TAKING A BREAK

[BigDumbDinosaur]

Dr Jefyll wrote:

longtrain02.jpg

I want a ride, too!

Well, you know about where I am...summer will be here before you know it!

[whartung]

BigDumbDinosaur wrote:

Ditto for the UP Big Boys. Somewhere in one of the scrapbooks around here is a photo I took of my wife standing next to the Big Boy on exhibit in St. Louis. The best way to describe it would be a mouse standing next to a supersaurus.

I can kick myself.

Here in So Cal, there's a train museum next to the LA County Fairgrounds.

Now, I've spent a bunch of time at the fair grounds (the fair, computer shows, racing next door), and I had never heard about this place.

You know when I heard about it?

After they moved out the Big Boy they had there on display. After. It left.

http://articles.latimes.com/2014/jan/25 ... y-20140125

From the article:

Quote:

It was retired after a 17-year operating career and donated to the RailGiants Train Museum at the Fairplex in early 1962. It’s been parked there ever since.

1962!!! I've been down here since 1981! And I had never heard of this place.

I should donate $20 -- maybe they could put up a sign someplace.

Grr.

Oh well, it'll be back someday. Sacramento has this guy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_ ... motive.jpg

It's "only" a 4-8-8-2.

[BigDumbDinosaur]

whartung wrote:

BigDumbDinosaur wrote:

Ditto for the UP Big Boys. Somewhere in one of the scrapbooks around here is a photo I took of my wife standing next to the Big Boy on exhibit in St. Louis. The best way to describe it would be a mouse standing next to a supersaurus.

I can kick myself...

Are you aware the UP has a Big Boy undergoing restoration to operating state? So far, the boiler has been remediated and tested, and most of the mechanical work is done. Not sure when she'll be under steam, but it should be soon. Search UP Steam on U-Toobe.

[Chromatix]

BigDumbDinosaur wrote:

Consider that the United States' conterminous land area is approximately 3.1 million square miles, roughly 79.5 percent of the land area of the entirety of Europe. Our freight railroads operate over about 140,000 route-miles of track and reach virtually every corner of that land area. In doing so, they must traverse terrain that varies widely in both topography and climate. As our population density is far lower than that of Europe's, most long-haul rail lines run through sparsely populated areas.

In Canada, the Canadian National and Canadian Pacific railways, the dominant freight carriers, operate a combined 32,900 route-miles and in equally challenging conditions (both also operate in the USA and some American lines operate in Canada). In fact, the Canadian Rockies pose one of the most difficult environments in the entire world for freight railroading, with huge amounts of snowfall in the winter, extremely cold temperatures and many heavy grades.

In Europe, the UK alone has 10,261 route-miles of main-line railway, much of which is double-track or better. This doesn't count preserved or narrow-gauge lines. Scaling that up by population would suggest an equivalent track-mileage that's not vastly short of what you have in America. A higher population density means that the lines are more closely spaced, and serve a greater proportion of population centres with reasonably short journey times.

Stone aggregate trains of 4300 tons are regularly hauled in the UK, typically by a single Class 59 locomotive (which was derived from the SD40-2). One limitation of train weight and length is in coupling strength; an experiment in hauling an 11,000 ton train resulted in a broken coupling in the middle of the train (though a pair of locomotives had been able to start it). To compensate, more trains are run using lighter loads and fewer locomotives each. Fast intermodal trains are often hauled at 75mph by electric locos on the principal main lines; one Class 92 or 90, or two of the older Class 86s. Even faster postal trains run using dedicated 100mph parcels EMUs (Class 325), carrying as much as a large cargo airliner.

Elsewhere in Europe, steep mountain passes and severe winter conditions are not unfamiliar. Norway, Sweden and Finland all have extensive electrification, even in their northern areas where the winters and mountains are most severe, and so do Switzerland and Austria in their Alpine regions. They don't seem to have any particular problem with that. Occasionally a snowdrift traps a train bodily or blocks the line, and then some digging is necessary, but that has nothing to do with the electrification. Regular traffic - both passenger and freight - keeps the wires clear of ice.

Which leaves the principal remaining problem as the provision of reliable electric power in remote areas. Failure of an individual substation can be covered for by temporarily connecting its dependent sections to adjacent sections which are still powered. Where no high-tension grid power exists, an expedient solution would be to ship in a couple of big Fairbanks-Morse gensets to cover, say, a 25-mile section of line. These can be made to run more efficiently and with fewer environmental emissions than locomotive engines, since they don't have the additional complication of being mobile. Where trains can be arranged to ascend and descend the same gradient at the same time, one can regenerate power to assist the other, this power being transmitted through the wires.

And yes, it requires some capital investment. Justifying that to the beancounters has also proved difficult in the UK, partly because costs have been unnecessarily inflated for various reasons. But the long-term business case is sound on principal routes and even many secondary routes.

[whartung]

BigDumbDinosaur wrote:

Are you aware the UP has a Big Boy undergoing restoration to operating state? So far, the boiler has been remediated and tested, and most of the mechanical work is done. Not sure when she'll be under steam, but it should be soon. Search UP Steam on U-Toobe.

That's the Big Boy that was at this museum the entire time.

In time, it'll be finished, and it will come back.

[BigDumbDinosaur]

whartung wrote:

BigDumbDinosaur wrote:

Are you aware the UP has a Big Boy undergoing restoration to operating state? So far, the boiler has been remediated and tested, and most of the mechanical work is done. Not sure when she'll be under steam, but it should be soon. Search UP Steam on U-Toobe.

That's the Big Boy that was at this museum the entire time.

In time, it'll be finished, and it will come back.

It'll come back to visit, perhaps, but not to stay. My understanding is the UP swapped it for a running SD40-s or similar.

[BigDumbDinosaur]

Chromatix wrote:

In Europe, the UK alone has 10,261 route-miles of main-line railway, much of which is double-track or better.

That's for the entirety of the UK. Here, a single railroad, the BNSF (a merger of the Burlington-Northern and Santa Fe roads) has three times the route-miles of the UK, with the BNSF operating over 32,500 route-miles. The Union Pacific runs on 32,100 route-miles, and those are but two of the seven class I (largest) roads in the USA.

I think you still don't understand the enormity of freight rail operations in North America. I'll give you some stats to help. In the year 2000, the entire European Union (EU) moved 304 billion ton-kilometers of freight via rail. Contrast that with the approximately 2,400 billion ton-kilometers of freight moved by rail in Canada and the USA during the same period. Also during the year 2000, 38 percent of all freight within the USA traveled by rail.

Quote:

Scaling that up by population would suggest an equivalent track-mileage that's not vastly short of what you have in America. A higher population density means that the lines are more closely spaced, and serve a greater proportion of population centres with reasonably short journey times.

Except that doesn't really work out as it would seem. Again using the EU as an example, the population is around 510 million versus about 350 million total for Canada and USA. Yet, North American railroads have far more track than all of Europe (including non-members of the EU), operate trains over substantially greater distances and haul far greater tonnage.

Quote:

Stone aggregate trains of 4300 tons are regularly hauled in the UK, typically by a single Class 59 locomotive (which was derived from the SD40-2).

Yep! I'm familiar with the class 59, which came about due to Foster Yoeman's dissatisfaction with the class 56 units.

As long as a train of that weight is operated on reasonably level track a single Class 59 can handle it (although traction motor time ratings may be a problem at startup if there are any sticking brakes). Put that train in Mullan Pass in Montana, however, and it won't budge.

Quote:

One limitation of train weight and length is in coupling strength; an experiment in hauling an 11,000 ton train resulted in a broken coupling in the middle of the train (though a pair of locomotives had been able to start it). To compensate, more trains are run using lighter loads and fewer locomotives each.

That's one of the limitations of the buffer-and-link coupler technology. The Janney coupler does introduce some slack into the train, but is able to withstand enormous draft loads. Here, we think nothing of putting four GE Dash-9 (4250 HP) or EMD SD70AC (4500 HP) units at the head end and hauling 15,000 tons. The combined starting drawbar pull of such a consist is nearly a half-million pounds. No way buffer-and-link is going to withstand that much force.

Quote:

Which leaves the principal remaining problem as the provision of reliable electric power in remote areas...Where no high-tension grid power exists, an expedient solution would be to ship in a couple of big Fairbanks-Morse gensets to cover, say, a 25-mile section of line.

A Diesel-electric locomotive is in essence a self-propelled genset. Pardon me for saying it, but your idea is ridiculous. You'd spend boat-loads of money to erect a catenary and install power distribution, and then haul in a genset to energize it? I'm sure glad you aren't running my business!

Quote:

And yes, it requires some capital investment.

Some??? Again, you have no idea about the distances involved here, the terrain that has to be negotiated and the extremely hostile conditions in which our railroads operate. If our class I railroads truly felt there was long-term value in electrifying their mainlines (amounting to nearly 140,000 route-miles—don't forget that part) they would be well on their way to doing it. The economics aren't there and even if it were practical, the environmentalists would be up in arms about locating generating stations in sensitive areas of the wilderness.

[BigEd]

(Hmm, let's try not to get too heated, or too political...)

[Tor]

Chromatix wrote:

Norway, Sweden and Finland all have extensive electrification, even in their northern areas where the winters and mountains are most severe, and so do Switzerland and Austria in their Alpine regions.

I don't know much about the Swiss and Austrian railroads, but of the three Nordic countries Norway has the steepest mountains, and one example would be the northernmost line - its main function is to transport iron ore from Kiruna in Sweden to Narvik in Norway. And yes, it's a long and heavy train. But even though going from the mountains to sea level is steep (and the winter can indeed be severe), the load goes *downhill*, it's empty the other way. And the distances aren't comparable with North America - if there's a breakdown you could in principle *walk* to civilisation. Or at least to the nearest cottage, which, if you're lucky, is in visible range.
Sweden is nearly flat compared to that section of the railway, and Finland even more so (although it can be much colder there). It's really not comparable to North American endless regions of nothing except for the railroad.

[BigDumbDinosaur]

Tor wrote:

Chromatix wrote:

Norway, Sweden and Finland all have extensive electrification, even in their northern areas where the winters and mountains are most severe, and so do Switzerland and Austria in their Alpine regions.

I don't know much about the Swiss and Austrian railroads, but of the three Nordic countries Norway has the steepest mountains, and one example would be the northernmost line - its main function is to transport iron ore from Kiruna in Sweden to Narvik in Norway. And yes, it's a long and heavy train. But even though going from the mountains to sea level is steep (and the winter can indeed be severe), the load goes *downhill*, it's empty the other way. And the distances aren't comparable with North America - if there's a breakdown you could in principle *walk* to civilisation. Or at least to the nearest cottage, which, if you're lucky, is in visible range.
Sweden is nearly flat compared to that section of the railway, and Finland even more so (although it can be much colder there). It's really not comparable to North American endless regions of nothing except for the railroad.

Speaking of hauling heavy trains, how about starting 12,000 tons on a two percent upgrade? The train had to stop on the grade leading up to Moffat tunnel in north central Colorado due to opposing traffic. Back in the days of steam, if a train had to be stopped in that area, the engineer (driver) would have had to back his train down to level track, taken slack and then entered the grade at full steam to avoid stalling. In this case, the engineer was able start his train from a full stop, although it took a while for the locomotives to build enough oomph to get things rolling. Combined output of the five locomotives is about 22,000 horsepower.

Not helping matters is the elevation. The apex of the tunnel itself is over 9000 feet above sea level and the point at which the above video was shot is nearly 7000 feet up. Although the locomotives' turbochargers are able compensate to some extent for the lower atmospheric density, the Diesels are a bit starved for air at full throttle, which causes the amount of fuel being injected per power stroke to be higher than normal. Hence there's quite a bit of smoke.

[whartung]

BigDumbDinosaur wrote:

Speaking of hauling heavy trains...

Several years ago, I went to the Getty Museum here in So Cal because they had an exhibit on O. Winston Link.

Famously a photographer (notably of the Norfolk & Western), there was a small display where you could listen to some recordings that he had also made.

Now, I don't know the details, but there was one recording where you were listening to two or three of the larger steam locomotives (not the monsters were were talking about before) working there way up some kind of grade.

And, boy howdy, "working" is the word. Those locomotives just labored up that thing, and you could hear them struggling.

It was really captivating to listen to.

[BigDumbDinosaur]

whartung wrote:

Several years ago, I went to the Getty Museum here in So Cal because they had an exhibit on O. Winston Link.

I'm familiar with his work and have one of his books in my library. The man had an uncanny eye for getting "the shot" when it came to photographing trains.

[Chromatix]

Watching BDD's linked video, it looked like most of the pause before the train started moving was due to waiting for the brakes to release, which couldn't be initiated until there was sufficient tractive effort applied to prevent the train from rolling backwards. Given the circumstances, that actually looked like a relatively smart getaway. It actually makes me suspect the wagons were empties.

Note also that at zero speed, very little actual power is demanded from the prime movers to generate any given amount of tractive effort. The limitations are generally in adhesion and in the current-handling capabilities of the motors and control gear. This is confirmed by the lack of smoke from the exhausts until the train was already moving relatively well and the throttle had been advanced further, at which point the locomotives would have moved into the power-limited operating regime. Some of the locos clearly had oxygen sensors and backed off the fuel racks to keep the exhaust clean and avoid excess consumption, which also suggests they were unable to develop their full rated power in the thin air (which is not surprising).

I should note that an electric loco's ability to deliver power to the rail is not affected by altitude. Generally the motors and control gear are very similar to that found in a modern diesel-electric loco, too. If ballasted to the same weight, it would be equally capable of starting the train. Honestly, steep gradients like that are ideal territory for electric traction.

[BigEd]

Interesting to see that Link used wired-AND logic for his night shots:
"For instance, the movie theater image Hotshot Eastbound, used 42 #2 flashbulbs and one #0 fired simultaneously. Link, with an assistant such as George Thom, had to lug all his equipment into position and wire it up: this was done in series so any failure would prevent a picture being taken at all"

[BigDumbDinosaur]

Chromatix wrote:

Watching BDD's linked video, it looked like most of the pause before the train started moving was due to waiting for the brakes to release, which couldn't be initiated until there was sufficient tractive effort applied to prevent the train from rolling backwards.

Unlikely on an upgrade.

As there were five locomotives in the consist (the three at the head end and the two DPUs at the hind end), the engineer would have already released the automatic (train) brake and would have only the independent brake applied—the five locomotives' brakes would be able to hold the train on the grade. The reason for this procedure is it may take several minutes to recharge the brake pipe and car reservoirs to where each car's brakes will release, even though stopping on an upgrade doesn't require more than a 10 to 15 pound brake pipe reduction. Once the train has come to a complete halt, the engineer would fully apply the independent brake to hold the train and then move the automatic brake valve to release so the recharging can begin.

In starting the train, the engineer will notch out the throttle until his load meter indicates the consist is producing enough tractive force to start the train. At that point, he will slowly release the independent brake and if the train starts moving, completely release it and start notching out the throttle to full power (if the train doesn't start moving or one of the locomotives suddenly drops offline, he can quickly move the independent brake back to full apply).

Quote:

Given the circumstances, that actually looked like a relatively smart getaway. It actually makes me suspect the wagons were empties.

According to the person who shot and posted the video, the covered hoppers (aka wagons or cars) were each loaded with sand. From the video's description:

• A loaded BNSF Sand Train headed Westbound on the Moffat Sub from Denver restarts after waiting in the Tolland Siding for the Eastbound Winter Park Express and Phippsburg Local.

Your comment piqued my curiosity, so I captured a frame from the video and enlarged it to see the trucks (bogeys) on some of the cars. The springs were fully compressed, which could only be due to heavy loading.

The type of covered hopper that was in that train has a net load limit of 200,000 pounds and the car itself has a tare of about 60,000 pounds. There were 80 cars in that train. Doing the math shows that the train weight, less the locomotives, would be 10,400 tons. Each locomotive weighs approximately 210 tons, adding another 1,050 tons to the train, bringing the gross train weight to 11,450 tons.