At the risk of starting a bruhaha.
I admit I scowered the current issue looking for an article on electrification on the UNION PACIFIC.. Within the covers was a lot of information, and enjoyable reading! But it was a ccompanied by an underlying sense of having missed something.... And one big question remains.
I know Playboy airbrushes its honeys to increase their attraction ( Playmateability?) But I think that it is beyond the pasle for TRAINS to photoshop its cover. I watched the current cover presented on the website, waiting patiently for the snailmail arrival of the issue in the mailbox.
I guess I had envisioned a big article on a big U.P.electrification project (over Sherman Summit?)
NOPE! WELL, JUST DARN IT!
The problem though is that I cant see a Acela in a UP scheme zipping by with a 70 car coal drag at 110 all by its lonesome. Do you?
I preferred the photo in the ad for this issue in last month's Trains - it showed a telephoto close-up of an actual Norfolk Southern wide-cab with the 'catfish' stripes under Amtrak catenary someplace, with a freight behind it. No pantograph was visible, but it was implied - you could believe that it was hidden by the low just-above-the-rails angle of the photo and somewheres behind the height of the cab, etc.
What makes this cover photo more ironic is that both in the article Union Pacific is not even mentioned as being currently interested in electrification - and elsewhere has recently essentially said 'Not now'. In contrast, as noted in the article and elsewhere, NS is at least willing to consider it, and presently has some very limited diesel operations under Amtrak's and other catenary. As such, that was a lot more plausible, and likely in the near future.
I also agree with the technical inappropriateness of the locomotive depicted for the territory and service in the above post.
I'll let others handle the debate about whether un-labeled fiction belongs on the cover of a national factual/ historical magazine (you should have seen the debate in Model Railroader in the 1970s about a Penn Central steam locomotive in a Walthers ad !). Sure, we all know it's a fake - but what about casual non-railfan passers-by of a newstand or readers in a doctor's office or a library ? And 20 or 30 years from now - will someone pick up that issue and think that was reality back then = now ? Only the word "Imagine" in the caption on the inside page provides a clue that the photo might not be of an actual unit - that's a little thin for 'full disclosure' and accuracy, in my judgment. It might be OK - if properly labeled - back in the bulk of the article, along with the other 'artist's conceptions' there. Or is Trains going to become "The Magazine of Imaginary Railroading" ?
- Paul North.
10:00 AM EDIT: P.S. - Or at least have the decency to plainly label it as an 'Artist's conception', just like those other paragons of journalism do with their stories and depictions of 'alien babies' living among us and similar ilk - you know what I mean, the National Enquirer, The Star, Weekly World News, and other super-market 'check-out line' tabloids, etc. Sheesh.
At last, we have discovered how rumors get started
Great. Another useless magazine about electric choo-choo's. I guess it's better than steam. Not really. I'm going to guess it's going to be a "one-sitter" magazine again. The last 2 issues. the only good thing about it is that I didn't waste that much time on them.
I've been a subscriber for almost 2 years now and when my subscription runs out in Feb, I will not renew. They can give me 3 years for 1 1/2 year price and I won't. If I wanted to read articles about steam, I would buy steam preservation or something like that. If I wanted to hear about electric, trollys, narrow guage, and other crap that makes up than less than 2% of railroading, i'll go and buy that magazine.
I've got to admit, there was some good articles that TRAINS put out like the Harrison Hunter article and the article about grain. Those are the only 2 (might be one more) articles that I enjoyed reading. Two (maybe 3) out of 20 magazines is a failing grade in my book. I'm done "wasting" my "me"time.
Sorry about the rant. If I even read the article and it's good, I'll write an apology for this rant
http://www.youtube.com/user/pavabo
http://www.flickr.com/photos/paulvbox
Soo 6604 [snip] I'm going to guess it's going to be a "one-sitter" magazine again.
Soo 6604 [snip] If I even read the article and it's good, I'll write an apology for this rant.
Good luck with that. As I recall - from pretty late last night, there wasn't much new in it, other than NS's recent willingness to consider electrification in conjunction with High Speed Rail corridors. As I was reading through it and getting near the end, I was thinking, ''This is a pretty good review of the past, what all the other countries in the world are doing, and the usual issues such as high 1st cost and motive power utilization - but when and where is there something in here that's going to turn the tide in the U.S. ?'' It's not there - just the big money 'wish-list' dreams of the usual think-tank planners and advocates, and a lot of background growth projections from AAR and EPA, concerns about congestion and pollution, etc. The 'time-line' graphic was novel and informative, but that was about it. I'd rather read more about the new streetcar builder in Portland in that issue, and the NS battery-electric 999 elsewhere - they're happening now, and are leading the way.
The Bill Withuhn profile was pretty good - as was the article on short-haul intermodal, and Fred Frailey's rating of the railroads in this recession. But for those last 2, a couple of the threads here within the last month would cover most of it just as well. Nevertheless, I'm renewing my subscription this weekend, but only for 1 year at a time - as usual, mainly to keep the editor on a short leash, so to speak.
Calm down and look close.
The cover is NOT the "Acela" bullet train but the 8,000hp "HHP8" used by Amtrak for the long trains of the Northeast Regional Service. This would be a great starting point, depending on gearing, for electric Freight Service.
To show a "HHP8" in Union Pacific colors on the cover and in Norfolk Southern colors on page 24 could very well be a prediction that might come true.
Here in the northeast, overhead wires or 3rd rail electric powered passenger service is common. Boston to Washington, 18 Amtrak trains each way each day, Commuter Rail in New York, Philadelphia, and Baltimore use MU Coaches or locomotive hauled trains.
One Quote from the July 1970 issue of "Trains" might tell it all, page 41 ---"Present conditions and managment attitudes at both railroad and utility headquarters, except on SP and UP, seem unlikly to favor electrification. This could change if, for example, the price of Diesel Fuel were to rise drastically from its long-standing 10 cents per gallon."
Don U. TCA 73-5735
beaulieu ...I wonder where the Urea tanks will be mounted, inside the long hood, or causing a reduction in fuel capacity
Track pans redux?
DMUinCT [snip] The cover is NOT the "Acela" bullet train but the 8,000hp "HHP8" used by Amtrak for the long trains of the Northeast Regional Service. This would be a great starting point, depending on gearing, for electric Freight Service. To show a "HHP8" in Union Pacific colors on the cover . . . could very well be a prediction that might come true.
To show a "HHP8" in Union Pacific colors on the cover . . . could very well be a prediction that might come true.
Nahh - why not use as the starting point for that illustration a unit from either the BM&LP, DW, [other coal-only electrified western railroad mentioned in the article whose names escapes me right now], ME, VGN, N&W, E-44, or even a GG1 ? It would be more honest - they all have or presently do haul coal trains. That cover is so Bohhh-gussS.
DMUinCT [snip] One Quote from the July 1970 issue of "Trains" might tell it all, page 41 ---"Present conditions and managment attitudes at both railroad and utility headquarters, except on SP and UP, seem unlikly to favor electrification. This could change if, for example, the price of Diesel Fuel were to rise drastically from its long-standing 10 cents per gallon."
Thank you for digging out that quote - I remember it well. It illustrates and confirms precisely my point here: Other than 1 of the road names and the diesel price, what else has changed in the situation, or in this article ? Not much, it seems.
Urea ? Excuse my ignorance here, please, but what is that for - to add to the fuel or exhaust to mitigate/ reduce some of the air pollution effects ? First I've heard of or read about that.
Paul_D_North_JrUrea ? Excuse my ignorance here, please, but what is that for - to add to the fuel or exhaust to mitigate/ reduce some of the air pollution effects ? First I've heard of or read about that.
Added to the exhaust stream in conjunction with a Catalytic Converter to remove NOx from the exhaust. It will be the most common method of exhaust emission control on over the road trucks starting 1/1/2010.
I still haven't received my November issue, but the cover does tell a story: "You have seen the future and it is NOW!". Huge coal-fired powerplants will be built in the PRB. BNSF, UP, MRL, and (maybe) CPR will electrify their lines. Coal hoppers will be insulated and they will carry electrons to the east and west and south. Electrons are rather light, so 300-car trains will be the norm, with one Dash 9-44CW, or even an E44-C4, until they get the new 'juice jacks'. SD70-MACs will be retired (good riddance) and the NIMBYs and BANANAs will celebrate with "Free Weed Block Parties"! Rejoice!!!
beaulieuAdded to the exhaust stream in conjunction with a Catalytic Converter to remove NOx from the exhaust. It will be the most common method of exhaust emission control on over the road trucks starting 1/1/2010.
As to the UP's toying with the idea of electrification, some thirty years ago I had occasion to drive to Farmington and back once a week, and we rode parallel to the UP tracks for several miles and could see the catenary that had been strung over the track. I never did hear of any result from their test.
Johnny
In the SCR at the proper temperature yields Nitrogen Gas + Carbon Dioxide + Water Vapor. The Urea feed is an Aqueous Solution of 32.8% Urea. The feed product is called DEF
If "Trains" wanted to show the future, then they used the photo of the right locomotive Photoshopped to show railroads that might have the money to lead the way.
The HHP8 is the NEW, 21st Century, electric locomotive power. Built by a consortium of Bombardier (Canada) and Alstom (France) they are rated at 8,000 hp @ 125 miles per hour. The first came on-line in 2001 and are used by Amtrak and MARC.
It should be noted that the first "Clean Coal" electric power plant is now comming on line in West Virginia, also built by Alstom.
I prefer my on-demand power source on the train close to the electric traction motors. Others can have the wastefull catenary and related inefficient spaghetti.
mudchicken I prefer my on-demand power source on the train close to the electric traction motors. Others can have the wastefull catenary and related inefficient spaghetti.
Your choice, if you don't mind half the HP, having to carry around the weight of 3,000 gallons of Diesel Fuel, and having to get rid of the regenerative power as heat in stead of pumping it back into the power lines (Catenary).
Well, if you are happy with our GNP being exported to our great friends in France and Quebec (same diff') have at it! I would rather see the locos built in Erie, PA.
Paul_D_North_Jr Urea ? Excuse my ignorance here, please, but what is that for - to add to the fuel or exhaust to mitigate/ reduce some of the air pollution effects ? First I've heard of or read about that.
What Paul said! Had not heard about this new wrinkle(UREA) to cut down NOx emissions. So I Googled it.
Here's one link on Patents, and additional links there to various devices and suppliers of Urea handling equipment: http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2007/0193253.html
As well as a link with a patent application and abstract with a lot of info on an exhaust emission control device: http://www.faqs.org/patents/app/20090126349
I know this is getting away from my original subject ( The UP electric locomotive on the cover of Nov.TRAINS.)
So someone who is interested in this topic, and its obvious ramifications might start another thread on that subject.
BNSFwatcherWell, if you are happy with our GNP being exported to our great friends in France and Quebec (same diff') have at it! I would rather see the locos built in Erie, PA.
Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Venezuela is better?
beaulieuWell now that Tier 4 emissions are law and will be effective in a few years discussion has turned to the putative Tier 5, my guess is that this Tier will require particle filters. The current regulations for over the road trucks was enough to knock Cat out of the supply business for truck engines, we shall see what happens with locomotives.
Dan
My train videos - http://www.youtube.com/user/karldotcom
beaulieuSaudi Arabia, Iraq, and Venezuela is better?
No. Better would offshore California, ANWR, deepwater Gulf of Mexico, and offshore eastern continental shelf. To be buying foreign oil is insane when we have so much available domestically. Even Canadian tar sands would be better. It's foreign, but still North American and decidedly friendly.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.