greyhounds you’re right that using satelitte for voice can suck…if its for the generally public who exepct it to behave like a landline telephone. But for private corporate use, with the right training, it can work very very well. I did work for DND and they used satellite extensivly to carry voice. The round trip delay is enough to notice, but not enough to make talking hard.
I guess I should of said something like “eliminate the traditional means for the majority of the track.” [:)]
Make that no discernable delay. There are considerable electronics involved as well which also introduce latency. Trust me. I’m in the business.
Ref tree68’s post about railroads comm. capabilities. I agree and will state that I absolutely believe that the general public (non-railroaders) has no concept of the kinds of communications railroads have and use. When I retired from the Santa back in 1986, I could pick up the phone on my desk, dial a code for say, Los Angeles, dial nine and then dial any local number I wished, with the same applyong to San Fran. Dallas, Chicago, etc. I sort of feel that the railroads made greater strides with computers than with communicatrions. I worked in intermodal and customers had to be notified bty phone of incoming containers or trailers. This was done by phone for many years. Then a system was set up whereby the railroads dedicated computer would dial a customers fax machine and fax that same notification to them. That just blew me away.
Except those non-railroaders who worked for phone companies owned by railroads! [;)]
Can you say “SPRINT”???
The West Coast Express Commuter Service operated by Canadian Pacific has positioning GPS on all thier commuter trains. It is pulsed every couple of seconds and sends info (speede etc) to an ops centre that has a screen like a normal RTC screen.
The Alaska Railroad has had GPS locomotive fleet tracking for a couple of years now. It works excellent for tracking our locomotives especially in dark territory. At the end of this month we will switch from Track Warrant Control to Direct Traffic Control. This is phase one of our new Collision Avoidance System. Phase two will electronically send mandatory directives from the train dispatchers to the computer screens on the cabs of the locomotives. Then the crew will electronically acknowledge that they received the directive. This will eliminate the chance of a “missed repeat”. If the train exceeds its authority or restrictions, the system will take the appropriate measures to ensure safe operating procedures. Technology is changing the way we railroad - safer and more efficient.
And this is how it starts - a smaller entity adopts and successfully implements a new techology, then the bigger guys see it works and is worth the cost/trouble.
You’ll notice that ARRCDSPR didn’t say anything about replacing the crews.
rickyd2 Posted: 17 Apr 2006, 16:52:55
Ref tree68’s post about railroads comm. capabilities. I agree and will state that I absolutely believe that the general public (non-railroaders) has no concept of the kinds of communications railroads have and use. When I retired from the Santa back in 1986, I could pick up the phone on my desk, dial a code for say, Los Angeles, dial nine and then dial any local number I wished, with the same applyong to San Fran. Dallas, Chicago, etc. I sort of feel that the railroads made greater strides with computers than with communicatrions. I worked in intermodal and customers had to be notified bty phone of incoming containers or trailers. This was done by phone for many years. Then a system was set up whereby the railroads dedicated computer would dial a customers fax machine and fax that same notification to them. That just blew me away .
THE “Gold Standard” in the Trucking Industry was the Qualcomm system and it’s enhancements. Company communication to drivers was very quick, almost instantaneous as to written conversation, either with typed or a message macro system. Location of truck/tra
The civilian degradation was disabled years ago…in 1994 if memory serves. There is a capability added about two years ago called WAAS (Wide Area Augmentation Service) created by the FAA to locate (but not land) aircraft. It’s accurate to +/- 6 feet horizontally 90% of the time and 9 feet vertically ditto. Plenty good enuff to tell what track you’re on.
I have one - cost about $100 - that works with my laptop. A year or so ago I was travelling on the Ohio Tpk. with my wife driving. I had the map zoomed in so that the E/W lanes were each about the width of a pencil eraser. The little progress arrow was weaving from the left to the right side of the WB lane. I looked up from the screen to try to see why.
Yup. She was passing trucks.
John Stevens
john.stevens@comcast.net
Nope. But I can say CANAC Telecom, CANAC/MicroTel, CANAC International and Terra Nova Tel. [:)]
GPS is used in aviation for all phases of flight except for precision approaches. All that is needed to use it for precision approaches is the addition of a differental GPS signal from known location that has been surveyed, the equipment onboard to use the differential data, and the equipment to display the proper flight path using this info. There have been tests doing this and it does work. The problem for aviation is cost of upgrading all of the airports and aircraft to use this technology.
I would bet railroads could implement it as well with the same type of differential equipment. Set up control points that are surveyed, install the differential equipment, relay back to dispatcher equipment, display on screen.
Sounds simple…took aviation years to get to where it is today, will take years to get it to the point of doing precision approaches.
Mike in Tulsa
BNSF Cherokee Sub
I am a proponent of GPS and believe we will see the day that it will replace signal systems at a tremendous cost savings to the railroads. When the cost and advantages outweigh the disadvantages it will happen.
I would think that even the truck type GPS vehicle locator sysstems would be useful for improving safety in “dark” territory. A lot of that is single track anyway and it could help crews know where a potential meet would be…
I can de-lurk for a moment and add some real-world C&S insight. The originator of this thread has apparently not read any of the freely available literature, or he would know that CSX and BNSF have been here, done that. BNSF has since 2004 had a prototype system using GPS for train-location data input in service on its Beardstown Subdivision, which has successfully handled somewhere around 1,000 train movements without a single failure. I believe BNSF is budgeting a large production rollout for ETMS (Electronic Train Management System) this year on other lines. (Hint – go to Google and type BNSF, Beardstown, and ETMS). The canard that railroads are hopelessly behind the times, made by a casual onlooker, and that an amateur has discovered solutions 30-plus highly competitive, highly innovative C&S suppliers plus all the railroads have overlooked is so pompous it’s a wonder any railroader bothers to even read this forum.
What is being discussed in this thread is Communications-Based Train-Control (CBTC), aka ETMS (Electronic Train Management Systems) or any number of other acronyms depending on which railroad and which manufacturer you’re talking about. Manufacturers include Quantum, Wabtec and GE Harris-Harmon. These systems use GPS to provide a train location and provide some of the power of CTC at much less cost, but none of them are a one-for-one replacement for real CTC for reasons that should be obvious to anyone with any experience in railroad operation – no point machines, no track circuits, slower operating speeds, less capacity. These are cost-effective solutions to increase capacity and safety on low- and medium-density railroads that are currently dark, and that is precisely where railroads worldwide are installing them.
For train-control purposes the GPS signal is not deemed more accurate than 300 meters. “Close” isn’t good enough for life-safety applications (and yes, the 300 meters is WITH differential GPS). The air people haven’t got any secret stuff that the
Thanks for pipeing in here 1435mm.
I can’t possibly find and read everything out there. Ironically I did find some references to that after I created this topic of discussion, and with time permitting will read through it.
The intent of my topic was to talk about using GPS and other existing RR systems over a IP(Internet Protocol) network using satellite as the main form of data transport.
Thank you, that helps clarify things.
Good point.
Another good point.
[quote]
QUOTE: Originally posted by 1435mm
All of this is tried-and-true stuff an
Positional accuracy does not seem to make sense to me as justification for ruling a system out. 40 years ago tower operators were throwing switches remotely by watching little unmovable lights change from nothing to red. As I recall, there was plenty of real world space between each light. (They were real men in those days… not computer wankers. Sorry- had to throw that in.)
What does bug me about the whole thread is the prevalent attitude of “we can replace the engineer with a machine.” The FAA appears to be doing this as well with pilots. A few years ago I recall reading a pilot opinion piece about why mindsets should change. He said that navigational and communications equipment should be changed to allow the pilot more freedom to make decisions on his own. He went on to say that all too often his situational awareness- meaning his knowledge of what was going on around him- was better informed than the controller hundreds (or a thousand) miles away. Yet the controller’s word was law.
I have a great deal of faith in locomotive engineers and conductors. I would suspect that they would be much happier with new technology if it aided them in the efficient operation of their trains, and didn’t threaten their livelihood. They would be ecstatic if this technology was also not used to browbeat them over statistical issues of productivity, rules adherence, and the like. (The guy on the roadrailer doing 36 in a 35 getting called in for a chewing out is a good example.)
There is a happy medium here somewhere, folks. Personally, I’m all in favor of giving train engineers and conductors a little bit more leeway in using initiative. Here’s an example.
Recently I came across a CSX freight train stopped at a red indication near Mauk, Georgia. I talked with the conductor, who said there was a broken rail ahead and that they were waiting on the MOW crew to come and fix it. His train was about a mile and a half long. Five miles from the end of the first train
Erik,
In many cases, the RR would allow the trains to creep forward and pack into a smaller section of track. If memory serves me correct, someone posted a picture in here of one train only feet behing another.
There must have be a good reason for that to happen.