Paul, as you mention the four track mains (which extended to Buffalo and Pittsburgh), don't forget Zoo interlocking. There, the PRR, at no little expense,arranged all the connecting tracks so that no train crossed, at grade, a track for traffic in the opposite direction.
Several years ago, Trains had several installments of re-captioned stills from movies. One showed an Indian scout, in his army uniform, explaining to a puzzled engine crew, who wondered why they were not where they wanted to be: "They must have lined you up wrong at Zoo." There's a nice little article about Zoo in the March, 1999, issue; it shows all the tracks.
Johnny
Paul_D_North_JrRWM - Thanks for that clarification and comments. I can see where I was a little off-base with the people - what you're describing for the RFE is more what I had in my mind. I was wondering, too, about taking the $100 million for that hypothetical siding and instead buying say, 50 locos (at $2 million ea.) = whole lotta more HP to add onto those slow trains to do exactly as you say is the recent trend. Not quite the same as the siding dollar-for-dollar, but another alternative to look at. But I didn't want to write the equivalent of another section of a book this afternoon . . . Even before I read your response above I was thinking the following: Now we know why the PRR and the NYC essentally said "The heck with this fooling around with half-measures - we'll just build 4-track mains" (with a very few too-tight 2-track exceptions, and in some places, even 6 tracks) - to handle all their traffic between NYC and Chicago (and Washington, D.C., too for the PRR). Which was basically a fast (through) and a slow (local) track in each direction. And then they installed interlockings - with like 6 crossovers to get all the way across those 4 tracks and back again, complete with block towers that were manned 24 x 7 x 365 - like every 6 to 10 miles to facilitate the kind of maneuvers that we're discussing here. Can you imagine what that cost to do then ? Better yet, can you imagine what it would cost to replicate all that today ? Now we can better appreciate the value of all that track, structure, and signal infrastructure and route-miles and track-miles that's already out there now. It staggers the imagination (at least mine tonight, anyway). - Paul North.
RWM -
Thanks for that clarification and comments. I can see where I was a little off-base with the people - what you're describing for the RFE is more what I had in my mind.
I was wondering, too, about taking the $100 million for that hypothetical siding and instead buying say, 50 locos (at $2 million ea.) = whole lotta more HP to add onto those slow trains to do exactly as you say is the recent trend. Not quite the same as the siding dollar-for-dollar, but another alternative to look at. But I didn't want to write the equivalent of another section of a book this afternoon . . .
Even before I read your response above I was thinking the following: Now we know why the PRR and the NYC essentally said "The heck with this fooling around with half-measures - we'll just build 4-track mains" (with a very few too-tight 2-track exceptions, and in some places, even 6 tracks) - to handle all their traffic between NYC and Chicago (and Washington, D.C., too for the PRR). Which was basically a fast (through) and a slow (local) track in each direction. And then they installed interlockings - with like 6 crossovers to get all the way across those 4 tracks and back again, complete with block towers that were manned 24 x 7 x 365 - like every 6 to 10 miles to facilitate the kind of maneuvers that we're discussing here. Can you imagine what that cost to do then ?
Better yet, can you imagine what it would cost to replicate all that today ? Now we can better appreciate the value of all that track, structure, and signal infrastructure and route-miles and track-miles that's already out there now. It staggers the imagination (at least mine tonight, anyway).
- Paul North.
Locomotives are fungible, sidings are sunk costs. There's a very tough ROI threshold to build a siding. Figure $250 foot plus not less than $1 million for the two control points, plus design, permitting, right-of-way, utility relocation, etc. -- oh, about $5 million for a 10,000-foot siding in good country. With no bridges. In tough country, maybe $8-10 million. In an urban area with right-of-way acquisition? Ka-ching. It's a lot less risky to purchase locomotives because its very difficult to project future traffic growth with a high degree of precision. There have been some very embarrassing projects built during my career that were deemed absolutely essential at the time but shortly afterward the traffic pattern changed and there's a lot of track and earthwork suddenly doing nothing.
RWM
Railway Man It's a lot less risky to purchase locomotives because its very difficult to project future traffic growth with a high degree of precision. There have been some very embarrassing projects built during my career that were deemed absolutely essential at the time but shortly afterward the traffic pattern changed and there's a lot of track and earthwork suddenly doing nothing. RWM
It's a lot less risky to purchase locomotives because its very difficult to project future traffic growth with a high degree of precision. There have been some very embarrassing projects built during my career that were deemed absolutely essential at the time but shortly afterward the traffic pattern changed and there's a lot of track and earthwork suddenly doing nothing.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
Murphy SidingRailway Man It's a lot less risky to purchase locomotives because its very difficult to project future traffic growth with a high degree of precision. There have been some very embarrassing projects built during my career that were deemed absolutely essential at the time but shortly afterward the traffic pattern changed and there's a lot of track and earthwork suddenly doing nothing. RWM Care to give some for examples?
Check with me in another 20 years.
Back in (I think) the 1980s, before tonnage from the Powder River Basin really began to skyrocket, Union Pacific served some coal mines in the Medicine Bow, Wyoming (think Hanna, Dana, Black Butte) region, and the lads and lassies in Omaha were convinced that this (and not the Poweder River) origin would supply an enormous river of eastbound coal. So in came the bulldozers, and grading for a third main was well along when it suddenly became apparent that less coal traffic than expected would materialize, but that traffic ex-Powder River Basin was booming.
To indulge in a bit of amateur psychoanalysis of UP's front office, I speculate that this mis-forecasting of business, coupled with the sails-trimming approach to operations by then-COO Mike Walsh rendered UP gun-shy over adding capacity, so much so that by the time it absorbed the Chicago and NorthWestern, the company (UP) had fallen into the unenviable position of having fallen behind in capacity in its all-important Red X, plus having to double track large stretches of the former CNW give it a two-track main line to Chicago. While its principal rival (BNSF) sought to keep just ahead of the curve, UP suddenly found itself struggling to catch up , with its competitive position commensurately hampered.
If this (admitted) Monday morning analysis is all wet, I'm sure someone knowledgeable will swiftly correct it. But it gives people something to chew over....
Deggesty Paul, as you mention the four track mains (which extended to Buffalo and Pittsburgh), don't forget Zoo interlocking. There, the PRR, at no little expense,arranged all the connecting tracks so that no train crossed, at grade, a track for traffic in the opposite direction. Several years ago, Trains had several installments of re-captioned stills from movies. One showed an Indian scout, in his army uniform, explaining to a puzzled engine crew, who wondered why they were not where they wanted to be: "They must have lined you up wrong at Zoo." There's a nice little article about Zoo in the March, 1999, issue; it shows all the tracks. Johnny
Johnny -
Thanks, I know ZOO well. At the moment the diagram from that 1999 issue is the "background" for my computer screen (forget where I got that from, though):
Zoo Tower in twilight Trains, March 1999 page 60 Operations at Zoo Tower in Philadelphia ( AMTK, NJT, OPERATION, "PALMER, DAVID", PHILADELPHIA, PRR, SEPTA, TOWER, TRN )
There was another article on ZOO from back in like 1952 I think, which I have:
Zoo Junction Trains, March 1952 page 24 Notable feats of railroad engineering ( "GLOFF, GEORGE A.", JUNCTION, PHILADELPHIA, PRR, TRN )
Supposedly as ZOO was originally laid out, it was too tough to automate like many other NE Corridor interlockings. But now that it's been simplified somewhat by abandonment and out-of-service tracks, and computers have gotten more powerful and the state of the art has advanced, that may be within reach. It would take someone more familiar with that than me, though - like RWM - to tell us more about the feasibility of such a change.
Plus, back in the 1990's I would go hang out there at ZOO on Sunday afternoons in March for a couple of hours while my wife and daughter were at the Philadelphia Flower Show at the old Convention Center, west of 30th Street Station. Now that the Flower Show has moved to the Pennsylvania Convention Center (= former Reading Railroad Terminal 's trainshed, extensively rehabbed), there are other attractions that are easier to get to from there. But we're supposed to go again this year (1st weekend in March), so we'll see . . .
I also have a black-line print of ZOO's track diagram that I purchased at a railroadiana show a few years ago. Now that I have a new house and lots of bare basement walls that are all mine to hang it and my GG1 prints on . . . soon.
Railway Man Locomotives are fungible, sidings are sunk costs. . . . [snip] . . . It's a lot less risky to purchase locomotives because its very difficult to project future traffic growth with a high degree of precision. [snip] RWM
This is getting kind of like a tennis match - we're taking turns at this subject. I was thinking much the same thing while driving home last night (nothing as interesting on the radio . . . ).
The locos are obviously mobile and can be moved around as needed - this division for the grain rush, that division for the coal season, the other end of the system for the fall intermodal traffic crunch, etc. - but the siding is fixed in place and can't ever be moved to where its needed most. Plus, the locos can be added to various trains in various numbers to suit the needs - the siding is only a 1-purpose tool. Finally, the locos can be financed with the very advantageous rates associated with railroad rolling stock (because they are movable and hence easily repossessed if needed and sold to another RR - but that's another topic entirely), whereas the siding would have to be financed out of general corporate funds or bonds (mortgages), like any other real estate, which is usually a little more expensive "dollar-for-dollar" for that reason.
And for those who don't know: While locomotives may be fungible (= alike and indistinguishable among themselves - such as bushels of grain is the common example), in this context I'd instead use the concepts of the locos being much more flexible than, or being substituted for, the siding.
Railway Man In practical terms, the amount of "wrong-hand main" that will be used up for a runaround in reasonably flat CTC territory where both trains keep moving at their best possible speed is ~ 40 miles. This is presupposing there are no opposing moves wanting to use that other main track during this event. It still takes a very good dispatcher to get away with it, and a smart ACD or Chief will only let a good dispatcher attempt it. [snip] This enables accuracy for a specific terrain with specific grades, speed restrictions, wayside signal locations, wayside signal aspects, etc. Then I look at it and see if it makes any sense. Sometimes the model does some dumb things, or the modeler has toggles turned on that make the model a little more aggressive than would happen in real life. RWM
This enables accuracy for a specific terrain with specific grades, speed restrictions, wayside signal locations, wayside signal aspects, etc. Then I look at it and see if it makes any sense. Sometimes the model does some dumb things, or the modeler has toggles turned on that make the model a little more aggressive than would happen in real life.
Regarding the passing maneuver, the comments above brought back to mind a little story that I believe appeared in one of the 3 articles on the D&H Consolidations that are referenced below, which is as follows as best as I can remember it:
During one of the road tests of the D&H's one-of-a-kind, L. F. Loree-inspired, demonstration super-high pressure compound 2-8-0's, the DS held the test train at an interlocking so that a regular coal train with the usual tonnage of cars and associated complement of locos could proceed ahead of it. That so annoyed the test loco's engineer - a real veteran, they used the same guy for all of the test runs so as to remove as much of that variable* from the data as possible - that he asked if they could cancel the routine of the planned test, and instead see how fast they could get to the next interlocking. Since the test engineers had data from like 50 test runs at that point, they were willing to deviate from the planned test and gave their consent. The test crew had a saying that "Steam can be used either expansively or extensively" - before this, they had been using it expansively, but on this trip they were using it extensively ! The two tracks were separated mains on either side of the valley, and the test train crew could see that they were rapidly overtaking and passing the regular coal train over on the other side. The test train did in fact beat the regular coal to the next interlocking, and so then had to wait for the coal train again for like 5 minutes before it appeared, and then moved through and cleared the interlocking. The closing line: "After that, the dispatcher had a lot more respect for us, and didn't hold us for anything."
(* - Its been said that what the engineer ate for breakfast will influence the results of the test runs - I can believe that.)
[Back to my (paper)work now.]
PDN; RWM: Thanks for the posts. My example was for starting the discussion and notice I said that no consideration was given for front to back spacing. I suspect that it would take twice as long to get spacing so the slower train did not get a restrictive signal when passed by the faster train.
To add MSR (110 mph) to any of the western transcons would definitely require another track the whole distance of the run. Plus an additional passing siding for opposing MSRs to pass. Passenger traffic would never be high enough except maybe in some Texas locations
MY point is that a certain level of passenger traffic has to be present to justify MSR or HSR. The NE corridor now has that level of traffic and with ROW improvements traffic will increase.----But it still comes down to the fact that there is not enough trackage south of Philidelphia to handle the additional different speed traffic or the traffic increase resulting from MSR/HSR south of Washington. Basically it would have: an occasional freight, SEPTA and MARC commuter traffic, AMTRAK regional service , and ACELA SERVICE. This is four different top speed trains. The two or three tracks south of Philidelphia just isn't enough.
South of Washington the question that needs to be answered is: "If we have MSR or HSR will we have enough passengers to justify the service???." For the Washington - Raleigh segment dicussed here the traffic potential has not been there until about 3 - 5 years ago. The Carolinian now has business class indicating that class is coming up and many times is sold out. I-85,I-95 congestion and the desire of many business men and others to not fly "Barbie Jets" to Ric, DCA, or Phl unless absolutely necessary prevails. 3-1/2 hrs Raleigh - Wash would certainly attract more daytime passengers. The 175 mile Raleigh - CLT presently 3:10 reducible to 1:50 may be more problematic. But again this route is going to need the extra trackage to be operationallly feasibile.
blue streak 1 PDN; RWM: Thanks for the posts. My example was for starting the discussion and notice I said that no consideration was given for front to back spacing. I suspect that it would take twice as long to get spacing so the slower train did not get a restrictive signal when passed by the faster train. [snip]
blue streak 1: Yes, I saw that, and figured as much. You clearly had enough to do with the details of the example you were setting down. You gave me a good set-up with the analogy of the two 2-mile long tractor-trailers passing each other at 60 MPH and 55 MPH. I just wanted to take that aspect of it and work with it a little farther and see where it took us.
You can see where we're at now - pretty much any way it's cut, entire additional tracks will be needed. Without that, it seems that train slots are kind of like landing slots at the airport - you can't make many more of them without building a whole new airport, and you can't make them too much closer in time because of safety, but you can make the planes bigger, more fuel-efficient, and do other things to tweak those other aspects of the operation, etc.
Thanks for participating, and making this one as much fun as it's been !
blue streak 1What does this lead to? I would love to be able to operate my RR section with all trains at one speed. Boy can I handle a lot of trains but that is not realistic so my capacity is limited for all the above factors + maintenance windows and more restrictions not considered. If you add trains that are going twice as fast as present freight traffic you need two or three tracks to handle all the present traffic and keep them separated. Think what it is like when you are on a two lane interstate in your porsche traveling 125 and you come up and have to wait for a 2 mile long tractor trailer going 60MPH passing another 2 mile long tractor trailer going 55MP. OOPS - that slows you down for a minimum of 25 minutes not counting distance to get front to back separation. Now throw in a new Medium Speed Passenger Rail (MSR 80 - 125 MPH my definition)(HSR above 125 MPH). Now for assumptions. Any route that will get MSR will probably be designed for daytime hourly or every other hour service. Since most of the route will probably use present ROWs except where curve straightening is required then the route is going to need a new track built to Class 7,6,or 5 standards. Where possible this track shoud be 25 ft away from the existing track to prevent slow downs due to maintenance on either track. Although I would expect the track structure to be built to 300,000# + load limits there would probably not be too much freight traffic on the new passenger tracks. (ton mile charges for freight use of the MSR rail line might be an incentative). Blue streak 1
What does this lead to? I would love to be able to operate my RR section with all trains at one speed. Boy can I handle a lot of trains but that is not realistic so my capacity is limited for all the above factors + maintenance windows and more restrictions not considered. If you add trains that are going twice as fast as present freight traffic you need two or three tracks to handle all the present traffic and keep them separated. Think what it is like when you are on a two lane interstate in your porsche traveling 125 and you come up and have to wait for a 2 mile long tractor trailer going 60MPH passing another 2 mile long tractor trailer going 55MP. OOPS - that slows you down for a minimum of 25 minutes not counting distance to get front to back separation.
Now throw in a new Medium Speed Passenger Rail (MSR 80 - 125 MPH my definition)(HSR above 125 MPH). Now for assumptions. Any route that will get MSR will probably be designed for daytime hourly or every other hour service. Since most of the route will probably use present ROWs except where curve straightening is required then the route is going to need a new track built to Class 7,6,or 5 standards. Where possible this track shoud be 25 ft away from the existing track to prevent slow downs due to maintenance on either track. Although I would expect the track structure to be built to 300,000# + load limits there would probably not be too much freight traffic on the new passenger tracks. (ton mile charges for freight use of the MSR rail line might be an incentative).
Blue streak 1
Elevating speeds beyond 79 mph encounters severe problems with train control if it's to be done on an existing track also used for freight. Beyond the requirement for an ATC system (and now a PTC system instead), it typically requires a complete resignalization, which in turn often means the crossovers are no longer in practical, efficient, or signalizable locations, and have to be moved. This gets extremely expensive because by this point you have paid for 50% to 100% new rail, ties, turnouts, train-control, wayside signaling, grade-crossing signaling, communications systems, and while you're at it, you might as well replace all the drainage structures too.
On a line handling any appreciable amount of freight intermixed with passenger, on which speeds greater than 79 mph are desired, it is usually less costly to simply build an entirely new and separate passenger rail infrastructure to one side, and never, ever, ever, let the two mix. You cannot run the passenger trains faster than 79 mph on the freight tracks, and you cannot run the freight trains on the passenger tracks unless you equip those tracks with heavier rail, the expensive turnout frogs, and are willing to shoulder the costs of more frequent surfacing, rail profiling, and frog welding. Also, you'd like to have a different rail profile on the passenger track than the freight track, different superelevation and unbalance, different grade-crossing approach circuit lengths, different ties and resilient fasteners, different signal spacing and aspects, and so forth. You cannot optimize infrastruture to be ideal for both fast light passenger and slow heavy freight, at the same time.
And -- lest I forget -- let's not forget the fatal problem of platform height, platform gap, and ADA compliance. You can have a platform that clears freight, or you can have a platform that meets ADA, but you cannot have both on the same track. So at every station, expect to build station tracks so the freight trains do not whack the platforms. And since people usually want stations to be in densely built-up urban areas, and if anywhere a right-of-way is short on unused empty space, it's in a densely built-up urban area, expect a horribly expensive right-of-way acquisition including things like utility relocations, grade separations, quiet zones, sound walls, reconstruction of a lot of city streets and intersections, etc. This is assuming someone will even sell you the land without a 20-year political and court battle.
Paul_D_North_JrRegarding the passing maneuver, the comments above brought back to mind a little story that I believe appeared in one of the 3 articles on the D&H Consolidations that are referenced below, which is as follows as best as I can remember it:
That was from the article in the June 1967 issue, my recollection was that he was held up three times by the same train. Quite an interesting and informative article, got me interested in learning more about thermodynamics (I was 12 when I first read the article). Didn't really understand why heating area in the firebox was more effective than the firetubes/flues until reading the Babcock & Wilcox book on Steam. It wasn't until a couple of years ago that I saw what the boiler on 1400 really looked like (on Doug Self's website, Loco Locos).
What is truly scary to realize that the article was published 37 years or less after the test run you mentioned, and it has been almost 42 years since that issue of Trains came out.
erikem [snip] What is truly scary to realize that the article was published 37 years or less after the test run you mentioned, and it has been almost 42 years since that issue of Trains came out.
"Please do not say such things !" [from "The Wind and the Lion" movie, 1977 or so] Anyway, if you read that article when it was new, that would make us about the same age . . .
Wasn't the test run in the 1920s, so it was about 47 years later ?
The configuration of that line and the quest for more efficient operations also go to the point of this thread, how they interact and affect profitablility, etc.
Your story illustrates why this is such a fascinating and informative hobby !
Paul,
I did read the article when new - the June 1967 issue was my first issue of Trains (though did pick up many back issues in subsequent years, the April and May 1967 issues were amongst the first).
The test of the 1402 would not have occurred before 1930 as it wasn't finished before then (the 1400 came out in 1924, the 1401 in 1927, 1402 in 1930 and the 1403 in 1933, with the 1403 being the only locomotive built in 1933). You're right in that the D&H had spent quite a bit of money upgrading their line to allow for larger train sizes, seem to recall that the grade was 0.8% compensated by the time the 1402 came around (the 1968 ABC's of Model Railroading article on grades was instructive as to what compensation meant as far as grades).
I also remember picking a bit of civil engineering fundementals from reading AC Kalmbach's Track & Layout, learning what a cut and fill were. Don't think my knowledge of RR civil engineering is anywhere near our dirty feathered friend, but probably knew more about how RR's were built as a pre-teen than maybe 90% of adults.
- Erik
This has been a great thread and I really appreciate the discussion.
Thanks.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.