Pure speculation, but it's so fun to speculate.
We seem to focus that the moving train somehow lost communication in some manner. What if it was the disabled train that got lost?
I don't know if Rio Tinto's lines are signaled, or if any signal system has been discontinued. There's a lot of proponents out their who propose to eliminate signals entirely and go to a CBTC (Communications Based Train Control) system. (Some have said that the signal departments only want signals to keep their jobs. Sems that also could apply to those proponents so they then have work.)
In CBTC, the main computer at the control center will receive inputs from everything affecting movement: trains, MOW, switch positions, etc. The main computer will transmit to each train's onboard computer how far it can go until it has to stop. A specific train won't necessarily know the location of other trains, just that it has to stop at milepost X. What if the disabled train stopped communicating to the main office? Then the main computer no longer knows there is an obstruction (disabled train), so then gives instruction to the moving train to continue to a point beyond where the disabled train is. The human dispatcher (Probably not the correct term they use, but is what most of us would be familiar with.), for whatever reason, doesn't realize in time that a train is missing. The realization is made with only enough time to warn those working on or around the disabled train.
Just some (junk) food for thought.
Jeff
Overmod I've been boycotting this thread (and will probably go back to boycotting this thread) to help keep my blood pressure in a sensible range. For the last time: the empty train hit the loaded one, not the other way around. Is that a clear enough statement for Ron to finally, finally get it? THE EMPTY TRAIN IS THE ONE THAT WAS DISPATCHED. THE LOADED TRAIN WAS THE ONE THAT STALLED AND NEEDED HELP. THE EMPTY TRAIN HIT IT. It seems that multiple people have told him this, and he keeps bouncing back 'confirming' what they said by repeating the same inanity about the loaded train hitting an empty one.
I've been boycotting this thread (and will probably go back to boycotting this thread) to help keep my blood pressure in a sensible range.
For the last time: the empty train hit the loaded one, not the other way around. Is that a clear enough statement for Ron to finally, finally get it? THE EMPTY TRAIN IS THE ONE THAT WAS DISPATCHED. THE LOADED TRAIN WAS THE ONE THAT STALLED AND NEEDED HELP. THE EMPTY TRAIN HIT IT.
It seems that multiple people have told him this, and he keeps bouncing back 'confirming' what they said by repeating the same inanity about the loaded train hitting an empty one.
Euclid Overmod I've been boycotting this thread (and will probably go back to boycotting this thread) to help keep my blood pressure in a sensible range. For the last time: the empty train hit the loaded one, not the other way around. Is that a clear enough statement for Ron to finally, finally get it? THE EMPTY TRAIN IS THE ONE THAT WAS DISPATCHED. THE LOADED TRAIN WAS THE ONE THAT STALLED AND NEEDED HELP. THE EMPTY TRAIN HIT IT. It seems that multiple people have told him this, and he keeps bouncing back 'confirming' what they said by repeating the same inanity about the loaded train hitting an empty one. It has been reported both ways. Here is what Rio Tinto says: “Rio Tinto (ASX, LON: RIO) said on Monday that one of its fully-loaded autonomous iron ore trains had crashed with a set of stationary wagons in Western Australia’s Pilbara region. It was the fully loaded train that approached at speed and collided with the stationary train that needed to be recovered.” Here is another news report: “A laden Rio Tinto train has come off the tracks in the Pilbara after smashing into stationary wagons, the mining giant’s third driverless train to derail in the Pilbara within the space of a year.”
Don't say "the plan failed" -- say WHY it failed.
According to the mining union, a command to transfer control of the loaded train from the autonomous system to local control was sent to "the wrong train" despite that command having to be checked by supervisory personnel before transmission.
This does not explain why the automated system on the loaded train (which would not have received an order for local control) did not stop properly short of the standing train. Nor does it explain who the 'six workers' presumably attempting to get the stopped train to move, which the union hinted had to scramble to get away from the impending wreck in time to save themselves, were, and how they got where they were.
This is not going to make sense until an impartial agency reviews and reports on it. It may not make sense even then.
OvermodDon't say "the plan failed" -- say WHY it failed. According to the mining union, a command to transfer control of the loaded train from the autonomous system to local control was sent to "the wrong train" despite that command having to be checked by supervisory personnel before transmission. This does not explain why the automated system on the loaded train (which would not have received an order for local control) did not stop properly short of the standing train. Nor does it explain who the 'six workers' presumably attempting to get the stopped train to move, which the union hinted had to scramble to get away from the impending wreck in time to save themselves, were, and how they got where they were. This is not going to make sense until an impartial agency reviews and reports on it. It may not make sense even then.
So far the 'pronouncements' of the local authorities have paralleled those about the MV Dali destroying the FSK Bridge in Baltimore.
Bad things happened and the wreck then happened. No further info as to WHY the bad things happened, which are the heart of the causes. In the case of the MV Dali we have been told circuit breakers tripped - we have not been told what it was the CAUSED the circuit breakers to trip.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Overmod Don't say "the plan failed" -- say WHY it failed. According to the mining union, a command to transfer control of the loaded train from the autonomous system to local control was sent to "the wrong train" despite that command having to be checked by supervisory personnel before transmission. This does not explain why the automated system on the loaded train (which would not have received an order for local control) did not stop properly short of the standing train. Nor does it explain who the 'six workers' presumably attempting to get the stopped train to move, which the union hinted had to scramble to get away from the impending wreck in time to save themselves, were, and how they got where they were. This is not going to make sense until an impartial agency reviews and reports on it. It may not make sense even then.
First, I would think a train would be stopped before changing from autonomous mode to some kind of local/remote control. Stopping being done automatically in autonomous mode. Then people on the scene making the change
Second, if the change command was done while the train was moving, but sent to the wrong train, the train still moving in autonomous mode should have still stopped itself. The system should have still recognized that there was an obstruction, the disabled train, and the automation stopped the train short of the obstruction. That the command was sent to the wrong train seems like trying to focus blame on humans rather then a possible flaw in their automation.
One would think there would have been plenty of time to discover the error and stop the correct train.
But in thinking more about it, I suspect that although it was immediately clear that a stop signal had been sent to a train unintentionally. It may be that nobody realized that another train had been intended to receive that stop signal, and did not receive it.
EuclidThey say the stop signal was sent to the wrong train. If so, it would have stopped that wrong train. If so, wouldn’t that sudden, un-programed stopping of that train have gotten a lot of attention from probably several people?
If it was sent to a stopped train, who's to tell?
Euclid ...full-time system that would have all trains being able to detect another train that is fouling their route.
I wonder if the rear end marker talks to the system (with GPS information) or if they just work with the known length of a given train.
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...
Positive Train Control, the Energy Management Systems used in the US use GPS as well as inputs from legacy signal systems. An enhanced version ofNYAB/Knorr's LEADER system is part of Rio Tinto's automation package. It would follow that Rio Tinto's trains use GPS, with or without inputs from signals or other wired in hardware.
Unless they only run, and intend to run, one train at a time on a track, any autonomous system is going to need to know the locations of obstructions/occupancies and be able to react to them. That is, if trains ahead are slowing down, a following train would also need to slow down. If trains started to stop ahead, a following train would also need to stop. If a train needs a command from a central office to stop because of traffic, or a command from local personnel, I wouldn't call it autonomous.
One item about ACSES is that a mobile inductor can be placed on a track to stop any train.
EuclidThe problem was not an inability to stop an Autonomous Train. The problem was a mistake in sending the stop command to the wrong train. Presumably, the wrong train dutifully stopped (if it was moving). But the sender of the command failed to realize his/her mistake in sending the vital command to the wrong train. What the news report refers to as the “wrong train” was not the disabled train. The news article says that it was this train: “Rio Tinto train controllers initiated the ‘on-site’ feature [the stop command], [by] transmitting it to the autonomous train to the south of the 222 car disabled train.” So that train was the “wrong train;” and it was not the disabled train.
Simple!
What we have here is a failure to communicate!
I might state that the Cardinal Rule of Train Dispatching is KNOW WHO YOU ARE COMMUNICATING WITH!
AN AUTONOMOUS TRAIN SHOULD NOT REQUIRE A COMMAND FROM ANY PERSON TO STOP SHORT OF ANY OBSTRUCTION.
EuclidSeveral news sources say this: "At this stage these [investigation questions] are focused on the operation of and adherence to signaling systems in the area." Does anyone here know what that means? There seems to be hardly anything in any of the news reporting on this wreck that conveys a clear picture of the points it intends to make.
If you can't convince them of your brilliance - baffle them with bull and double talk.
I haven't been impressed with anything that has been posted to date.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.