The signal activation issue would have to be handled proactively, probably with a defined modulated voltage across the wheelsets and monitoring of the actual shunting of the signal circuits. It would be easy to implement this at the same time as the braking and motoring arrangements for the "trucks" if done coherently.
I don't see any reason why either braking or acceleration of an eight-wheel loaded car differs any from the counterpart in a MU-controlled consist. That is especially so if traction and antilock braking control are adapted from OTS automotive sources, which are far superior to anything likely to be kludged up to be hose-compatible with one-pipe Westinghous pneumatic.
Assuredly, if manual switching or staging is required, the schedule that platooned and operated the cars will indicate when, and where, someone in a road or hi-rail vehicle would have to be at the time the car gets there. In the perfect world of the kind of engineers who did the SPV2000, the folks touting the autonomous service would be arranging for power switches (perhaps as simple-minded as trolley switches operating off controller position) for all those manual switches that have had to be equipped with PTC position indication and, presumably, some sort of safety interlock. That's another round of VC financing, but it need not be showstopping as such...
The thing that keeps cropping up since I started looking at level 4 autonomy as a practicable rail technology is all the overlap with Kneiling's integral-train construction, modified for battery instead of gas-turbine power and equipped with suitable decking and guideways for 'autonomous' yard tractors to load and unload. Those as I recall were to be built in three-car 'rakes' -- just the size most desirable for articulated well cars -- and it would be easy enough to increase the length to get single-level TOFC capability "per guidance system" that would equal the (as-yet-undeveloped-by-Parallel) stack-block equivalent.
Note that where the great pending foundering of their business model looms is the issue of operating these things in conventional trains, whether dedicated-equipment (as in RoadRailer) or the original dotty Parallel proposal of loose cars fitted with their conversion pacs. Much of the potential attractiveness of this kind of autonomous-car operation would hinge on actual carload delivery, rather than break-bulk LCL which is an interesting model but somewhat difficult to justify for the proposed technical methodology. Much of the stuff I've been playing with over the past couple of decades involves effective 'motoring' and control of loose car bodies sitting on three-piece trucks that can be towed at high road speed without dynamic instability, using as many OTS parts from the existing rail industry as possible.
daveklepperI see a future for vautonomous railcars for in-plant rairoads, aut manufacturing, bottling,m steel, etc, betwen work stations, often in different buildings. I am absolutely convinced it will never replace locomotives and unpowered freight cars. Whatever technology is developed for the loose-car concept can also be applieed to locomotives plus the required portion to the freight cars. Even remote-controlled couplers. Simole economics weill keep the locomitive-hasuled concept as the normal.
Keep your head down Dave.
A significant advantage to this technology appears to be that it should be adaptable to use in various ways. If self propelled cars are best it can be used that way. If a seperate power unit (AKA a locomotive) is more cost efficient the technology can be used that way innstead.
daveklepperI see a future for vautonomous railcars for in-plant rairoads
They have applied that concept to forklifts for a long time running now. At least 10 years if not more. I've seen driverless forklifts using something embedded in the concrete floor to run around a warehouse with loads. In fact they are using that technology at the Fed to carry around skids of currency between the vault, processing areas and loading docks.
I see a future for vautonomous railcars for in-plant rairoads, aut manufacturing, bottling,m steel, etc, betwen work stations, often in different buildings.
I am absolutely convinced it will never replace locomotives and unpowered freight cars. Whatever technology is developed for the loose-car concept can also be applieed to locomotives plus the required portion to the freight cars. Even remote-controlled couplers. Simole economics weill keep the locomitive-hasuled concept as the normal.
zugmann I don't know. Single car means you don't have much wheel-rail surface contact. Small trains/locals can be a pain to run because of this.
I don't know. Single car means you don't have much wheel-rail surface contact. Small trains/locals can be a pain to run because of this.
I suspect that would be more of a problem with activating track circuits than with braking. OTOH, I happened to run across a late 1947 Railway Age article on braking adhesion vs rail conditions where mill scale was mentioned as one cause of reduced adhesion. More cars would mean more of a chance that the mill scale would be taken off.
The main focus of the article was braking of passenger cars and the improvements with anti-lock brakes. The main problem with the anti-lock brakes was that they did not operate fast enough to prevent all wheel sliding, though did siginficantly reduce sliding. The advantage of using an inverter per axle control with regenerative braking is that the response will be much faster than airbrakes.
I see the autonomous railcar being useful for short distances.
jeffhergert So do the potential customers, at both ends, have to invest in equipment to load/unload the containers off the rail vehicle? I guess they would have to have chassis available for the time the containers are off the rail and in the truck docks at their facility. Most already have yard tractors, so that's not a problem. Or will they run from intermodal terminal to intermodal terminal? That just adds more problems for handling from customer to customer. Not insurmountable, but not really convenient. Once, or maybe if, autonomous trucks are everywhere this will be obsolete. I'm not even sure without autonomous trucking this will take much off the highways. Like so many jobs or processes, the techies see one part, usually the easiest part, to automate. They don't realize that often there's more than meets the eye. Jeff
So do the potential customers, at both ends, have to invest in equipment to load/unload the containers off the rail vehicle? I guess they would have to have chassis available for the time the containers are off the rail and in the truck docks at their facility. Most already have yard tractors, so that's not a problem. Or will they run from intermodal terminal to intermodal terminal? That just adds more problems for handling from customer to customer. Not insurmountable, but not really convenient.
Once, or maybe if, autonomous trucks are everywhere this will be obsolete. I'm not even sure without autonomous trucking this will take much off the highways.
Like so many jobs or processes, the techies see one part, usually the easiest part, to automate. They don't realize that often there's more than meets the eye.
Jeff
SD60MAC9500You don't use containers for domestic short haul, containers require expensive multi-million dollar Mi-Jacks... Even side loaders while cheaper are still a cost.. TOFC is the way to go for short haul. In fact autonomous loading/unloading at a Iron Highway type facility would be more ideal. Then you could handle any type of equipment C/C (Container/Chassis), Flatbed, Bulkmatic, DV (Dry Van) Reefer, etc..Oh yeah you can't double-stack these on most routes as they exceed plate H..
I fully agree with this.
In my example of Cedar Rapids-Chicago service all that would be needed in Cedar Rapids would be an inexpensive CP Exxpressway type ramp system.
I see a three platform articulated TOFC car as one possibility.
Who will align the switch when the autonomous car(s) leave the industry siding, or out on the mainline when it needs to take a manual switch siding?
I don't remember if PTC was brought up, but would each auto-car need to be equiped with PTC?
Yes they will be "platooning". But it won't be long before they build bogies with larger traction motors so that one can pull several other containers on unpowered bogies with couplers to cut capital and maintenance costs. Hmmm......
zugmannI don't know. Single car means you don't have much wheel-rail surface contact. Small trains/locals can be a pain to run because of this.
I'll second that. It's the stuff of flat wheels...
zugmannI don't see the cost savings in having to build maintain 100s of 'locomotives' ( and the neccesary track upgrades for same) to move the same freight as one. And how do they work in tracks with restricted speed is the required operation? I guess have a guy at the gate with a remote to run them? Eats into savings... but I'm not a retired MBA so what do I know.
Details, shmetails...
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...
zugmann... but I'm not a retired MBA so what do I know.
Maybe stay at a Holday Inn Express, then?
Erik_Mag As OM mentioned, braking for an autonomous railcar should be significantly better than braking action on freight trains,
I don't see the cost savings in having to build maintain 100s of 'locomotives' ( and the neccesary track upgrades for same) to move the same freight as one. And how do they work in tracks with restricted speed is the required operation? I guess hav ea guy at the gate with a remote to run them? Eats into savings... but I'm not a retired MBA so what do I know.
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
I would think that the autonomous railcar problem would be much simpler than the autonomous truck problem. As OM mentioned, braking for an autonomous railcar should be significantly better than braking action on freight trains, so the cars can move at reasonable speeds and still be able to stop for obstructions. In addition, the increased traffic on the line may discourage trespassers - though the Brightline experience unfortunately may suggest otherwise.
Here in California, the state legislature passed legislation to prohibit driverless trucks on the road, but the legislation was vetoed by the governor (governor and majority of the state legislature are members of the same party, so this wasn't a partisan spat). This would indicate that there isn't insurmountable opposition to autonomous railcars.
daveklepper Euclid, suppose the tresspasser is a small child? Suppose the specific clothing or whatever fools the asutomatic train's sensors? Suppose the human engineer sees that an accident is in the making, even if not definite, just a possibility that the automatic sensors would never recognize? And you did not address the unproductive time for maintenance and uinspections.
Euclid, suppose the tresspasser is a small child? Suppose the specific clothing or whatever fools the asutomatic train's sensors? Suppose the human engineer sees that an accident is in the making, even if not definite, just a possibility that the automatic sensors would never recognize?
And you did not address the unproductive time for maintenance and uinspections.
I was four years old when I pulled a little red wagom with yellow-cream lettering (Third Avenue Transit colors) just about everywhere I went. Possibly I was pretending to be a train. We were crossing the West 85th Steet and Central Park West intersection exiting from the park, no traffic light at the time, one installed about 1945-6, and the driver of a Buick was impatiant and ran over my little red wagon, after he saw the heads of mom, dad, and me clearing his path.
I think all the AV Rail concepts miss the point.. Not only does this not handle 53' containers, and the incompatibility with existing equipment..You'd need to automate the physical plant as well.. It has horrible utility.. What market are they trying to serve? You don't use containers for domestic short haul, containers require expensive multi-million dollar Mi-Jacks... Even side loaders while cheaper are still a cost.. TOFC is the way to go for short haul. In fact autonomous loading/unloading at a Iron Highway type facility would be more ideal. Then you could handle any type of equipment C/C (Container/Chassis), Flatbed, Bulkmatic, DV (Dry Van) Reefer, etc..Oh yeah you can't double-stack these on most routes as they exceed plate H..
The head of strategy at Parallel Systems and myself got into a little back and forth over PM's on Linkedin due to my former comments..
.
EuclidIn any case, I do not believe autonomous cars or trucks running on public highways will ever be in full operation unless the government builds separate infrastructure for them so they don’t mix with non-autonomous vehicles on a common roadway.
I wouldn't go so far as to say never. I'm cooler on automation than a lot of people, but we're already pretty close to being able to do autonomous cruise on limited access highways. The main obstacle won't be (or isn't) the capabilities of the vehicles. Instead it'll be the rate of vehicle turnover in the national fleet. At some point, every vehicle sold will be capable of autonomous operation and it will take 15 to 20 years after that point before the fleet is entirely capable. We're looking at a 45 to 50 year horizon there. That's far off, but not never.
Self propelled autonomous movement.
Remote controlled movement with genuine locomotives still needs to be perfected.
https://www.progressiverailroading.com/federal_legislation_regulation/news/NTSB-issues-preliminary-report-of-fatal-accident-in-CSX-rail-yard--70333
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
BackshopI'm not talking about the software. Even just engineering self-propelled railcars with onboard motive power wouldn't be cheap, especially for such a limited use.
If we're doing self-propelled why not just have the containers go directly to the customer? Why bother with all this in between stuff?
Self-propelled flatcars are like the RedBox of the transportation world.
Overmod Actually, most of the "R&D cost" of these things doesn't matter. There is over $37 million of VC money already in Parallel Systems (probably more now) and ALL the heavy lifting for Level 4 autonomy will be developed by the automobile/truck/aircraft groups with far more market potential than any railroad application.
Actually, most of the "R&D cost" of these things doesn't matter. There is over $37 million of VC money already in Parallel Systems (probably more now) and ALL the heavy lifting for Level 4 autonomy will be developed by the automobile/truck/aircraft groups with far more market potential than any railroad application.
EuclidI do not necessarily disagree with your points, but they have nothing to do with what you quoted from me, which was in response to Dave Klepper and the always cited “problem” of autonomous trains requiring completely fenced track corridors.
My point is that autonomous autos do not always recognize problems. I have little doubt that the same will be true of autonomous railcars. A 100+ ton railcar (or several) zipping down the line all by itself doesn't need any challenges like trespassers, animals, objects thrown on the tracks, etc.
tree68 Euclid This objection is stated every time autonomous operation is brought up, but it is never explained in a way that justifies it. Can you please explain, for the first time ever, what a crew will do to overcome the safety issues that you see with autonomous trains? Tell me exactly why a right of way fence is needed for autonomous trains, but not for crewed trains. This point seems like an argument put forth by people who simply oppose autonomous running because it threatens labor. Do a search on "autonomous automobiles" and pay attention to the accident reports. Yes, they are sharing the road with everyone else, but not always successfully, and it isn't usually the "other guy's" fault. Such operation on a single track line will require the ability to conduct meets. Individual autonomous vehicles will end up in sidings, waiting for opposing traffic. Out on the plains, you're talking cattle country, with all that entails. The autonomous railcar idea has merit, but we aren't there yet, nor will we be for a while.
Euclid This objection is stated every time autonomous operation is brought up, but it is never explained in a way that justifies it. Can you please explain, for the first time ever, what a crew will do to overcome the safety issues that you see with autonomous trains? Tell me exactly why a right of way fence is needed for autonomous trains, but not for crewed trains. This point seems like an argument put forth by people who simply oppose autonomous running because it threatens labor.
Do a search on "autonomous automobiles" and pay attention to the accident reports.
Yes, they are sharing the road with everyone else, but not always successfully, and it isn't usually the "other guy's" fault.
Such operation on a single track line will require the ability to conduct meets. Individual autonomous vehicles will end up in sidings, waiting for opposing traffic.
Out on the plains, you're talking cattle country, with all that entails.
The autonomous railcar idea has merit, but we aren't there yet, nor will we be for a while.
All I will say (I wouldn't want to disappoint Greyhounds) is that it would take more than the revenue from the one route to cover all the R&D costs associated with having autonomous rail cars.
Lets say we have a line for autonomous operations. Two hundred miles long with 20 customers at each and and 20 customers spaced at locations along the 200 miles.
Each of these 60 customers ship and recieve from all the other customers in carload lots.
How does autonomous schedule, originate, move and deliver these cars? What support facilities will be required to make this a self sustaining operation?
Transportation is simple when dealing with single events at a time. When dealing with a multiplicity of events at the same time it begins to become infinately more complex.
EuclidThis objection is stated every time autonomous operation is brought up, but it is never explained in a way that justifies it. Can you please explain, for the first time ever, what a crew will do to overcome the safety issues that you see with autonomous trains? Tell me exactly why a right of way fence is needed for autonomous trains, but not for crewed trains. This point seems like an argument put forth by people who simply oppose autonomous running because it threatens labor.
Those who have been following the tech will be amused, but not particularly surprised, to see that the moron idea of 'autonomous bogies' using the container as a stressed member has been 'reconsidered' so there is now a perimeter frame with corner support and presumably twistlocks. It seems they are using a physical probe-type sensor to govern the platooning, probably to go through several further rounds of 'reconsideration' before they get something rational.
Strangely they remain entirely ignorant of the possibility that, now that they have a structural frame and a ginormous traction battery/cap system, they can implement the emergency magnetic track-brake system that Erik and I were discussing in a couple of the interminable Bucky emergency-brake-desirability timeless-topic threads. Program the platoon to fire emergency from 'last car' to 'lead' a few milliseconds apart so that any with 'impaired' brake implementation come into smooth contact and can be decelerated with appropriate modulation. And no flat wheels.
As with the Weems electric railroad for M&E in the 1890s, the elephant in the room is physical security for the autonomous container loads. Where there is none for crewed stack trains, imagine the fun with conservatively-programmed and more than a little 'dumb' AI models...
daveklepper Euclid-- This is so obvious that you really surprise me with a lack of understanding. By fence, one that does not just discoyurage trsspassers, but actually prevents tresspassing. And of course no grade crossings. Withouit such separation, unforeseen incidents occur regularly, and automatic operation will never totally account for them. My estimate would be reduction of unforeseen incidents from one per-hundred trips to one per-ten-thousand trips. We are assduming in both cases very careful train assembly, no empty well cars separating heafvily loadeed cars, etc.
Euclid-- This is so obvious that you really surprise me with a lack of understanding. By fence, one that does not just discoyurage trsspassers, but actually prevents tresspassing. And of course no grade crossings.
Withouit such separation, unforeseen incidents occur regularly, and automatic operation will never totally account for them. My estimate would be reduction of unforeseen incidents from one per-hundred trips to one per-ten-thousand trips.
We are assduming in both cases very careful train assembly, no empty well cars separating heafvily loadeed cars, etc.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.