State of California investigating Evil Monster UP Intermodal Train

If this was such a big concern, then where were the reps from Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona?

Presumably it had to go through these states as well to get to California.  Unless maybe in addition to being a monster, it is also a phantom train.  With the ability to appear and reappear wherever and whenever it wants to.  This time it chose to appear in California

You've got to like the engineer brotherhood union reps comments as well.  Did anyone remotely think he would be in favor of a monster train?  Come on.  The possibility of job loss is a real threat, so you know the union won't support it at all.  Almost reminds me back to the days when B units were developing.

"If in danger or in doubt, run in circles, scream and shout..."

This train ran through Texas, New Mexico and Arizona - but only in California did it create a politico-media panic.

I love the comment about concern over adequate braking.  Will someone take that technologically challenged bozo aside and explain to him how air brakes work?

And, of course, we have the nay-sayers from the union and the anti-business party.  I'm sure they couldn't be pursuing agendas of their own...

As for the longest train - how long was that humongustring of coal hoppers N&W ran clear back in the dark ages?  I seem to remember a figure of something like five miles.

Of course, since it didn't enter California, as far as these people know it didn't exist.

Chuck

You mean they have not started sticking those labels on the cars yet?

 This car contains-----

BTW---Chuck---IIRC N&W seemed to be doing 3-4 mile strings---and with coal yet----

California, in order to be dumber they would have to be bigger, they are fully saturated in their present size.

Too many beaurcrats

Remember this California were the FORGET that CROPS NEED WATER TO GROW.  The idiots in charge of the Central Valley were 80% of all Produce comes from and MOST OF THE NUTS ARE GROWN will he found out that a 2 inch fish was dieing because it was getting ground into fish food in the pumps.  Well can not have that a fish has more rights than people in Commiefornia right.  So he stopped the pumps for all the Agriculture in the Central Valley for this year costing CA well over 10 BILLION IN REVENUE. Smart man HUH.

blownout cylinder

You mean they have not started sticking those labels on the cars yet?

 This car contains-----

Maybe not freight cars - but I saw a California Cancer Content sticker on the driver's side window of a motor vehicle at my local Post Office...

Chuck

I recall that the N&W train was 500 cars. I don't know how long the cars were but even with 40-footers it would be more than 20,000 feet, therefore longer than the 18000 feet UP train.  

From: http://list.nwhs.org/pipermail/nw-mailing-list/Week-of-Mon-20040503/000134.html and other sources . . .

The N&W train ran Nov. 15, 1967, approx. 159 miles, on mostly level or gently descending grades except for a short 0.3 % up grade at the approach to the bridge over the Ohio River at Kenova, W. Va.  It consisted on 500 cars + caboose + 6 diesels, all SD-45's.  The total nominal length was 21,424 ft. 9 in. = 4 miles, 304.75 ft. - in 12-degree Fahrenheit weather, which would have included around 500 ft. of slack.  The total* train weight was 48,584 tons - which works out to about 2.27 tons per foot of length (or the rough equivalent of a Cooper's E-45 loading for members that are down far enough in bridges that are longer than a couple of car lengths, for those who are inerested in or care about such things).

*I believe/recall this was the gross train weight, although the linked reference seems to indicate that it might have been the payload weight.  Taking out 6 locos at 210 tons each = 1,260 tons plus the caboose at say 30 tons = 1,290 tons, for a cars-only weight of 47,294 tons / 500 cars = 94.6 tons per car or 189,000+ lbs. per car.  For cars at that time, a 100-ton gross weight is believable.

As compared to the recent UP intermodal train, the N&W train was about 2,925 ft. = 15.8 % longer, and 33,584 tons = over 3 times or 324 %heavier than the UP train.  But the UP train ran around 1,400 miles or 1,291 miles = almost 9 times as far as the N&W train, encountered significant grades, and had 4 sets of locos total, as compared to the N&W's 2 sets - 3 leading, and 3 about 2/3 of the way back.  So I think the UP's technological accomplishment is somewhat better than N&W's - which takes nothing away from N&W, whose US record stood unchallenged for over 42 years.

And I'm sure that in one place or the other, John G. Kneiling is grinning at seeing yet another one of his predictions coming much closer to happening on a regular basis.

- Paul North.

There was a snowball effect on the level of local attention this train attracted as it rolled west. It's likely that most officials in the first few states this thing traveled through hardly knew it was coming, and it simply became a bigger blip on the public radar by the time it was nearing California.

Be glad that someone raised the question, whether valid or not, about braking ability. It's not that person's job to know. It's their job to ask, and it's the railroad's job to respond with facts.

Yeah, California tends to get overly regulatory about most things. But the state has a recent history of serious railroad incidents, therefore its officials were rightfully concerned when they heard this monster-sized train was coming their way. They've seen the derailment (due to stringlining) of a train at Cantara Loop which poisoned several miles of fish habitat, numerous runaways on Cajon Pass, one of which plowed into a neighborhood, and Metrolink's Chatsworth collision, to name a few.

If this test train had derailed or otherwise become disabled in the middle of a community and blocked most or all of its grade crossings, you can bet the citizenry and first responders would have been asking local and state officials for answers.

ESPN Radio's Colin Cowherd had a phrase that describes it best: Say it out loud--does it sound like a good idea?

I didn't think so in regards to this 18,000-foot train. Such a long train--even with the latest in distributed power controls with locomotive consists cut in every 4,000 feet or so--has the gigantic potential for problems with the train splitting apart, derailments, let alone trying to run it safely over Beaumont Hill east of San Bernardino, CA or the even steeper Cajon Pass. 

SactoGuy188

ESPN Radio's Colin Cowherd had a phrase that describes it best: Say it out loud--does it sound like a good idea?

I didn't think so in regards to this 18,000-foot train. Such a long train--even with the latest in distributed power controls with locomotive consists cut in every 4,000 feet or so--has the gigantic potential for problems with the train splitting apart, derailments, let alone trying to run it safely over Beaumont Hill east of San Bernardino, CA or the even steeper Cajon Pass. 

 

Oh. Just great. These things have been done for years--witness the massive N&W coal drags that plied their trade without having issues. CP has been doing this kinda thing for a long time.

No issues on this UP thing and now the tales of DEATH DOOM and DESTRUCTION comes forth

Only in California I guess----

BTW---match hyperbole with hyperbole---sometimes it works.

A better analogy would be comparing the average run-of-the-mill Pocahontas coal drag and N&W's super-size 500-car experimental with an average 7000-foot (?) stack train and this 18000-foot super-size experimental.  The large experimentals were technically feasible but they required a lot of advance preparation and an inordinate degree of management supervision.

Evidently quite true.  Perhaps a better approach would have been to gradually increase the stack trains' lengths over some period of time - as the N&W kind of did - before or instead of making the sudden leap to this size of train, so as to provide more opportunities for observing their performance and 'working the bugs out'.  For example, increase the train length by 1,000 ft. or so each month; then observe, identify, and correct any operating problems that may arise to everyone's satisfaction before moiving on to the next increment in size/ length.  Within a year the train would have been at this length anyway, and a lot of experience and confidence gained along the way in the meantime.  Nevertheless, I'm glad this seemed to have worked out OK for such a 'giant leap forward' at one time kind of endeavor.

- Paul North.  

Compare the TPOB = 'Tons Per Operable Brake' ratio calculations for each train:

N&W's 1967 train: 94.6 tons per my post above.

UP's 2010 train: 16,000 tons/ 295 'wells' (per CShaveRR elsewhere) = 54.2 tons, or only about 57 % as much.

For context - the recent or current operating rules for some railroads limit the speed or place other restrictions on the train's operation when the TPOB exceeds 100, so the stack train clearly was well short of that threshold, whereas the N&W train was flirting with it.

Anybody know what significant grades - either up or down - that this train negotiated, and how steep they were ?  Also, the effective adverse ruling grade that it encountered, considering its unusually long length ?

Thanks in advance for any info provided.

- Paul North.

Paul,

Two points.  First your TPOB calculation is in error.  I do not have my UP system Special Instructions instantly available but IIRC a five well stack car counts as 2.5 operative brakes.  If such a car weighed 250 tons, it would be 100 TPOB.  Numbers selected for ease of calculation.

Worst grade would have been Beaumont Hill a few miles East of Colton CA.  IIRC it is just under 2% each way.  Arizona has lots of ups and downs of 1%.  Length of train probably did not change effective ruling grades as they tend to be compensated by reducing the grade to offset the increased curve bind.  That may or may not be true of Beaumont as it was built relatively early and may not be compensated.  If so that the "published" grade on SP, and this was SP, was adjusted to accont for the difference.  Tehachapi for example was/is 2.2% uncompenstated and SP figured it as equavalent to 2.52% IIRC.  The equavalent grade is what would be used for tonnage ratings.  If they ran a simulation they would use actual grade and curve at every point in the segment being simulated.  I am 100% confident that curve resistance was accounted for. 

Someone else speculated on Cajon Pass.  The complete train did not traverse Cajon Pass on either ATSF or SP route.  Anything that went to Oakland likely went old SP Cajon which is 2.2% compensated.

Mac

Actually, California does NOT have the right to restrict or question ANY train run by any railroad.  They are under Federal (FRA) authority.  The political weenies in Californai are just looking for publicity.  If UP wants to run an 2 car or a 200 car train they can as long as they follow the FRA regulations.  THATS THE LAW.  Federal law supersedes local or state law.

igoldberg

Actually, California does NOT have the right to restrict or question ANY train run by any railroad.  They are under Federal (FRA) authority.  The political weenies in Californai are just looking for publicity.  If UP wants to run an 2 car or a 200 car train they can as long as they follow the FRA regulations.  THATS THE LAW.  Federal law supersedes local or state law.

I was wondering when somebody would mention that.

Content-free political posturing for the media is something that has been raised to a fine science in the state to the west of mine.  Maybe that's why I live here and not there.

Chuck (Nevada resident)

I love how we have the peanut gallery all in support of this.

Long trains are fine as long as nothing goes wrong.  And we all know nthing ever goes wrong on the railroad.  Having a mile-long train go into the hole in a town is bad enough.  But something like this?

 The state has every right to be concerned.  

zugmann

I love how we have the peanut gallery all in support of this.

Long trains are fine as long as nothing goes wrong.  And we all know nthing ever goes wrong on the railroad.  Having a mile-long train go into the hole in a town is bad enough.  But something like this?

 The state has every right to be concerned.  

 

desertdog

zugmann

I love how we have the peanut gallery all in support of this.

Long trains are fine as long as nothing goes wrong.  And we all know nthing ever goes wrong on the railroad.  Having a mile-long train go into the hole in a town is bad enough.  But something like this?

 The state has every right to be concerned.  

 

Gee, I'm sorry we don't live up to the high standards you have set for other posters on this site. John Timm

Let's see: we touched on unions, California, Big Government, don't think we hit liburals though. Long trains are a pain.  like I said before, as long as everything works, they're fine.  But if a 18,000 foot trains breaks down or dumps, youhave the potential to block a lot of crossings.  So, you think government shouldn't care?

I don't like it when I have to block a crossing for a few minutes to perform a switching move.  There is something to be said about having a little RR experience when discussing a matter like this.

As far as the peanut gallery comment.  That is directed to people that think RRs run in a vacuum.  Sorry, but they don't.  There are other non-RR factors that must be considered, even though it would be super-cool if we didn't have to.

Must be some sort of California "left coast" thing......

Oh well..you know what they say..."The land of fruits and nuts".

Murray

Must be some sort of California "left coast" thing......

Oh well..you know what they say..."The land of fruits and nuts".

 

God bless Johnny Carson, where ever he may be, he was right!

Eleanor Roosevelt likes long trains....

desertdog

zugmann

I love how we have the peanut gallery all in support of this.

Long trains are fine as long as nothing goes wrong.  And we all know nthing ever goes wrong on the railroad.  Having a mile-long train go into the hole in a town is bad enough.  But something like this?

 The state has every right to be concerned.  

 

Gee, I'm sorry we don't live up to the high standards you have set for other posters on this site. John Timm

Gee, if I were the state, I would be concerned too.  Now I have no idea how California is set up, but we have grade crossings about every mile, as it was laid out when the county roads were graded.    Besides handling a monster like that in the hogbacks of Iowa is just a royal pain in the neck.  

Murray

Eleanor Roosevelt likes long trains....

Yeah, as long as she did not have to walk them. 

zugmann

Let's see: we touched on unions, California, Big Government, don't think we hit liburals though. Long trains are a pain.  like I said before, as long as everything works, they're fine.  But if a 18,000 foot trains breaks down or dumps, youhave the potential to block a lot of crossings.  So, you think government shouldn't care?

 

I don't like it when I have to block a crossing for a few minutes to perform a switching move.  There is something to be said about having a little RR experience when discussing a matter like this.

As far as the peanut gallery comment.  That is directed to people that think RRs run in a vacuum.  Sorry, but they don't.  There are other non-RR factors that must be considered, even though it would be super-cool if we didn't have to.

Well, the Union Pacific operating honcos certainly know they don't "run in a vacuum."

Assuming this recession actually ends someday their railroad is going to face some capacity problems.  They've spent mega bucks double tracking the Sunset Route west of El Paso and haven't got it done yet.  They did similar spending for a 3rd track across Nebraska.  (As well as open up Donner to double stacks.)  But they've still got single track lines east of El Paso and into the Pacific Northwest.  Their lines though central California and between California and Portland are single track.

What to do?

They're going to want these lines to handle more freight without getting congested.  Those lines will need to handle more freight in order to accomodate future economic growth and some level of diversion of long haul trucking to rail movement.

They can do several thinngs.  They can build more track, and they've done that.  They can use larger capacity freight cars, and they've done that.  They can come up with operating plans that improve efficiency, and they've done that.  Phoenix is a prime example. They can also "demarket" certain services and cause the freight to cease to move or divert to trucks, and they've done that  While this frees up rail capacity it's not something the US Government should force them to do.  (By preventing operating efficiencies through banning long trains.)  It increases national logistics costs and is harmful to the economy.   It's kind of the "least best" option, but if you're between a rock and and a hard place you have to make hard choices.  And before the recession the Union Pacific was between a rock and a hard place with regards to capacity in certain areas.

Another possible solution is to run longer trains.  (They'd have to build the siding capacity to handle the longer trains.)   Think about it.  If they were running 30 trains a day over the old T&P single track route through Texas each train would have to meet 15 trains a day.  That's an average of one meet every 96 minutes.  It will produce increased congestion and slow down transit times.  It will increase the cost of rail transport and make it less competitive with trucking.  This will also harm the US economy by increasing logistics costs.  If they could combine trains they could reduce the congestion, reduce the number of meets, improve transit times, and keep some freight off the highway.

As you have correctly pointed out, this "Long Train" solution will not be without costs.  While old problems will be solved, new problems will be introduced.  Just what will these new problems be?  How often will they occur?  Will the benefits of the longer trains outweigh their disadvantages?. People can do projections all they want, but until actual operation starts no one will know for sure.

The first step was to see if such a train could really be operated successfuly.  It was.  That's what this "Test" was about.  Now their analysts are back at the computers trying to project the outcomes of various options.  What's best?  Run these longer trains?  Lay down more double track?  "Demarket" freight?  They're all options and the Union Pacific is seeking to "Optimize".

Longer trains are beneficial in that they give the railroad another option.  They're not the solution everywhere and they do not come without costs/problems.  But in the right place, at the right time, on the right route, they'll help "Optimize" the Union Pacific.  And that will be good for the US in general.

These trains obviously can "work". They're just another tool for the railroad to use.  Determining how to use this new tool properly is now the task at hand.    

Speaking of doublestacks over Donner Pass, the new R&R magazine has a nice picture of a 9,000-foot doublestacker running through Emigrant Gap.  I realize that there's a big difference between 9K and 18K, but I'm disappointed that a least a few public officials weren't present to be hyperventilating and "viewing with alarm" when that one showed up back in November.  It was a lost opportunity to do some posing for the NorCal voters.  (Pardon my sarcasm, everyone.)

There are some interesting and valid questions which can be raised about running 18,000-foot trains (UP is probably well ahead of the Calif. PUC on that), but one learns to expect the worst from the state government here in California. 

If problems arise, the solutions certainly won't come from Sacramento.

What is the role of the California PUC with respect to railroads?  I would think that with the possible exception of road crossing matters, the state has been preempted by the feds in most railroad regulation.

As I recall, about a month after Chatsworth, this is the organization that published a 30-odd page report on the accident.  It had a number of photographs illustrating the results of the accident, but mostly seemed designed to illustrate that they were there.  One photograph was even captioned as the head of the PUC "briefing" Ms. Higgins, the head of the NTSB, on the crash.   The briefing appeared more on the order of a handshake.

Dakguy201

What is the role of the California PUC with respect to railroads?  I would think that with the possible exception of road crossing matters, the state has been preempted by the feds in most railroad regulation.

As I recall, about a month after Chatsworth, this is the organization that published a 30-odd page report on the accident.  It had a number of photographs illustrating the results of the accident, but mostly seemed designed to illustrate that they were there.  One photograph was even captioned as the head of the PUC "briefing" Ms. Higgins, the head of the NTSB, on the crash.   The briefing appeared more on the order of a handshake.