Distributed Train Brake and Propulsion Control for Slack Management

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative Solutions
Generate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Large vehicle systems face challenges in starting and stopping due to size and number of vehicles, complex airbrake systems, and varying terrain conditions, leading to inefficiencies and potential safety issues.

Innovation Solution

A method and system for controlling the movement of a vehicle system by individually managing the brakes and propulsion of groups of vehicles to control spacing and slack states, utilizing advanced sensors and processors to optimize starting and stopping processes.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Force

If airbrake systems are used to control large vehicle systems, then braking capability is improved, but control complexity and response time increase due to communication and pressure recharging delays

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvebraking capabilityVSAvoidcontrol complexity
Core Design Contradiction:
ForceVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The vehicle system is divided into multiple groups or sections, each with its own propulsion-generating vehicles. Braking control is applied segmentally to different groups rather than uniformly across the entire system, allowing independent management of each segment's brakes to reduce overall control complexity and improve response time.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #1Segmentation

Solution Approach 2:

The control system dynamically adjusts braking application based on real-time conditions including slack state, terrain, and vehicle group positions. The system transitions between different control modes (motoring, dynamic braking, air brakes) depending on operational requirements, making the braking system adaptive rather than static.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #15Dynamics

2Power

If distributed power is used across multiple locomotives, then propulsion capability is improved, but coordination complexity increases

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvepropulsion capabilityVSAvoidcoordination complexity
Core Design Contradiction:
PowerVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The propulsion system is segmented into multiple independent propulsion-generating vehicle groups distributed along the vehicle system. Each group can be individually controlled and coordinated through a central system that manages power distribution based on operational needs, terrain, and slack state conditions.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #1Segmentation

Solution Approach 2:

The control system continuously monitors the state of each propulsion group and the overall vehicle system, using feedback from sensors and communication systems to adjust power distribution dynamically. This closed-loop control coordinates multiple distributed power sources while maintaining system-wide optimization.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #23Feedback

3Device complexity

If manual airbrake control is used, then system simplicity is maintained, but productivity and precision decrease due to communication and pressure delays

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvesystem simplicityVSAvoidstarting and stopping efficiency
Core Design Contradiction:
Device complexityVSProductivity

Solution Approach 1:

The control system performs preliminary actions by pre-positioning vehicles and preparing brake systems before actual starting or stopping operations. The system calculates required brake applications in advance and coordinates propulsion group positioning beforehand to minimize delays during actual operational transitions.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #10Preliminary action

Solution Approach 2:

The system replaces purely manual mechanical airbrake control with an automated control system that uses electronic communication and coordinated control algorithms. This substitution maintains the mechanical airbrake infrastructure while adding electronic control layers to improve response time and precision without completely replacing the existing airbrake mechanism.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #28Mechanics substitution (Replace mechanical system)

4Force

If heavy braking is applied to stop large vehicle systems, then stopping capability is improved, but risk of damage increases due to unknown slack states and coupler limitations

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvestopping capabilityVSAvoiddamage risk
Core Design Contradiction:
ForceVSReliability

Solution Approach 1:

Before applying brakes to stop the vehicle system, the control system performs preliminary assessment of the slack state and positions propulsion groups to optimize braking distribution. The system prepares the vehicle system for stopping by adjusting propulsion and brake settings in advance, ensuring safe deceleration without excessive forces on couplers.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #10Preliminary action

Solution Approach 2:

The control system dynamically changes braking parameters including brake force distribution, application timing, and duration based on real-time conditions. By adjusting these parameters according to the actual slack state and vehicle positions, the system achieves effective stopping while maintaining forces within safe limits to prevent coupler damage.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #35Parameter changes

Data Source

PatentUS12319325B2Systems and methods for operating a vehicle system
Publication Date: 2025.06.03 TRANSPORTATION IP HOLDINGS LLC
  • US12319325B2 patent drawing
  • US12319325B2 patent drawing
  • US12319325B2 patent drawing

AI summary

A system and method includes commencing movement of a vehicle system including a plurality of vehicles from a stationary state. Operation of the vehicle system is controlled to control spacing between the vehicles of the vehicle system.