Questions: What system does the UP use outside MO and the other areas in question? What do others use and why not adopt that nationally ? Why develop yet another complicated and unproven system?
CMStPnPSo I am curious on grade crossings, why not place a RF tag on the lead locomotive and have the crossing signals do the math on the proxity of the tag to the crossing and trip the signals that way?
I believe it is the Canadian QNS&L that implements the anticollision function of PTC with radio transponders on locomotives. These get around some of the precision and location concerns with classical RFID by simply implementing a kind of geofencing: when two locomotives approach each other, the relative distance is tracked and alarms generated 'well in time' to preclude collision by surprise.
I've seen a number of proposals that use RFID as non-contact proximity detection for grade crossings. In most of these, the control would be improved if the "RFID" were in fact a true transponder capable of providing active information to the various wayside transceivers, instead of just a passive ID chip like E-Z-Pass which keeps its metadata in the associated network or cloud rather than in the device.
Thing is that most RFID tags are passive devices: they need to be energized by an external field in order to be recognized or to retransmit information. This is not an application where it would be 'safe' to use the kind of circuitry in theft tags, it must 'fail safe' at any time permission is not explicitly acknowledged, and this means a great many active electronic devices, with associated field security (and FCC IDs), failure of any of which would require an associated truck roll.
The infrastructure of PTC already provides most of the 'key' functionality to do variable crossing control, since it requires both a wireless communication to the locomotive and some fairly precise GPS tracking. With the addition of some fixed differential beacons it becomes relatively easy to 'program' interaction between the (secure) knowledge of locomotive consist speed and position and the variable actuation functions of a given crossing. (Note that for failsafe operation it is, in my opinion, unwise to rely entirely on this interaction for crossing operation: you still need a fallback 'minimum' circuit through the rails to detect things like rolling loose cars that won't self-report.)
So I am curious on grade crossings, why not place a RF tag on the lead locomotive and have the crossing signals do the math on the proxity of the tag to the crossing and trip the signals that way? Seems a lot less analog (vacuum tube) then the current system. I would think the computer capacity in locomotives today can figure out which is the lead locomotive in the direction of travel based on MU or whatever else they have as input......right? Lead locomotive activates the transmitter based on calc of lead locomotive and direction of travel which I would think takes nanoseconds.
Repeated radio geolocation between lead locomotive and grade crossing should be enough to determine when to trip the signals and how fast the train is moving. They allegedly have RF tags on all the freight cars these days so lets say it was just freight cars moving with no loco or it was a backup move. Get the crossing to recognize the frieght cars RF tags as well so it knows when the last car has cleared the crossing as well as it can tell when just rolling freight cars are approaching the crossing.
oltmannd It's not "bovine crap". I personally know that UP had issues with passenger trains shunting for grade crossing signals on the Joliet-St. Louis line for a number of years (particularly in passing sidings), and they were actually running a non-revenue freight train back and forth on the line after hours to help address the issue (informally called the "Rustbuster"). I doubt that Amtrak has any problem with the 30 axle requirement if it's addressing a real issue. BaltACD n012944 runnerdude48 Amtrak passenger trains (Other than the City of New Orleans) on the Canadian National ex-IC line operate with old Heritage Fleet baggage cars, diners, and sleepers in order to activate the signals. This seems to me to be kind of silly as no other short passenger trains tha I have ridden need to do this. I may be wrong on that as I have been in the past. The UP requires Amtrak to have 30 axles in both Missouri and lines north of LA. https://www.trainorders.com/discussion/read.php?4,4845926,page=3 Which, I personally, find as being a pile of bovine crap. So when UP has a light engine move over the territory they require themselves to have either 5 6-axle units or 8 4-axle units? Well, it COULD be that the grade Xing system the UP is using doesn't do very well at measuring the approaching train speed of small passenger trains. They do it by measuring the rate of change of resistance of the train approaching the Xing. The LAST thing that you want to happen is for the Xing to activate late. Maybe that happens sometimes. However, since these are routes with existing service, the host road should have signalling equipment that works with existing train sizes. The host RR requirement for added equipment over and above what Amtrak wants to operate should be fully paid for by the host road. This should include the extra fuel and extra wear and tear on the locomotive. The passive agressive response would be for Amtrak to NOT add the extra equipment and stop and flag every crossing - which would put a hurt on the host road.
It's not "bovine crap". I personally know that UP had issues with passenger trains shunting for grade crossing signals on the Joliet-St. Louis line for a number of years (particularly in passing sidings), and they were actually running a non-revenue freight train back and forth on the line after hours to help address the issue (informally called the "Rustbuster"). I doubt that Amtrak has any problem with the 30 axle requirement if it's addressing a real issue.
BaltACD n012944 runnerdude48 Amtrak passenger trains (Other than the City of New Orleans) on the Canadian National ex-IC line operate with old Heritage Fleet baggage cars, diners, and sleepers in order to activate the signals. This seems to me to be kind of silly as no other short passenger trains tha I have ridden need to do this. I may be wrong on that as I have been in the past. The UP requires Amtrak to have 30 axles in both Missouri and lines north of LA. https://www.trainorders.com/discussion/read.php?4,4845926,page=3 Which, I personally, find as being a pile of bovine crap. So when UP has a light engine move over the territory they require themselves to have either 5 6-axle units or 8 4-axle units?
n012944 runnerdude48 Amtrak passenger trains (Other than the City of New Orleans) on the Canadian National ex-IC line operate with old Heritage Fleet baggage cars, diners, and sleepers in order to activate the signals. This seems to me to be kind of silly as no other short passenger trains tha I have ridden need to do this. I may be wrong on that as I have been in the past. The UP requires Amtrak to have 30 axles in both Missouri and lines north of LA. https://www.trainorders.com/discussion/read.php?4,4845926,page=3
runnerdude48 Amtrak passenger trains (Other than the City of New Orleans) on the Canadian National ex-IC line operate with old Heritage Fleet baggage cars, diners, and sleepers in order to activate the signals. This seems to me to be kind of silly as no other short passenger trains tha I have ridden need to do this. I may be wrong on that as I have been in the past.
Amtrak passenger trains (Other than the City of New Orleans) on the Canadian National ex-IC line operate with old Heritage Fleet baggage cars, diners, and sleepers in order to activate the signals. This seems to me to be kind of silly as no other short passenger trains tha I have ridden need to do this. I may be wrong on that as I have been in the past.
The UP requires Amtrak to have 30 axles in both Missouri and lines north of LA.
https://www.trainorders.com/discussion/read.php?4,4845926,page=3
Which, I personally, find as being a pile of bovine crap.
So when UP has a light engine move over the territory they require themselves to have either 5 6-axle units or 8 4-axle units?
Well, it COULD be that the grade Xing system the UP is using doesn't do very well at measuring the approaching train speed of small passenger trains. They do it by measuring the rate of change of resistance of the train approaching the Xing.
The LAST thing that you want to happen is for the Xing to activate late. Maybe that happens sometimes.
However, since these are routes with existing service, the host road should have signalling equipment that works with existing train sizes. The host RR requirement for added equipment over and above what Amtrak wants to operate should be fully paid for by the host road. This should include the extra fuel and extra wear and tear on the locomotive.
The passive agressive response would be for Amtrak to NOT add the extra equipment and stop and flag every crossing - which would put a hurt on the host road.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
BaltACDThe story I was handed by multiple B&O/CSX signal personnel has been that a single unit of equipment (RDC, single light engine etc.) can traverse the relay detected signal circuit faster than the relay can operate. Take it for what it is worth!
What this indicates to me is that a certain number of axles is necessary to assure enough current to move the relay, with its internal damping controlling how fast it moves -- with the active length (between insulated joints of the rail section) short enough that even though only, say, two axles' worth of contact provides enough current flow, you need up to 30 axles sequentially passing the insulated section at high speed, each two taking up from the previous ones as they pass, before the relay definitively socks in. That actually makes sense. You'd need some internal damping, as with vane relays, otherwise things like stray currents from moisture and salts in the ballast might be throwing them erratically...
No, if we the citizens build a second main there or anywhere else, it is ours--that is for passenger service any hour, any day, the Class 1 can request and pay for access slots just as Amtrak or local passenger agencies have to on the existing tracks. See goose, gander.
OvermodThe problem here is likely less the age of the signal plant or the characteristics of its relays than the effective electrical contact of the train across the rails. There are a number of factors that can surprisingly reduce this for lightweight equipment, including used traction sand, rail corrosion, and (I suspect) some forms of rail lube. It my understanding that RDCs required special low-resistance bridging with brushes bearing on the 'clean' area of the wheel tread to provide consistent positive signal application. I'm a bit surprised that Amtrak can't provide something similar on its dedicated equipment in these corridors.
It my understanding that RDCs required special low-resistance bridging with brushes bearing on the 'clean' area of the wheel tread to provide consistent positive signal application. I'm a bit surprised that Amtrak can't provide something similar on its dedicated equipment in these corridors.
The story I was handed by multiple B&O/CSX signal personnel has been that a single unit of equipment (RDC, single light engine etc.) can traverse the relay detected signal circuit faster than the relay can operate. Take it for what it is worth!
With CN & UP requireing 30 axles - they must not have a relay based signal system - they must be using a arthritic order of Monks with bad reaction times.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
The problem here is likely less the age of the signal plant or the characteristics of its relays than the effective electrical contact of the train across the rails. There are a number of factors that can surprisingly reduce this for lightweight equipment, including used traction sand, rail corrosion, and (I suspect) some forms of rail lube.
Back when there was more passenger service I regularly saw short combinations of RDCs running in CTC territory. Apparently a single RDC at high speed might occasionally not knock down the circuit at a control point (CPR's North Toronto Sub) but CN seemed to have had no problem running two or three car sets on their Kingston Sub. That was with 1960s era signal technology.
Of course not. They would have additional restrictions added to a move that does not meet the requirement. While I don’t know UP’s rules, such restrictions would entail speed restrictions at grade crossings or an overall slower permissible top speed. Not something uncommon.
An "expensive model collector"
CMStPnP BaltACD Which, I personally, find as being a pile of bovine crap. So when UP has a light engine move over the territory they require themselves to have either 5 6-axle units or 8 4-axle units? I suspected the same but I have no clue on the antiquated signal technology we are dealing with here. Railroads have some really, really old electrical circuits in service still. I remember back in high school looking over the shoulder of a signalman around 1981 when he opened that magical silver box. Looked like the 1950's in there. The Milwaukee Road was still using the telegraph lines between Milwaukee and the Twin Cities in the early 1980's not sure if they needed to or they were playing around but they are documented as one of the last Class I's to use the telegraph system.
BaltACD Which, I personally, find as being a pile of bovine crap. So when UP has a light engine move over the territory they require themselves to have either 5 6-axle units or 8 4-axle units?
I suspected the same but I have no clue on the antiquated signal technology we are dealing with here. Railroads have some really, really old electrical circuits in service still. I remember back in high school looking over the shoulder of a signalman around 1981 when he opened that magical silver box. Looked like the 1950's in there. The Milwaukee Road was still using the telegraph lines between Milwaukee and the Twin Cities in the early 1980's not sure if they needed to or they were playing around but they are documented as one of the last Class I's to use the telegraph system.
Around the turn of the century it was discovered that some form of insulation on signal wires was dangerous in some way or the other and the FRA decreed that it be replaced. My understanding was that this form of insulation had been used on ALL signal vendors installations for many, many years. ie. virtually all signal systems in the USA (and probably a large part of the 'free' world) would contain this wiring.
I know CSX replaced quite a number of signal installations to get rid of the offending insulation - in replacing the installations, it was not just the wire being changed out but the entire 'device' that at the same time was being converted to 'state of the art' signal devices.
Note - my Turn of the Century is from 1999 to 2000 and beyond.
BaltACDWhich, I personally, find as being a pile of bovine crap. So when UP has a light engine move over the territory they require themselves to have either 5 6-axle units or 8 4-axle units?
Well...yaz.. and it's too bad too because it makes sense to do so... but you had it, then lost it and it isn't coming back. So sad
Re: Will the US Government in taking the property continue to pay the taxes to the local governments? They certainly won't take on the services the local governments provide!
No, THAT's the entire point and the crux of the "railroad problem" to begin with.
In a model where the states (or Feds) own the rail-road ROW, the rail-roads should be treated like roads and airports. Sure, the local governments will need to find funds to replace the lost rail-road taxes BUT they aren't getting taxes from the rubber-roads either. The entire point of "Government open-access for rail-roads" is just to level the playing field.
But, It isn't going to happen anyway. There's no crisis in railroading, and NOTHING happens in government unless there's a crisis. This is just more foamer "fan talk" (hey, dem Sox goin' all da way dis year, but dey gotta trade for lefty... ya know what i'm sayin'? ).
(So, wit da City of New Orleans, what I'm sayin' is dis) As we don't have "government open access for rail-roads", maybe Amtrak should build 950+ miles of second track along the old "mainline of mid-america". Build it to 80 mph standards (nothing fancy). Each of the two lines are passing tracks for the other. Both sides benefit: the IC get's free passing tracks. Amtrak gets a nearly unobstructed track from Chicago to NO. They can even run some useful short distance passenger trains with the extra capacity.
How much would it cost? Well, the ROW is already there. There's no tunnels to build. Maybe a few new bridges. Let's say: 1.5 M's per mile. Times 950 miles = 1.4 F35's. Putin, the Godless Chinese Commie Capitalists, even the trrrrrssss won't notice 1.4 less F35's.
But, that ain't gonna happen either. The connection to Houston at Newton KS (lots of potential there) ain't gonna happen, the Milwaukee Road Pacific Coast Extension isn't going to be rebuilt, bidness men aren't going to stuff themselves in 6'x3' boxes on a bidness trip. It's just "fan talk". Nothings ever going to change.
BaltACD charlie hebdo 3. To Balt: Freeing the freights of property taxes (if they actually pay them, as opposed to carrying taxes deferred on the books), no maintenance expenses, no need for capital investment on infrastructure, along with low access fees, might turn out to be far more profitable. The carriers do pay property taxes - taxes that in many communities are the foundations for them to provided any governmental services at all - schools, water, sewers and a host of other governmental services. Will the US Government in taking the property continue to pay the taxes to the local governments? They certainly won't take on the services the local governments provide!
charlie hebdo 3. To Balt: Freeing the freights of property taxes (if they actually pay them, as opposed to carrying taxes deferred on the books), no maintenance expenses, no need for capital investment on infrastructure, along with low access fees, might turn out to be far more profitable.
The carriers do pay property taxes - taxes that in many communities are the foundations for them to provided any governmental services at all - schools, water, sewers and a host of other governmental services.
Will the US Government in taking the property continue to pay the taxes to the local governments? They certainly won't take on the services the local governments provide!
Let's see some evidence for that.
runnerdude48Amtrak passenger trains (Other than the City of New Orleans) on the Canadian National ex-IC line operate with old Heritage Fleet baggage cars, diners, and sleepers in order to activate the signals. This seems to me to be kind of silly as no other short passenger trains tha I have ridden need to do this. I may be wrong on that as I have been in the past.
Agree, I am not a railroad expert but that doesn't strike me as "safe" railroad operation.......upgrade the damn signals, geez most of the states have large trust funds to pay most of the cost to do so. My former Brother in Law used to work for Oosmose trestle preservation and you should hear some of his old stories about ICG trestles and ICG management. Granted not the same as CN but I am sure there were holdovers.
charlie hebdo3. To Balt: Freeing the freights of property taxes (if they actually pay them, as opposed to carrying taxes deferred on the books), no maintenance expenses, no need for capital investment on infrastructure, along with low access fees, might turn out to be far more profitable.
1. To Overmod: I don't follow your line of reasoning.
2. Overmod: States and municipalities cannot tax federal property. Since much of the ROWs is on land grant property, it is, in a sense, reverting to the original owner.
3. To Balt: Freeing the freights of property taxes (if they actually pay them, as opposed to carrying taxes deferred on the books), no maintenance expenses, no need for capital investment on infrastructure, along with low access fees, might turn out to be far more profitable.
charlie hebdo1. Why states? A modern, national rail grid is clearly a federal job. 2. Feds take over free of charge in return for no more property taxes to pay and low, initial access fees, gradually increasing to cover maintenance expenses. 3. Capital improvements are treated the same as upgrading interstates, waterways, and airports/airways, part of the responsibilities of a modern industrial nation state.
2. Feds take over free of charge in return for no more property taxes to pay and low, initial access fees, gradually increasing to cover maintenance expenses.
3. Capital improvements are treated the same as upgrading interstates, waterways, and airports/airways, part of the responsibilities of a modern industrial nation state.
Yep! Government Theft. That's the ticket. The the government gets PSR and withholds maintenance. What a grand rail network it will be. [/sarcasm]
Some issues to overcome for the three items:
1) "States" because it keeps the apportionments close to home. Obviously regional organizations worked out between several states will be a central intermediate step.
The Federal Government should stick to an extended version of its role: promulgating not only safety but service standards ... and providing financing and technical assistance to the operations.
If there is a shortfall or extraordinary expense, the states should assuredly have recourse to funds at Federal level (e.g. benefits from an Abo Canyon improvement that will benefit many states materially)
2) The Federal government has no participation in 'property taxes' nor any authority to suspend paying them. Of course Congress could propose a 'taking' with the purchase price reduced by the NPV of the tax bills in a particular state, then claim the acquired lines as Federal property exempt from state or local tax... but look for fun if they try.
Government setaside (or earmarking) of INCOME taxes to help finance the acquisition is another matter entirely. This is different from setting up a 'Rail Trust Fund' from more general transportation income to improve the rail infrastructure, so less likely to be attacked as unfair competition by established truck, barge, etc. interests... this also concerns your point 3.
Yes, both strategic improvements and maintenance *should* be done on a refined, national level. One problem is that the tangible benefits of the improvements are not directly visible, or accessible, to the general public or most competition. There are relatively more barriers to entry in railroading than in other areas, so I would expect all sorts of whining propaganda about 'who gets the track capacity' on any part of the system with limited access, or 'sweetheart deals' with the operating companies left after the track structure has been divested. It would be nice if the Senate andHouse would legislate fully-funded mandates, but I don't really see hope there any time soon.
1. Why states? A modern, national rail grid is clearly a federal job.
Re: If the states are in poverty now, just how are they to come up with the money to purchase the rights of way from their private owners at market value?
Where there's a will there's a scam...
Perhaps something like a reverse mortgage arrangement. The existing railroads get to "live" on the rails for X years, after which ownership transfers to the states. The states "purchase" the rails by not charging taxes on ROW.
It's never possible to do stuff like this in a non-crisis era. If (say) in another 50 years the railroads are facing bankruptcy again (as in the 60's) it might be possible, but now.... I'd say the railroads and the society are doing fine with their current arrangement: the RR's are profitable, they pay taxes, are private, and seem to do a good job at moving non time-sensitive freight.
I brought up the topic is response the (usual) Amtrak incompatibility on the existing RR infrastructure.
Amtrak is time-sensitive and as such can't fit into the existing RR infrastructure and operating model. But, us fans keep trying of-course.
Paul of CovingtonI think I remember reading that a similar concept was considered back in the earliest days.
It made some sense, the chief problem being that along with state construction came common-carrier access ... by anyone with compatible equipment. One of the early 'planes' railroads in Pennsylvania was divided into sections of single track with 'sidings' to allow traffic to pass. However, there was no attempt at scheduling; whoever got to the 'halfway point (marked by a post) had the right-of-way and other traffic had to back up to the siding. Supposedly there were horrific head-on collisions as teamsters "laid on the leather" in a game of chicken to the post.
John Kneiling carefully investigated workable methods of open-access in the '60s (he called it the "iron ocean"). Modern CBTC/PTC equipment would help make the idea comparatively workable, and decisions to 'rationalize' track layout would be made with respect to actual traffic, not railroads' expedience.
Again, each state has its methods and they have evolved over many years. There is always going to be the question of 'value for tax purposes' and most states have determined the expertise does not exist at the local level, ie. county-parish- or whatever.
diningcar The RR's pay significant taxes on their operating properties. It is just difficult to apportion to the various locations and that is why the states have developed methods to accomplish the distribution. The counties- parishes- or whatever do not have the expertise and cannot afford to acquire it.
As per Texas of the Comptroller Form 50-156, railroads operating in Texas are required to render property used to produce income to the appraisal district office in the county in which the property is located and taxable.
Union Pacific, as an example, is required to tell each county appraisal district in Texas the property type and location of its property within the appraisal district. The appraisal district requires this information to set the value of the property for tax purposes.
Tax Code Section 22.05(b) requires a railroad corporation rendition to list: (1) all real property other than the property covered by subdivision (2); (2) the number of miles of railroad together with the market value per mile, which value shall include right-of-way, roadbed, superstructure, and all buildings and improvements used in the operation of the railroad; and (3) all personal property as required by Tax Code Section 22.01.
Each of the 254 counties in Texas knows the taxable value of a railroad’s property within the county. The political authorities set the tax rate, and they send a tax bill to UP, as an example. It pays the tax to the county treasurer for each appraisal district.
It would have to be the national government, obviously. The price might be less than you think if analysts realized that eliminating the expenses of maintenance, taxes (if they are ever paid, not just "deferred"), etc. in return to low access charges was a financial boon.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.