Siemens SC-44 Chargers - Michigan Edition

[PatAzo]

If you consider PTC in the cost per life saved, the argument has been made it is too expensive. PTC alone will not prevent every accident. Neither do ATS, But there are those that it could have prevented. Chatsworth (distracted engineer), Silver Spring Maryland (forgot signal indication), Amtrak's Colonial in Chase Maryland (missed signal indication), U.P. wrecks in Hoxie Arkansas (fatigue), Goodwell Oklahoma (vision problems) and closer to home CN's collision in Andersonville MI (fatigue). "Situational Awareness" wasn't enough to save the people killed in these wrecks. A more expensive solution than could have been implemented, I agree. I really doubt that you can make an sound argument that PCT will make railroads more dangerous.

[NYCMan]

TO PatAzo. Every example that you gave could have been prevented with Automatic Train Stop (ATS) technology. ATS is far less expensive than PTC. But, going to the Positive Train Control (PTC) model, with a centralized computer making the decisions for what "should" be happening in the locomotive cab is a very expensive alternative for what would appear to be no real added value.

The justification for PTC is that it will "save lives." But, there are thousands of miles of railroad line that will NOT be required to install PTC. Are we to assume that the lives on those lines are less important?

As far as being PTC being "less safe", the airline industry had to go through its own learning curve. Computers are not necessarily smarter than man, and computers are also very fallible. Witness the famous 1988 Paris Air Show where a new Airbus A320 crashed into a forest of trees; during a low pass over the audience, the pilot was trying to increase thrust and pull up, but the airplane's computer decided it was smarter than the pilot and overrode the pilot's control actions.

PTC... a huge expense. But, does the end result justify that humungous expense? What equally effective safety solution could have been built for a fraction of that expense, still leaving billions of dollars for other track and/or signal improvements that would have equally or better improved safety?

[Wabash1070]

I wonder if the plan isn't to use the Cabbages and the SC-44s would make sense so the Collage Kids can bring their bikes on the train

[justin_gram]

That could make sense, but the cabbages cannot do the full 110 MPH.

[Schteinkuh]

The justification for PTC is that it will "save lives." But, there are thousands of miles of railroad line that will NOT be required to install PTC. Are we to assume that the lives on those lines are less important?

The justification is that it only applies to those which carry passengers and hazardous materials. So in retrospect, nobody cares about a grain spill compared to HCl.

Computers are not necessarily smarter than man, and computers are also very fallible. Witness the famous 1988 Paris Air Show where a new Airbus A320 crashed into a forest of trees; during a low pass over the audience, the pilot was trying to increase thrust and pull up, but the airplane's computer decided it was smarter than the pilot and overrode the pilot's control actions.

Computers are totally smarter than man. Have you ever tried playing chess with one? SHEESH. Jetlink can confirm, autopilot malfunctions are so rare that it's nearly impossible to investigate and study how they happened. Plus, we know much more about computers today than we did in 1988 (assuming PTC has been updated at all since its introduction by the BN in the late 80s).

PTC... a huge expense. But, does the end result justify that humungous expense? What equally effective safety solution could have been built for a fraction of that expense, still leaving billions of dollars for other track and/or signal improvements that would have equally or better improved safety?

This is an excellent point. Most of the recent derailments have been caused by infrastructure failures of some sort. Technological improvements in track maintenance is the gateway to high speed rail in the US, IMO.

[Jetlink]

Computers are not necessarily smarter than man, and computers are also very fallible. Witness the famous 1988 Paris Air Show where a new Airbus A320 crashed into a forest of trees; during a low pass over the audience, the pilot was trying to increase thrust and pull up, but the airplane's computer decided it was smarter than the pilot and overrode the pilot's control actions.

Computers are totally smarter than man. Have you ever tried playing chess with one? SHEESH. Jetlink can confirm, autopilot malfunctions are so rare that it's nearly impossible to investigate and study how they happened. Plus, we know much more about computers today than we did in 1988 (assuming PTC has been updated at all since its introduction by the BN in the late 80s).

Computers are reliable and predictable. They are great at monitoring too. That is something humans are bad at. That's why they make great autopilots. They have (or are programmed to have) the patience to monitor the altitude, airspeed, and heading continuously with out getting bored or distracted where a human pilot would eventually tire or fatigue mentally. But that's it. They suck at problem solving. In fact they literally can't handle a situation they haven't been programmed to. Altitude, heading, or speed change that wasn't programmed or anticipated? Ain't happening. System malfunction, no bueno. That won't end well. They aren't smart at all yet. The intelligence they appear to posses is programmed and artificial.

PTC is a great example. Apply the rule set to the monitored situation. 1=brakes on 0=train continues. Insert other variables and logic and if then program codes as needed. Anything outside of that=2 and the logic continues on with no change because the 2 is unrecognized. PTC won't stop disastors, derailments, and collisions in every example because we can't possibly write code for every potentially negative situation. It will be great in a case where a tired or distracted human operator might miss a cue the automation detects.

The airbus in Paris at the airshow is a great example. The case has never been solved definitively because the human operators on board tell a very different story than would be expected. The aircraft was being operated in a very outside of the norm situation for a transport category aircraft. The onboard systems operated exactly how they were programmed, it wasn't the best outcome. If it would have been a routine approach, landing (or go around) the hull wouldn't have been lost. The fact that it wasn't a routine manuever for the crew or the system logic (which was designed to always be in control as long as possible) lead to the loss of the hull as the human operators stuggled to understand and over ride the system logic.

[PatAzo]

TO PatAzo. Every example that you gave could have been prevented with Automatic Train Stop (ATS) technology. ATS is far less expensive than PTC.

I agree, a more cost effective solution could have been implemented. But the industry chose not to and let the legislature decide for them. It is not a question that PTC will save lives, just cost per life. ATS could prevent wrecks as well and for the same cost perhaps covered more milage and saved more. I would argue as well that using readily available technologies a simpler approach could have been developed for the majority to railroad milage. Break it down to simple terms and there are two decisions a locomotive has to make. 1) Am I allowed to be where I am? 2) Am I allowed to go as fast as I am?

[Schteinkuh]

CalTrans took delivery of one of their Chargers last week. The one in Illinois is still a paperweight on Track 14 in CUS

[cbtrower]

I'll be going to see the Amtrak at Wayne junction soon, wonder if the Chargers will be on there any time soon. It's nice to hopefully have something other then those boring P42s on the trains!

[PerRock]

CalTrans took delivery of one of their Chargers last week. The one in Illinois is still a paperweight on Track 14 in CUS

https://scontent.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/ ... e=59575337

CalTrans now has two and has been running test trains with them. Youtube has some videos of a CalTrans train with chargers on both ends & CaliCars in the middle.

peter

[Schteinkuh]

My bad, I only saw pics of 2101, not 2103

[PerRock]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9z90Ji ... be&t=6m53s

peter

[twropr]

Got this from another forum - not sure of the accuracy:
As of January 2017, the completed Illinois/Michigan IDTX units were being stored at Pueblo. While some minor tweaking has yet to be done, the biggest holdup seems to be that Amtrak Chicago is not yet prepared to handle them.
It has been said that LED headlights will have to be changed, as they are currently outlawed on the Union Pacific.

Andy

[Saturnalia]

It has been said that LED headlights will have to be changed, as they are currently outlawed on the Union Pacific.

Wonder why that is? Too bright, or has UP simply not come to terms with the improvements in LED technology over the years?

[PerRock]

The Capitol-Corridor runs on UP lines, and the Chargers are running (tests) over their tracks there.

Also testing on the MI Line wouldn't involve UP.

peter

[PatAzo]

It has been said that LED headlights will have to be changed, as they are currently outlawed on the Union Pacific.

Wonder why that is? Too bright, or has UP simply not come to terms with the improvements in LED technology over the years?

If U.P. is not allowing LED headlights I'd suspect testing is not completed. Progressive Railroading has a piece on the web that talks about concerns LED headlights could interfere with the visibility of signal indications. I doubt every signal but if you were the engineer responsible for approving LED head lights system wide it would be prudent to be concerned with the odd location where it could occur.

[Wabash1070]

It has been said that LED headlights will have to be changed, as they are currently outlawed on the Union Pacific.

Wonder why that is? Too bright, or has UP simply not come to terms with the improvements in LED technology over the years?

If U.P. is not allowing LED headlights I'd suspect testing is not completed. Progressive Railroading has a piece on the web that talks about concerns LED headlights could interfere with the visibility of signal indications. I doubt every signal but if you were the engineer responsible for approving LED head lights system wide it would be prudent to be concerned with the odd location where it could occur.

Don't the UP SD70ACE-T4s have LED Headlights?

[Schteinkuh]

Don't the UP SD70ACE-T4s have LED Headlights?

Obviously not....

[Schteinkuh]

Progressive Railroading has a piece on the web that talks about concerns LED headlights could interfere with the visibility of signal indications. I doubt every signal but if you were the engineer responsible for approving LED head lights system wide it would be prudent to be concerned with the odd location where it could occur.

Can you provide a link?

[justin_gram]

UP hasn't had the best of luck with LEDs...This may have something to do with this UP derailment that was caused by an LED signal back in 2014: http://trn.trains.com/news/news-wire/20 ... ntsb-crash