I would look beyond management systems. I think autonomous vehicles are a lot closer than some of the skeptics here think. Over the past several years DARPA has held contests for autonomous unmanned vehicles to navigate over a course not revealed to the entrants until the actual day of the contest. In 2005 five vehicles actually completed the 132 miles course through the Mojave Desert. Programming a car, truck, or motorcycle to maneuver over an unknown, undeveloped road is in many ways a far more difficult task, in my mind, than programming a train.
There must be some very interesting concepts on why man works so hard to find machines to do all the work. It is easy to understand the mechanical parts of digging, pickingup, etc. But the more cerebral work has to have some kind of philosophical if not spiritual take. Is it because man is lazy? unsure of himself? unsure of fellow men? likes gadgets? wants to shun resposniblity? is just too cheap to hire fellow man? needs to be “in control” but with “hands off”? something else? Is it really a pursuit for safety and economy or is there something sinsiter about letting microchips run the world?
Back to fuel economy. Could or does a computer system have a display on the console that shows the recomended speed at this location, at this time for the best fuel economy? That seems like a good idea. Some computer system can look at the traffic, grade etc. and just make a suggestion rather than any type of direct control over the train. The engineer would then have some data the represents the “big picture”. Could or does a computer system also make suggestions to the dispatcher like which trains should go into or out of which sidings in order to be fuel efficient. Would something like this help schedule MOW better?
That’s exactly what is already designed, manufactured, and tested. I’ve seen it in revenue service on one U.S. line. It could go one step further and become an auto-throttle, but that has implementation risks that are not yet equalled by the small additional difference in productivity.
Yes, in theory that’s possible. In reality, automating dispatching is going to be very, very, hard, because there are too many variables to process, and no one yet knows how to write the mathematical rules that bring them into relationship with each other.
Not really. Maintenance-of-way needs great big time chunks to be productive. Spending money designing a dispatching system to finesse a couple of minutes here or there isn’t going to pay off in any meaningful increase in maintenance productivity.
In theory it’s possible to design a dispatching automation system that accounts for maintenance-of-way, balancing productivity cost of maintenance against productivity cost of trains versus service commitments and financial incentives of trains versus capacity of the railway versus cost penalty of slow orders versus 1,000 other things. Very hard to do, because there are billions of possible combinations that have to
[RWM quotation from another post]Speaking as a former dispatcher, I have looked with equivalent interest and dread at the efforts to automate dispatching. My experience is that about 1 in 10 dispatchers are outstanding, another 1 in 10 are good enough most days, 6 are mediocre, 1 is bad, and another 1 is wretched. Mediocre is not good enough any more as the need for reliability, efficiency, and cost reduction becomes more intense every day. I seriously doubt it is possible to create a dispatching automation tool that is any better than the mediocre dispatcher, and frankly I think it will be somewhat worse than that. But given that the trend I see in dispatching offices is towards greater and greater difficulty in finding and retaining dispatchers (the good ones soon get promoted or find a better-paying job in another industry), the quality is slowly sinking and I doubt there’s any way to reverse it.
It is sad that there is so little dedication to their work on the part of so many people. There have always been, of course, people who thought of their “jobs” simply as sources of income and took no pleasure in their work, but it seems that such people now form a greater proportion of the work force.
At my graduate school, when the president’s secretary retired, at least two, if not three, people had to be hired to handled all the work that she had taken care of.
Johnny
I have not yet drawn that conclusion from my years in railroading. I think that all we are seeing is the outcome of expanding job opportunity. Fifty years ago, a railway job was a very good job compared to all the other possible jobs a young man might take, in terms of pay, job security, job satisfaction, and amount of manual labor. Today, railway jobs are not competing with hoeing beet tops under the 100-degree sun, or mind-numbing factory assembly jobs in brutal heat, noise, and danger. They are competing against all sorts of nice jobs in an office building, in businesses or services that do not operate around the clock, do not have far-flung operations, do not ever go outdoors for anything, and have equal or better job satisfaction, security, chance for advancement, and pay. Fifty years ago railways could take the very best people because the best people had few other good options, and the rest of the job pool ended up in manual labor on a farm or factory.
I have a dozen 20- and 30-somethings working for me today in my little part of the railway, and with one exception, they are all people who are smarter, harder-working, and more dedicated than I was at that age. But we also pay them competitively with the software firms, the insurance firms, the pharmaeutical firms, the engineering firms, too, with starting salaries out of college of $50,000 and plenty of opportunity to advance to $130,000 in t
Don’t mistake dedication for ability. Many people are dedicated, but don’t really possess the ability.
In your Grad school example, I would be willing to bet that the President’s secretary had been in that position long term. Being in the position long term she had come to grips with the various timings of all the routine occurrences that affected the Presidents office and would anticipate the needs for certain things to occur at particular times through the year and already have 95% of all the needs handled when the time came. Those hired to replace the secretary have yet to learn the timing and the needs that are coming through the door…as a consequence they are having to think their way through the occurrence 100% in real time while performing the actions. A persons efficiency decreases when, for every step of the way, he has to think about ‘what is next and how do I do that’. You can act or you can think…but you can’t do both at the most effective level together.
To revert to RWM’s assessment of Dispatcher’s abilities. In today’s Dispatching Offices you have about 10/15% of dispatchers that began their railroad career’s as Telegraph Operators in the various towers that existed 20-30 years ago; jobs in which they had a first hand view to the Dispatching profession and it’s interactio
Too many people today have jobs and not careers…and it is not all thier fault as companies feel that anybody can be hired to do a given job at any time for any pay and be glad they have a job; if you don’t like it, leave because there are ten people in line who want a paycheck. If you do choose a career there is no guarantee, no matter how dedicated and sincere you are, that you will be able to hold onto the job, or the employer for that matter, as budget cuts, consolidations, mergers, and big mania cuts so many off at the start. There is no loyalty or respect from the ranks because there is no loyalty or respect from management. If you’re out of work and somebody’s hiring, go get it even if it isn’t what you’re trained to do or want to do, because that’s all thats left in this town or that. It is hard for employers to find good, hard working, dedicated employees today because those prospective employees know they are being offered empty promises of any kind of future…just hope they can hang on until they qualify for unemployment benefits before the promise fizzles out. Employers don’t get dedicated, loyal, qualified employees seeking careers if they merely merely jobs instead of real career opportunities. I see kids coming into my business everyday starry eyed and optimistic only to find they were promised things unatainable in positions they are totally not qualified to do; they last but months a flee to another business. Even those “qualified” run when they are expected to perform well beyond their experience or understanding of the trade.
I was with two dedicated railroaders the other day who love thier work but hate their jobs…pay is good but the hours aren’t. They have stuck things out because of seniority and pay, but realize they don’t have the private lives they or their families would really like. If we were in better economic times, many of these railroaders would jump to better job o
Railway Man, do you think that the problem might be the fact that the railroads have locked themselves into being only able to serve a market that has become highly competitive, might be part of the problem? Consider the BNSF, how many total customers did the constituent companies have in the 1950s versus how many they have now, and consider how many shipments. As I see it, the railroads have gotten more efficient at moving what they move, the problem is that the have done this by concentrating continually on a smaller and smaller portion of the market. Railroads have achieved efficiency by raising the minimum size of their basic unit of production. To raise Railroad’s market share significantly they will have to accomplish two things, first they have to find a way to handle smaller shipments, and second they have to find a way to reach smaller shippers. And as a corollary they need to stop pulling back to fewer and fewer, and more widely dispersed terminals.
As a retired software engineer/developer as well as a railfan and streetcar fan I would like to offer my opinion on this most interesting issue:
Total computer controlled operations of a rail line that maintains its way through public territory appears to be totally unfeasible. Of course, you can run trains computer controlled and optimized towards a variety of criteria, including fuel usage optimization, but to really be efficient a whole bunch of conditions would need to be met. Amongst these were: all trains need to be controlled the same way, including thrufare of yards, etc. No human access to the tracks had to be possible, i.e. conditions that could be met on a Maglev line or elevated Monorail, etc. Of course no crossings whatsoever, other than strictly computer controlled. The whole system needed to be made failsafe as much is possible, meaning that the whole network needed to be controlled by the same center using several computers that all need to have independent power supply, several GPS satellites, etc. At least three independent circuits necessary. What an effort! I doubt that it were cheaper than to employ a few thousand loco engineers. Also, the characteristics of locos that are mued today are very different. I am truly amazed to see that sometimes old Alcos get mixed with more modern EMDs etc. If I am not totally wrong, all the remote controls today are achieving is common throttle positions and braking power. Also, if some mid or end train helpers are employed they are controlled by radio devices whose signals will be transformed again into throttle and break positions, and this already with some delays. And if we are unlucky they are just in a tunnel and don’t react immediately at all.
Now with the envisaged operatorless operations practically all locos need to get their signals at the same time, meaning that all railway tunnels need to be equipped with fail safe relay transmitters, etc.
If we look at the software required at the various
Aitomation is great, and I am sure you can do all that is being discussed here, BUT! Until the ENTIRE ire American network is enclosed on a Private R.O.W. There will be problems, not with the equipment of the rauilroads; the major issue, IMO will be tresspassers, and their lawyers.
Maybe , the railroads can hire the un-rmployed to count coup on the drivers who ignore grade crossing warnings?[#oops] Create locomotives with large plows to sweep aside the carnage from crossing encounters?[soapbox]
Interesting question because it’s a core question that is the foundation of almost every decision in which I am involved professionally. While we might not specifically discuss this question every day at work, with what are usually less-than-macro decisions, we are informed by this question always.
Before I start to address your question, I need to lay down a framework on which the answer will rest, as follows. I think the key to shaping any railroading decision that involves markets, costs, and pricing starts with having a solid understanding of the unit of production of a transportation mode, and understanding how the productivity of that unit is likely to be influenced by future changes in technology, external cost inputs, markets, and public policy outcomes of citizen goals and aspirations. For the railway, the basic unit of production is the train. Productivity is created by getting more output out of the train for less input of labor, fuel, mai
Yes, I really do not know how long she had been there–it may have been thirty-three years–but she had certainly grown with the job; as more needed to be done, she added the responsibility to what she already had, and saved the additional cost of another employee. And, you are right about the learning processes of the replacements. I rather doubt that she left a training manual.
She was also a fan of the Georgia Crackers (minor league baseball team). I may have a faulty recall, but I believe that she could give you statistics for many years of their play.
Johnny
It can only be a throttle assist. It can’t replace engineer’s responsibilities. No matter what you do there are too many variables that wander off from any programmed situation, you need your engineer there to keep control of the engine.
RWM -
First - I offer belated thanks for your thorough and detailed explanation of last Friday (07-17-2009, 7:11 PM) of the difference between PTC and automated train control - more importantly, the ‘architecture’ of the logic systems for authority, safety, and efficiency behind them - in response to my question. [tup]
Second - As I read the above exposition - as well as several others you’ve written recently - that line from Billy Joel’s song “The Piano Man” keeps coming to mind: “Man, what are you doing here ?”. I know that I - and many others, too, I’m sure - are very appreciative that you are. [bow]
Third - You’re probably not going to want to hear/ read this, but I need to say it anyway: The system you describe in the quote below seems exactly like what John Kneiling advocated and predicted for his ‘land-ship’ integral trains of 5 miles’ length with distributed power, serving industrial parks that had giant off-road container drayage trucks (kind of like those Australian ‘road-trains’ above, I suppose). If there’s a substantive difference (other than brevity), I don’t see it, and would like to know what it is. But regardless of that, the similarity doesn’t detract from the concept or the forces that will create it - I too see things moving that way. The former Bethlehem Steel plant on the east side of Bethlehem, PA is well on its way to becoming one of those - I believe that Majestic Realty from California has big plans for that site.
Again, thanks for your insights and analysis. It’s always informative and fun to read.
Best regards,
- Paul North.
[quote user=“Railway Man”]
[many snips] But from the point of view of a railway, and given what I know about rail operating cost structures, I thin
Even a blind squirrel finds a nut? No, that’s too mean to Mr. Kneiling. He was right in this case, but both premature and cluttered up his message with too much jeremiad and too much engineering gizmos such as the giant off-road dray trucks. If your audience is already predisposed to think you’re a jerk, and if you can’t resist diverting mid-message into sideshows, it’s unlikely you’ll ever get your point across. Which means you’ve wasted your time.
In my experience, if your solution can’t be explained in 30 seconds, your solution is probably too complicated to work. If it relies on the invention or adoption of more than one piece of new equipment, it is probably too expensive to work. If more than one chains of command have to agree to it, it’s probably too unfocused to work.
Kneiling wanted to be another Robert Moses, a man who would have had no compunction enforcing his will on the public and democracy be dam-ned. I think he was always frustrated by the messiness of human power and social structures, which always got in the way of his ideas.
RWM
My thoughts were based on the dispersion of population out of the core cities, and your previous comments on drayage costs being a significant problem for Intermodal. What you are suggesting is the very antithesis of the principal of “Just in Time” production, unless the material stockpiled was maintained in the most basic state of a raw material. I see problems of diminishing returns to productivity in the constant increases in the size of the trains, take the shuttle grain trains, what is the next step 130 or 150 cars? This would imply fewer, further apart loading terminals requiring greater truck haulage, or on the other hand it could make it economic to develop a regional railroad system independent of the line-haul companies, perhaps in some ways similar to the sugarcane railways, operational only during harvest season.
With reference to the automated off-road haulage here is a photograph of a totally automated container crane and two automated off-road haulage vehicles operating at the ECT Terminal at Rotterdam’s Maasvlakte 1 Container Port.
[tup] Thanks for that link. [And so much for great new ideas to make a fortune with . . . [sigh] ]
Do you have a link or more detailed description of how it works - the crane, the truck, and that part of the system, etc. I’m not looking for the electro-mechanical ‘nut-and-bolt’ details, but more like the general process. For example, somebody has to tell the crane - at least in general terms - which container[s] to pick and set. I presume that once it’s pointed in the right direction, the crane handles the rest of the minutiae of moving there and correctly positioning itself and then aligning the spreader with the container’s corners to pick it up, etc. - correct [Q] And then, do the automated trucks go to a storage or holding yard, how are they coordinated and unloaded, etc. - that kind of thing.
Any additional information you can provide will be appreciated. Thanks.
- Paul North.
I think they use a computerized virtual inventory system, whereby the computer decides where to store each container and when each container is then dispatched to either the highway terminal the rail terminal or the quayside container crane.
If you have Google Earth software this add-on database of European Intermodal Terminals is useful.
European Intermodal Terminal Overlay for Google Earth
Now with that add-on installed type in “Maasvlakte, Netherlands” into the search window. Zoom in on the ECT Delta Terminal. You will notice that the SW, SE, and NE quadrants of the Delta Terminal quay are already equipped with this system. The 22 Ship unloading cranes on the sout
That crane pretty much sums up why intermodal isn’t all that competitive on shorthauls. The expense of that crane…the expense of a highly skilled operator to run it…along with the dray expenses at either end make it one costly undertaking compared to simply hauling the container from door to door on a truck. On longer hauls it makes more sense to use rail as those fixed expenses are a smaller portion of the total expense.