the Alaska RR

riprap wrote:

And one small question about the Alaska RR:  In a very old edition of Trains magazine, they did a long story on the Alaska RR, and one of the things they mentioned I thought very interesting was that there is a point on the Anchorage-Fairbanks line where they have a very steep grade, and rather than using "helper" engines (why they did or do not I can't recall, perhaps they were short of motive power), apparently the conductor will make a set of trips up and down the grade, taking, say, 10-20 cars at a time, until they had carried all of the cars.  That seemed like a very inefficient way of doing it.  Does anyone know if the Alaska RR still does this, and if other RRs around the country do or have done it? Riprap

Yes, the technique is still done, it is called "Doubling the Hill"
or Tripling etc. Obviously slow but if no helpers are available the only way to go. Also not done on busy lines except in an emergency.
You cut the train into sections of a size that the locomotives can get up the hill and take the cars to the first available siding after the top, returning as many times as necessary. Also requires a siding or storage track beyond the top of the hill. The Alaska Railroad grade is south of Anchorage on the line to Seward and is a 3.3 percent grade. Curvature restricted trains to 4-axle power until the development of radial trucks.

Hey, Riprap--have you gotten ay calls saying that the Alaska Railroad needs you?

No, Carl, and it's the darndest thing--I stand on the corner with a sandwich board around my neck saying, "WILL WORK FOR UP CENTENNIAL DDX PHOTOS", but no one pays attention...(sigh)...

Riprap

The C&IM had an almost 2% grade against loaded coal trains near Petersburg, IL.  This was in otherwise very flat central Illinois.

In steam days they'd "triple" the hill.  The 2-10-2 would take 1/3 of the train up then come back down and do it all over again twice again.  At the top of the hill they'd put the train back together and head off for Havana.  They ran something like three trains each way per day - so it didn't make sense to station a helper at Petersburg.  (although it had been done in the past)

When they bought the SD9s they didn't have to triple the hill any more.  But they still had to "double" it.

 

riprap wrote:

And one small question about the Alaska RR:  In a very old edition of Trains magazine, they did a long story on the Alaska RR, and one of the things they mentioned I thought very interesting was that there is a point on the Anchorage-Fairbanks line where they have a very steep grade, and rather than using "helper" engines (why they did or do not I can't recall, perhaps they were short of motive power), apparently the conductor will make a set of trips up and down the grade, taking, say, 10-20 cars at a time, until they had carried all of the cars.  That seemed like a very inefficient way of doing it.  Does anyone know if the Alaska RR still does this, and if other RRs around the country do or have done it? Riprap

Efficiency is about delivering maximum output for minimum input.  There is *nothing* intrinsically inefficient about doubling the hill.  So long as you are not delaying other trains or calling a second crew because the doubling causes the first crew to exceed the  hours of service, doubling the hill is a very efficient practice, compared to the alternative of running twice as many trains that are half as long, or calling a helper that will get a day's pay for performing an hour's work, or cutting in a remote helper that would take terminal time at both ends (and create lots of often difficult-to-solve signal continuity and train-handling problems).   Now *that* would be inefficient.  In the case of the Alaska Railroad doubling the hill from Spencer to Grandview, there are seldom other trains seeking the track space that would be delayed or can't be juggled around the double, and the total run from Anchorage to Seward, including the double, can be completed in about 8 hours.

As I recall the track chart shows 3.0% ruling grade, not 3.3%.

S. Hadid

1435mm wrote:

riprap wrote: And one small question about the Alaska RR:  In a very old edition of Trains magazine, they did a long story on the Alaska RR, and one of the things they mentioned I thought very interesting was that there is a point on the Anchorage-Fairbanks line where they have a very steep grade, and rather than using "helper" engines (why they did or do not I can't recall, perhaps they were short of motive power), apparently the conductor will make a set of trips up and down the grade, taking, say, 10-20 cars at a time, until they had carried all of the cars.  That seemed like a very inefficient way of doing it.  Does anyone know if the Alaska RR still does this, and if other RRs around the country do or have done it? Riprap Efficiency is about delivering maximum output for minimum input.  There is *nothing* intrinsically inefficient about doubling the hill.  So long as you are not delaying other trains or calling a second crew because the doubling causes the first crew to exceed the  hours of service, doubling the hill is a very efficient practice, compared to the alternative of running twice as many trains that are half as long, or calling a helper that will get a day's pay for performing an hour's work, or cutting in a remote helper that would take terminal time at both ends (and create lots of often difficult-to-solve signal continuity and train-handling problems).   Now *that* would be inefficient.  In the case of the Alaska Railroad doubling the hill from Spencer to Grandview, there are seldom other trains seeking the track space that would be delayed or can't be juggled around the double, and the total run from Anchorage to Seward, including the double, can be completed in about 8 hours. As I recall the track chart shows 3.0% ruling grade, not 3.3%. S. Hadid

Would not this situation be a classic place to use a Distributed Power Unit(s)? 

 But then again the ARR is a quasi-government entity.They have no constraints as to time, except for the twenty year to retirement rule.

samfp1943 wrote:

1435mm wrote:  riprap wrote: And one small question about the Alaska RR:  In a very old edition of Trains magazine, they did a long story on the Alaska RR, and one of the things they mentioned I thought very interesting was that there is a point on the Anchorage-Fairbanks line where they have a very steep grade, and rather than using "helper" engines (why they did or do not I can't recall, perhaps they were short of motive power), apparently the conductor will make a set of trips up and down the grade, taking, say, 10-20 cars at a time, until they had carried all of the cars.  That seemed like a very inefficient way of doing it.  Does anyone know if the Alaska RR still does this, and if other RRs around the country do or have done it? Riprap Efficiency is about delivering maximum output for minimum input.  There is *nothing* intrinsically inefficient about doubling the hill.  So long as you are not delaying other trains or calling a second crew because the doubling causes the first crew to exceed the  hours of service, doubling the hill is a very efficient practice, compared to the alternative of running twice as many trains that are half as long, or calling a helper that will get a day's pay for performing an hour's work, or cutting in a remote helper that would take terminal time at both ends (and create lots of often difficult-to-solve signal continuity and train-handling problems).   Now *that* would be inefficient.  In the case of the Alaska Railroad doubling the hill from Spencer to Grandview, there are seldom other trains seeking the track space that would be delayed or can't be juggled around the double, and the total run from Anchorage to Seward, including the double, can be completed in about 8 hours. As I recall the track chart shows 3.0% ruling grade, not 3.3%. S. Hadid Would not this situation be a classic place to use a Distributed Power Unit(s)?   But then again the ARR is a quasi-government entity.They have no constraints as to time, except for the twenty year to retirement rule.

1.  No, it wouldn't be a classic place to use Distributed Power (or any helper operation, manned or remote).  That would simply run up costs with no increase in output.

2.  ARR is bound by the same hours-of-service as any railroad.  As for 20-years-to-retirement, I don't know what you're talking about.  The only thing "different" about ARR from a privately owned railroad is its access to capital and its expectations of profit.

S. Hadid

samfp1943 wrote:

1435mm wrote:  riprap wrote: And one small question about the Alaska RR:  In a very old edition of Trains magazine, they did a long story on the Alaska RR, and one of the things they mentioned I thought very interesting was that there is a point on the Anchorage-Fairbanks line where they have a very steep grade, and rather than using "helper" engines (why they did or do not I can't recall, perhaps they were short of motive power), apparently the conductor will make a set of trips up and down the grade, taking, say, 10-20 cars at a time, until they had carried all of the cars.  That seemed like a very inefficient way of doing it.  Does anyone know if the Alaska RR still does this, and if other RRs around the country do or have done it? Riprap Efficiency is about delivering maximum output for minimum input.  There is *nothing* intrinsically inefficient about doubling the hill.  So long as you are not delaying other trains or calling a second crew because the doubling causes the first crew to exceed the  hours of service, doubling the hill is a very efficient practice, compared to the alternative of running twice as many trains that are half as long, or calling a helper that will get a day's pay for performing an hour's work, or cutting in a remote helper that would take terminal time at both ends (and create lots of often difficult-to-solve signal continuity and train-handling problems).   Now *that* would be inefficient.  In the case of the Alaska Railroad doubling the hill from Spencer to Grandview, there are seldom other trains seeking the track space that would be delayed or can't be juggled around the double, and the total run from Anchorage to Seward, including the double, can be completed in about 8 hours. As I recall the track chart shows 3.0% ruling grade, not 3.3%. S. Hadid Would not this situation be a classic place to use a Distributed Power Unit(s)?   But then again the ARR is a quasi-government entity.They have no constraints as to time, except for the twenty year to retirement rule.

The need for the helpers is over a short section, 10 miles or less,
It would require an extra crewman to operate them who would be paid for a full day. Consider the following options, It took 5 GP40-2s/GP49s to take a Coal train from Anchorage to Seward, with two crewman in about 11 to 12 hours. You could add five additional locomotives and one additional crewman and get the train there in about 8 hours. Or you could use 4 crewman with the extra pair taking the helpers back to Anchorage. The first or second choice would cost about the same on direct labor cost, but would tie up an additional qualified engineer who could be working elsewhere and tie up 5 additional locomotives, out of a small fleet all for about 24 hours. The third option saves somewhat on the locomotives at the cost of yet more labor expense. If you could see the actual costs you would find that the first option is the least expensive. You should be able to see this intuatively even without knowing the exact costs.
I should add that the hill is just far enough from Anchorage to take close to 8 hours to perform the help and return to Anchorage. Not enough time to perform other useful work without exceeding 8 hours.

1.  No, it wouldn't be a classic place to use Distributed Power (or any helper operation, manned or remote).  That would simply run up costs with no increase in output.

2.  ARR is bound by the same hours-of-service as any railroad.  As for 20-years-to-retirement, I don't know what you're talking about.  The only thing "different" about ARR from a privately owned railroad is its access to capital and its expectations of profit.

S. Hadid

1.)  What I was aluding to was that if the train was able to run through without the "doubling," would they not be able to make a round trip before they"went dead on the law?" Implying the extra speed and timed gained by not having to do the time consuming doubling of their train.

2.) The twenty years to retirement referred to the government employee[Civil Service aspect of their employment]. Civil Service being somewhat different than employment outside the Government service. On their first day when a civil servent 'clocks' in they might say to themselves. I have twenty years to do this job." Where as a non- civil servent might say in the same circumstance," I have eight hours to do this job."

samfp1943 wrote:

1.  No, it wouldn't be a classic place to use Distributed Power (or any helper operation, manned or remote).  That would simply run up costs with no increase in output. 2.  ARR is bound by the same hours-of-service as any railroad.  As for 20-years-to-retirement, I don't know what you're talking about.  The only thing "different" about ARR from a privately owned railroad is its access to capital and its expectations of profit. S. Hadid 1.)  What I was aluding to was that if the train was able to run through without the "doubling," would they not be able to make a round trip before they"went dead on the law?" Implying the extra speed and timed gained by not having to do the time consuming doubling of their train. 2.) The twenty years to retirement referred to the government employee[Civil Service aspect of their employment]. Civil Service being somewhat different than employment outside the Government service. On their first day when a civil servent 'clocks' in they might say to themselves. I have twenty years to do this job." Where as a non- civil servent might say in the same circumstance," I have eight hours to do this job."

1.  Actually you can make a round trip with a coal train even with the doubling, without violating hours of service, by using "aggregate time" to rest the crew while the train is dumped.  But even if it required two crews that's still much less expensive than the capital and variable cost for twice as many locomotives, which are only going to be employed for about 45 minutes, total. Track capacity is not at a premium on this line.  If you only have a few train movements every day, doubling the hill is almost always going to be the most economical solution.

2.  The ARR is and always has run like a railroad.

Darn, Riprap--with all of the flooding and washouts they had, I was sure they'd come looking for you.

But I guess they're back in business, so they must have gotten their fill.

greyhounds wrote:

The C&IM had an almost 2% grade against loaded coal trains near Petersburg, IL.  This was in otherwise very flat central Illinois. In steam days they'd "triple" the hill.  The 2-10-2 would take 1/3 of the train up then come back down and do it all over again twice again.  At the top of the hill they'd put the train back together and head off for Havana.  They ran something like three trains each way per day - so it didn't make sense to station a helper at Petersburg.  (although it had been done in the past) When they bought the SD9s they didn't have to triple the hill any more.  But they still had to "double" it.

So was doubling the hill the only thing they had to do, or did they have to double the SD9 to replace the lone steam engine?   :)

samfp1943, Alaska Railroad employees are no more civil servants than any Amtrak employee is. They are covered by Railroad Retirement, the Railroad Labor Act, and FELA.

To those writing in that the ARR was a quasi-governmental agency, didn't I hear that they got sold to a private company some time back?  Any details?

Riprap

And Carl, if you see a half-crazed fool wearing a jumpsuit patterned after BNSF's bengal tiger nosed paint scheme, complete with an oscillating Mars light atop his head in your local funny farm, you'll know that my time has come.....

riprap wrote:

To those writing in that the ARR was a quasi-governmental agency, didn't I hear that they got sold to a private company some time back?  Any details? Riprap

No

beaulieu wrote:

riprap wrote: To those writing in that the ARR was a quasi-governmental agency, didn't I hear that they got sold to a private company some time back?  Any details? Riprap No

I don't know exactly when the transfer was made, perhaps in the 1980's, but the Alaska Railroad was owned by the US Government and managed by the Federal Railroad Administration.  Around 1972, one of my  bosses on the IC was appointed General Manager by John Ingram, then head of the FRA.  Someone here may know the details about the transfer of ownership to the State of Alaska.

jeaton wrote:

beaulieu wrote:  riprap wrote: To those writing in that the ARR was a quasi-governmental agency, didn't I hear that they got sold to a private company some time back?  Any details? Riprap No I don't know exactly when the transfer was made, perhaps in the 1980's, but the Alaska Railroad was owned by the US Government and managed by the Federal Railroad Administration.  Around 1972, one of my  bosses on the IC was appointed General Manager by John Ingram, then head of the FRA.  Someone here may know the details about the transfer of ownership to the State of Alaska.

Here is the history of the Alaska Railroad from their own website. It gives an outline coverage of the transfer of ownership from the Federal Government to the State of Alaska.

Alaska RR History

samfp1943 wrote:

2.) The twenty years to retirement referred to the government employee[Civil Service aspect of their employment]. Civil Service being somewhat different than employment outside the Government service. On their first day when a civil servent 'clocks' in they might say to themselves. I have twenty years to do this job." Where as a non- civil servent might say in the same circumstance," I have eight hours to do this job."

If Civil Service has a 20 years to full retirement option, it would be news to a lot of us in Federal service.  I have been in Civil Service since 1979 and I am not yet eligible for a reduced retirement pension, much less a full pension, unless an unusual early-out offer is made.  Make sure that you have the facts straight before you start punching the keyboard.

Another example of doubling, from my (ancient) past.

The C&NW branch I grew up on was an "out one day, back the next" schedule carrying pulpwood south to the mills in Green Bay & the Fox Valley area. 90 miles, mostly at minimum speed. About halfway (say MP 34-36) was a short strecth of 1+%. Occassionally, a southbound (loaded) train would have to double the hill to make it. Now, that did cut into their schedule and add to their crew time-inefficient, yes. However to compare it to the alternatives...

• Upgrade the track for a "running start" (the grade was short, maybe 1-2 miles). You'd have to add a lot of new ties, dump new ballast and maybe replace rail (70 year old, 90# IIRC) for enough distance to get up speed, for thegrade itself and for a sufficient distance afterward to allow a safe slow down after cresting the hill.
• Add power. That would have tied up a locomotive for the better part of two days, perfectly unneeded for the out bound trip and for almost 90% of the inbound.
• Helper. A locomotive and  crew that would be needed only occasionally and that for, at most, a couple of hours a week.

...it was the least expensive way of using the resources available (maintenence, crew time, motive power, etc.). Not that it didn't add any expense-but some extra expense was unavoidable. Granted, this is kind of an extreme case but that might help illustrate the considerations involved.