Your chance to be a lawyer.....

[edblysard]

Wow, go away for a day of swimming and real mexican food in the shade of the Alamo, and you guys get all carried away with a new topic.
Ok, Jenny, heres the best evidence I can offer. Someone mentioned remote control airplanes in one of the replies. Guess what, its alread here. The french have had a aircraft that flies by wire, that is a computer does all the flying. The pilot has a joy stick, just like the one that comes in a nintendo game. When he moves the stick, a computer reads what the stick is doing, and moves the contorl surfaces. If the pilot so choses, he has to do nothing more than taxi the plane out to the run way, point it in the right direction, enter in his position, and push a button. The plane, called the AIrBus, has a state of the art GPS system, and more computing power than the space shuttle. It can find where the plane is, within 3 feet, and read the wind speed, tail wind, outside temp, everything a pilot needs to know how to take off. The pilot has to do nothing more than press a button, and the computer will throttle up, release the brakes, and when the plane reaches V1, it will pull the nose up, and when V2 is reached, the plane becomes airborne. The computer can fly the plane anywhere you want., just enter in where you are starting from, and where you want to end up, the computer will do all the rest. Not only can it take off, it can land the airplane and taxi it up to the jet way. Air traffic control can tell the computer to keep the plane in a holding pattern till a runway clears, then land it. No on board people involved, except to serve the in flight meal.
And you know what, no one would fly in it, unless it had a complete crew, pilot, co-pilot and navigater. Why, after all, it was promoted and sold as the newest, state of the art airplane, and the computer had tripple redundency, sold as failsafe. It did fantastic in all of its trials, was a winner in sales at the air show in france, one of the biggest air shows in the world. And every airline who bought one has yet to allow it to do what it was designed to do, because no one will fly in it. And the airlines wont fly it un-manned, because they feel its un-safe, and want a crew on board just in case. The FAA will not allow it to fly in US airspace un manned. So you have all this technology, and no one will use it. Because no matter what, you cant teach a computer to think, or trust its instincts, to make decisions based not on cold hard data, but based on the way a plane feels when something is wrong. Remember the plane that lost its rear enging, and the exploding engine destroyed the rear control surfaces, and there was no way to steer it. The pilot figured out he could fly it up, down and steer it somewhat, by using the throttles on the engines to steer. He flew it over two hours with no rudder. And he made it to a airport in kansas, I believe. They got it down, but ran off the runway, and crashed. But heres the important part. Over half of the passengers lived. They made it to the airport. No computer could have guessed that alternating the thrust of one engine or the other would allow the plane to be steered. No remote opperater could have felt what the plane was doing, or how it handled, weather it was falling or lifting. And a locomotive engineer runs his train in the same manner, by the seat of his pants. He can hear things no remote opperater can ever know about, can smell sticking brakes, can feel the grade increase, or decrease, he knows when the slack will run it, and how to manage that so it dosnt tear anything up. He is my eyes and ears up there, and when I am riding on a cut of 100 cars, I want him in the cab, looking for the nuts who run crossings, eyes peeled for the broken rail I cant see on a video screen, or the switch a road crew left bad. No remote can ever replace him, his knowledge and skill are learned in a hands on experience no remote operater can ever gain.
Stay Frosty,
Ed

[edblysard]

Wow, go away for a day of swimming and real mexican food in the shade of the Alamo, and you guys get all carried away with a new topic.
Ok, Jenny, heres the best evidence I can offer. Someone mentioned remote control airplanes in one of the replies. Guess what, its alread here. The french have had a aircraft that flies by wire, that is a computer does all the flying. The pilot has a joy stick, just like the one that comes in a nintendo game. When he moves the stick, a computer reads what the stick is doing, and moves the contorl surfaces. If the pilot so choses, he has to do nothing more than taxi the plane out to the run way, point it in the right direction, enter in his position, and push a button. The plane, called the AIrBus, has a state of the art GPS system, and more computing power than the space shuttle. It can find where the plane is, within 3 feet, and read the wind speed, tail wind, outside temp, everything a pilot needs to know how to take off. The pilot has to do nothing more than press a button, and the computer will throttle up, release the brakes, and when the plane reaches V1, it will pull the nose up, and when V2 is reached, the plane becomes airborne. The computer can fly the plane anywhere you want., just enter in where you are starting from, and where you want to end up, the computer will do all the rest. Not only can it take off, it can land the airplane and taxi it up to the jet way. Air traffic control can tell the computer to keep the plane in a holding pattern till a runway clears, then land it. No on board people involved, except to serve the in flight meal.
And you know what, no one would fly in it, unless it had a complete crew, pilot, co-pilot and navigater. Why, after all, it was promoted and sold as the newest, state of the art airplane, and the computer had tripple redundency, sold as failsafe. It did fantastic in all of its trials, was a winner in sales at the air show in france, one of the biggest air shows in the world. And every airline who bought one has yet to allow it to do what it was designed to do, because no one will fly in it. And the airlines wont fly it un-manned, because they feel its un-safe, and want a crew on board just in case. The FAA will not allow it to fly in US airspace un manned. So you have all this technology, and no one will use it. Because no matter what, you cant teach a computer to think, or trust its instincts, to make decisions based not on cold hard data, but based on the way a plane feels when something is wrong. Remember the plane that lost its rear enging, and the exploding engine destroyed the rear control surfaces, and there was no way to steer it. The pilot figured out he could fly it up, down and steer it somewhat, by using the throttles on the engines to steer. He flew it over two hours with no rudder. And he made it to a airport in kansas, I believe. They got it down, but ran off the runway, and crashed. But heres the important part. Over half of the passengers lived. They made it to the airport. No computer could have guessed that alternating the thrust of one engine or the other would allow the plane to be steered. No remote opperater could have felt what the plane was doing, or how it handled, weather it was falling or lifting. And a locomotive engineer runs his train in the same manner, by the seat of his pants. He can hear things no remote opperater can ever know about, can smell sticking brakes, can feel the grade increase, or decrease, he knows when the slack will run it, and how to manage that so it dosnt tear anything up. He is my eyes and ears up there, and when I am riding on a cut of 100 cars, I want him in the cab, looking for the nuts who run crossings, eyes peeled for the broken rail I cant see on a video screen, or the switch a road crew left bad. No remote can ever replace him, his knowledge and skill are learned in a hands on experience no remote operater can ever gain.
Stay Frosty,
Ed

[JoeKoh]

glad your back ed. Like I said there are to many if's out there.
stay safe
joe

[JoeKoh]

glad your back ed. Like I said there are to many if's out there.
stay safe
joe

[sooblue]

Hi Jen,
You did say it was going to be contriversial.*lol*

Anything is possible.
Ed pointed out that the French have the airbus. Well we have the 747 that will take off and fly to its destination and than land all hands off. Our FA-18 Hornet can do the same and land on a carrier to boot! so can the eagle and the tomcat.
Within two years the airforce is going to start using an autonomous fighter designed to fly on its own. Attack on its own and return to base on its own. They may team them up with one human controlled fighter. This plane exists right now, and has been tested.
As far as aircraft have been concerned the FAA will not allow unmanned passenger flight even though we have the capability. Thank goodness!
Trains are a different story. Light rail passenger trains can be unmanned right now and are in some places. The light rail that serves the Orlando airport is unmanned.
The light rail that serves the MPLS and Saint Paul airport is unmanned.
I know there are others that are either unmanned now or the "driver" monitors only.

The one thing that is common in each case above is that the trains are isolated.
No grade crossings, or diamonds, no interference. All closed circuit.

When someone builds a dedicated rail line from say Chicago to Mpls without crossings etc. Than we will see robotic trains on the "main line" carrying passengers.
Freight is another story. Today, a train could be set up to run on its own. Say a unit coal train from the Powder River to Kansas City.
I don't see anything wrong with that PROVIDED that a crew doesn't loose their jobs.
When the demand is greater than the workforce is a robot train could help.

As far as sunkinks etc. go. Correct me if I'm wrong Ed, The engineer of a train at speed on a mainline isn't going to stop his or her train in time to go slow over a sunkink or a broken rail unless there is some warning well in advance.
If there is going to be a derailment or a crossing accident who would want to be the engineer on that train????
Kevin? You’re young and foolish. You want that excitement?
Jen you sure posted a good one and Hey! where's missouri?? Ha
Sooblue

[sooblue]

Hi Jen,
You did say it was going to be contriversial.*lol*

Anything is possible.
Ed pointed out that the French have the airbus. Well we have the 747 that will take off and fly to its destination and than land all hands off. Our FA-18 Hornet can do the same and land on a carrier to boot! so can the eagle and the tomcat.
Within two years the airforce is going to start using an autonomous fighter designed to fly on its own. Attack on its own and return to base on its own. They may team them up with one human controlled fighter. This plane exists right now, and has been tested.
As far as aircraft have been concerned the FAA will not allow unmanned passenger flight even though we have the capability. Thank goodness!
Trains are a different story. Light rail passenger trains can be unmanned right now and are in some places. The light rail that serves the Orlando airport is unmanned.
The light rail that serves the MPLS and Saint Paul airport is unmanned.
I know there are others that are either unmanned now or the "driver" monitors only.

The one thing that is common in each case above is that the trains are isolated.
No grade crossings, or diamonds, no interference. All closed circuit.

When someone builds a dedicated rail line from say Chicago to Mpls without crossings etc. Than we will see robotic trains on the "main line" carrying passengers.
Freight is another story. Today, a train could be set up to run on its own. Say a unit coal train from the Powder River to Kansas City.
I don't see anything wrong with that PROVIDED that a crew doesn't loose their jobs.
When the demand is greater than the workforce is a robot train could help.

As far as sunkinks etc. go. Correct me if I'm wrong Ed, The engineer of a train at speed on a mainline isn't going to stop his or her train in time to go slow over a sunkink or a broken rail unless there is some warning well in advance.
If there is going to be a derailment or a crossing accident who would want to be the engineer on that train????
Kevin? You’re young and foolish. You want that excitement?
Jen you sure posted a good one and Hey! where's missouri?? Ha
Sooblue

[Mookie]

Now you are getting the idea of what I was looking for!

Actually the thought of unmanned anything - including the sandbox in the ladies restroom that "watches" me so I don't have to touch anything - is really unnerving.

Several thoughts go thru my mind - they have the technology now - so it isn't too far fetched. Trains right now are not able to stop at a crossing (when they are going at anything above a crawl) So the accident rate at xings would be about the same. Humans can't do much about that. And wouldn't the engines be equipped with sensors galore - to check way up the tracks for problems or check sensors built into the rails for all the variables.

I saw the program about the car that can drive itself. Fascinating!

The parallel I draw from this is like a kid getting candy for the first time. He doesn't trust it to be good, so just tests it. It is good, so he goes for all he can get. With the technology there, how soon before we go for the entire cookie? Don't we just HAVE to keep pushing the envelope?

Ed - it was Sioux City and I only bring that up cuz you didn't bring us all some enchiladas.

Sooblue - you like this, just wait until I figure out what they are talking about in the turnout speed and electrical output!

[Mookie]

Now you are getting the idea of what I was looking for!

Actually the thought of unmanned anything - including the sandbox in the ladies restroom that "watches" me so I don't have to touch anything - is really unnerving.

Several thoughts go thru my mind - they have the technology now - so it isn't too far fetched. Trains right now are not able to stop at a crossing (when they are going at anything above a crawl) So the accident rate at xings would be about the same. Humans can't do much about that. And wouldn't the engines be equipped with sensors galore - to check way up the tracks for problems or check sensors built into the rails for all the variables.

I saw the program about the car that can drive itself. Fascinating!

The parallel I draw from this is like a kid getting candy for the first time. He doesn't trust it to be good, so just tests it. It is good, so he goes for all he can get. With the technology there, how soon before we go for the entire cookie? Don't we just HAVE to keep pushing the envelope?

Ed - it was Sioux City and I only bring that up cuz you didn't bring us all some enchiladas.

Sooblue - you like this, just wait until I figure out what they are talking about in the turnout speed and electrical output!

[edblysard]

Thanks, Jenny, I just couldnt remember.

Sure, if you wanted to, you could automate a train. But as to the sun kink problems, the remote operater wouldnt even see it. On the other hand, a engineer in the cab can, and usualy does see the kinks and broken rail, and can react to it. No, most likley, he or she cant get the train stopped, but they can slow it down, quite a lot.

Didnt we go through this will a guy named Noel a while back?
The concept of remotly running a train has several drawbacks, the first one that comes to mind is sheer boredom, only because I havent had but one cup of coffee this morning, and staring at my computer, trying to read my e-mail was tough, I had to keep re reading some of it. So imagine the poor slob who has to sit there, hours on end, staring at a video monitor showing nothing but the same view from the cab of mile after mile of track work. Talk about white line fever!

If your speaking about a self contained un manned locomotive hauling a train across country, well sure we can do that. But you would have to automate the entire thing, from switching to coupling up to hauling the train.
You cant write a computer program that will incluce the variable actions of a human as part of the equation, either the machines handle it all, or do only a single repetive task all the time.

You would have to close every public crossing, very expensive. You would have to replace the current fleet of locomotives, also very expensive. You would have to built computers that can withstand the pounding locomotives and rolling stock take, install lots of electronics, sensors, data readers, GPS systems, and rebuild your track work to include all of this. It would have to be a entirely new system from scratch, you cant really retrofit this stuff to exsisting products.

Would the capital cost be recovered in the payroll savings, and would the operation be more efficent, or efficent enought to pay for itself quickly?
I doubt it, this would make the entire US space program look like it was paid for with pocket change.

Lastly, you would have to overcome the public outcry over un manned locomotives screaming through their towns, or move the roadbed so far away from people that you defeat the porpose of moving freight in the first place.

What public outcry? Thats the point. Outside of the rail industry, this forum and others like it, and a few railfan magazines, John and Jane Doe have no idea this is even happening, they have no clue that remote switchers are using their crossings already. And the industry wants to keep it that way, until its a accomplished fact, and no one could do anything about it.

Other that back page articles in the local paper of affected towns and cities, and a few industry friendly articles in the fan and trade mags, no one in the general public knows much about this subject.

You will not see Peter Jennings doing one of ABCs closer look segments on remote control locomotives anytime soon, because the rail industry, along with the suppliers, are not releasing information, on purpose.

Had the BLE and UTU stayed out of a pissing contest with each other, and focused their effort on stoping remotes, they would have succeded. Imagine the public reaction if, right in the middle of the national evening news, they had bought and run a 30 commerical, showing a unmanned or remote controlled locomotive running into the side of a loaded school bus at a crossing?
The next day, you would have seen protesters galore all over the place, the MAD folks would have jumped on this issue like white on rice, and all of the really fun people, like missouri/R Pines, would spend the rest of their lives fighting it, making life very uncomfortable for the guys profiting from remotes.

But what happened is no one noticed, they just showed up, are here, and lucky for the railroads, the press did little real reporting about them. The accidents that have happened, the deaths that have occured already, can be kept out of the publics hearing and sight. No one in the general public, outside of railfans, even pay attention to trains anymore, and the carriers like that just fine, and are using that fact to put these remotes in place as quickly and quitely as they can. The few cities who did notice and wrote city ordinances against remotes are rare, and the carriers get around the ordinances with the fact that the FRA, a federal agency, has jurisdicition over them, local laws can stop them.

So Jenny, you just might get to see a OTR engineerless, crewless train sooner than you think, the technology already exsists to accomplish it, safely or not.
The carriers will try, and if they succeed with a trial run, they will use the time tested reasoning of, " See, we can already do this, and no one got hurt"
This time.
Stay Frosty,
Ed

[edblysard]

Thanks, Jenny, I just couldnt remember.

Sure, if you wanted to, you could automate a train. But as to the sun kink problems, the remote operater wouldnt even see it. On the other hand, a engineer in the cab can, and usualy does see the kinks and broken rail, and can react to it. No, most likley, he or she cant get the train stopped, but they can slow it down, quite a lot.

Didnt we go through this will a guy named Noel a while back?
The concept of remotly running a train has several drawbacks, the first one that comes to mind is sheer boredom, only because I havent had but one cup of coffee this morning, and staring at my computer, trying to read my e-mail was tough, I had to keep re reading some of it. So imagine the poor slob who has to sit there, hours on end, staring at a video monitor showing nothing but the same view from the cab of mile after mile of track work. Talk about white line fever!

If your speaking about a self contained un manned locomotive hauling a train across country, well sure we can do that. But you would have to automate the entire thing, from switching to coupling up to hauling the train.
You cant write a computer program that will incluce the variable actions of a human as part of the equation, either the machines handle it all, or do only a single repetive task all the time.

You would have to close every public crossing, very expensive. You would have to replace the current fleet of locomotives, also very expensive. You would have to built computers that can withstand the pounding locomotives and rolling stock take, install lots of electronics, sensors, data readers, GPS systems, and rebuild your track work to include all of this. It would have to be a entirely new system from scratch, you cant really retrofit this stuff to exsisting products.

Would the capital cost be recovered in the payroll savings, and would the operation be more efficent, or efficent enought to pay for itself quickly?
I doubt it, this would make the entire US space program look like it was paid for with pocket change.

Lastly, you would have to overcome the public outcry over un manned locomotives screaming through their towns, or move the roadbed so far away from people that you defeat the porpose of moving freight in the first place.

What public outcry? Thats the point. Outside of the rail industry, this forum and others like it, and a few railfan magazines, John and Jane Doe have no idea this is even happening, they have no clue that remote switchers are using their crossings already. And the industry wants to keep it that way, until its a accomplished fact, and no one could do anything about it.

Other that back page articles in the local paper of affected towns and cities, and a few industry friendly articles in the fan and trade mags, no one in the general public knows much about this subject.

You will not see Peter Jennings doing one of ABCs closer look segments on remote control locomotives anytime soon, because the rail industry, along with the suppliers, are not releasing information, on purpose.

Had the BLE and UTU stayed out of a pissing contest with each other, and focused their effort on stoping remotes, they would have succeded. Imagine the public reaction if, right in the middle of the national evening news, they had bought and run a 30 commerical, showing a unmanned or remote controlled locomotive running into the side of a loaded school bus at a crossing?
The next day, you would have seen protesters galore all over the place, the MAD folks would have jumped on this issue like white on rice, and all of the really fun people, like missouri/R Pines, would spend the rest of their lives fighting it, making life very uncomfortable for the guys profiting from remotes.

But what happened is no one noticed, they just showed up, are here, and lucky for the railroads, the press did little real reporting about them. The accidents that have happened, the deaths that have occured already, can be kept out of the publics hearing and sight. No one in the general public, outside of railfans, even pay attention to trains anymore, and the carriers like that just fine, and are using that fact to put these remotes in place as quickly and quitely as they can. The few cities who did notice and wrote city ordinances against remotes are rare, and the carriers get around the ordinances with the fact that the FRA, a federal agency, has jurisdicition over them, local laws can stop them.

So Jenny, you just might get to see a OTR engineerless, crewless train sooner than you think, the technology already exsists to accomplish it, safely or not.
The carriers will try, and if they succeed with a trial run, they will use the time tested reasoning of, " See, we can already do this, and no one got hurt"
This time.
Stay Frosty,
Ed

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by sooblue
Hey! where's missouri?? Ha

He's been trying to visit (22 times now).
Thinking about redirecting him to the Operation Lifesaver website from now on. [;)]

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by sooblue
Hey! where's missouri?? Ha

He's been trying to visit (22 times now).
Thinking about redirecting him to the Operation Lifesaver website from now on. [;)]

[Mookie]

I think you got my drift very eloquently, Ed.

I am not in favor of fully automatic, but the RR's didn't ask me. I am just now adjusting to talking to someone from the other side of the world, w/o having to put a stamp on it and go to the mailbox.

Noel did cover this awhile back, but sometimes I have to be told several times before I get it - and I have had my coffee!

I just think that with my disillusionment of what our gov't alone does behind our backs, think what something as large as a railroad can do and will do. Just like you said.

I still am toying with the idea that if they can take the human influence out of railroading pretty much altogether, they would not be terribly unhappy. Might take awhile, but anything you can automate, they will.

Just about everyone on the forum is taking the stance that crossings would have to be closed - I am not convinced that this would be the case. Still working on that one. Can't quite tie the fact that a human on an engine and a robot engine would really be all that different when it came to crossings.

And the rails would be the same, except for sensors at intervals to feed information as needed - GPS and other new discoveries would take care of most of it. I am thinking that just like you said, anything that is introduced quietly and gradually becomes accepted by the public more readily - they aren't paying attention until it is a part of their everyday life.

They went from steam to diesel; decided they wanted the transition so it happened. They do it gradually enough, the transition from human to remote - engines, rails, new types of computers - baby steps if you will - and bingo - it is done!

And isn't so much property damage, death and injury just a price of doing business - look at the automobile. And they have a human in control!

Going to go and ponder this tonite. Would welcome any more dissenting viewpoints.

Mookie

[Mookie]

I think you got my drift very eloquently, Ed.

I am not in favor of fully automatic, but the RR's didn't ask me. I am just now adjusting to talking to someone from the other side of the world, w/o having to put a stamp on it and go to the mailbox.

Noel did cover this awhile back, but sometimes I have to be told several times before I get it - and I have had my coffee!

I just think that with my disillusionment of what our gov't alone does behind our backs, think what something as large as a railroad can do and will do. Just like you said.

I still am toying with the idea that if they can take the human influence out of railroading pretty much altogether, they would not be terribly unhappy. Might take awhile, but anything you can automate, they will.

Just about everyone on the forum is taking the stance that crossings would have to be closed - I am not convinced that this would be the case. Still working on that one. Can't quite tie the fact that a human on an engine and a robot engine would really be all that different when it came to crossings.

And the rails would be the same, except for sensors at intervals to feed information as needed - GPS and other new discoveries would take care of most of it. I am thinking that just like you said, anything that is introduced quietly and gradually becomes accepted by the public more readily - they aren't paying attention until it is a part of their everyday life.

They went from steam to diesel; decided they wanted the transition so it happened. They do it gradually enough, the transition from human to remote - engines, rails, new types of computers - baby steps if you will - and bingo - it is done!

And isn't so much property damage, death and injury just a price of doing business - look at the automobile. And they have a human in control!

Going to go and ponder this tonite. Would welcome any more dissenting viewpoints.

Mookie

[zardoz]

Only 22 times?? He must be nearly apoplectic by now!

I wonder where he will direct his anger.

I'm sure glad I don't work on a train in whatever city he is from.

[zardoz]

Only 22 times?? He must be nearly apoplectic by now!

I wonder where he will direct his anger.

I'm sure glad I don't work on a train in whatever city he is from.

[Mookie]

QUOTE: Originally posted by David Voss

QUOTE: Originally posted by sooblue
Hey! where's missouri?? Ha

He's been trying to visit (22 times now).
Thinking about redirecting him to the Operation Lifesaver website from now on. [;)]

[:D] Why? Do you hate them?

Mook

[Mookie]

QUOTE: Originally posted by David Voss

QUOTE: Originally posted by sooblue
Hey! where's missouri?? Ha

He's been trying to visit (22 times now).
Thinking about redirecting him to the Operation Lifesaver website from now on. [;)]

[:D] Why? Do you hate them?

Mook

[zardoz]

David-
Maybe you could redirect him to a porn site. Since most people probably tell him to go f*** himself, the porn site might show him how to do it.

[zardoz]

David-
Maybe you could redirect him to a porn site. Since most people probably tell him to go f*** himself, the porn site might show him how to do it.

[Mookie]

as soon as I can get the smile off my face, I will gasp!

Mook

[Mookie]

as soon as I can get the smile off my face, I will gasp!

Mook

[Anonymous]

Mookie-

While you maybe correct from an engineering standpoint that a robot train (computer controlled) or a remote controlled (by a human) train could handle crossings (i.e. blow horn, ring bell and use ditchlights, I doubt you will get beyond the public's desire for human involvement in their safety. Machines are notoriously poor in making quick decisions, at least as they exist today. Humans distant from the situation with much less information than an Engineer in the cab (even with TV cameras, GPS, and other sensors on the locomotive). The costs of getting the ROW to a standard permitting such operation will be very high indeed and with railroads already having great difficulty in attracting adequate capital investment, where will funding come from? Cost reductions from crew elimination will be offset to some degree by the costs of the new technology and of upgrading communications systems. This will still leave a substantial cost to be borne by the taxpayer or the railroads customers who are unlikely to be willing to pay the railroads more for their internal efficiencies.

For example, the ACELA does operate at very high speeds (100-125 mph) and although there is at least one public crossing on the NEC the number of public grade crossings was greatly reduced by grade separations and road closures prior to the ACELA related rebuild of the NEC. This work is very expensive. Each state has programs for crossing closure. Even with these programs in place and efforts aimed at removing crossings, public and private it is extremely difficult. Just a couple days ago CSX announced it was backing away from a very public effort to close private crossings along its lines in VA as a result of heavy political opposition.

I would expect that the public will demand similar safeguards as a minimum for any significant use of longer distance remote or robot type operations. Further, just imagine the resistance of all the unions involved and their allies in Congress. With the BLE looking like it will merge with the Teamsters I would expect very strong opposition.
The unions were successful in prolonging the removal of firemen and the caboose for decades, even after the technology was widely available for diesel electric locomotivesd and EOTDs...

As an employee I feel secure in the knowledge that this stuff is unlikely to take hold on my watch. But, then I have less than 16 years to go...

LC

[Anonymous]

Mookie-

While you maybe correct from an engineering standpoint that a robot train (computer controlled) or a remote controlled (by a human) train could handle crossings (i.e. blow horn, ring bell and use ditchlights, I doubt you will get beyond the public's desire for human involvement in their safety. Machines are notoriously poor in making quick decisions, at least as they exist today. Humans distant from the situation with much less information than an Engineer in the cab (even with TV cameras, GPS, and other sensors on the locomotive). The costs of getting the ROW to a standard permitting such operation will be very high indeed and with railroads already having great difficulty in attracting adequate capital investment, where will funding come from? Cost reductions from crew elimination will be offset to some degree by the costs of the new technology and of upgrading communications systems. This will still leave a substantial cost to be borne by the taxpayer or the railroads customers who are unlikely to be willing to pay the railroads more for their internal efficiencies.

For example, the ACELA does operate at very high speeds (100-125 mph) and although there is at least one public crossing on the NEC the number of public grade crossings was greatly reduced by grade separations and road closures prior to the ACELA related rebuild of the NEC. This work is very expensive. Each state has programs for crossing closure. Even with these programs in place and efforts aimed at removing crossings, public and private it is extremely difficult. Just a couple days ago CSX announced it was backing away from a very public effort to close private crossings along its lines in VA as a result of heavy political opposition.

I would expect that the public will demand similar safeguards as a minimum for any significant use of longer distance remote or robot type operations. Further, just imagine the resistance of all the unions involved and their allies in Congress. With the BLE looking like it will merge with the Teamsters I would expect very strong opposition.
The unions were successful in prolonging the removal of firemen and the caboose for decades, even after the technology was widely available for diesel electric locomotivesd and EOTDs...

As an employee I feel secure in the knowledge that this stuff is unlikely to take hold on my watch. But, then I have less than 16 years to go...

LC

[Mookie]

That's why I think the railroads will do it by the subtle approach. The $ would come in advance, just like they do our taxes - subtle increases and subtle adjustments until one day - bang - you have an automated railroad. I think the advances made in this GPS area will be so fast, the prices will go down and far less will be needed to keep track of a train than is even envisioned right now.

I bought Levi's as a kid, we bought a new car - once. Look at the price of both. Tennis shoes...this is how I figure you raise your $ for improvements - the shippers may not like the slowly rising prices, but what is their alternative - 125 car coal trains and equally long grain trains. Want to ship that by - truck? boat? You want it there, you will pay this modest increase. And next year a little more - and the following year. My cable company has it down pat!

Keep subtly putting this in front of the public's face and get them used to the idea of one very large engine and no humans. The unions have fought all my life with the railroads, but look who is winning - we do have no more firemen and no more of those cute litte cars at the rear end (I can't bring myself to use cabeese!) We are down-grading the size of the crews more all the time.

I am still hung up on the grade crossings - why would you close them for remotes and not for regular human operated trains? What is the difference? Maybe I am missing something here or my coffee is wearing off, but I still don't have the answer to that!

I don't agree with the railroads, just can't really think of a good argument that would stop them.

Jen

[Mookie]

That's why I think the railroads will do it by the subtle approach. The $ would come in advance, just like they do our taxes - subtle increases and subtle adjustments until one day - bang - you have an automated railroad. I think the advances made in this GPS area will be so fast, the prices will go down and far less will be needed to keep track of a train than is even envisioned right now.

I bought Levi's as a kid, we bought a new car - once. Look at the price of both. Tennis shoes...this is how I figure you raise your $ for improvements - the shippers may not like the slowly rising prices, but what is their alternative - 125 car coal trains and equally long grain trains. Want to ship that by - truck? boat? You want it there, you will pay this modest increase. And next year a little more - and the following year. My cable company has it down pat!

Keep subtly putting this in front of the public's face and get them used to the idea of one very large engine and no humans. The unions have fought all my life with the railroads, but look who is winning - we do have no more firemen and no more of those cute litte cars at the rear end (I can't bring myself to use cabeese!) We are down-grading the size of the crews more all the time.

I am still hung up on the grade crossings - why would you close them for remotes and not for regular human operated trains? What is the difference? Maybe I am missing something here or my coffee is wearing off, but I still don't have the answer to that!

I don't agree with the railroads, just can't really think of a good argument that would stop them.

Jen

[dekemd]

The technology exists to run unmanned freights, but I think the cost would be too high to implement. You would have to have multiple redundant systems. Multiple receivers, transmitters, etc. These things are not cheap. The military has remote planes, remote 4 wheel reconnaisance vehicle, and other completely remote vehicles. The difference is the military has a budget that all the Class 1 railroads combine couldn't begin to match.

The other problem is what happens when the train breaks? Say the train is out in the middle of nowhere and breaks a coupler. Normally the conductor walks the train, finds the break, fixes it, and the train continues on. How long does it normally take to fix a coupler? 20-40 minutes, including finding the break? Now imagine a crewless train. Coupler breaks, train stops. Now a maintenance person has to be dispatched to the train. It might take 15 to 20 minutes just to get him notified and on his way. He then has to drive to the closest access to the trains location. This might take up to an hour or so. Then walk to the train, walk the train, find the problem, and fix it. What would normally take 20-30 minutes, has now blocked the main line up to a couple of hours depending on the location. Instead of a 30 minute delay, you have a 2 hour delay. That costs money.

Money is what the corporation looks at. In a Trains magazine a while back, there was a news short that CP was doing away with some of their RCO operations. It said that the RCOs just weren't saving as much money as they thought, and in many ways was less productive.

Derrick

[dekemd]

The technology exists to run unmanned freights, but I think the cost would be too high to implement. You would have to have multiple redundant systems. Multiple receivers, transmitters, etc. These things are not cheap. The military has remote planes, remote 4 wheel reconnaisance vehicle, and other completely remote vehicles. The difference is the military has a budget that all the Class 1 railroads combine couldn't begin to match.

The other problem is what happens when the train breaks? Say the train is out in the middle of nowhere and breaks a coupler. Normally the conductor walks the train, finds the break, fixes it, and the train continues on. How long does it normally take to fix a coupler? 20-40 minutes, including finding the break? Now imagine a crewless train. Coupler breaks, train stops. Now a maintenance person has to be dispatched to the train. It might take 15 to 20 minutes just to get him notified and on his way. He then has to drive to the closest access to the trains location. This might take up to an hour or so. Then walk to the train, walk the train, find the problem, and fix it. What would normally take 20-30 minutes, has now blocked the main line up to a couple of hours depending on the location. Instead of a 30 minute delay, you have a 2 hour delay. That costs money.

Money is what the corporation looks at. In a Trains magazine a while back, there was a news short that CP was doing away with some of their RCO operations. It said that the RCOs just weren't saving as much money as they thought, and in many ways was less productive.

Derrick

[Mookie]

Derrick - You are talking about a remote here and today.

This won't be for some time into the future. By that time, there will be a way to have a repair person there a lot faster. And even if it did take a little longer - the money spent there would have been saved (according to them) elsewhere.

And if the military can do it, then it can come down the pike to the rest of us. Just like computers started out - only for the govt, big business, military. Now we all have at least one.

I guess my questioning is a little more along the tech lines - ie - an engineer can see something coming down the line - radar - "sees" things on down the line. An engineer can "feel" things. Sensors can "feel" things. Computers are based on the human body. Granted, they will never be "human", but ....they can do everything I can do and a lot faster. GPS, sensors, "radar", all of that working together could get a train down the track, make it do whatever is needed and all w/o a human on board. Am I being overly simplistic? Maybe.

I don't want them to take the human out of the engine. But big business has and is becoming less human all the time. I don't think we have a choice.

Jen

[Mookie]

Derrick - You are talking about a remote here and today.

This won't be for some time into the future. By that time, there will be a way to have a repair person there a lot faster. And even if it did take a little longer - the money spent there would have been saved (according to them) elsewhere.

And if the military can do it, then it can come down the pike to the rest of us. Just like computers started out - only for the govt, big business, military. Now we all have at least one.

I guess my questioning is a little more along the tech lines - ie - an engineer can see something coming down the line - radar - "sees" things on down the line. An engineer can "feel" things. Sensors can "feel" things. Computers are based on the human body. Granted, they will never be "human", but ....they can do everything I can do and a lot faster. GPS, sensors, "radar", all of that working together could get a train down the track, make it do whatever is needed and all w/o a human on board. Am I being overly simplistic? Maybe.

I don't want them to take the human out of the engine. But big business has and is becoming less human all the time. I don't think we have a choice.

Jen