Overmod BaltACD 'B' units reduce the utility of the locomotive and transform it into a underperforming asset. It can't lead. It does have to be said that PC did demonstrably operate some consists with a GP9B leading ... terrifying as this may be. I thought of it as a bit like the mother of all long-hood-forward operation. And that it could only happen on a railroad like PC toward the end... But at least technically, B hoods could 'lead'.
BaltACD 'B' units reduce the utility of the locomotive and transform it into a underperforming asset. It can't lead.
It does have to be said that PC did demonstrably operate some consists with a GP9B leading ... terrifying as this may be. I thought of it as a bit like the mother of all long-hood-forward operation. And that it could only happen on a railroad like PC toward the end...
But at least technically, B hoods could 'lead'.
Since PC really lead the railroad world to bankruptcies - PC using B units as leaders is from the same thought processes. Leading to disaster is not a benefit.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
BaltACD'B' units reduce the utility of the locomotive and transform it into a underperforming asset. It can't lead.
charlie hebdoThe abandonment of the gold standard and thus letting the dollar float occured under Nixon, August 15, 1971.
Look at the technical production dates of the GP38, and then of the GP38-2...
Don: as an amusing aside, at one time I thought 'cabs' sould be provided as the equivalent of high-speed-capable hi-rail vehicles, which could be cut off and run on-road for crew changes, 'running around the train', etc., with the actual locomotives having at most hostling control. This extended neatly to the promise of autonomous vehicle development and 'remote' operation via a rubber-tire-equipped version of what at the time were robot cars.
You can see the problems, and with some reflection so did I. But it's still an interesting idea for a while...
Once upon a time, I thought perhaps all locomotives should be B units, and the "cab" should be an unpowered "dummy", perhaps double ended. Might make even more sense these days, with heavy DPU use.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
The abandonment of the gold standard and thus letting the dollar float occured under Nixon, August 15, 1971.
I suspect the GE price was 'net' of all the complications involved in producing the cabless variant, including changes to equipment and special sheet-metal fabrication, plus the anticipated cost, over the unit's lifetime, of special parts, support, and documentation. I'm not saying there weren't aspects of the Pentagon B-52 hammer involved, but as I didn't see the RFPs or quotes involved, I can't say there wasn't 'full-production pricing' net of tooling for the special modifications...
Much of the 'cost savings' on the GP60Bs is the absence of provision for 'manual' hostling; all the special valves and electronics for control are in 'appropriate' robot panels, so the savings in glazing, cab panels, etc. do add up to a substantial amount. I expect many of the control provisions in A units can be 'simplified' as well, particularly if the 27-pin cable 'automatically' selects the direction of travel when the units are connected and FRA requirements for glazing and safety equipment are more easily satisfied.
It bears repeating, perhaps, that the United States went off the gold standard and 'floated' the dollar somewhere between the GP38 and the GP38-2, and the effects of the OPEC oil embargo came not too long later. Any attempt to 'compare' dollar prices needs to adjust the amounts accordingly.
There was of course no set percentage or dollar amount, you'd have to research that for the particular model and era you're interested in.
For instance back around when Santa Fe got their GP60B's, GE quoted a higher price tag for a cabless version of (if my memory is accurate) their B40-8 model. GE essentially priced it to kill it so as to not disrupt their production line by having to build a small order of custom cabless locomotives.
Prices used to get quoted in Trains, especially back in the 1950's. For instance of a rarer latter day example in the November 1991 issue of Trains of pricing information that's relevant to the question, a savings of $50,000 per unit was quoted for Burlington Northern's B30-7AB's from a decade earlier.
For a rough idea of what a B30-7A likely were priced at, a quick search of Trains locates a quote from EMD of $719,600 for a GP38-2 from EMD in the November 1982 issue of Trains from that same timeframe. So we're likely looking at a savings of $50,000 for a locomotive priced at roughly $750,000 with a cab.
And the same article provides evidence of another pitfall to anyone wanting to research this topic. The GP38-2's immediate pedecessor, the GP38, was going for $240,690 in 1970 according to the same article and EMD source. Locomotives models can be so long lived that prices can vary dramatically in just a few years thanks to many factors. So one has to find evidence from the same point in time when comparing the starting price of a cab equipped model to a cabless version of the same model.
And we're of course just talking purchase price as well. Another savings the railroads always would've factored in when estimating what they'd save by buying a cabless locomotive would've been the savings in cab maintenance for the life of the locomotive.
Anyone know what the price differential was on B units verses standard units? Since railroads don't use them anymore it's obvious they found any cost savings to not be worth the loss of flexibility. Based on nothing more than gut instinct of what things cost I would be suprised if eliminating the cab would save more than a few percent of the overall cost of a road unit.
No, as i understood it you opened one of the portholes on the side and leaned out to see. Not a sliding or hinged window with a sill...
Overmod, I don't understand your response. Are you saying that there was always a porthole for looking forward?
Our F9B (CN 6614) does not have a bell, and there is no valve or extra air line for one at the hostler control stand. It does have a one note horn, which is located on the front end on the unit, pointing down.
I suspect the bell would go either on the end of the unit or on the roof, where it is located on many A-units.
Here is a photo showing the horn's location:
https://rapidotrains.com/sites/default/files/2017/12/f7b-f9b-cp5-800px.jpg
Greetings from Alberta
-an Articulate Malcontent
blue streak 1Ancestor said he observed a B SAL E unit moving with bell ringing.
That is, quite literally, something I never conceived of even as a question: where is the bell on a cabless booster?
Now I'm going to have to go look up SAL units and see where the bells might be...
Ancestor said he observed a B SAL E unit moving with bell ringing.
Or the CNW "Crandall Cab"
Lithonia OperatorThe hostler has to open the window and stick his head out to see where he's going?
Lucky if he doesn't have just a porthole.
As I recall the hostling arrangement was purposely rudimentary to preclude a use in actual use as a leading locomotive. The conversions involved much more change than cutting a window into the bulkhead to see out forward...
Someone needs to find the arrangement used on an AB6, which I thought would use many of the 'standard' components of an E6 fit into a different arrangement as it is a full passenger locomotive, or at least I thought of it as such...
The hostler has to open the window and stick his head out to see where he's going?
Hostler controls as found in a EMD F-series B-unit:
https://www.railpictures.net/photo/441606/
They are located at the far right window, the closest to the front of the unit:
https://www.railpictures.net/photo/440309/
zardozBaltACD Watching many of the cab ride video - both foreign and domestic - I am unable to detect the signal colors most of the time. Me, too.
Me, too.
.
Penn Central GP9 B ...quite the lashup here, former Pennsy GP9B, they made it into Conrail and painted blue, but the didn't make it past 1980.
BaltACDWatching many of the cab ride video - both foreign and domestic - I am unable to detect the signal colors most of the time.
BaltACDA second thing, many light displays these days are becoming LED's.
BaltACDWatching many of the cab ride video - both foreign and domestic - I am unable to detect the signal colors most of the time. It is difficult to figure out a signal system when you can't even see the colors.
This is correct, but most people have never seen the picture from a good commercial camera. It might also be mentioned that the camera can be designed to be particularly sensitive to light of particular LED colors, or respond to genlocked modulation of the LED arrays in the signals.
It is also possible to incorporate phosphors into the envelope of the LED elements, so they 'glow' between strobe cycles and give the effect of persistence of vision. This is part of why pseudowhite 'ambient' lighting using LEDs is no longer as cold and irritating as it was, and also a reason why the current generation of LED vehicle headlights does not have the selective-emission problems that earlier generations did.
A second thing, many light displays these days are becoming LED's. While our eyes can't detect it - certain of our video cameras can - LED's have a frame rate - the video camera's frame rate may make the LED disappear.
It is not the LEDs that have a rep rate, it's the cheap (or power-saving, or low-heat) multiplexing drivers that do. There are two different versions of this: one is the kind of 'strobing' that you see in, say, ACS64 lighting, which at "modern" high CCD clock rates with very short effective 'exposure time' per frame can look as though out (this is done more for heat reasons with high-power LEDs than for cheapness), and the other is the kind that rapidly switches one driver circuit between many diodes or segments (you may remember this from older red-segment alarm clocks when you quickly move your head or eyes in the dark).
Note that even if the existence of fluorescence or phosphors turns out to be nonfeasible, genlocking the firing of the LED diodes to the 'readout' of the CCD element is a well-established technology.
I'm NOT going to say that reasonable PTC with CBTC eliminates the need to see color signals. I easily expect a number of situations, including any involving autonomous trains, where the sensor suite must reliably and unambiguously resolve "legacy" signal aspects, and both the considerations Balt mentioned are significant in that respect.
SD70Dude Overmod SD70Dude But there are no windows, making it difficult for a human operator to take over even if there was a full set of controls in there. That is why God invented the CCD camera and sensor fusion. I've been involved in a couple employee investigations where the outward-facing camera footage has come into play. The current locomotive cameras are not good enough to see the indications on signals when the sun is out. And remember, once you install the camera you have to maintain it and keep it clean. Railroads are terrible at both of those things.
Overmod SD70Dude But there are no windows, making it difficult for a human operator to take over even if there was a full set of controls in there. That is why God invented the CCD camera and sensor fusion.
SD70Dude But there are no windows, making it difficult for a human operator to take over even if there was a full set of controls in there.
That is why God invented the CCD camera and sensor fusion.
I've been involved in a couple employee investigations where the outward-facing camera footage has come into play. The current locomotive cameras are not good enough to see the indications on signals when the sun is out.
And remember, once you install the camera you have to maintain it and keep it clean. Railroads are terrible at both of those things.
Watching many of the cab ride video - both foreign and domestic - I am unable to detect the signal colors most of the time. It is difficult to figure out a signal system when you can't even see to colors.
SD70DudeBut there are no windows, making it difficult for a human operator to take over even if there was a full set of controls in there.
There are some issues that need to be provided, including the need for jitter and edge detection in the image, and probably a good way to pan and zoom the images, but nothing of the difficulty of sensing wires in low-level low-light flight guidance.
You'll probably appreciate the value of a couple of properly-hooded lenses in the NEMA external enclosure referred to in the Magnetek post. Or slap on a wireless camera or two using an appropriately encoded protocol over WiFi or Zigbee (to name two).
This also, incidentally, is the answer for steam-locomotive conversions that need PTC 'at the leading end' of the locomotive.
Note how quiet I become about the practical uses of outward-facing cameras on these setups. Or a FaceTime-like camera on the remote box... with a convenience-store style thumbnail feed showing hands on the remote controls, with a running text of the control actions and time taken...
You were wise to find them.
Note that there is no picture of the version in the NEMA weatherproof enclosure; the cabinet pictured is for hard-wiring/plumbing into a given locomotive. They note that the unit can be easily moved between MU-capable locomotives in 'about 30 minutes' which indicates to me that it is bolted or screwed externally, probably with breakaway dedicated MU and brake hoses (with 27-pin and gladhand respectively at the 'business' ends)
The perceived use of the equipment is for slow-speed materials handling, probably similar to traditional 14mph-maximum RCO operation. It would NOT be difficult to integrate multicamera/sensor-fused feed from the locomotive or wireless sensors to a screen on the device, a HUD, or other similar "legal" interface device; companies now produce color LCD screens good down to very cold temperatures. I personally see no overt technical reason it could not be extended to provide both full proportional independent and dynamic braking, or notchwise speed control, or DPU radio communications to attached units not connected with the MU cable (for example, coupled to the opposite end from the receiver box).
What needs to be established is whether this device gives 'smooth' performance rather than the typical jerky RCO throttle and brake response. Note the specific mention of being able to bail off the independent brake. There is no reason that high-speed or extended functions could not be restricted to 'tethered' operation (with the remote being physically attached to the locomotive at some 'crew-safe' points without having to rely on radio LOS for runaway safety shutdown).
The usual impossible IT latency and stalling for ads. Again.
This is a little closer ...The description on MU reads like it just connects to the MU Cable and air hose.
https://www.magnetek.com/Material%20Handling/Material%20Handling%20Home/Products/Radio%20Remote%20Control%20Products/Railyard%20Remote%20Controls/Railyard%20Remote%20Control%20Systems
rdamonHere is a link for some additional info: http://utahrails.net/up-diesel-roster/upy-ccrcl.php
Thanks for posting that....and yes that certainly captures the function of what I was imagining. I will have to say that at 256,000 lb, it exceeds what I had envisioned as a "dongle"......I was hoping more for something in the size of a suitcase, but perhaps that is unrealistic?
CSSHEGEWISCH rdamon I agree .. wasn't that the basis of the UP CCRCLs UP's CCRCL's and similar equipment on other roads were basically RCO receivers which were MU'ed to locomotives in switching service that were not equipped with their own receivers for RCO.
rdamon I agree .. wasn't that the basis of the UP CCRCLs
I agree .. wasn't that the basis of the UP CCRCLs
Here is a link for some additional info:
http://utahrails.net/up-diesel-roster/upy-ccrcl.php
rdamonMore like, how much could we save if we eliminated ..
Without considering the corallary question - how much additional costs will be incured in special handling required and the loss of utility use?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.