Quote from the article that mirrors many comments from the real railroaders here:
“Carriers’ visions of one-person crews provide no solution to the shortcomings of technologies such as Positive Train Control and Trip Optimizer/Leader or to the business practices the Class I’s have largely chosen to pursue,” Ferguson [of the union] says.
Be interesting to see the practical logistics involved in the 'superconductor' position. Bet a few of the management types have been eagerly following the Gravity belt developments! Can it be long before there are handholds atop the cab for arriving conductors, right next to the drone garages?
Well, we've wanted that future since Commander Cody days, so I suppose we shouldn't complain when it's shoved at us...
So U.P. plans on one ground roving conductor in charge of several autonomous trains with no human engineers. This will abruptly end the era of monster trains and their broken knuckles, which will be good news to the roving conductors. This will be the ultimate solution to the war between labor and management over crew size. It will also be the ultimate solution to the crew fatigue problem by allowing the roving conductors to rove closer to home, so they can sleep at home every night. It will also usher in the era of short, fast, and frequent trains with their agility and flexibility to live up to the true implication of Precision Scheduled Railroading. Finally all the pieces fall into place.
You forgot the "/s"
What cracks me up is the whole "this will solve crew fatigue problem!". Yeah, for the conductor. What about the guy actually running the train? He's still goign to the flea bag hotel, is on call, etc....
I mean, I hope these roving utilities are figured in future contract so we with more seniority get first crack at them.
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
zugmann What cracks me up is the whole "this will solve crew fatigue problem!". Yeah, for the conductor. What about the guy actually running the train? He's still goign to the flea bag hotel, is on call, etc....
I am referring to the U.P. They say they will move to autonomous trains and roving conductors. So there won’t be any engineers to be away from home and staying in hotels. No more hotels, and no more fatigue. Just one conductor on the ground managing several nimble, tiny trains.
I have a bridge to sell you.
zugmann I have a bridge to sell you.
It sounds like the bridge has already been bought by U.P.
EuclidIt sounds like the bridge has already been bought by U.P.
Yeah, and we wer going to have flying cars and nuclear power would give us "energy too cheap to meter". People like believing in stories.
zugmann Euclid It sounds like the bridge has already been bought by U.P. Yeah, and we wer going to have flying cars and nuclear power would give us "energy too cheap to meter". People like believing in stories.
Euclid It sounds like the bridge has already been bought by U.P.
My opinion is that railroads are facing an existential threat right now from autonmous trucks. They had better start trying new things. Therefore, I welcome experimentation with one man crews.
EuclidYes, just like the new diesel-electric locomotives. "They may be okay for yard switching, but not for pulling trains on the mainline."
I mean, there's AI bots for posting to forums. We aren't even needed.
Although sometimes I wonder if you aren't a AI bot. The Euclid2000.. increase forum participation with this one trick!
zugmann Euclid Yes, just like the new diesel-electric locomotives. "They may be okay for yard switching, but not for pulling trains on the mainline." I mean, there's AI bots for posting to forums. We aren't even needed. Although sometimes I wonder if you aren't a AI bot. The Euclid2000.. increase forum participation with this one trick!
Euclid Yes, just like the new diesel-electric locomotives. "They may be okay for yard switching, but not for pulling trains on the mainline."
No, I think AI is overpromised. And I don't want to go to Mars.
You all realize this is not just some visionary plan from OM or some other guy who can look to the future. These notions are plans from our largest railroad. Good for customers, good for the railroads; early retirement for operating crews.
zugmannWhat cracks me up is the whole "this will solve crew fatigue problem!". Yeah, for the conductor. What about the guy actually running the train? He's still goign to the flea bag hotel, is on call, etc....
Why does the engineer have to be on the train? He/she could be remote.
Just log on from home at say, 7:00 AM. Do whatever needs to be done until 3:00 PM and then pass off the work to the next shift.
Euclid So U.P. plans on one ground roving conductor in charge of several autonomous trains with no human engineers. This will abruptly end the era of monster trains and their broken knuckles, which will be good news to the roving conductors. This will be the ultimate solution to the war between labor and management over crew size. It will also be the ultimate solution to the crew fatigue problem by allowing the roving conductors to rove closer to home, so they can sleep at home every night. It will also usher in the era of short, fast, and frequent trains with their agility and flexibility to live up to the true implication of Precision Scheduled Railroading. Finally all the pieces fall into place.
No it won't. Trains size will not be reduced under automonous operation. Even with a "crewless" train you'll want to keep economies of scale in your favor to remain in competition..
EuclidNo, I think AI is overpromised.
That's what an AI would say! We're onto you Euclid2000!
greyhoundsWhy does the engineer have to be on the train? He/she could be remote.
Why wouldn't we just do that with trucks?
charlie hebdoYou all realize this is not just some visionary plan from OM or some other guy who can look to the future. These notions are plans from our largest railroad. Good for customers, good for the railroads; early retirement for operating crews.
Or just feely-good stuff to please stockhodlers that will not be implemented in our lifetimes.
zugmann Why wouldn't we just do that with trucks?
It could happen.
Trip Op still needs a lot of support from its meatbag 'training wheels', I can't see it running all by itself anytime soon.
Greetings from Alberta
-an Articulate Malcontent
SD60MAC9500 Euclid So U.P. plans on one ground roving conductor in charge of several autonomous trains with no human engineers. This will abruptly end the era of monster trains and their broken knuckles, which will be good news to the roving conductors. This will be the ultimate solution to the war between labor and management over crew size. It will also be the ultimate solution to the crew fatigue problem by allowing the roving conductors to rove closer to home, so they can sleep at home every night. It will also usher in the era of short, fast, and frequent trains with their agility and flexibility to live up to the true implication of Precision Scheduled Railroading. Finally all the pieces fall into place. No it won't. Trains size will not be reduced under automonous operation. Even with a "crewless" train you'll want to keep economies of scale in your favor to remain in competition..
The only economy of scale for monster trains is moving more cars per crew cost. Otherwise, monster trains cost more to operate due to more mechanical problems and delays. So, if you reduce or eliminate the crew, economic advantage of monster trains drops. If it drops low enough to not be able to offset the added cost of breakdowns and delays of monster trains, there will likely be no economic advantage to running them. Then too, the railroads will be in sharp competition with trucking with its fundamentally quicker delivery. If railroads want to take business from trucking, they will have to speed up their service. Monster trains slow down service.
I had to pull on hip waders to get through the BS about improving the quality of the job for the employee.
The only people who will see an improved work environment are the C Suite folks with stock options.
I will go to my grave believing one man crews and (for the benefit of our trucking fan boy on here) autonomous trucks are a lousy idea and detract from safe operations.
CW
I will only say this. If I were a 32 year old engineer, I would not plan on another 30+ years in that line of work.
charlie hebdo I will only say this. If I were a 32 year old engineer, I would not plan on another 30+ years in that line of work.
True for any profession anymore.
greyhoundsWhy does the engineer have to be on the train? He/she could be remote. Just log on from home at say, 7:00 AM. Do whatever needs to be done until 3:00 PM and then pass off the work to the next shift.
Incidentally that vision also specifically includes a trained conductor as 'the single man' crew on each separate train. And as the rapid-response 'first responder' in an emergent situation with any full-autonomous level 4 or better train, in the absence of dedicated response (which cheap PSR financier management will nearly always deprecate).
Overmod greyhounds Why does the engineer have to be on the train? He/she could be remote. Just log on from home at say, 7:00 AM. Do whatever needs to be done until 3:00 PM and then pass off the work to the next shift. It is not quite that simple, and some of the very simplest things that have to be provided or assured are among the most expensive. Nonetheless it's the 'vision' I have supported since the '80s and continue to support. PM me for details if it interests you. Incidentally that vision also specifically includes a trained conductor as 'the single man' crew on each separate train. And as the rapid-response 'first responder' in an emergent situation with any full-autonomous level 4 or better train, in the absence of dedicated response (which cheap PSR financier management will nearly always deprecate).
greyhounds Why does the engineer have to be on the train? He/she could be remote. Just log on from home at say, 7:00 AM. Do whatever needs to be done until 3:00 PM and then pass off the work to the next shift.
It is not quite that simple, and some of the very simplest things that have to be provided or assured are among the most expensive. Nonetheless it's the 'vision' I have supported since the '80s and continue to support. PM me for details if it interests you.
Rapid Response is the joke of the 21st Century. One man, multiple locations at the same time. Remember, there are locations on most all territories where the only access is by rail. Or are the Rapid Response Conductors going to be hitched to a drone and sent to those inaccessable areas?
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
BaltACD Remember, there are locations on most all territories where the only access is by rail. Or are the Rapid Response Conductors going to be hitched to a drone and sent to those inaccessable areas?
Well, I'd guess they would have a hy-rail vehicle.
greyhoundsWell, I'd guess they would have a hy-rail vehicle.
I'm holding out for my own helicopter.
PTI is the sky! I can go twice as high! take a look; it's in the rulebook!
(my apologies to Mr. Burton).
Zug - QNSL hires helicopters to fly you out if it really hits the fan. Why fly the chopper yourself when you can have a chauffeur too!?
greyhounds BaltACD Remember, there are locations on most all territories where the only access is by rail. Or are the Rapid Response Conductors going to be hitched to a drone and sent to those inaccessable areas? Well, I'd guess they would have a hy-rail vehicle.
Ah yes. Hi-rail to a 15K foot train that has gotten a knuckle in the middle of the train on single track between sidings that are 20 miles or more apart.
The access problem has a simple solution. The Class 1's will take all the money they saved "redeploying" conductors to cut access roads along 100% of their ROW. ;-)
If the train is going to be run by a human, they are going to be on it. A person running the train can't do a darn thing from their home computer when something goes wrong. You can't drop the computer or any other breaker on the back wall from home.
I think the case for autonomous trucks is way over blown. I think the actual usefullness is limited. I would look for more automation in a helping mode rather than a solo mode. Besides, I would think you would want someone on board if for nothing else to protect the load from being stolen. Either by someone hacking into the system or disabling the vehicle to where it would stop out in the middle of nowhere.
I also think that you won't see completely automated trains with no one on board. Even if automation runs the thing all or most of the time, I think there will be someon on board to take over or go find out why the air went. I do believe the name of the position will change and pay will be less than the current rate.
The concept of a utility conductor is OK until you try to figure out how big a territory they need to cover. Some days, say one for every 50 miles, one conductor is too much - nothing to do. The next day 3 or 4 trains all have problems that need attention. Management will opt to only see the good days when the u-man has nothing to do and assign territories on that basis. Remember that Hunter Harrison, who started the class ones down the PSR road was against the idea of one person crews.
UP is currently collecting and retaining data on human caused break in twos. They are not retaining the data for times when the automation breaks the train. Some other new practices seems to make it appear that they are trying to make a case for automation. That they will use the data to show that they need automation in place of humans.
Yet they are currently hiring new conductors.
Jeff
Great point about freight theft from OTR trucks, I can see that becoming a big problem in the future for high-value goods.
jeffhergert If the train is going to be run by a human, they are going to be on it. A person running the train can't do a darn thing from their home computer when something goes wrong. You can't drop the computer or any other breaker on the back wall from home. I think the case for autonomous trucks is way over blown. I think the actual usefullness is limited. I would look for more automation in a helping mode rather than a solo mode. Besides, I would think you would want someone on board if for nothing else to protect the load from being stolen. Either by someone hacking into the system or disabling the vehicle to where it would stop out in the middle of nowhere. I also think that you won't see completely automated trains with no one on board. Even if automation runs the thing all or most of the time, I think there will be someon on board to take over or go find out why the air went. I do believe the name of the position will change and pay will be less than the current rate. The concept of a utility conductor is OK until you try to figure out how big a territory they need to cover. Some days, say one for every 50 miles, one conductor is too much - nothing to do. The next day 3 or 4 trains all have problems that need attention. Management will opt to only see the good days when the u-man has nothing to do and assign territories on that basis. Remember that Hunter Harrison, who started the class ones down the PSR road was against the idea of one person crews. UP is currently collecting and retaining data on human caused break in twos. They are not retaining the data for times when the automation breaks the train. Some other new practices seems to make it appear that they are trying to make a case for automation. That they will use the data to show that they need automation in place of humans. Yet they are currently hiring new conductors. Jeff
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
Stealing from autonomous OTR trucks seems like it could be similar in scope to the theft from intermodal trains paused in questionable areas of some cities.
My son had a train a few weeks back where first, someone attempted to board and enter the cab. The dispatcher was notified and contacted the police. When they responded and checked the train, they caught another individual back in the train, supposedly breaking into a container. Multiple officers responded then, as apparently they believed this was some sort of organized gang activity.
As it relates to the topic of this thread; this is one incident where it was likely a good thing two people were in the cab and in a position to at least raise the alarm.
SD70Dude Great point about freight theft from OTR trucks, I can see that becoming a big problem in the future for high-value goods.
Edit: Sorry. While I was posting the following, someone beat me to it.
An autonomous train has nowhere to go except on the tracks to locations controlled by the railroad.
Autonomous trucks, on the other hand, could be at the mercy of hackers. I could imagine criminals taking control of the truck, disabling its tracking mechanisms, and guiding it to a warehouse to be unloaded.
While some would say that's impossible, it seems that hackers from around the world are doing some things we were told were impossible.
York1 John
Juniata Man Stealing from autonomous OTR trucks seems like it could be similar in scope to the theft from intermodal trains paused in questionable areas of some cities. My son had a train a few weeks back where first, someone attempted to board and enter the cab. The dispatcher was notified and contacted the police. When they responded and checked the train, they caught another individual back in the train, supposedly breaking into a container. Multiple officers responded then, as apparently they believed this was some sort of organized gang activity. As it relates to the topic of this thread; this is one incident where it was likely a good thing two people were in the cab and in a position to at least raise the alarm. CW SD70Dude Great point about freight theft from OTR trucks, I can see that becoming a big problem in the future for high-value goods.
One thing about autonomous devices is that they are loaded with video cameras that may be a deterrent to criminals.
I doubt cameras are a deterrent. Most cities of any size (and businesses, for that matter) are loaded with security cameras these days and it seems to have little to no affect on crime.
rdamon Juniata Man Stealing from autonomous OTR trucks seems like it could be similar in scope to the theft from intermodal trains paused in questionable areas of some cities. My son had a train a few weeks back where first, someone attempted to board and enter the cab. The dispatcher was notified and contacted the police. When they responded and checked the train, they caught another individual back in the train, supposedly breaking into a container. Multiple officers responded then, as apparently they believed this was some sort of organized gang activity. As it relates to the topic of this thread; this is one incident where it was likely a good thing two people were in the cab and in a position to at least raise the alarm. CW SD70Dude Great point about freight theft from OTR trucks, I can see that becoming a big problem in the future for high-value goods. One thing about autonomous devices is that they are loaded with video cameras that may be a deterrent to criminals.
In some cases I suspect cameras are an attractant for criminals. Their escapade is captured on media and will 'live on' well after the escapade.
charlie hebdoAny predictions on when single crew cabs on the Big 6? Autonomous trains on mainlines of Big6? Big 6 => Big 2-4?
After seeing reactions whenever there is a crash of an autonomous car on a highway, I've got to believe it will be a long time before the public will accept autonomous trains. Even though we have train - car or truck crashes at crossings now, I think that the first time there is an autonomous train - car crash, there will be a huge negative public reaction.
On the matter of a single crew locomotive, I can see that happening within a few years.
Of course, I'm no expert. On anything.
York1 charlie hebdo Any predictions on when single crew cabs on the Big 6? Autonomous trains on mainlines of Big6? Big 6 => Big 2-4? After seeing reactions whenever there is a crash of an autonomous car on a highway, I've got to believe it will be a long time before the public will accept autonomous trains. Even though we have train - car or truck crashes at crossings now, I think that the first time there is an autonomous train - car crash, there will be a huge negative public reaction. On the matter of a single crew locomotive, I can see that happening within a few years. Of course, I'm no expert. On anything.
charlie hebdo Any predictions on when single crew cabs on the Big 6? Autonomous trains on mainlines of Big6? Big 6 => Big 2-4?
Thanks. I think few on here are qualified to speak as experts on these three questions.
My WAG:
The change will start happening within 20 years. The railroads are already trying, though I doubt they will be successful in the next round of contract negotiations.
Canada will be at least a few years later than the U.S, due to the lingering memories of the Lac-Megantic disaster.
How often does a train crew notice something amiss on or around the tracks that a driverless train would not?
Doesn't Amtrak run with just an engineer in the cab? Would having had two people in the cab possibly have prevented the 2015 Philadelphia train derailment?
ClassA Doesn't Amtrak run with just an engineer in the cab? Would having had two people in the cab possibly have prevented the 2015 Philadelphia train derailment?
There were several long threads on that at the time.
We see stuff all the time that an AI on the train probably wouldn't pick up. We'll see how all the new automated inspection portals ('super scanners') work out.
This is off-topic, but it reminded me ...
New technology changes the way we do things, even if we don't want to believe it or accept it.
In the 1990s, some were predicting that within a few years, we would become a cashless country. I did not believe it, and I pointed out to others my expert opinion.
Now, I very seldom carry cash. We have one fast food place near us that is considering not accepting cash.
How long before autonomous cars, trucks, or trains are accepted as normal?
Never mind.
SD70Dude My WAG: The change will start happening within 20 years. The railroads are already trying, though I doubt they will be successful in the next round of contract negotiations. Canada will be at least a few years later than the U.S, due to the lingering memories of the Lac-Megantic disaster.
They've been talking about it for at least the previous 20 years. I expect it to happen, but I think I'll only see the beginning of some trains, probably intermodals, being single person before I retire in about 10 +/- years.
The question boils down to politics. I doubt that railroads and labor will come to any agreement in the short term. Therefore, if the railroads want to push it they will have to go all the way through the process to get a Presidential Emergency Board to force the issue. I don't think they would do it with Democrats holding the White House.
They had an opprotunity during the last administration and were leery of going to a PEB. The chance was early on and with the focus on workers and jobs the RRs weren't sure what the outcome would've been. I think it was a lost opprotunity on their part, not that it upsets me that they didn't act.
York1In the 1990s, some were predicting that within a few years, we would become a cashless country.
The late, great Chicago journalist Mike Royko didn't think so, and he explained why in three pithy little words.
"Off the books."
Think about it.
It very well might have. Water under the bridge, considering the massive threads we had on that particular subject no point in going into it further.
York1Of course, I'm no expert. On anything.
Me neither, but I've worked with enough electronic technology over a thirty year period to learn to never trust it 100%. I've seen too much.
I don't care what the tech-heads say, they love their toys too much.
Euclid SD60MAC9500 Euclid So U.P. plans on one ground roving conductor in charge of several autonomous trains with no human engineers. This will abruptly end the era of monster trains and their broken knuckles, which will be good news to the roving conductors. This will be the ultimate solution to the war between labor and management over crew size. It will also be the ultimate solution to the crew fatigue problem by allowing the roving conductors to rove closer to home, so they can sleep at home every night. It will also usher in the era of short, fast, and frequent trains with their agility and flexibility to live up to the true implication of Precision Scheduled Railroading. Finally all the pieces fall into place. No it won't. Trains size will not be reduced under automonous operation. Even with a "crewless" train you'll want to keep economies of scale in your favor to remain in competition.. The only economy of scale for monster trains is moving more cars per crew cost. Otherwise, monster trains cost more to operate due to more mechanical problems and delays. So, if you reduce or eliminate the crew, economic advantage of monster trains drops. If it drops low enough to not be able to offset the added cost of breakdowns and delays of monster trains, there will likely be no economic advantage to running them. Then too, the railroads will be in sharp competition with trucking with its fundamentally quicker delivery. If railroads want to take business from trucking, they will have to speed up their service. Monster trains slow down service.
PSR style freights were not created to just cut crew cost. PSR cutting train starts created the side effect of cutting crew cost. You are not looking past the human element.. Some of the key features of PSR, RoW rationalization, and in theory increased capacity which has happened for the most part. Equimpent cost do not go away just because you eliminate a crew. Capacity cost do not go away just because you no longer have a crew. Car utilization cost does not go away just because you do not have a crew.. PSR has it's hiccups and will continue to have them as the focus on OR remains.. For now..
Flintlock76 York1 In the 1990s, some were predicting that within a few years, we would become a cashless country. The late, great Chicago journalist Mike Royko didn't think so, and he explained why in three pithy little words. "Off the books." Think about it.
York1 In the 1990s, some were predicting that within a few years, we would become a cashless country.
SD60MAC9500 Euclid SD60MAC9500 Euclid So U.P. plans on one ground roving conductor in charge of several autonomous trains with no human engineers. This will abruptly end the era of monster trains and their broken knuckles, which will be good news to the roving conductors. This will be the ultimate solution to the war between labor and management over crew size. It will also be the ultimate solution to the crew fatigue problem by allowing the roving conductors to rove closer to home, so they can sleep at home every night. It will also usher in the era of short, fast, and frequent trains with their agility and flexibility to live up to the true implication of Precision Scheduled Railroading. Finally all the pieces fall into place. No it won't. Trains size will not be reduced under automonous operation. Even with a "crewless" train you'll want to keep economies of scale in your favor to remain in competition.. The only economy of scale for monster trains is moving more cars per crew cost. Otherwise, monster trains cost more to operate due to more mechanical problems and delays. So, if you reduce or eliminate the crew, economic advantage of monster trains drops. If it drops low enough to not be able to offset the added cost of breakdowns and delays of monster trains, there will likely be no economic advantage to running them. Then too, the railroads will be in sharp competition with trucking with its fundamentally quicker delivery. If railroads want to take business from trucking, they will have to speed up their service. Monster trains slow down service. PSR style freights were not created to just cut crew cost. PSR cutting train starts created the side effect of cutting crew cost. You are not looking past the human element.. Some of the key features of PSR, RoW rationalization, and in theory increased capacity which has happened for the most part. Equimpent cost do not go away just because you eliminate a crew. Capacity cost do not go away just because you no longer have a crew. Car utilization cost does not go away just because you do not have a crew.. PSR has it's hiccups and will continue to have them as the focus on OR remains.. For now..
I do agree that there are more costs to railroading than just crew costs. But I don't see how a great increase in train size lowers those costs. It might if they were monster unit trains. You mention car utilization. How do monster trains lower the cost of car utilization? How do they lower the cost of capcity, as you say?
I agree with Jeff H. about autonomous trains and trucks. I'm pretty sure this won't be a significant thing soon, or maybe ever. In certain situations, like that Australian mining railroad, it makes sense. But I don't expect to see it in common use in my lifetime. (And based on genes and general health, I will probably get another 15 years or so.)
Still in training.
There was a final prediction question concerning how many major railroad companies will survive after mergers and acquisitions. My guess is UP, BNSF and one of the Canadian lines.
Proponents are advancing the causes of autonomous operation of the following:
Private passenger cars on public roads.
Private commercial trucks on public roads.
Private freight trains on private railroads.
I expect #3 to be in widespread development and testing starting as soon as 2025. Both U.P and C.N. have stated this goal of using autonomous trains, meaning the elimination of on-board engineers operating the controls. Most of the response in autonomous control is programmed as various inputs. Part of the inputs are from onboard and wayside sensors, and other parts are from human operators working in ground based offices, rather than on-board the locomotive.
I expect development and implementation of #1 and #2 to lag way behind #3. In this quest for autonomous operation, the railroads are way ahead of the road vehicles. With their PTC, and self-guiding system of flanged wheels running on rails, the railroads are already at 75% of way to the goal.
Road vehicles need to be steered with constant tracking adjustments. They interact with each other by using human judgement to keep them on the road. They rely on human judgement to prevent them from colliding with each other by adhering to operational rules and rudimentary traffic control signals. For autonomous driving, they need a vast amount of sensors to know where they are located and what potential traffic conflicts are possible at each instant. Sensing and controlling all of these variables is a fantastic technological challenge. If this smart driving vision is ever accomplished, it will probably end up requiring a national transition to “smart roads” as well as autonomous vehicles.
As this private vehicle, autonomous vision moves forward, it will likely evolve into a public system of cars, trucks, and roadways all being like a giant public mass transit system for passengers and freight. But all of that is at least a century away, if it ever happens at all. Meanwhile look for the very practical and reasonable goal of autonomous freight trains to materialize starting no later than 2030.
How many PRR & Amtrak passengers must have thought, as I once did, that this was the Juanita River alongside the tracks, until either a sign or common sense indicated otherwise?
EuclidI expect #3 to be in widespread development and testing starting as soon as 2025. Both U.P and C.N. have stated this goal of using autonomous trains, meaning the elimination of on-board engineers operating the controls. Most of the response in autonomous control is programmed as various inputs. Part of the inputs are from onboard and wayside sensors, and other parts are from human operators working in ground based offices, rather than on-board the locomotive.
I believe it is inevitable, too. All the tech necessary tomake it work might not exist today, but inevitably, it will. Better crossing protection. enhanced awareness, stuff like that.
Since crew labor costs would no longer be an issue, it wouldn't surprise me if they slowed all trains down to about 25 mph, added a few strategically placed sidings, and run the trains with perfectly synchronized meets, where no train actually stops until it reaches it's destination.
In fact, the first one to perfect such a system might win the derby, and become a nationwide logistics company, where the conventional railroads as we know them today would become REITs, leasing their plant to the holder of the intellectual property that makes it all work.
Railroad M&As?
The appropriate CO avatar would be Janus.
How about:
https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/1332370583137509376/7iRuAuNw.jpg
charlie hebdo The appropriate CO avatar would be Janus.
the image won't show even though on Google.
If the motivation behind such crew reductions and "redeployments" is the spector of driverless trucks, let me assure that truly autonomous (driverless) trucks are still a long way off. And even so, the technology to bring about total automation will be expensive and make the cost of implementing PTC look like chump change in comparison. Sure, the internet is full of videos showing "look no hands!" driving on the highway... but there are very few (and I haven't found any) of a tractor trailer blindside backing itself off a crowded street, down a sloped alley and into a narrow dock.. hmm. I wonder why that is. One typical big city neighbourhood that springs to mind is Saint Henri in Montreal.. I would love to see a truck navigate itself through those crowded streets not to mention backing itself around parked cars and into a 1920s era dock. Driverless trucks are the boogieman being used to negotiate one person crews on trains. I'm not a railroader and thus have no dog in that fight, but labor is a much bigger chunk of the trucking pie than it is of the railroads' pie.. and we in trucking would consider an OR of 85 heaven.. 90 good.. 95..nothing to see here.. we're making money. It's not as simple or cheap as swapping Billy The Driver out for some software from Bestbuy.
charlie hebdothe image won't show even though on Google.
Well, let's keep it about trains. I detect the natives getting restless.
try this two faced locomotive
Euclid SD60MAC9500 Euclid SD60MAC9500 Euclid So U.P. plans on one ground roving conductor in charge of several autonomous trains with no human engineers. This will abruptly end the era of monster trains and their broken knuckles, which will be good news to the roving conductors. This will be the ultimate solution to the war between labor and management over crew size. It will also be the ultimate solution to the crew fatigue problem by allowing the roving conductors to rove closer to home, so they can sleep at home every night. It will also usher in the era of short, fast, and frequent trains with their agility and flexibility to live up to the true implication of Precision Scheduled Railroading. Finally all the pieces fall into place. No it won't. Trains size will not be reduced under automonous operation. Even with a "crewless" train you'll want to keep economies of scale in your favor to remain in competition.. The only economy of scale for monster trains is moving more cars per crew cost. Otherwise, monster trains cost more to operate due to more mechanical problems and delays. So, if you reduce or eliminate the crew, economic advantage of monster trains drops. If it drops low enough to not be able to offset the added cost of breakdowns and delays of monster trains, there will likely be no economic advantage to running them. Then too, the railroads will be in sharp competition with trucking with its fundamentally quicker delivery. If railroads want to take business from trucking, they will have to speed up their service. Monster trains slow down service. PSR style freights were not created to just cut crew cost. PSR cutting train starts created the side effect of cutting crew cost. You are not looking past the human element.. Some of the key features of PSR, RoW rationalization, and in theory increased capacity which has happened for the most part. Equimpent cost do not go away just because you eliminate a crew. Capacity cost do not go away just because you no longer have a crew. Car utilization cost does not go away just because you do not have a crew.. PSR has it's hiccups and will continue to have them as the focus on OR remains.. For now.. I do agree that there are more costs to railroading than just crew costs. But I don't see how a great increase in train size lowers those costs. It might if they were monster unit trains. You mention car utilization. How do monster trains lower the cost of car utilization? How do they lower the cost of capcity, as you say?
The increase in size creates capacity with the rolling stock instead of CAPEX going toward the physical plant. PSR pre/swap blocking keeps cars moving instead of dwelling in a terminal. Boxcars for example probably only get 1 turn a month. If PSR can double that to 2 turns a month then you lower the cost associated with your boxcar as its greater velocity creates more capacity and improves on the ROI in your boxcar fleet. The more loads you can get per month means less idle time sitting empty not producing revenue miles.
SD60MAC9500The increase in size creates capacity with the rolling stock instead of CAPEX going toward the physical plant. PSR pre/swap blocking keeps cars moving instead of dwelling in a terminal. Boxcars for example probably only get 1 turn a month. If PSR can double that to 2 turns a month then you lower the cost associated with your boxcar as its greater velocity creates more capacity and improves on the ROI in your boxcar fleet. The more loads you can get per month means less idle time sitting empty not producing revenue miles.
Block swapping is a false economy - in most cases - railroads have one movement per day between the various origins and the various destinations. If, for whatever reasons, a train does not make the schedule pick up of a block it is delayed 24 hours or more - just as if it had gone to a terminal and had missed its connection. Additionally by not working through a terminal, it does not get the mechanical inspection and attention of the terminal.
If the block swapping takes place at a line of road wayside location - the switching necessary for the block swapping and necessary air tests will greatly eat into the capacity one thinks they have created with the oversized trains.
Improved velocity is theoretically what enables a railroad to improve car utilization. The faster a car moves loaded, the faster it can be emptied and set into another customer for loading. If PSR actually worked that way...
As mentioned elsewhere, my son works for a Class 1 in train service. It has become a weekly occurrence for him - either as part of the originating crew or as part of a relief crew, to be called because a train couldn't cover one crew district within 12 hours. His employer will burn two crews to cover less than 100 miles and three crews to cover less than 150. And it hasn't been at all unusual for a relief crew to sit for a full 12 hours before being relieved themselves. And the delays associated with these re-crews translate into slower transit times and degraded velocity.
I have come to believe that PSR attempts to juggle so many "balls of change" that they all end up being dropped.
BaltACD SD60MAC9500 The increase in size creates capacity with the rolling stock instead of CAPEX going toward the physical plant. PSR pre/swap blocking keeps cars moving instead of dwelling in a terminal. Boxcars for example probably only get 1 turn a month. If PSR can double that to 2 turns a month then you lower the cost associated with your boxcar as its greater velocity creates more capacity and improves on the ROI in your boxcar fleet. The more loads you can get per month means less idle time sitting empty not producing revenue miles. Block swapping is a false economy - in most cases - railroads have one movement per day between the various origins and the various destinations. If, for whatever reasons, a train does not make the schedule pick up of a block it is delayed 24 hours or more - just as if it had gone to a terminal and had missed its connection. Additionally by not working through a terminal, it does not get the mechanical inspection and attention of the terminal. If the block swapping takes place at a line of road wayside location - the switching necessary for the block swapping and necessary air tests will greatly eat into the capacity one thinks they have created with the oversized trains.
SD60MAC9500 The increase in size creates capacity with the rolling stock instead of CAPEX going toward the physical plant. PSR pre/swap blocking keeps cars moving instead of dwelling in a terminal. Boxcars for example probably only get 1 turn a month. If PSR can double that to 2 turns a month then you lower the cost associated with your boxcar as its greater velocity creates more capacity and improves on the ROI in your boxcar fleet. The more loads you can get per month means less idle time sitting empty not producing revenue miles.
Good point JM.
To borrow a book title about the collapse of two once prominent lines, that's "No way to run a railroad."
Juniata Man Improved velocity is theoretically what enables a railroad to improve car utilization. The faster a car moves loaded, the faster it can be emptied and set into another customer for loading. If PSR actually worked that way... As mentioned elsewhere, my son works for a Class 1 in train service. It has become a weekly occurrence for him - either as part of the originating crew or as part of a relief crew, to be called because a train couldn't cover one crew district within 12 hours. His employer will burn two crews to cover less than 100 miles and three crews to cover less than 150. And it hasn't been at all unusual for a relief crew to sit for a full 12 hours before being relieved themselves. And the delays associated with these re-crews translate into slower transit times and degraded velocity. I have come to believe that PSR attempts to juggle so many "balls of change" that they all end up being dropped. CW
I am by no means a fan of PSR, but my own observation of recrews on the local NS Decatur-KC line is that there are far more days when things run to plan than not. So in a given week, month, or quarter there's a huge number of crew starts that have been eliminated.
And, frankly, before PSR there were lots of days when things went to Hades in a Handbasket with recrews. Things have never run very smoothly on the railroads that I have observed over the last 40 years. Why do you think so many customers have bailed over the years? The ones that are left are forced to stay due to the transportation economics of the goods that they ship.
ns145 Juniata Man Improved velocity is theoretically what enables a railroad to improve car utilization. The faster a car moves loaded, the faster it can be emptied and set into another customer for loading. If PSR actually worked that way... As mentioned elsewhere, my son works for a Class 1 in train service. It has become a weekly occurrence for him - either as part of the originating crew or as part of a relief crew, to be called because a train couldn't cover one crew district within 12 hours. His employer will burn two crews to cover less than 100 miles and three crews to cover less than 150. And it hasn't been at all unusual for a relief crew to sit for a full 12 hours before being relieved themselves. And the delays associated with these re-crews translate into slower transit times and degraded velocity. I have come to believe that PSR attempts to juggle so many "balls of change" that they all end up being dropped. CW I am by no means a fan of PSR, but my own observation of recrews on the local NS Decatur-KC line is there are far more days when things run to plan than not. So in a given week, month, or quarter there's a huge number of crew starts that have been eliminated. And, frankly, before PSR there were lots of days when things went to Hades in a Handbasket with recrews. Things have never run very smoothly on the railroads that I have observed over the last 40 years. Why do you think so many customers have bailed over the years? The ones that are left are forced to stay due to the transportation economics of the goods that they ship.
I am by no means a fan of PSR, but my own observation of recrews on the local NS Decatur-KC line is there are far more days when things run to plan than not. So in a given week, month, or quarter there's a huge number of crew starts that have been eliminated.
When I was working I had access to system wide recrew reports for CSX. I put together a simple system to keep track of them by division. The last year I worked (2016) there were in excess of 20K recrews for the year, down from over 32K in 2015.
The biggest cause of recrews was congestion on individual territories. When a area became congested, recrews for that area increased exponentially.
SD60MAC9500 Euclid SD60MAC9500 Euclid SD60MAC9500 Euclid So U.P. plans on one ground roving conductor in charge of several autonomous trains with no human engineers. This will abruptly end the era of monster trains and their broken knuckles, which will be good news to the roving conductors. This will be the ultimate solution to the war between labor and management over crew size. It will also be the ultimate solution to the crew fatigue problem by allowing the roving conductors to rove closer to home, so they can sleep at home every night. It will also usher in the era of short, fast, and frequent trains with their agility and flexibility to live up to the true implication of Precision Scheduled Railroading. Finally all the pieces fall into place. No it won't. Trains size will not be reduced under automonous operation. Even with a "crewless" train you'll want to keep economies of scale in your favor to remain in competition.. The only economy of scale for monster trains is moving more cars per crew cost. Otherwise, monster trains cost more to operate due to more mechanical problems and delays. So, if you reduce or eliminate the crew, economic advantage of monster trains drops. If it drops low enough to not be able to offset the added cost of breakdowns and delays of monster trains, there will likely be no economic advantage to running them. Then too, the railroads will be in sharp competition with trucking with its fundamentally quicker delivery. If railroads want to take business from trucking, they will have to speed up their service. Monster trains slow down service. PSR style freights were not created to just cut crew cost. PSR cutting train starts created the side effect of cutting crew cost. You are not looking past the human element.. Some of the key features of PSR, RoW rationalization, and in theory increased capacity which has happened for the most part. Equimpent cost do not go away just because you eliminate a crew. Capacity cost do not go away just because you no longer have a crew. Car utilization cost does not go away just because you do not have a crew.. PSR has it's hiccups and will continue to have them as the focus on OR remains.. For now.. I do agree that there are more costs to railroading than just crew costs. But I don't see how a great increase in train size lowers those costs. It might if they were monster unit trains. You mention car utilization. How do monster trains lower the cost of car utilization? How do they lower the cost of capcity, as you say? The increase in size creates capacity with the rolling stock instead of CAPEX going toward the physical plant. PSR pre/swap blocking keeps cars moving instead of dwelling in a terminal. Boxcars for example probably only get 1 turn a month. If PSR can double that to 2 turns a month then you lower the cost associated with your boxcar as its greater velocity creates more capacity and improves on the ROI in your boxcar fleet. The more loads you can get per month means less idle time sitting empty not producing revenue miles.
I agree with all your points about striving for the best plant utilization. Get the best productivity out of the investment. But why run one 300-car train rather than three 100-car trains? Where are the statistics that show that the longer the train is, the more productive it is? Why would increasing the number of cars in one train make those cars more productive, or increase track capacity, as you say?
What I am hearing about monster trains breaking knuckles, suffering delays, waiting for track space, running out of crew time, etc. leads me to conclude that plant productivity drops as trains get longer. The only point where productivity increases is that the number of cars in one train can be increased indefinitely without adding more crewmembers. So, the crewmember cost per car drops as trains get longer. Yet this one benefit is not nearly enough to offset the ponderous disruption and unforeseen complications of running monster trains.
I believe the best way to increase plant productivity is to revert to shorter trains, and more of them. Shorter trains flow with the plant productivity capacity. Monster trains disrupt the flow. Shorter, faster trains also provide the best customer service, which was one of the great selling points of PSR before the industry redefined it.
Automation, and PTC, will work together to increase track utilization by running more trains closer together. This is the modern method knocking at the door of old thinking.
Trains Forum members, please enjoy your now name-game-free thread.
Also, I want back the hour it took to accomplish that. Oh, how I miss the "delete post and all children posts" function. Sigh...
--Steven Otte, Model Railroader senior associate editorsotte@kalmbach.com
Thank you Steven! VERY much appreciated!
BALT; in our area it's a combination of yard congestion and mechanical issues - both locomotive and with individual cars in a train. Which goes directly to your earlier comment that that block swapping can negatively impact railcar mechanical inspections. And I'll blame psr for reducing locomotive mechanical shop forces with the resulting negative impact on locomotive servicing.
Juniata Man Thank you Steven! VERY much appreciated! BALT; in our area it's a combination of yard congestion and mechanical issues - both locomotive and with individual cars in a train. Which goes directly to your earlier comment that that block swapping can negatively impact railcar mechanical inspections. And I'll blame psr for reducing locomotive mechanical shop forces with the resulting negative impact on locomotive servicing. CW
I don't know if it's PSR or just bean counters, but maintenance on wheels seems to be getting much worse here along the UP West line. Metra too. So many flat spots..
charlie hebdo Juniata Man Thank you Steven! VERY much appreciated! BALT; in our area it's a combination of yard congestion and mechanical issues - both locomotive and with individual cars in a train. Which goes directly to your earlier comment that that block swapping can negatively impact railcar mechanical inspections. And I'll blame psr for reducing locomotive mechanical shop forces with the resulting negative impact on locomotive servicing. CW I don't know if it's PSR or just bean counters, but maineance on wheels seems to be getting much worse here along the UP West line. Metra too. So many flat-spot spots.
I don't know if it's PSR or just bean counters, but maineance on wheels seems to be getting much worse here along the UP West line. Metra too. So many flat-spot spots.
I can't really speak as to what has happened since CSX started EHH's form of PSR.
Before I retired, the WILD detector that was installed on my territory was capturing 3 or 4 Immediate Set Out cars per week and probably a dozen take to destination at a slower than track speed with the weels needing replacement at destination. Most all the cars that were being detected were loaded coal hoppers. What has happened in the past 4.5 years - I have no idea.
There appeqrs to be several items that allow the PSR metric to work. These come from posters who know much more than this poster.
1, Great dispatching meaning dispatchers are not overloaded.
2, Local traffic and switching needs to be off main line so it does not slow up regular trais. Note this is a biggie that is not very often able . Maybe why the Class 1s keep trying to eliminate many small shippers ?
3. Sidings need to be long enough to park the longest train on the district in question. 2 main tracks somewhat mitigate this but too many trains may mean a 3rd track needed on heavy grade sections. Or the power to weight ratio needs to be enough to keep a train running at track speeds.
4. There needs to be discipline for getting trains to meet the operating plan times.
5. Sidings need to be in a time distance depending on number of trains.
6. Special moves requiring slow or restrict speeds need to be planned for open track times.
7. the siding lengths and distance need to have enough flexibility to handle absolute work windows (AWWs). Lack of this is the reason the Crescent gets cancelled 4 days a week every Jan and Feb south of Atlanta.
8. Yards and block swapping locations need to be off the main unless no traffic for a certain tie of track access
EDIT from tree: Yards need enough lead and trailing sidings to meet longest trains to not block any main tracks.
Am sure others can come up with other points.
I have no direct proof of "Bad or flat-spotting of wheels" BUT... living close to the line; over the last few months, my perception is that we are'hearing' many more of them on the passing traffic. Particularly, since in the past they were not as obviously as noisey, and no-where, near the larger presence, as they seem to be currently.
My location is on a BNSF feeder line, leading to, and from, the Southern Transcon on BNSF [approx MP 127 on Main 3 Eldorado sub.]
blue streak 1 There appeqrs to be several items that allow the PSR metric to work. These come from posters who know much more than this poster. 1, Great dispatching meaning dispatchers are not overloaded. 2, Local traffic and switching needs to be off main line so it does not slow up regular trais. Note this is a biggie that is not very often able . Maybe why the Class 1s keep trying to eliminate many small shippers ? 3. Sidings need to be long enough to park the longest train on the district in question. 2 main tracks somewhat mitigate this but too many trains may mean a 3rd track needed on heavy grade sections. Or the power to weight ratio needs to be enough to keep a train running at track speeds. 4. There needs to be discipline for getting trains to meet the operating plan times. 5. Sidings need to be in a time distance depending on number of trains. 6. Special moves requiring slow or restrict speeds need to be planned for open track times. 7. the siding lengths and distance need to have enough flexibility to handle absolute work windows (AWWs). Lack of this is the reason the Crescent gets cancelled 4 days a week every Jan and Feb south of Atlanta. 8. Yards and block swapping locations need to be off the main unless no traffic for a certain tie of track access Am sure others can come up with other points.
This is a good list of the disadvantages of super long trains. I would add the point that these problems increase exponentially as train length increases. So the downsides of a 300-car train are greater than the sum of three 100-car trains.
Two other important items that should be added to the list are excessive blocking of grade crossings and excessive in-train forces that cause damage, delays, and endanger the public by raising the derailment potential.
Currently, there is investigation underway to determine whether a Federal mandate to limit train length should be imposed.
So why is the monster train philosophy so popular with railroad management?
There is only one reason, and that is that monster trains move more cars without increasing the labor needed to move shorter trains. So while management loves this because job reduction is in their interest; one more item to add to the list of downsides is that monster trains are job killers.
Job-killing is almost 100% the object of the game.
Unless I missed it, you missed a biggie - terminals need to be able to handle the long trains. Terminal dwell is a key metric.
Regular viewers at Deshler often see trains hung out due to limited siding lengths at South Deshler (~7000') unable to hold entire trains. This is especially constricting for the single track N-S Toledo Division.
The E-W line is double track, but still gets hung up. I've seen trains sitting on the main, basically parked.
And when Joe says "get the plunger out," it's usually because North Baltimore is stuffed to the gills. It's great for watching trains as the clog gets sorted out, but can't help the bottom line at all.
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...
Lithonia Operator Job-killing is almost 100% the object of the game.
Yes job killing is the one and only basic objective of running monster trains. But even at that, the largest part of the objective is using monster trains only as a symbolic gesture for the point of management winning their war with labor. It is only a symbolic gesture because it is obvious that even though monster trains eliminate labor, they do not eliminate enough to offset all of operational disadvantages to running monster trains.
Beyond the symbolic objective of running monster trains, the real objective is to run crewless, autonomous trains. That will win the war by ending the debate of whether to run one-person crews or two-person crews.
As the unions argue that two persons in the cab are needed for safety, the companies will argue that it is safest if the human crews are replaced by automation because it never gets fatigued or makes mistakes. And it always follows the rules.
EuclidBeyond the symbolic objective of running monster trains, the real objective is to run crewless, autonomous trains.
I'll disagree. Here's the real objective:
greyhounds Euclid Beyond the symbolic objective of running monster trains, the real objective is to run crewless, autonomous trains. I'll disagree. Here's the real objective: "For example, empire builder James J. Hill said in an interview with Frank L. McVey at the turn of the twentieth century 'that railroad income is based on ton miles and the expense of operation on train miles. The object is to get the highest rate [operating revenue] on the ton-mile and the smallest rate [operating expense] on the train mile.' In this statement is concentrated the theory of railroad management present day. (See the Ten Principles of Transportation Economics in Box 2.3, which is the authors’ more extended version of a theory of transportation economics and management such as James J. Hill had formulated.)" Gallamore, Robert E.. American Railroads . Harvard University Press. Kindle Edition.
Euclid Beyond the symbolic objective of running monster trains, the real objective is to run crewless, autonomous trains.
Wouldn't elimination of crews cut labor costs dramatically and thus the expense of operation?
charlie hebdo greyhounds Euclid Beyond the symbolic objective of running monster trains, the real objective is to run crewless, autonomous trains. I'll disagree. Here's the real objective: "For example, empire builder James J. Hill said in an interview with Frank L. McVey at the turn of the twentieth century 'that railroad income is based on ton miles and the expense of operation on train miles. The object is to get the highest rate [operating revenue] on the ton-mile and the smallest rate [operating expense] on the train mile.' In this statement is concentrated the theory of railroad management present day. (See the Ten Principles of Transportation Economics in Box 2.3, which is the authors’ more extended version of a theory of transportation economics and management such as James J. Hill had formulated.)" Gallamore, Robert E.. American Railroads . Harvard University Press. Kindle Edition. Wouldn't elimination of crews cut labor costs dramatically and thus the expense of operation?
Eliminating crews would cut cost.. but the as yet unproven technology that would allow their elimination wouldn't come for free either. Given that the technology isn't fully cooked, it is impossible to determine the true savings in making the transition.
The perfect corporation has one employee-the CEO, who just collects money and doesn't provide any goods or services.
Backshop The perfect corporation has one employee-the CEO, who just collects money and doesn't provide any goods or services.
And the rest simply try to employ as few people as possible.
Ulrich charlie hebdo greyhounds Euclid Beyond the symbolic objective of running monster trains, the real objective is to run crewless, autonomous trains. I'll disagree. Here's the real objective: "For example, empire builder James J. Hill said in an interview with Frank L. McVey at the turn of the twentieth century 'that railroad income is based on ton miles and the expense of operation on train miles. The object is to get the highest rate [operating revenue] on the ton-mile and the smallest rate [operating expense] on the train mile.' In this statement is concentrated the theory of railroad management present day. (See the Ten Principles of Transportation Economics in Box 2.3, which is the authors’ more extended version of a theory of transportation economics and management such as James J. Hill had formulated.)" Gallamore, Robert E.. American Railroads . Harvard University Press. Kindle Edition. Wouldn't elimination of crews cut labor costs dramatically and thus the expense of operation? Eliminating crews would cut cost.. but the as yet unproven technology that would allow their elimination wouldn't come for free either. Given that the technology isn't fully cooked, it is impossible to determine the true savings in making the transition.
The autonomous trains would be a capital investment, not an expense as labor would. Only maintenance would be expenses. The autonomous equipment would be depreciated.
Euclid SD60MAC9500 Euclid SD60MAC9500 Euclid SD60MAC9500 Euclid So U.P. plans on one ground roving conductor in charge of several autonomous trains with no human engineers. This will abruptly end the era of monster trains and their broken knuckles, which will be good news to the roving conductors. This will be the ultimate solution to the war between labor and management over crew size. It will also be the ultimate solution to the crew fatigue problem by allowing the roving conductors to rove closer to home, so they can sleep at home every night. It will also usher in the era of short, fast, and frequent trains with their agility and flexibility to live up to the true implication of Precision Scheduled Railroading. Finally all the pieces fall into place. No it won't. Trains size will not be reduced under automonous operation. Even with a "crewless" train you'll want to keep economies of scale in your favor to remain in competition.. The only economy of scale for monster trains is moving more cars per crew cost. Otherwise, monster trains cost more to operate due to more mechanical problems and delays. So, if you reduce or eliminate the crew, economic advantage of monster trains drops. If it drops low enough to not be able to offset the added cost of breakdowns and delays of monster trains, there will likely be no economic advantage to running them. Then too, the railroads will be in sharp competition with trucking with its fundamentally quicker delivery. If railroads want to take business from trucking, they will have to speed up their service. Monster trains slow down service. PSR style freights were not created to just cut crew cost. PSR cutting train starts created the side effect of cutting crew cost. You are not looking past the human element.. Some of the key features of PSR, RoW rationalization, and in theory increased capacity which has happened for the most part. Equimpent cost do not go away just because you eliminate a crew. Capacity cost do not go away just because you no longer have a crew. Car utilization cost does not go away just because you do not have a crew.. PSR has it's hiccups and will continue to have them as the focus on OR remains.. For now.. I do agree that there are more costs to railroading than just crew costs. But I don't see how a great increase in train size lowers those costs. It might if they were monster unit trains. You mention car utilization. How do monster trains lower the cost of car utilization? How do they lower the cost of capcity, as you say? The increase in size creates capacity with the rolling stock instead of CAPEX going toward the physical plant. PSR pre/swap blocking keeps cars moving instead of dwelling in a terminal. Boxcars for example probably only get 1 turn a month. If PSR can double that to 2 turns a month then you lower the cost associated with your boxcar as its greater velocity creates more capacity and improves on the ROI in your boxcar fleet. The more loads you can get per month means less idle time sitting empty not producing revenue miles. I agree with all your points about striving for the best plant utilization. Get the best productivity out of the investment. But why run one 300-car train rather than three 100-car trains? Where are the statistics that show that the longer the train is, the more productive it is? Why would increasing the number of cars in one train make those cars more productive, or increase track capacity, as you say? What I am hearing about monster trains breaking knuckles, suffering delays, waiting for track space, running out of crew time, etc. leads me to conclude that plant productivity drops as trains get longer. The only point where productivity increases is that the number of cars in one train can be increased indefinitely without adding more crewmembers. So, the crewmember cost per car drops as trains get longer. Yet this one benefit is not nearly enough to offset the ponderous disruption and unforeseen complications of running monster trains. I believe the best way to increase plant productivity is to revert to shorter trains, and more of them. Shorter trains flow with the plant productivity capacity. Monster trains disrupt the flow. Shorter, faster trains also provide the best customer service, which was one of the great selling points of PSR before the industry redefined it. Automation, and PTC, will work together to increase track utilization by running more trains closer together. This is the modern method knocking at the door of old thinking.
The mechanical issues are known. Yet how many failures per train start are occuring? I imagine it's acceptable to the railroads to keep the operating model. Running one long train creates more capacity by freeing up slots on RoW. Most freight is not time sensitive and doesn't need to run in shorter faster trains for most markets. Also do you have the capacity to run these shorter faster trains? How many overtakes are needed? You'll still be holding and hopping in front of traffic.. Even European rail freight operators want to get away from short trains due to the poor economics of operation. Which is why trucks dominate land freight over there.
"But why run one 300-car train rather than three 100-car trains? "
When you go get a couple bottles of water from the fridge do you walk twice to your refrigerator? Or do you grab them all at once? It's about more efficient operation.
charlie hebdoThe autonomous trains would be a capital investment, not an expense as labor would. Only maintenance would be expenses. The autonomous equipment would be depreciated.
I was thinking the same thing earlier today - you beat me to it. Two different pockets involved. Convince the investors that in the long run they'll see more money in their pockets and they'll be all in.
Do long trains free up capacity? Yes and No. It frees it up out on the road between terminals, but they can gum up the works at terminals where said trains originate, terminate or do intermediate work. Often at the beginning and end these trains have to triple or quadruple in and out.
We have one symbol that fairly regularly dies between crew changes on the east end. It has a couple of work event locations. As do other trains. Only so many can work a yard at the same time. Even where there is two tracks, especially when one has to be kept open for the priority trains.
And it seems that every train that has to work a specific yard all show up at the same time.
We also have one on the west end that usually falls short. Because the terminating yard doesn't have room for it. I recently had it and actually made it in to the yard put the train away and then cabbed another hour to our tie up location without hitting overtime. (Overtime on that run begins after 9 hrs 55 mins due to miles run.) The first time in a long time that has happened.
This poster has wanted to stay out of thie fray. However here is a railway age article about in train forces and that looks at derailments for I suppose all RRs but may not. Notice it only goes thru 2019 wonder why 2020 not listed ?
WHITE PAPER: Management of In-Train Forces – Challenges and Directions - Railway Age
amd managment of in train forces.
I am not sure where we differ. When I say the real objective is to run autonomous trains I mean the real objective is to run autonomous trains for the purpose of making the most amount of money by reducing crews to zero persons rather than just reducing to one-person.
If I understand James Hill, he is saying to make the most amount of money; you haul freight at the highest possible price and reduce the operating cost of your trains as low as possible.
I don’t think monster trains reduce the operating cost compared to normal average size trains. I think they raise operating cost, but that is partly offset by the reduced crew per ton cost.
Autonomous trains eliminate crew cost, so there is no need for the autonomous trains to be monster size trains. So with autonomous trains, you can run say thee 100-car trains instead of one 300-car train because there is no advantage to the 300-car train. And then you also have a lower operating cost with the three 100-car trains combined, as opposed to one 300-car train. That is why I said earlier that changing to autonomous trains will end the monster train era.
I would not conclude that every railroad is on board with this idea, but U.P. and C.N. seem to be.
charlie hebdo Ulrich charlie hebdo greyhounds Euclid Beyond the symbolic objective of running monster trains, the real objective is to run crewless, autonomous trains. I'll disagree. Here's the real objective: "For example, empire builder James J. Hill said in an interview with Frank L. McVey at the turn of the twentieth century 'that railroad income is based on ton miles and the expense of operation on train miles. The object is to get the highest rate [operating revenue] on the ton-mile and the smallest rate [operating expense] on the train mile.' In this statement is concentrated the theory of railroad management present day. (See the Ten Principles of Transportation Economics in Box 2.3, which is the authors’ more extended version of a theory of transportation economics and management such as James J. Hill had formulated.)" Gallamore, Robert E.. American Railroads . Harvard University Press. Kindle Edition. Wouldn't elimination of crews cut labor costs dramatically and thus the expense of operation? Eliminating crews would cut cost.. but the as yet unproven technology that would allow their elimination wouldn't come for free either. Given that the technology isn't fully cooked, it is impossible to determine the true savings in making the transition. The autonomous trains would be a capital investment, not an expense as labor would. Only maintenance would be expenses. The autonomous equipment would be depreciated.
But a cost nontheless..
greyhounds A real safety issue is the number of pedestrians and autos struck by trains. If the number of trains is reduced the likelihood of a pedestrian or auto being struck by a train should also be reduced.
But as trains get longer and block crossings for a longer time - won't people start taking more risks to try to beat them at a crossing?
Isn't there a very long, iron ore carrier in Australia that's automated? I figure most of the line is through sparley populated country. How are they at dealing with the car and pedestrian issues when they get into a city?
zugmann greyhounds A real safety issue is the number of pedestrians and autos struck by trains. If the number of trains is reduced the likelihood of a pedestrian or auto being struck by a train should also be reduced. But as trains get longer and block crossings for a longer time - won't people start taking more risks to try to beat them at a crossing?
Murphy SidingMaybe the answer is that these autonomous trains will require major upgrades at all crossings to make them idiot proof? I'm sure that would be a cheap upgrade. Add
There is no 'idiot proof'. I am aware of cars being driven into the side of a train that is halfway through the crossing.
The long trains give those T-bone motorists better odds at "success."
U.S. railroads are vehemently opposed to adopting ECP brakes. So they use every excuse not to, such as saying ECP is not yet perfected for use. When you say Rio Tinto Railroad in Australia uses ECP brakes, the U.S. detractors offer more excuses, such as saying Rio Tinto only runs unit trains, so ECP is easy for them.
But when it comes to autonomous trains, I sense that the concept is quickly becoming welcomed by U.S. railroads, so they don’t need excuses not to adopt autonomous operation. For one think Autonomous operation can be instituted incrementally, and the overall cost is tiny compared to adopting ECP brakes. Also, autonomous trains are seen as necessary to prevent rail traffic from being taken over by autonomous trucking. And finally, autonomous trains are a big step toward the railroads wining their cold war with the labor unions.
So the railroads don’t make excuses for not adopting autonomous trains like they do for not adopting ECP brakes.
Regarding the issue of grade crossings being compatible with autonomous trains, this is a standard debate point by the unions. The point must make a leap from; it takes 15 miles to stop a freight train to: you need the human engineer to grab the air and stop the train on a dime to avoid striking a grade crossing runner. The irony is that even if that were possible, the autonomous system could accomplish the same feat. And unlike the human engineer, the autonomous operation would not hesitate to apply braking... [edit]
EuclidU.S. railroads are vehemently opposed to adopting ECP brakes.
Is it that the railroads are opposed, or are the 50,000* private car owners opposed?
*-insert real number here.
greyhounds One very real advantage of “Monster Trains” is that the number of train meets will be greatly reduced. A meet usually involves a stopped train and thus creates a waste of labor and capital investment. (If the wheels aren’t turning, you aren’t earning.) Let’s take UP’s former T&P single track line between Ft. Worth and El Paso, TX as an example. At one time I read they were running 18 trains each way per day over this line. Assuming it takes 24 hours or more for a freight to go between Ft. Worth and El Paso that means 18 westbound trains would each meet 18 eastbound trains. Well, 18 x 18 = 324. That’s a whole lot of meeting going on. But since each meet involves two trains, we can halve the number to 162. On average, it still means a stopped train, waiting in the hole for another train to pass, every nine minutes somewhere on the line. That’s quite a waste of resources and capacity. Now let’s increase the train size from 100 cars to 300 cars using distributed power. Instead of 18 trains each way there are now but six trains each way. Well, 6 x 6 = 36. Again, since each meet will involve two trains, we can halve the number to 18. 18 meets instead of 162 meets. The trains and crews keep moving. Of course, these benefits will not come without costs. Passing sidings and terminals will need to be enlarged to accommodate the longer, but fewer, trains.
Longer trains have the potential to cause additional congestion compared to the same amount of traffic moving in shorter trains.
Many sidings were lengthened out here, but many others were removed or rendered nearly useless by the shift to longer trains.
It is nice to talk about revamping yards to accommodate longer trains, but in reality that usually doesn't happen (big $$$ for little reward and publicity). So the road crew builds their train out of two or more shorter tracks while everyone else waits for them to clear the lead.
The longer the train, the fewer places you can stop without blocking a crossing. That 13,000' siding looks great on paper, but if there is a crossing halfway down it you can only park a 6,500' train there. And due to the aforementioned yard congestion it has become more and more common for trains to be staged in sidings or on double track, sometimes for days at a time.
One of the more egregious examples in my area is a 10 mile section of double track that will hold exactly one 11,000' train. Or two 10,000' trains. Or four 9,000' trains. Or five 8,000' trains. And so on.....
What's that you say, cut the crossing? In some cases this may be a little harder than it sounds. Walking to and from the cut and applying and releasing handbrakes takes time but isn't a big deal, what is worse is the fact that many crossings are not 'smart', that is the warning devices will not deactivate if equipment is left in the first approach circuit, meaning you have to cut off up to half a mile before the crossing, which in some locations now means your tail end portion might be blocking yet another crossing if you are long enough. The alternative is to call out a signal maintainer to deactivate the crossing, but if you choose this option trains proceeding on the other track will have to stop and manually protect it (yes, I've seen this happen. I've seen a Chief Dispatcher choose this option over other, better ones on more than one occasion).
In Canada you need portable derails to protect equipment that is left on a siding or main track and not attached to a locomotive. Again, not a big deal but it will cause even more delay and cost waiting for the Sectionmen to install and remove the derails. Hopefully they were called on time.......
A clogged terminal radiates congestion for hundreds of miles. Then you start scrambling and looking for places to park all the trains it can't handle.
SD70DudeLonger trains have the potential to cause additional congestion compared to the same amount of traffic moving in shorter trains. Many sidings were lengthened out here, but many others were removed or rendered nearly useless by the shift to longer trains. It is nice to talk about revamping yards to accommodate longer trains, but in reality that usually doesn't happen (big $$$ for little reward and publicity). So the road crew builds their train out of two or more shorter tracks while everyone else waits for them to clear the lead. The longer the train, the fewer places you can stop without blocking a crossing. That 13,000' siding looks great on paper, but if there is a crossing halfway down it you can only park a 6,500' train there. And due to the aforementioned yard congestion it has become more and more common for trains to be staged in sidings or on double track, sometimes for days at a time. One of the more egregious examples in my area is a 10 mile section of double track that will hold exactly one 11,000' train. Or two 10,000' trains. Or four 9,000' trains. Or five 8,000' trains. And so on..... What that you say, cut the crossing? In some cases this may be a little harder than it sounds. Walking to and from the cut and applying and releasing handbrakes takes time but isn't a big deal, what is worse is the fact that many crossings are not 'smart', that is the warning devices will not deactivate if equipment is left in the first approach circuit, meaning you have to cut off up to half a mile before the crossing, which in some locations now means your tail end portion might be blocking yet another crossing if you are long enough. The alternative is to call out a signal maintainer to deactivate the crossing, but if you choose this option trains proceeding on the other track will have to stop and manually protect it (yes, I've seen this happen. I've seen a Chief Dispatcher choose this option over other, better ones on more than one occasion). In Canada you need portable derails to protect equipment that is left on a siding or main track and not attached to a locomotive. Again, not a big deal but it will cause even more delay and cost waiting for the Sectionmen to install and remove the derails. Hopefully they were called on time....... A clogged terminal radiates congestion for hundreds of miles. Then you start scrambling and looking for places to park all the trains it can't handle.
I don't understand why they can't make the shorter trains more efficient by running them faster with less interruption. If I were a shipper thats the direction I would want the railroad to move, since faster and more frequent trains means my shipment moves faster with more times to ship on the clock. Why not one crew handles two shorter trains per shift vs. 1 monster train?
Why does this concept work for FEC but not the larger class I's?
I wonder if anyone really worked it out on paper the advantages of short trains vs longer trains before the decision was made to move to longer trains? Or did they just jump at one because it was easier to implement with far less skill management wise.
Seems to me as well they could potentially speed up the heavier trains by adding another two axles to the cars and improving the suspension so the car can take higher speeds without falling apart or damaging the track. Think of how much cheaper it would be to transport Powder River Basin Coal if the Unit Trains could move at 80 mph and turn twice as fast. The Europeans seem to have no issues moving ballast trains across their rail system at speeds 50-60% faster than the same train in the United States would travel. They have better maintained track and probably lower axle loads though. In a country as expansive as ours I would think much faster frieght train speeds would have a better advantage then attempting to turn the rail network into a slow pipeline system.
Euclid... And unlike the human engineer, the autonomous operation would not hesitate to apply braking because it worries about derailing the train and setting the town on fire.
Murphy Siding Euclid ... And unlike the human engineer, the autonomous operation would not hesitate to apply braking because it worries about derailing the train and setting the town on fire. Huh? That doesn't make autonomous trains sound very appealing. For my money, I think I'd prefer the human that would hesitate before derailing the train and setting the town on fire.
Euclid ... And unlike the human engineer, the autonomous operation would not hesitate to apply braking because it worries about derailing the train and setting the town on fire.
Huh? That doesn't make autonomous trains sound very appealing. For my money, I think I'd prefer the human that would hesitate before derailing the train and setting the town on fire.
Euc is investing in town renewal - the next big investment sector. After the town burns there will be a lot of building supples sold to rebuild the destoyed buildings; not to mention the loans that will have to be obtained to facilitate the reconstruction.
Think about it. Of course you don’t want to burn down the town. But how are you going to know if making an emergency application will even derail the train let alone cause deadly mayhem? It is always possible. So what do you do? If you take your side on the issue, you never use the emergency application.
You may think that of course you will use it, but you still may hesitate and cause a death that may have been prevented had you not hesitated. The problem is that you develop a mindset of second-guessing the need for an emergency application due to an overabundance of caution. But it can cause you to freeze when a hard choice is necessary. Carrying this mindset is a liability.
It is simply not your job to assume the responsibility for every mishap that may occur due to the use of the train brakes. Making an emergency application when it proves to have not been needed is far less harmful than not making one that proves to have been needed.
Euclid Murphy Siding Euclid ... And unlike the human engineer, the autonomous operation would not hesitate to apply braking because it worries about derailing the train and setting the town on fire. Huh? That doesn't make autonomous trains sound very appealing. For my money, I think I'd prefer the human that would hesitate before derailing the train and setting the town on fire. Think about it. Of course you don’t want to burn down the town. But how are you going to know if making an emergency application will even derail the train let alone cause deadly mayhem? It is always possible. So what do you do? If you take your side on the issue, you never use the emergency application. You may think that of course you will use it, but you still may hesitate and cause a death that may have been prevented had you not hesitated. The problem is that you develop a mindset of second-guessing the need for an emergency application due to an overabundance of caution. But it can cause you to freeze when a hard choice is necessary. Carrying this mindset is a liability. It is simply not your job to assume the responsibility for every mishap that may occur due to the use of the train brakes. Making an emergency application when it proves to have not been needed is far less harmful than not making one that proves to have been needed.
You also sell the engineer short. The engineer has the experience running a train. You don't. Just because you would freeze up and become indecisive doesn't mean a trained professional would.
Yes, but would an autonomous train sacrifice a schoolbus full of children to avoid derailing itself?
Convicted One Yes, but would an autonomous train sacrifice a schoolbus full of children to avoid derailing itself?
Longer trains may cut down on the number of meets. However, our recrew report is full of trains that die because they can only be met, or passed, at one or two sidings.
John Kneiling in one of his columns where he addressed autonomous trains felt that crossings should have a metal detector or something similar to detect objects on the tracks. The train could be programmed to stop if something was detected. His view was that the train should be programmed to stop only if the object was large enough that it might imperil the train. If the object didn't meet the set criteria, the train should just plow through it.
Murphy Siding suggests that I would be too timid to use the brakes for fear of derailing the train? Again> huh? I've never said that.
Just my "gut". The discussion is actually grounded in a belief held by some that engineers have either been instructed, or have a personal preference, to hit encroaching cars rather than putting their trains into emergency. Whether this is official or not, or whether this is safety driven, or vengence driven never really gets conclusively nailed down. It's usually passed off as "it depends" or "each situation is unique" .
So, the nominal aspect of fear, would be for one's job security, not any fear of the vehicle.
The schoolbus, as a plot device, usually serves as a grounding rod.
I'm no railroader, but my general inclination is that it's likely easier to explain "I hit a car violating a crossing" than it is to explain putting your train on the ground, unless, of course, the car is one of those long yellow ones.
The other side of that, of course, if you put your train into emergency everytime you see a car that might foul a crossing, in adequate time to stop the train before impact, you'd probably have a hard time explaining that too.
Convicted One It's usually passed off as "it depends" or "each situation is unique"
One key factor with crossings is that they often represent a dynamic situation, not a static one.
A static situation would have the obstruction in view well before a train arrives at the crossing.
A dynamic one would be like the videos that were circulating a while back where cars full of teens arrived at the crossings, at speed, at the same time as the locomotive.
And there's a long continuum in between.
I don't care how good the sensors are - such collisions are going to happen, barring elimination of all crossings on autonomous routes...
I guess that I just grew up in a very different world? I was always told if you run thru a flashing crossing, to expect disaster, or if you resist arrest, bad things are gonna happen to you. Responsibility was YOURS. Now days everyone who doesn't have deep pockets, is a victim.
Convicted OneI guess that I just grew up in a very different world? I was always told if you run thru a flashing crossing, to expect disaster, or if you resist arrest, bad things are gonna happen to you. Responsibility was YOURS. Now days everyone who doesn't have deep pockets, is a victim.
And every victim that has deep pockets buys their way out.
Convicted OneI guess that I just grew up in a very different world?
It's probably at least partly that teenage attitude of "it can't happen to me." Some never grow out of it.
Murphy Siding Convicted One Yes, but would an autonomous train sacrifice a schoolbus full of children to avoid derailing itself? I gotta admit, I went back and read euclid's post again. It sure seems like he's suggesting that the autonomous train wouldn't stop for the school bus. To be honest though, it's not quite clear, due to some circular logic being involved. It'd be best if re-explained what he meant. One thing is clear though. He suggests that I would be too timid to use the brakes for fear of derailing the train? Again> huh? I've never said that.
I gotta admit, I went back and read euclid's post again. It sure seems like he's suggesting that the autonomous train wouldn't stop for the school bus. To be honest though, it's not quite clear, due to some circular logic being involved. It'd be best if re-explained what he meant. One thing is clear though. He suggests that I would be too timid to use the brakes for fear of derailing the train? Again> huh? I've never said that.
Re the sentence fragment-
“…and unlike the human engineer, the autonomous operation would not hesitate to apply braking because it worries about derailing the train and setting the town on fire.”
The post where I brought this up above is too confusing because the above sentence conveys two conflicting meanings at the same time. The wrong meaning is: The autonomous train applies braking because it worries about derailing the train and setting the town on fire. The actual meaning is that it applies brakes because it does not worry about derailing the train because of applying the brakes.
I am sorry for the confusion. I also went back and edited that post to remove the above sentence fragment.
The point, as we have discussed in other threads, is that a human engineer may wait to apply braking until a collision has occurred because until that point, they will not actually know if a collision will occur. This prevents an inconvenience of an unnecessary emergency application. Engineers might do this as a matter of operational philosophy. I am convinced that is a bad philosophy. So, my point above is that the autonomous operations will not have that operational philosophy unless it is programed in, which I would not expect.
I brought this up in regard to what you said about a need to upgrade crossing protection if autonomous operation is adopted. I don’t see such a need, and do not know why it would be required.
To my knowledge Euclid has always, like Joe, supported the idea that 'emergency' should always be used in these circumstances, whether or not it might derail or damage the train. To the extent that an autonomous train represents the 'best practice' of a human engineer, the same braking preference would apply. I would argue that the autonomous train could better implement the idea of modulating full service and controlling/setting DPUs to set the train up (with knowledge of local conditions) before going to full emergency, but that is more a matter of programming.
Even if we get autonomous trains - it's not going to be some magical thing of whether it dumps the train or not. It is going to do whatever the programmers program it to do.
"It just runs programs!" - quote from Short Circuit.
So this same, tired discussion will never end. It will jsut change to "should the train be programmed to...blah blah blah.."
zugmannIt is going to do whatever the programmers program it to do.
It has been my opinion for decades that proper systems of artificial intelligence need to be applied along with expert systems (in fact, I use a composite term to describe that) in any safety-critical system. Note that I use the plural: this is a larger plural than a system like current PTC employs.
In my opinion the system can be 'architected' so it produces either a minimum-time or minimum-length stop, and it can know moment to moment which of these is a 'better' or 'safer' alternative. That is not really any different from Joe's opinion that the morals and ethics of a trained engineer govern all right action behind throttle and brake -- the argument there also being what the right response under the right emergent priorities should be.
I have no hesitation in saying that 'general response' of an autonomic system is to modulate smooth application of full service as its 'first response' if there is no discrimination of full-effort emergency. I'd have no problem testifying in court that that is the 'safest' overall method of taking way off a freight train with conventional one-pipe brakes, or training personnel that it's a way that their conscience can be clear that they've done the best thing for all concerned... if they need that reassurance.
Others of course can, and do, and will, disagree with this, and I don't consider them 'wrong'. Nor would I dictate to professional railroaders what they should or shouldn't do, either as a 'rule' or in particular situations. But as a method of training in a world full of pitfalls and tolerated shaming, I think it has advantages.
Euclid Murphy Siding Convicted One Yes, but would an autonomous train sacrifice a schoolbus full of children to avoid derailing itself? I gotta admit, I went back and read euclid's post again. It sure seems like he's suggesting that the autonomous train wouldn't stop for the school bus. To be honest though, it's not quite clear, due to some circular logic being involved. It'd be best if re-explained what he meant. One thing is clear though. He suggests that I would be too timid to use the brakes for fear of derailing the train? Again> huh? I've never said that. Re the sentence fragment- “…and unlike the human engineer, the autonomous operation would not hesitate to apply braking because it worries about derailing the train and setting the town on fire.” The post where I brought this up above is too confusing because the above sentence conveys two conflicting meanings at the same time. The wrong meaning is: The autonomous train applies braking because it worries about derailing the train and setting the town on fire. The actual meaning is that it applies brakes because it does not worry about derailing the train because of applying the brakes. I am sorry for the confusion. I also went back and edited that post to remove the above sentence fragment. The point, as we have discussed in other threads, is that a human engineer may wait to apply braking until a collision has occurred because until that point, they will not actually know if a collision will occur. This prevents an inconvenience of an unnecessary emergency application. Engineers might do this as a matter of operational philosophy. I am convinced that is a bad philosophy. So, my point above is that the autonomous operations will not have that operational philosophy unless it is programed in, which I would not expect. I brought this up in regard to what you said about a need to upgrade crossing protection if autonomous operation is adopted. I don’t see such a need, and do not know why it would be required.
Murphy SidingI mention upgrading the crossing gates as a way to eliminate some of the need for those braking decisions in the first place.
And always have someone else pay for it and maintain it.
I actually worked out a solution to protect private crossings, but it became too difficult to implement it coherently within the framework adopted for mandated PTC. That is the next great list of problems to be solved with technology after all public road crossings are indefeasibly gated (or otherwise fully protected) 100% of the time under 100% of the circumstances.
(/sarc, in case it might not be clear)
I suggested, only partly tongue-in-cheek, that all the ideas and proposals for the Mexican "wall" ought to be adapted, and equally government-subsidized, for any right-of-way with operations faster than, say, 40mph. That won't fix getting scooter wheels stuck in the grade-crossing gaps, though. And it won't fix bravado, it won't fix expedience, it won't fix various kinds of stupidity or fatigue or ignorance ... and it won't fix what Zug brought up, the bending of good judgment when slowly-moving monster trains come to be perceived as the norm...
Lately I've been video-cab-riding Japanese railways, where the public seems to have reached a higher plane of civility when interacting with their trains. I "ride" the single track interurban style lines through dense cities, isolated hamlets and wonderful scenery. Vehicles, bicyclists and pedestrians universally stop at the crossing gates and stand behind the safety stripes on station platforms. Like in the USA, people need to get places and on time, but nobody tries to cheat, whether for an appointment or a seat. And by necessity I suppose, they are more intimately connected with their railways, whereas here we usually regard them as a nuisance. Witness all the photographers in the videos.
The train operators cruise, sometimes at alarming speeds, through congested areas apparently confident that there will be no problems with the turnouts, gates, vehicles or trespassers. Regarding livestock and wild animals except for birds, well you never see them, though deer crossing signs are evident. These lines could seemingly be operated autonomously but hey, people need work and economies need freely flowing money and goods.
I'll have to look at their largely separated freight operations next. Also the Japanese seem to have put the kind of priority on infrastructure that we have put into defending us, them and the rest of the "free" world.
In any case, check out 4K Japan railways on Youtube for a fun time.
Sayonara Y'all,
Rick
rixflix aka Captain Video. Blessed be Jean Shepherd and all His works!!! Hooray for 1939, the all time movie year!!! I took that ride on the Reading but my Baby caught the Katy and left me a mule to ride.
Murphy Siding I mention upgrading the crossing gates as a way to eliminate some of the need for those braking decisions in the first place. Take, for example, of a couple arms coming down and the lights and bells coming on. Instead of that, suppose the Belin Wall dropped out of the sky on each side of the track, ensuring that there would be no collision. No collision, no braking issues, problem solved. Now there's just few technical details to work out.
I mention upgrading the crossing gates as a way to eliminate some of the need for those braking decisions in the first place. Take, for example, of a couple arms coming down and the lights and bells coming on. Instead of that, suppose the Belin Wall dropped out of the sky on each side of the track, ensuring that there would be no collision. No collision, no braking issues, problem solved. Now there's just few technical details to work out.
The Berlin Wall? Grade crossings to be protected by armed guards?
Actually, there is a 4-quadrant crossing gate system, and the gates slide into latches to block traffic in either direction on each side -- no zig-zag around the gates. The gates may be rated to resist a certain weight of vehicle up to a specified speed from crashing through.
The previous Wisconsin State Director of Crossing Safety had made some arrangement to have them installed at a crossing of the WSOR at the corner of Old Middleton Road and Whitney Way in Madison, WI. Don't know if that crossing was a high priority compared to other crossings, but this was some manner of a demonstration project. I have to take a look the next time I drive by if they are still there.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
Convicted OneYes, but would an autonomous train sacrifice a schoolbus full of children to avoid derailing itself?
EuclidI am not sure where we differ. When I say the real objective is to run autonomous trains I mean the real objective is to run autonomous trains for the purpose of making the most amount of money by reducing crews to zero persons rather than just reducing to one-person. If I understand James Hill, he is saying to make the most amount of money; you haul freight at the highest possible price and reduce the operating cost of your trains as low as possible. I don’t think monster trains reduce the operating cost compared to normal average size trains. I think they raise operating cost, but that is partly offset by the reduced crew per ton cost.
One person crews will also shift the equation in favor of shorter trains.
The New York Central accomplished a substantial part of the crossing elimination goal years ago, particularly along the Water Level Route. Even some branch lines (the St Lawrence Sub, for one) have few crossings, exceptions being where it was impossible to go over or under roads, like in cities and villages.
Of course, roads and traffic were less of a factor when they did a lot of that.
And they weren't afraid to do things along that line - witness the re-routing of the Mohawk River not once, but twice...
Running trains is the easiest thing that railroads do in their business of transporting product between shipper and consignee. The rest of the job is where the cost really are.
Murphy Siding For my money, I think I'd prefer the human that would hesitate before derailing the train and setting the town on fire.
Jeez. What a wet blanket.
I grew up in New York and even I would NOT UNER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES want to hang around the yard in the the south Bronx. We called it FORT APACHE, and for a good reason. I would not go there in an Abrams tank. Some crazy would appear behind it with an anti tank weapon and blow you sky high. Now stop a train with no engineer in some big city (New York, Chicago or Baltimore and watch it get emptied really quickly.
caldreameranti tank weapon
You would be relatively safe in the current Abrams tank against anti-tank weapons. BTDT, used to be my job to blow up tanks. Large IED's another story.
While one person crews may be in the future, they still need people now. I heard we had two hiring sessions for my terminal last week. Between the two sessions three people showed up.
Word has gotten around, the dismal turnout shows that. And it's not because of talk of one person crews or crewless trains either.
The reason they're hiring is that so very few of those furloughed, many right after finishing their training a few years ago, didn't come back when they were recalled.
jeffhergertWhile one person crews may be in the future, they still need people now. I heard we had two hiring sessions for my terminal last week. Between the two sessions three people showed up. Word has gotten around, the dismal turnout shows that. And it's not because of talk of one person crews or crewless trains either. The reason they're hiring is that so very few of those furloughed, many right after finishing their training a few years ago, didn't come back when they were recalled. Jeff
That was the pattern for the last decade I worked. Once furloughed the company was lucky if the got 20% back when recalled; then they had to hire off the street, train the new hires and repeat the process when the new hires ended up being furloughed.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.