Driverless Cars... Really? How About Driverless Trains!

I think the rail union will have something to say about that.

Being done...

http://rt.com/uk/194604-driverless-trains-underground-london/

Seatac Airport (WA, USA) has some driverless trains that have been there for quite a while.

They've had automatic trains at the Atlantic airport for years now. I remember riding it once while on business. A couple of kids were riding in the front car with me, and one was trying to convince the other that the driver was hiding underneath the access cover at the front of the car. I had a hard time keeping a straight face!

You are right, many airports around the world have had them for many years. You might be interested in this link which covers the world on "ATO" trains:-

List_of_automated_urban_metro_subway_systems

I hope this helps.

Las Vegas McCarran airport has had the shuttle tram as a driver-less "train" for over a decade. Granted it is more of a tram than a train but the rules still apply. Take some of the decision out of the operators hands and let them be a part of the guidance system rather than the be-all end-all of the control.

Driverless trains in Vancouver, Canada...work great.

driverless trains were running in france too. Why should a driver go at double the normal speed?. Weren't there any radar along the rail track at selected points to give an alam to driver and control station?.

The 'why' of it all may never be known. My point was, that this was all monumentally avoidable with a simple circuit which knows the weight of the train, what speeds are safe at what point on the tracks, and can govern the whole situation in the blink of an eye. But, no matter who was impaired, or distracted, YES there should have been an alarm somewhere, but human reaction times may have been too slow to prevent a wreck at that speed.

I had heard on the news that the operator heard a bang just before the train started into the corner. The TSA stated there have been other trains that have been hit with bullets in the recent past. There is a possibility that if the control for the train was hit and malfunctioned, that may have added to the reason for the derailment.

True, It seems that the last throng of train derailments have been OPERATOR ERROR!

Driver-less trains in Paris on line 14

At Orly and Roissy Airports and at several other places. All in work since may years no accident.

Every time I go to the Lyon Railway station I use the line 14. Frequency about 20/h and at high flow hours even more.

Not in my back yard! Take for example a fully loaded train with three large locomotives. Put 85-120ea tank cars loaded with Ethanol or Bakken crude behind them, 286,000#'s each (143 tons ea,) with a total weight of 34,320,000#'s (17,160 tons) just for the cars and liquid. Put a loaded box car or flat car before and after the tank cars and there is another 143 tons ea for 286 tons. Now were up to 17,160 + 286 = 17,446 tons (34,892,000#'s). Put three engines, assume GE AC4400CW (4,400 hp/engine) at 426,000#s ea. and you have 1,278,000#'s (629 tons) of engines. Total weight is 629t locomotives + 286t buffer cars + 17,160t tankers and you have 18,075 tons (36,150,000#'s, about 3,000,000 gal/train) of liquid, about a 1-1/2 to 2 miles long, of liquid with a flash point as low as 62^oF.

If travelling at 50-60mph this whole assembly will take about 1-1/2 to 2 miles to stop, with a panic brake application!. Replace the Ethyl Alcohol with Bakken Crude and it is just as bad. Look at some of the rail accidents that have occurred in the last five years. 3,000,000 gallons/train is a lot of burning liquid. No thank you, not in my back yard. I would rather have humans making the decisions instead of some micro-chips. The micro-chips are only as good as the people who program them. Train engineers and conductors know what they are doing but few of them program micro-chips.

The cost of having the Engineer and the Conductor is insignificant compared to the cost of an accident and the loss of resident's lives. With the auto-control of the train the cost of having the redundancy of the 2 member crew there to oversee the operation of the train is negligible. Why do I fear all this? The fire house for the volunteer fire company I belong to is right next to a rail line which handles about a minimum of 6 crude and 5 alcohol trains a day. That's 18,000,000gal of Bakken crude and 15,000,000gal of Ethyl Alcohol. That's a might big burn!!!!!!!!!

Oh, by the way the evacuation radius for a train of Ethyl Alcohol fire is 1/2 mile. For Bakken crude it is also 1/2 mile.

http://www.rrt10nwac.com/Files/FactSheets/150213064220.pdf

Good Luck, Old Salt

What I got from your post is that 'IF' a massive toxic spill, and loss of life from a derailment DID happen "in your backyard"; you wouldn't mind, as long as the fault lies with a drunk, or drugged up engineer, instead of a computer glitch!?! Honestly?

Is there some point which you failed to mention, that will convince me why you think the computerized system will screw up more than any human? I never suggested that there shouldn't ever be a human in the cockpit; but, they should NEVER be able to push the speed above what the computerized system determines was unsafe.

Your figures are ALL things that I would make certain the system was aware of, if I was in charge of developing a system to make the whole process safer. Crunching the numbers for ALL those things, and much, Much, MUCH more is literally less than Tiddly Winks in complexity for a system, which would literally cost less than a thousand dollars per train! And, I could get a doctoral computer science student, to write the code for it for free, if they were to use that as their thesis.

The term "IF" concerning a massive toxic spill is extremely incorrect. The correct way of stating it is "WHEN it happens again". This type of incident is occurring much more frequently and suitable pipelines will not be built in the near years to come to take the pressure off the railroads. Therefore, I do not want the rail line running through my backyard where there are many people within the 1/2 mile evacuation radius. I want it in a much lower density location with the possibility of a much lower "kill ratio".

Why spend any money to for a unreliable system that was based on programs written by unprofessionally, untested, inexperienced person with no idea as to the complete picture of the necessary system? (Even I could do that and my computer programming goes back to the IBM 1130 with 4k of memory and 80 column cards) There already is a system which does this and much more. It also provides much more and much, much, much more accuracy than your proposed system. It is named Positive Train Control (PTC) and has been in use for many years in one form or another. The downfall of it is its cost and long waiting time to get contractors available to install it. The cost of the system nationwide so far is 5 Billion dollars ($5,000,000,000) and that's only for passenger and class-I trains/railroads. The projected total cost for the finished systems is 9 Billion dollars ($9,000,000,000). In functions it far surpasses the system proposed here which has already been in existence for many years. Why reinvent the wheel for a horse cart when we are traveling in space? https://www.aar.org/policy/positive-train-control http://www.trforum.org/forum/viewabstract.php?id=51 https://www.aar.org/Pages/PTC---Meeting-the-Challenge-and-Getting-It-Right.aspx

The original proposal of an over speed control is good but the price is unrealistically low, reliability would be low, implementation much higher costs, interface and support equipment much higher, etc. Its a good idea but too late and too little.

As for the drugged up or drunk engineer there will always be a problem, despite how low it now is in the railroad industry, in ALL industries and walks of life. Comparatively the rate for the railroad industry is extremely low. What about airline pilots, law enforcement officers, teachers, doctors, CR4 contributors or even you and myself? That is a factor that must be reduced in all occupations, not just railroads.

9 Billion dollars ($9,000,000,000) is certainly much more than "cost less than a thousand dollars per train".

Last month, Wabtec Corp. inked a $27 million deal to provide PTC equipment and services to Metrolink in southern California by 2012 - three years ahead of the congressional deadline. http://www.metrolinktrains.com/pdfs/Agency/PTC_Fact_Sheet_1.pdf

http://www.metrolinktrains.com/news/news_item/news_id/901.html

That does not include development costs. At the 216 miles to be done that is $124,000/mile.

Tiddly Winks in complexity is the system which you are proposing. The system necessary to achieve do the things you want it to do is much greater! "Crunching the numbers for ALL those things, and much, much more is actually" of a magnitude of thousands times greater than your estimated proposed system.

http://www.metrolinktrains.com/agency/page/title/ptc

http://www.trforum.org/forum/viewabstract.php?id=51

https://www.fra.dot.gov/eLib/details/L15985

"What I got from your post is that 'IF' a massive toxic spill, and loss of life from a derailment DID happen "in your backyard"; you wouldn't mind, as long as the fault lies with a drunk, or drugged up engineer, instead of a computer glitch!?! Honestly?" is an absorbed statement and nowhere in my post. It is fact and reality. Some of the latest big ones were in Lac-Megantic, Canada; ND; OH; WV; and VA. Do you remember those? I am intimately involved with any of these types of potential incidents! I 1) consult for private and public companies, local, county and state agencies involving these large dangerous shipments; 2) I am one of the volunteer firefighters who would have to control and extinguish any fires (3,000,000 gallons is a lot of fire to put out!) and lastly 3) I am one of the Haz Mat responders who would have to mitigate the incident. Yes, I have a personal stake in this, much more than simply proposing things based on apparently no or little facts.

This post is based on facts and personal experiences. I invite all others who have not to read the above citations. They are reality, especially the frequency of types of railroad accident. They are apparently much lower than what most posters have based their replies on!

$9,000,000,000/system is out of the ball park compared to less than $1,000/train. It would need much more than "All things That I would make certain the system is aware of, if I were in charge of developing a system to make the whole process safer". Someone has to pay for it.

Railroad redundancy- Know why the older diesel engines such as the SW-1 had such massive and strong mobile antennas? They had to be strong enough and big enough to hold the weight and force of several people should they fall/slip and grab ahold of it to prevent falling off the engine. Same with the positive train controls.

That Amtrak wreck in Phila. earlier this week could have been prevented is the PTC had been use in that section. Nine people would not have been dead!

http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/local/Amtrak-Safety-System-Not-Installed-303645321.html

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/05/14/406652406/positive-train-control-the-tech-that-couldve-prevented-amtrak-derailment

Another valuable source of information about railroad accidents is the National Transportation Safety Board, NTSB, accident reports.

http://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Pages/AccidentReports.aspx

Watch out! If you see any tank cars with placards labeled UN 1170 (Ethyl Alcohol) or UN 1267 (Bakken Oil) start counting the number of cars. Multiply that 30,000gal ea. and you have the quantity being shipped

UN 1170 Ethanol or Ethyl alcohol or Ethanol solutions or Ethyl alcohol solutions.

Hazard or Division class 3, Identification Numbers UN 1170, Packing Group II, Label Code 3, Special Provisions 24, IB2, T4, TP1, Placard Flammable

UN 1267 Petroleum Crude Oil

Hazard or Division class 3, Identification Numbers UN 1267, Packing Group I, Label Code 3, Special Provisions 144, 357, T11, TP1, TP8, Placard Flammable

Special Provisions :

24/ Alcoholic beverages containing more than 70 percent alcohol by volume must be transported as materials in Packing Group II. Alcoholic beverages containing more than 24 percent but not more than 70 percent alcohol must be transported as materials in Packing Group III.

144/If transported as a residue in an underground storage tank (UST), as defined in 40 CFR 280.12, that has been cleaned and purged or rendered inert according to the American Petroleum Institute (API) Standard 1604. Reference Federal Statute 171.1 requirements.

357/ A bulk package that emits hydrogen sulfide in sufficient concentration that vapors evolved from the crude oil can present an inhalation hazard must be marked as specified as per Federal Statute 172.327

IB2/ Authorized IBCs: Metal (31A, 31B and 31N) ; Rigid Plastics ( 31H1 and 31H2) ; Composite (31HZ1)

Additional Requirement: Only liquids with a vapor pressure less than or equal to 110 kPa at 50* C ( 1.1 bar at 122*F ) , or 130 kPa at 55*C (1.3 bar at 131*F) are authorized.

T4/ The maximum degree of filling for portable tanks must not exceed 90%.

T11/ Minimum test pressure bar (6) , Minimum shell thickness ( in mm-reference steel) ( See Federal Statute 178.274 (d) (2) (3), Pressure relief requirements ( See Federal Statute 178.275 (g) (4 ) normal. Bottom opening requirements See Federal Statute 178.275 (d) (3) (5)

TP1/ The maximum degree of filling must not exceed the degree of filling determined by the following:

( degree of filling = 97

______________

1 + @ ( T r - T f )

Where t is the mean bulk temperature during transport and tf is the temperature in degrees Celsius of the liquid during filling.

TP8/ A portable tank having a minimum test pressure of 1.5 bar (150) kPa may be used when the flash point of the hazardous material transported is greater than 0*C (32F)

If top portion of tanker cars transporting explosive/flammable materials like petrol are filled with nitrogen gas as in power transformers will there be any fire risk?.

Since I'm not an engineer or a chemist, but I know something about those things, I would say that there is a reason the tanks are not filled to the top, to allow for expansion and contraction of the petrol vapors. My guess is that if the tanks were topped off with nitrogen, it wouldn't make much difference to fire prevention. If there was a leak, I'm guessing that the nitrogen being higher pressure than the liquid petrol would escape from the tank first or the escaping gas would be mixed with the petrol and spray out like a vaporizer and would be like a flamethrower.

IF the tank car is leaky, then there will not be any residual nitrogen pressure (above 1 local atmosphere). There is less chance of a vapor fire when the tanks will hold pressure with nitrogen, and only if the tank were compromised below liquid level would there be a spraying liquid to catch fire and be a "flame thrower".

The biggest danger in any train of tank cars, even beyond derailing and turning over, is a fire that heats up one or more tank cars. Then the danger becomes B.L.E.V.E. - boiling liquid elevated vapor pressure explosion. These can be some of the most violent chemical explosive events known to take place by the sheer volume of the fuel involved in the exploding flame front.

Having said that, there is one more reason why to put positive pressure on tank cars, that has been overlooked here. The reason is that if tank car A is filled at high elevation (say West Texas at 3400' a.s.l.), and is also filled with warm liquid (having a reasonably high vapor pressure, such as light sweet crude oil) from an outdoor tank that has been in the sun.....as soon as you transport this tank car to a colder weather (even overnight, or where a cold front has moved in), and at sea level, the external pressure on the tank car can easily exceed the internal pressure of the tank, to such an extent that the vessel (if properly sealed) could be crinkled up like a soda can (unless the tank car engineers actually have designed in structural elements to avoid this (but this only adds dead weight to the vessel intended for movement of freight). If the tank car leaks, then it will draw in air (source of oxygen for combustion), then all it takes is the right spark in the right place when the temperature comes back up.

All of the comments noting a need for automatic alarms -- and the ease of providing it via readily available data base info and simple sensing devices -- are clearly right. How on earth can those provisions be missing in A.D. 2015 ?? Whatever the answer is, it serves as a cautionary note against rushing into wide acceptance of driverless vehicles. As if that needed further emphasis, let me cite widespread accuracy requirements missing the point for safety: instantaneous coordinates. The effect of instantaneous position error pales in comparison to effects of (velocity error) multiplied by (time to closest approach). That closest approach time and distance must be evaluated repetitively in operation, formulated vectorially (NOT by the usual ratio of scalar range to range rate) -- and only RELATIVE velocities are useful since subtraction of absolute values (whether position of velocity) will be inaccurate in real-world operation. Miss distances must be accurately determined ahead of time; soon enough for evasive action to be effective. Fundamental as these items are, they are not customarily recognized in tracts describing operation in dense traffic whether airborne or on the ground. That information gap needs to be closed.

I loved your last paragraph particularly, well written and PUNCHY!! Many thanks. I agree entirely.

But some do not trust modern technology, London Underground is an example are having their troubles it seems....trust is missing!!

I did a web search for automated (driver-less/ATO) train accidents, there are very few it would seem, the worst one I found being the test track in north Germany some years ago, when not following the rules properly for maintenance procedures - human error. I personally do not really count this one, though I know detractors of ATOs obviously will.......

2006-Sep-23-Germany

I could not find another one, which certainly does not mean that there wasn't one, only that maybe my search argument was not good enough maybe, but this does imply that the major accidents that have happened around the world with many "normal" trains, are all or mostly all due to having human drivers onboard!!! Its almost sad to have to say that.....

The Qalyoub train accident was caused by a human driver ignoring a red light and hitting another train, reported sometimes as possibly an ATO train....

ATOs have been around for many years, but some people simply never noticed!!! The technology is good and reliable, but some humans are STILL worried!!

So we should all look forward to the day when the human just maybe "rides shotgun" and the train is in the far better hands of a computer!!! or three!!Just like modern aircraft.

We all know that accidents can happen, but hopefully far less often than all those years with just "human" errors.......

The Post Office ATO System operated from 1927 till 2003, with as far as I am aware, no accidents and no humans at all.....and not even "modern" technology!!! See here:-

London_Post_Office_Railway

My father-in-law's small sailboat can be accurately piloted using a simple GPS device hooked up to a $300.00 auto pilot (a small battery powered motor with a belt that turns the helm) while giving speed/distance traveled/estimated time of arrival at a given destination etc. Why can't a train be directed to automatically stop or slow down at any given programed location?

It's not a matter of "IF" the electronics fail, but "WHEN" it fails. Who's to blame? The supposed to be driver. Then the supposed to be driver will turn around and sue the manufacturers for faulty equipment. Probably some failures due to people not keeping the sensors clean or responding to things for no reason and stopping suddenly in the middle of the freeway. I just can't see a driverless car being safe. Maybe when brand new but "WHEN" the failures start.

GA!

And even the Titanic was unsinkable when launched. An iceberg changed their minds about that one.

Good Luck, Old Salt

A careful reading of my original post should reveal just how much I think of 'driverless cars'; but, while I vehemently oppose that application, because it taking a path right now to denude us of our rights and freedoms, I hope much of the safety aspects of research in that direction makes it's way into all aspects of transportation. 'The Rails' seem the perfect place to start, seeing as the path is set, and the topological data is virtually unchangeable (barring a massive earthquake); all of which is just one aspect of the data which makes that application much easier to .

Yes, it is conceivable, that the electronics might eventually fail, and, just like today, an investigation into the cause and rectifying those problems will still take place. Regardless of "where the blame" lies the rail company's insurance will still be around to pick up the pieces.

IF the 'electronic system' ever does fail, it is a good bet, that the tremendous time in service, before that EVER happens will have vastly reduced the number of wrecks of almost all sorts. It is also a good bet, that the insurance premiums will have nose dived to the point, that rail costs could be lowered!

I still fail to see any significant argument here, that an automatic system would make the situation worse, rather than better than what we have now.

When you are right! YOU ARE SO RIGHT!!

Good systems of this type fail safe, eg. stopping the train if a major error happens for example.....

I also saw this on CR4 today, which I take as safety on trains will now be fought further....money against safety!

http://insights.globalspec.com/article/981/industry-group-lawsuit-challenges-tank-rail-car-rules?frmtrk=cr4digest&et_rid=419160512&et_mid=81095642

You may have already seen it!!

But Engine safety automation with maybe someone sitting inthe cab, keeping an eye on things, but not themselves driving, may be more acceptable to all concerned, especially if big money wants to not follow safety guidelines and wishes on tank cars......it must be cheaper to install ATO on the engines, rather than scrap thousands of tank cars.

Naturally modern tank cars AND ATO would probably be best overall.....

Whats your take?

You have pretty much echoed my take.

With all due respect to 'Old Salt' I am very unimpressed with any massive amount of money, which any government may choose to throw at any given problem. And, the fact that they are willing to waste $9 bil (which, we literally don't have because our national debt is an unrepayable $18 tril), on this particular aspect of transportation safety probably includes $6 billion for feasibility studies (plural), and environmental impact studies, and fresh pocket linings for a whole host of government officials; when in fact, the whole thing could literally be done worldwide for half of ONE of the feasibility studies. BUT, that would require an absence of all the worthless leaches, and government contractors, who won't gouge the taxpayer, just because they can... "Well we have spent $9 billion so far, and because of strikes, and inflation, and inclement weather, and (you name it) it will ONLY take another $3 trillion to finish it, assuming you don't want to just abandon this 'bridge to nowhere."

Why 'Old Salt' thinks that this task is so unbelievably daunting, that he had to 'double down' on my "MORES" is a real mystery to me. If he could show me the 'punch down list' on what all he thinks this 'system' needs to consist of, it would go a long way toward making me understand his point of view.

The only way to prevent ALL train wrecks, is to outlaw trains!

LOVED YOUR POST!!

Brilliant.

I will also send you a PM shortly.

SWB123- This is long but well worth it. It will briefly help you understand what the railroad industry is really about and their solution to the problem you have indicated as warranting your solution. They are the experts, not a bunch of CR4 participants.

With all due respect to SWB123, there are several items that are incorrect or imply that other contributor's statements and dollar figures are incorrect.

I have carefully read all your posts on this subject. Also several other postings by your on other subjects. Just as you asked me several questions, of what value is not known, there are few questions I, and many others, would like clarification on. Where is the relationship between what you are proposing and the actual operation of railroads? Your statements are independent proposals with very little relationship to the subject at hand. Do you know what a "DIVISION" is? Do you know what a "BLOCK SYSTEM is? You had better even if you are doing much simpler tasks than designing low cost, low benefit train control! Have you ever spoken to anyone who is knowledgeable about the operation of railroads to obtain information on the subject? These might include VP/Manger of Risk Prevention, Manager of Road Equipment, Division Manager of Right of Way, Sales Manager, Road Equipment Analyst, VP of Signals, IT Manager, Signal Engineer, Human Resource Manager, etc. If so, these people, who are part of a railroad operation, would clearly tell you that your proposal falls short of a workable system or a system to even be considered. If you think these people who have a personal investments in the systems are biased contact: the Federal Railway Administration, FRA; American Association of Railways, AAR; or the American Short Line and Regional Railroad Association, ASLRRA; or others that are easily found on Google. The fact that the development of this type of system started 20 years ago, numerous railroads now operate with this system on parts or all of their right of ways and all passenger railroads and larger freight lines have a mandatory to be extended deadline of 2020 for the implementation including final testing. This is neglected in the OP but is the near future life line of the railroad system.

Would you ever want to fly on a 757 that was controlled by a cheap computer handling the fly-by-wire systems? Would you want to ride on tires where you can see the radial wire within the rubber? Several people have transited the Atlantic Ocean in row boats. Your proposal is analogous to rowing across the Pacific Ocean. This proposed system is exactly that. We at this forum are not qualified in any way to even think of how to initiate such a system with the railroads. This is clearly evident from the postings. Railroads with their motive power and rolling stock are much too dangerous if handled with lax systems. How many of us posters are qualified railroaders? How many know much more than we did when we had our Lionel or American Flyer trains sets? 2 rails is American Flyer, 3 rails is Lionel.

Almost all the 9 billion dollars for the implementation of the Positive Train Control, PTC, is not coming out our tax dollars. It is being paid for by the railroads! The small difference is coming from the extra cost of staffing for the Federal Railroad Administration, FRA, to review and approve the PTC systems for each railroad. This will result in a small fraction, much much less than a penny, of additional costs to John Q. Public.

The high costs for this system are for the development costs of a highly reliable, much less than the small fraction of a percent of potential error and that is a very pessimistic estimation.

A "bargain system" of less than $1,000/train is impossible and irresponsible to propose. That estimate reflects no/very little knowledge of railroad operations. Example- How is a system going to know what is ahead of it? Simplest and lowest cost would be to use a small radar system similar to those used on recreational boats but even they are not reliable enough for our lives to depend on it. Problems are: radar antennas cannot project or receive a signal narrow enough, 0^o 4' 40", (normal marine radar is 2^o) to detect a train 10-1/2ft wide 2 miles down the track which would be its panic stopping distance; what about trains on adjacent or crossing rails; what about switch misalignments; what about broken or misaligned rails; un-confirmed false positives or false negatives on detection will cause the train to make expensive (which we eventually pay for in higher commuting and freight costs) unnecessary costs of money and time or not stop a train that has to be stopped to avoid killing people; vandalism by placing a radar reflector (boaters know what this is, similar to a big balloon of shredded aluminum foil) on or near the track; detecting conditions behind an approaching train that will render the radar unable to detect on dual track section; and numerous other problems with this section of a system. The greatest problem with radar is that it cannot see around sections of curved trackage. PTC has all these capabilities, have proven them and they are in operation now. A proven system!

Want to make it based on GPS? GPS with a large system computer to make calculations is fine for one train on the whole system, but train systems don't run one train. Cost just sky rocketed to keep trains away from each other and don't forget development and testing costs.

The "punch down list" you want to be shown is here and in the citations in #18. Please refer to them for even greater information. They are excellent sources of information and I invite anyone reading this to refer to them for extensive and clear information. You might even enjoy reading them.

For your information:

For railroads that the ruling applies to the current deadline is Dec 15, 2015. They must have this operational and some already do such as Metrolink in CA. Since all railroads cannot meet this deadline a new deadline of Dec. 31, 2020, has been proposed.

The projected cost for your system of $1,000/train is unattainable and unrealistic even for the minimal system you propose. Train engine cabs have a lot of vibration in them, as the whole engine does. This requires that all components be able to withstand vibrations, a thing an ordinary PC cannot do even for a day. A ruggedized PC costs in the range of $4,800 to $6,600 to run your system. One sale today for $3,600 to $5,000! http://www.dell.com/us/business/p/latitude-7404-laptop/pd?p=latitude-7404-laptop&view=pdetails&isredir=true At those prices you are already three times over budget for the whole system.

A brief explanation of Positive Train Control is available athttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_train_control

Positive train control

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Positive train control (PTC) is a system of functional requirements for monitoring and controlling train movements as an attempt to provide increased safety.

The American Railway Engineering and Maintenance-of-Way Association (AREMA) describes Positive Train Control as having these primary characteristics:

• Train separation or collision avoidance
• Line speed enforcement
• Temporary speed restrictions
• Rail worker wayside safety

Overview

The main concept in PTC (as defined for North American Class I freight railroads) is that the train receives information about its location and where it is allowed to safely travel, also known as movement authorities. Equipment on board the train then enforces this, preventing unsafe movement. PTC systems may work in either dark territory or signaled territory, and may use GPS navigation to track train movements. The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) has listed among its goals, "To deploy the Nationwide Differential Global Positioning System (NDGPS) as a nationwide, uniform, and continuous positioning system, suitable for train control."

Various other benefits are sometimes associated with PTC such as increased fuel efficiency or locomotive diagnostics; these are benefits that can be achieved by having a wireless data system to transmit the information, whether it be for PTC or other applications.

In the 1990s, Union Pacific Railroad (UP) had a partnership project with General Electric to implement a similar system known as "Precision Train Control." This system would have involved moving block operation, which adjusts a "safe zone" around a train based on its speed and location. The similar abbreviations have sometimes caused confusion over the definition of the technology. GE later abandoned the Precision Train Control platform.

U.S. Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008

Background

Starting in 1990 the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) counted PTC among its "Most Wanted List of Transportation Safety Improvements." At the time, the vast majority of rail lines relied on the human crew for complying with all safety rules, and a significant fraction of accidents were attributable to human error, as evidenced in several years of official reports from the FRA.

In September 2008, Congress considered a new rail safety law that sets a deadline of December 15, 2015, for implementation of PTC technology across most of the U.S. rail network. The bill, ushered through the legislative process by the Senate Commerce Committee and the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, was developed in response to the collision of a Metrolink passenger train and a Union Pacific freight train September 12, 2008, in California, which resulted in the deaths of 25 and injuries to more than 135 passengers.

As the bill neared final passage by Congress, the Association of American Railroads(AAR) issued a statement in support of the bill. President George W. Bush signed the 315-page Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008 into law on October 16, 2008.

Provisions of the law: Among its provisions, the law provides funding to help pay for the development of PTC technology, limits the number of hours freight rail crews can work each month, and requires the Department of Transportation to determine work hour limits for passenger train crews.

Implementation

To implement the law, the FRA published final regulations for PTC systems on January 15, 2010. The agency proposed amendments to its rules on December 11, 2012.

In December 2010, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) reported that Amtrak and the major Class I railroads have taken steps to install PTC systems under the law, but the work may not be complete by the 2015 deadline. The railroads and their suppliers are continuing to develop software to test various system components, which could delay equipment installation. GAO also suggests that publicly funded commuter railroads will have difficulty in obtaining funds to pay for their system components.

The Metrolink commuter rail system in Southern California is planning to be the first U.S. passenger carrier to install the technology on its entire system. A demonstration project is scheduled to begin in February 2013 with completion of the system set for January 2014.

Congress has considered several bills that would extend the 2015 deadline of the Act, possibly granting the railroads an extension of several years. A PTC extension bill, S. 650, was introduced in the Senate on March 4, 2015. The AAR has indicated its support for an extension.

Some of the other functions are:

Basic operation

A typical PTC system involves two basic components:

• Speed display and control unit on the locomotive
• A method to dynamically inform the speed control unit of changing track or signal conditions.

Optionally, three additional components may exist:

• An on-board navigation system and track profile database to enforce fixed speed limits
• A bi-directional data link to inform signaling equipment of the train's presence
• Centralized systems to directly issue movement authorities to trains

PTC infrastructure

There are two main PTC implementation methods currently being developed. The first makes use of fixed signaling infrastructure such as coded track circuits and wireless transponders to communicate with the on board speed control unit. The other makes use of wireless data radios spread out along the line to transmit the dynamic information. The wireless implementation also allows for the train to transmit its location to the signaling system which could enable the use of moving or "virtual" blocks. The wireless implementation is generally cheaper in terms of equipment costs, but is considered to be much less reliable than using "harder" communications channels. For example, the wireless ITCS system on Amtrak's Michigan Line was still not functioning reliably in 2007 after 13 years of development, while the fixed ACSES system has been in daily service on the Northeast Corridor since 2002 (see Amtrak, below).

The fixed infrastructure method is proving popular on high-density passenger lines where pulse code cab signaling has already been installed. In some cases, the lack of a reliance on wireless communications is being touted as a benefit. The wireless method has proven most successful on low density, unsignaled dark territory normally controlled via track warrants, where speeds are already low and interruptions in the wireless connection to the train do not tend to compromise safety or train operations.

Some systems, like Amtrak's ACSES, operate with a hybrid technology that uses wireless links to update temporary speed restrictions or pass certain signals, with neither of these systems being critical for train operations.

Locomotive speed control unit

The equipment on board the locomotive must continually calculate the trains' current speed relative to a speed target some distance away governed by a braking curve. If the train risks not being able to slow to the speed target given the braking curve, the brakes are automatically applied and the train is immediately slowed. The speed targets are updated by information regarding fixed and dynamic speed limits determined by the track profile and signaling system.

Most current PTC implementations also use the speed control unit to store a database of track profiles attached to some sort of navigation system. The unit keeps track of the train's position along the rail line and automatically enforces any speed restrictions as well as the maximum authorized speed. Temporary speed restrictions can be updated before the train departs its terminal or via wireless data links. The track data can also be used to calculate braking curves based on the grade profile. The navigation system can use fixed track beacons or differential GPS stations combined with wheel rotation to accurately determine the train's location on the line within a few feet.

Centralized control

While some PTC systems interface directly with the existing signal system, others may maintain a set of vital computer systems at a central location that can keep track of trains and issue movement authorities to them directly via a wireless data network. This is often considered to be a form of Communications Based Train Control and is not a necessary part of PTC.

Trackside device interface

The train may be able to detect the status of (and sometimes control) wayside devices, for example switch positions. This information is sent to the control center to further define the train's safe movements. Text messages and alarm conditions may also be automatically and manually exchanged between the train and the control center. Another capability would be to allow maintenance foremen the ability to automatically give trains permission through their work zones via a wireless device instead of verbal communications.

Another source of excellent information is from the GAO http://www.gao.gov/assets/660/656975.pdf Positive Train Control

These drawings give two separate visual descriptions of the system infrastructure;

Why reinvent the wheel? This system is loaded with redundancies and important functions for safety measures. Please refer to posts #11 and #18. Please review the citations included. There is more to a complete Positive Train Control system than just a pc.

Oh, as for your statement from #13, What I got from your post is that 'IF' a massive toxic spill, and loss of life from a derailment DID happen "in your backyard"; you wouldn't mind, as long as the fault lies with a drunk, or drugged up engineer, instead of a computer glitch!?! Honestly? The IF is why I recently returned from 2 weeks of advanced training at the American Association of Railroads/Dept of Homeland Security, training center in Pueblo, CO. Training included two advanced training courses, one which was about crude by rail. Sorry to burden you with the entire "IF" haz mat figures and stuff. It is the most potentially dangerous material transported by rail at this time. Just ask the people in the former Canadian town of Lac-Megantic.

Again, all contributors should read #11 and #18 before attempting to justify and build a new system while there is a better one in place now.

If the system you are proposing is a good one give some detail than 'I know what it needs' 'I can figure it out' and 'give me a punch list' I want to know what I am talking about and my competition.

It is clearly evident that you know little or nothing about railroads. Apparently there are others who know more about them. "Where's the Meat? Show us something other than imaginative thoughts. Give some information about this system.

A single dependable good track sensor costs more than your budget. No matter how your system is made there are going to be thousands of them needed. There goes the budget again!

Please refer to post #29 for information on the operations in the cab

With all due respect SWB123, "I am very unimpressed with" your proposed system, the justification for it and not even a hint of how it would work. Where are the Tidily Winks to indicate this system would work. Would you want to ride on a train whose operation is spec'd out by non-railroad people. Would you want a family member to die because there was a mistake in substandard computer programming or insufficient design. Don't buy a monthly commuter ticket if you do. You probably won't need more than a three day pass. One of the basics of engineering is to know as much as possible about the problem before coming up with a solution. One of the basics of railroading is SAFETY.

Good Luck, Old Salt

In reference to your post #47, you seem to indicate things that were not included nor inferred in my postings. The main purpose of my postings was to give some information about the operation of various functions within a complete railroad system. The information contained within them was intended to indicate to you what is required for a complete train control system and how the system you were proposing would not be sufficient to become an integral part of such a system. The operation of the present Positive Train Control, PTC, was also included so you could use it to see how your device would not work as described as a $1,000 independent or comingled device.

"Driverless Cars" or a reference to it in the operation of a train was never mentioned in any posts. Every part of every post was based on "your system" supplementing and not replacing train crews. Many of the parts of the posts described existing devices and systems that are used in railroading but were not mentioned, considered, nor apparently included in the proposed $1,000 system. Review of your posts indicated that you are not familiar with railroad operations. I am not a railroader nor ever considered myself as being one. I recognize my knowledge as being very small compared to what would necessary for being considered as doing the most menial tasks. It is not necessary to discuss the sources of that knowledge.

In post #47 you state: My thought was that IF a bullet had taken out the engineer; and, IF he has slumped over the controls, a very simple inexpensive circuit could have handled that situation. I stand by that, but I honestly don't wish to discuss it any further. I WAS NOT expressing ANYTHING that should have elicited your posts. Yes, these are these existing possibilities but there is a device in every locomotive NOW to handle this problem. It is called a "DEAD-MAN'S VIGILANCE DEVICE" or often incorrectly described as a "dead man's switch" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead-man's_vigilance_device#Accidents_due_to_insufficient_vigilance_control It does all and even more than you have described.

Given that my post was a knee jerk reaction to several things, I was NOT seriously trying to propose a system, that would be a panacea for all potential causes of train wrecks, regardless of how you interpreted it. This was never interpreted or stated as such. What was stated was that your system was not possible at the price you were estimating, as such it wouldn't do what you theorized and stated it would do and it would not integrate into existing better complete systems.

The last thing I WAS trying to do was raise your ire. But, at this point anything I say will do that anyway, so what the heck! Don't pat yourself too much on the back. You didn't raise my ire nor pi$$ me off. It was clearly apparent from the start of this thread that you were not familiar with how your device would fit into the needs of the railroads. With this I attempted to provide you with references to other information and providing direct information. It seems like that was unsuccessful since subsequent posts by you implied that you had not availed yourself of this information. This didn't nor does it bother me. Sometimes "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink it!" I apparently have a "tougher skin" than you may feel I do.

So, no I don't think you are full of S**t; but, given the fact that you answered copious questions I didn't ask, the tone of your posts make it clear, that you are pretty full of yourself; AND, that you are more of a 'Cliff Claven', than you are an 'Einstein'. Never here nor on any posts have I ever presented myself as being "pretty full of myself". That statement in itself and a few postings refuting that others understand your proposed system and its benefits certainly show that as your self reflection. You've got the wrong guy to fit that description. I know what I know and I know what I don't know. I limit myself to providing what I know and seek additional information and intelligence about it. What I don't know I attempt to learn more about if it is of interest to me. I learn with my ears and not with my mouth. I train with my mouth and devices for others to learn from. When I develop a thought, be how minor it may be, I consider all information and facts I can obtain before developing the task at hand.

Although I once met Einstein at a very early age, I never consider myself to be anything like him. Basically, although you apparently don't think so, I'm a pretty much a regular guy but with slightly higher than average knowledge on a couple subjects, JUST LIKE MOST OF THE PARTICIPANTS IN CR4.

"Again, all contributors should read #11 and #18 before attempting to justify and build a new system while there is a better one in place now."
Well, whatever is in place now didn't prevent the crash, which prompted this thread, now did it? PTC WAS NOT TURNED ON IN THE SECTION OF TRACK as stated several times in previous postings, did you read them? Latest suggestion is that the crash might be due to engineer error. AMTRAK's president has stated that all applicable trackage will have functional systems by the end of this year. Also as referenced to in previous posts there are numerous times that the PTC system has prevented accidents.

PTC must be working right without your device. In 1981 to 2014 collisions have reduced by 76%, fatalities by 64% and injuries by 75%. THEY MUST BEING DOING SOMETHING RIGHT!

AS I STATE BELOW--> ANY DAY ON THE GREEN SIDE OF THE GRASS IS A GREAT DAY! The grass is still green, the trains are operating good and getting better, and I don't give a whoop what you may think about me or your lack of interest in what is going on in railroading today! Please, next time find someone else to try to force impossible devices for systems that you know extremely little or nothing about. It detracts from your otherwise apparent intelligence.

What are you going to do now? Replace current ILS systems with LED flashlights to save money or stop all aviation to prevent airplane crashes?

Good Luck, Old Salt

SWB123-

I can not believe that a person given so much information on the railroads, their operation, the different parts of the railroad structure, the hazards involved, what entails the currently used Positive Train Control, the responsibilities and tasks of an engineer and other positions, and numerous other things can not understand that the proposed system:

Only entails one part of many functions required to run a train and a railroad.

The operations of a train requires signals, right-of-way, track maintenance (what is to prevent a track worker from being killed because the "regular" speed data was used), many inspections, track maintenance, geography of the route, train weights and lengths, track inspections, rail grinding and repairs, power available, previous train speed for approaching track geometry and geography, and a whole lot more.

Your proposed system is unrealistically vacant of funds. $1,000 won't get you the computer let alone the millions of dollars for sensors and the like to make it work. By the time that you buy one trunked mobile radio for the cab you have exceeded more of the $1,000. How are the crews going to communicate with the dispatchers for verbal updates on quickly changing conditions?

In very short--> The proposed system AIN"T GUNA WOIK!! I strongly suggest that you do the obvious before proposing any new systems, get some familiarization with the whole complete system before proposing any control or other system for part of it. The whole basic principal of project engineering is to get as much information as possible and then even some more before starting on any solutions. This is the way the aviation industry did it and they are the safest means of transportation.

What you are proposing will also not work because it is not any part of the whole train control system. It needs the other parts for information and as a means of giving its information to other components of the system working all together. Can a 757 fly with only it's rudder? Can it navigate if the different systems all work independently and don't talk to each other? Can it navigate with only a dashboard Garmin GPS?

Other information about only one part of the whole railroad operation, the signal system, is detailed in

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Sow8O1_ZNA and

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WykrHgd6HrM

If postings #11, #18, #29, #33, #39 and the above YouTube videos don't give you an idea of what a railroad operation is, give up with this proposed system. You have been given much more information than someone should need to understand what goes on but you continue to state that your system will work. You have also been given extensive information on Positive Train Control, a system which works and is here now, http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/05/13/us-usa-train-derailment-safety-exclusive-idUSKBN0NY2DW20150513

http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/13/us/philadelphia-amtrak-crash-positive-train-control/

If you can't understand after being given all this information don't change jobs. You should especially avoid airplane pilot, train engineer, traffic policeman, train dispatcher, barber, design engineer, executioner, judge or other positions that requires objective decision making. For details why, do a search on YouTube: TRAIN WRECKS!

Next opportunity you have attend a TRANSCAER live training session in your area. You will then believe me after you talk to the railroad people. Excellent Opportunity, I attend them each year in my area.

If you need more information I do consulting for shippers and response groups on railroads and hazardous materials. Not directly geared towards complete railroad operations but enough to get you informed to what you need. Not cheap, very expensive but you get what you pay for!

If you really think it is feasible and I'm full of sh$t, go try and sell the risk management dept. of any railroad on the idea of your system. Don't let the door smack you in the a$$ as they push you out.

Good Luck, Old Salt

Having read most of these posts about Driven vs. Driverless, I think a reall root cause analysis of the latest spate of train accidents (all AmTraK, apparently, other than one oil freighter) is in order. I am sure DoT is all over this.

My suggestion is that hybrid control systems are preferred. Train driver has control, as long as he/she/they (gender specific pronoun in English) are obeying the rules for the track at hand. As soon as the driver trips the overspeed allowance, Otto takes over and slows the train to a safe speed/stops depending on the issues at hand.

I don't think at this time, terrorism has completely been ruled out, and must be investigated, and if controls have been tampered with, or the driver was whacked on the noggin, and that's why he cannot remember what took place. At least check the situation out more thoroughly before the usual rounds of knee-jerk changes to policy/engineering automation. As to the choice between Manual and Otto, I still trust Manual, just a little more. I think Manual is harder to re-program, maybe.

What you have described and more safety is what the current Positive Train Control, PTC, does. It doesn't replace the 2 man crew, it gives them information and oversight. Examples: switch ahead is set in the wrong direction; it sets to stop the train, notifies the crew, monitors if the train is being stopped with sufficient distance allowed, warns trains coming behind this train to slow down and prepare to stop, tells opposing trains of the problem and prepares and monitors them for the appropriate action, dispatches a track crew to investigate the problem and fix it (could be broken or vandalism or more), and numerous other things.

The NTSB, National Transportation Safety Board, and AMTRAK have both stated that the section of track of the accident had PTC in place but it was not turned on. If it was operating the accident would not have occurred. The AMTRAK president has told all staff that the system will be completely in operation by the end of this year.

The Engineer has overall responsibility for the operation of the train, PTC provides him with more information to him/her. As it is doing this it is also monitoring the operation of the train and takes action only as a last resort.

Quantum leaps in safety and operating have been made since the days of the Mikado and the Boomers.

Good Luck, Old Salt

Andy-

Closer examination of the article you cited will reveal that it is not the railroads that want to slow down the implementation of the upgraded tanker cars but the shippers of the crude oil. The API, the American Petroleum Institute, the subject of the article are the "bad guys" in this case. They want to slow down the implementation of the modified DOT-111 tankers. The "good guys" are the railroads which want the fast implementation of the DOT-111 tankers because of they are stronger and less likely to leak in a crash. They want them as fast as possible. They are the ones who have the liability if there is a crash with subsequent leaks or fires. The concern of the railroads is that the customers will not have enough tankers to maintain shipments. Currently the shippers will not get what they want in delays and changes.

Also the railroads own less than 1% of the tankers used in liquids transportation. 99% are owned by leasing companies and other investors. A close look at the picture within the article clearly shows this. The first three letters of the four letter designator indicate the owner of the car. The additional fourth digit of "X" shows that it is a leased car. If the car is owned by a railroad it will not have the fourth digit. In the picture the "TIL" shows that the owner is "Trinity Industries Leasing Company" and the "X" indicates a leased car.

Railroads---> Good Guys

Shippers---> Bad Guys

Good Luck, Old Salt

I really like the important infos you supplied for us all here today, I feel that it will possibly make a huge difference to overall safety on US railways knowing that!!

I am sure that you, living I believe, within the 0.5 mile possible chemical danger radius of such a railway (I believe you told us all here that recently!), will now be much happier about rail tank safety, due to knowing this really valuable information.

Can you demonstrate for all of us here, in some way of your choosing, what substantial gains in safety and accident prevention there now are....

Luckily for me, I still have the width of the Atlantic plus some land on both sides of it between myself and such possible accidents in the USA, so I guess that I am even happier than you are!!

But I was before it was mentioned as well.....

Here my nearest rail line is over a mile away, and is ONLY for passenger trains and is single line working, basically just for people who travel to work in Frankfurt a.M. only....

Generally speaking here, rail traffic not for a city center (tanker cars would be a prime example of that), are routed around areas of high population, so its mainly passenger traffic that might get close to housing and the like...for obvious safety reasons.

Germany has more than its fair share of rail accidents I feel, usually at least one a year, most would be preventable IF the people concerned had followed the rules properly...its basically mostly human error.....

ATOs would probably reduce that number significantly. They certainly would not make it any worse than it already is....

About the only plus point I see here about such accidents, is that it does not appear that any rolling stock are particularly liable to cause an accident.....one small comfort at least......its just the idiots driving them!!

I can supply links for all German railroad accidents since the middle of the 19th Century if anyone is particularly interested....

Also, if the present day tanker cars in the USA are such a dangerous liability (I have no reason to disbelieve anything you or others have said), one does wonder how they passed any testing when they were first built?

Also, could they be made safer when used at say a far lower speed, plus more stops for wheel and other safety checks, till the newer designs are built and in service....? Stopping opposing traffic to let them pass, or the other way around....etc etc etc.....

Just a thought!!

Also, how old is this rolling stock today in the USA (very approx will do!)? But if less than say 25 years or so (usually designed for such a lifetime I am lead to believe, here at any rate!), then someone maybe "fudged" the safety tests back in the design/build stage.

The current average age here is claimed to be 7.5 years for most rolling stock (no idea if this has been kept to today or not, after an age reduction of over 17 years average some time ago, which you can read here:-

http://www.google.de/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=6&ved=0CEMQFjAF&url=http%3A%2F%2Fabstracts.aetransport.org%2Fpaper%2Fdownload%2Fid%2F3489&ei=oZlZVdueF4OMsAH0ioHgCA&usg=AFQjCNHFB6nXyb-F1j6Ue9jZOtX9MWAxbQ&sig2=3uCrxACnfTR5pzD7a8vkdA&bvm=bv.93564037,d.bGg

So please come back Ralph Nader, all is forgiven!!! WE ALL NEED YOU!!! Or maybe someone else from the NGO he started? Poor chap is over 80 years old today I believe.....

(I am personally not USA NGO "knowledgeable" in any way shape or form, so this idea may not be as valid or as useful as I first thought when I read up on Ralph, rather like the actual effectiveness of the knowledge of "who actually owns the tankers?" adds to overall safety today in the USA maybe?....)

Do have a really great day!!!

Andy Germany-

Thank you for your "positive" comments and questions. I will answer them the best possible and with references if possible;

I live 3.5 miles, not .5 miles, from the nearest railroad. I can hear the horn under ideal atmospheric condition. It has up to and more than 5 Ethanol and 6 crude oil full trains (up to 125 cars @ 30,000gal ea) plus the empties containing vapors traversing that line. Passenger trains do not use this line. The nearest line that these materials and passengers use is 9 miles away. My personal concern is for everyone, not just myself. If death "by accident" can be avoided I'm all for it and will support efforts to eliminate/improve the chances of survival for people.

Railroad safety has dramatically improved in the USA.

Good Luck, Old Salt

What the heck does the train engineer do anyway? There's no steering. Does he just work a throttle and brake? I would think automation and centralized control could do it and eliminate most of the human error.

http://learn.org/articles/What_Does_a_Railroad_Engineer_Do.html

What Does a Railroad Engineer Do?

A railroad engineer does much more than just drive the train - he or she is ultimately responsible for the entire train during a run. Railroad engineers usually work up to the job title with on-the-job training in other railroad jobs. Read on to learn more about job duties in this field, including employment prospects and salary potential.

Career Overview

The engineer on a train is like a plane's pilot. A railroad engineer, sometimes titled a locomotive or train engineer, runs the locomotive - the vehicle that provides the energy for the train to move. The railroad engineer reports problems with the train's condition, keeps the train on schedule, and observes safety procedures.

Duties and Responsibilities

From before a train leaves its first station, until it arrives at its final destination, the railroad engineer is in charge. Before each trip, the railroad engineer inspects the locomotives (some trains have more than one), noting their mechanical condition. The engineer makes small adjustments and reports any conditions requiring further attention. While the train moves, the railroad engineer controls its speed and progress using throttles and airbrakes. During the run, the engineer monitors an instrument panel that indicates engine conditions, such as battery charge, amperage, and air pressure in the main reservoir and the brakes.

The railroad engineer must be aware of the train's route, including track conditions, grades, signals, speed limits, and rules. The train engineer must understand how each train's make-up (the number of cars and the weight of their loads) affects the train's acceleration and braking. The engineer remains in contact with dispatchers, traffic controllers, other trains' staff, and the conductors on his or her own train. Finally, the railroad engineer ensures that the train leaves the station on time and keeps to its schedule.

Work Environment

Railroad engineers, especially those on freight trains, may work long and irregular hours. Train engineers on passenger trains may work more regular shifts but still face very long hours. Railroad engineers on trains that travel long distances may face long periods away from home. Some railroad engineers work in rail yards that haven't been automated. They move rail cars and engines in the yards and rarely leave their home base.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railroad_engineer

An engineer (American and Canadian), train operator, or engine driver (British and Commonwealth English) is a person who operates a train. The engineer is in charge of and responsible for driving the engine, as well as the mechanical operation of the train, train speed, and all train handling. The use of the term engineer to describe this occupation in North America should not be confused with the usual meaning of engineer, as in someone who engages in design.

For many American railroads, the following career progression is typical: assistant conductor (brakeman), conductor and finally engineer. In the US, engineers are required to be certified and re-certified every two to three years.

In India, a driver starts as a diesel assistant or electrical assistant (in case of electric locomotives). They then get promoted on a scale: goods, passenger, Mail/Express and Rajdhani/Shatabdi/Duronto.

In the United States and Canada, train drivers are known as "locomotive engineers". In the United Kingdom, South Africa, Australia, and New Zealand, they are known as "train drivers", "engine drivers", "locomotive drivers", or "locomotive operators".

Contents

1 Duties

2 Train handling

Duties

The cab of a CountryLink Xplorer diesel multiple unit

An engineer is responsible for preparing equipment for service, checking paperwork and the condition of the locomotives. Their duties require that they control acceleration, braking and handling of the train underway. They must know the physical characteristics of the railroad, including passenger stations, the incline and decline of the right-of-way and speed limits. Along with the conductor, the engineer monitors time to not fall behind schedule, nor leave stations early. The train's speed must be reduced when following other trains, approaching route diversions, or regulating time over road to avoid arriving too early. The engineer assumes the duties of the conductor if the conductor is incapacitated.

The locomotive engineer is required to have an intimate knowledge of track geometry including signal placement so as to be able to safely control the train.

Maintaining concentration is of critical importance in this role.

Train handling

A workplace in Rigi cogwheel electric train

Train dynamics can be extreme and therefore an engineer must be familiar with train handling techniques so as to avoid train partings, derailments and not exceeding maximum authorized speed.

Freight trains typically have different train forces from passenger trains. A typical freight train may have 660 tons (or more) of locomotive weight at the front. That may be followed by 6000 feet (or more) of freight cars. The cars may or may not be uniformly loaded and may brake differently.

Severe brake applications can combine with these factors to cause a train parting. Therefore good train handling practice for freight trains is usually to keep the train stretched or bunched, uniformly. This is achieved by keeping the train in power while a brake application is made, or by continuous use of dynamic brakes. Transitioning from one state to another (stretched vs. bunched) requires careful handling, and a skilled operator on the locomotive.

When there are Dead In Consist (DIC)multiple locomotives, some may be set up to brake like freight cars instead of locomotives.

On shorter passenger trains, this is even more noticeable, requiring the first application of the brake to be bled off on the locomotive, applying locomotive brakes with subsequent increases in application. The length and make-up of the slowing or stopping distance dictates just how much locomotive brake application should be allowed to apply. Passenger trains utilizing "Blended Braking" do not actuate (release) the application of locomotive brakes. This combines with dynamic braking forces, to produce the maximum amount of safe braking effort, for any given speed.

The use of dynamic brake can result in a severe slack action, when engaged, run in is highly possible if brought in at an inappropriate time (regarding track geometry and train speed) and if disengaged at an inappropriate time can result in a run out. Both can potentially snap train drawgear or couplings.

Stringlining is a potential cause of derailment that train handling techniques must take into account in order to reduce the likelihood of occurrence. When a train rounds a curve basic physics dictates the trailing cars in the consist will try to take the shortest route and the flange on some of the wheels within the consist could potentially fail to prevent this occurring with the resultant effect being a derailment.

Track geometry is also critical to train handling. It is desirable to have brakes releasing at the bottom of steep grades rather than applied. And at the top of a steep grade it is desirable to have a fully charged brake pipe.

Serial braking is where a train descends a grade on the air brake alone. The brake pipe application is gradually increased to slow down and if required (depending on the weight of the train and on the grade) stop the train so as to allow the locomotive compressors to recharge the brake pipe throughout the consist. In these cases it is permissible to use the locomotive brakes (which are independent of the train brake and charged through the main reservoir directly) to hold the train (In some cases the weight of the trailing consist will not be held on the locomotive brakes alone) slowing the rate of acceleration and giving more time to recharge the brake pipe to give a better application in the next subsequent train brake application. A runaway can occur if a brake application is required before the train pipe has recharged (as happened at Cima Hill in the United States).

A split reduction is where a train brake application is made and gradually increased as the train descends the grade. It is different from serial braking in that with Serial Braking the application is released, the brake pipe recharged then reapplied.

The dynamic brake when operable slows down the rate of acceleration and allows longer for a train brake pipe to be recharged before being required to be re applied. When a train descends a grade utilizing both the dynamic and air brakes the procedure is known as 'maintaining braking'.

In the case of severe grades (for example the Westmere Bank in New Zealand, which is a 1:33 grade with a 40 km/h (25 mph) speed limit) a trains allowable speed is lower for a train that doesn't have dynamic brake than for one that does

In freight train switching yards the freight car brakes are sometimes bled off so they can be easily switched. However when a switching locomotive moves large numbers of cars around with no brakes the locomotive must brake for the entire train. This can result in severe slack action and wheel slip. Damage to goods and rolling stock is possible. There is the potential for loss of control, when switching larger trains without air brakes being charged and applied.

I hope this is of assistance to you. Many things have changed since the days of CASEY JONES and the Cannonball Express travel the rails of the Illinois Central RR.

Good Luck, Old Salt

Many thanks, Old Salt. It sounds like this is really a place where some automation could make for much safer operations. Crunching numbers is what computers do best. Once an airliner gets off the ground, they switch on the autopilot and mostly just monitor until it's time to land. And in the case of a train, operation in just 2 dimensions makes it even easier. Methinks the lack of progress has been due to politics and lack of money, not technical issues.

Now I would want a human in the cockpit just in case HAL goes wonky on us.

If trains can run low on braking power, why aren't engine compressors replaced by larger ones?

ronseto-

Very good question but just the opposite happens. An application of air to the brakes releases the pads and therefore the train can move. This is somewhat similar to the air brakes on a truck. Increasing the air to the brakes therefore reduces the braking power. In a truck too many applications of the brakes too often in a period of time the lowered pressure will cause the brakes to be on. When starting a parked truck equipped with air brakes, if there is no "shore" supply of compressed air to maintain the air pressure in the braking system, the engine has to be run to accumulate enough air pressure to release the brakes. That is one reason why trucks are allowed to idle when first started. Likewise this is one of several reasons to idle the engines of a train when not in use, to build up the air pressure and release the brakes.

Good Luck, Old Salt

I'm inclined to agree with SSCpal if we can add an important stipulation: The automation and centralized controls must be augmented by carefully designed redundancy features, using supervisory functions involving both sensors and humans. As others have correctly noted, devices eventually fail. That's the reason why 1) human intervention can't be left out and 2) my earlier comment (prescribing automatic alarms) stopped short of fully automated control. That earlier comment, BTW, then moved to consider how these issues relate to the question originally raised in this discussion (driverless cars) and sounded a cautionary note.

Driver-less services are inevitable - get used to them!
There are far too many very commercial advantages/instigators not to have them.
The makers, equipment suppliers, programmers, users, e.g. couriers, hauliers, delivery retailers, taxis, uber. etc. the list of commercial interests who can benefit from driver-less services is.. enormous. Also, consider the wage savings, paid holidays, sick, etc. This massive release of labour, which nationally can be used for increased production, etc..
Simply anyone, who opposes driver-less services, is copying King Canute. (IMO).

In regard to safety it is up to the engineers to... have multiple redundant systems, "equipment lifetime" enforced renewals, and fail safe designs. Yes, there will still be "accidents" most likely human interventions. Yes, the unexpected - but we get these anyway. It is more likely these accidents will happen less often, and hopefully, less damaging.

As a trade off for this easier simpler life we will become less free, and more controlled.
This a major step to big brother, with absolute control. (another plus for implementation?)
The sad fact is the growth of the population and indiscriminate use of the world resources is demanding this progress. e.g. see the explosion of speed restrictions on any UK highway.
Only a generation ago one could drive from A to B and likely see only one (or two) speed markers. (usually 30mph) Today, that same journey is covered in them! 30mph, 40 mph, 50mph, etc.. all remotely enforced by radar use. (and ruin the journey)

These may well save accidents, even lives; because the traffic, the speed, and the manner of driving have also exploded, completely out of proportion to the previous peaceful living.

This is not new. Like generations before us, we are at the cusp of change and, without self control, it obligates the government of the day, in national and public interest, to bring order to our lives, even when we deplore the loss of freedom. If you cannot control yourself.....

What can we do about it? Probably very little. Ensure the systems are safe. That democracy is not circumvented. Everyone to try and act responsibly ourselves. To prevent and avoid as much waste as possible. etc.. We are on a survival course now, - simply grow up.. or live in a disaster prone dustbin. One either completely out of control, or with a control we may intensely dislike.

jt.

A dog lover, whose dog was a female and "in heat', agreed to look after her neighbor`s
male dog while they were on vacation.
She had a large house and believed that she could keep the two dogs apart.
However, as she was drifting off to sleep she heard awful howling and moaning sounds,
rushed downstairs and found the dogs locked together, in obvious pain and unable to disengage,
as so frequently happens when dogs mate.
Unable to separate them, and so worried as to what to do next, although it was very late she called the vet,
who answered in a very grumpy voice.
Having explained the problem to him, the vet said, "Hang up the phone and place it down alongside the dogs.
I will then call you back and the noise of the phone ringing will make the male lose his erection and he will be able to withdraw."
"Do you think that will work?" she asked.
"Just worked on me," he replied....

The King Canute comment was very 'Cute! and very actual!!

I agree with your comments as anything that adds safety to road, rail and air is liked by me!! The human element is very difficult to take out of the equation otherwise....

The joke was good too, thanks!! We should post more of them!!

No problem, I simply call it as I see it.....

Some here cannot take that!!!

Their problem!!

Do have a great day!!

Ok smart guys who want all the driverless cars, what about this?

Suppose you live way out in the country, how is this "driverless car" supposed to navigate, throught narrow lanes, country roads (with no embedded signal), and also dirt farm roads and turn rows. Suppose you figure that one out.

Oh, wait, the car will just toin awound? "You are no longer allowed to travel in these restricted spaces..." Since when is it G.D. restricted if it is my land?

I think there are too many irresponsible people with too much time on their hands, and a wish list longer than ....their arm.

I think there is a bigger issue here besides safety and government control. Giant corporations wanting to become even bigger, push for a technology that will generate more money for them by using safety as an excuse and government backing. It's all about squeezing the last possible bit of money from the consumer. Corporations do not care that you can't afford that expensive new car and have to file bankruptcy. That's not their problem; they just want your money; every last penny if they can.The only way to survive is through self control, something that is actively being discouraged in an effort to get your money. This may sound cynical and I am guilty of cynicism. Maybe that's why I have a home on 8 acres and surviving well, but not luxuriously.

It seems there are various "King Canute" stories, which one are you referring to? The one I read (since here in Texas we do not have stories of kings, since we are all kings within our own castles), had King Canute becoming weary of his overly flattering subjects (I think Canute was perhaps Norse, and the subjects were slimy whiny English who wanted to worm their way into his good graces, as English are often wont to do), and told them, "Take my throne down to the very edge of the sea." They immediately did so, and he was seated with the waves beginning to lap at his toes. They implored "the great king" to command the tide, and he did so (mockingly), and predictably the tide continued to arrive on time, not only immersing the king's feet, but the entire seat of the throne, and his robe. Canute then informed the subjects that there is one Greater King, who has the waves and the ocean in the palm of his hand, and commands the seas, so it actually appears King Canute was a good and humble king, who after that event no longer wore a crown.

I was going to add a lot more, but it was mostly a rant about people having on the same Nanny-State mentally of former NYC Mayor Bloomberg (who IMHO, is a complete moron, and schill for socialism, communist democrat, etc.), basically, an impotent little gobment nerd.

We in Texas are sick to death of hearing about all this gobmint control BS. There needs to be more Liberty, not less. Liberty cries for people to grow up, educate themselves, be totally responsible for their actions (or face extreme consequences of harming others, either intentionally, or because you lost control of your faculties through your drunken, drug-infested ways).

We did not get to be the people we are in Texas by having the government make little robots of us. We think for ourselves, act upon the reasoned out plans we make, and are one of the most productive places on the face of the Earth. Don't mess with Texas - a popular road sign here. The well-advised should heed this warning. We are not your sheep, not your chattel, and most definitely are not your slaves, and if you want blood to find out, we will be happy to spill yours for invading us.

After the Germanwings pilot-ed crash there is a real question to ask: which solution is more fool-proof?

Fool being the operative key word. With lunatics trying to find any excuse to get on board a plane and either take it over and blow it up, or just blow it up outright, I think I will stick to driving with a known and trusted friend, or my other two friends, Dr. Smith, and Dr. Wesson. These two doctors have cured more criminals than any other. There again there is always private aviation, but one never knows what state of mind the pilot is going to be in. Do you really want a movie actor thay plays a deranged villian in many roles being your pilot - John Travolta? Actually, I am sure John is a great guy. Anyone that really flies well as he does, and knows his aviation can't be bad at all.

How hard can it be? You only have speed control, you don't have to steer the thing.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/transport/engines-equipment/diesel-locomotive10.htm

GA!

Great article. Very complete and descriptive about a train.

Good Luck, Old Salt

Old Colorado Joke.

Why are so many Texans living in Colorado, and so many Homosexuals in SF?
SF had first choice!!

Yeah, yeah very funny! Keep sharing!

Note on Colorado: Due to the illegality of marijuana distributors in regards to opening any bank accounts insured by the FDIC (due a federal laws about money laundering, and some proven linkage to money laundering), it is a well-known fact that large piles of money are accumulating in these establishments.

If I were a LLEO in one of these towns, I would keep an eye out for when these places load up the money to move it elsewhere, and bust the robbers as soon as they hit the caravan! I say that my heart goes out to LLEO's in all of Colorado, and the State Troopers there, as I understand they have a large role to play in keeping order there now. Driverless cars make sense in Colorado, because nothing much else there does any more.

You Guys will love these jokes then:-

Miscellaneous world jokes

Enjoy!!

I have needed depends for the last few minutes while reading this short survey of University jokes, and some of the others. My sides are splitting, and my ribs are aching. I never thought I could laugh so much at my own people!

I do not understand why you feel the need to remain anonymous on that one. Not a really bad joke in the lot! Many of them completely true.

You know why Colorado chose the Buffaloes as their mascot, don't you? NCAA would not put up with "leg-humping chihuahus"...