The railroad industry that first embraced ECP brakes for its advantages over the status quo is now searching for reasons to reverse their enthusiasm. This recently came to a head with the federal mandate for ECP brakes on oil trains. Here the focus of ECP was on the safety it could provide to oil trains, and so the AAR said, “ECP brakes will not result in fewer accidents, and will not provide significant safety benefits.”
Going further with their pushback, they say, “Safety Data Do Not Support an ECP Mandate. Less than 1 percent of all train accidents are related to a failure in brake equipment, and there have not been any brake-related accidents involving a crude oil or ethanol train.”
But is this telling the entire story? Their reference to “A failure in brake equipment” typically implies an inability to apply brakes for controlling speed or stopping when needed. Yet there are other types of accidents that ECP braking will prevent besides just the accidents caused by a failure to stop.
For instance, consider the recent CSX wreck in Hyndman, PA. From what was reported about that derailment, it appears that it was not caused by a brake equipment failure, so the AAR would have us believe that ECP brakes would not have prevented this accident. And yet there are several possible ways in which ECP might have prevented it. Here are four points to consider:
There is the ECP that “is” and the ECP that “could be”. The ECP that “is” isn’t much help. It relies on feeding power from the head end and doesn’t utilize the “smart” trainline for anything other than braking. The AAR is correct that it really doesn’t get you much.
The ECP that “could be” would be integrated as part of a “smart train” that would sense and control much of what goes on in the train. The benefits outside of “just braking” could make it valuable enough to install. But that takes a bit more vision… And, railroads are currently completely distracted by PTC implementation to even dream about ECP.
Regarding your distinction between “ECP that is” versus “ECP that could be”:
When I say ECP could have prevented the possible causes for the Hyndman derailment, I am referring to the “ECP that is,” meaning just basic ECP brake system with a hardwire signal line to control the brake valves, and a hose line to deliver the air to the reservoirs. I understand that it is the ECP sy
Here’s the thing that I think keeps getting lost in the static:
FRA has only been given rulemaking authority over matters of safety, and with respect to ECP that has come to be (mis)interpreted primarily as a matter of emergency-braking performance. With the adoption of accelerated application in one-pipe systems, it is easily demonstrated (and has been, from a variety of sources without, so far as I know, any denial) that any ‘advantage’ of ECP for emergency or penalty braking is no more than 3% over what is already paid for and installed on most if not all interchange hazmat cars.
The AAR and other ‘objections’ to ECP are, I think, responses to the threat of a FRA ‘mandate’ to install the equipment under the nominal excuse of improving safety. I don’t think anyone argues about the prospective benefits of graduated release, rapid setup in service applications, and the other areas where one-pipe braking remains a significant compromise, but the argument has been (and of course remains) that there’s both a high price and limited utility associated with ECP rollout in general interchange service, and the railroads so far have been unwilling to assume the cost of adoption even in limited unit-train or other designated service – perhaps concerned about camels’ noses – let alone be a ‘first adopter’ expensively solving the range of prospective implementation problems for the benefit of other railroads that sat back with the popcorn … perhaps there is similarity with the development of practical random-access memory chips for personal computers.
To my knowledge, the current designs of ECP equipment are reasonably ‘frozen’, and later improvements in technology would almost certainly follow the Vail model of tolerance for all ‘built’ equipment in upgrades. The operational issues of rollout (although not either the sunk-capital or mandate issues) are already addressed by the availability of sy
Here’s the thing that I think keeps getting lost in the static:
FRA has only been given rulemaking authority over matters of safety, and with respect to ECP that has come to be (mis)interpreted primarily as a matter of emergency-braking performance. With the adoption of accelerated application in one-pipe systems, it is easily demonstrated (and has been, from a variety of sources without, so far as I know, any denial) that any ‘advantage’ of ECP for emergency or penalty braking is no more than 3% over what is already paid for and installed on most if not all interchange hazmat cars.
The AAR and other ‘objections’ to ECP are, I think, responses to the threat of a FRA ‘mandate’ to install the equipment under the nominal excuse of improving safety. I don’t think anyone argues about the prospective benefits of graduated release, rapid setup in service applications, and the other areas where one-pipe braking remains a significant compromise, but the argument has been (and of course remains) that there’s both a high price and limited utility associated with ECP rollout in general interchange service, and the railroads so far have been unwilling to assume the cost of adoption even in limited unit-train or other designated service – perhaps concerned about camels’ noses – let alone be a ‘first adopter’ expensively solving the range of prospective implementation problems for the benefit of other railroads that sat back with the popcorn … perhaps there is similarity with the development of practical random-access memory chips for personal computers.
To my knowledge, the current designs of ECP equipment are reasonably ‘frozen’, and later improvements in technology would almost certainly follow the Vail model of tolerance for all ‘built’ equipment in upgrades. The operational issues of rollout (although not either the sunk-capital or mandate issues) are al
Can you provide some technical references that define and evaluate this problem with ECP connectors that you say have been a major source of trouble? I would like to see what has been tried and why it failed.
I have heard about this connector problem, but only in the form of passing complaint in the most generalized sense. So I have to wonder if it is somewhat of a trumped up issue being used to downplay ECP and thus reduce the risk of being forced into investing in it either by mandate or consensus.
I can see connectors starting out as being under-engineered and not being able to stand up to the rough environment of freight car applications. But surely this cannot be a showstopper. Elon Musk is going to colonize Mars and he is not worried about connector problems.
Also, ECP is not in some experimental infancy as is implied by the AAR. It is developed technology in use in large applications. Those big users don’t seem to be having connector problems.
Perhaps the problem with the ECP connectors is with frequent connections/disconnections. Corrosion notwithstanding, a connector that stays connected (ie, unit trains) isn’t going to give you many problems. Connectors that must part and then be reconnected each time a car is switched, etc, are where the problems are going to arise.
And a problem like this would be a showstopper for implementing ECP for the general freight car fleet.
Well obiously, what I mean is that Musk is not going to throw in the towel on a big idea over some minor detail like a connector when the big idea is expanding our civilization to populate Mars. I do understand that connectors can be a problem. Trust me. I agee that connectors that stay connected will last longer than ones that are disconnected and reconnected frequently.
But if this connector problem is acually holding up ECP, it should be well documented. So were is the documention? I would like to see the details of the problem.
It sounds like you almost need to adapt what the OTR industry did. We have one electrical connection between our trailers and our tractors. It is 7 pins Male on both sides with a female pigtail running inbetween the connectors. Cheap reliable as all get out can and does survive multiple uses easy to repair and now is multiplexed to carry more than just power. We run a multiplexed signal that powers everything on the trailer and also can provide the drivers with an faults with the ABS system via a light on the dash can power if equipped a central inflation system for the tires and some carriers that pull reefers also have it intergrated with their reefer units to send real time data to their HQ on what the unit is doing temp wise and if their are any faults. We do all that on 7 wires.
oltmannd
One of the problems with ECP as it currently exisits is powering the system solely from the head end. The intercar connectors have been a major source of trouble and are not as easily replaced as an air hose. I see this a a fundamental, and perhaps fatal flaw in the current ECP systems.
Don,
Can you provide some technical references that define and evaluate this problem with ECP connectors that you say have been a major source of trouble? I would like to see what has been tried and why it failed.
I have heard about this connector problem, but only in the form of passing complaint in the most generalized sense. So I have to wonder if it is somewhat of a trumped up issue being used to downplay ECP and thus reduce the risk of being forced into investing in it either by mandate or consensus.
I can see connectors starting out as being under-engineered and not being able to stand up to the rough environment of freight car applications. But surely this cannot be a showstopper. Elon Musk is going to colonize Mars and he is not worried about connector problems.
Also, ECP is not in some experimental infancy as is implied by the AAR. It is developed technology in use in large applications. Those big users don’t seem to be having connector problems.
Euclid
Elon Musk is going to colonize Mars and he is not worried about connector problems.
Trust me, he’s worried about connector problems…
Perhaps the problem with the ECP connectors is with frequent connections/disconnections. Corrosion notwithstanding, a connector that stays connected (ie, unit trains) isn’t going to give you many problems. Connectors that must part and then be reconnected each time a car is switched, etc, are where the problems are going to arise.
And a problem like this would be a showstopper for implementing ECP for the general freight car fleet.
Well obiously, what I mean is that Musk is not going to throw in the towel on a big idea over some minor detail like a connector when the big idea is expanding our civilization to populate Mars. I do understand that connectors can be a problem. Trust me. I agee that connectors that stay connected will last longer than ones that are disconnected and reconnected frequently.
But if this connector problem is acually holding up ECP, it should be well documented. So were is the documention? I would like to see the details of the problem.
I have to agree with Larry on this. ‘Genreous Motors’ has improved their connectors tremendously and the means of sealing them from the enviroment in recent years As long as they are not disconected and exposed to the elements they remain in good condition. That can’t be said for freight cars that have those connections frequently broken and exposed to the elements.
You keep claiming to have experience but when asked to show tha
Won’t help you distribute the 220V power down the length of the trains to work the electrical part of ECP. The various versions of ‘powerline modulation’ needed to carry data/metadata down the pair are basically leveraging off the need to have a reasonably good low-resistance isolated pair of conductors already. The trainline has to be robust against damage and environmental insults, so there’s no reason to economize on copper and go to something like POE-on-steroids for the operating current.
I don’t think it is at all reasonable to use any sort of battery or wireless-charged storage modality to run ECP on most kinds of consist. It is certainly reasonable, and there are some advantages in principle, to using some of the modern RFID techniques to implement ‘passive antennas’ on unequipped cars, to give a quick approximation to full ECP trainline data transfer before all cars are equipped with relatively expensive (and troublesome!) powerline-and-data-modem connections, and that of course would be a wireless solution. (My own preference would still be to implement powerline modulation on the copper when it finally “eventuates”, and modulate it in parallel with the wireless for a little additional redundancy and bandwidth. How you would power any ‘islanded’ cars in a consist then becomes an interesting philosophical discussion for the Bucyri among us.
Note that in the foregoing discussions, I’m NOT presuming that ECP is magically applied to all the various kinds of train running on the national system of transportation. When I bring up hi-rail service, it’s in the very specific context of the consists ‘specially’ introducing ECP – probably things like oil trains or dedicated hazmat consists – and I presume that the same kind of attention that keeps wheels trued and prof
Laymen totaly underestimate the challanges of the railroad enviornment that assults the equipment on a 24/7/365 basis where any unscheduled maintenance is to be avoided and that scheduled maintenance period is FIVE years for air brake testing.