General Discussion

alphas:

I was told by a retired VP of the PR years ago that another contributing reason for why the electrification never went west of Harrisburg both right before and then shortly after WWII was some of the coal companies, ones who had the Pennsy as one of their major steam coal customers, threatened to ship all their coal via other rairoads as much as possible if the Pennsy electrified to Pittsburgh. 

 Surely the coal companies would WANT them to electrify, as that would mean a guaranteed buyer for their coal? I'm assumming most electricity at this time was generated in coal fired plants.

oltmannd:

Paul_D_North_Jr:

oltmannd:

Paul_D_North_Jr:

For example, I think that if some other portion of the electrification back then had to be sacrificed, the line from along the Susquehanna River from Enola/ Harrisburg through Columbia to Perryville, Maryland should have been deferred, and the Allegheny Summit wired instead.

I'd guess that by doing all the line east of Harrisburg and Enola, they could dump nearly all the steam servicing and repair facilities in the east.

[snip]

No, the steam facilities were still needed for the many remaining non-electrified branch lines and yards, etc., plus for the Middle Division west from Harrisburg.  Even in North Jersey the New York & Long Branch line and the car floats were still steam-powered, as were the coal regions in Pennsylvania - lines to Reading, Pottsville, Shamokin, around Lancaster, the Octoraro branch, the DelMarVa line, etc.

[snip]

I was thinking that the big steam terminals could have been just about totally gutted.  Phila, Morrisville, Baltimore, etc.  They hung onto Camden, South Amboy, etc to handle the remaining work.  If they do Phila to Harrisburg, but don't do the Port Road, Low Grade line, or Trenton Cut-off, they still have a need for lots of big steam power running east.

[snip]  

First, to clarify - I was suggesting that the Port Road line only should have been deleted or postponed - not the A&S Low Grade Line or the Trenton Cut-Off. 

Keeping the Port Road Line steam-powered would have affected only Harrisburg/ Enola on the north and Baltimore on the south - and for not much traffic, on a water-level route at that.  This past weekend I was looking at a PRR electrification map in one of Edwin P. Alexander's books on the PRR, and it showed the C&PD as being mostly a single-track line with some passing sidings - hardly the epitome of a densely-trafficked main line that needs electrification to stay "fluid".  So the increase in steam locomotives and retained servicing facilities to protect the traffic on that non-electrified line would have amounted to "Not much". 

Accordingly, your point about the electrification enabling the PRR to gut the big steam engine terminals at Phila., Morrisville, and Baltimore would still be valid, and that would not have changed with what I'm suggesting.

The other thought that occurred to me is that by the mid-1930's when the PRR was electrifying this network of lines generally between Phila., Harrisburg, and Baltimore, it was about done with buying and building its basic stable of steam locomotives - the K-4 Pacifics, M-1 Mountains, L-Mikados, and I-Decapods, etc.  Most of the steam power development after that was the several duplex drives - the T-1's, Q-1's, S-1's, etc. 

Accordingly, one major effect of the spreading electrification was that the older steam power formerly assigned to those terminals was then freed-up and could be rotated elsewhere (mainly westward), along with that new power.  As a result, the steam facilities in those terminals could be just left "as-is" to continue servicing what little steam power remained there - importantly for the PRR, no new investment or expenses were needed for them.

- Paul North.

blue streak 1:

  I believe that this thread has drifted away from the questions you have poised.  The non-extension of electrification to Pittsburg may have had several unintended consequenses. If in 1937 with Harrisburg under construction the planning could have gone on for extension to Pitt. The crews were trained and experienced in installation and could have continued on rapidly. [snip]

A rough guess is that PRR would have needed the motor equivalent of 150 GG-1s. The amount of steel to build those motors would not have even built 10 liberty ships and copper was already stockpiled for war use.

Now some other savings. All of us have seen pictures of many passenger and freight trains needing helpers up horseshoe. The need for extra sections could have been reduced (ie 3 sections of the Broadway instead of 4) . PHL, BAL, and Wash trains could have been lengenthened again reducing the need for extra sections (however the practical load limit on type E couplers and drawbars may have limited the trailing weight). Those electric helpers that were needed would not have needed turning and could have been quickly MUed eliminating many needed steam crewmen. 

Time savings for change of power at Harrisburg would have been eliminated but the refueling and water additions to the motor's steam generators would have reduced that time savings. The time needed to add and delete passenger helpers before the hills would have been eliminated. Does anyone have a comparsion of Harrisburg -- Pittsburg Pass timing then compared  to now (approx 5:25 for today's Pennsylvanian)?. If every train from the east coast to PGH was one hour quicker the amount of car hours for additional passengers could have been great. (anyone have the daily train count and maybe # of cars?) Also that metric would have applied to freight cars.The WW-2 freight system of yard to yard (Enola - Pittsburg) would have had longer freights and quicker timing.

There was much more freight carried HAR -- PGH  than over the C&PD and A&S . . .  The number of steam locos freed up (equivqalent to 300+ K-4s due to not having to complete as many class repairs)  could have helped the whole PRR system power requirements and would have sped up freight deliverys. Would the bottom line have been "if this route had been electrified would CR have kept electrification"? [snip]

blue streak 1 - Yep, you're comments above show that you're understanding my point on this - that the Pittsburgh Line should have been electrified before the C&PD / Port Road Line was.

I didn't know that the materials for the GG!'s was in short supply or rationed before the U.S. became involved in WW II on Dec. 7, 1941.  The GG1's weighed about 478,000 lbs. = 239 tons avg., so 150 of them would have been about 36,000 tons.  It appears that the weight / Displacement Tons of a typical Liberty Ship was around 14,245 long tons = 15,954 short tons (per info from the National Liberty Ship memorial for the S.S. Jeremiah O'Brien), so such a GG1 fleet would be the equivalent in steel of about only 2.3 Liberty Ships.  As far as the copper, the main transformer weighed 15.3 tons, and allowing 1 ton for each of the 12 traction motors and a little more, that would be about 30 tons of copper in each, or about 4,500 tons of copper in the aggregate (plus the catenary).  That's certainly a lot of copper, but it's not like it would have been the entire national production for a year back then or anything remotely like that (maybe a month's worth, though !). 

I don't think that passenger train length would have been limited by Type E couplers.  Since Type E's are currently required to  handle 350,000 lbs. of pulling force = 175 tons, on a 2 % grade (Horse Shoe Curve is something like 1.86 % max.) that means a contemporary Type E would be good for pulling a train weight of up to around 8,750 tons.  Even allowing for a somewhat lesser strength requirement "back in that day", nevertheless for a train of that size pushers likely would have been involved as well -and the coupler "link" is not usually the limiting factor for pushing.  So I doubt if the Type E would have negated any of the advantages of electrification. 

On Harrisburg to Pittsburgh passenger train timing, comparing "then" with steam locomotives and adding helpers, vs. "now" with diesels and no helpers, approximately the same as an all-electric operation:  I don't have an immediate source for that information - perhaps someone else here does ?

Thanks for your response and thoughts.  Stay tuned for my next post on this - hopefully later today.

- Paul North.

Paul_D_North_Jr:

  [snips]  

1.  Electrification:  A further thought here is that a missed opportunity was to string wires over the PRR's "big hill" at Allegheny Summit.  At bare minimum, the 14 miles of the east slope from Altoona to Gallitzin was always clearly a candidate from the beginning of the 20th century, and short enough to be easily do-able.  Recall that the 1930's mainline electrification proceeded in 3 major phases - 1) Philadelphia to NYC; 2) Philly to Washington, D.C.; and, then 3) Philly to Harrisburg (which included several secondary main lines or bypasses such as the Port Road branch along the east side of the Susquehanna River from Columbia to Harrisburg, the Atglen & Susquehanna low-grade line, and the Trenton Cut-Off, etc.).  While the PRR was already at it for those several hundred miles, the wires could have easily been strung over that short distance as well. 

Yes, it would have been a stand-alone - so what ?  It was a helper district already, and different/ special locomotives for the low speeds on grades (to address the very interesting point from erikem's 1st response above) could have been designed, built, and used for that special application.  Even if there wasn't then sufficient clearnance for the wires in the Gallitzin Summit tunnels, the catenary could have ended right at the face of the bore - that would have been enough to get the westbound trains up the grade, and a big improvement pending enlargment or modification of the tunnels (which of course happened several times later on) - or maybe 3rd rail could have been used there instead, the same as in NYC. . . . To compound this omission, the PRR never took advantage of several subsequent opportunities to install this short stretch of electrification, such as during the various post-war modernizations (remember all the stainless steel passenger cars that were purchased ?), or even when the next generation of electric locomotives (the E-44s) were designed, tested (the several GE experimentals), and bought.  Instead, it seems that the focus was always on "filling the gap" all the way from Harrisburg to the west to Pittsburgh (150 miles or so), which was always "too expensive" during the PRR years and then Penn Central and of course ConRail, and so ignoring the potential savings from this "low-hanging" fruit.  This may be another case of "the perfect being the enemy of the good".  Even today, I think a good case could be made for electrifying at least the east slope's helper district - perhaps with "stimulus funding" ? 

OK, to prove my point above I submit herewith a proposal and a brief supporting  analysis to the effect that Norfolk Southern should reasonably consider electrifying the helper grades from Altoona to Conemaugh only.  Of course, opinions as to future fuel prices and the like may vary, and there are - as always -  a lot of inherent and inevitable "ifs, ands, or buts".  Nevertheless, were I a NS official I would seriously consider commissioning a preliminary engineering and economic study to refine these numbers further to decide whether to proceed to the design stage.  Actually, if the study indicated that electrification was close to a "break-even", I'd go ahead with it anyway.  Electrification will happen on the major rail routes sooner or later anyway, and it would be worthwhile to get some contemporary opertating experience with the technology and motive power. 

Comments and constructive criticisms ? 

- Paul North.

P.S. - Having some problems with the formatting / paragraphing on here so that it's comprehensible - bear with me here while I work through that.  Thanks.

[I feel kind of like a wildebeeste out on the African savannah, trying to keep ahead of the lions and hyenas.      But if I can succeed, it might be worthwhile . . . ]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

• Proposal Summary:  Electrify the helper operations only on the approx. 40 route-miles (120 track-miles) of the triple-track mainline NS Pittsburgh Line over the Allegheny Summit, between the helper locomotive bases of Altoona (MP 236.1) / “ALTO” (MP 236.7) to Conemaugh (“CP-C” at MP 273.2), including several interlockings and the 2 tunnels [see FN 1] at Gallitzin / Tunnel Hill / “SF” (MP 247.3 – 248.1) and the Cresson Engine Terminal at MP 251.0. 
• Estimated Cost of Electrification Installation:  $120 million [see FN 2]. 
• Required Savings from Operations to Repay Installation Cost:  $18 million per year (= Capital Recovery Factor of 0.150 [see FN 3]) – divided by 360 days/ year = $50,000 per day. 
• Estimated Savings:  Approx. $335 per locomotive per “shove”, mostly from fuel ($320), plus from maintenance and depreciation ($15 to $20), as set forth below. 
• Traffic / Train Volume / Helper Operations Needed to Justify and Recover the Investment:  Approx. 150 unit-“shoves” per day = 75 “shoves” by 2-loco-unit helpers, on one Slope or the other (a 4-unit helper counts as 4, etc.), about 75 % of the current train volume with a 2-unit helper (or equivalent) = $50,000 savings per day / $335 savings per unit per “shove”.   
• Details:  Estimate that each “shove takes about 1 hour at full throttle for the helper locomotives for the grades involved – up to 1.8 % for about 15 miles on the East Slope, approx. 1.05 % for about 20 miles on the West Slope – see MPs above. 
• Cost of diesel fuel:  A 3,000 HP SD40 in Run 8 uses approx. 165 gals. per hour [FN 4].  At $3.00 per gallon [FN 5], that costs about $500 per hour or per “shove” for each unit. 
• Cost of electricity:  3,000 HP x 0.746 KW/ HP = 2,240 KW.  For a 1 hour “shove” = 2,240 KWHR at 8 cents ($0.08) per KWHR [FN 6] = $180. 
• Fuel Savings: Cost of Diesel Fuel – Cost of Electricity = $500 - $180 = $320 per hour or per “shove”.   
• Maintenance and Depreciation Savings:  Diesel:  Current cost is about $2.00 per unit-mile [FN 7].  Costs for Electrics are generally taken to be about half as much, or $1.00 per unit-mile.  So, savings is $1.00 per unit mile, or $15 to $20 per loco unit per “shove”. All other cost components are assumed or believed to be essentially equivalent or not significantly different between the two forms of operation. 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1.  FN 1:  The tunnel clearances may not be presently adequate to accept the catenary – no allowance or estimate is included here for any enlargement work.  Instead, a low-voltage (600 V) DC 3rd rail installation may have to be used there.  Although a high voltage (11, 25, or 50 KV) AC system generally would be preferable, this tunnel complication may necessitate using a low voltage DC system throughout to avoid the added expense of either a tunnel enlargement, or dual-power-and-voltage equipment, so as to keep this proposal economically feasible.  In view of the comparatively short distances and small number of locomotives needed, a 600 VDC system may be acceptable here. 
2. FN 2:  Estimated at $1 million per track-mile ($189 per track-foot) x 3 tracks x 40 miles = $3 million per route-mile ($568 per route-foot), or about $114,000 per pair of catenary poles at 200-foot spacing, etc.  Since the catenary for the 3rd / middle track can be hung from the same twin-pole suspension as the outer 2 tracks, its incremental cost should be much less than for those two.  The R-O-W is generally rural, and since the removal of the 4th track circa 1981, has much better access for construction vehicles and more room for side clearances than most other electrification projects (contrast with Amtrak’s New Haven to Boston extension about 10 - 12 years ago).  Hopefully the existing C&S systems and the interlockings / CP’s will not need too much rework to be compatible and accept the electrification.   Locomotives are assumed to be a “wash” – that electric locomotives can be purchased or re-manufactured for this application for about the same as costs as conventional diesel-electrics = SD40-2s and SD50’s to SD40-E’s, etc.  Preliminarily, estimate that between 20 and 30 electric locos will be needed. 
3. FN 3:  Capital Recovery Factor of 0.150 is consistent with Internal Rates of Return (“IRR”) and Times of: 14.75 % over 30 years, 13.9 % over 20 years, 12.4 % over 15 years, or 8.15 % over 10 years.  For comparisons, as this is written, the 28 % equivalent rate for Municipal Bonds are 6.82 %, 6.38 %, 5.82 %, and 4.89 %, respectively; 30-year mortgages are 5.6 %, and 15-year are 5.1% (source: Bloomberg.com).  A reasonable method to finance this project would be to “leverage” the investment by borrowing about half of the cost ($60 million) at a lower fixed rate, which would about double the “spread” of the actual Return on Investment (“ROI”) between that fixed rate and the respective IRR on the remaining internal self-financing of the other half of the cost ($60 million).  For example, using the 10-year Time frame, borrowing half at the 4.9 % as above means that the “spread” between that rate and the IRR is (8.15 %– 4.9 % = 3.25 %), so the actual ROI on the other half would be about 11.4 % (8.15 % + 3.25 %).   
4. FN 4:  Al Krug’s “Railroad Facts and Figures – Locomotive Fuel Use” table.   
5. FN 5:  Per Norfolk Southern’s Class I Railroad Annual Report “ACAA - R-1” to the STB for 2008, Table 750. - CONSUMPTION OF DIESEL FUEL on page 91, Line Nos. 4 and 5 – was $3.09 in 2008.  See also Table 410. – RAILWAY OPERATING EXPENSES, Line Nos. 409 and 411, on page 49. 
6. FN 6:  Pennsylvania Electric (“PennElec”) service territory; based on Rate LP = Large Primary Rate (pages 109-111).  Calculated average rate is about 7.3 cents per KWHR for these parameters, of which Generation + Transmission is 4.81 cents / KWHR, plus estimates for Distribution Charges and Competitive Transition Charges for Demand, Energy, and On-Peak is the rest.  Used 8 cents to be conservative. 
7. FN 7:  Based on the NS 2008 R-1 Report, Table 410. – RAILWAY OPERATING EXPENSES, Line Nos. 201 through 205, 213, and 219 on pages 47 and 48; and Table 755. - RAILROAD OPERATING STATISTICS, Line No. 14, on pages 47 – 48 and 94, respectively. 

 Paul:: Actually your cost figures may be high.

FN1. The electrification of the tunnels may not be a necessary first step.  According to my SPV Atlas New Portage is 1600', Allegheny and Galilzin  3600' each.  If the Cat is discontinued at each side of the tunnel portals with the Deadheading diesels put on line for that short distance then the electrics can coast through the tunnels. (note the Milkaukee electric motors had a separate control for the trailing diesels much the same way).  Also if there are end of train pushers they would help push the train through and then the front electrics reengaged; front diesels idled; and rear electrics pulled through tunnel. Anyone know the grade inside those tunnels? That way enlarging the tunnels can be delayed until desired.This way no 600V DC third rail and no extra cost for the electrics. Any motors built need the ability to eventually tie into 11Kv and 25/50 Kv systems and not be burdened with pickup shoes.

FN2: Right:: Inner track much less costly and if 4th track ever again needed wire on that track relatively inexpensive. Motors needed may not be as much. If manufactured or remanufactured can run in pairs or triples with one power unit with all transformers, rectifiers, inverters and run as mother -- slug units.

FN6:  No factor or benefit was given for regenerative braking downhill. The last figures I saw was a 29% recovery factor which would reduce the total power used. There would be times that Regen could not be used so dynamics would be required. So maybe a $50.00 savings on electricity on each  3000HP shove.

AC traction technology and use of AC Cat has changed so much since the PRR that your proposal is quite doable. If construction was started only on one side the motors could easily reverse (turn) if double ended and pick up the next down hill run for regeneration.

Operationally once the whole line electrified including the tunnels the motors would be added at either Cresson or Altoona by Hostlers and the front end crew would operate the train to the other station where they could be quickly removed.  

blue streak 1 - Thanks much for your review and comments.  They are most helpful and encouraging - see my detailed responses below. 

One further general thought - almost everything here would be pretty much equally applicable to CSX's crossing of the Alleghenies with the Sand Patch Grade. So regardless of what NS does with this proposal, maybe CSX will do it instead/ in addition ?

- Paul North.

blue streak 1:

  Paul:: Actually your cost figures may be high.

FN1. The electrification of the tunnels may not be a necessary first step.  According to my SPV Atlas New Portage is 1600', Allegheny and Galilzin  3600' each.  If the Cat is discontinued at each side of the tunnel portals with the Deadheading diesels put on line for that short distance then the electrics can coast through the tunnels. (note the Milkaukee electric motors had a separate control for the trailing diesels much the same way).  Also if there are end of train pushers they would help push the train through and then the front electrics reengaged; front diesels idled; and rear electrics pulled through tunnel. Anyone know the grade inside those tunnels? That way enlarging the tunnels can be delayed until desired.This way no 600V DC third rail and no extra cost for the electrics. Any motors built need the ability to eventually tie into 11Kv and 25/50 Kv systems and not be burdened with pickup shoes.  [emphasis added - PDN]

Yes !  I was assuming the worst case scenario - that the tunnels were still on a major grade.  But instead these tunnels are actually summit tunnels (almost) - the actual summits are just west of the tunnels.  I found a circa 1940s track chart on-line (at: http://prr.dementia.org/documents/pittsburgh_div_tc_1945.pdf - see Page 15 of 16) which indicates that the grade of the Westward Tracks 3 and 4 slackens off to +1.00 % through the 3,595 ft. long Allegheny Tunnel, then through a vertical curve to a -1.00 %.  For the Eastward Track 1 through the 1,625 ft. long New Portage Tunnel, the grade changes from +0.61 % to -1.39 % about a quarter-mile before the western portal, so it is all downgrade through that one.

Acoordingly, by the time the rear pushers reach the tunnels, almost all of the lifting work is done, and they probably would not need to be powered through the tunnels.  (The head-end road diesels would not be dead-heading, but would remain on-line throughout the climb in my proposal, since they are manned anyway, head-end helpers are not often used, and duplicating the road diesels with electrics might be more costly - or maybe would increase the savings even more ?  Needs to be looked at !)  Anyway, by then the front locomotives would be out of the tunnels and the front of the train would be on the downgrade, so with all of that plus momentum the rear pushers would no longer be needed.  (Note that for CSX's Sand Patch Grade, however, there are several tunnels on the full grade, where this would be more troublesome unless there is sufficient clearance for the catenary to continue through.) 

More troublesome is the head-end helper scenario, which would often need to be fully powered through the tunnels.  But here I've changed my thoughts - rather than corrupt the AC system with a DC system and 3rd rail and pick-up shoes, etc. for the tunnels, it would be better to install a large battery pack on the electric helpers - at least those special sets that would be assigned to leader/ head-end service only - to power them for that short distance (as well as for other reasons).  At 15 MPH (22 ft. per sec.), the helpers would get though the Allegheny Tunnel in 164 secs. - say, 3 minutes.  At full power (2,240 KW) for that time(1/20 of an hour), each unit would need about 112 KWHR of battery - at 12 volts that would be about 9,350 amp-hours, which would be like 300 automotive-size batteries.  That's a lot - like maybe 15,000 lbs. worth - but they would make good ballast and replace the traction weight and space of the now-omitted prime mover diesel engine, or on the slug that you also suggested (below).  They could be recharged from either the regenerative braking, and/ or a small gen-set mounted on board, which could also provide for a low-power off-wire move capability for extended distances (if needed). 

The other good reasons for building in a self-propelling limited battery capability are that then not all of the extensive network of crossovers and interlockings at the CPs ("Control Points") would have to be fully wired, which can get very complicated .  The commonly used routes, sure - but for reverse or oddball track shifts and the like, the battery capability could be brought on-line to just get through the crossovers - again, a matter of only a couple minutes.  Also, that way the electrics would have the capability for hostling-type moves without catenary, which means that the Cresson Engine Terminal and any other turning and servicing tracks would not have be wired or evne modified much - a cost savings and definite safety benefit to avoid that exposure.  Finally, it would also enable the odd move on non-electrified trackage, such as to set-out a cripple or rescue a train that stalled just beyond the catenary, etc. 

blue streak 1:

  FN2: Right:: Inner track much less costly and if 4th track ever again needed wire on that track relatively inexpensive. Motors needed may not be as much. If manufactured or remanufactured can run in pairs or triples with one power unit with all transformers, rectifiers, inverters and run as mother -- slug units.  

My "touchstone" for the catenary costs is the Amtrak New Haven to Boston electrification.  The 1996 contract prices was $321 Million for 155 Route-Miles - at essentially 2 tracks the whole way, that was 310 Track-Miles, or $1.035 Million per Track-Mile.  Actually, there are a few miles of 3rd (and even 4th) electrified tracks, so it's probably right at $1 Million per Track-Mile.  A completely valid concern since then is inflation/ escalation, but to counter that I think that the working conditions for the NS project - plus the economies for the 3rd track in between - will make up for that.

As for the motors, I can't think of a better place to try this - within easy reach of the very capable people at the Juniata Locomotive Shops, in the NS system which is already quite familiar with mother-slug lash-ups, and near GE at Erie and Amtrak, both of which have extensive technical expertise with all things electric and electrified heavy-rail operations, respectively. 

blue streak 1:

  FN6:  No factor or benefit was given for regenerative braking downhill. The last figures I saw was a 29% recovery factor which would reduce the total power used. There would be times that Regen could not be used so dynamics would be required. So maybe a $50.00 savings on electricity on each  3000HP shove.

AC traction technology and use of AC Cat has changed so much since the PRR that your proposal is quite doable. If construction was started only on one side the motors could easily reverse (turn) if double ended and pick up the next down hill run for regeneration.  

Thank you much !  I meant to include that qualitatively - as I did not have a reliable basis to quantify it, but it slipped my mind with the editing, etc.  Thanks for supplying that data and filling that gap.  It would increase the net savings by about 15 % per "shove" ($335 + $50).  Beyond that, I have to defer to experts such as yourself on the details of the motors and the electrification. 

blue streak 1:

  Operationally once the whole line electrified including the tunnels the motors would be added at either Cresson or Altoona by Hostlers and the front end crew would operate the train to the other station where they could be quickly removed.  

Presently, I understand that the diesel helpers are usually added at Altoona on the east and most often at Conemaugh on the west (occasionally elsewhere).  Each helper set has its own crew; when front helpers are used, the road crew stays on the through road locomotives the entire time, though that end of the train is operated by the front-end helper crew.  To simplify the change-over, this proposal would merely duplicate the present operating scheme, with separate crews for the electrics and the road crew staying on their diesels; the only change is that the helpers would now be electrics instead of diesel.  Accordingly, the need for and time consumed in coupling-on and uncoupling operations would not change, nor would crew utilization, etc.  Of course, if a better system can be figured out, that's all to the good as well.

Again, thanks much for your comments.  Looking forward to any others as well.

- Paul North.

blue streak 1:

[snips]

Time savings for change of power at Harrisburg would have been eliminated but the refueling and water additions to the motor's steam generators would have reduced that time savings. The time needed to add and delete passenger helpers before the hills would have been eliminated. Does anyone have a comparsion of Harrisburg -- Pittsburg Pass timing then compared  to now (approx 5:25 for today's Pennsylvanian)?. If every train from the east coast to PGH was one hour quicker the amount of car hours for additional passengers could have been great. (anyone have the daily train count and maybe # of cars?) Also that metric would have applied to freight cars.The WW-2 freight system of yard to yard (Enola - Pittsburg) would have had longer freights and quicker timing. [emphasis added - PDN] [snips]

Well, here's a start at finding that info - a link to a scan of Pittsburgh Division Employee Time Table No. 31, Effective April 28, 1940 at:

http://prr.dementia.org/documents/pittsburgh_div_ett_1940.pdf

See esp. pages 8 - 37 (Pages 5 - 20 of 65 of the "PDF" scan) - it looks like the best times from Altoona to Pittsburgh were in the range of 2.5 to 3 hours. 

And here's a link to a scan of Middle Division Employee Time Table No. 22, Effective Sept. 29, 1935 at:

http://prr.dementia.org/documents/middle_div_ett_22_1935.pdf 

See esp. pages 14 - 33 (Pages 9 - 18 of 69 of the "PDF" scan) - it looks like the best times from Harrisburg to Altoona were in the range of 2.75 hours, for a total trip time of 5.25 to 5.75 hours - roughly the same as today's Amtrak Pennsylvanian. 

 And some other helpful and informative PRR-oriented web pages that I also found: 

http://www.prrths.com/National%20Page%20Links/PRR_Default.html

http://www.prrths.com/Lewistown%20Archives/PRR_Research_page_one.htm

 http://www.prrths.com/National%20Page%20Links/PRR_Links.html 

 http://www.multimodalways.org/archives/rrs/PRR/PRR.html 

Also, a 1951 Track Chart from Altoona to Pittsburgh (Gallitzin on Page 14 of 16):

http://www.multimodalways.org/docs/railroads/companies/PRR/PRR%20Track%20Charts/PRR%20Pittsburgh%20Div%20TC%201951.pdf

Many thanks to all those who have made this information easily avialble on-line !

- Paul North.

Where the money is --- Double Stack Containers moving to or from ocean ports.

They do not fit in most 100 year old tunnels, you start by lowering (diging out the floor) the tunnel floor, as was done with the 5 mile mile long Hoosick Tunnel on the (Guilford/Pam Am/ NS Pan Am Patriot Corrider) or what ever name you choose to call the line.

Links to the rest of my principal sources for the above-referenced post:

FN 4 - Al Krug's "Locomotive Fuel Use" table at: 

http://www.alkrug.vcn.com/rrfacts/fueluse.htm 

FN 5 and FN 7 - Norfolk Southern's "R-1" Class I Railroad Annual Report to the STB for 2008 (114 pgs., approx. 980 KB in size):

http://www.nscorp.com/nscportal/nscorp/pdf/2008R-1.pdf 

FN 6 - Pennsylvania Electric (“PennElec”) Tariff No. 79 with Supplement No. 11, etc. for Rate LP = Large Primary Rate (pages 109-111), (193 pgs., approx. 1.6 MB in size), at:

https://www.firstenergycorp.com/Residential_and_Business/Customer_Choice/files/Tariff_-_PA/Penelec_Complete_Tariff_No._79_with_Supp_11_bookmarked.pdf 

- Paul North.