Judging by this thread, only Don has the vision for making rails an improving endeavor rather than a declining business with a siege or “going out of business” mentality.
I have no doubt that there are those in the rail industry who share Don’s vision.
They know enough to keep their mouths shut, however.
“I” don’t want my return five or ten years from now. “I” want it next month.
Well we are talking about performance of ECP brakes compared to conventional Westinghouse brakes (PCP brakes). We can’t do anything about the Newton based reasons why the train will not instantly stop on a dime once a full brake application has been completed. So why even introduce that red herring into the conversation? It is just a given that we have to live with. It does not take anything away from brake performance. It does not mean that there is no point in trying to improve brake performance. If the fact that freight trains can’t stop on a dime were a showstopper, we would not have freight trains.
The main point missing from Don’s argument is that ECP itself will reduce maintenance expense. Wheel life is extended and its associated running gear. Brake shoes can last longer with more even wear. Also track forces are greatly reduced with ECP. This has all been proven in testing of ECP on; ATSF, BN, Conrail, BNSF, CP, CSX, and UP.
Read here for the conclusions on ECP testing:
https://acrobat.adobe.com/link/review?uri=urn:aaid:scds:US:457b55c4-93e9-3803-aa07-77b079ed4cb2
https://acrobat.adobe.com/link/review?uri=urn:aaid:scds:US:c447b44c-cd17-35f8-86d8-9709e97bf6d8
I did not say that 1/2 second was too slow. And others have pointed out that it would take around 10 seconds to cover a 100 car train. That’s 1/10 second per car.
Change “applies” to “begins to apply” and “will apply all” to “will begin to apply all.”
I point that out because I sense a feeling that ECP will be the panacea that will solve all our problems. And I mention Newton because no matter how fast the brakes apply, it will still take substantial time to stop a train in an emergency situation. So it stops in 3/4 mile instead of a mile? So what if only 25 cars piled up at East Palestine - if the cars that did pile up included the hazmat, the end effect would not have changed.
Once (if) the US railroads decide to try a full-scale application of ECP, they may decide it’s worth the expense. It’s already been pointed out that the railroads prefer dynamics to air whenever possible, so I would opine that savings in wheels and brake shoes is not the factor it could be.
In the meantime, as I mentioned earlier, those fa
Please include yourself in the list of those who have the vision to understand the long-term benefits of applying modern technology to legacy transportation. You and Don Oltmann.
The joy of being retired! (actually the last few years working I was rather a pain in the neck…)
I have said for decades that the advantages of ECP are significant, and have even proposed methods both for technical and financial implementation on North American railroads.
Just don’t lie and claim the 3% improvement in emergency is a ‘safety’ mandate to be funded only by railroads…
I have said for decades that the advantages of ECP are significant, and have even proposed methods both for technical and financial implementation on North American railroads.
Just don’t lie and claim the 3% improvement in emergency is a ‘safety’ mandate to be funded only by railroads…
Unless some of the vast stranded cost for the conversions isn’t covered in some way, the changeover likely won’t have much traction. And most unit trains that can be quickly converted don’t have much crash, PIH, or BLEVE risk.
All the technology and even some of the manpower and training cadres exist for rapid change, but it’s a big chunk of probably over 4T by now before you start getting interchange consists with solid blocks of converted cars…
A better summary of various ECP pilot programs and their results is in the appendix of the 2006 Booz Allen Hamilton report:
https://railroads.dot.gov/elibrary/ecp-brake-system-freight-services
And I will concede that the three results with concrete cost savings that were consistently observed were reduction in fuel use, reduction in wheel temperatures and related wheel changeouts, and reduction in brake shoe replacements. So it was probably an overstatement to say that existing ECP brakes offer NO significant benefits in dollars and cents.
However… reading the Canadian Pacific report - the most recent and most detailed one I saw in my Googling adventures - also reveals some reason to doubt that the magnitude of the reported savings would hold up in the long run.
Fuel use:
Note that CP reported fuel savings of 4.6%, which is below the range reported for earlier studies, despite the fact that the CP test route is ideal for optimizing ECP
[quote user=“dpeltier”]
SD60MAC9500
The main point missing from Don’s argument is that ECP itself will reduce maintenance expense. Wheel life is extended and its associated running gear. Brake shoes can last longer with more even wear. Also track forces are greatly reduced with ECP. This has all been proven in testing of ECP on; ATSF, BN, Conrail, BNSF, CP, CSX, and UP.
Read here for the conclusions on ECP testing:
https://acrobat.adobe.com/link/review?uri=urn:aaid:scds:US:457b55c4-93e9-3803-aa07-77b079ed4cb2
https://acrobat.adobe.com/link/review?uri=urn:aaid:scds:US:c447b44c-cd17-35f8-86d8-9709e97bf6d8
A better summary of various ECP pilot programs and their results is in the appendix of the 2006 Booz Allen Hamilton report:
https://railroads.dot.gov/elibrary/ecp-brake-system-freight-services
And I will concede that the three results with concrete cost savings that were consistently observed were reduction in fuel use, reduction in wheel temperatures and related wheel changeouts, and reduction in brake shoe replacements. So it was probably an overstatement to say that existing ECP brakes offer NO significant benefits in dollars and cents.
However… reading the Canadian Pacific report - the most recent and most detailed one I saw in my Googling adventu
That the Booz Allen report is already 13 years old says a lot!
Something that I don’t recall being discussed in detail is using the ECP trainline for DPU control. Theoretically, the advantage over radio control is that the wired connection should not experience drop-outs. That would imply that the DPU timeouts could be a very few seconds before the units go into idle after losing contact.
I’ve read in the past about using the cable for DP control. Yes, that would be better.
However, will the connections, etc. be properly maintained? I doubt it. That’s my biggest concern with PTC. It works fairly well now, while it’s new. Just like the DP equipment. What about a few years from now? Much of the DP problems are from the seemingly isignificant components, namely the wires and connections.
I fear that those similar components for other systems will be maintained in the same fashion.
Jeff
There have been many reports over several years about elelctrical connector problems found in testing ECP brakes. This is reported with the implication that the connector problem is a true showstopper that dooms the dream of ECP brakes in the U.S. What is the precise, detailed description of the problem with connectors that have been developed and tested for U.S. application in ECP brake systems?
How does Rio Tinto address the connector problem with ECP brakes, which has been widely deemed unsolvable in American practice? They run unit trains. Are those trains hardwired for continuous connectivity without separable connectors? If so, how is the cable mounted on the cars, and particularly, how is it handled between cars which are bouncing and rocking in relation to each other?
Weather.
I think you’ll find that Rio Tinto is running in a mostly dry environment. I could be wrong.
The northern US (and Canada) deals with winter weather (snow, etc), and except for the southwest, the southern US is is pretty wet.
Moisture breeds corrosion.
And the unit trains factor is huge. The cars are almost always connected, so there’s no need to connect and disconnect the cables frequently, regardless of how that connection is made.
SD60Mac asks: “The stopping distance is a bonus of ECP yet imagine with improved braking how many grade crossing incidents could potentially be avoided? Or even low/medium speed rail collisions?”
None. And… none.
Even with the best available braking - trains operating at track speed CAN NOT be stopped within the range of vision.
You may be right, but I am asking for some factual references. First would be a reference to the actual technical issues with ECP connectors. Yes electrical connectors can be troublesome with corrosion issues. But I would expect that any such problem would be corrected by a better connector design that is capable of doing the job. But in this case, the unclarified “connector problem” seems to killed the entire ECP concept. It makes me wonder if that wasn’t the point. The adequate connect
Here’s a standard for the connectors. Not freight, but they’d need to be interchangeable.
https://www.apta.com/wp-content/uploads/APTA-PR-M-S-022-19.pdf