Passenger Trains > Trying to reinvent the wheel

https://railroads.dot.gov/elibrary/wireless-digital-train-line-passenger-trains

They will not be happy until the wheel is made square.

Sounds like a good idea to me - the train line, not the square wheels.
I do understand that change is anathema to many people.

Bill Deaver
Tehachapi, CA

Englewood Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> https://railroads.dot.gov/elibrary/wireless-digita
> l-train-line-passenger-trains
>
> They will not be happy until the wheel is made
> square.

I gave a quick read to the entire paper. Maybe I missed some critical details, but I'm not quite sure how you appear to see this negatively, and how it is "making the wheel square".

Movement to a wireless / cableless architecture for a whole variety of control and information distribution functions is a very natural evolution. The base technology exists at a fairly well developed state, and is constantly evolving and upgrading in capability, and lowering in cost. It is becoming very widespread in many other areas. It is only natural that railroads would look into this. Frankly, I'd be very surprised (and I think they would be remiss) if they did not. And it does not have to be a negative in terms of giving good service, maintaining employment levels, or other socio-economic factors. That's in the hands of those who implement the technology, and their goals for doing so. I grant that there may be serious moral hazards in that, but of itself the technology does not hurt or damage, or "make the wheel square".

This almost certainly isn't ready to go, or off-the-shelf yet, much less "plug-and-play". There will be hurdles, some substantial, in design and implementation, the first being the harsh environment of railroad operations. But it will probably happen in due course. Laying out the general architecture, as in this paper, is always the first step of many to come.

In the meantime while all of that happens, it is the responsibility of all other interested parties to help shape the design. That's where input from unions, customers and others comes into play, so that the final design is helpful....and not hurtful.

MC
Muskegon, Michigan



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 04/04/20 10:42 by ironmtn.

Perhaps Mr. Deaver is like me.  5G networks are fine, but we do not have a decent rail passenger system in this country, where one can go down to the local station and travel at 100 mph (not too fast) and go anywhere.  We are still in the dark ages, controlled by oil & auto companies.  Nashville, Columbus, OH, Las Vegas, etc. have NO trains.  And the rest of the nation is almost as pathetic.  5G phones are fine, but first we need a rail passenger system.  

MEKoch Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Perhaps Mr. Deaver is like me.  5G networks are
> fine, but we do not have a decent rail passenger
> system in this country, where one can go down to
> the local station and travel at 100 mph (not too
> fast) and go anywhere.  We are still in the dark
> ages, controlled by oil & auto companies. 
> Nashville, Columbus, OH, Las Vegas, etc. have NO
> trains.  And the rest of the nation is almost as
> pathetic.  5G phones are fine, but first we need
> a rail passenger system.  

Lol.  Just about everyone in the country will use a 5G phone.  That cannot be said about a passenger train.  

Englewood Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> https://railroads.dot.gov/elibrary/wireless-digita
> l-train-line-passenger-trains
>
> They will not be happy until the wheel is made
> square.

Thanks for the link. They are researchers, so they'll naturally look to reinvent the wheel.

I wasn't too impressed. They are merely trying to "create" a new standard from existing technologies someone else invented.

Their research might become useful later on, but the paper does not address a specific problem that needs to be solved. In other words, solution looking for a problem. I am OK with your cynicism. At least you don't rant blindly about progress for progress's sake.

          Written by a college twirp using all the buzz words he could muster to explain the gadget that serves no purpose.

The Federal Railroad Administration thought that this was a question that should be studied and gave a grant to the University of Nebraska to write a report.  Studies such as this are the means by which scientific and engineering progress happens.  An architecture is not a gadget.

MEKoch Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> but we do not have a decent rail passenger
> system in this country, where one can go down to
> the local station and travel at 100 mph (not too
> fast) and go anywhere.  We are still in the dark
> ages, controlled by oil & auto companies. 
>

What makes a good passenger rail system? Frequent service, one-seat rides to as many destinations ad possible?

With a privately owned auto, the service frequency is infinite, the one-seat destination options are infinite, and a 65-80mph drive is going to get you to most destinations faster than a 100mph max train. Telling yourself that it was a nefarious conspiracy that caused people to buy cars and stop riding trains is...not well thought out, at best.

a GOOD rail passenger system MUST be consistently reliable............

66

goneon66 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> a GOOD rail passenger system MUST be consistently
> reliable............
>
> 66

Even in Japan, there are weather and trespasser strike delays, but they run trains frequently enough where a passenger can plan around it. In California, Capitol Corridors and Surfliners provide frequent enough service where I can work around disruptions. So I consider them reliable.

Off topic, but the wireless technology discussions in the paper are mostly about consumer-level Internet access. I was chuckling when they were discussing how the current international standards are insufficient for streaming videos like Netflix. It's not the obligation of the passenger rail operators to provide that service. With people already addicted to Smartphones around the world, let them get that on their own. I'm convinced that offering high bandwidth service on a train will not impact ridership that much, a waste of money. However, if trains can take advantage of existing infratructure upgrades (4G to 5G), then why not? That's discussed in this paper.

WiFi available onboard the N700 Shinkansen sets is mentioned in the paper. I've been using that service the past couple of years. WiFi on N700 has been available for years (2014 is when I started visiting Japan again and noticed it), but it was only available to exisiting broadband users who had to use their broadband accounts to sign in. In recent years, JR Central has been "upgrading" the access points to allow anyone to use it, to get ready for the Tokyo Olympics. I've been taking advantage of that, primarily to search for timely "heads up" from Japanese railfans, so I can plan an interesting railfan target intercept while travelling at 175+ mph. :-)

In the US, some business people prefer to carry their own mobile hot spots with them, rather than relying on the rail carrier's, etc public wi-fi.  If you are doing business work, or things which mandate confidentiality, you're much better off KNOWING you have a more secure channel.  Many / most new phones have mobile hotspot capability

Run the trains on time, that's job 1...