>>1890296>Source?Working on them, won't be posting paystub though. The air inside the brake pipe moves very fast out to the atmosphere in emergency, even on very long trains. That pressure drop signal is not the same thing as the time it takes for pressurized air to move out of each car's emergency reservoir and into the brake cylinder and begin actuating the brake shoes, which takes a few seconds at best and isn't affected by the ECP system. Essentially, plugging the train with ECP is barely different than without. In-train forces will be slightly higher on the non-ECP train. The ECP train will probably stop slightly faster than the non-ECP one.
The advantage to ECP isn't better train handling in emergency brake applications, it is the ability to smoothy and quickly set air across all cars at once for service reductions, which DOES take longer with normal brakes, as the air inside the brake pipe is still regulated by the automatic brake valve's rate of exhaust and moves much more slowly from front to rear.
>That's a shitty excuse not to implement a better and more reliable braking system,The reason they're not doing that is cost. But making railroads build their own trains better is something that can start happening nearly instantly and will still be less expensive than national ECP implementation, and will definitely be safer.
>especially when that could prevent a US city from going Lac Megantic.One-man crew didn't tie his train down properly, ECP wouldn't have changed that.
>All you're telling me isNah using dynamic brakes whenever practicable has been a normal practice since the diesel took over. Like locomotives themselves, dynamic brakes have just gotten more and more powerful and effective over time as anti-slip controls became more capable.
>So I see no point inCool, buy stock and tell the execs. ECP would be nice but as I said already, safety can be improved nearly instantly and for less money with better train make-up and capping train lengths.
