Predicting the future is fraught with difficulties, but Colin Hakeman has provided a convincing narrative. This seems a good article to discuss on the forum. Please note that Colin does post on these forums, so we should probably be polite where we disagree.
I am posting from Australia, and my friends have generally indicated that we wouldn’t expect to have train crew on board for a line haul in twenty years’ time. This is based on Rio Tinto already running trains without crew on line haul, and to a lesser extent, the Sydney Metro system which operates automatically. there are personnel on board, but the controls are locked up and only used in case of a major failure.
I think that voltages well above 600 volts could be used to directly drive coventional AC traction locomotives. I am pretty sure that 1500 volts DC can be fed directly to the DC bus of an inverter powering AC traction motors. The New South Wales Railways have ordered dual mode diesel and 1500 volts DC vehicles for regional and outer suburban commuter service. These are not currently intended to use batteries, but on a number of significant grades the track is already electrified for shorter distance commuter trains, and a significant fuel saving is expected. It also will effectively eliminate exhaust fumes in the major terminal station in Sydney. Interestingly, the trains were initially ordered as straight diesel-electric with AC traction, and it was realised that the electric mode could be added for not much more than the cost of a pantograph and a high voltage circuit breaker.
The other thing I might expect is that visible signals will be eliminated. Rio Tinto eliminated visible signals before 2004, possibly twenty years ago, and all data was displayed on the screens of the locomotives, including a recommended speed (it showed zero for Stop). That same system is supplying data for the “Autohaul” trains now. However, BHP, who still have manned locomotives, have also eliminated visible signals on the main
Is there any information on the failure rate for Rio Tinto trains? I would guess it’s within an “acceptable” limit.
While we don’t have the full blown automatic capability, we do have some of the ‘auto throttle’ feature made by some of the same suppliers to Rio Tinto. I will say it works pretty good, but it does fail on occasion. We also have break in two zones where we have to shut off the automatic control on certain trains because it tears too many apart.
You won’t see ECP on trains anytime soon here. Even on the trains that might benefit from it. As long as PSR/share holder value uber alles is the name of the day they won’t spend money if they don’t have too.
I’m disappointed that a second thread on this subject was started by another poster, even if he believed that his ideas were copied. I understood that forum protocol was to use an established thread, even if you are disputing something…
Sadly any discussion of the content appears to have disappeared.
In my opinion, it would be highly logical to discuss the technical specifics in the article in this present thread, and leave the other one to its discussion of ethics and perceived remediation or author credit. As I have not read the Trains article, I can’t comment on any specifics other than those already mentioned as present. I say this with no disrespect to Don Oltmann, whose blog entry on this topic remains just as thought-provoking and valid as it was when written.
I also think we can at some point ‘compare and contrast’ this with other ‘visions’ including that which Don Oltmann so splendidly wrote up. As some of the differences in technology involve things dear to me, such as incremental implementation of islanded catenary with either full-hybrid or ‘dual-mode-lite’ power in lieu of full buildout for electric operation, it might be useful to concentrate on discussing the differences rather than the similarities … here.
I said in the other thread that I thought it would have been better for Trains to publish an article on “Visions of railroading in 2040”, not just the one adapted article that is turning out to cause so much fuss. One very obvious alternative would be that put forward by ttrraaffiicc and Bruce Gillings, in which autonomous road chassis increasingly, and then in their view completely, supplant rail freight transportation. That may not be palatable to many reading a rail-enthusiast magazine (just as it was when presented to many posters here) but it is at least thought-provoking, and some of the details will certainly contribute to shaping railroading a couple of decades from now.
There is little question that ‘standardizing’ catenary transversion (or any other method of energy provision or storage) should be made around properly filtered and spike-protected DC-link voltage for AC synthesis drive and control. To the extent that may differ by locomotive type (
Since the other thread is more about plagiarism, I thought I’d try to revive this thread about what things might be like in 20 years.
I have an issue with about 12 or 13 things in the article. Some you might partially see, others I don’t think you’ll see at that time.
First there is also a terminology mistake. When you want to control remote DP consists independently (manually) from the lead locomotive, you don’t “drop the fence,” you put up the fence. Currently you couldn’t control all 4 consists independently. You have some choice on what combination you want controlled in sync with the lead and controlled independently. Linking and unlinking DP consists is a little bit more involved, requiring someone to do set up on both consists. I think the almost automatic connecting/disconnecting in the article won’t happen. I do think there will be utility employees at yards to help out during these processes.
Currently, your cell phone has to be OFF and stowed in your luggage. Maybe they will relax the regulation, but I doubt it. I’m not sure about the finger print thing. To log into and initialize PTC we have to enter our employee ID number and AVR (automated voice response) password. And I don’t expect they’ll allow a lone employee to listen to music while toolin’ down the rails.
Once with PTC working, you don’t see other trains on the operating map display. I doubt in the future this will change. There’s no reason for it. While it’s always nice to know why you’re getting hosed at a control point, it’s not critical information the train crew necessarily needs to know. Plus, if you have the PTC screen why do you still have a cab signal? If you have “rolling blocks” (no permanent track circuit block boundries) you don’t need waysides or cab signals. (Personally, I don’t agree with the ne
I didn’t think the music-listening was realistic either. Whether through speakers loud enough to drown out the loco noise, or via headphones, it seems like engineers will always need to be able to hear what’s going on. Like alarms, things that just don’t sound right and need investigation, radio calls, or even yelled emergency warnings from trackside individuals. “Stop! There’s a semi stuck on the crossing ahead.”
The article is an intesting read, though, even though a lot of the tech stuff goes over my head.
I’ll add my two cents as well… The engineer in Colins story won’t be picking up any blocks at Commerce Ramp in 2040, because by then it will no longer exist. California’s HSR proposed route runs right through the current facility. BNSF and CHSRA have already came to an agreement that the facility will be eliminated once construction beigns in the LOSSAN corridor. BNSF will be getting a new facility in Colton. Eventually…
Maybe there won’t be long distance trucking by 2040. It could happen that the fuel/power situation (price/availablity,etc) is such that long distance moves will be by rail. Short distance delivery/pick up by truck.
Even with trucks I think fully autonomous operation won’t be realized. I think it will also be “attended automation” for a few reasons.
People usually look at 20 years down the road as a long time away. Yet when you look back 20 years, it seems like it was only yesterday. Perception is a funny thing.
In reality, 20 years from now things may not be too different from the way they are now. Some changes yes. Wide sweeping changes, probably not so much.
Only if “why” becomes “why not” from a managment perspective. Getting the dispatcher’s track line view into the cab display is really easy to do. Can’t hurt. Might help. Improves employee moral. You want employees to act like owners, treat them like owners.
Broken rail protection for sure. RRs are so wedded to fixed block with PTC built on the back of that - going away by 2040 is unlikely. If huge, one man crew trains are the rule by 2040, then rolling blocks don’t buy you much. RRs aren’t capacity contrained by signal blocks currently and won’t be then.
Agree completely. In fact, I would require the operator to “run manual” for some portion of most trips, to keep sharp.
[quote user=“jeffhergert”]
I don’t think you’ll see all those sensors, and especially, the back up cameras on cars. They are working on some of these things, but I think the vast majority of the car fleet won’t have those items yet. I’m not sure about ECP. I think you’ll se
That was completely off my radar in 2014 when I wrote my blog. I’m sort of conflicted about that now. I can’t get Alexa to reliably do what I say without phrasing things just right, or sometimes, at all. So, she’s not driving me anywhere, ever! I’m thinking automated cars and trucks are a ways off beyond 2040. Maybe auto convoying trucks, though…
If self driving trucks come, self driving trains will be here, too. And, that might just be another sea-change. Instead of few, long trains, maybe short, frequent, origin to destination will be the rule.
If you listen to the Engineers, they already know how ‘their’ train needs to be Dispatched without the need to see the model board with all the other trains on the territory. Facts would only cofuse things.
Currently, nobody in the industry is picking their head up to look much more than 5 years down the road. I wish someone would just take a swag at 20 years and make sure the current investments (or lack of) don’t turf out a viable future.