How close are we to unmanned mainline freights?

[Anonymous]

I agree with BLE ( Brotherhood Of Locomotive Enginers) That is RCU should only be aloud in yard service and that there should be a law banning main line RCU's to many peoples lives can be in danger. Computers do fail and brake down. What if they get a virus etc. To many crew members have been killed by these stupid things, and to many trains derailing and crashing. Big class 1 railroads will tell us there has been a decline in accidents but I find that hatd to believe. What would they do if there job was being taken over by a computer? **** there pants so stop takeing us engineers jobs away!!

[Anonymous]

The news release below was posted on the B of LE site. It seems the technology may be a bit further ahead than I thought. Of course the other issues we I and many others have mentioned are still there and many others besides...

Cattron-Theimeg to use GPS for remote control locomotives
(Trimble issued the following news release on August 7.)

SUNNYVALE, Calif. -- Trimble today that it has been chosen as the primary Global Positioning System (GPS) timing supplier for Cattron-Theimeg, Inc.'s next generation ACCUSPEED(TM) locomotive radio remote control system. The patent-pending system allows yard operators to control the direction, speed and auxiliary functions of switching locomotives in rail and industrial yards. Trimble's GPS timing adds features that enable the system to utilize scarce and expensive radio spectrum more efficiently, while also increasing the safety and productivity of remote control locomotives in yard operations.

Trimble's Acutime(TM) 2000 GPS smart antenna is strategically attached to each locomotive in the ACCUSPEED system and used for timing, positioning and safety features. ACCUSPEED works with computer-equipped switching locomotives and is a SCADA (supervisory control and data acquisition) solution, which enables real-time remote control of equipment. Using GPS as a timing source, up to 10 ACCUSPEED systems can be operated simultaneously in a rail yard using a single radio frequency doubling the previous maximum of five systems. GPS allows Cattron-Theimeg engineers to increase spectrum utilization to nearly 100 percent.

"Applying GPS to locomotive remote control in this way is unique," said Bob Aiken, vice president of Cattron-Theimeg. "There are other timing devices available, but when you look at the cost and features, GPS makes more sense. GPS provides us with multiple system features, including accurate timing, speed and positioning, as well as performing a safety cross-check of other sensors for faults; and Trimble GPS provided the best fit for our system."

Cattron-Theimeg also uses GPS for positioning to define 'geozones' in each yard. ACCUSPEED operators can then program locomotives to perform a variety of auxiliary functions in specific geozones. Locomotive auxiliary functions include automatically turning headlights on or off, ringing the bell, or slowing down and stopping within predetermined locations.

Trimble GPS also enhances locomotive safety by providing a precise backup for traditional motion, speed and position input information. While axle generators on the locomotives already supply motion and speed information, situations such as wet track and broken wires can cause axle generators to provide erroneous information. GPS is used to provide a safety check to ensure the ACCUSPEED system has correct information on each locomotive.

About Cattron-Theimeg

With more than 57 years of service to industry, Cattron-Theimeg has implemented Remote Control Technology on nearly 3,000 national railway locomotives and over 2,000 industrial locomotives making it the world's largest supplier of portable radio remote control systems. Its products are manufactured for other industries such as shipyards, mining, material handling, primary metals and agriculture, with a total installed base of approximately 100,000 remote control systems.

Cattron-Theimeg is a global leader in the development, manufacture and installation of portable radio remote control systems, RF data links and related equipment.

For more information about Cattron-Theimeg visit: www.cattron-theimeg.com.

About Trimble

Trimble is a leading innovator of Global Positioning System (GPS) technology. In addition to providing advanced GPS components, Trimble augments GPS with other positioning technologies as well as wireless communications and software to create complete customer solutions. Trimble's worldwide presence and unique capabilities position the Company for growth in emerging applications including surveying, automobile navigation, machine guidance, asset tracking, wireless platforms, and telecommunications infrastructure. Founded in 1978 and headquartered in Sunnyvale, Calif., Trimble has more than 2,000 employees in more than 20 countries worldwide.

[Anonymous]

The news release below was posted on the B of LE site. It seems the technology may be a bit further ahead than I thought. Of course the other issues we I and many others have mentioned are still there and many others besides...

Cattron-Theimeg to use GPS for remote control locomotives
(Trimble issued the following news release on August 7.)

SUNNYVALE, Calif. -- Trimble today that it has been chosen as the primary Global Positioning System (GPS) timing supplier for Cattron-Theimeg, Inc.'s next generation ACCUSPEED(TM) locomotive radio remote control system. The patent-pending system allows yard operators to control the direction, speed and auxiliary functions of switching locomotives in rail and industrial yards. Trimble's GPS timing adds features that enable the system to utilize scarce and expensive radio spectrum more efficiently, while also increasing the safety and productivity of remote control locomotives in yard operations.

Trimble's Acutime(TM) 2000 GPS smart antenna is strategically attached to each locomotive in the ACCUSPEED system and used for timing, positioning and safety features. ACCUSPEED works with computer-equipped switching locomotives and is a SCADA (supervisory control and data acquisition) solution, which enables real-time remote control of equipment. Using GPS as a timing source, up to 10 ACCUSPEED systems can be operated simultaneously in a rail yard using a single radio frequency doubling the previous maximum of five systems. GPS allows Cattron-Theimeg engineers to increase spectrum utilization to nearly 100 percent.

"Applying GPS to locomotive remote control in this way is unique," said Bob Aiken, vice president of Cattron-Theimeg. "There are other timing devices available, but when you look at the cost and features, GPS makes more sense. GPS provides us with multiple system features, including accurate timing, speed and positioning, as well as performing a safety cross-check of other sensors for faults; and Trimble GPS provided the best fit for our system."

Cattron-Theimeg also uses GPS for positioning to define 'geozones' in each yard. ACCUSPEED operators can then program locomotives to perform a variety of auxiliary functions in specific geozones. Locomotive auxiliary functions include automatically turning headlights on or off, ringing the bell, or slowing down and stopping within predetermined locations.

Trimble GPS also enhances locomotive safety by providing a precise backup for traditional motion, speed and position input information. While axle generators on the locomotives already supply motion and speed information, situations such as wet track and broken wires can cause axle generators to provide erroneous information. GPS is used to provide a safety check to ensure the ACCUSPEED system has correct information on each locomotive.

About Cattron-Theimeg

With more than 57 years of service to industry, Cattron-Theimeg has implemented Remote Control Technology on nearly 3,000 national railway locomotives and over 2,000 industrial locomotives making it the world's largest supplier of portable radio remote control systems. Its products are manufactured for other industries such as shipyards, mining, material handling, primary metals and agriculture, with a total installed base of approximately 100,000 remote control systems.

Cattron-Theimeg is a global leader in the development, manufacture and installation of portable radio remote control systems, RF data links and related equipment.

For more information about Cattron-Theimeg visit: www.cattron-theimeg.com.

About Trimble

Trimble is a leading innovator of Global Positioning System (GPS) technology. In addition to providing advanced GPS components, Trimble augments GPS with other positioning technologies as well as wireless communications and software to create complete customer solutions. Trimble's worldwide presence and unique capabilities position the Company for growth in emerging applications including surveying, automobile navigation, machine guidance, asset tracking, wireless platforms, and telecommunications infrastructure. Founded in 1978 and headquartered in Sunnyvale, Calif., Trimble has more than 2,000 employees in more than 20 countries worldwide.

[Anonymous]

Question, how does a engineer compensate for slack in a train? Example: He powers his loaded coal train up a steep hill and then start's to go down a hill. Is there a meter or gauge somewhere that tells him when to cut power and start applying brake? Or does he go by feel? How do you train a computer to feel slack action?
TIM A

[Anonymous]

Question, how does a engineer compensate for slack in a train? Example: He powers his loaded coal train up a steep hill and then start's to go down a hill. Is there a meter or gauge somewhere that tells him when to cut power and start applying brake? Or does he go by feel? How do you train a computer to feel slack action?
TIM A

[vsmith]

QUOTE: Originally posted by jgoose1

Rail Roads are the worst environment on earth

Even if the railroad companies spent the money to isolate themselves from the public ( hahaha) the automated freight or coal train would probably make it about 90 miles between system failures of some sort and the software engineer , the network engineer and the communications specialist would have to jump in the truck and go find the train, fix the problem if they can and then turn the train over to the dispatcher for another 90 miles. You would just repace the engineer and his assistant with some other person(s). On a railrad like the UP you would have trains backed up for 2000 miles. I remeber when they put electronic controls on the SD40-2 and the grief that caused road crews because they couldn't jam blocks in the realys to get them selves home. If they do automate a railraod they should go back and make the Black Mesa and Lake Powel work first since they only run one train at a time and after ten years of debugging they may get some class one to go for it. On automated transit trains the first thing they show the Observer is where the reset switch is.

Your assuming using todays trains on today tracks. I agree it would be a disaster. The system I envisioned would be from the ground up, electrically powered, almost robot locomotives hauling smart frieghtcars on elevated hightech tracks, computers linked to computerized dispatch centers a.k.a. air traffic control type systems. the Shinkeisen in Japan is virtually fully automated the driver really doesnt do much , like that only with boxcars. They wouldnt have to be fast, just moving since you could run more trains on the same block. As long as its not built by government contract it could work incredably efficiently, BUT the Political and Financial Will to do this is lacking and the lawyers will prevent any half-*** "PC-in-the-engineers-chair" system from being run on existing lines. I envision this high tech "Star Trek train" being an inevitablility, but not for a long, long time.

[vsmith]

QUOTE: Originally posted by jgoose1

Rail Roads are the worst environment on earth

Even if the railroad companies spent the money to isolate themselves from the public ( hahaha) the automated freight or coal train would probably make it about 90 miles between system failures of some sort and the software engineer , the network engineer and the communications specialist would have to jump in the truck and go find the train, fix the problem if they can and then turn the train over to the dispatcher for another 90 miles. You would just repace the engineer and his assistant with some other person(s). On a railrad like the UP you would have trains backed up for 2000 miles. I remeber when they put electronic controls on the SD40-2 and the grief that caused road crews because they couldn't jam blocks in the realys to get them selves home. If they do automate a railraod they should go back and make the Black Mesa and Lake Powel work first since they only run one train at a time and after ten years of debugging they may get some class one to go for it. On automated transit trains the first thing they show the Observer is where the reset switch is.

Your assuming using todays trains on today tracks. I agree it would be a disaster. The system I envisioned would be from the ground up, electrically powered, almost robot locomotives hauling smart frieghtcars on elevated hightech tracks, computers linked to computerized dispatch centers a.k.a. air traffic control type systems. the Shinkeisen in Japan is virtually fully automated the driver really doesnt do much , like that only with boxcars. They wouldnt have to be fast, just moving since you could run more trains on the same block. As long as its not built by government contract it could work incredably efficiently, BUT the Political and Financial Will to do this is lacking and the lawyers will prevent any half-*** "PC-in-the-engineers-chair" system from being run on existing lines. I envision this high tech "Star Trek train" being an inevitablility, but not for a long, long time.

[Anonymous]

Rail Roads are the worst environment on earth

Even if the railroad companies spent the money to isolate themselves from the public ( hahaha) the automated freight or coal train would probably make it about 90 miles between system failures of some sort and the software engineer , the network engineer and the communications specialist would have to jump in the truck and go find the train, fix the problem if they can and then turn the train over to the dispatcher for another 90 miles. You would just repace the engineer and his assistant with some other person(s). On a railrad like the UP you would have trains backed up for 2000 miles. I remeber when they put electronic controls on the SD40-2 and the grief that caused road crews because they couldn't jam blocks in the realys to get them selves home. If they do automate a railraod they should go back and make the Black Mesa and Lake Powel work first since they only run one train at a time and after ten years of debugging they may get some class one to go for it. On automated transit trains the first thing they show the Observer is where the reset switch is.

[Anonymous]

Rail Roads are the worst environment on earth

Even if the railroad companies spent the money to isolate themselves from the public ( hahaha) the automated freight or coal train would probably make it about 90 miles between system failures of some sort and the software engineer , the network engineer and the communications specialist would have to jump in the truck and go find the train, fix the problem if they can and then turn the train over to the dispatcher for another 90 miles. You would just repace the engineer and his assistant with some other person(s). On a railrad like the UP you would have trains backed up for 2000 miles. I remeber when they put electronic controls on the SD40-2 and the grief that caused road crews because they couldn't jam blocks in the realys to get them selves home. If they do automate a railraod they should go back and make the Black Mesa and Lake Powel work first since they only run one train at a time and after ten years of debugging they may get some class one to go for it. On automated transit trains the first thing they show the Observer is where the reset switch is.

[vsmith]

QUOTE: Originally posted by rdganthracite

VSMITH

The system does not have to be as complicated as you state. What works well and is being used now is a computer on board the locomotive (or transit car), which they already have. Along the ROW is small radio transmitters that tell the train what the speed limit is for the upcoming section. That information, along with the track signals gives the computer everything it needs to operate safely in the next stretch of track. The computers are set up so that if a signal is not received from a transmitter in a certain period of time then the train is stopped and must be restarted by a person.

I agree, the technology is here now. An earlier post stated that we dont see remote control airliner, well sorry , but Boeings new 777 can literally fly AND land itself with almost no input from the pilot. They dont use the no hands landing capabilities out of fear. My point was that unless the RR companies are willing to create a ROW that is idiot proof, they would never commit to RC or complete computer control. There is too much liability involved running RC trains over uncontrolled ROW. Imagine if the TGV had to dodge SUVs at grade crossings? European and Japanese high speed systems would be the model for a computerized system here, even if the trains are only going 50mph. Tracks would need to be completed seperated, elevated, or trenched below grade to allow operation without fear of being sued by the family of someone jogging on the tracks with headphones on.

[vsmith]

QUOTE: Originally posted by rdganthracite

VSMITH

The system does not have to be as complicated as you state. What works well and is being used now is a computer on board the locomotive (or transit car), which they already have. Along the ROW is small radio transmitters that tell the train what the speed limit is for the upcoming section. That information, along with the track signals gives the computer everything it needs to operate safely in the next stretch of track. The computers are set up so that if a signal is not received from a transmitter in a certain period of time then the train is stopped and must be restarted by a person.

I agree, the technology is here now. An earlier post stated that we dont see remote control airliner, well sorry , but Boeings new 777 can literally fly AND land itself with almost no input from the pilot. They dont use the no hands landing capabilities out of fear. My point was that unless the RR companies are willing to create a ROW that is idiot proof, they would never commit to RC or complete computer control. There is too much liability involved running RC trains over uncontrolled ROW. Imagine if the TGV had to dodge SUVs at grade crossings? European and Japanese high speed systems would be the model for a computerized system here, even if the trains are only going 50mph. Tracks would need to be completed seperated, elevated, or trenched below grade to allow operation without fear of being sued by the family of someone jogging on the tracks with headphones on.

[Anonymous]

VSMITH

The system does not have to be as complicated as you state. What works well and is being used now is a computer on board the locomotive (or transit car), which they already have. Along the ROW is small radio transmitters that tell the train what the speed limit is for the upcoming section. That information, along with the track signals gives the computer everything it needs to operate safely in the next stretch of track. The computers are set up so that if a signal is not received from a transmitter in a certain period of time then the train is stopped and must be restarted by a person.

[Anonymous]

VSMITH

The system does not have to be as complicated as you state. What works well and is being used now is a computer on board the locomotive (or transit car), which they already have. Along the ROW is small radio transmitters that tell the train what the speed limit is for the upcoming section. That information, along with the track signals gives the computer everything it needs to operate safely in the next stretch of track. The computers are set up so that if a signal is not received from a transmitter in a certain period of time then the train is stopped and must be restarted by a person.

[Trainnut484]

QUOTE: Originally posted by rdganthracite

Are the railroads willing to spend the money necessary to totally eliminate grade crossings and fence the property for its entire length? And are they willing to spend the money to make dedicated trainsets of identical cars? The answer to both is no. Having live crews is much less expensive. The real bottom line for this issure is simply money, if automation becomes less expensive for the mainline freights you will certainly see it happen. If the productivity of the labor remains high enough you will not see automated trains in general use.

On that same note, there's the term N I M B Y (Not In My BackYard). The general public would hear from articles in newspapers, tv, and radio that RRs would be operating unmanned trains through their town. It wouldn't matter if there was someone who just sat there in the cab to only act in case of an emergency. Soon City managers, mayors, and other city officials would force the RR to eliminate the crossings that ran through town, and relocate the tracks. That would cost the RR millions and millions of dollars.

Just as important, with automation of a RR, the worst thing to happen would be hackers. A hacker would penetrate the firewall, and just have a field day with dozens and dozens of trains at his/her disposal. I shiver thinking of the disasters that would occur. That would cost the RRs more money in terms of repairing the physical and technological malicious damage.

Yes, automation is great, if you're on an assembly line, but very dangerous in the wrong hands, especially when you have over 10 tons of rolling steel and other metal being controlled by it.

[Trainnut484]

QUOTE: Originally posted by rdganthracite

Are the railroads willing to spend the money necessary to totally eliminate grade crossings and fence the property for its entire length? And are they willing to spend the money to make dedicated trainsets of identical cars? The answer to both is no. Having live crews is much less expensive. The real bottom line for this issure is simply money, if automation becomes less expensive for the mainline freights you will certainly see it happen. If the productivity of the labor remains high enough you will not see automated trains in general use.

On that same note, there's the term N I M B Y (Not In My BackYard). The general public would hear from articles in newspapers, tv, and radio that RRs would be operating unmanned trains through their town. It wouldn't matter if there was someone who just sat there in the cab to only act in case of an emergency. Soon City managers, mayors, and other city officials would force the RR to eliminate the crossings that ran through town, and relocate the tracks. That would cost the RR millions and millions of dollars.

Just as important, with automation of a RR, the worst thing to happen would be hackers. A hacker would penetrate the firewall, and just have a field day with dozens and dozens of trains at his/her disposal. I shiver thinking of the disasters that would occur. That would cost the RRs more money in terms of repairing the physical and technological malicious damage.

Yes, automation is great, if you're on an assembly line, but very dangerous in the wrong hands, especially when you have over 10 tons of rolling steel and other metal being controlled by it.

[vsmith]

It could happen, but not in my lifetime, here's why. The RR companies would have to rebuild the nationwide rail system to completely isolate the rail lines from public access. Elevated tracks, even in the countryside. No grade crossings, no stations, No possible way for a person, foamer, stray dog, deer, or possum could get onto the tracks. ISOLATED. Then the engines would have to be linked to a series of computers across the country all talking to each other exact speed and location of each train, a similar system already exists for air traffic control and it would be the model for this system. then the computers, or computer techs would control the trains remotely via cell phone technology, satalite and gps systems or thru-the-rails electronic controls. You could technically control every train in the country from one location. with switching being controlled at the yards themselves. Again the technology already exists but the infrastructure needed for it to work is in my opinion, at least a century away. No one wanting to spend a dime seperating Jamtrack from freight service lines is a good example. The RC system would resemble the TGV system which is also completely isolated exept at the stations. So my Engineer friends out there in RR land, until you see them talking about rebuilding from the ground up, I think your jobs are pretty safe.

[vsmith]

It could happen, but not in my lifetime, here's why. The RR companies would have to rebuild the nationwide rail system to completely isolate the rail lines from public access. Elevated tracks, even in the countryside. No grade crossings, no stations, No possible way for a person, foamer, stray dog, deer, or possum could get onto the tracks. ISOLATED. Then the engines would have to be linked to a series of computers across the country all talking to each other exact speed and location of each train, a similar system already exists for air traffic control and it would be the model for this system. then the computers, or computer techs would control the trains remotely via cell phone technology, satalite and gps systems or thru-the-rails electronic controls. You could technically control every train in the country from one location. with switching being controlled at the yards themselves. Again the technology already exists but the infrastructure needed for it to work is in my opinion, at least a century away. No one wanting to spend a dime seperating Jamtrack from freight service lines is a good example. The RC system would resemble the TGV system which is also completely isolated exept at the stations. So my Engineer friends out there in RR land, until you see them talking about rebuilding from the ground up, I think your jobs are pretty safe.

[Anonymous]

Despite what some of the previous posters have stated, the technology exists and has been in continuous use since the 1970's. I live near the Ohio Power coal shuttle that was powered by a pair of E50s. It just recently shut down due to the relocation of the mine but has operated safely, without crew, for over 30 years. There are other similar industrial applications and many transit applications in North America.

The major differences in these applications are that there are NO public road crossings on the lines. That eliminates a large liability issue. Also the trains are made of identical cars, so train response is very predictable.

Are the railroads willing to spend the money necessary to totally eliminate grade crossings and fence the property for its entire length? And are they willing to spend the money to make dedicated trainsets of identical cars? The answer to both is no. Having live crews is much less expensive. The real bottom line for this issure is simply money, if automation becomes less expensive for the mainline freights you will certainly see it happen. If the productivity of the labor remains high enough you will not see automated trains in general use.

[Anonymous]

Despite what some of the previous posters have stated, the technology exists and has been in continuous use since the 1970's. I live near the Ohio Power coal shuttle that was powered by a pair of E50s. It just recently shut down due to the relocation of the mine but has operated safely, without crew, for over 30 years. There are other similar industrial applications and many transit applications in North America.

The major differences in these applications are that there are NO public road crossings on the lines. That eliminates a large liability issue. Also the trains are made of identical cars, so train response is very predictable.

Are the railroads willing to spend the money necessary to totally eliminate grade crossings and fence the property for its entire length? And are they willing to spend the money to make dedicated trainsets of identical cars? The answer to both is no. Having live crews is much less expensive. The real bottom line for this issure is simply money, if automation becomes less expensive for the mainline freights you will certainly see it happen. If the productivity of the labor remains high enough you will not see automated trains in general use.

[Anonymous]

NEVER, NEVER, NEVER I hope.....[V][V][V][V][V][V][V][V]The technology just isn't there as many would have you believe. Remember this, computers are only as smart as the people operating them or programming them., Otherwise, they're as dumb as a box-a-rocks[V][V][V]

[Anonymous]

NEVER, NEVER, NEVER I hope.....[V][V][V][V][V][V][V][V]The technology just isn't there as many would have you believe. Remember this, computers are only as smart as the people operating them or programming them., Otherwise, they're as dumb as a box-a-rocks[V][V][V]

[wabash1]

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


What gives you the idea that the conductor is doing any of this now. other than track warrents most of the new hire conductors always ask the engineer where they are. what they shoould do. Not a one of them have any idea what the speed limits are. only slow orders and they have no idea what the terrain is. why i can fly up to a slow order at 50 mph one way and get it down and then the other way you slow down so early they think your working for overtime. Dont get me wrong but most of the ole timers are gone and all we got is new guys who think they need to do is get 1 warrent and go to bed. so they can party no matter what end of the road they are on. most engineers are getting tired of carring these new breed conductors

[wabash1]

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


What gives you the idea that the conductor is doing any of this now. other than track warrents most of the new hire conductors always ask the engineer where they are. what they shoould do. Not a one of them have any idea what the speed limits are. only slow orders and they have no idea what the terrain is. why i can fly up to a slow order at 50 mph one way and get it down and then the other way you slow down so early they think your working for overtime. Dont get me wrong but most of the ole timers are gone and all we got is new guys who think they need to do is get 1 warrent and go to bed. so they can party no matter what end of the road they are on. most engineers are getting tired of carring these new breed conductors

[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...

[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.

[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]

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