Your chance to be a lawyer.....

Trains Magazine General Discussion
1

[}:)] We have had much talk about remotes. Ok - worse case scenerio for some of us - they do come to pass on OTR trains. Houston, we have a problem - maybe with a broken rail or sun kink. We have a derailment.

Scenario: I am the final person you need to convince there was a difference between an actual person and a remote running this train. What would an engineer see/do/feel/think as opposed to a remote that would make it a better deal to have a person running the engine instead of a signal.

Just give me your reasons and thinking behind them, to convince me one way or the other. I love technology, but as Mookie Q Citizen, I am a little wary of rushing in where angels fear to tread.

I am looking for sound reasoning and would expect no less from this group.

Jen

2

Over the road? No mookie sorry.There are to many what ifs out there.What if a storm for example fries a relay signal tower.You add hazmat to the train and your just asking for trouble.
stay safe
joe

3

Who would want to see remotes on OTR trains eliminating more good jobs?I love technology myself but you must admit it is a paycheck eater in all industries today.

4

The engineer would be able to handle the train thru the rough area of track through proper braking and nowing where his train is. the make up of the train. in other words if a engineer sees a bad spot he can slow it down and he knows his make up of his train so that when the heaviest cars cross over this section of track the tran speed is down. a remote would only know track speed and unless a signal was restricting its move it would do everything to stay at track speed.

5

Mookie-

First off, I think we are a LONG ways from unmanned trains over the road. Even if you have a RCL train over the road, there would be an Engineer or RCO in the cab except when the train is performing local switching. The FRA won’t stand for anything else.

I can foresee a time when a single person runs a road train, probably with some assistance from others in some shape or form. This would mean there would be an employee at the controls. I can’t say what kind of employee the way things are going right now.

If you haven’t already, take a look at what has started to happen at some short lines. The Indiana Railroad now runs some road trains and local switch jobs with remotes and a single Engineer, no conductor or trainman onboard. IRR has put in a new “state of the art” Dispatching system that allows the dispatcher to know where the locomotive is at all times within a couple of feet through GPS technology. The DS also can control certain locomotive functions (horn, bell, lights) while the Engineer is not in the cab. This in threory allows the DS to cover backup moves even across public crossings. Am I comfortable with this, heck no, but it may well be the wave of the future.

Because trains are large and unable to stop in a short distance any means of control has inherent risk whether it be the reaction time of a human Engineer or the response of an RCO. The difference is the RCO may not be able to see as much as the Engineer in the cab. Of course, I can envision circumstances where it could also go the other way as well.

There is no easy answer to this issue. I enjoy my right hand seat and hope to keep it for the length of my career, but who knows about the next generation.

LC

6

Didn’t the Wisconsin Central get permission to run with just an engineer for a maximum time of 2hrs.??

7

First of all LC or limited clear is right, I believe Remote locomotives are a long way off…

Take that number of years and multiply by 2, Canada is even further away from having un manned trains riding along the track.

If i read the comments above right, someone was concerened about one of the towers that controls these trains blowing over… I imagine the trains would immediately apply brakes if they would have lost signal from the main tower… or i could be Toatly wrong

What would happen to that device… now i cna’t rememebr what the heck it’s called in english… okay this is what it does… It replaced the deads man pedal… the display is 4 squares… if you havn’t touched a control or applied brakes within a resonable amount of time the squares will start moving back and forth… fatser until a loud BEEEEEP noice kicks in, getting higher pitched as it goes a long…
what woyuld happen to that device? it would be eliminated obviously… but wouldn’t that cause havoc?

8

WR-

The device is called a crew alertor. It can take several forms including the one you mentioned. Others can be a flashing light or a loud whistle.

LC

9

Kevin and all - If you are running by remote, rather than human - if the tower fell over, the trains would stop. If there was no crew, there would be no reason for a crew alerter.

I know it may be not in my lifetime, but just like a man on the moon - it did happen.
So I am sure it probably will.

In that case, we have come up with the engineer/train person at that time would use his human instincts to possibly see a problem. Could a remote do that?

Can they build a remote to ever completely take the place of the human in running an engine and taking a train across country? Flying a plane load of people? Are there too many human factors involved to make it impossible, or will it because the next rocket to Mars?

Jen

10

Mookie-

I think you are confusing two different things. A remote is just that, a remote control device. Someone still has to be in control of what ever is being controlled. In this case a locomotive is being controlled from somewhere other than the cab. At best, a train can be controlled from a remote location. Perhaps some day control could be handled in certain limited circumstances from a central location. One example might be a hump engine controlled from the yard tower. I doubt this would happen on road jobs absent a completely fenced and grade separated right of way. There is simply too much grade crossing and trespasser liability out there for me to see a remote controlled road train or any sort of “robot” train controlling itself without a human crew member.

LC

11

What i believe Jen is refering to is that with gps systems you can take a train say in St. louis and program it for L.A. and it would take off. it has a computor and has been mapped with all it needs to know with terrain crossings signals and mile post. when it starts it knows its speed. it blow its horn and keeps going only knows it going to la.

This is very possible as the research car on the ns already does this mapping. the signal system tells the engineer what to do if he fails to the computor kicks in and gives a penalty brake applacation. the differance is that a engineer whould see the tresspasser or the car stuck on the tracks . if gps is operating this engine it is considered remote control. only by computor. as i stated before the big diferance is a engineer can get the speed down and train handle through rough area the remote only knows track speed and go.

12

I don’t know if this topic is more about legal issues than about science fiction. It looks like we’re dabbling in the Popluar Mechanics realm.

It was pointed out that a remote is controlled by someone anywhere than from the vehicle. I think what’s more important, and what’s more practical, is the idea of the machines being more robotic and more self reliant.

Case in point: Discovery Channel used to have two shows back in the 1990s called The Next Step and Beyond 2000, each invovled all sorts of cutting edge technology from small gadgets to large machines and changes in daily routine. One episode of one of the shows (it’s been so long I can’t remember which) showed a full size passenger airplane flying itself. However, there was always a pilot, co-pilot, and navigator in the cockpit. They explained how a flight plan can be preprogrammed into a computer and the plane could take-off, fly, make elevation and course adjustments, and land itself. The video showed a plane landing itself with pilot’s hands off the controls. However, the pilot said he always kept his hands ready to take control “just in case.” He displayed all the nervousness of letting the plane fly itself as a person does the first time he lets go of the handlebars while riding a bicycle.

Another example showed how a automobile can drive itself successfully down a road day or night. Infrared camaras view the scene ahead and a computer follows the course of the road. It can see all the turns and hills and knows exactly how much to turn the steering wheel and when. It’s been several years since I saw it so I don’t remember if it was able to take

13

I believe that was the rock job. Hauling rock from a quarry in Southern Wis. to Mundlien and Grayslake Ill. (Vulcan Material and a ready mix firm). I know they were doing it on a trial basis. I do not know if it got full approval.
TIM A

14

With special arrangements, it could be done now. The Washington, DC Metro subway is operated by computer. There are no road crossings, and the right of way is completely fenced in. An attendant rides the lead car to observe the route ahead, but his main job is to be sure the passengers have cleared the doors before they’re closed. He’s got manual overrides, but mostly he just sits there. The same could be accomplished with a freight railroad, but fencing in 2000 miles of railroad and eliminating all road crossings is a tall order. But still, the technology is there now. Remember, the Digital Age is now upon us. Your computer can be set up to run a complex model railroad with no human hands (if the trackwork is worthy!) It wouldn’t be too difficult to automate a freight railroad as far as the electronics go; the problem is making it not a problem to its neighbors.

15

And please, call me ANYTHING but a lawyer!

16

Wow, go away for a day of swimming and real mexican food in the shade of the Alamo, and you guys get all carried away with a new topic.
Ok, Jenny, heres the best evidence I can offer. Someone mentioned remote control airplanes in one of the replies. Guess what, its alread here. The french have had a aircraft that flies by wire, that is a computer does all the flying. The pilot has a joy stick, just like the one that comes in a nintendo game. When he moves the stick, a computer reads what the stick is doing, and moves the contorl surfaces. If the pilot so choses, he has to do nothing more than taxi the plane out to the run way, point it in the right direction, enter in his position, and push a button. The plane, called the AIrBus, has a state of the art GPS system, and more computing power than the space shuttle. It can find where the plane is, within 3 feet, and read the wind speed, tail wind, outside temp, everything a pilot needs to know how to take off. The pilot has to do nothing more than press a button, and the computer will throttle up, release the brakes, and when the plane reaches V1, it will pull the nose up, and when V2 is reached, the plane becomes airborne. The computer can fly the plane anywhere you want., just enter in where you are starting from, and where you want to end up, the computer will do all the rest. Not only can it take off, it can land the airplane and taxi it up to the jet way. Air traffic control can tell the computer to keep the plane in a holding pattern till a runway clears, then land it. No on board people involved, except to serve the in flight meal.
And you know what, no one would fly in it, unless it had a complete crew, pilot, co-pilot and navigater. Why, after all, it was promoted and sold as the newest, state of the art airplane, and the computer had tripple redundency, sold as failsafe. It did fantastic in all of its trials, was a winner in sales at the air show in france, one of the biggest air shows in the world. And every airline who bought one has yet to a

17

glad your back ed. Like I said there are to many if’s out there.
stay safe
joe

18

Hi Jen,
You did say it was going to be contriversial.lol

Anything is possible.
Ed pointed out that the French have the airbus. Well we have the 747 that will take off and fly to its destination and than land all hands off. Our FA-18 Hornet can do the same and land on a carrier to boot! so can the eagle and the tomcat.
Within two years the airforce is going to start using an autonomous fighter designed to fly on its own. Attack on its own and return to base on its own. They may team them up with one human controlled fighter. This plane exists right now, and has been tested.
As far as aircraft have been concerned the FAA will not allow unmanned passenger flight even though we have the capability. Thank goodness!
Trains are a different story. Light rail passenger trains can be unmanned right now and are in some places. The light rail that serves the Orlando airport is unmanned.
The light rail that serves the MPLS and Saint Paul airport is unmanned.
I know there are others that are either unmanned now or the “driver” monitors only.

The one thing that is common in each case above is that the trains are isolated.
No grade crossings, or diamonds, no interference. All closed circuit.

When someone builds a dedicated rail line from say Chicago to Mpls without crossings etc. Than we will see robotic trains on the “main line” carrying passengers.
Freight is another story. Today, a train could be set up to run on its own. Say a unit coal train from the Powder River to Kansas City.
I don’t see anything wrong with that PROVIDED that a crew doesn’t loose their jobs.
When the demand is greater than the workforce is a robot train could help.

As far as sunkinks etc. go. Correct me if I’m wrong Ed, The engineer of a train at speed on a mainline isn’t going to stop his or her train in time to go slow over a sunkink or a broken rail unless there is some warning well in advance.
If there is going to be a dera

19

Now you are getting the idea of what I was looking for!

Actually the thought of unmanned anything - including the sandbox in the ladies restroom that “watches” me so I don’t have to touch anything - is really unnerving.

Several thoughts go thru my mind - they have the technology now - so it isn’t too far fetched. Trains right now are not able to stop at a crossing (when they are going at anything above a crawl) So the accident rate at xings would be about the same. Humans can’t do much about that. And wouldn’t the engines be equipped with sensors galore - to check way up the tracks for problems or check sensors built into the rails for all the variables.

I saw the program about the car that can drive itself. Fascinating!

The parallel I draw from this is like a kid getting candy for the first time. He doesn’t trust it to be good, so just tests it. It is good, so he goes for all he can get. With the technology there, how soon before we go for the entire cookie? Don’t we just HAVE to keep pushing the envelope?

Ed - it was Sioux City and I only bring that up cuz you didn’t bring us all some enchiladas.

Sooblue - you like this, just wait until I figure out what they are talking about in the turnout speed and electrical output!

20

Thanks, Jenny, I just couldnt remember.

Sure, if you wanted to, you could automate a train. But as to the sun kink problems, the remote operater wouldnt even see it. On the other hand, a engineer in the cab can, and usualy does see the kinks and broken rail, and can react to it. No, most likley, he or she cant get the train stopped, but they can slow it down, quite a lot.

Didnt we go through this will a guy named Noel a while back?
The concept of remotly running a train has several drawbacks, the first one that comes to mind is sheer boredom, only because I havent had but one cup of coffee this morning, and staring at my computer, trying to read my e-mail was tough, I had to keep re reading some of it. So imagine the poor slob who has to sit there, hours on end, staring at a video monitor showing nothing but the same view from the cab of mile after mile of track work. Talk about white line fever!

If your speaking about a self contained un manned locomotive hauling a train across country, well sure we can do that. But you would have to automate the entire thing, from switching to coupling up to hauling the train.
You cant write a computer program that will incluce the variable actions of a human as part of the equation, either the machines handle it all, or do only a single repetive task all the time.

You would have to close every public crossing, very expensive. You would have to replace the current fleet of locomotives, also very expensive. You would have to built computers that can withstand the pounding locomotives and rolling stock take, install lots of electronics, sensors, data readers, GPS systems, and rebuild your track work to include all of this. It would have to be a entirely new system from scratch, you cant really retrofit this stuff to exsisting products.

Would the capital cost be recovered in the payroll savings, and would the operation be more efficent, or efficent enought to pay for itself quickly?
I doubt it, th