Passenger Trains > Commuter rail cars pull into Denver Int'l Airport for first time

Tests begin. Article has a picture.

http://www.9news.com/story/news/local/2015/04/17/commuter-rail-cars-pull-into-dia-for-first-time/25952943/

Marty Bernard



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/19/15 16:19 by MartyBernard.

I already saw them sitting there on April 11

chnnel 4 had video

They say they are going to test these things for a YEAR
before starting actual passenger service (per KOA News).  

WTF?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/18/15 09:19 by Realist.

Realist Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> They say they are going to test these things for a
> YEAR
> before starting actual passenger service (per KOA
> News).  
>
> WTF?

They want all of the bugs out of all of the various systems (train controls, signals, PTC, etc...) before it goes into service.
That way there won't be any snarky comments here in the Passenger Train section of TrainOrders later on!

There will still be snide remarks, i.e. "they look like subway cars", "too much like SEPTIC", etc, etc.

Looks like serious transit to me. Let's hope millions use it.

A couple of questions relating to the project.

How many of the "commuter rail cars" are on the property at present?  Some agencies only have a couple of cars on hand for the testing phase, not nearly enough to start service.

Are the cars that are on the property set up for passenger service, or do they simply have instrumentation for testing purposes?

How many of the cars are needed for service to commence?

What is the delivery schedule for the cars needed to commence service?

The answers to those questions also have a bearing on when service can be started.

Bob

PHall Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> They want all of the bugs out of all of the
> various systems (train controls, signals, PTC,
> etc...) before it goes into service.
> That way there won't be any snarky comments here
> in the Passenger Train section of TrainOrders
> later on!

Great intentions but somebody has to be kidding.  It
shouldn't require more than a month or two, much less
a whole year.

Realist Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> PHall Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > They want all of the bugs out of all of the
> > various systems (train controls, signals, PTC,
> > etc...) before it goes into service.
> > That way there won't be any snarky comments
> here
> > in the Passenger Train section of TrainOrders
> > later on!
>
> Great intentions but somebody has to be kidding.
>  It
> shouldn't require more than a month or two, much
> less
> a whole year.

Well, since you know so much, can you come help me with my project so we can cut down the testing times C&S insists are needed to fulfill FRA requirements?  Also, I assume you have some magic beans that let you just magically turn on the substations and motor generator sets without a burn in time or any testing.  We could use those too.

Can you also send us your Matrix download machine that allows the training of hundreds of conductors and engineers and managers to take place simultaneously with the snap of a fingers instead of requiring months of test runs after the signal and power systems are tested and active?

Thanks.

abyler Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Well, since you know so much, can you come help me
> with my project so we can cut down the testing
> times C&S insists are needed to fulfill FRA
> requirements?

Where is the FRA requirement for one year of tests?

Why hasn't this stuff been tested as it was installed?

> Also, I assume you have some magic
> beans that let you just magically turn on the
> substations and motor generator sets without a
> burn in time or any testing.  We could use those
> too.

Again, that should have bneen done as each section was
completed.

> Can you also send us your Matrix download machine
> that allows the training of hundreds of conductors
> and engineers and managers to take place
> simultaneously with the snap of a fingers instead
> of requiring months of test runs after the signal
> and power systems are tested and active?

The training should be done concurrenbtly with the testing.
Why does it take a year to train engineers and conductors
for this when the training time is so much shorter on freight
ilroads, where there are many more things that have to be
taught?

Are you telling me you are going to do all the above, THEN
start training?

This is just a way to keep consultants and contractors on
the payroll for another year.

Realist Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> abyler Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Well, since you know so much, can you come help
> me
> > with my project so we can cut down the testing
> > times C&S insists are needed to fulfill FRA
> > requirements?
>
> Where is the FRA requirement for one year of
> tests?

49 CFR Part 233, 234, 235, 236, 240, etc.

> Why hasn't this stuff been tested as it was
> installed?

It is once you have enough stuff installed to test something, but you can't test through to the parts you haven't done, or do systemwide tests or even interlocking wide tests without the whole being completed.  You also can't cutover the system into operation.  I see you have no conception of how a railroad gets built.

> > Also, I assume you have some magic
> > beans that let you just magically turn on the
> > substations and motor generator sets without a
> > burn in time or any testing.  We could use
> those
> > too.
>
> Again, that should have bneen done as each section
> was
> completed.

That isn't how a substation or a frequency converter works.  You can't power it up and fully test it without it being connected to the wires and the substations interconnected to each other to test redundancy.

> > Can you also send us your Matrix download
> machine
> > that allows the training of hundreds of
> conductors
> > and engineers and managers to take place
> > simultaneously with the snap of a fingers
> instead
> > of requiring months of test runs after the
> signal
> > and power systems are tested and active?
>
> The training should be done concurrenbtly with the
> testing.

How?  They need to learn physical characteristics, learn how to operate the equipment, make test runs on the line.  How would they operate the trains while the substations are being burnt in and tested?  You want them operating them while the signal system is being tested and the dispatchers are being trained?  How about while the grade crossing signals are being tested?  That really sounds like a good idea to you?

> Why does it take a year to train engineers and
> conductors
> for this when the training time is so much shorter
> on freight
> ilroads, where there are many more things that
> have to be
> taught?

No, actually there is less that has to be taught on freights since the freight doesn't talk back and you don't have to collect fares from freight and learn how to evacuate freight.

> Are you telling me you are going to do all the
> above, THEN
> start training?

Yes!

> This is just a way to keep consultants and
> contractors on
> the payroll for another year.

Sure, whatever you want to believe.  You seem to know so much about it.

To abyler:

+1

Ray

Also to Abyler:  as one working directly on PTC, your comments are 100% dead on.

mopac1978 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Also to Abyler:
and Ray_Murphy

> as one working directly on PTC,
> your comments are 100% dead on.

Hear Hear!

Then there's also writing or finalizing rules and procedures, which can't be done on a new railroad until it is all installed and working so the details of how things really work can be seen. There's also the training material to write, which can't be done until all of the details of how things really work, versus how they are supposed to work are known. That is especially true for new equipment designs and new railroad. Then there is the detail of how it will all work at 90 degrees and how it will work in a couple of feet of snow. Once all of the details are known and the training materials have been developed, it is time to train trainers. They must know the railroad at least as well as the employees to be trained will need to know it.

Meanwhile, the first cars off of the assembly line begin testing so that if there is a problem in manufacturing or design, the rest can be fixed in whatever manner, design change or manufacturing process, is necessary.

It is much easier to put new equipment on an existing railroad or run existing equipment on a new railroad, especially if the new railroad uses the same existing signal (and traction power) systems as the existing railroad is it connected to.

TAW

I read the cited FRA parts. Must have missed the 1 year part, as I didn't see it called out anywhere.

Training programs and protocols can be adapted from existing programs at other commuter ops, rather than reinvent the wheel. FRA allows that.

And I'm sure it takes much longer to train people to run 6 or 8 car passenger trains on 40 miles of track than it does to train people to handle 130-car coal and grain trains on multiple subdivisions.

Whatever.

Realist Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I read the cited FRA parts. Must have missed the 1
> year part, as I didn't see it called out
> anywhere.

Uh, when there is a list of tasks to be done and criteria to be met, it takes as long as it takes. I recently worked a gig in which I told the boss that I needed five months to complete the scope of work he gave me. He told me I had four weeks. I submitted my report on time. However, by the time the revisions and additions were finished in seven rounds of drafts, guess what? It took five months.

>
> Training programs and protocols can be adapted
> from existing programs at other commuter ops,
> rather than reinvent the wheel. FRA allows that.

Yeah, that's typically done, so it's not news. What part of adapted did you not understand? Adapted does not mean copy and paste. Even the first Standard Code of Operating Rules, created by the General Time Convention, was adapted from existing practices, taking several years.

>
> And I'm sure it takes much longer to train people
> to run 6 or 8 car passenger trains on 40 miles of
> track than it does to train people to handle
> 130-car coal and grain trains on multiple
> subdivisions.

Apparently you are experienced in both. You could always write all of that knowledge down as a textbook or training manual so that all may share in the wealth of information. I'd read it.

>
> Whatever.

You said it.

TAW

Realist Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> The training should be done concurrenbtly with the
> testing.
> Why does it take a year to train engineers and
> conductors
> for this when the training time is so much shorter
> on freight
> ilroads, where there are many more things that
> have to be
> taught?
>

Judging by how there's some kind of freight derailment every week in the US, our freight railroads COULD take a little more time.....

Realist Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I read the cited FRA parts. Must have missed the 1
> year part, as I didn't see it called out
> anywhere.

Well, did you see how many different tests and activities have to be conducted?  Can you make a guess about the time each would take on a system as large as Denver and then add up the time sequentially to make it happen?

> Training programs and protocols can be adapted
> from existing programs at other commuter ops,
> rather than reinvent the wheel. FRA allows that.

And probably what is being done for some parts of the system.  But adaptation takes time to adjust the program to what Denver is doing - single level EMU's for high level boarding only (so evacuation is different than on SEPTA's nearly identical cars) in an environment with wide temperature variations and a lot of snow (so adopting procedures from say Florida or LA wouldn't really work), a signal and PTC system of some sort (not sure if they are going with speed signals/NORAC type of rules or Route signals/GCOR type, but either way, it will be relatively unique as a newly built line), 25kV catenary power system, catenary power distribution, signal power distribution, coms systems, a dispatching and power control center, etc.

> And I'm sure it takes much longer to train people
> to run 6 or 8 car passenger trains on 40 miles of
> track than it does to train people to handle
> 130-car coal and grain trains on multiple
> subdivisions.

Actually, passenger T&E crews also need to learn to run freight trains since they will be handling MOW movements on their railroad - so they have to learn handling regular trains with engines plus EMU's.  Passenger lines also have additional physical characteristics to learn (stations, generally a more dense signal/interlocking system per mile of line).  Then you have to learn handling people safely, which is different than handling trains safely (i.e. dealing with medical emergencies, evacuation plans, door operations, platforming, ticketing, dealign with luggage, lost patrons, helping handicapped passengers, customer service in general).

> Whatever.

Indeed.  Are you looking for a job in the industry?  Since you have such insights, you would help us win more projects if we can tell our clients we will get their systems up and running in 1/10th the time our competitors say are needed.

No, I did my 40 years in the industry, some of which involved training
T&E employees and helping write the GCOR.  That is one reason why I'm
so skeptical of this.

Compared to freight crews, your crew will have RELATIVELY simple jobs.
Your engineers (motormen) will know every inch of the route, ever signal
location, every station location, etc.  Within a month or two.  Handling a
handful of M/W cars is child's play.

Freight guys handle thousand of tons with lots of slack in the train.  They
not only have to quickly learn the handling characteristics of each train,
as all will be different as will slowing and stopping distances.  They also
have to learn all of the above on hundreds of miles, not 3 dozen.  An
engineer on the extra board will be handling heavy tonnage down 2% grades
one day and a 70 MPH Z train on the prairie the next.  Every trip b rings
new challenges, not to mention having to stay familiar with the switches
and signals and grades on hundreds of miles of railroad.  To try to make 
running a DMU sound like it's anything like this is silly.

You have your clients, and obviously they have plenty of money to spend
on stuff like this.  That is largely why urban transit systems are so expensive
these days, as each one starts out ignoring what works in other applications
and locations.  Reinventing the wheel is expensive, but it happens all the
time.

A freight railroad would never stand still for break-in and training periods of
such length.  Not when it's their money invested, rather than the various levels
of government and bureaucracy

I understand the need for consultants and contractors to justify their costs.