Today's Wall Street Journal has a brief story about more sophisticated detection hardware installed by Norfolk Southern. Does anyone at this site have details.
https://www.progressiverailroading.com/norfolk_southern/news/Norfolk-Southern-launches-AI-train-inspection-technology--70512
https://www.railwayage.com/freight/class-i/ns-launches-ai-train-inspection-technology/
Prior headilines say 200 additional temperature sensors and acoustic detectors
Part of this appears to be an automated end run around the pending Federal agitation for more carman inspections of rolling stock.
24-megapixel cameras take something like 1000 sequential images per car, with the equivalent of broad-spectrum Klieg lighting to make sure the actual resolution and image quality are as high as expected. These images can be synthetically fused to resolve detail or viewing angle, and I think could reasonably be expected to find most of the potential issues that a carman's visual walkaround inspection might -- with far better documentation and archiving that the work was done. Another major point (perhaps also reflecting the Georgia Tech IP) is what we were calling for in the wake of the East Palestine accident: AI/ES routines that scan the images for recognizable patterns, then progressions that might be leading to car impairment or accident. And then notify intelligently, rather than doing the equivalent of finding wolves everywhere in sight.
Of course this does nothing at all about the likely proximate cause of the East Palestine wreck, although the sensor fusion is a potential early step toward the kind of data and metadata transmission architecture that would actually detect progressive bearing failures.
The absolute 'number' of other sensors being rolled out is probably tied to the distance between 'added' facilities -- remember that spacing less than 34 miles apart is now going to be highly desirable if not mandated, with the cobbled-up Congressional expediency congeries currently calling for 10-mile spacing, and perhaps the more "logical" interval being every block of an ABS signal system.
The "near East Palestine" part of the headline probably refers to the first of the 'new' camera arrangements being installed in Leetonia, OH. Perhaps someone in that area can see if this can be approached or photographed in advance of a more detailed article by NS and Georgia Tech.
CSX has had their 'Train Inspection Portal' between Folkston and Waycross operational for the past two years. I don't know if they are replicating the installation at other locations.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
CSX has 3 portals installed on its line.
https://www.csx.com/index.cfm/about-us/third-csx-train-inspection-portal-now-in-operation/
The politicians will want one every 10 miles. Or less.
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...
All this fancy tech is well and good, but the bigger and more complex the installations get, the fewer that will get deployed. What is really needed is a large number of low to medium cost devices to supplement the data collected by the wayside detectors and provide real time analysis and review capability.
If NS would have had just one cheap trailcam 10-20 miles west of East Palestine to give the Wayside Desk "eyes" and context on that developing bad journal they could have saved themselves $966 million in direct costs (as of the end of 3Q 2023) and billions in lost Market Cap value. NS' stock has plummeted from over $255 a share in January to $184.53 today. I listened to their 3rd quarter earnings call and there's no end in sight on the cleanup costs. And they are only just starting to receive insurance payments.
AuTiger19CSX has 3 portals installed on its line. https://www.csx.com/index.cfm/about-us/third-csx-train-inspection-portal-now-in-operation/
All three have Waycross in the middle. Inbounds to Waycross from Savannah, Jacksonville and Atlanta are the prime inspection candidates.
EuclidAccording to this from Progressive Rail, it sounds like humans will decide whether or not to stop the train:
I'd opine that the improved sensor system will provide a better suite of alerts, probably with more strident bells and whistles.
Just as defect detectors do now, I'm sure problems will be announced in real time, plus the information that will go to appropriate offices at the railroad. I"m not so sure a direct action without a human interface would be desirable.
The AI/ES will compress the information coming off the high-resolution image stream for patterns that match known or anticipated problems. It will then confirm the severity of the problem, compare any multiple issues, and determine the most effective and safe response, whether that be to put the train in emergency, or use heavy dynamic, or even let the train decelerate to a particular speed. THAT information will then be passed, with the images and markup, to a human or humans on the 'response team' who would issue the orders to the crew (or other personnel) accordingly.
I would also expect AI/ES to be running on the 'notification chain' for first response, police enforcement, or other contractors, as it can have 'up-to-the-minute' advice without human foreground attention, and handle the necessary communications in order without someone's approval for each communication, with little distraction.
Article states that NS's Portal is being installed a Leetonia, OH which is several miles West of East Palestine. NS's major Western Pennsylvania yard is Conway which about 20 miles from East Palestine as the crow flies.
My view of the network of Inspection Portals CSX has set up around Waycross would leave me to believe tha Waycross will become a major car repair location in addition to it being one of the few remaining CSX hump yards. I suspect this may be the start of NS executing a similar strategy around Conway.
On another site, someone with some experience, says the acoustic detectors are better for detecting roller bearings that are beginning to fail. A lot better than temperature detectors because by the time some bearings set off a detector, it's almost too late.
He also said working as a car inspector years ago, they would check for a loose seal at the back of the bearing. They devised/modified a tool to check the seal because it was hard to do a visual inspection. If the seal was loose, the car was immediately bad ordered and the wheel set changed out. If not changed out, the loose seal would let the grease leak out and then the bearing would fail.
Maybe instead of more temperature detectors every 10 miles, there should be an acoustical detector every 50 miles. And maybe more car inspectors, at least at the major terminals to do a more thorough inspection.
(Instead, as some carmen have intimated, "suggesting" that only one car per shift be bad-ordered, and provided a list of cars that are showing signs of trouble.)
Jeff
Acoustic signature detectors are essentially the only technology that can detect 'inside row' roller-bearing degradation prior to catastrophic failure. A number of the likely failure modes make sound that does not couple well to ambient air, so the wayside detectors need some onboard 'support'.
Checking the inside grease seal for damage -- including from heat and running wear -- is critically important, at every inspection. While this is impractical to do at wayside runthroughs, the same "AI" technology NS and Georgia Tech have designed could easily be adapted to work with a 'cameras-on-a-stick' gauge slipped in and withdrawn at any rate (software correcting as in those early handheld scanners) during inspection on the ground, or walking the train after a UDE.
I've most often seen acoustic emissions sensors. Whatever they're called, these coupled with vibration sensors are apparently the "go to" sensors for monitoring bearings. These are typically attached to the external bearing housing for reasons OM mentioned.
The emissions of concern are ~100kHz to 300kHz and come from the dislocations in the metal moving undergoing plastic deformation (yielding).
EuclidQUESTION: When the system finds a problem, does it make the decision to stop the train? If so, does the system stop the train? If that is the case, do the humans decide whether the system command to stop the train is correct? If the humans conclude that the stop command is incorrect, do they then intervene and overrule the system? Or--- does the system merely send its findings to the humans to be used as their diagnostic data, with decision of whether or not to stop the train being left entirely up to the humans in all cases.
I think the question is - how often are defects detected that require stopping the train? Is the cost of the detection/reaction system worth the payback?
The problem at East Palestine was not a detector failure, or even a human failure, as such. It was a failure of the parameters used to determine the severity of the problem.
When hotbox detectors first came on the scene, they were usually equipped with a warning light which the crew in the caboose could see. Then came radios, announcing the train's status. Even now, I believe a defect detector will announce an issue when it detects it, not waiting until the end of the train (as occurs if there is no defect detected). This is received directly by the head-end crew. It doesn't have to go through any back offices, the dispatcher, etc. There are rules in place for handling such cases.
So the problem, as you suggest, is finding the happy medium between stopping the train for certain defects (which occurs now, with the human interface), or proactively stopping the train automatically. Either could cause havoc on a busy line.
Let's take flat spots, for example. There are established rules for how to handle a flat spot depending on its size, ranging from no special actions to stopping the train in place until the wheelset can be replaced. Can a lineside detector detect the difference? Does a detector know the difference between a loaded car and an empty car, which will have different signatures for the same sized flat spot? Or does that have to go through a back office for decision, human or automated?
With PTC, I suppose the capability exists to enforce such a stop, assuming good communications all along the data path.
All of this puts us one step closer to unmanned trains.
tree68 Euclid QUESTION: When the system finds a problem, does it make the decision to stop the train? If so, does the system stop the train? If that is the case, do the humans decide whether the system command to stop the train is correct? If the humans conclude that the stop command is incorrect, do they then intervene and overrule the system? Or--- does the system merely send its findings to the humans to be used as their diagnostic data, with decision of whether or not to stop the train being left entirely up to the humans in all cases. I think the question is - how often are defects detected that require stopping the train? Is the cost of the detection/reaction system worth the payback? The problem at East Palestine was not a detector failure, or even a human failure, as such. It was a failure of the parameters used to determine the severity of the problem. When hotbox detectors first came on the scene, they were usually equipped with a warning light which the crew in the caboose could see. Then came radios, announcing the train's status. Even now, I believe a defect detector will announce an issue when it detects it, not waiting until the end of the train (as occurs if there is no defect detected). This is received directly by the head-end crew. It doesn't have to go through any back offices, the dispatcher, etc. There are rules in place for handling such cases. So the problem, as you suggest, is finding the happy medium between stopping the train for certain defects (which occurs now, with the human interface), or proactively stopping the train automatically. Either could cause havoc on a busy line. Let's take flat spots, for example. There are established rules for how to handle a flat spot depending on its size, ranging from no special actions to stopping the train in place until the wheelset can be replaced. Can a lineside detector detect the difference? Does a detector know the difference between a loaded car and an empty car, which will have different signatures for the same sized flat spot? Or does that have to go through a back office for decision, human or automated? With PTC, I suppose the capability exists to enforce such a stop, assuming good communications all along the data path. All of this puts us one step closer to unmanned trains.
Euclid QUESTION: When the system finds a problem, does it make the decision to stop the train? If so, does the system stop the train? If that is the case, do the humans decide whether the system command to stop the train is correct? If the humans conclude that the stop command is incorrect, do they then intervene and overrule the system? Or--- does the system merely send its findings to the humans to be used as their diagnostic data, with decision of whether or not to stop the train being left entirely up to the humans in all cases.
Remember - PTC is not installed on ALL lines
On CSX when I was working - HBD and Dragging equipment detectors report the results of their inspections directly over the Road Radio Channel for the territory the detector is located on.
WILD (Wheel Impact Load Detectors) are nowhere near a numerous on the railroads as are the HBD/DE installations. The WILD are monitored by the Mechanical Desk in Jacksonville who issue Mandatory Directives through the CADS to both the Trick and Chief Dispatchers desks where the train is operating. Trick Dispatcher notifies the train to stop and inspect the offending car(s). Levels 3 and 4 are the defects are stoppable. Level 3 upon inspection is allowed to move to destination at 30 MPH. Level 4 must be set off at the nearest set out track and not exceed 10 MPH getting there.
When HBD/DE are activated, the crew gets the radio announcement and stops train for inspection. If a Hot Box is found, it is the Conductors decision if the offending car(s) can be moved to a set off location. At the time I was working the S word was paramount and in many case the Conductor would report the car(s) were not safe to move and the Car Department would be dispatched to change out the wheel set(s).
BaltACDRemember - PTC is not installed on ALL lines
I thought of that. Didn't mention it, but it is a complication to the scheme.
tree68 Euclid QUESTION: When the system finds a problem, does it make the decision to stop the train? If so, does the system stop the train? If that is the case, do the humans decide whether the system command to stop the train is correct? If the humans conclude that the stop command is incorrect, do they then intervene and overrule the system? Or--- does the system merely send its findings to the humans to be used as their diagnostic data, with decision of whether or not to stop the train being left entirely up to the humans in all cases. I think the question is - how often are defects detected that require stopping the train? Is the cost of the detection/reaction system worth the payback? The problem at East Palestine was not a detector failure, or even a human failure, as such. It was a failure of the parameters used to determine the severity of the problem.
We have combination defect detectors about every 20 +/- miles. These look for hot bearings, dragging equipment, and hot wheels. These detectors now only give an entrance message and then talk on defect only.
We have dragging equipment detectors that talk on defect only at many intermediate block signals where there are concrete ties.
Hot wheels are the only alarm that may not require an immediate inspection. It's allowed to run 30mph to the next detector. A second alarm on the same axle requires inspection. The car can't pass through a through truss bridge. There are places because of this a train must stop and inspect before reaching the bridge. Generally if it's the first detector after picking up cars, it's probably a missed handbrake. If it's gone over a few detectors before an alarm, it might be sticking brakes. Make a heavy reduction and release on the air brake and go 30 to the next detector. Usually a hot wheel won't set off the defect tone, but alerts the bearing desk, who alerts the dispatcher, who alerts us.
For the combination detectors, if a defect tone and message "defect detected" is given, we are to clear the detector, get the exit message indicating defect and location and stop and inspect. If there is the tone, but no other message, inspect the entire train.
For a dragging equipment detector that gives a defect tone, immediately stop and inspect. If no specific axle is given, inspect the entire train.
For the detectors that only give an entrance message and talk on defect only, KEY trains must stop and inspect if no entrance message is received.
I don't like the change to entrance/talk on defect only. I feel it conditions crews to not hear any possible tone or message at the end of a train. And with 2 or 3 mile long trains there are a few detectors that are hard to hear any exit message.
One example of a reason not to automatically stop a train - several trestles have burned because a car with a heat issue was stopped atop them. Leaving the human element in the mix is important.
jeffhergert And with 2 or 3 mile long trains there are a few detectors that are hard to hear any exit message.
Is there any way to send an inquiry to the detector such as requesting a repeat of last message? Or can you contact dispatcher and get info?
_____________
"A stranger's just a friend you ain't met yet." --- Dave Gardner
Paul of Covington jeffhergert And with 2 or 3 mile long trains there are a few detectors that are hard to hear any exit message. Is there any way to send an inquiry to the detector such as requesting a repeat of last message? Or can you contact dispatcher and get info?
Signal Maintainers can inquire through a Detector's history logs. That I am aware of the History Log must be accessed On Site.
Train Dispatcher radio is configured that the dispatcher, if listening, is only listening through one of multiple radio transmitters on his territory. These transmitters have an effective radius of 10 to 15 miles. In addition to the Road Channel the Dispatcher radio consoles have access to the Dispatchers Channel and the MofW Channel. A 100 mile long segment of railroad, like the RF&P Subdivison between Washington and Richmond will have between 8 and 10 radio transmitter locations.
Defect Detectors broadcast their reports over the Road Channel for the territory. With longer trains, it may be necessary to increase the broadcast strength of the defect detectors radios. I don't know what their broadcast strength is, however, I suspect is in the neighborhood of what the allowed strength for Citizen Band Radios is - which I think is on the order of 5 watts.
We can tone a repeat message on the detector.
Or if that doesn't work, you tone up the detector helpdesk that will look it up for you.
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
If there is a question, we have to call the dispatcher who then contacts the bearing desk-the "back room" to check the detector.
But with going to talk on defect only, with some long trains at some detectors you might not hear a tone or exit message. The detectors should give an indication that a detector, at least the full fledged defect detectors, has been tripped to the dispatcher. They used to do so, but I'm not so sure they still do since they now have the "back room."
The old detectors on some lines that only talked on defect, no entrance or exit message, were tied into the signal system. The system would hold a controlled signal at stop until manually cleared by the dispatcher if a defect or detector malfunction was detected. There were many times when a detector failed to give a tone and announce a defect but the dispatcher would contact the train before clearing the hold signal. That signal tie-in has been removed.
One problem that am not aware is being addressed by all of these detection systems. That is partial wheel failures. Some wheels have a diameter up to 42 inches. That means up to ~~ 131 inches of travel for one revolution. 36 inch wheel 113 inches of travel. It does not appear that there is any visual system that can survey a wheel for any partial failure or loss of mass. Am I missing something?
blue streak 1 One problem that am not aware is being addressed by all of these detection systems. That is partial wheel failures. Some wheels have a diameter up to 42 inches. That means up to ~~ 131 inches of travel for one revolution. 36 inch wheel 113 inches of travel. It does not appear that there is any visual system that can survey a wheel for any partial failure or loss of mass. Am I missing something?
Sensor delivers a' problem alert' > [ the signal delivers the alert to a 'point of notice']> The ALERT is delivered to the Enginer of the affected train.. The Engineer makes an 'action' decision. At that point,Physics of the envolved mechanisms take over, and train speed and time become key issues. Train is stopped; with or without incident. (?)
An oversimplied example(?) , but yoiu can get the idea.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.