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.
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
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
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™ 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™ 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 provide
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!!
In my first post on this thread, I wrote about the potential dangerous damage that would occur if hackers would get into a RR’s computer system. CSX was hit with a virus yesterday causing ALL passenger and freight train traffic to be halted. CSX won’t know the severity of the damage for a while. Some people will speculate it was the SoBig virus that was crippling hundreds of thousands of computer systems recently. There’s no proof yet.
If the only damage this virus caused was loss of time and money, CSX came out ok. On an automated RR, the damage a virus can do is unimaginable, and would be like a “WELCOME” mat for hackers.
With all due respect, you cannot blame the new conductors for a system which has utterly destroyed the very foundation that creates conductors in the first place. In the name of the unholy and unmighty dollars, railroads have eliminated brakeman positions by the boatfulls, and have thrust new hires right into the captains seat without any practical hands on experience. The railroads view 5 weeks of formal class training and one week of hands on in a controlled environment as the equivalent of 30 years of working the ropes. I know this, I lived it, and its a bold face lie! The fact remains that because the brakeman position has all but been eliminated said some yard or industrial jobs, the ability for the junior member to work the brakeman slot on jobs day after day after day is now gone. No real opportunity to get experience under wisdom exists. Years ago, you had to take a test to become promoted to conductor. Not now! So please, without you feeling I singled you out, don’t jump on the new conductors till you have sat in their seat and worn their boots. I tell you, its not easy being new out there and not readily accepted. What the railroads have done is not equitable nor fair, but the bottom line is…your a body, we’ve got a train, get it going, arrive on time, and don’t worry about the rest. Any other disposition is localized and holds no conformity to the industry as a whole.
This all sounds terrific, and since I made my prior comments above I have read the TRAINS article on remotes. Nothing said in that article or your comment overrides my years of railroading which tells me just how often things go wrong on the railroad often with spectacular consequences.
Let me point out a few problems with your analysis which I believe to be a gross oversimplification of the difficulties one would run across in rolling out an unmanned system to a real railroad. This does not mean there might not be certain specific instances where unmanned trains could work (QNS&L an isolated railroad using unit trains is one example, transit may well be another). This isn’t simply an engineering problem of “can we do it”, but a much more complex problem involving multiple disciplines.
Problems with unmanned operation:
Grade Crossings
Because of potential liability concerns and the danger to the public, FRA has expressed its displeasure with even the operation of manned RCL trains outside designated RCL limits in yards. Although Indiana RR has some items in place on their RR to permit operation over public grade crossings, FRA has not officially sanctioned this procedure. This would likely mean a requirement of complete grade separation or closing of exist
It is a combination of factors. First it’s by learning the territory with another experienced engineer. This is often referred to as “Qualifying” or “Qualifying on the Physical Characteristics”. This is the process of an engineer riding another engineer’s train and learning the territory including not only the grades, but the speeds, curves, mileposts, signals, interlockings, switches, industries and more. To learn this he uses his Employee Timetable, track and grade charts and timetable special instructions coupled with his training and knowledge of how dynamic and airbrakes are used.
Second, it’s by using the engineer’s most important sensory organ, his Butt in the right hand seat and by his experience in running all sorts of different trains from coal trains to auto racks to mixed freight and even passenger trains. Each type of train behaves differently.
The engineer also uses his instrumentation to help him including his speedometer, air gauges, dynamic brake indicators (ammeter) and EOTD/HOTD readouts to help him make his decisions. He also reviews his paperwork with his conductor before departure and pays careful attention to the in train placement of different cars and the distribution of loads and empties.
A train is a great heavy beast and each behaves quite differently from the other. It is definitely a judgement call. As to how you could get a computer to do that, well, I have my doubts. I’ve seen many good engineers come from other divisions on seniority bumps and quickly pile up the knuckles on our hills. A computer wouldn’t eve
Running unmaned trains could happen … as soon as railroads gets over the hurdles of money and finding the right people to do the job of installation of computer equipment. and the contracts of who will run it… the railroads would love to get this thing on the move. do you think they won’t be doing this soon… you better guess again…
you all are close but wrong. just like a jet fighter piolet who wears a helmet with a mask that shows him diferent functions, the enginer of the very near futcher will sit on a chair in a room some place wearing a helmit which will be hooked up to a camera at the front of the train. he will be able to see just as if he were actualy there and will be able to do functions from afar just like the eginers now can remote controll a pushing unite at the end of the train DAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
[:p][:p]While one should never say never. I don’t think that they could ever remove the people completly from operating the trains. They still need two [:)]pilots to fly planes and aircraft are practally flown by computers now. How trains operate in the future will still need the human in the cab to make decisions based on the conditions the train is running into. This is something that cannot be done from a computer screen hundreds maybe thousands of miles away.[8D][8D]
In defense of computers, they’re not totally susceptable to everything. If you don’t hook your systems up to an external network, you will not be as susceptable to virus, hackers, etc…
The use of the Internet to communicate using large systems in mission critical applications should not even be considered.
The railroads have alot of work to do if the were to go this route. For one VANDELs would be there big problem. Being a ex railroad employee I worked for a regional railroad here in Chicago for about two years. I, along with my crews in the two years have been derailed on purpose 9 times, 1 major derailment. Kids do anything from putting money on the tracks, scrap steel, Bricks, wood in the grooves of railroad crossings, pushing whole cars into the front of moving freight trains, anything that could be possibly used to try to derail a train a kid is going to stick it on the track (why I say kid is because half the time they stick around to watch). I have been shot at, had rocks trown at me, and all sorts of stuff slung at me threw a sling shot. I have had vandels unbolt a rail on a siding and in a little town of wayne or what CC&P and EJ&E calls munger (hawthorne) we had vandels take all the copper wire and other electrical stuff out of a signal (basically gutted the signal). IF THE RAILROADS ARE GOING TO UNMANNED TRAINS THE GENERAL PUBLIC AND CRIMINALS ARE GONNA HAVE FIELD DAYS!!! THEY ARE GOING TO EITHER HAVE TO HIRE A TON OF SECURITY AGENTS FOR EVERY 100 FEET OR GO TO MENARDS AND BUY A BIG FENCE, A COUPLE THOUSAND MILES WORTH…
The second the towns people are really not going to be very happy to go to sleep at night wondering what is going through their town. My father had spent many years on C&NW and his last five were with BN. he always told me never ask about what is behind your locomotives. If people like U.P. think there going to send these threw my town there wrong, I already belong to a commitee to keep RCLs out of my neck of the woods (already loosing a cousin to RCL operations) my cousin was a safe employee and always practiced his safety and even gave up his time off to teach a safety class to the new hires. The Railroad investigation states it was RCL failure and says my cousin gave it one command and the box did the reverse.
This’ll teach me not to go back and see what’s been posted in reply after I post something…
Agreed - I haven’t run a train. I have been railfanning for many years, though, and have a rudimentary idea of what’s involved. That said, I’d be the first to agree that the technology isn’t available yet to duplicate the innate knowlege of an engineer, won’t be for a long time, and the way railroads are set up today isn’t conducive to implementing those technologies. On the other hand, I carry around a computer daily that fits in the palm of my hand (a Palm…) t
I think that some discussion should be made with two points in mind:
First, that we’re MUCH closer to “one-man” or “two-man” freights than to unmanned. Second, that remote train-control systems as presently used are intended to put control of the motive power in the hands of switchmen while performing switching – and are expressly not designed or optimized for over-the-road service.
I was hoping to see someone mention the implications of modern PTC in connection with train handling. A couple of posts danced around this a bit but apparently haven’t followed the current status of how this technology would be implemented. For example: If PTC reduces many aspects of ‘strain’ in train handling, would it become ‘possible’ to extend the hours of service for train crews? In particular, would it become possible to use two-man crews in the same manner that over-the-road truckers handle ‘head-end’ driving, and thereby double the number of permissible continuous hours a train could run between established crew-change points? (And in such cases, would sliding wages be paid by the hour to the ‘on’ and ‘off’ crewmembers?)
There is nothing particularly difficult about designing out most, if not all, of the ‘problems’ discussed so far – of course, it’s the problems you don’t anticipate that pose the most difficulty ;-}. The issue, however, is quite different from technical feasibility, and has been through the entire recorded history of automatic train control.
I, myself, think that any system that permits sustained train operation for more than eight hours at a time, at ‘equivalent’ cost to the carrier or company providing the train service, would be immensely valuable. Even if this did nothing more than allow the train to be run under ‘remote’ authority to a convenient crew-change point, it would eliminate many of the problems with eight-hour issues that are so often reported (cf. the recent Trains article on the KCS problems with Mexican connections via UP). I wor