tree68 Throw in the fuel and wear and tear on a couple of locomotives plus a power unit for each rotary, and you're talking some money - none of which is actually generating revenue.
Throw in the fuel and wear and tear on a couple of locomotives plus a power unit for each rotary, and you're talking some money - none of which is actually generating revenue.
Tree68: But consider the lost revenue by not making a delivery guarantees. Expenses ---- per diem, stranded loco costs, Crew cost for delayed and outlawed crews on regular trains, inability of various maintenance crews to get to their assignments,etc. So all in all they do actually generate some revenue!
Here is a link to a Beilhack snow thrower used for railroads. Conrail has an older model of one of these for use around Buffalo.
Beilhack
Don't be thrown off by the term "Automotive" as used it means self-propelled.
jeaton [snipped] I suppose an avalanche could produce a deep cover over track, but given the possibility of large debris in the snow pack, use of rotaries to clear might be very dangerous. A couple of questions. Any idea of a rule of thumb on where the depth of snow is too great for flangers?
A couple of questions. Any idea of a rule of thumb on where the depth of snow is too great for flangers?
I've read that such avalanches often include rocks, trees, and even large animal carcasses, so they must be probed carefully and the debris removed before proceeding with the rotary, lest it be damaged. Not having to go through that slow process would be another advantage to using dozers, excavators, or loaders, instead of a rotary.
One of the articles in Trains some years ago addressed that, and gave the sequence from locomotive pilot plow to flanger to spreader to rotary. But I can't recall the ranges with any confidence.
NOTE: None of the following what appear to be 'links' are actually 'live' !
- Paul North.
jeaton I have seen tv coverage of truck mounted two stage snow blowers for high way use. Have these been considered or used by any railroads?
I have seen tv coverage of truck mounted two stage snow blowers for high way use. Have these been considered or used by any railroads?
I know one of Oshkosh Corp's divisions (Pierce Mfg) has a hy-rail fire fighting truck chassis so the concept is something that someone should be at least familiar with. I'd be curious to see what kind of snow depth is 'typical' to operate a Jordan/other plow/spreader versus what you'd have to see to make the rotary work. Is there an "in between" depth where it's six of one and half-a-dozen of the other?
Dan
I'd include the foremen and trainmasters into the incremental or variable cost allocation. They're not working for free - even if their pay doesn't directly increase because of working this assignment. In theory, they could be elsewhere doing something else which would be absorbing that allocation of their pay instead. So, to not include them is to understate the true cost of the rotary operation by treating their costs as nonexistent. While that may be debatable for a 1-time or 1-day-only operation, any call-out of more than a day or two is going to necessitate rotating someone else in to take up their duties at one place or another - they too can't safely go non-stop for more than 20 hours or so, even if they're technically not subject to the Hours of Service Law.
Based on some figures I saw recently, I'd figure more like about $800 per person for an 8-hour day (basic pay of $30 per hour, fringes and overhead at 125%, per diem/ stay-away costs or transportation, supervision and misc. equipment, etc.), plus $1,000 per day for each locomotive or power unit, and maybe $500 per day for each non-powered unit such as a spreader/ flanger. So for 10 people + 2 locomotives + 1 power car + 1 rotary + 1 spreader/ flanger I get about $12,500 per 8-hour day, or about $37,500 per 24-hour day - say, $1,600 per hour. Sounds like a lot, but from some other figures I worked up a while ago, a mainline train can earn per hour in the range of from $2,000 (coal) to $9,000 (intermodal) per hour - let alone the loss of Amtrak's performance bonus or imposition of delay penalties (if applicable). So, it doesn't take too many delayed trains to make the rotary's operation seem like "the lesser of two evils", or the least cost alternative.
If anyone else can provide more authoritative figures, I'd like to see them.
tree68 Just consider the potential crew - one or two engineers, a conductor, the rotary operators, several foremen of various flavors. Just throwing out a $25 per hour wage rate for sake of argument (that's $50k a year), if you have 10 people total just working with the rotaries, that's $250 per hour, or $3000 for a 12 hour day. Of course, your results will vary. Throw in the fuel and wear and tear on a couple of locomotives plus a power unit for each rotary, and you're talking some money - none of which is actually generating revenue.
Just consider the potential crew - one or two engineers, a conductor, the rotary operators, several foremen of various flavors.
Just throwing out a $25 per hour wage rate for sake of argument (that's $50k a year), if you have 10 people total just working with the rotaries, that's $250 per hour, or $3000 for a 12 hour day. Of course, your results will vary.
Only figure in the engine crew/dozer operators. All the foreman and trainmasters will be salaried.
Mechanical Department "No no that's fine shove that 20 pound set all around the yard... those shoes aren't hell and a half to change..."
The Missabe Road: Safety First
Very interesting observations posted here. I can see where the use of flanger/spreaders and bulldozers would be preferable to the rotaries. The only advantage I see to the use of the rotaries is their ability to throw the snow some distance (50 to 100 feet?) off the track. That feature must come in play when the depth of a blanket of snow is above the level that can be handled by the flanger/spreaders and is a condition over many miles of track.
Rotaries might also work best when the track runs through an area with many narrow cuts with deep snow from drifting. However, that doesn't seem to be a prevalent condition on the Donner route. From photos and limited observation, it appears to me that the Donner ROW provides fairly broad flat space on either side of the track-room for large piles of snow- or is on a mountain side where snow can be shoved downhill and out of the way.
I suppose an avalanche could produce a deep cover over track, but given the possibility of large debris in the snow pack, use of rotaries to clear might be very dangerous.
"We have met the enemy and he is us." Pogo Possum "We have met the anemone... and he is Russ." Bucky Katt "Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future." Niels Bohr, Nobel laureate in physics
The impact and forces on the rail from almost any minor derailment are far worse than those notched grousers would inflict, even during a turning move. As I noted above, we used to do similar operations with heavier machines - a 955H supposedly weighs about 25,000 lbs., though without the notches - with no ill effects.
Frogs are beefy enough that they too would be OK. Switch points - especially the tips - maybe not so much. I could see a lot of pressure being placed on the switch point tips by the 2 following scenarios:
- On the open point, the deeper/ un-notched part of the grouser would tend to ride up on it and lift the notch off the running rail. That might place a lot of localized pressure on the unsupported thin switch point 'blade' at the tip, and chip it off a little.
- If the dozer was 'trailed' through a "closed and locked switch", the deeper grousers might get caught down in behind the closure rail and wedge the closed point out away from its stock rail. That too might break the tip of the point, and/ or bend the operating and/ or connecting rods.
While not great, those kind of things happen often enough during minor derailments and 'run-throughs' that they're not a big deal to fix - "All in a day's work" for a track crew. Compared to the cost and delays of clearing a major snowfall or an avalanche that has the line closed, that's a risk that would be worth running, IMHO. The Maintenance Of Way supervisor just needs to make sure that the track - and especially the switches - has been inspected carefully afterwards, and that any defects that are discovered are repaired, before returning it to unrestricted service.
Paul of Covington Paul North: "One of those threads mentioned and had a further link to a photo of the grousers on a D6D that had been notched out to fit over the rails so that it too could stay up on top of the track" Living in the deep south, I find this topic fascinating. The notches in the treads seem like a really clever idea, but won't it put a sideways strain on the rails when it's necessary to get off the track? Also, what about damage to the points on switches? Or is the weight of this equipment significantly less than that of rolling stock so that it won't be a problem?
Paul North: "One of those threads mentioned and had a further link to a photo of the grousers on a D6D that had been notched out to fit over the rails so that it too could stay up on top of the track"
Living in the deep south, I find this topic fascinating. The notches in the treads seem like a really clever idea, but won't it put a sideways strain on the rails when it's necessary to get off the track? Also, what about damage to the points on switches? Or is the weight of this equipment significantly less than that of rolling stock so that it won't be a problem?
A D6D's operating weight is 20,359 lbs., which is very light compared to an axle loading of a 286K car of 71,500 lbs -- and spread over 6' instead of about a dime.
If there's concern about rolling a rail over, one could put down some timber, or use a grade crossing, or climb onto snow, to get on or off the track.
I don't see how this would damage switch points or frogs.
RWM
_____________
"A stranger's just a friend you ain't met yet." --- Dave Gardner
Railway Man [snipped] Here's an excellent selection of phots illustrating use of dozers and excavators on the Alaska Railroad to clear snow, avalanches, wrecks, etc:
Back in the day, we used Cat 951B, 951C, and 955H tracked front-end loaders to 'ride the rails' to avoid damaging the ties or wrenching the rails loose, etc. The gauge of their tracks was close enough to the gauge railroad's track - roughly 5'0" center-to-center - that they could do that comfortably. Not so with the 955L's though - a skilled operator could creep along and maybe spread ballast, but that was about it, or else they'd fall down into the track.
One of those threads mentioned and had a further link to a photo of the grousers on a D6D that had been notched out to fit over the rails so that it too could stay up on top of the track - see:
http://www.heavyequipmentforums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=16789&stc=1&d=1210219199
and/ or the top of page 4 of that thread, posted 05-08-2008 at 12:01 AM by 95zIV:
http://www.heavyequipmentforums.com/showthread.php?6415-Question-for-those-of-you-in-Alaska/page4
Question: Why not use a large rubber-tire wheel loader instead ? Such as a Cat 966K - see: http://www.cat.com/cmms/18102895?x=7 Or even a 988H - see: http://www.cat.com/cda/layout?m=370915&x=7
As long as the ties are well-tamped and securely fastened to the rails - as those on the UP main line would be - those tires will not 'tromp off' the ties from the rail, and will do little or no damage to the concrete ties or track. Yes, loose spikes can be a puncture and flat hazard to pure pneumatic tires, but they're not likely to be near the surface during snow clearing operations - and there are ways to deal with that risk, too. The bucket attachment and its capability may seem superfluous/ 'overkill' for simple snow-plowing, but I think it's not any worse at that task than than a basic dozer blade. And if the capabilities of an excavator is needed to pick up packed snow of ice and move it - or even carry it a distance - the wheel loader can do that better than either the dozer or the excavator. Plus, they're far more mobile in getting to a worksite in that they don't need to go by lowboy trailer all the way there.
Two more wrinkles from this series:
The last thread of "Digging Ice pictures" has photos of and a few comments on the Hy-Tracker that was being used to carry the excavator into those work sites - see also: http://www.hytracker.com/
And, one of those threads was written by and has numerous other neat photos of the Alaska RR from the same 95zIV who is apparently a track-strength (under load) test truck operator for Holland Rail - see this photo of his truck:
http://www.heavyequipmentforums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=15976&stc=1&d=1209312071
which is in post #10 on 04-27-2008 at 12:01 PM at about the middle of page 1 of 4 of this thread:
http://www.heavyequipmentforums.com/showthread.php?6415-Question-for-those-of-you-in-Alaska
Lot of fun to look at and read over lunch hour. Thanks again for sharing.
timz How easy is it to maneuver Cats on the track, anyway? Can they climb all over the rails and ballast without hurting anything? Do all the operators have to be familiar with all the places where snow can cover holes? Are they allowed to cross the tall bridges?
How easy is it to maneuver Cats on the track, anyway? Can they climb all over the rails and ballast without hurting anything? Do all the operators have to be familiar with all the places where snow can cover holes? Are they allowed to cross the tall bridges?
The idea is to keep a layer of snow on the track to protect it, especially with concrete ties. Track pad grousers striking concrete ties can damage them. And, in order for the dozer to perform well in the snow, it needs single grousers (the tall ones), not the triple grousers that are typically found on an excavator that are sometimes called "street pads" because they don't chew up asphalt badly like single grouser tracks will.
Here's a picture to illustrate grousers: http://www.bercoamerica.com/t-trackshoes.aspx
It's not a good idea to turn the dozer on the track unless there's snow protecting the track and the operator is experienced.
Here's an excellent selection of phots illustrating use of dozers and excavators on the Alaska Railroad to clear snow, avalanches, wrecks, etc:
http://www.railpictures.net/showphotos.php?train_id=Snow%20Fleet
http://www.heavyequipmentforums.com/showthread.php?17681-345-vs-Avalanche&highlight=alaska+railroad
http://www.heavyequipmentforums.com/showthread.php?12987-Cat-unloading-pictures
http://www.heavyequipmentforums.com/showthread.php?13010-Digging-ice-pictures
Note that the 345BL excavator in these photos has street pads, but unlike a dozer, the excavator can use its arm to help it climb and descend slopes. There aren't too many excavators around with single or double grouser pads, especially not in rental fleets.
Just activated the link provided by RWM:
http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/contracting/eera/rate-guide/dozers.shtml
Railway Man The cats and the rotary are not doing the same job. One clears snow from a track and throws it a fixed distance away. The other clears snow from anyplace one wants and pushes it to anyplace one wants. A direct cost comparison isn't meaningful. [snipped]
But the real disadvantage of the rotary is that it occupies at least 1 and perhaps obstructs both tracks while doing its job, and thereby completely blocks revenue trains for long periods of time - which can cause adverse 'ripple' effects to schedules elsewhere on the system, even far away. The actual operating costs are small change compared to that aspect of its operation. In contrast, the dozers are off-track machines, and can easily move off the track as a train approaches, work off to the side as it passes, and then get back on the minute the FRED goes by, with very little lost time to either the train or the dozer operation. This benefit of off-track equipment was most notably demonstrated by Alfred E. Perlman in cleaning up flood damage on the CB&Q in the mid-1930's.
Yeah, you seem to be imagining that if UP wasn't so penny-wise they'd could use the rotaries to replace all those Cats. They could run the rotary every day all winter long and they'd still need the Cats-- probably just as many of them?
The cats and the rotary are not doing the same job. One clears snow from a track and throws it a fixed distance away. The other clears snow from anyplace one wants and pushes it to anyplace one wants. A direct cost comparison isn't meaningful. To me it's like comparing the cost of painting a house vs. the cost of roofing a house.
Here's some sample rates for lease dozers with operator for wildfire work for California for 2007-08. These won't tell you the rate one might pay for a dozer with operator for snow clearing. It might be much lower, it might be much higher. And it won't tell you a thing about which is more cost-effective, a rotary or a cat.
So what are the costs of 22 bulldozers then?
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
More than 22 D6s or D7s for the work that is performed. Also, the rotary can't do a thing about the snow beyond the envelope of its wings, but the cats can. The Alaska Railroad and the Canadian roads use cats in preference to rotaries.
So in today's newswire it said that UP is renting 22 bulldozers to push snow away from the ROW so that for future snowfalls they can use the Jordan spreaders again.
Now I know the rotaries cost more to run than the spreaders - but 22 bulldozers aren't cheap either! How much do those rotaries actually cost the RR?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.