Should FOCs be required to fit Electronically controlled pneumatic (ECP) brakes?

[HSTEd]

Mod Note: Posts #1 - #35 originally in this thread.

And what about when that increase in road freight increases wear on the roads and therefore requires taxpayer money to repair the roads? What's the cost of the "let the FOCs go bankrupt" option?

ECP braking is not going to increase operating costs, so any freight flow viable now is viable afterwards.
So the cost would be buying up the bankrupt FOCs stock at the auction, fitting it and then the housekeeping of setting up a replacemen toperator.

Far less than the savings incurred.

 

[4F89]

ECP braking is not going to increase operating costs, so any freight flow viable now is viable afterwards.
So the cost would be buying up the bankrupt FOCs stock at the auction, fitting it and then the housekeeping of setting up a replacemen toperator.

Far less than the savings incurred.

What is your idea behind EPC brakes in freight? Why, exactly, do you demand this?

 

[Domh245]

It's all well and good saying that it's as simple as just buying up the stock at an auction, but don't forget that quite a lot of FOC vehicles (both locomotives and wagons) are leased - not only does that make it a little more complicated than just buying the stock back post bankruptcy, but also complicates fitting ECP to the fleet.

There is also the consideration that during the period between the FOCs ceasing operations and 'newFOC' starting up, freight still has to be moved, which will see it go to road. Once it moves, some of it won't come back, particularly where they've had to invest in the road vehicles to support that 'temporary' period

 

[HSTEd]

What is your idea behind EPC brakes in freight? Why, exactly, do you demand this?

Beyond the operational benefits with improved braking performance and train control, ECP systems can also perform train completeness checks to the standard required by ETCS for the removal of continuous trackside train detection equipment.
ie. ETCS Level 2/Level 3 Hybrid.

 

[4F89]

Beyond the operational benefits with improved braking performance and train control, ECP systems can also perform train completeness checks to the standard required by ETCS for the removal of continuous trackside train detection equipment.
ie. ETCS Level 2/Level 3 Hybrid.

A continuity test hardly has an effect on mainline operations. The braking of a freight train is pretty consistent, even "good" on occasion. You've not yet given a reason as to what is so very negative about a regular air brake system on a freight train.

 

[HSTEd]

A continuity test hardly has an effect on mainline operations.

Being able to jettison trackside train detection equipment over large fractions of the main line is a pretty significant effect isn't it?

For example, no track detection gear at all between the Point Machines at the south end of Stoke Tunnel and the Level Crossing north East of Stamford on the ECML. A distance of just over 20km.

The braking of a freight train is pretty consistent, even "good" on occasion. You've not yet given a reason as to what is so very negative about a regular air brake system on a freight train.

Execpt with ECP the train will brake like its an EMU formation.
As the experience with the 4EPBs over the previous "conventional" air braked units demonstrates, this is a significant advantage.

Freight trains in the US coming to a stop in much less than their own length!

 

[4F89]

Being able to jettison trackside train detection equipment over large fractions of the main line is a pretty significant effect isn't it?


Execpt with ECP the train will brake like its an EMU formation.
As the experience with the 4EPBs over the previous "conventional" air braked units demonstrates, this is a significant advantage.

Freight trains in the US coming to a stop in much less than their own length!

Of course, in the USA it helps when they are 3 miles long....

In my experience of driving freight trains, they stop pretty bloody well when you need them to, considering the phenomenal weight they haul around. The heavier the better in fact.

Is your angle that you want to run them faster maybe? Brakes is not the majority limiting factor on speed, more wear and tear to the rails, block lengths play a pretty big role too.

You can add all the gadgets you want, but a 2000t freight train stops pretty well as it is. Any fancy bits just add cost at this point, and won't increase speeds.

 

[HSTEd]

Of course, in the USA it helps when they are 3 miles long....

Yes, but in the USA the trains are so long that in the traditional system the wagon at the back doesn't get told to brake for 20-30 seconds after the command is actually issued!

The performance is quite astonishing though.
A 20,000t taconite train (1830m long), stopped from 50mph in 560m.

You can add all the gadgets you want, but a 2000t freight train stops pretty well as it is. Any fancy bits just add cost at this point, and won't increase speeds.

Well beyond the signalling simplifications, the ECP brake standard also allows multiple working control down the length of the train.
Which is obviously a significant operational advantage.

Trains which are currently operated double headed could be operated Top and Tail, with the associated operational advantages.

 

[edwin_m]

Is your angle that you want to run them faster maybe? Brakes is not the majority limiting factor on speed, more wear and tear to the rails, block lengths play a pretty big role too.

Freight deceleration rates are less than passenger and would have to be increased to stop within the same distance from higher speed. ECP might give you a bit by getting the brake on quicker, but it's unlikely that existing brake equipment just upgraded with ECP would provide sufficient brake force to give the increased deceleration. It might not also cope with the rate of energy dissipation needed due to both the greater deceleration and the higher initial speed.

Well beyond the signalling simplifications, the ECP brake standard also allows multiple working control down the length of the train.
Which is obviously a significant operational advantage.

Trains which are currently operated double headed could be operated Top and Tail, with the associated operational advantages.

Multiple working down the train was done by radio well before ECP came along, so ECP isn't essential.

 

[4F89]

Yes, but in the USA the trains are so long that in the traditional system the wagon at the back doesn't get told to brake for 20-30 seconds after the command is actually issued!

The performance is quite astonishing though.
A 20,000t taconite train (1830m long), stopped from 50mph in 560m.




Well beyond the signalling simplifications, the ECP brake standard also allows multiple working control down the length of the train.
Which is obviously a significant operational advantage.

Trains which are currently operated double headed could be operated Top and Tail, with the associated operational advantages.

They can be today, if you chose to have a very long jumper cable....

The length of trains we run here stop perfectly adequately at 75mph. I suspect you actually want them running much faster so as not to hold up your precious commute. Which they don't. Thats why there are paths. Please, give me something to actually get my teeth into, as you are pretty boring.

 

[4F89]

Freight deceleration rates are less than passenger and would have to be increased to stop within the same distance from higher speed. ECP might give you a bit by getting the brake on quicker, but it's unlikely that existing brake equipment just upgraded with ECP would provide sufficient brake force to give the increased deceleration. It might not also cope with the rate of energy dissipation needed due to both the greater deceleration and the higher initial speed.

Multiple working down the train was done by radio well before ECP came along, so ECP isn't essential.

Exactly

 

[HSTEd]

The length of trains we run here stop perfectly adequately at 75mph. I suspect you actually want them running much faster so as not to hold up your precious commute.

Given that I don't commute by rail.... not really?

I want a rail industry that doesn't require colossal subsidies to operate.
This requires adoption fo new technologies to reduce operating costs, improve line capacity and improve end-to-end speeds so they actually provide an attractive product ot the public.

Which they don't. Thats why there are paths. Please, give me something to actually get my teeth into, as you are pretty boring.

The signalling simplifications alone easily pay for the installation cost.
There are a lot of other advantages involving precision of application and precision of brake release.
Continuous monitoring of brake system status on all vehicles is another advantage.

ECP brakes are not susceptible to someone leaving a isolating cock closed when they shouldn't, which appears with depressing regularity in RAIB reports.

But the signalling implications are the important part.

 

[4F89]

You know that freight operators aren't provided with subsidies from the UK govt, or at least certainly not to the extent of pass companies, yeah?

You make very little sense in any practical world.

 

[HSTEd]

You know that freight operators aren't provided with subsidies from the UK govt, or at least certainly not to the extent of pass companies, yeah?

Technically correct, except that it is in no way correct. (Indeed it is not even technically correct, because Freight Operator grants still exist!)

Track access charges are held artificially low by huge piles of money being poured into Network Rail's coffers.
The industry consumes colossal subsidies.

Indeed Network Rail's expenditures exceed revenue from track access and other charges by nearly 50%!

 

[4F89]

Technically correct, except that it is in no way correct. (Indeed it is not even technically correct, because Freight Operator grants still exist!)

Track access charges are held artificially low by huge piles of money being poured into Network Rail's coffers.
The industry consumes colossal subsidies.

Indeed Network Rail's expenditures exceed revenue from track access and other charges by nearly 50%!

So what you actually desire is the full collapse of all railway infrastructure? Sorry, actual privatisation. Gotcha.

 

[HSTEd]

So what you actually desire is the full collapse of all railway infrastructure? Sorry, actual privatisation. Gotcha.

No?
I demand value for money for the taxpayer.

We can either require a handful of freight operators to spend a pittance, or even pay them the pittance, to install modern ECP technology on the relatively small freight fleet.
Or we can continue spending colossal sums of money on enormous train detection infrastructure that only exists for the benefit of a small number of trains

Essentially all modern MUs, which will soon be essentially all MUs on the network, have train completeness check equipment suitable for ETCS L3H deployment.
Soon the only holdouts will be Freight and the Sleepers.

The public currently accepts spending billions a year keeping the system going in its current form, it is not a good idea to assume that this will always be so.
And even if it was always so, it is still immoral to just assume that public money will continue to rain from heaven and there is no duty to ensure that it is not wasted.

 

[CW2]

MODS - I appreciate this is veering off course from the original discussion, so feel free to split / move as you see fit.

@HSTEd You demand value for money for the taxpayer. I don't think I can argue with that. But you do need to consider what it is that you expect the rail network to deliver, and for whom. Currently - in addition to franchised passenger operators - there are open access passenger operators, charter operators, maintenance vehicles, and freight. The freight vehicles are not all captive to the UK - there is still freight running to and from Europe via the Channel Tunnel.
The details of the Digital Railway Long Term Deployment plan can be found here:

https://cdn.networkrail.co.uk/wp-co...Digital-Railway-Long-Term-Deployment-Plan.pdf

Of course it might be cheapest (i.e. best value for taxpayers) if we ran a passenger only railway, using multiple unit trains of various descriptions. However to me that would be a waste of a valuable national resource, and would result in much more freight travelling by road. As a national policy we are trying to put more freight on the rails, and take it off the roads, and the subsidised track access charges are part of that national commitment – and I for one wouldn’t have it any other way.

I also enjoy travelling on various charter services hauled by exotic steam, diesel or electric locomotives – and I hope to continue doing so on the main line long into the future.

Opting for the cheapest possible digital railway which would only be fit for multiple unit passenger services, and making freight pay its full contribution to the charges, is not a future that would have my backing.

 

[Nym]

All of this ECEB or ECB discussion seems to be avoid the fact that ETCS is and/or can be made compatible with twin pipe stock.

Weather the software implementation is sensible or even produces any efficiencies over the likes of coloured light signals, or even reflects the realities of freight are a separate discussion.

 

[edwin_m]

All of this ECEB or ECB discussion seems to be avoid the fact that ETCS is and/or can be made compatible with twin pipe stock.

Weather the software implementation is sensible or even produces any efficiencies over the likes of coloured light signals, or even reflects the realities of freight are a separate discussion.

So you're saying that ECB requires a twin pipe? That makes an upgrade more radical than just adding a jumper cable, a control box and some electric valves. I would have thought that it made the twin pipe system unnecessary, as the train pipe could be kept pressurised all the time except during coupling and uncoupling or in emergency.

 

[HSTEd]

So you're saying that ECB requires a twin pipe? That makes an upgrade more radical than just adding a jumper cable, a control box and some electric valves. I would have thought that it made the twin pipe system unnecessary, as the train pipe could be kept pressurised all the time except during coupling and uncoupling or in emergency.

Most solutions i've seen would have a reservoir pipe and the jumper cables for the ECP system and that would be that.

I am very skeptical if ETCS L3 train completeness can be reasonably achieved with conventional air braked stock though.
If that was the case we would not be trying desperately to work out ways to escape so fitting freight trains.

Maybe with an end of train device but that could go bad.

 

[edwin_m]

Most solutions i've seen would have a reservoir pipe and the jumper cables for the ECP system and that would be that.

I am very skeptical if ETCS L3 train completeness can be reasonably achieved with conventional air braked stock though.
If that was the case we would not be trying desperately to work out ways to escape so fitting freight trains.

Maybe with an end of train device but that could go bad.

Loss of reservoir pressure would have to apply the brakes so that pipe would in effect be a train pipe. Formally designating it as such would make it upwards compatible from normal single-pipe brakes, which would be a big advantage.

 

[Nym]

So you're saying that ECB requires a twin pipe? That makes an upgrade more radical than just adding a jumper cable, a control box and some electric valves. I would have thought that it made the twin pipe system unnecessary, as the train pipe could be kept pressurised all the time except during coupling and uncoupling or in emergency.

No.
ETCS is compatible with Twin Pipe. Including ETCS Level 3.

 

[Nym]

Loss of reservoir pressure would have to apply the brakes so that pipe would in effect be a train pipe. Formally designating it as such would make it upwards compatible from normal single-pipe brakes, which would be a big advantage.

In service loss or total loss, the two being rather different.

Either way, given the length of freight rakes, one wonders how you're going to power all of this from the unfortunately ubiquitous UK freight locomotive...

"Single Pipe" ECEB units are more complicated than shoving from brake units in place and a long single pipe.
The main line or main pipe has to be of high integrity, with the "proving" loop being an electrical circuit, this circuit must then have sufficent power available in each of the carriages to be able to apply a full emergency brake in the event of a breakaway. (Ignoring all of the uncoupling incidents on Sprinters and Turbostars!)

 

[LAX54]

Being able to jettison trackside train detection equipment over large fractions of the main line is a pretty significant effect isn't it?

For example, no track detection gear at all between the Point Machines at the south end of Stoke Tunnel and the Level Crossing north East of Stamford on the ECML. A distance of just over 20km.


Execpt with ECP the train will brake like its an EMU formation.
As the experience with the 4EPBs over the previous "conventional" air braked units demonstrates, this is a significant advantage.

Freight trains in the US coming to a stop in much less than their own length!

so would ours at their lengths ! plus unless they are in the middle of nowhere, the ones I have seen are slower too

 

[HSTEd]

"Single Pipe" ECEB units are more complicated than shoving from brake units in place and a long single pipe.
The main line or main pipe has to be of high integrity, with the "proving" loop being an electrical circuit, this circuit must then have sufficent power available in each of the carriages to be able to apply a full emergency brake in the event of a breakaway. (Ignoring all of the uncoupling incidents on Sprinters and Turbostars!)

The power would be provided from the compressed air reservoir provided on the freight vehicles?
Just like in a traditional vehicle?
The ECP brake standard is rated for trains of 12,000ft long!

Unfortunately putting individual compressors on every vehicle is somewhat impractical.

EDIT:
This is really off topic so I will stop talking now!

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Exactly.
Yes the dedicated units did cause a problem especially when TfW took over and found the lack of maintenance and up-dating hadn't been done, but other than that it has run well. And the fact that it could be a self-contained entity was exactly what it was chosen.
Unfortunately those that are against the system (and often don't understand it) try to use those plus points negatively.

I see that only a portion (22 units I think) of the new CAF class 197 fleet for TfW will be fitted with ETCS for the Cambrian.
So the Cambrian will still have a dedicated sub-fleet when the 158s are replaced.

 

[Nym]

The power would be provided from the compressed air reservoir provided on the freight vehicles?
Just like in a traditional vehicle?
The ECP brake standard is rated for trains of 12,000ft long!

Unfortunately putting individual compressors on every vehicle is somewhat impractical.

EDIT:
This is really off topic so I will stop talking now!

Power for the brake controllers, not the brake actuators.

 

[HSTEd]

Power for the brake controllers, not the brake actuators.

Apparently the standard defines a power budget of 10W per vehicle.

Given the restriction of train lengths to 750-800m at the present time, it seems unlikely you will need much more than a few hundred watts of power available.
which is negligigble given the power generation capabilities of the locomotive.

Each vehicle has a battery which allows the controller to remain active for a time after the train line is broken.
And in any case the vehicle could be designed such that the actuator is holding the valve that dumps air into the brake cylinders closed.

 

[Nym]

Apparently the standard defines a power budget of 10W per vehicle.

Given the restriction of train lengths to 750-800m at the present time, it seems unlikely you will need much more than a few hundred watts of power available.
which is negligigble given the power generation capabilities of the locomotive.

Each vehicle has a battery which allows the controller to remain active for a time after the train line is broken.
And in any case the vehicle could be designed such that the actuator is holding the valve that dumps air into the brake cylinders closed.

In the US maybe, but not over here. Bear in mind that the US "Safety" standards are nowhere near as stringent as the UK RSSB, BS and EN Standards.

A KBRS BGU takes anything up to 150W per unit under load and around 30W idle from what I've worked with before.

If this where a simple Westcode system, it would be quite a bit lower, but with progress comes power-hungry units.

There's also the question of how much Capacity there is in the locomotive's control supply.

Battery Chargers also need around 10 - 15W on their own, absolute minimum.

Using a safety circuit to simply hold off the brake supply res from the actuators is a sure fire way to very quickly square your wheels.

 

[HSTEd]

In the US maybe, but not over here. Bear in mind that the US "Safety" standards are nowhere near as stringent as the UK RSSB, BS and EN Standards.

And yet these systems are deployed in Australia, South Africa and Canada, amongst others?

Battery Chargers also need around 10 - 15W on their own, absolute minimum.

Surely a battery charger's power consumption is at least passingly related to the battery it is charging, and what the projected battery charger availability is?