Never too old to have a happy childhood!
QUOTE: Originally posted by GP40-2 QUOTE: Originally posted by chad thomas I think you are wrong here. Diesels do loose power with altitude. I believe the factor is 2% per every 1000'. (Newer microprocessor controlled locomotives probably have less loss due to the fact that they can adjust fuel/air ratio constantly)
QUOTE: Originally posted by chad thomas
QUOTE: Originally posted by jchnhtfdI still use Fortran! And did you ever drop a stack of cards? Was it before, or after that, that you learned to draw a diagonal line on top of the stack to help get them back in order?![:D] The power which is available in Excel is really amazing.
QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol QUOTE: Originally posted by jchnhtfd For those who need credentials: The full name is Dr. James C. Hall, BA, MSCE, PhD, PE, and I have been in the railroad business off and on since 1960. Which is worth very little, since there are a lot of others on this forum (and this thread) who have probably forgotten more about practical railroading than I've ever known. A lot railroading under the bridge since 1960. Amazing how computer modeling has changed everything. I created my first computer model in 1967, on an IBM 360 identical to Milwaukee Road's Carscope, using Fortran. Didn't create software then, you created "code." One line per card. When all the bugs were worked out, you put it on tape. I think the rule of thumb then was 5 hours on the card punch, 20 minutes on the compiler, and 5 minutes on the computer. Then back to the card punch. I can see why some PhD's refer to "Excel" as the greatest invention of modern civilization. Best regards, Michael Sol
QUOTE: Originally posted by jchnhtfd For those who need credentials: The full name is Dr. James C. Hall, BA, MSCE, PhD, PE, and I have been in the railroad business off and on since 1960. Which is worth very little, since there are a lot of others on this forum (and this thread) who have probably forgotten more about practical railroading than I've ever known.
Originally posted by BaltACD The reality of this entire discussion devolves to one thing..... If electrification of the Cascade tunnel district of the BNSF made economic sense in today's financial markets they would be doing it. Exactly-and not about to spend a lot of money on Stampede. They bought Milwaukee's Snoquamie Pass line, they should have kept it. Dale Reply MichaelSol Member sinceOctober 2004 3,190 posts Posted by MichaelSol on Friday, May 20, 2005 10:44 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by jchnhtfd For those who need credentials: The full name is Dr. James C. Hall, BA, MSCE, PhD, PE, and I have been in the railroad business off and on since 1960. Which is worth very little, since there are a lot of others on this forum (and this thread) who have probably forgotten more about practical railroading than I've ever known. A lot railroading under the bridge since 1960. Amazing how computer modeling has changed everything. I created my first computer model in 1967, on an IBM 360 identical to Milwaukee Road's Carscope, using Fortran. Didn't create software then, you created "code." One line per card. When all the bugs were worked out, you put it on tape. I think the rule of thumb then was 5 hours on the card punch, 20 minutes on the compiler, and 5 minutes on the computer. Then back to the card punch. I can see why some PhD's refer to "Excel" as the greatest invention of modern civilization. Best regards, Michael Sol Reply BaltACD Member sinceMay 2003 From: US 25,275 posts Posted by BaltACD on Friday, May 20, 2005 10:44 AM The reality of this entire discussion devolves to one thing..... If electrification of the Cascade tunnel district of the BNSF made economic sense in today's financial markets they would be doing it. Never too old to have a happy childhood! Reply jchnhtfd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: US 1,537 posts Posted by jchnhtfd on Friday, May 20, 2005 10:19 AM Oh dear, oh dear. I see signs of at least two ego problems in the thread. Let's not do that to each other. As I said earlier, there is no one on this forum -- no one -- from whom I have not learned something at some point, and I sincerely hope that once or twice someone out there has learned something from me, although I have no way of knowing that. Stop It! With regards to modelling, like Michael I do know a bit about the models used by BNSF for its operations, but not a whole lot, which isn't surprising since I don't work for them. I did create a model for what was then the Central Vermont division of CN, though, many years ago -- for what ever that's worth. Track constraints is one thing that goes into them -- but there are many, many others. I would tend to agree with Michael that BNSF probably has a pretty good grip on modelling its operations. Is one (or more) of the tunnels on the system a capacity constraint? Possibly -- but it may very well not be. Capacity constraint points are often not really where one expects them to be. Would the capital investment in electrifying a given tunnel pay? I have no way of knowing, but I would rather imagine that the folks who operate the lines do know -- and I would bet that they would have done it, or be doing it, if the payback were there. For those who need credentials: The full name is Dr. James C. Hall, BA, MSCE, PhD, PE, and I have been in the railroad business off and on since 1960. Which is worth very little, since there are a lot of others on this forum (and this thread) who have probably forgotten more about practical railroading than I've ever known. Jamie Reply MichaelSol Member sinceOctober 2004 3,190 posts Posted by MichaelSol on Friday, May 20, 2005 8:47 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by greyhounds Computer model simulations can be wonderful tools or they can be crap. I don't know the specifics of this one, so I can't comment. But using the same train operating scenario certainly does not enhance the credibility of the study. They wouldn't be using the same train operating scenarios if they didn't have to wait 55 minutes to put another eastbound through the bore, now would they. They're naturally going to space out the trains so they don't have to stop one on the stiff grade and wait for the tunnel to clear. Free of that limitation, they'd change their operations. To make it a meaningful study, you'd have to optimize the operating scenario to what would be possible if trains didn't have to be spaced so much, then judge the effects of electrification. If that wasn't done, I don't put much credence in the report. Forgive me if, based upon comments you have made on other threads, not understanding the significance of the term "average" and your belief that five extra hopper cars a day into a system handling over 1,000 a day would result in "hot trains delayed" on the BNSF Northern Montana mainline, I am skeptical of your opinion on the BN model regarding Stevens Pass. When you say "I don't know the specifics of this model ...", but proceed to comment anyway, I see a typical pattern. However, I am a little bit familiar with the study, a little bit familiar with the model used, but before discussing if further, it would be useful to know what you know. Have you ever used a computer simulation for problem solving? Have you ever designed a simulation to solve complex multiple variable problems? What "specifics of this model" would you need to know, and what experience or basis would you have to understand what the "specifics" of the model means if someone explained them to you? What's the name of the modeling and problem solving software you have used (there's a reasonably good one in Excel that most people have never used)? Your post uses terminology not used by people familiar with this kind of modelng software and analysis and so I suspect your experience is zero. However, BN then, BNSF, UP and any other railroad now, rely heavily on modeling -- it is for all practical purposes the standard analytical approach to modern railroad decision making, whether it is in operations or pricing, financing or investment. Why you might think BN doesn't know enough to create a good model, and that it didn't understand how to test it, or to input "same train operating scenarios" suggests to me only that you don't understand "same train operating scenarios" as to inputs, and removing the tunnel flu***ime as a constraint. That is, you don't understand modeling, but that BN/BNSF probably does. Prove me wrong. Best regards, Michael Sol Reply CSSHEGEWISCH Member sinceMarch 2016 From: Burbank IL (near Clearing) 13,540 posts Posted by CSSHEGEWISCH on Friday, May 20, 2005 7:46 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by nanaimo73 Which tunnel between Michigan and Ontario had electrics ? Was it the NYC tunnel at Detroit or the CN tunnel from Sarnia to Port Huron ? Or both ? Ventilation was the reason the BC Rail Tumbler line was electrified. Those two tunnels were 29,570' and 19,536'. Both tunnels were electrified but quite differently. The St. Clair tunnel was electrified using catenary pick-up and replaced an existing steam operation. The Detroit River Tunnel used a third-rail pick-up similar to the Grand Central Terminal operation and was electrified from the outset. Both were dieselized in the 1950's. The daily commute is part of everyday life but I get two rides a day out of it. Paul Reply nanaimo73 Member sinceApril 2005 From: Nanaimo BC Canada 4,117 posts Posted by nanaimo73 on Friday, May 20, 2005 7:32 AM Does the power used by DC traction motors run through catenary over 7 miles very well ? If we now put AC power through the tunnel, would that mean you could not feed both types without putting conversion gear on each locomotive ?Don't most AC locomotives run on the unit trains which go through Pasco ? Dale Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Friday, May 20, 2005 7:15 AM Somewhat off-topic, but would there be any advantages to dual powering AC diesel locomotives with AC? How many phases does an AC loco need, and if higher voltages were used would there be room for the transformer? Reply Edit daveklepper Member sinceJune 2002 20,096 posts Posted by daveklepper on Friday, May 20, 2005 3:48 AM Incidentally, just to put the question to rest, yes I do have an SM in EE. Before that an SB. My SB thesis was on diesel locomotive load regulator controls, based on the work I had done at EMD as a summer student employee 1952. The testing of my load regulator control ideas was done on GP-7's 1567 and 1568 on the B&M. Reply greyhounds Member sinceAugust 2003 From: Antioch, IL 4,371 posts Posted by greyhounds on Friday, May 20, 2005 1:29 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol The Cascade Tunnel is a problem but not the only problem on Stevens Pass. The Eastbound approach is also presents a similar constraint. The Pass is nearly at capacity, and there are no likely solutions. Washington DOT, 2004: The primary geographical feature of the route is the nearly 8-mile long Cascade Tunnel. Due to its length the tunnel must be flushed behind every train that operates through it. Consequently, the time required for eastbound trains to traverse the tunnel, including flushing time behind the train, can be up to 55 minutes. The tunnel can be cleared for the next movement behind a westbound train in approximately 25 minutes. To test the impact of the segment between Skykomish and Scenic during the model simulation analysis in 1994, trains were “free-flowed” through the tunnel as if there were no requirements for tunnel flushing. That analysis determined that free-flowing the tunnel under the same train operating scenarios did not increase overall throughput on the route, indicating that the long, single track eastbound segment on ascending grade is as much of a limiting factor for maximum throughput as is the tunnel itself. Electrification to solve tunnel exhaust evacuation limitations would be a complete waste of time from the standpoint of adding capacity to the route. Best regards, Michael Sol Computer model simulations can be wonderful tools or they can be crap. I don't know the specifics of this one, so I can't comment. But using the same train operating scenario certainly does not enhance the credibility of the study. They wouldn't be using the same train operating scenarios if they didn't have to wait 55 minutes to put another eastbound through the bore, now would they. They're naturally going to space out the trains so they don't have to stop one on the stiff grade and wait for the tunnel to clear. Free of that limitation, they'd change their operations. To make it a meaningful study, you'd have to optimize the operating scenario to what would be possible if trains didn't have to be spaced so much, then judge the effects of electrification. If that wasn't done, I don't put much credence in the report. "By many measures, the U.S. freight rail system is the safest, most efficient and cost effective in the world." - Federal Railroad Administration, October, 2009. I'm just your average, everyday, uncivilized howling "anti-government" critic of mass government expenditures for "High Speed Rail" in the US. And I'm gosh darn proud of that. Reply nanaimo73 Member sinceApril 2005 From: Nanaimo BC Canada 4,117 posts Posted by nanaimo73 on Friday, May 20, 2005 1:20 AM Flathead tunnel is 7 miles long, and with more traffic. Is there a capacity problem there as well ? Dale Reply Gavin Sowry Member sinceJuly 2004 From: New Zealand 14 posts Posted by Gavin Sowry on Thursday, May 19, 2005 9:32 PM Here's something to think about. In New Zealand we have a 5 mile long tunnel on a constant 3% grade. After 70 years use the catenery was taken down and the line turned over to diesels. The fumes problem was overcome with doors and blowers on the tunnel mouth. Apparently they got the idea from the USA. Reply GP40-2 Member sinceJuly 2004 803 posts Posted by GP40-2 on Thursday, May 19, 2005 7:40 PM Thanks! I'll be sure to keep it up. Reply chad thomas Member sinceJanuary 2005 From: Ely, Nv. 6,312 posts Posted by chad thomas on Thursday, May 19, 2005 5:12 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by GP40-2 QUOTE: Originally posted by chad thomas I think you are wrong here. Diesels do loose power with altitude. I believe the factor is 2% per every 1000'. (Newer microprocessor controlled locomotives probably have less loss due to the fact that they can adjust fuel/air ratio constantly) No, I am not. The turbochargers provide more than enough oxygen charge to provide full rated horsepower at any operating condition found in North America. Most of you railfans might not realize this, but GE and EMD actually have engineers that might know a little more about this stuff than you do. The most severe operating conditions encountered are taken into account and the locomotives are designed accordingly. That's why most of the stuff posted on this forum is incorrect, silly or both. It's painfully apparent that most of you here don't even have an understanding of basic science and engineering principles. Well excuuuuseee me. I guess us railfans should be greatfull that such a expert has graced us with his presence. The nerve of us posting on this forum without masters degrees in engineering. If this forum brings you down so much perhaps you shouldn't bother. Though I don't know what we will do without your insults. Reply daveklepper Member sinceJune 2002 20,096 posts Posted by daveklepper on Thursday, May 19, 2005 2:38 PM from retired diesels. Again, this is a suggestion only if additional capacity is needed. Reply daveklepper Member sinceJune 2002 20,096 posts Posted by daveklepper on Thursday, May 19, 2005 2:34 PM When they discontinued the electrification, they did not expect the level of traffic they have today . I think the intelligent solution is based on the following: 1. Freight diesel and electric locomotives are "ballasted' with heavier construction than necessary to assure adequate weight for adequate tractive effort. 2. The use of slugs is exisiting technology. So, I would have freight tocomotive consist consisting of pairs. One diesel mated with one electric and power jumper cables, as well as direct control in addition to mu, between them. Most of the time a high horsepower diesel engine on the diesel locomotive would be powering all axles on both locomotives, but in the tunnel, the elctric locomotive wold be powering all axles. The modifications to existing diesels would be minimum, and these diesels could be used anywhere on the system, subject to the usual axle loading constraints, etc. The electrics would be rebuilt older diesels. Power pick-up would be via a Lionel type center third rail with retractable shoes on the electric. These would wide fat rollers, wheels, two on each electric. Automatic sensing would assure power on the third rail onl when a train is in the tunnel or approaching I think it would be worthwhile for BNSF to investigate the cost and see whether the investment is worthwhile. The electrics would be built from rec Reply nanaimo73 Member sinceApril 2005 From: Nanaimo BC Canada 4,117 posts Posted by nanaimo73 on Thursday, May 19, 2005 2:27 PM Which tunnel between Michigan and Ontario had electrics ? Was it the NYC tunnel at Detroit or the CN tunnel from Sarnia to Port Huron ? Or both ? Ventilation was the reason the BC Rail Tumbler line was electrified. Those two tunnels were 29,570' and 19,536'. Dale Reply BNSFGP38 Member sinceDecember 2004 From: Cab 162 posts Posted by BNSFGP38 on Thursday, May 19, 2005 2:22 PM For all intents and purposes diesels dont lose power at altitiude. How ever cooling that hot engine thats climbing the mountain is a different issue.[xx(] Reply jchnhtfd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: US 1,537 posts Posted by jchnhtfd on Thursday, May 19, 2005 2:16 PM Several miscellaneous thoughts... First, Chad, don't be hurt -- you have some good ideas. Some of us need to remember that, if we have better knowledge or experience in some areas, we need to teach, not belittle. There are very few folks on this forum from whom I have not learned something; conversely, I hope that I have helped some others learn something, too. The electrification idea is intriguing. The problems have, I think, been covered pretty well in some of the respones, though. In most areas where electrification has been done in the US, it is worth noting that the electrification almost always stretched from one crew/engine terminal to another. Thus -- in those days -- a train would come in from somewhere, and both the engine(s) and crew would be changed to electric for the service to beyond the problem area, where they would change back. But, and it is a big but, also in those days almost all trains used home power. Further, that home power was really home -- a given engine would spend all its useful life, in many cases, operating out of one terminal, sometimes with just one crew. Today, most engines run through from somewhere over the horizon in both directions: the motive power is not uncoupled from the train except at terminals. Thus what made operating sense, or at least didn't get in the way, in the old days of steam just doesn't any more. Last thought -- lot of talk about GN, but let's not forget the Milwaukee Road operations! Jamie Reply MichaelSol Member sinceOctober 2004 3,190 posts Posted by MichaelSol on Thursday, May 19, 2005 12:26 PM The Cascade Tunnel is a problem but not the only problem on Stevens Pass. The Eastbound approach is also presents a similar constraint. The Pass is nearly at capacity, and there are no likely solutions. Washington DOT, 2004: "Various studies have been performed over the years on Stevens Pass capacity. While with BN in 1994, MLM personnel utilized model simulation, as part of the analysis that ultimately justified reopening Stampede Pass, to analyze maximum operating capabilities over Stevens Pass. The primary geographical feature of the route is the nearly 8-mile long Cascade Tunnel. Due to its length the tunnel must be flushed behind every train that operates through it. "The prevailing grade approaching the tunnel is 2.2% eastbound to the west portal and 1.7% through the tunnel to near the east Portal. Consequently, the time required for eastbound trains to traverse the tunnel, including flushing time behind the train, can be up to 55 minutes. Westbound trains, predominantly moving on a descending grade through the tunnel at track speed, essentially act as a “plunger”, forcing air ahead of the train and minimizing flu***imes. The tunnel can be cleared for the next movement behind a westbound train in approximately 25 minutes. Maximum speed for freight trains in either direction is 25-MPH. The various analyses previously performed (some of which have been performed by MLM and HDR personnel) have generally concluded that sustainable capacity through the tunnel is about 28-trains/day, given a relatively even split between eastbound and westbound trains, with surge capability to 30 to 31 trains/day under specific conditions." Analysis MLM performed for POS and POT in mid-2002 indicated that BNSF was operating an average of approximately 20 trains/day through Stevens Pass, with peak day train volumes of about 24-trains/day. MLM and HDR do not believe those volumes have changed a great deal from 2002. Consequently, we believe BNSF has room to add 4 to 8 trains/day on the route before reaching volumes that will begin to tax the capacity of the route. Opinion on the capacity limitations of the route have generally focused on the tunnel as the primary limiting factor. "During the analyses performed at BN in 1994, however, model simulation revealed that the grade and geography on both sides of the tunnel were equally important factors in limiting throughput volumes, particularly the eastbound ascending grade between Skykomish and Scenic. This segment, a distance of 13 miles between meet/pass sidings, is on a 2.2% ascending grade. The grade continues eastward from Scenic through most of the length of the tunnel. Consequently, eastbound trains traverse approximately 20 miles of 1.7% to 2.2% ascending grade with Scenic as the only location for meet/pass capability between Skykomish and Berne (just east of the eastern portal of the tunnel). "Due to the geography, adding additional main line track or meet/pass sidings would be problematical at best as the right of way predominantly sits on a shelf above the Skykomish River, with a sheer rock wall on the other side. To test the impact of the segment between Skykomish and Scenic during the model simulation analysis in 1994, trains were “free-flowed” through the tunnel as if there were no requirements for tunnel flushing. That analysis determined that free-flowing the tunnel under the same train operating scenarios did not increase overall throughput on the route, indicating that the long, single track eastbound segment on ascending grade is as much of a limiting factor for maximum throughput as is the tunnel itself. "This was verified in the 1994 report performed by HDR personnel." Electrification to solve tunnel exhaust evacuation limitations would be a complete waste of time from the standpoint of adding capacity to the route. Best regards, Michael Sol Reply nanaimo73 Member sinceApril 2005 From: Nanaimo BC Canada 4,117 posts Posted by nanaimo73 on Thursday, May 19, 2005 11:41 AM The maximum altitude here is 2883' , about half of the joint line south of Denver. Dale Reply GP40-2 Member sinceJuly 2004 803 posts Posted by GP40-2 on Thursday, May 19, 2005 11:35 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by chad thomas I think you are wrong here. Diesels do loose power with altitude. I believe the factor is 2% per every 1000'. (Newer microprocessor controlled locomotives probably have less loss due to the fact that they can adjust fuel/air ratio constantly)
QUOTE: Originally posted by greyhounds Computer model simulations can be wonderful tools or they can be crap. I don't know the specifics of this one, so I can't comment. But using the same train operating scenario certainly does not enhance the credibility of the study. They wouldn't be using the same train operating scenarios if they didn't have to wait 55 minutes to put another eastbound through the bore, now would they. They're naturally going to space out the trains so they don't have to stop one on the stiff grade and wait for the tunnel to clear. Free of that limitation, they'd change their operations. To make it a meaningful study, you'd have to optimize the operating scenario to what would be possible if trains didn't have to be spaced so much, then judge the effects of electrification. If that wasn't done, I don't put much credence in the report.
QUOTE: Originally posted by nanaimo73 Which tunnel between Michigan and Ontario had electrics ? Was it the NYC tunnel at Detroit or the CN tunnel from Sarnia to Port Huron ? Or both ? Ventilation was the reason the BC Rail Tumbler line was electrified. Those two tunnels were 29,570' and 19,536'.
QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol The Cascade Tunnel is a problem but not the only problem on Stevens Pass. The Eastbound approach is also presents a similar constraint. The Pass is nearly at capacity, and there are no likely solutions. Washington DOT, 2004: The primary geographical feature of the route is the nearly 8-mile long Cascade Tunnel. Due to its length the tunnel must be flushed behind every train that operates through it. Consequently, the time required for eastbound trains to traverse the tunnel, including flushing time behind the train, can be up to 55 minutes. The tunnel can be cleared for the next movement behind a westbound train in approximately 25 minutes. To test the impact of the segment between Skykomish and Scenic during the model simulation analysis in 1994, trains were “free-flowed” through the tunnel as if there were no requirements for tunnel flushing. That analysis determined that free-flowing the tunnel under the same train operating scenarios did not increase overall throughput on the route, indicating that the long, single track eastbound segment on ascending grade is as much of a limiting factor for maximum throughput as is the tunnel itself. Electrification to solve tunnel exhaust evacuation limitations would be a complete waste of time from the standpoint of adding capacity to the route. Best regards, Michael Sol
QUOTE: Originally posted by GP40-2 QUOTE: Originally posted by chad thomas I think you are wrong here. Diesels do loose power with altitude. I believe the factor is 2% per every 1000'. (Newer microprocessor controlled locomotives probably have less loss due to the fact that they can adjust fuel/air ratio constantly) No, I am not. The turbochargers provide more than enough oxygen charge to provide full rated horsepower at any operating condition found in North America. Most of you railfans might not realize this, but GE and EMD actually have engineers that might know a little more about this stuff than you do. The most severe operating conditions encountered are taken into account and the locomotives are designed accordingly. That's why most of the stuff posted on this forum is incorrect, silly or both. It's painfully apparent that most of you here don't even have an understanding of basic science and engineering principles.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.