See this article in "The Newton Kansan" Newspaper: http://www.thekansan.com/stories/020602/fro_0206020001.shtml Photo credit: The Newton Kansan Charlie
I mentioned this in some past posts, and now I see it is going to be tried on the Mainline and yard runs. The device we were ordered to design (of several complexities) will operate a lead engine from signals dictated at a remote location. It is possible to type up a program in Dallas that will operate an engine in a monitored yard in St. Louis, to perform break up of incoming strings of cars, or make up full trains for ready tracks. Accessories are perfected to choose an engine, run it over to a string of cars, and be coupled. At this time it is still necessary to have a "Brake Safety Test Tech." who would then connect all hoses and MU's, run his tests, then turn the "Train" over to remote dispatching. (He will soon no longer be required either.) Dispatching would then punch in the program for this trip, and the engine will proceed to its destination and stop on the predetermined track, and shut down. (It can also, set train brakes, uncouple and dissconnect, and run over to the receiving track, and shut down for inspection). Only one technician is required, so far. They were working on various methods of making secure electical hook-ups for MU's automatically that would be weather proof. The air hose connections, are already designed and under test. (Electrical uncoupling has been tested, that senses a good couple, and broken knuckles.) The new engines will only have one window (maybe) and a minimal set of manual controls, for use by hostlers, and emergency personnel, for moving the unit around the shops. Because everything will be computer controlled, human personnel will only be required for operating the computers. It is understood, that a few human workers will occasionally be required for maintainence and in the unlikely event of a wreck. Those will probably be contract labor. Customers will be required to perform their own loading and unloading by such means as they see fit. They expect us to model that? Now you know why I like steam and wish to live in the past before diesels started ruining my hobby!
During the Montreal Expo in 1967 an elevated was designed that could be run by computer only. But people decided they didn't trust computers to run the elevated. When Vancouver built its "Sky Train" (elevated) for Expo 86, it was designed to be run by computer, which it has ever since. Trainboard may have scored a North American first of all forum about a year and a half ago. A client of mine is a supervisor in the Sky Train computer room that runs the system. Dane and I were invited to check it out, which we did. Dane was shown how to run one from the computer on the service track visible outside the window we were looking out of. So Dane has actaully run a computer run train, and a year and a half ago!
The computer system described has existed for many years. There are several dedicated mine operations that rely on fully automated train operation. The big difference with those is that they are unit trains that use the same equipment and tracks every run. Only servicing requires human interaction. Fully automatic couplers with air and electrical connections already exist on heavy electric MU equipment. A stonger version is easy to create for freight use. Only the coupling between the engine and cars would be manual air connected. The current remote control debate on the US mainline railroads revolves around the belt pak technology. The feds say the operator on the ground is only telling an onboard computer what to do and the computer is actually operating the locomotive. It is my belief and that of the BLE (Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers) that no matter where the operator is, he/she should still be a licensed engineer. The railroads and the UTU (United Trans. Union) believe that the conductors/trainmen on the ground can operate the remote control device, thereby eliminating the engineer, the highest paid and trained member of the crew. Yes, a lot of jobs will be lost because of this technology if it is implimented under the current plan. [ 07 February 2002, 18:14: Message edited by: Big Al ]
