4014 rides again - July 2021

From what I was told, it was a test of the newly installed PTC equipment.  FRA will not give steam locomotives an exception. I understand it did not go well. IF not figured out soon, a diesel will have to lead the Big Boy.

It is not a matter of the FRA granting an exception (waiver) for steam locomotives. It is the fact that once a railroad adopts PTC on a section of track, a PTC-equipped locomotive must be in the lead. That’s how it works.

To suspend PTC so a non-PTC locomotive could run on the line is not possible without a tremendous amount of paperwork and problems. No railroad is going to do it.

Is this the first time this is being done?   If so, when they figure it out ... it will be a positive development for other steam programs around the country and help their programs?

Hope so ... I'd sure like to see more engines running around the country. Hope springs eternal.

So Rich, given your experience, how does PTC work on a steam locomotive (at least in principle)?

Maybe a dumb question, but what's with all the water being discharged, it seems like more than normal, or maybe I just never noticed before.  It was in pretty much all the footage.

@gunrunnerjohn posted:

Maybe a dumb question, but what's with all the water being discharged, it seems like more than normal, or maybe I just never noticed before.  It was in pretty much all the footage.

That is the overflow from the Elesco Exhaust Steam Injector. Sometimes they "dribble" like that. However, that appears to be much more than a "dribble", so either the Fireman has just started the Elesco, or else it is NOT picking up all the water and putting it into the boiler.

@CNJ Jim posted:

Is this the first time this is being done?   If so, when they figure it out ... it will be a positive development for other steam programs around the country and help their programs?

Hope so ... I'd sure like to see more engines running around the country. Hope springs eternal.

They still have to deal with insurance coverage for mainline excursions, which Amtrak at last report, no long covers.

Rusty

@Hot Water posted:

That is the overflow from the Elesco Exhaust Steam Injector. Sometimes they "dribble" like that. However, that appears to be much more than a "dribble", so either the Fireman has just started the Elesco, or else it is NOT picking up all the water and putting it into the boiler.

Thanks, it didn't look like normal operation for the steam injector, usually I only see a little dribble as you say.  This stream was in all the video, so it appears it wasn't just "started" but was doing that all the time.  Maybe that's why they need a water tender.

@gunrunnerjohn posted:

Thanks, it didn't look like normal operation for the steam injector, usually I only see a little dribble as you say.  This stream was in all the video, so it appears it wasn't just "started" but was doing that all the time.

Well then,,,,,,,there is obviously something amiss with the Elesco system on 4014, as the same system on 3985 never did much of that. When the Elesco  Exhaust Steam Injector acted up on 3985, the mechanical guys would pour mineral spirits into removable plugs on the injector body, and let it sit overnight. Worked fine the next day. Mineral deposits in the water tended to cause the problems.

Maybe that's why they need a water tender.

Good observation, assuming you mean the auxiliary water tender.

Correct, the one behind the first tender.

What they may try (just my theory) is have the PTC pick up shoe on the front truck of the 4014 and then wire it to computer on the manned diesel behind it. Maybe this why SD60 4015 is the trailing unit?

@Chuck Sartor posted:

What they may try (just my theory) is have the PTC pick up shoe on the front truck of the 4014 and then wire it to computer on the manned diesel behind it. Maybe this why SD60 4015 is the trailing unit?

Didn't know there is a "pick up shoe" involved. I thought it is all GPS related, with communication transponders track-side.

That's what it sounds like from this description.

UP Positive Train Control

https://metrolinktrains.com/ri...itive-train-control/

@richs09 posted:

So Rich, given your experience, how does PTC work on a steam locomotive (at least in principle)?

It has to work exactly the same way it would work on any other locomotive. The sticking point for steam is that the regulations require the PTC system to be able to control the throttle in case of a violation. On a diesel, that’s a couple of lines of code to feed into the computer. Easy.

On a steam loco, it’s all mechanical. Very difficult, if not impossible to do. And closing the throttle of a steam locomotive running at speed could cause some serious damage due to lack of lubrication. You just don’t do that when running a steamer. That’s not how it works.

They were discussing a waiver of this portion of the PTC rules for steam locomotives, but I don’t know how those discussions have worked out.

@Chuck Sartor posted:

What they may try (just my theory) is have the PTC pick up shoe on the front truck of the 4014 and then wire it to computer on the manned diesel behind it. Maybe this why SD60 4015 is the trailing unit?

LOL! Spoken like a true three-railer.  There is no pick-up shoe. It’s all GPS and RF cellular signals.

What you have suggested will not work anyway. PTC has to be able to control the air brakes on the lead unit in the consist.

Rich (Melvin) - thanks.  I figured it was something like that - the whole PTC approach is based on a different operational concept - at least insofar as controlling the locomotive - for modern diesels compared with legacy steam.  So I assume that this is a generic problem for all steam locos in terms of their ability to incorporate PTC - at least for those track sections where the RR has adopted PTC?  Has no one solved the 'problem' for steam engines?  What does UP do on the 844?

PTC, as I understand it (likely naively), is supposed to help avoid the "distracted driver" problem - or where there is a malfunction in signals, etc., right?  You also said that getting waivers was hard to do, etc.  Since almost all of the steam locos running in the US (on mainline trackage) are 'one-offs', would assigning a second engineer to ride along help alleviate the distracted engineer problem?

@richs09 posted:

PTC, as I understand it (likely naively), is supposed to help avoid the "distracted driver" problem - or where there is a malfunction in signals, etc., right?  You also said that getting waivers was hard to do, etc.  Since almost all of the steam locos running in the US (on mainline trackage) are 'one-offs', would assigning a second engineer to ride along help alleviate the distracted engineer problem?

Well, they already have the fireman in the cab.   Maybe he's shooting the breeze with the engineer and distracting him!

@richs09 posted:

Rich (Melvin) - thanks.  I figured it was something like that - the whole PTC approach is based on a different operational concept - at least insofar as controlling the locomotive - for modern diesels compared with legacy steam.  So I assume that this is a generic problem for all steam locos in terms of their ability to incorporate PTC - at least for those track sections where the RR has adopted PTC?

Right.

Has no one solved the 'problem' for steam engines?

Not totally, yet.

What does UP do on the 844?

Nothing, yet. The current manager is all about 4014, so THAT is where the focus is on adapting PTC compliance. Besides, 844 hasn't run in about 2 years anyway.

PTC, as I understand it (likely naively), is supposed to help avoid the "distracted driver" problem - or where there is a malfunction in signals, etc., right?

A LOT more involved than THAT!

You also said that getting waivers was hard to do, etc.  Since almost all of the steam locos running in the US (on mainline trackage) are 'one-offs', would assigning a second engineer to ride along help alleviate the distracted engineer problem?

No, as there is already a Fireman, a Pilot Engineer/Conductor, and in most cases a supervisor (thus there already is a 'second Engineer' in the cab) in the cab.

@richs09 posted:

PTC, as I understand it (likely naively), is supposed to help avoid the "distracted driver" problem…would assigning a second engineer to ride along help alleviate the distracted engineer problem?

In a word, no. PTC is not about distracted engineers. It is a system of POSITIVE TRAIN CONTROL, and that covers a LOT of ground.

A railroad running full PTC can dispatch trains closer together because the system knows - in real time - exactly where every train is, what speed it is running, whether it is slowing or accelerating, how close it is to encountering slow orders, speed restrictions, yard limits, etc. These are all things that a conventional dispatcher cannot know. Armed with that data, the trains can be run more closely together, thus increasing capacity on any given line. Signals are set by the PTC system to govern the movement of trains over the road.

The safety aspect of PTC has gotten most of the attention, but it is the increased capacity that PTC brings to the table that is the justification for the tremendous expense, and is real money-maker for the railroads.

If UP was intending on running 4014 with a diesel behindthe tender, woyls it not havevmade sense to have all the bugs takwn out of the system before publishing a schedule?

Or is the PTC install so complex it is taking this long?

Rich, I can see in my head the increased operational options of PTC to a railroad.  But I am afraid it would not be used die to the PSR mentality on many railroads today.

@Rich Melvin posted:

I was waiting for you to explain this again Rich. When I read the question yesterday I said to myself, "steam engines don't have computers, so no, it won't work." I don't remember when you had explained this the first time but I remembered I had asked you and Hot Water for a recap on the 611 topic coming back to Strasburg. I recall that someone had asked why it(611) had to be towed. I commented that it was something to do with not having that system or whatever it was(couldn't remember PTC) and asked both of you(Hot Water and you Rich of course) to please explain what it was.

I would doubt if they could ever come up with something to function on a steam engine as PTC. You would have to create an entirely new type of steam engine with different technology in nearly all of its guts. That would be a very costly venture just to come up with the technology.

@Dave NYC Hudson PRR K4 posted:

I was waiting for you to explain this again Rich. When I read the question yesterday I said to myself, "steam engines don't have computers, so no, it won't work." I don't remember when you had explained this the first time but I remembered I had asked you and Hot Water for a recap on the 611 topic coming back to Strasburg. I recall that someone had asked why it(611) had to be towed. I commented that it was something to do with not having that system or whatever it was(couldn't remember PTC) and asked both of you(Hot Water and you Rich of course) to please explain what it was.

I would doubt if they could ever come up with something to function on a steam engine as PTC.

Actually it IS possible, but VERY expensive.

You would have to create an entirely new type of steam engine with different technology in nearly all of its guts.

No. Not true, as the FRA has been VERY willing to work with current steam operators, and has actually eliminated the requirement for "shutting off the throttle" as part of a penalty brake application.

That would be a very costly venture just to come up with the technology.

There in lies the major issue, i.e. the cost of equipping a steam locomotive with all the electronic crap needed for PTC compliance. Obviously the UP has the "budget" for it.

@CNJ Jim posted:

Is this the first time this is being done?   If so, when they figure it out ... it will be a positive development for other steam programs around the country and help their programs?

Hope so ... I'd sure like to see more engines running around the country. Hope springs eternal.

@Rusty Traque posted:

They still have to deal with insurance coverage for mainline excursions, which Amtrak at last report, no long covers.

Rusty

I do realize that, Rusty. It's sad, and, I wish things were different ... an entirely different attitude about letting these steam engines run around the country. I know what things were done in the past. I wish we could move back toward that ... a little at least.

The point I was trying to make is that when the UP Steam Shop figures out the issues and gets it up and running, at least that will be a entry on the positive side of the ledger for America's steam excursion situation. This morning I read a post by Ross Rowland ... stating that UP's technical work will benefit other steam programs in the country. That's what I hope.

@Hot Water posted:

There in lies the major issue, i.e. the cost of equipping a steam locomotive with all the electronic crap needed for PTC compliance. Obviously the UP has the "budget" for it.

The question would become, if the UP were successful in equipping a steam locomotive with PTC, would they be willing to share the development at an affordable price for the other steam operators?

Rusty

It appears Sweden did it in one steam loco.

See:  Is it possible to install PTC in a steam locomotive?

Profile photo for Thomas Tydal
Thomas Tydal
, engineer, instructor, examiner (in Sweden)
Answered 6 months ago · Author has 669 answers and 3M answer views

Probably. It has been done with ATC, the Swedish version of PTC:

Nordens första ånglok med automatiskt säkerhetssystem finns i Gävle

(News article in Swedish, my translation below)

The first steam locomotive in the Nordic countries with automatic safety system can be found in Gävle.

The Railway Museum in Gävle run their historic trains all over the Swedish railway network. But to able to continue doing so in the future, they have equipped one of their 100-year-old steam locomotives with an automatic safety system. This is the first time ever in the Nordic countries that a steam locomotive uses Automatic Train Control, ATC.

The Railway Museum, owned by the government, has cooperated with the company Svensk Tågkraft in rebuilding the steam locomotive B 1429, originally from 1919. ATC stops a train automatically if it is exceeding its speed limit or approaching a stop signal.

The system has been in place since the early 1980’s and is used by every train today, except the Railway Museum trains provided that they go slower than 80 km/h, shorter than 200 km and have two train drivers.

The Railway Museum installed ATC to gain more experience of safety systems in general and the upcoming ERTMS in particular. With ERTMS, cab signalling is mandatory.

Don't know how relevant this is today ... but, concerning cost, at Trains magazine  I came across a Friends of 261 fundraising effort from 2018 to fund PTC installation on their engine, they estimated the total cost to be $100 - $150k.

@Susan Deats posted:

It appears Sweden did it in one steam loco.

See:  Is it possible to install PTC in a steam locomotive?

Profile photo for Thomas Tydal
Thomas Tydal
, engineer, instructor, examiner (in Sweden)
Answered 6 months ago · Author has 669 answers and 3M answer views

Probably. It has been done with ATC, the Swedish version of PTC:

No. ATC, "Automatic Train Control" is definitely NOT the same as the U.S. PTC, as it does NOT use GPS technology for train location. A number of U.S. railroads used ATC, ATS (Automatic Train Stop), and all sorts of versions of cab signal (UP, PRR, NH, Long Island for example) dating back to the 1930s. The UP 4-8-4s, 4-6-6-4s and 4-8-8-4s, for some examples, had cab signal equipment dating to the 1940s, and UP 844, 3985, and 4014 have been up-graded to the lates UP/C&NW cab signal & ATC systems today.

Nordens första ånglok med automatiskt säkerhetssystem finns i Gävle

(News article in Swedish, my translation below)

The first steam locomotive in the Nordic countries with automatic safety system can be found in Gävle.

The Railway Museum in Gävle run their historic trains all over the Swedish railway network. But to able to continue doing so in the future, they have equipped one of their 100-year-old steam locomotives with an automatic safety system. This is the first time ever in the Nordic countries that a steam locomotive uses Automatic Train Control, ATC.

The Railway Museum, owned by the government, has cooperated with the company Svensk Tågkraft in rebuilding the steam locomotive B 1429, originally from 1919. ATC stops a train automatically if it is exceeding its speed limit or approaching a stop signal.

The system has been in place since the early 1980’s and is used by every train today, except the Railway Museum trains provided that they go slower than 80 km/h, shorter than 200 km and have two train drivers.

The Railway Museum installed ATC to gain more experience of safety systems in general and the upcoming ERTMS in particular. With ERTMS, cab signalling is mandatory.

As I stated above, the UP Steam locomotives have had such systems, since the 1990s.

@Susan Deats posted:

...It has been done with ATC, the Swedish version of PTC:

As Hot Water said above, ATC (Automatic Train Control) and PTC (Positive Train Control) are two completely different things. PTC is much more complicated and expensive to implement than ATC.

...The Railway Museum, owned by the government...

And right there is the second reason why they could do it and no steam engine here has done it yet.

Great thread and super information, thanks to the contributors!