Your chance to be a lawyer.....

[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]

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]

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

[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. [;)]

[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

[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!

[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

[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

[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

[Anonymous]

And please, call me ANYTHING but a lawyer!

[Anonymous]

And please, call me ANYTHING but a lawyer!

[Anonymous]

With special arrangements, it could be done now. The Washington, DC Metro subway is operated by computer. There are no road crossings, and the right of way is completely fenced in. An attendant rides the lead car to observe the route ahead, but his main job is to be sure the passengers have cleared the doors before they're closed. He's got manual overrides, but mostly he just sits there. The same could be accomplished with a freight railroad, but fencing in 2000 miles of railroad and eliminating all road crossings is a tall order. But still, the technology is there now. Remember, the Digital Age is now upon us. Your computer can be set up to run a complex model railroad with no human hands (if the trackwork is worthy!) It wouldn't be too difficult to automate a freight railroad as far as the electronics go; the problem is making it not a problem to its neighbors.

[Anonymous]

With special arrangements, it could be done now. The Washington, DC Metro subway is operated by computer. There are no road crossings, and the right of way is completely fenced in. An attendant rides the lead car to observe the route ahead, but his main job is to be sure the passengers have cleared the doors before they're closed. He's got manual overrides, but mostly he just sits there. The same could be accomplished with a freight railroad, but fencing in 2000 miles of railroad and eliminating all road crossings is a tall order. But still, the technology is there now. Remember, the Digital Age is now upon us. Your computer can be set up to run a complex model railroad with no human hands (if the trackwork is worthy!) It wouldn't be too difficult to automate a freight railroad as far as the electronics go; the problem is making it not a problem to its neighbors.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by drailed1999

Didn't the Wisconsin Central get permission to run with just an engineer for a maximum time of 2hrs.??

I believe that was the rock job. Hauling rock from a quarry in Southern Wis. to Mundlien and Grayslake Ill. (Vulcan Material and a ready mix firm). I know they were doing it on a trial basis. I do not know if it got full approval.
TIM A

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by drailed1999

Didn't the Wisconsin Central get permission to run with just an engineer for a maximum time of 2hrs.??

I believe that was the rock job. Hauling rock from a quarry in Southern Wis. to Mundlien and Grayslake Ill. (Vulcan Material and a ready mix firm). I know they were doing it on a trial basis. I do not know if it got full approval.
TIM A

[ironhorseman]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Mookie

Can they build a remote to ever completely take the place of the human in running an engine and taking a train across country? Flying a plane load of people? Are there too many human factors involved to make it impossible, or will it because the next rocket to Mars?

I don't know if this topic is more about legal issues than about science fiction. It looks like we're dabbling in the Popluar Mechanics realm.

It was pointed out that a remote is controlled by someone anywhere than from the vehicle. I think what's more important, and what's more practical, is the idea of the machines being more robotic and more self reliant.

Case in point: Discovery Channel used to have two shows back in the 1990s called The Next Step and Beyond 2000, each invovled all sorts of cutting edge technology from small gadgets to large machines and changes in daily routine. One episode of one of the shows (it's been so long I can't remember which) showed a full size passenger airplane flying itself. However, there was always a pilot, co-pilot, and navigator in the cockpit. They explained how a flight plan can be preprogrammed into a computer and the plane could take-off, fly, make elevation and course adjustments, and land itself. The video showed a plane landing itself with pilot's hands off the controls. However, the pilot said he always kept his hands ready to take control "just in case." He displayed all the nervousness of letting the plane fly itself as a person does the first time he lets go of the handlebars while riding a bicycle.

Another example showed how a automobile can drive itself successfully down a road day or night. Infrared camaras view the scene ahead and a computer follows the course of the road. It can see all the turns and hills and knows exactly how much to turn the steering wheel and when. It's been several years since I saw it so I don't remember if it was able to take in account of differnt types of weather, speed limit, etc. But it was able to stop when it's path was suddenly and unexpectedly obstructed.

In regards to railroading, I believe it's entirely possible to have a train drive itself over the road, probably not perfectly, if not now but soon in the near future. This isn't brand new technology so I wouldn't be surprised if it's been tested somewhere already. Now, to sound like a lawyer, I would strongly caution against running these locomotives unmanned. Like others before me have already pointed out, a train can be programmed for track speeds and such, but would it recognize an emergency when it encountered it? And why would it be necessary to have unmanned locos? The president of the railroad might say humans can make errors. An engineer might say the railroad doesn't want to pay wages. I ask, why put an expensive machine in that is capable of making errors? Nothing is infallible.

This has all the makings of a classic science fiction movie. Trains and trucks and airplanes all become self reliant only to go crazy and kill us all. Oh, wait, it was already done in such movies as Maximum Overdrive and 2001: A Space Odessy.

I'd say leave the remote trains to the amusment parks, but if they're gonna do it on the Class 1 railroads I'd say leave the conductor and engineer in there. If they don't then who's gonna uncouple a cut of cars if they need to be set out, picked up, or if one gets a hotbox?

What it will eventually come down to is the railroads will be employing a man and a dog for each engine. The man will there to make sure the controls work right and the dog will be there to bite the man if he touches anything.

[ironhorseman]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Mookie

Can they build a remote to ever completely take the place of the human in running an engine and taking a train across country? Flying a plane load of people? Are there too many human factors involved to make it impossible, or will it because the next rocket to Mars?

I don't know if this topic is more about legal issues than about science fiction. It looks like we're dabbling in the Popluar Mechanics realm.

It was pointed out that a remote is controlled by someone anywhere than from the vehicle. I think what's more important, and what's more practical, is the idea of the machines being more robotic and more self reliant.

Case in point: Discovery Channel used to have two shows back in the 1990s called The Next Step and Beyond 2000, each invovled all sorts of cutting edge technology from small gadgets to large machines and changes in daily routine. One episode of one of the shows (it's been so long I can't remember which) showed a full size passenger airplane flying itself. However, there was always a pilot, co-pilot, and navigator in the cockpit. They explained how a flight plan can be preprogrammed into a computer and the plane could take-off, fly, make elevation and course adjustments, and land itself. The video showed a plane landing itself with pilot's hands off the controls. However, the pilot said he always kept his hands ready to take control "just in case." He displayed all the nervousness of letting the plane fly itself as a person does the first time he lets go of the handlebars while riding a bicycle.

Another example showed how a automobile can drive itself successfully down a road day or night. Infrared camaras view the scene ahead and a computer follows the course of the road. It can see all the turns and hills and knows exactly how much to turn the steering wheel and when. It's been several years since I saw it so I don't remember if it was able to take in account of differnt types of weather, speed limit, etc. But it was able to stop when it's path was suddenly and unexpectedly obstructed.

In regards to railroading, I believe it's entirely possible to have a train drive itself over the road, probably not perfectly, if not now but soon in the near future. This isn't brand new technology so I wouldn't be surprised if it's been tested somewhere already. Now, to sound like a lawyer, I would strongly caution against running these locomotives unmanned. Like others before me have already pointed out, a train can be programmed for track speeds and such, but would it recognize an emergency when it encountered it? And why would it be necessary to have unmanned locos? The president of the railroad might say humans can make errors. An engineer might say the railroad doesn't want to pay wages. I ask, why put an expensive machine in that is capable of making errors? Nothing is infallible.

This has all the makings of a classic science fiction movie. Trains and trucks and airplanes all become self reliant only to go crazy and kill us all. Oh, wait, it was already done in such movies as Maximum Overdrive and 2001: A Space Odessy.

I'd say leave the remote trains to the amusment parks, but if they're gonna do it on the Class 1 railroads I'd say leave the conductor and engineer in there. If they don't then who's gonna uncouple a cut of cars if they need to be set out, picked up, or if one gets a hotbox?

What it will eventually come down to is the railroads will be employing a man and a dog for each engine. The man will there to make sure the controls work right and the dog will be there to bite the man if he touches anything.

[wabash1]

What i believe Jen is refering to is that with gps systems you can take a train say in St. louis and program it for L.A. and it would take off. it has a computor and has been mapped with all it needs to know with terrain crossings signals and mile post. when it starts it knows its speed. it blow its horn and keeps going only knows it going to la.

This is very possible as the research car on the ns already does this mapping. the signal system tells the engineer what to do if he fails to the computor kicks in and gives a penalty brake applacation. the differance is that a engineer whould see the tresspasser or the car stuck on the tracks . if gps is operating this engine it is considered remote control. only by computor. as i stated before the big diferance is a engineer can get the speed down and train handle through rough area the remote only knows track speed and go.

[wabash1]

What i believe Jen is refering to is that with gps systems you can take a train say in St. louis and program it for L.A. and it would take off. it has a computor and has been mapped with all it needs to know with terrain crossings signals and mile post. when it starts it knows its speed. it blow its horn and keeps going only knows it going to la.

This is very possible as the research car on the ns already does this mapping. the signal system tells the engineer what to do if he fails to the computor kicks in and gives a penalty brake applacation. the differance is that a engineer whould see the tresspasser or the car stuck on the tracks . if gps is operating this engine it is considered remote control. only by computor. as i stated before the big diferance is a engineer can get the speed down and train handle through rough area the remote only knows track speed and go.

[Anonymous]

Mookie-

I think you are confusing two different things. A remote is just that, a remote control device. Someone still has to be in control of what ever is being controlled. In this case a locomotive is being controlled from somewhere other than the cab. At best, a train can be controlled from a remote location. Perhaps some day control could be handled in certain limited circumstances from a central location. One example might be a hump engine controlled from the yard tower. I doubt this would happen on road jobs absent a completely fenced and grade separated right of way. There is simply too much grade crossing and trespasser liability out there for me to see a remote controlled road train or any sort of "robot" train controlling itself without a human crew member.

LC

[Anonymous]

Mookie-

I think you are confusing two different things. A remote is just that, a remote control device. Someone still has to be in control of what ever is being controlled. In this case a locomotive is being controlled from somewhere other than the cab. At best, a train can be controlled from a remote location. Perhaps some day control could be handled in certain limited circumstances from a central location. One example might be a hump engine controlled from the yard tower. I doubt this would happen on road jobs absent a completely fenced and grade separated right of way. There is simply too much grade crossing and trespasser liability out there for me to see a remote controlled road train or any sort of "robot" train controlling itself without a human crew member.

LC

[Mookie]

Kevin and all - If you are running by remote, rather than human - if the tower fell over, the trains would stop. If there was no crew, there would be no reason for a crew alerter.

I know it may be not in my lifetime, but just like a man on the moon - it did happen.
So I am sure it probably will.

In that case, we have come up with the engineer/train person at that time would use his human instincts to possibly see a problem. Could a remote do that?

Can they build a remote to ever completely take the place of the human in running an engine and taking a train across country? Flying a plane load of people? Are there too many human factors involved to make it impossible, or will it because the next rocket to Mars?

Jen