Your chance to be a lawyer.....

[Anonymous]

Mookie-

I think that one can imagine a lot of different scenarios where almost anything could happen. Obviously, we can imagine a repair person "beaming in" to make repairs. Unfortunately, I think this discussion is now entering into the world of wild speculation, if not fantasy.

I'll just have to have a seat and wait to see what comes down the trracks...

LC

[Anonymous]

Mookie-

I think that one can imagine a lot of different scenarios where almost anything could happen. Obviously, we can imagine a repair person "beaming in" to make repairs. Unfortunately, I think this discussion is now entering into the world of wild speculation, if not fantasy.

I'll just have to have a seat and wait to see what comes down the trracks...

LC

[edblysard]

No jenny,
A computer can't do every thing you can, no matter how many sensors you hook up to it, the computer still functions on the same basic principal as the old Univac and Enieac and uses nothing but a plus and a null math. Granted, it can perform this mathmatical function millions of time faster than you, but its still only math.

No machine can think, or develope instincts, feel and respond to hunches.
How many time have you been driving the freeway, and, without really thinking about it, put your foot on the brake, getting ready because something told you the guy in the next lane was going to change lanes into yours and cut you off? Nothing they did told you that, you just glanced at them as they went by, but your instincts picked up on the look on their face, their body language, something not quite tangabile, but there none the less. And here he comes, no turn signal, no warning. But you already slowed down, the instant you saw his car start to move, all your instincts and years of driving took over from you conscious mind, and you do this every day and dont even realize it.. You can not teach that to any machine.

As for closing crossings, you really would have no choice. The entire concept of roboticising or automating a train is to keep it moving, at a constant speed, all the time. You cant do that if you have to slow down at a crossing, or if there is a accident, and you have to stop the train. In the long run, it would be cheaper and more cost effective to do away with them.

If I said moving automobile assembly line, the mental image you most likley would have in you head would be the old black and white film of the Ford Rouge River plant, fom the 20's, showing 5 or 6 guys bolting fenders and radiators onto model A frames.
Never again will you see that many people putting a car together. With the exception of some light trim work and interior work, the entire car is built by robots. Your "Millie" had only the seats, steering wheel and wireing harness installed by humans, the body, frame, paint, engine and transmission were built, and installed on the car, by machines. The last article I read claimed that, depending on the manufacturer, over 80% of your car is buit without human help. Robots are very, very efficent at this. But, if the robot that screws the front fender on goes to install a bolt, and the bolt hole wasnt drilled all the way through by the last machine, then the fender machine either skips that bolt, or stops. It dosnt know the hole isnt finished, so it stops the process, and waits for a human to come and either fix the hole, or instruct it to skip it and go one. Meanwhile, the entire line just sits, waiting.

Efficent, sure, because these plants produce something like ten complete cars per line every hour, and they have a dozen line running 24/7
But your talking about something static, contained in one place, overseen by humans. Out on the road, when the "fender" machine encounters a missing bolt hole, or rail, or hot box, what can it do to fix the problem? It will still have to call a human to fix it. So your right back to either having a crew on board, or station several utility men all along your tracks.

And lastly, the technology around now is really as efficent as you can get, even if its old school. Take your coupler drawbar and knuckle assembly. Very few moving parts, simple design, heavy duty. What other piece of equipment do you know of or can think of that can withstand the forces of a 100000 lbs tankcar slaming into a 75000 lbs hopper at 4 mph, and survive years and years of this abuse, and still work every time you lift the cut lever? Some engineer will do the math and tell you the force exerted on the face of the coupler, but I dont need the math to show me its one tough piece of equipment. And its simple to work, no buttons, no power to fail, no connections to lube or worry about. You lift the pin, and it works.

So why change something so simple, so tough? You would have to, if you automated the entire system, because it has been designed to the lowest common denomonater, the human factor. And because it is primitive and simple, it works well, with very few mechanical problems. Any automation of something as simple as coupling car together would require a entire new coupler, with electric connections, and a whole bunch of moving parts and sensitive eletronic components, most of which I would bet money on not surviving a year in regular service.

Whats is missing from all of the conversations involving remotes and robotic trains is this. It is already as efficent as it can get.
Its simple, durable, quick and realitive inexpensisve, regardless of what the railroad claim, for me and two other guys to take a 150 car train apart, and build up two or three smaller trains from that, all ready to leave the yard in under four hours.
Its not that the current crop of railroaders do not do their job well, or efficently, it is happening because ther carriers see a savings on labor, directly tied to the bottom line. The 54% of labor cost that are what the carriers want to do away with, insurance and other perks, as they refer to them, are what they are trying to cut out.
If the unions would waive the insurance coverage, and the other perks, railroads would hire people by the thousands. Look at any non union railroad, where the workers make a basic hourly wage, no insurance. They are overstaffed by todays standards. They are also the most un safe place to work, unions provide the balance needed to do this work safely.

The military is using remotes and robots because it is more efficent to blow up people and places with these tools, instead of sending a thousand foot troops in to do the same job by hand. Its cheaper to transport one smart bomb to the target, that moving a thousand people, and all their gear, to a place close enough for them to have to fight their way to the target.
It has nothing to do with saving lives, the troops are cannon fodder, its just more efficent. You can kill more of the "bad" guys with a lased bomb that a conventional air strike, and it cost less.
With railroads, it isnt about saving lives, or being more efficent, its about saving money. Period.
And in the long run, they will find that what they percived as savings actually were'nt there in the first place. But by then, they will have invested so heavly in this that their pirde will not let them publicly admit to that. It is a totally hide bound and traditionally hard headed culture we work in. So we will be stuck with it anyway, weather it works or not.
Stay Frosty,
Ed

QUOTE: Originally posted by 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

[edblysard]

No jenny,
A computer can't do every thing you can, no matter how many sensors you hook up to it, the computer still functions on the same basic principal as the old Univac and Enieac and uses nothing but a plus and a null math. Granted, it can perform this mathmatical function millions of time faster than you, but its still only math.

No machine can think, or develope instincts, feel and respond to hunches.
How many time have you been driving the freeway, and, without really thinking about it, put your foot on the brake, getting ready because something told you the guy in the next lane was going to change lanes into yours and cut you off? Nothing they did told you that, you just glanced at them as they went by, but your instincts picked up on the look on their face, their body language, something not quite tangabile, but there none the less. And here he comes, no turn signal, no warning. But you already slowed down, the instant you saw his car start to move, all your instincts and years of driving took over from you conscious mind, and you do this every day and dont even realize it.. You can not teach that to any machine.

As for closing crossings, you really would have no choice. The entire concept of roboticising or automating a train is to keep it moving, at a constant speed, all the time. You cant do that if you have to slow down at a crossing, or if there is a accident, and you have to stop the train. In the long run, it would be cheaper and more cost effective to do away with them.

If I said moving automobile assembly line, the mental image you most likley would have in you head would be the old black and white film of the Ford Rouge River plant, fom the 20's, showing 5 or 6 guys bolting fenders and radiators onto model A frames.
Never again will you see that many people putting a car together. With the exception of some light trim work and interior work, the entire car is built by robots. Your "Millie" had only the seats, steering wheel and wireing harness installed by humans, the body, frame, paint, engine and transmission were built, and installed on the car, by machines. The last article I read claimed that, depending on the manufacturer, over 80% of your car is buit without human help. Robots are very, very efficent at this. But, if the robot that screws the front fender on goes to install a bolt, and the bolt hole wasnt drilled all the way through by the last machine, then the fender machine either skips that bolt, or stops. It dosnt know the hole isnt finished, so it stops the process, and waits for a human to come and either fix the hole, or instruct it to skip it and go one. Meanwhile, the entire line just sits, waiting.

Efficent, sure, because these plants produce something like ten complete cars per line every hour, and they have a dozen line running 24/7
But your talking about something static, contained in one place, overseen by humans. Out on the road, when the "fender" machine encounters a missing bolt hole, or rail, or hot box, what can it do to fix the problem? It will still have to call a human to fix it. So your right back to either having a crew on board, or station several utility men all along your tracks.

And lastly, the technology around now is really as efficent as you can get, even if its old school. Take your coupler drawbar and knuckle assembly. Very few moving parts, simple design, heavy duty. What other piece of equipment do you know of or can think of that can withstand the forces of a 100000 lbs tankcar slaming into a 75000 lbs hopper at 4 mph, and survive years and years of this abuse, and still work every time you lift the cut lever? Some engineer will do the math and tell you the force exerted on the face of the coupler, but I dont need the math to show me its one tough piece of equipment. And its simple to work, no buttons, no power to fail, no connections to lube or worry about. You lift the pin, and it works.

So why change something so simple, so tough? You would have to, if you automated the entire system, because it has been designed to the lowest common denomonater, the human factor. And because it is primitive and simple, it works well, with very few mechanical problems. Any automation of something as simple as coupling car together would require a entire new coupler, with electric connections, and a whole bunch of moving parts and sensitive eletronic components, most of which I would bet money on not surviving a year in regular service.

Whats is missing from all of the conversations involving remotes and robotic trains is this. It is already as efficent as it can get.
Its simple, durable, quick and realitive inexpensisve, regardless of what the railroad claim, for me and two other guys to take a 150 car train apart, and build up two or three smaller trains from that, all ready to leave the yard in under four hours.
Its not that the current crop of railroaders do not do their job well, or efficently, it is happening because ther carriers see a savings on labor, directly tied to the bottom line. The 54% of labor cost that are what the carriers want to do away with, insurance and other perks, as they refer to them, are what they are trying to cut out.
If the unions would waive the insurance coverage, and the other perks, railroads would hire people by the thousands. Look at any non union railroad, where the workers make a basic hourly wage, no insurance. They are overstaffed by todays standards. They are also the most un safe place to work, unions provide the balance needed to do this work safely.

The military is using remotes and robots because it is more efficent to blow up people and places with these tools, instead of sending a thousand foot troops in to do the same job by hand. Its cheaper to transport one smart bomb to the target, that moving a thousand people, and all their gear, to a place close enough for them to have to fight their way to the target.
It has nothing to do with saving lives, the troops are cannon fodder, its just more efficent. You can kill more of the "bad" guys with a lased bomb that a conventional air strike, and it cost less.
With railroads, it isnt about saving lives, or being more efficent, its about saving money. Period.
And in the long run, they will find that what they percived as savings actually were'nt there in the first place. But by then, they will have invested so heavly in this that their pirde will not let them publicly admit to that. It is a totally hide bound and traditionally hard headed culture we work in. So we will be stuck with it anyway, weather it works or not.
Stay Frosty,
Ed

QUOTE: Originally posted by 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

[edblysard]

Oh, where can we buy tickets to the show?
That ought to be more fun that the saturday night fights.[:D]

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. [;)]

[edblysard]

Oh, where can we buy tickets to the show?
That ought to be more fun that the saturday night fights.[:D]

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. [;)]

[Mookie]

ok - I am convinced! I think I finally got it. I will print it out, sit down and re-read it, ponder it and then file it away mentally.

Thanx for all your input!

Remote Mookie out!

[Mookie]

ok - I am convinced! I think I finally got it. I will print it out, sit down and re-read it, ponder it and then file it away mentally.

Thanx for all your input!

Remote Mookie out!

[kenneo]

Houston Ed -- Air Bus did fly that plane full of people at the Paris Air Show and the computer stalled the plane in front of the crowd. Big Fire Ball when it went into the trees off the end of the runway.

Everybody Else (and Houston Ed and Mookie, too (grin)) --- The Four Corners Power Company (I think that is the coroprate name, not sure) has run totally remote controlled trains between its Black Mesa Mine and the Apache Power Plant since sometime in the 1970's. Fully fenced rogit-of-way and no crossings. No connection to the rest of the US rail system is permitted by FRA. Athern in 1 to 1 Scale. Railroad name is Black Mesa and Lake Powel.

[kenneo]

Houston Ed -- Air Bus did fly that plane full of people at the Paris Air Show and the computer stalled the plane in front of the crowd. Big Fire Ball when it went into the trees off the end of the runway.

Everybody Else (and Houston Ed and Mookie, too (grin)) --- The Four Corners Power Company (I think that is the coroprate name, not sure) has run totally remote controlled trains between its Black Mesa Mine and the Apache Power Plant since sometime in the 1970's. Fully fenced rogit-of-way and no crossings. No connection to the rest of the US rail system is permitted by FRA. Athern in 1 to 1 Scale. Railroad name is Black Mesa and Lake Powel.

[Anonymous]

Interesting...I just saw that the cover story for the September issue of TRAINS is about remote-control locomotives. I haven't read the article (yet), but it should be interesting to read it and then come back and read through this discussion (again).

[Anonymous]

Interesting...I just saw that the cover story for the September issue of TRAINS is about remote-control locomotives. I haven't read the article (yet), but it should be interesting to read it and then come back and read through this discussion (again).

[kenneo]

QUOTE: Originally posted by edblysard

Oh, where can we buy tickets to the show?
That ought to be more fun that the saturday night fights.[:D]

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. [;)]

I don't know what he has against them either, but the comment about a Porn Site seems to be a better fit.

I think it's the old fly on the wall comment. I'd just want to be able to leave when I've had enough - and that wouldn't take long.

[kenneo]

QUOTE: Originally posted by edblysard

Oh, where can we buy tickets to the show?
That ought to be more fun that the saturday night fights.[:D]

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. [;)]

I don't know what he has against them either, but the comment about a Porn Site seems to be a better fit.

I think it's the old fly on the wall comment. I'd just want to be able to leave when I've had enough - and that wouldn't take long.

[sooblue]

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][:D][:D] That'd be a great joke. It'd kill him
Sooblue

[sooblue]

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][:D][:D] That'd be a great joke. It'd kill him
Sooblue

[edblysard]

Thats where I remember seeing the only screw up of the Airbus, and now that you mentioned it, the crash was caused because the pilot had accidently set the computer to land, right after takeoff, thinking he had put it in manual mode, and when the plane started to go down, he didnt realize he had turned the computer back on.

When he tried to "fly" it back up, without turning the computer off, the machine read this as a severe updraft problem, so it over rode the joy stick, and landed the plane, except there was no runway, only trees.
And didnt Trains do a story on the Black Mesa? I remember they have some pretty good size traction locomotives there.
Stay Frosty,
Ed

QUOTE: Originally posted by kenneo

Houston Ed -- Air Bus did fly that plane full of people at the Paris Air Show and the computer stalled the plane in front of the crowd. Big Fire Ball when it went into the trees off the end of the runway.

Everybody Else (and Houston Ed and Mookie, too (grin)) --- The Four Corners Power Company (I think that is the coroprate name, not sure) has run totally remote controlled trains between its Black Mesa Mine and the Apache Power Plant since sometime in the 1970's. Fully fenced rogit-of-way and no crossings. No connection to the rest of the US rail system is permitted by FRA. Athern in 1 to 1 Scale. Railroad name is Black Mesa and Lake Powel.

[edblysard]

Thats where I remember seeing the only screw up of the Airbus, and now that you mentioned it, the crash was caused because the pilot had accidently set the computer to land, right after takeoff, thinking he had put it in manual mode, and when the plane started to go down, he didnt realize he had turned the computer back on.

When he tried to "fly" it back up, without turning the computer off, the machine read this as a severe updraft problem, so it over rode the joy stick, and landed the plane, except there was no runway, only trees.
And didnt Trains do a story on the Black Mesa? I remember they have some pretty good size traction locomotives there.
Stay Frosty,
Ed

QUOTE: Originally posted by kenneo

Houston Ed -- Air Bus did fly that plane full of people at the Paris Air Show and the computer stalled the plane in front of the crowd. Big Fire Ball when it went into the trees off the end of the runway.

Everybody Else (and Houston Ed and Mookie, too (grin)) --- The Four Corners Power Company (I think that is the coroprate name, not sure) has run totally remote controlled trains between its Black Mesa Mine and the Apache Power Plant since sometime in the 1970's. Fully fenced rogit-of-way and no crossings. No connection to the rest of the US rail system is permitted by FRA. Athern in 1 to 1 Scale. Railroad name is Black Mesa and Lake Powel.

[kenneo]

QUOTE: Originally posted by edblysard
[And didnt Trains do a story on the Black Mesa? I remember they have some pretty good size traction locomotives there.
Stay Frosty,
Ed

QUOTE: Originally posted by kenneo
Railroad name is Black Mesa and Lake Powel.

Yes they did. Clones of the E-60 I think. They run under wire. Big to-doo over remote control issue.

I think that there is also another operation at/near Globe, AZ, at one of the smelters. 1-to-1 Scale Athern. I don't remember if it was a slag run or an ore run.

I use the term "1-to-1 Athern" because, at least on the BMLP, the trains were - at least at one time - controlled by varying the juice to the locomotive just like a model railroad and the scale is 1-to-1. I seem to remember reading someplace that the operation has or is soon to shut down. Believe it or not (sorry Ripley), the SP owned the railroad piece ( BMLP) early on, but later sold it.

[kenneo]

QUOTE: Originally posted by edblysard
[And didnt Trains do a story on the Black Mesa? I remember they have some pretty good size traction locomotives there.
Stay Frosty,
Ed

QUOTE: Originally posted by kenneo
Railroad name is Black Mesa and Lake Powel.

Yes they did. Clones of the E-60 I think. They run under wire. Big to-doo over remote control issue.

I think that there is also another operation at/near Globe, AZ, at one of the smelters. 1-to-1 Scale Athern. I don't remember if it was a slag run or an ore run.

I use the term "1-to-1 Athern" because, at least on the BMLP, the trains were - at least at one time - controlled by varying the juice to the locomotive just like a model railroad and the scale is 1-to-1. I seem to remember reading someplace that the operation has or is soon to shut down. Believe it or not (sorry Ripley), the SP owned the railroad piece ( BMLP) early on, but later sold it.

[Anonymous]

NO. BM&LP had E-60C's & production started 12/72 thru 10/76 . Amtrak E-60CH's started production 10/74 - 8/75. the Amtrak units were a spin-off of the freight units.

But there are still quite a few mine to power plant RR's that are 100% RC

[Anonymous]

NO. BM&LP had E-60C's & production started 12/72 thru 10/76 . Amtrak E-60CH's started production 10/74 - 8/75. the Amtrak units were a spin-off of the freight units.

But there are still quite a few mine to power plant RR's that are 100% RC

[wabash1]

the closest they will get to remote engines running the main will happen soon. it will be a engineer only in the cab and when something fails the engineer will put the engine in a remote mode he will take the box and walk to the brake. when he fixes it he will recouple then head for the head end.

[wabash1]

the closest they will get to remote engines running the main will happen soon. it will be a engineer only in the cab and when something fails the engineer will put the engine in a remote mode he will take the box and walk to the brake. when he fixes it he will recouple then head for the head end.

[Anonymous]

Wabash you have no idea how close you are to being right!!!!!!!!!!

[Anonymous]

Wabash you have no idea how close you are to being right!!!!!!!!!!

[Modelcar]

.....That really sounds like a recipe for disaster, but in modern doings I would not argue and say it would not be about to happen.

[Modelcar]

.....That really sounds like a recipe for disaster, but in modern doings I would not argue and say it would not be about to happen.

[Anonymous]

Just look in the back issues of Trains Magazine. Unmaned trains were around a long time ago. Way before anyone thought planes could be built to fly themselves. An article in the magazine covered a utility power company in Ohio that ran coal trains on the companys own property from the mine to the power plant. It ain't no new thang!

[Anonymous]

Just look in the back issues of Trains Magazine. Unmaned trains were around a long time ago. Way before anyone thought planes could be built to fly themselves. An article in the magazine covered a utility power company in Ohio that ran coal trains on the companys own property from the mine to the power plant. It ain't no new thang!