MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W745467051

The Long and the Short of Distributed Power

2011· article· en· W745467051 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Keith Barrow

Bibliographic record

VenueRailway age · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRailway Engineering and Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTrainPayload (computing)Freight trainsEngineeringAutomotive engineeringProductivityTransport engineeringComputer scienceEconomics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article will discuss how Canadian Pacific Railway (CPR) has harnessed the latest train control and planning technologies to drive forward its successful long-train program. The first half of 2009 was a tough time for CPR. In the grip of a sharp global economic downturn, the company saw volumes drop by 35% of capacity. With locomotives and cars lying idle, and uncertainty about the recovery, CPR seized the opportunity to find innovative ways of improving productivity. The article shows how CPR always wanted to run longer trains suing distributed power (DP) but when the railway is busy, testing can cause collateral damage to normal traffic and this was an ideal opportunity to validate the modeling that CPR had already done. The drive to extend train lengths has traditionally been constrained by issues such as excessive in-train slack action, deterioration of brake signal propagation, and stress on infrastructure and equipment. Overcoming these difficulties with the aid of DP offers great rewards. In addition to the obvious benefits of increased payload, DP reduces lateral forces and friction, lowers the impact of heavy trains on track, provides better adhesion and fuel economy, and can assist operations in low temperatures. Furthermore, CPR estimates that labor costs on typical transcontinental trains are 30% lower than they would be if the railroad had stuck with shorter trains.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.565
Threshold uncertainty score0.212

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.180
Teacher spread0.172 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRailway ageSame topicRailway Engineering and DynamicsFrench-language works237,207