First thing we do is automate all the Trains. Another view on automation.

[jeffhergert]

Another view on automation from a surprising source.  

Note that he doesn't say automation shouldn't or won't happen.  Just not as fast as some think or that is the panacea for all out troubles.

First Thing We Do Is Automate All the Trains - Railway Age

Jeff

[Convicted One]

My personal pet theory is that when autonation comes,  velocity will become secondary to inertia.

With paid crews no longer a factor, a typical freight might max out at 35 mph.  But with all meets orchestrated so precisely  that no train stops until reaching it's destination.  Placing the "knowledge" on each train... the location, speed, and destination of every train within 500 miles...should not be difficult.  With certain failsafes built-in onboard to accomodate communication failures.

[BaltACD]

jeffhergert

Another view on automation from a surprising source.  

Note that he doesn't say automation shouldn't or won't happen.  Just not as fast as some think or that is the panacea for all out troubles.

First Thing We Do Is Automate All the Trains - Railway Age

Jeff

The second thing we do is eliminate 'management'.  Without manpower on trains there is no need for management.

[jeffhergert]

Convicted One

My personal pet theory is that when autonation comes,  velocity will become secondary to inertia.

With paid crews no longer a factor, a typical freight might max out at 35 mph.  But with all meets orchestrated so precisely  that no train stops until reaching it's destination.  Placing the "knowledge" on each train... the location, speed, and destination of every train within 500 miles...should not be difficult.  With certain failsafes built-in onboard to accomodate communication failures.

 

That is already happening to some extent.  We have a new CADX dispatching system that is supposed to interact with the locomotive's PTC integrated Energy Management Systems.  It calculates the optimal meeting/passing locations and will have each train run accordingly.

Jeff 

[BaltACD]

While this may be ancient history - I found a explanation to a Engineer 'grading system' that CSX was starting to use prior to my retirement.

CSX

Engineer Fuel Scorecard FAQs  Welcome 

What is the engineer fuel scorecard? 

 The Engineer Fuel Scorecard is a program designed to highlight the critical role of the locomotive engineer in saving fuel. The person behind the throttle can make the difference between a fuel efficient trip and a fuel wasteful trip. It is designed to recognize and reward engineers who strive to make fuel conservative runs. The existing Engineer Scorecard on the Employee Gateway will have a now contain a Fuel Score tab where engineers can review the fuel consumed and their scores for each trip. 

How is my fuel burn calculated? 

 Event Recorder information from the ERAD system is processed to develop a fuel burn for your trip. The time spent in each throttle notch and the status of the engine (running not running) is used in combination with the manufacturer's fuel burn ratings to create a fuel burn for your trip. 

 Only trips where all locomotives in the consist are ERAD equipped are counted. In addition, all ERAD data must be received and processed. As the ERAD rollout to all locomotives is completed, a higher percentage of your trips will be scored. Your trip is at departure from the initial terminal and scored on the number of miles your train operates between your origin and arrival at your destination. All data between these points must be available for each locomotive in order for a trip to count. 

How is my score calculated? 

 Your calculated fuel burn from ERAD is compared to historical ERAD data of fuel burn on similar trips. Similar trips means: Same origin and destination, same HP, same tonnage, same train type. Based on where your trip falls in the historical range, a score is assigned from 0% to 100%. 100% would indicate your score was better (less fuel) than any in ERAD recorded history. 0% would indicate that you used more fuel than any in recorded history. A score in between will indicate your relative ranking, with a higher score indicating a better (more fuel efficient) trip. 

How can you compare my fuel burn with engineers on other crew districts and geographies? 

 We don't. Your actual fuel burn is only compared to the fuel burn from similar trips. Similar trips means: Same origin and destination, same HP, same tonnage, same mileage, same train type. We do compare the SCORE to other engineers on the system and other divisions. Because the score is a relative number based on performance against history, comparison of the score is valid. 

Why are none of my trips showing on the Fuel Score tab? 

 In order to count a trip, locomotives must be ERAD equipped and all ERAD data must be received and processed. As the ERAD rollout to all locomotives is completed, a higher percentage of your trips will be scored. 

Your fuel calculation does not agree with my record of fuel burned as recorded from the engine fuel gauges. 

 The accuracy of the fuel gages on locomotives varies widely. Time in throttle notch is recognized across the industry as a better way to measure fuel. 

What is Gallons of fuel per KGTM? 

 

 It is amount of fuel in gallons consumed to move 1,000 gross tons a mile. 

What about trips using the Trip Optimizer fuel savings system? 

 Trips with TO will be noted, but TO does not normally operate during the entire trip. Trips will be scored and engineers who take advantage of the TO system will be aided in their scores by the system when it is managing the train. 

How will student engineers who are learning who to power brake affect my score? 

 Power braking always is less fuel efficient than other methods of train handling. We can teach our student engineers to power brake and still attempt to save fuel by considering where and when we power brake and the amount of throttle we are allowing the student engineer to use. Student engineers must learn how to power brake and prior to completing training they must learn how to use TO. 

My fuel score has gallons difference in a column on the score card with a minus sign in front of the number of gallons. What does this mean? 

 If the trip consumed less fuel than the baseline, the number would be gallons saved. If the trip used more fuel than the baseline, the score will not have the minus sign and the number will be the gallons used in access of the baseline. 

My fuel score has dollar difference in a column on the scorecard with a minus sign in front of the number. What does this mean? 

 If the trip consumed less fuel than the baseline, the amount (in dollars) of the fuel saved when calculated at Carrier's projected annual fuel price per gallon. If the trip used more fuel than the baseline, the amount (in dollars) of the fuel excessively consumed when calculated as previously stated. 

How is the cost of fuel calculated? 

 Carrier projects an annual price for a gallon of fuel and uses that price for all calculations of fuel utilization during that year. 

What happens if the cost of fuel purchased by Carrier during the year is higher than the projected annual price per gallon? 

 Carrier uses the projected price regardless of price fluctuations during a year.

[Euclid]

He does not go into any of the issues involved with introducing autonomous freight trains.  He just sounds like he is opposed to them.  Why?  He seems to say the concept is only used on rail transit and not on freight trains.   Has he heard of Rio Tinto?   

[Overmod]

This is reminiscent of the schemes in 'steam days' used on the LMS in Britain and at least one railroad in France to track fuel consumption carefully and encourage its economical use.

As I recall, the English system was punitive in nature (i.e. consequences if you failed to meet norms)whereas the French provided both 'egoboo' and some kind of financial reward for performance.  In my opinion the latter is preferable if substantial fuel savings with reasonable morale is the object.

I was nodding along until I got to the part about student engineers learning to power-brake.  By the time I was sure I understood the euphemistic circumlocutions my hands were starting to clench to strangle somebody.

[jeffhergert]

Euclid

He does not go into any of the issues involved with introducing autonomous freight trains.  He just sounds like he is opposed to them.  Why?  He seems to say the concept is only used on rail transit and not on freight trains.   Has he heard of Rio Tinto?   

 

I don't agree.  I don't think he's against it or that it won't come.  I think he's focused on the flippant attitude of those who really don't know how things, in this case railroads, work.  That we can just flip a switch and, voila, robot trains, and that's what will solve the supply chain problems.

I see the same thing in the hreads on autonomus freight vehichles.  It's not a question of whether it can be done.  It's a question of practicality.  Techies always think the answer to a problem is more technology.  It's all they know.  They don't always know or understand how things work.  I once had 2 railroad techs and 1 NYAB tech ride with me when they were rolling out the auto throttle version of LEADER.  It was clear all they knew about train operations was it went from point A to point B.  They didn't understand that on that journey, if the train had to stop that sometimes, most of the time, the train shoudn't go all the way up to a red signal.  That there are other considerations in train operation besides just going from A to B.

As to Rio Tinto.  Maybe he does know.  Maybe he knows better on how well it's working, instead of relying on a press release on how it's the greatest thing ever.  I would like to know how well it's working.  I'm sure it works well enough, but there is a failure rate and I'd like to know what it is.  I'd like to hear about some of the failures. 

Jeff   

 

[SD70Dude]

If Rio Tinto's system is so great, why isn't everyone else scrambling to license their technology and implement it right away?

[jeffhergert]

NYAB, who makes the LEADER system is one of the groups involved with Rio Tinto's automation.  We run LEADER integrated with PTC.  LEADER once got me a PTC enforcement.

We had stopped on the downhill portion of one of our steepest grades.  We met a train and got a signal to go.  I started the train.  When prompted for auto available, I gave it control.  We were in a 45 mph zone with a 40 mph zone about a mile plus ahead of us.  Additionally, I had the condition speed set to 40 mph due to a cold weather restriction.

When I gave it control we were doing about 25 mph and in dynamics.  It promptly got out of dynamics and went into power.  We were on a sharp curve and I was looking back as we went around it.  It had control for about half a mile when I turned back and looked at the screens. 

We were doing 41 mph (According to the loco's speedometer.  PTC showed 40 mph and LEADER uses the PTC speedometer.  Trip Optimizer uses the loco's speedometer.) still in power and accelerating.  I was reaching for the automatic air brake handle when PTC gave me a 2 second warning for the approaching 40 mph zone.  It then took our air.  We stopped, everything reset and we went on our way.  I reported the enforcement as required, giving all the details, upon tie-up. 

I never heard anything more about it.  

Jeff

[Ulrich]

We're a long way still from full automation, if that goal even makes sense from a cost/benefit standpoint. Look at how difficult and costly it was to get PTC up and running. Full automation will likely require significant advances in artificial intelligence to where the robots on board are able to think as well as a human being can. Apart from recent formidable advances in robotics and neuroscience, we've only scratched the surface.. we're probably many decades away from understanding how our minds work let alone how to emulate our intelligence in  technology. 

[daveklepper]

Full automation is possible with todat'sc technology only in completely closed systems, where no random occurabce can impinge on the operation.  And, outdoors, weather itseklf can be a souce of a serious random occurance in many parts of North America.  Grade crossings and shipper erors in loading are also seriousw causes.

Today,, there are  automatic ralways:  People movers at airports and specific rapid -transit lines, the latter almost always with an operator on board  for security.  No grade crossings, and single track only when one or two trains (midway passing siding) are used.  Intra plant freight could be another application and dedicated single origine and single destination, with no weather problems, in abarren isolated areas, another.

[Euclid]

daveklepper

Full automation is possible with todat'sc technology only in completely closed systems, where no random occurabce can impinge on the operation.  And, outdoors, weather itseklf can be a souce of a serious random occurance in many parts of North America.  Grade crossings and shipper erors in loading are also seriousw causes.

Today,, there are  automatic ralways:  People movers at airports and specific rapid -transit lines, the latter almost always with an operator on board  for security.  No grade crossings, and single track only when one or two trains (midway passing siding) are used.  Intra plant freight could be another application and dedicated single origine and single destination, with no weather problems, in abarren isolated areas, another.

 

Dave, 

 

I agree with your point about the need to avoid random occurrences that impinge on the operation.  This is major obstacle to the development of autonomous cars and trucks on roadways because hazardous impingement can come from any direction at any time.   If it does, the driver’s attention is likely to recognize it as an approaching threat, and react defensively in a way that avoids the danger.  So roadway autonomous driving requires extremely thorough sensing and program ability to deal with the threat of things like tires coming off of trucks, or out of control vehicles originating from other lanes or even from other roadways. 

 

This issue is practically non-existent with autonomous trains.  Much of the potential impingement will not damage a train, and even if it could, trains are not likely to be able to stop or slow down enough to prevent the collision.  Yet this issue of grade crossing hazards is widely promoted as the reason why railroads absolutely cannot adopt autonomous operation.  I think that objecting is overstated.

 

There are cases where an engineer can spot a dangerous obstruction on a grade crossing and react in time to mitigate or even avoid the collision.  For that capability, autonomous trains will be well equipped with forward sensing that will detect any obstacle in the path of the train. 

 

As I understand Rio Tinto operation, their trains follow a program that correlates certain actions with the train’s location on the line.  But they do have automatic sensing specifically to verify that grade crossings are clear. 

 

Other than this need for intense sensing ability and perfection, autonomous trucks and cars are practically fully developed and ready for use.  They may be awaiting full regulatory approval, and require further testing to achieve that.

 

However, railroad autonomous trains with their fixed guideway principle, do not pose the challenge of providing the degree of intense sensing that is required for vehicles being constantly steered and traveling on roadways where the impingement potential is very critical. 

 

Designing the application for railroads will be the main challenge because the operation is so complex.  But fundamentally, I think Autonomous trains are nearer to implementation than either autonomous trucks or cars. 

 

My perception is that the railroad industry wants to implement this autonomous technology.  If they want it, the providers will certainly provide it.  There could not be a more attractive market for the developers than the railroads with their deep pockets and massive market size arising from their standardization.  The supply industry and its creators are always trying to find new products to sell to the railroads because of the attractiveness of that market.  But because the railroad industry is so besieged with new ideas, they are very selective and skeptical.  ECP brakes are a great idea, but the railroads do want it because they do not see it as offering a cost effective solution. 

 

I think the situation is the complete opposite with autonomous trains.  For one thing, railroad management tends to feels that autonomous trains are necessary to compete with autonomous trucking.  For another thing, the driverless trains eliminate labor cost.   

[Electroliner 1935]

When I read about the automation of trains, I remember my trip on a PATCO train to & from Lindenwald NJ. This was back about 60 years ago. The trains are "semi-automatic" in that they were programed to run with an operator who pushes a button to close the doors and another to start the trip. The train then accelerates to track speed and runs to the next station where it stops and the doors open. Repeat to the next station. All day long. On my trip, the operator pushed the buttons at each station on the outbound trip but on the inbound trip, he manually controlled the train using the throttle and braking into the next station. When we got closer to Philly, I asked him about it. He told me it was to maintain his proficency, as the automatic braking was just based on a track point and that with the programed braking rate, if there was wet rail, the train would slide and overshoot the platform. This was of course in the early days of "automation" but I saw a similar case where I was told that SWA did not want its pilots using some of the automatic landing systems because they wanted thier pillots to NOT loose their proficencies. This has been an issue for some pilots who fly the long routes and may only land a plane five times a month. 

[rdamon]

A320 (A319/A321) Auto Brakes

[jeffhergert]

Euclid

 

 

daveklepper

Full automation is possible with todat'sc technology only in completely closed systems, where no random occurabce can impinge on the operation.  And, outdoors, weather itseklf can be a souce of a serious random occurance in many parts of North America.  Grade crossings and shipper erors in loading are also seriousw causes.

Today,, there are  automatic ralways:  People movers at airports and specific rapid -transit lines, the latter almost always with an operator on board  for security.  No grade crossings, and single track only when one or two trains (midway passing siding) are used.  Intra plant freight could be another application and dedicated single origine and single destination, with no weather problems, in abarren isolated areas, another.

 

 

 

 

Dave, 

 

I agree with your point about the need to avoid random occurrences that impinge on the operation.  This is major obstacle to the development of autonomous cars and trucks on roadways because hazardous impingement can come from any direction at any time.   If it does, the driver’s attention is likely to recognize it as an approaching threat, and react defensively in a way that avoids the danger.  So roadway autonomous driving requires extremely thorough sensing and program ability to deal with the threat of things like tires coming off of trucks, or out of control vehicles originating from other lanes or even from other roadways. 

 

This issue is practically non-existent with autonomous trains.  Much of the potential impingement will not damage a train, and even if it could, trains are not likely to be able to stop or slow down enough to prevent the collision.  Yet this issue of grade crossing hazards is widely promoted as the reason why railroads absolutely cannot adopt autonomous operation.  I think that objecting is overstated.

 

There are cases where an engineer can spot a dangerous obstruction on a grade crossing and react in time to mitigate or even avoid the collision.  For that capability, autonomous trains will be well equipped with forward sensing that will detect any obstacle in the path of the train. 

 

As I understand Rio Tinto operation, their trains follow a program that correlates certain actions with the train’s location on the line.  But they do have automatic sensing specifically to verify that grade crossings are clear. 

 

All 6 or so of them on the automated line.  And most in remote locations as I understand.

 

Other than this need for intense sensing ability and perfection, autonomous trucks and cars are practically fully developed and ready for use.  They may be awaiting full regulatory approval, and require further testing to achieve that.

 

However, railroad autonomous trains with their fixed guideway principle, do not pose the challenge of providing the degree of intense sensing that is required for vehicles being constantly steered and traveling on roadways where the impingement potential is very critical. 

 

Designing the application for railroads will be the main challenge because the operation is so complex.  But fundamentally, I think Autonomous trains are nearer to implementation than either autonomous trucks or cars. 

 

My perception is that the railroad industry wants to implement this autonomous technology.  If they want it, the providers will certainly provide it.  There could not be a more attractive market for the developers than the railroads with their deep pockets and massive market size arising from their standardization.  The supply industry and its creators are always trying to find new products to sell to the railroads because of the attractiveness of that market.  But because the railroad industry is so besieged with new ideas, they are very selective and skeptical.  ECP brakes are a great idea, but the railroads do want it because they do not see it as offering a cost effective solution. 

 

I think the situation is the complete opposite with autonomous trains.  For one thing, railroad management tends to feels that autonomous trains are necessary to compete with autonomous trucking.  For another thing, the driverless trains eliminate labor cost.   

 

Bingo! We have a winner! eliminate labor costs.  Reading Rio Tinto's goals is to automate everyting involved in the mining process, except for maintenance.

 

Jeff

 

[Murphy Siding]

I wasn't sure which of the autonomous rail car threads to add this to, so I just picked the newest one.

How would they handle switching the cars at each end and all the sidings and yards in between? Most of our lumber comes from Canada with a lot of miles, a border, a railroad change and several switching yards along the way.

 There's been talk about fleeting(?) of the cars once they're out on the main.

Would the cars be hooked together into a train with 100 inividual engines to control?

How do they handle the braking situation like what just happened in Kansas City?

 

 

 

 

 

[Euclid]

Murphy Siding

How do they handle the braking situation like what just happened in Kansas City?

It depends on what the situation in Kansas City was.  But bringing a train down a grade would not pose any fundamental problem for autonomous operation.  

[zugmann]

Euclid

But bringing a train down a grade would not pose any fundamental problem for autonomous operation.  

I know several hoggers that had the autothrottle/leader tear their train into several pieces. 

[BaltACD]

Euclid

 

Murphy Siding

How do they handle the braking situation like what just happened in Kansas City? 

It depends on what the situation in Kansas City was.  But bringing a train down a grade would not pose any fundamental problem for autonomous operation.  

Most idiots can get a train up a grade - it takes an ENGINEER to get today's size trains down the grades SAFELY.  There is much more involved in getting todays sized trains down grades than getting them up the same grades.

[Euclid]

BaltACD

 

 

Euclid

 

Murphy Siding

How do they handle the braking situation like what just happened in Kansas City? 

It depends on what the situation in Kansas City was.  But bringing a train down a grade would not pose any fundamental problem for autonomous operation.  

 

 

Most idiots can get a train up a grade - it takes an ENGINEER to get today's size trains down the grades.  There is much more involved in getting todays sized trains down grades than getting them up the same grades.

 

Nobdy is disputing that.  What does it have to do with the ability of autonomous train driving systems to take trains down a grade?

[tree68]

Euclid

What does it have to do with the ability of autonomous train driving systems to take trains down a grade?

"Seat of the pants" is an important part of running a train. 

IF all of the parameters that are feeding the software are correct, and assuming that the software is capable of knowing the territory in question foot by foot, no problem.  But it's a well known bit of wisdom that no two trips, even with exactly the same consist, are exactly the same.

If any of those parameters are out of whack, and the program doesn't have the answer, chaos will ensue.

[Shadow the Cats owner]

My hubby used to say this about some of his cargo.  He said that it was safer to haul a tanker half full on ice than a load of swinging beef in a crosswind.  Why the tanker was lower to the ground than the beef was and didn't tend to literally rock and roll in the wind.  

[BaltACD]

Euclid

BaltACD 

Euclid 

Murphy Siding

How do they handle the braking situation like what just happened in Kansas City? 

It depends on what the situation in Kansas City was.  But bringing a train down a grade would not pose any fundamental problem for autonomous operation.   

Most idiots can get a train up a grade - it takes an ENGINEER to get today's size trains down the grades.  There is much more involved in getting todays sized trains down grades than getting them up the same grades. 

Nobdy is disputing that.  What does it have to do with the ability of autonomous train driving systems to take trains down a grade?

Autonomy is dumb.  Dumb is not SAFE.

[Euclid]

Wasn’t it CN that was really enthused about autonomous trains in the news a couple years ago?  It was either them or CP.  U.P. has also sung the praises of autonomous trains lately as being the ticket to compete with autonomous trucks.   

 

In any case, the main pitch made by those railroads was how it makes everything safer, and everyone loves safety.  It is the same argument that is being used to promote autonomous cars and trucks for the highway. 

 

There is no way that safety argument can be statistically refuted unless you can prove that computerized machines are not safer than manual driving.  Everybody knows humans cause a lot of highway crashes, and they will easily believe that machines will drive perfectly.  So safety is the perfect marketing ploy to sell the country on autonomous cars and trucks.  The railroads have seen this ploy, and they know safety will sell the country on autonomous trains.    

[BaltACD]

Believe corporate doubletalk at your own risk.

[jeffhergert]

Most of our fleet of modern AC engines are equipped with energy management systems, the auto throttle.  If available, we have to us it 96% of the trip to be compliant.  They were having some resistance, so upped it to 96% from 93%.  If not used, the reason why must be submitted.

The other day I had it disengage itself twice.  It became available again after about 30 miles.  The second time I never saw it become available again.  It's integrated into PTC and for some reason, some engines fitted with the screen had them place it so one has to turn their head to the left about 95 degrees.  That's some way to place a safety device.

We've had a lot of the auto throttle break trains into two or more pieces.  LEADER is better than Trip Optimizer at train handling.  Both sometimes do stupid things, but T-O does it more often.  So much, that I consider T-O nothing more than a speed control.  It does whatever it wants to reach the speed the system has projected. 

A while back, one of my coworkers went to an investigation for train handling.  He had a break in two, but that wasn't the reason.  Anytime there is an incident, they have been reviewing the tape (black box download) for the entire trip.  We have specific guidelines for certain areas and if you don't follow them, you can be disciplined.  This engineer was running the train the way he had been taught by the old heads.  Unfortunately, the specific guidelines often are written by those who haven't run trains except on a simulater, where they come up with the guidelines.  EMS is exempt, they can run the train any way it wants.

Preparing for the investigation, our local chairman asked the railroad for data about break in twos and other train handling issues.  How human engineers compare to the EMS auto throttle.  The railroad said they don't collect data on EMS incidents, it's treated as a mechanical failure. 

At least that's what I was told when LEADER tore up my train a few years ago.

Jeff 

[SD70Dude]

Trip Op can't use the air brakes.  For the longest time it couldn't even be programmed to obey throttle notch restrictions (it is supposed to now).  

CN doesn't use Leader, but we are supposed to use Trip Op whenever possible.  But they aren't as serious about investigating people for not using it these days, not sure if the shine has worn off that idea or if they have simply laid off so many managers that there is no one left to monitor this sort of compliance and then conduct statements.  

Will Leader try to take air sooner and condition the brakes in winter, or does it think every day is warm and dry?  Does it know where crossings are?  

Every big railroad claims that getting rid of conductors and eventually engineers will be the greatest thing since sliced bread.  For now it's just talk to make themselves look good in front of the shareholders, as the systems have a long, long way to go before truly being able to run trains on their own.  

[BaltACD]

SD70Dude

Trip Op can't use the air brakes.  For the longest time it couldn't even be programmed to obey throttle notch restrictions (it is supposed to now).  

CN doesn't use Leader, but we are supposed to use Trip Op whenever possible.  But they aren't as serious about investigating people for not using it these days, not sure if the shine has worn off that idea or if they have simply laid off so many managers that there is no one left to monitor this sort of compliance and then conduct statements.  

Will Leader try to take air sooner and condition the brakes in winter, or does it think every day is warm and dry?  Does it know where crossings are?  

Every big railroad claims that getting rid of conductors and eventually engineers will be the greatest thing since sliced bread.  For now it's just talk to make themselves look good in front of the shareholders, as the systems have a long, long way to go before truly being able to run trains on their own.  

The ultimate aim is to get rid of everybody except the CEO so he can push the botton on the money machine to the stockholders.  And then the stockholders will cry for the CEO's head.

[jeffhergert]

SD70Dude

Trip Op can't use the air brakes.  For the longest time it couldn't even be programmed to obey throttle notch restrictions (it is supposed to now).  

CN doesn't use Leader, but we are supposed to use Trip Op whenever possible.  But they aren't as serious about investigating people for not using it these days, not sure if the shine has worn off that idea or if they have simply laid off so many managers that there is no one left to monitor this sort of compliance and then conduct statements.  

Will Leader try to take air sooner and condition the brakes in winter, or does it think every day is warm and dry?  Does it know where crossings are?  

Every big railroad claims that getting rid of conductors and eventually engineers will be the greatest thing since sliced bread.  For now it's just talk to make themselves look good in front of the shareholders, as the systems have a long, long way to go before truly being able to run trains on their own.  

 

Our Trip Op system shows a place for fuel conservation (throttle notch) restrictions, but no way to engage it.  It does have a condition speed, but that's something different.

CSX was supposed to be getting a new version of T-O called, "Trip Optimizer Zero to Zero."  It's supposed to be capable of starting and stopping a train.  I was hoping to find out on another forum that had sub forums for all the class ones how it was working out on CSX.  Unfortunately it has been shut down.

Neither of our systems can automatically use air brakes.  They prompt the use, and the release.  Usually, both could avoid the use by just getting into dynamics, and staying in dynamics instead of waffling between dynos and power, early enough and hard enough that they wouldn't need to prompt for the use of air.  Supposedly, the automatic control of air is close.  It sounds like T-O may be there, but I haven't heard that my company is buying the new version.  If my company isn't interested, it must be really bad if they're not interested.

When either system prompts for setting air, it's almost always just a minimum set.  Rarely on my territory will it prompt to increase the set.  We've always been instructed to not release until at least a 10 psi reduction had been made.  It used to be a rule requirement until they changed it to allow EMS to release minimum sets.  Now we have instructions to increase any EMS prompted reductions to at least 10 psi before releasing.  I guess they were getting too many sticking brakes from releasing those minimum sets.  (Theoretically, a minimum set-6 to 8 psi-is supposed to be enough so brakes won't stick on when released.  In the real world 10 psi is about the minimum needed to avoid sticking brakes.)

I had techs from the railroad and LEADER ride with me once.  That we don't always go right up to the stop signal is a concept they don't understand.  That we may stop way short of the end of authority to stay off crossings, etc. doesn't "compute" with them.  At least in their offices/cubicles/laboratories.

Jeff