I think it was back in the sixties that Trains had an article about the Coast Line (that was how my mother referred to it; my father worked in the Tampa shops until his death in 1937) and its race track--wherein it was mentioned that the track was maintained for 100+ mph. You can be certain that when Champion Davis was in charge of the road he was determined to show "that other road" how to run passenger service.
Johnny
timzOffhand guess: no ATC/ATS/ACS on SP's Salt Lake Div, where the City of SF was allowed 95 mph. Was that legal before 1947?
Strange, I know, but that was the way the legal stuff worked. Where you agreed to use speed control, you didn't violate what the law called for in that location. Elsewhere, the law that only applied to ATC sections wouldn't apply to you. So pre-'47, yes, it was legal to go as fast as you could justify without special train-stop equipment if you followed your own 'safety' rules for that speed.
This is another hole in the old Arnold Haas 'chestnut' about PRR 6100 supposedly going 142 mph with the Trail Blazer and the ICC "fining" them for "speed limit violation" somehow. To my knowledge there was neither hard and fast 'top speed' limitation on a Government basis before the ICC order took effect starting in 1950, nor an 'enforcement division' or personnel who issued the Government equivalent of 'tickets' if someone ran something really fast. Except, of course, if you ran a non-ATC-equipped locomotive too fast in ATC territory... THEN you'd get some enforcement action.
I look upon this similarly to the reason SP stopped using all those fancy lights on the front of their diesel power. Seems if you put it on there, even if it wasn't needed to satisfy minimum legal 'lighting' requirements, the Government DID require you to keep it completely working 'or else'. So, rather logically, SP started plating over the things as they failed... why spend money doing the 'right thing' by your people or for public visibility if you're going to be penalized for it...
As noted on threads much earlier, in 1970 road north on the Silver Meteor in the Obs from Jacksonville to Southern Pines, and there were many stretches where we steadily passed mileposts a mile in 36 seconds for 100mph.
"I seem to recall ACL reaching something like 127 mph on a single-track line signaled with semaphores (that would be in one of the back issues of Trains, I think) and of course there were plenty of other places, like PRR and B&O, where very quick use of motive power was used with a nudge, nudge, wink, wink in places where I would consider a good form of ATC (not just ATS!) to be essential."
I can provide first-hand confirmation of the ACL/SCL practice of 79mph+ speed. In the late 1960s the ACL/SCL initially leased and ultimately purchased three B&O dome-sleepers for the FLORIDA SPECIAL (also used post the SCL merger in the summers on the SILVER STAR and on both trains only south of Richmond). These cars had a speedometer in the front bulk head of the passenger dome area.
On the long straight-away south of Florence to Charleston I loved to watch the dome car's speed dial climb. Above 100mph the speedometer would go a bit crazy--swinging over the dial. I clocked the FLORIDA SPECIAL for some twenty minutes over this stretch doing a mile in 29-32 seconds, or about a steady 120mph, on multiple trips--particularly if we were a bit late. Summer rides on the SILVER STAR were equally impressive there.
On the first trip I asked the conductor/rear brakeman if what I saw was true and got a quiet smile. Superbly maintained track produced very little sway or bounce--all the more surprising as the dome sleeper was generally in the "whip" position as the last car, to faciliate switching in/out of the consist at Richmond.
The line over this territory is one of the longest stetches of straight track in the east and then was still all double-track, and I assume there was an ATC/ATS system, but I don't know for sure what type of signal/train-control mix prevailed, as I have no ACL or SCL employee timetable from that era. Post-Amtrak single tracking and strict enforcement with speed recorders makes this a 79mph line today, but it was routinely over 100mph--especially if running late--in the 1960s.
The SAL/SCL also routinely ran the SILVER METEOR and the SILVER STAR at a steady 100mph pace (although I never clocked anything above that) on the very long straight track south of Sebring to West Palm Beach. This too is 79mph territory today.
Carl Fowler
WizlishThe [1920] law did not require ALL operations on a railroad to accord with this (initially), just the locations where the ATC was installed.
Offhand guess: no ATC/ATS/ACS on SP's Salt Lake Div, where the City of SF was allowed 95 mph. Was that legal before 1947?
timzThe 1920 law said 80-mph passenger trains had to have ATS/ATC/ACS? And 60-mph passenger trains and 50-mph freights had to have block signals? And the RRs ignored the law until 1947?
Read the law and you will see. In essence it said that ATC of some (reasonally prescribed, compared with the camel 2008 mandate, imho) form had to be progressively applied, first to one division then more on a stated time schedule, and passenger restriction was that 80 mph and above would require some form of ATC on the divisions so equipped until in the normal course of things the 'whole route' had become protected (or at least some substantial part of it). My recollection is that the rollout was for passenger only in the early stages (that being the place where 'safety' benefits of ATC were well and truly appreciated by that point in time).
The law did not require ALL operations on a railroad to accord with this (initially), just the locations where the ATC was installed. Where this got interesting was that the actual 'state of the art', which was supposed to evolve quickly and definitively as so many technologies were observed to do in the late War, did not prove to be quite as workable on steam locomotives as expected. For example, a system that does not close a throttle or center a reverser has some highly interesting behavior if a 'penalty brake' application big-holes the train... There is also a difference between keeping trains spatially separated and providing overspeed penalty -- I believe the 1920 law only concerned the former. There was something about automatic block signals but I don't remember what it was, and I suspect the actual color light signals or whatever were peripheral to the 'automatic train control' actual control.
So there were delays in both first implementation and in additional-division 'rollout' for a number of carriers (there is a detail history in the ICC publications of that era, which you can follow if you have more interest and time than most people reading this!). And in 1928, the ICC made a conscious decision to stop implementing the part of the Esch Act that called for expansion of the 'covered areas' -- concentrating its efforts and rulemaking on grade-crossing issues (which growing 'automobilization' was making an increasing priority, and rightly so).
This did not affect either the ongoing maintenance OR the enforcement actions on those parts of a railroad that had 'mandated' (or voluntary) train-control systems between 1928 and the order of 1947. If I remember correctly a principal reason why the N&W class As were not run on the Shenandoah Division involved their not being fitted with appropriate ATC (although that would probably have been simple to do if warranted...)
What was happening between the end of the war and 1947 was much more than just Naperville, just as there were many warning signs before the accident in Glendale. Most notably, a great many railroads were buying new shiny streamlined trains and highly-geared diesels, and starting to run them as fast as they would go in a great many places where advanced prayerfulness was the principal 'safety system'. I seem to recall ACL reaching something like 127 mph on a single-track line signaled with semaphores (that would be in one of the back issues of Trains, I think) and of course there were plenty of other places, like PRR and B&O, where very quick use of motive power was used with a nudge, nudge, wink, wink in places where I would consider a good form of ATC (not just ATS!) to be essential. A large part of the ICC order was to slam the door on any of this by enforcing the speed limit 'everywhere' and not just in the places that had the special rollout. And arguably, at that point in time it was not only desirable but in a great many situations necessary. Note that at no time has any Congress or administration considered repealing either the language in the Esch Act or in the 1947 enforcement extension, or 'blanket relaxing' them for any particular exception without hard alternative safety provision...
As an interesting 'aside' to the discussions in the ECP threads about good business cases for ATC and related technologies, it's instructive to see which railroads did in fact proceed to install more extensive train-control systems, or the related but not cognate installation of cab signaling, and what they continued to maintain over time as the need for high-speed protection withered or went away. A particular example was the decision to scrap the NYC system in 1970, with the 'excuse' that PC didn't have much of a need to run any kind of train faster than 79 mph any more on a regular basis ... especially not anything with Brayton-cycle power...
Wizlishthe ICC Order of 1947 (effective by around the end of 1950) represented only a resumption of enforcement, not something 'new'.
schlimm CSSHEGEWISCH The ICC order allowed higher speeds on districts that were equipped with cab signals or automatic train stop. So what happened to all those territories that had ATS, ABS or cab signals? When/why were the limits lowered to 79mph?
CSSHEGEWISCH The ICC order allowed higher speeds on districts that were equipped with cab signals or automatic train stop.
The ICC order allowed higher speeds on districts that were equipped with cab signals or automatic train stop.
So what happened to all those territories that had ATS, ABS or cab signals? When/why were the limits lowered to 79mph?
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
WizlishAs I was told, the '79mph' (actually 80 mph as the speed where the regulation applies) was only reinforced by the ICC in 1947. It was mandated by Congress as part of the Esch Act of 1920, the legislation that returned the railroads to private ownership.
Several of us witnessed first hand passenger trains running in excess of 79 mph. Don Steffee's annual reports on speeds showed trains in the low 80s. I have a 1972 IC employee TT showing the 124 mile stretch from Champaign to Branch Jct. (just north of Centralia) with a 100 mph speed limit. How can this be?
As I was told, the '79mph' (actually 80 mph as the speed where the regulation applies) was only reinforced by the ICC in 1947. It was mandated by Congress as part of the Esch Act of 1920, the legislation that returned the railroads to private ownership.
Among other things, Congress ... shades of 2008! ... saw the ability to mandate acceptance of ATC, or at least ATS, as a quid pro quo for re-privatization.
The enforcement of the progressive rollout of automatic train control effectively stopped about 1928 (when the safety 'enforcement' emphasis was placed on grade crossings instead). But the original requirement was never abrogated, and the ICC Order of 1947 (effective by around the end of 1950) represented only a resumption of enforcement, not something 'new'.
oltmannd Wizlish Very smart guys in that Collinwood team, and it is a shame that more has not been said about them. Yes! I knew a few of them, one quite well. Learned a huge amount from them.
Wizlish Very smart guys in that Collinwood team, and it is a shame that more has not been said about them.
Yes! I knew a few of them, one quite well. Learned a huge amount from them.
It says a lot for Perlman, the NYC and even the industry of the day that such talent was available for what amounted to a publicity stunt, showing the government, from whom it was seeking trains-offs, "Hey, we're trying."
I remember the "jet train" and especially the Tangent on which it was run. In the grim days of NYC passenger service, early '60s, No. 35 was broken down at Bryan, O. -- approximate scene of the test -- and I was killing time at trackside, at twilight, watching a headlight lighting up the track to the west.
It must have taken 20 minutes or more until the 20th Century Limited exploded past Bryan at 500 mph or however fast it was going. Since no conflicting movements had passed our stalled train in the meantime, I concluded No. 26 had been moving that fast all the time I had been watching it.
Wonderful passenger railroading! ... even if all in vain. And certainly offset by the failure of No. 35, whose old engines had conked out. We finally proceeded with new engines that had to come from Toledo. I will say a railroad rep met us dinerless passengers down the line with bags of hamburgers.
Deggesty Buslist schlimm I do not know, sam, but it takes less if the equipment is lightweight, unlike the current Acelas, which are heavier than the French base model to meet FRA crash standards, which will change with PTC, probably. 79 mph limit was FRA imposed for a variety of reasons. The "79" MPH speed limit was imposed not by the FRA but by the ICC. It was imposed following a rear end collision on the Q in Naperville in 1947 . It is in fact a matrix of speed limits vs. signal types. For the roads that did not want to slow their trains they were given to 1951 to comply. At least one road (AT&SF) an extension was granted until 1952. The ICC's sole stated reason for the order was to encourage signal improvements. Remember a couple of years ago we were told that some revisions to the car structural requirements were forthcoming in 2015? Well it's come and gone, so sigh of any movement so I wouldn'thold my breath. I don't know if there was reasoning behind the speed limits set by the IC or if they were plucked out of the air. As I recall, from the article in Trains soon after the order was promulgated, there were three categories. If there is no signaling, the speed limit for passenger trains was 59 mph and the limit for freights was 49 mph. If there were block signals, either automatic or manual, the limits were 79 and 59. If the road had ATS, ATC, or ACS, the ICC set no limit. As to the IC, I understand that the only ATS in Illinois was in southern Illinois--with its winding track which mitigated against fast operation. Back about 1964, I was going up to Jackson, Mississippi, on #4 (2 E's, RPO, baggage car, and 3 coaches), and I timed at least one mile above Crystal Springs in 33 seconds. In 1965, I rode the engine of #1 from Memphis to Grenada--and the speedometer stayed at 90 most of the way. I was confident that the engineer knew what he was doing. As has been noted, back then there was generally little enforcement, by management, of the ICC speed limits. Also, in 1974, as I was riding the Floridian from Chicago to Fort Lauderdale, I woke in the night as we were running towards Waycross (dark territory); I, of course, had no way of timing our travel, but it seemed to me that we were running faster than 59 mph in an effort to make time up. And, in the last two years or so, I had posted an account of an N&W J that was run from Bristol to Roanoke in the fifties with at least the main rod on the left taken off (the valve gear on that side had disintegrated on a trip to Bristol, and the engine had to go to the shops in Roanoke for refitting)--and the engineer got the speed up to 80 or 90 mph for a short distance some time after meeting #45--which was estimated to be running at 75 as it passed the cripple. Another poster could not believe that no one was disciplined for such disregard of the speed limit (60 mph maximum for most of the way).
Buslist schlimm I do not know, sam, but it takes less if the equipment is lightweight, unlike the current Acelas, which are heavier than the French base model to meet FRA crash standards, which will change with PTC, probably. 79 mph limit was FRA imposed for a variety of reasons. The "79" MPH speed limit was imposed not by the FRA but by the ICC. It was imposed following a rear end collision on the Q in Naperville in 1947 . It is in fact a matrix of speed limits vs. signal types. For the roads that did not want to slow their trains they were given to 1951 to comply. At least one road (AT&SF) an extension was granted until 1952. The ICC's sole stated reason for the order was to encourage signal improvements. Remember a couple of years ago we were told that some revisions to the car structural requirements were forthcoming in 2015? Well it's come and gone, so sigh of any movement so I wouldn'thold my breath.
schlimm I do not know, sam, but it takes less if the equipment is lightweight, unlike the current Acelas, which are heavier than the French base model to meet FRA crash standards, which will change with PTC, probably. 79 mph limit was FRA imposed for a variety of reasons.
I do not know, sam, but it takes less if the equipment is lightweight, unlike the current Acelas, which are heavier than the French base model to meet FRA crash standards, which will change with PTC, probably. 79 mph limit was FRA imposed for a variety of reasons.
The "79" MPH speed limit was imposed not by the FRA but by the ICC. It was imposed following a rear end collision on the Q in Naperville in 1947 . It is in fact a matrix of speed limits vs. signal types. For the roads that did not want to slow their trains they were given to 1951 to comply. At least one road (AT&SF) an extension was granted until 1952. The ICC's sole stated reason for the order was to encourage signal improvements.
Remember a couple of years ago we were told that some revisions to the car structural requirements were forthcoming in 2015? Well it's come and gone, so sigh of any movement so I wouldn'thold my breath.
I don't know if there was reasoning behind the speed limits set by the IC or if they were plucked out of the air. As I recall, from the article in Trains soon after the order was promulgated, there were three categories. If there is no signaling, the speed limit for passenger trains was 59 mph and the limit for freights was 49 mph. If there were block signals, either automatic or manual, the limits were 79 and 59. If the road had ATS, ATC, or ACS, the ICC set no limit.
As to the IC, I understand that the only ATS in Illinois was in southern Illinois--with its winding track which mitigated against fast operation. Back about 1964, I was going up to Jackson, Mississippi, on #4 (2 E's, RPO, baggage car, and 3 coaches), and I timed at least one mile above Crystal Springs in 33 seconds. In 1965, I rode the engine of #1 from Memphis to Grenada--and the speedometer stayed at 90 most of the way. I was confident that the engineer knew what he was doing. As has been noted, back then there was generally little enforcement, by management, of the ICC speed limits. Also, in 1974, as I was riding the Floridian from Chicago to Fort Lauderdale, I woke in the night as we were running towards Waycross (dark territory); I, of course, had no way of timing our travel, but it seemed to me that we were running faster than 59 mph in an effort to make time up.
And, in the last two years or so, I had posted an account of an N&W J that was run from Bristol to Roanoke in the fifties with at least the main rod on the left taken off (the valve gear on that side had disintegrated on a trip to Bristol, and the engine had to go to the shops in Roanoke for refitting)--and the engineer got the speed up to 80 or 90 mph for a short distance some time after meeting #45--which was estimated to be running at 75 as it passed the cripple. Another poster could not believe that no one was disciplined for such disregard of the speed limit (60 mph maximum for most of the way).
Just like in the days before 'Social Media' and everyone with a phone able to video any happening, the railroads could get away with many things - before their physical plants began falling apart in the years leading up to Staggers and ConRail. A few major derailments, freight and/or passenger, bring scrutiny where none had existed before.
As a kid, I had the opportunity to ride the Panama Limited, Chicago to New Orleans in the late 50's - we did 'fly' South of Champaign. In the late 60's I worked in that area of Southern Illinois and watched the Panama from the ground - while the speed was near 100 - from the outside it didn't appear as secure as it had felt from the inside 10 years earlier.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
schlimm Wizlish Paul Milenkovic One thing I heard about the NYC trial is that they "ground the wheels conical", meaning they took out the wheel tread taper that steers the wheels and also causes truck "hunting" (also called "nosing'). This means at lower speeds such as in a terminal area, navigating curves would engage the flanges much earlier. From what Dad said, such a wheel profile can wear into something with a hollow taper that can have very bad hunting and be dangerous at speed. Since we brought this thread back up, can someone explain this to me better? My understanding was that the tread 'taper' adjustment for very-high-speed stability was to reduce normal conicity, not enhance it. (I remember seeing a discussion of either 1:20 or 1:40 taper, with some dynamic 'location' force being desirable to preclude flange contact, but not enough to set up hunting/yaw oscillation...) Was the thinking to grind DOWN the treads to be 'less conical'? That would jibe with what I know about the M497 project. Yes, flat tread is an open indication for wear to produce a 'hollow tread'. Note that this at first glance might look 'self-stabilizing' (in the same sense that the Budd-Michelin tires were supposed to be 'self-guiding' as their treads deformed over the railhead under load) - but the machanics (if I recall correctly, both of two wheels on a rigid axle and of independent wheels a la Talgo) do not support stability as soon as insufficiently-damped yaw forces are introduced in this case, and you might want to provide a dynamical analysis why this is so. Let me repeat that M497 was never intended as "HSR" -- it was a test vehicle for high-speed development 'on the cheap', and presented as such by NYC. In a very real sense it was a 'spit in the eye' to the Pennsylvania's grandiose Federally-supported high-speed MP-85 MU project that became ... at much lower actual sustainable speeds, and with so much '60s-design-complexity failure ... the Metroliners. Very smart guys in that Collinwood team, and it is a shame that more has not been said about them. Re-reading both posts, it becomes clear you are both saying the same thing in re the conical taper. I imagine "ground the wheels the conical" was intended to mean "ground [flat] the wheels' conical." For want of an apostrophe, a wheel was lost!!!
Wizlish Paul Milenkovic One thing I heard about the NYC trial is that they "ground the wheels conical", meaning they took out the wheel tread taper that steers the wheels and also causes truck "hunting" (also called "nosing'). This means at lower speeds such as in a terminal area, navigating curves would engage the flanges much earlier. From what Dad said, such a wheel profile can wear into something with a hollow taper that can have very bad hunting and be dangerous at speed. Since we brought this thread back up, can someone explain this to me better? My understanding was that the tread 'taper' adjustment for very-high-speed stability was to reduce normal conicity, not enhance it. (I remember seeing a discussion of either 1:20 or 1:40 taper, with some dynamic 'location' force being desirable to preclude flange contact, but not enough to set up hunting/yaw oscillation...) Was the thinking to grind DOWN the treads to be 'less conical'? That would jibe with what I know about the M497 project. Yes, flat tread is an open indication for wear to produce a 'hollow tread'. Note that this at first glance might look 'self-stabilizing' (in the same sense that the Budd-Michelin tires were supposed to be 'self-guiding' as their treads deformed over the railhead under load) - but the machanics (if I recall correctly, both of two wheels on a rigid axle and of independent wheels a la Talgo) do not support stability as soon as insufficiently-damped yaw forces are introduced in this case, and you might want to provide a dynamical analysis why this is so. Let me repeat that M497 was never intended as "HSR" -- it was a test vehicle for high-speed development 'on the cheap', and presented as such by NYC. In a very real sense it was a 'spit in the eye' to the Pennsylvania's grandiose Federally-supported high-speed MP-85 MU project that became ... at much lower actual sustainable speeds, and with so much '60s-design-complexity failure ... the Metroliners. Very smart guys in that Collinwood team, and it is a shame that more has not been said about them.
Paul Milenkovic One thing I heard about the NYC trial is that they "ground the wheels conical", meaning they took out the wheel tread taper that steers the wheels and also causes truck "hunting" (also called "nosing'). This means at lower speeds such as in a terminal area, navigating curves would engage the flanges much earlier. From what Dad said, such a wheel profile can wear into something with a hollow taper that can have very bad hunting and be dangerous at speed.
Since we brought this thread back up, can someone explain this to me better?
My understanding was that the tread 'taper' adjustment for very-high-speed stability was to reduce normal conicity, not enhance it. (I remember seeing a discussion of either 1:20 or 1:40 taper, with some dynamic 'location' force being desirable to preclude flange contact, but not enough to set up hunting/yaw oscillation...)
Was the thinking to grind DOWN the treads to be 'less conical'? That would jibe with what I know about the M497 project.
Yes, flat tread is an open indication for wear to produce a 'hollow tread'. Note that this at first glance might look 'self-stabilizing' (in the same sense that the Budd-Michelin tires were supposed to be 'self-guiding' as their treads deformed over the railhead under load) - but the machanics (if I recall correctly, both of two wheels on a rigid axle and of independent wheels a la Talgo) do not support stability as soon as insufficiently-damped yaw forces are introduced in this case, and you might want to provide a dynamical analysis why this is so.
Let me repeat that M497 was never intended as "HSR" -- it was a test vehicle for high-speed development 'on the cheap', and presented as such by NYC. In a very real sense it was a 'spit in the eye' to the Pennsylvania's grandiose Federally-supported high-speed MP-85 MU project that became ... at much lower actual sustainable speeds, and with so much '60s-design-complexity failure ... the Metroliners.
Very smart guys in that Collinwood team, and it is a shame that more has not been said about them.
Re-reading both posts, it becomes clear you are both saying the same thing in re the conical taper.
I imagine "ground the wheels the conical" was intended to mean "ground [flat] the wheels' conical."
For want of an apostrophe, a wheel was lost!!!
Yes for high speed service you would like minimal or no conicity on your wheel sets. I'm not sure what is used on the Acela or other high speed trains but I would guess its cylindrica. One example comes to mind. After opening the Skokie Valley Route (lots of tangent running few curves) the NS sought a more stable profile. They adopted a cylinderical profmile. Given the shared resources between the NS and the L CRT adopted the profile as well. Actually it makes a lot of sense as the L had relatively long stretches of tangent and most of the curves were too sharp for the wheel set taper do do any good. AFAIK that wheel profile is still being used by the CTA.
Yes hollow worn wheels are a bad thing both from a steering point of view and a contact stress issue. Interestingly the steered Schfeller bogie used in South Africa keeps the wheel set so well centered that hollow wear becomes an issue, possibly to the point that it offsets flange wear savings.
oltmannd It depends on train weight, traffic mix, etc. Trying to keep 110 mph quality track on routes with lots of freight is really expensive. But, if it's all light weight passenger equipment, then its not nearly so bad. There is actually a cost/speed/traffic mix matrix for ROW maintenance costs that's been developed. I'll have to hunt it down. Found it: http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/trnews/trnews255rpo.pdf
It depends on train weight, traffic mix, etc. Trying to keep 110 mph quality track on routes with lots of freight is really expensive. But, if it's all light weight passenger equipment, then its not nearly so bad. There is actually a cost/speed/traffic mix matrix for ROW maintenance costs that's been developed. I'll have to hunt it down.
Found it: http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/trnews/trnews255rpo.pdf
Perhaps good numbers relatively but I wouldn't put too much stock in the absolute values. The authors don't tell us which of the several track deterioration models they have used and if the model is statistical or deterministic. I don't think a statistical model would be appropriate for this analysis. Whitout saying too much there have been some issues surrounding model results from this organization on both sides of the pond.
Lighter weight equipment is not the cure all that some seem to think. It was the new generation of lighter weight rolling stock that produced the Rolling Contact Fatigue problems on the UK network. Rectification of these sites put Railtrack in administration (read bankruptcy).
schlimm In 1964, at least on the Champaign to Kankakee stretch there was no 79 mph speed limit. The better trains used to hit 90+ and touched 100 sometimes.
In 1964, at least on the Champaign to Kankakee stretch there was no 79 mph speed limit. The better trains used to hit 90+ and touched 100 sometimes.
The Kankakee patch was part of the Chicago District of the Illinois Division. At that time the Chicago District extended from Stunkle Rd. ( south end of the 4 track) to Champaign. Operating rules were CTC from Stunkle to Gilman, with a short section of local control at KX tower. South of Gilman ABS rules were in effect. Nowhere was there any ATS/ATC on the district so the 79MPH rule was in effect.
The North end engineers were notorious for ignoring the 79 and if they had a late running City of ** or Panama would do their best to get to Chicago close to the advertised. Rode many miles on the CofM clicking off 33 sec miles (which if my calculations are correct is 103, max gearing speed for an E?) . Something happened around 67 or 68 when that kind of running disappeared, as the Main Line of Mid America was starting to deteriorate (hurray limestone ballast).
South of Champaign on the Champaign District, trains were allowed 100 due to the ATS that was in place.
WizlishVery smart guys in that Collinwood team, and it is a shame that more has not been said about them.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Paul MilenkovicOne thing I heard about the NYC trial is that they "ground the wheels conical", meaning they took out the wheel tread taper that steers the wheels and also causes truck "hunting" (also called "nosing'). This means at lower speeds such as in a terminal area, navigating curves would engage the flanges much earlier. From what Dad said, such a wheel profile can wear into something with a hollow taper that can have very bad hunting and be dangerous at speed.
Excellent point. Look at Don Steffee speed logs in Trains of the 1950-1965 era. The Mercury, steamhauled by streamlined J3a (3800 hp per Alco) hauled 12-16 light weight coaches. So traon weighed abut 850 tons (250 T Hudson and 600 T coaches, used 3800 hp, got to chcago in 4.75 hours. Today Amtrak will go same route with 2 4200 HP GE's, 4-6 light weight coaches and consider it well done if they make Chicago in 6 + hours. They also have CTC (soon to be PTC) and al;most no freight. 6 trains per day vs approx 24 trains in '38. (Don't have my employee TT's unpacked yet). Culture has so much to do it here--the tyranny of low expectations. Now go to websites of Chiltern Railways and Virgin Trains. Chiltern has splendid service. VT uses an upgraded London & Birmingham, LNWR, LMS, BR route. Look at times, average speeds, etc. Puts Amtrak to shame.
R Shannon *NYCRR*
A couple of corrections to the description of the IC's passenger trains between Memphis and New Orleans. First, the passenger trains did not go through the Delta, but used the line that ran east of the hills that mark the eastern side of the Delta; the through freights ran (and still run) through the Delta, just as Amtrak's train now does. It was in north Mississippi that the trains ran through the towns so fast--and the engineer was unable to get a proper public crossing signal off for each crossing in the towns. Also, the line from Memphis to North Jackson was single track (why double a track that was used only by the passenger trains and the local freight?), and was double track from there into New Orleans except where it went around the west end of Lake Pontchartrain.
Except for a division in Illinois, all of this fast running was done with ABS and with CTC around Lake Pontchartrain. However, back in those days, the 79mph speed limit was not always observed (when I rode the engine of #1 from Memphis to Batesville 49 years ago, the speedometer read 90 mph most of the way--and we made no lost time up).
BaltACD schlimm Personally, i think a top speed in the range of 155-175 mph is plenty fast. It seems to work ok in Germany. With sustained speeds of 155-175 you have a winner in HSR. If those are just 'top speeds' on short segements of track all you really end up with is a railroad freak show.
schlimm Personally, i think a top speed in the range of 155-175 mph is plenty fast. It seems to work ok in Germany.
Personally, i think a top speed in the range of 155-175 mph is plenty fast. It seems to work ok in Germany.
With sustained speeds of 155-175 you have a winner in HSR. If those are just 'top speeds' on short segements of track all you really end up with is a railroad freak show.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.