How close are we to unmanned mainline freights?

[traisessive1]

I know the time is coming, but how can they do it?
I know technology will do it but how about speedlimits, restrictions, objects on the tracks, stopping to do pickups and setoffs, waiting at red boards.

How can someone see all this and do this from 200 miles away?

[traisessive1]

I know the time is coming, but how can they do it?
I know technology will do it but how about speedlimits, restrictions, objects on the tracks, stopping to do pickups and setoffs, waiting at red boards.

How can someone see all this and do this from 200 miles away?

[BentnoseWillie]

They can't. You just hit why RC operations are switch jobs and locals, not road trains, and why that's unlikely to change. There are so many variables involved in mainline operation by remote control that it seems unlikely to ever be practical. The Quebec, North Shore & Labrador experimented with 1-man crews on unit ore trains a few years ago, but even that didn't get far, despite the fact that there was no switching or meets involved. I think it had to do with crew safety, the QNS&L being about the most remote mainline in North America.

I'm a bit leery of some efforts to task employees who aren't qualified locomotive engineers with RC operation. I suspect that as railroads get a handle on RC, they'll find that engineers can serve as brakemen better than the reverse.

[BentnoseWillie]

They can't. You just hit why RC operations are switch jobs and locals, not road trains, and why that's unlikely to change. There are so many variables involved in mainline operation by remote control that it seems unlikely to ever be practical. The Quebec, North Shore & Labrador experimented with 1-man crews on unit ore trains a few years ago, but even that didn't get far, despite the fact that there was no switching or meets involved. I think it had to do with crew safety, the QNS&L being about the most remote mainline in North America.

I'm a bit leery of some efforts to task employees who aren't qualified locomotive engineers with RC operation. I suspect that as railroads get a handle on RC, they'll find that engineers can serve as brakemen better than the reverse.

[traisessive1]

yea, but it is gunna come to a point where trains will have like an autopilot and the crew will have to sit back and relax and do nothing until an emergency or speed change or switching happens.

could that happen?

[traisessive1]

yea, but it is gunna come to a point where trains will have like an autopilot and the crew will have to sit back and relax and do nothing until an emergency or speed change or switching happens.

could that happen?

[JoeKoh]

I don't think so because to many ifs in the public.
stay safe
joe

[JoeKoh]

I don't think so because to many ifs in the public.
stay safe
joe

[BentnoseWillie]

QUOTE: yea, but it is gunna come to a point where trains will have like an autopilot and the crew will have to sit back and relax and do nothing until an emergency or speed change or switching happens.

could that happen?

Possibly, but train handling is a tricky business, so I doubt it'll be soon.

[BentnoseWillie]

QUOTE: yea, but it is gunna come to a point where trains will have like an autopilot and the crew will have to sit back and relax and do nothing until an emergency or speed change or switching happens.

could that happen?

Possibly, but train handling is a tricky business, so I doubt it'll be soon.

[Anonymous]

I wouldn't hold your breath. Even the many isolated operations (Utah mine to power station RRs for example) haven't managed to use RC on road operations. It might be possible in certain limited circumstances. The technology and reliability of the technology will need to advance substantially from its current state before any of this is even remotely possible[lol]...

Train handling can be tricky business, especially where grades, speeds and train makeuip are issues. It is less of an issue in single commodity (unit) trains with fixed power consists. In other words look for places with conveyor belt type operations and relatively short ROWs with few crossings to be places this might be tried. As to out on the real mainline it may never happen. I certainly hope it won't. But then, in any event I doubt it'll happen before I take my Railroad Retirement and head for the 'house...

LC

[Anonymous]

I wouldn't hold your breath. Even the many isolated operations (Utah mine to power station RRs for example) haven't managed to use RC on road operations. It might be possible in certain limited circumstances. The technology and reliability of the technology will need to advance substantially from its current state before any of this is even remotely possible[lol]...

Train handling can be tricky business, especially where grades, speeds and train makeuip are issues. It is less of an issue in single commodity (unit) trains with fixed power consists. In other words look for places with conveyor belt type operations and relatively short ROWs with few crossings to be places this might be tried. As to out on the real mainline it may never happen. I certainly hope it won't. But then, in any event I doubt it'll happen before I take my Railroad Retirement and head for the 'house...

LC

[traisessive1]

i hope not
ive wanted to be an engineer for my whole life
so if this goes away on me, ill be devestated

[traisessive1]

i hope not
ive wanted to be an engineer for my whole life
so if this goes away on me, ill be devestated

[Anonymous]

Wee, I guess you'll need to study hard and start looking at railroad hiring practices, but I wouldn't worry too much about it. As I mentioned in another similar thread, I expect us to get to one man running trains in my career, but I doubt it'll go beyond that in the foreseeable future.

LC

[Anonymous]

Wee, I guess you'll need to study hard and start looking at railroad hiring practices, but I wouldn't worry too much about it. As I mentioned in another similar thread, I expect us to get to one man running trains in my career, but I doubt it'll go beyond that in the foreseeable future.

LC

[eolafan]

Never, ever I hope!

[eolafan]

Never, ever I hope!

[traisessive1]

thats right

[traisessive1]

thats right

[tree68]

The technology exists to compute the necessary horsepower, acceleration and decceleration points, etc, etc, even blow the horn at the appropriate times. After all, the airlines do it, and I've got cruise control on my vehicle. What's missing is somewhere between an airplane autopilot and my cruise control - The train will follow the tracks, unlike my wandering truck, and the computer can keep the speed constant over hill and dale if it has the right information about load and available power. What is lacking is the ability to watch what's in front of the train - cars, deer, people, trees, track damage, etc. The human element may have its importance diminished, but never eliminated. They talk about being able to have airliners be able to fly "unmanned", but you don't see much progress there, either.

[tree68]

The technology exists to compute the necessary horsepower, acceleration and decceleration points, etc, etc, even blow the horn at the appropriate times. After all, the airlines do it, and I've got cruise control on my vehicle. What's missing is somewhere between an airplane autopilot and my cruise control - The train will follow the tracks, unlike my wandering truck, and the computer can keep the speed constant over hill and dale if it has the right information about load and available power. What is lacking is the ability to watch what's in front of the train - cars, deer, people, trees, track damage, etc. The human element may have its importance diminished, but never eliminated. They talk about being able to have airliners be able to fly "unmanned", but you don't see much progress there, either.

[Anonymous]

Tree-

Not to single you out, as others have made some similar comments, but,

1. It is obvious to me that you have never had to run a train as your response demonstrates a lack of understanding of the forces inherent in train handling.

2. Neither an autopilot nor a cruise control would be adequate to run a train in any form, with or without a crew.

3. A train only follows the tracks when it is properly handled, otherwise it is very quick to derail with spectacular results.

4. A computer hasn't been invented that can compensate adequately for in train forces, in time perhaps that can be done.

5. Simulators in use now can track some of the forces and risk areas, so eventually a computer capable of running a train is possible, but we are a long way from there now.

6. Even if such a computer were to be developed, what would the fail safe be?

7. They haven't yet invented a computer that can come close to duplicating the locomotive engineer's most important sensory organ. His Butt in the right hand seat. After about a year or two it is amazing how one can sense what a 150 car train is doing from some knowledge of the terrain, train composition and the feel of the train transmitted through that beat up toadstool of a chair.

Over,

LC

[Anonymous]

Tree-

Not to single you out, as others have made some similar comments, but,

1. It is obvious to me that you have never had to run a train as your response demonstrates a lack of understanding of the forces inherent in train handling.

2. Neither an autopilot nor a cruise control would be adequate to run a train in any form, with or without a crew.

3. A train only follows the tracks when it is properly handled, otherwise it is very quick to derail with spectacular results.

4. A computer hasn't been invented that can compensate adequately for in train forces, in time perhaps that can be done.

5. Simulators in use now can track some of the forces and risk areas, so eventually a computer capable of running a train is possible, but we are a long way from there now.

6. Even if such a computer were to be developed, what would the fail safe be?

7. They haven't yet invented a computer that can come close to duplicating the locomotive engineer's most important sensory organ. His Butt in the right hand seat. After about a year or two it is amazing how one can sense what a 150 car train is doing from some knowledge of the terrain, train composition and the feel of the train transmitted through that beat up toadstool of a chair.

Over,

LC

[Anonymous]

From what I have seen of RCL, the railroads are along way from making it profitable. The railroads rush head long into new things full bore and tell wall street how great it will be for the bottom line. Until they can make yard RCL profitable, (maybe never) how can they justify going remote over the road, or one man?

[Anonymous]

From what I have seen of RCL, the railroads are along way from making it profitable. The railroads rush head long into new things full bore and tell wall street how great it will be for the bottom line. Until they can make yard RCL profitable, (maybe never) how can they justify going remote over the road, or one man?

[Anonymous]

One should never say never...However, regardless of whether or not it's technologically feasible, I don't think it makes a lot of business sense. With the rollout of remote technology in yards, a lot of people are tempted to assume the next logical step is to expand it to mainline trains.

Instead, I think that engineer-only trains are much more likely...probably in the next ten years or so. The cost of technology to eliminate the conductor's job would be much lower than that of the engineer. As others have pointed out, a set of eyes on the locomotive is very difficult to replace and if we're going to pay someone to be on the train they might as well be running it.

The conductor's job will be replaced by a GPS-based system capable of generating electronic main track authority limits and enforcing things like authority limits and speed restrictions. Along with that might come the elimination of fixed block signals, which would be replaced with some type of flexible block system. Road power would come from the factory with remote equipment installed. Engineers would use a beltpack to set out bad-orders or even handle p/u's and s/o's at industries. The rules could be changed to allow for establishing a temporary remote control zone on a main track to accomodate such moves. Locals on high-density mainlines would operate in conventional mode until reaching a location where work is to be performed. Then, two crewmembers could put on beltpacks and perform the work. This would depend on rolling engineers and conductors into a single TY&E operating craft, which will probably happen eventually.

That's my prediction, anyway.

[Anonymous]

One should never say never...However, regardless of whether or not it's technologically feasible, I don't think it makes a lot of business sense. With the rollout of remote technology in yards, a lot of people are tempted to assume the next logical step is to expand it to mainline trains.

Instead, I think that engineer-only trains are much more likely...probably in the next ten years or so. The cost of technology to eliminate the conductor's job would be much lower than that of the engineer. As others have pointed out, a set of eyes on the locomotive is very difficult to replace and if we're going to pay someone to be on the train they might as well be running it.

The conductor's job will be replaced by a GPS-based system capable of generating electronic main track authority limits and enforcing things like authority limits and speed restrictions. Along with that might come the elimination of fixed block signals, which would be replaced with some type of flexible block system. Road power would come from the factory with remote equipment installed. Engineers would use a beltpack to set out bad-orders or even handle p/u's and s/o's at industries. The rules could be changed to allow for establishing a temporary remote control zone on a main track to accomodate such moves. Locals on high-density mainlines would operate in conventional mode until reaching a location where work is to be performed. Then, two crewmembers could put on beltpacks and perform the work. This would depend on rolling engineers and conductors into a single TY&E operating craft, which will probably happen eventually.

That's my prediction, anyway.

[traisessive1]

QUOTE: Originally posted by vps102

One should never say never...However, regardless of whether or not it's technologically feasible, I don't think it makes a lot of business sense. With the rollout of remote technology in yards, a lot of people are tempted to assume the next logical step is to expand it to mainline trains.

Instead, I think that engineer-only trains are much more likely...probably in the next ten years or so. The cost of technology to eliminate the conductor's job would be much lower than that of the engineer. As others have pointed out, a set of eyes on the locomotive is very difficult to replace and if we're going to pay someone to be on the train they might as well be running it.

The conductor's job will be replaced by a GPS-based system capable of generating electronic main track authority limits and enforcing things like authority limits and speed restrictions. Along with that might come the elimination of fixed block signals, which would be replaced with some type of flexible block system. Road power would come from the factory with remote equipment installed. Engineers would use a beltpack to set out bad-orders or even handle p/u's and s/o's at industries. The rules could be changed to allow for establishing a temporary remote control zone on a main track to accomodate such moves. Locals on high-density mainlines would operate in conventional mode until reaching a location where work is to be performed. Then, two crewmembers could put on beltpacks and perform the work. This would depend on rolling engineers and conductors into a single TY&E operating craft, which will probably happen eventually.

That's my prediction, anyway.

yea thats the most resonable thing that i can think of.....i know something will happen, seeing all the cutbacks now...

[traisessive1]

QUOTE: Originally posted by vps102

One should never say never...However, regardless of whether or not it's technologically feasible, I don't think it makes a lot of business sense. With the rollout of remote technology in yards, a lot of people are tempted to assume the next logical step is to expand it to mainline trains.

Instead, I think that engineer-only trains are much more likely...probably in the next ten years or so. The cost of technology to eliminate the conductor's job would be much lower than that of the engineer. As others have pointed out, a set of eyes on the locomotive is very difficult to replace and if we're going to pay someone to be on the train they might as well be running it.

The conductor's job will be replaced by a GPS-based system capable of generating electronic main track authority limits and enforcing things like authority limits and speed restrictions. Along with that might come the elimination of fixed block signals, which would be replaced with some type of flexible block system. Road power would come from the factory with remote equipment installed. Engineers would use a beltpack to set out bad-orders or even handle p/u's and s/o's at industries. The rules could be changed to allow for establishing a temporary remote control zone on a main track to accomodate such moves. Locals on high-density mainlines would operate in conventional mode until reaching a location where work is to be performed. Then, two crewmembers could put on beltpacks and perform the work. This would depend on rolling engineers and conductors into a single TY&E operating craft, which will probably happen eventually.

That's my prediction, anyway.

yea thats the most resonable thing that i can think of.....i know something will happen, seeing all the cutbacks now...