train handling dynamics which the program contains. Who is to say that those assumptions are right, wrong, or sufficient to cover all circumstances and conditions that affect train dynamics?
The program could conclude that a certain consist order would cause a derailment, and thus rearrange the order to avoid the derailment. And yet it could be wrong in that no derailment would have actually occurred as the program had predicted.
The whole concept seems like paying an expert to prevent the sky from falling, so as long as it does not fall, the payment is worth it.
Can the buttonpushers explain the end-result of the three monster train derailments last fall? (or does PTB assume perfect train handling and external conditions - ie Wyoming weather is hearby suspended?)
Considering all the car placement restrictions based on kind of car and/or commodity being handled as well as commodities that cannot be placed next to other commodities as well as long/short car placements and consecutive empties and their placement in trains as well has handling high/wide restricted loads in multi-block trains that will be involved in picking up and setting off cars along the route of the train and you end up with a genuine puzzle. Maybe PTB can solve the puzzle, maybe it will roll craps.
The ones that have the most problems with break in twos or threes, are mixed manifests. So you are building a 250 car train that will go 750 miles. How long does it take to check the various possiblities to get the 250 cars in the right order? What if the train is finally assembled and then the carmen bad order 3 cars that need be set out. Do you have to rerun the simulations and then reswitch the train?
Now that train is going to have blocks for two intermediate yards. To get it "right" do we forget blocking cars and just have the entire train switched at the intermediate yards? What about cars being picked up enroute? Does the train have to be "reswitched" in the computer to check the various implications of car placement?
We've discussed at work how they place a lot of stock in the simulators. Even though things in the real world don't always work as well as they do in the simulators.
Will it be as successful as the Arrowedge is?
Jeff
How do they know that this PTB system is preventing derailments or saving money in any facet of operation?
Wisdom costs money...
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.