BucyrusRegarding the standard gauging having an effect on the tourist riders, I guess it depends on why they are riding the train. Perhaps most of them are only interested in the scenery and don’t care what the railroad looks like. As a tourist, I would not care about the operating efficiency of the railroad, but would rather see a railroad that seemed to be dramatically challenged by the terrain.
I agree with your points here, at least in the most extreme cases of the alignment. Most of the line could be upgraded to standard-gauge without a lot of realignment and noticeable reconstruction, but the steepest sections of the canyon would have to be blasted away and realigned - something that tourists WOULD notice. It would stop looking like the Durango & Silverton and instead look like Feather River Canyon...scenic as ever but without the narrow track and tight curves that make narrow-gauge so popular to railfans and tourists alike.
TrainManTyMost of the line could be upgraded to standard-gauge without a lot of realignment and noticeable reconstruction, but the steepest sections of the canyon would have to be blasted away and realigned
Most of the line could be upgraded to standard-gauge without a lot of realignment and noticeable reconstruction, but the steepest sections of the canyon would have to be blasted away and realigned
RWM
RWM,
In your judgment, other than new track and ballast, what do you think would be required to convert of the line to a modern, heavy-haul standard gauge railroad?
It depends on how you define "modern, heavy-haul". If you want to have not more than 0.4 percent grades against the loads and 2 degree curves, which is more-or-less a sort of defacto heavy-haul standard, most of the rail system in North America is grossly unacceptable including all the routes leading out of the Powder River Basin! Should you want to have such a thing leading into the interior of the Yukon from any potential port, you would want to ring up the tunnel boring machine people, point them inland at the foot of the dock, and spend $15,000 per foot until the TBM emerged 40 or so miles on the other side of the Alaska Range.
But, if you want to provide a best-fit between cost of operation and maintenance, and cost of construction, which is what the engineering profession is trained to deliver, then heavy grades and curves are not inherently impractical. In the case of the WP&Y, you do not even need all new rail (much of it is new 115 lb. stick) and only some new ties (most of the relay ties are standard-gauge), or even all new ballast (most of it is good crushed stone) only some bridge strengthening, embankment armoring, and regauging. At least as far as Carcross, that is. Beyond that you would sled the embankment and start fresh because it is so far gone.
Railway Man It depends on how you define "modern, heavy-haul". If you want to have not more than 0.4 percent grades against the loads and 2 degree curves, which is more-or-less a sort of defacto heavy-haul standard, most of the rail system in North America is grossly unacceptable including all the routes leading out of the Powder River Basin! Should you want to have such a thing leading into the interior of the Yukon from any potential port, you would want to ring up the tunnel boring machine people, point them inland at the foot of the dock, and spend $15,000 per foot until the TBM emerged 40 or so miles on the other side of the Alaska Range. But, if you want to provide a best-fit between cost of operation and maintenance, and cost of construction, which is what the engineering profession is trained to deliver, then heavy grades and curves are not inherently impractical. In the case of the WP&Y, you do not even need all new rail (much of it is new 115 lb. stick) and only some new ties (most of the relay ties are standard-gauge), or even all new ballast (most of it is good crushed stone) only some bridge strengthening, embankment armoring, and regauging. At least as far as Carcross, that is. Beyond that you would sled the embankment and start fresh because it is so far gone. RWM
I only referred to the phrase, "heavy-haul standard gauge railroad" since it is referenced on page 59 of the report linked by carnej1 above. It refers to “rebuilding the entire route to modern, heavy-haul, standard gage specifications.” It does not go into detail about the rebuild work.
It also says this: “While the narrow gage is a much less efficient operation than standard gage, the capital cost of upgrading the route to heavy haul standards offset most of the operating efficiencies gained through the use of standard gage technology.” So it concludes that total life-cycle costs would be about the same for converting to standard gauge, as they would be for retaining narrow gauge.
From what you say, it sounds like the line could be standard gauged to a lower standard than what the report contemplates. If so, and if the report is correct, it would tip the balance in favor of standard gauging rather than retaining narrow gauge.
You mentioned that tie replacements on the WP&Y have been standard gauge. Does that indicate that the company has been contemplating changing to standard gauge aside from this new development plan? Or is that being done just in anticipation of new mining development and new freight traffic, the same as contemplated by the plan? Would the existing tunnels clear standard gauge trains?
I would be careful about the specific report you're reading.
Two reasons for using standard-gauge ties: they are cheaper than narrow-gauge ties, and they enable eventual standard gauging.
The tunnels have sufficient clearance, with some slight rearrangement of track geometry and some crown-cutting, for at least a Plate B car. Not a Plate H car, though. But would anyone need them to clear a Plate H car?
I cannot comment on the strategy of the current management.
(p.s. -- I'm quite thrilled you're both taking an interest in this property and its prospects, and taking it seriously -- very few people have done either. It's an interesting prospect, but since it's not obvious most people have dismissed it before they even looked at, potentially stepping over a dollar to pick up a dime as it were.)
Bucyrus carnej1 Bucyrus What type of mining operation would be used for this coal and ore, and what type of ore would be mined? The document I posted the link to in an earlier post has lots of info about the current and proposed mining operations... Thanks for posting that link. I am in the process of reading through it. I noticed that the WP&Y says they are receptive to resuming freight operations, but they do not want to let it interfere with the tourist train operation. In that regard, they refer to allowing a time window for freight operations. This focus on the actual interference between passenger and freight trains would be one thing to consider. However, an integral part of the railroad asset that is being sold to the tourist market is the charm of the narrow gauge railroad with its tunnels, trestles, sharp curves, narrow cuts and fills, etc. If they were to renovate the line into a modern, standard gauge, heavy haul ore railroad, it seems like the charm would be lost. I understand the advantage of using standard gauge locomotives, rolling stock, and MOW equipment. Aside from that issue, I can see there being a large cost in upgrading the narrow gauge line to handle heavy ore traffic. But standard gauging the line would impose the additional cost of a whole new roadbed structure, which would eliminate tunnels, bridges, sharp curves, steep grades, etc. in the course of attaining modern standard gauge specifications. If this were done, would sufficient mining come on line quick enough to justify the investment? I have not read this part of the document, but how does it reconcile the replacement of the current WP&Y with a modern standard gauge freight railroad; against the effect it would have on the tourism passenger market?
carnej1 Bucyrus What type of mining operation would be used for this coal and ore, and what type of ore would be mined? The document I posted the link to in an earlier post has lots of info about the current and proposed mining operations...
Bucyrus What type of mining operation would be used for this coal and ore, and what type of ore would be mined?
What type of mining operation would be used for this coal and ore, and what type of ore would be mined?
The document I posted the link to in an earlier post has lots of info about the current and proposed mining operations...
When I found and posted that document I was actually trying to locate an online document I had read a couple of years ago;it was a paper written by Professors at the University Alaska specifically about the methods and costs of rebuilding the White Pass & Yukon to standard gauge in the event that the proposed Alaska Canada rail link is built. The paper included an analysis of the cost of rebuilding the W,P&Y passenger car fleet to standard gauge by retrucking the coaches. There was no suggestion to rebuild the 3 foot gauge locomotives, instead new units would be acquired....
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
I believe this is the source you remember reading:
http://alaskacanadarail.com/report.html
Practically anybody that is anyone in Alaska-Yukon railroading and mineral resources has their fingerprints on this, but that doesn't necessarily mean it is a consensus report.
I am curious if anyone knows anything about the Drummond coal railroad in Columbia, SA. I have never been able to find anything online except references to a lot strife and warfare that seems to have the region embroiled. But I have seen somewhere a reference to the line being about as heavy duty and high capacity as 3-foot-gage can get. I have no idea what type of terrain they operate in, but I wonder if narrow gage was chosen to negotiate mountainous territory. I would like to learn about their physical plant such as train size, locomotive types, track construction, and the capacity of their rolling stock. And it would be interesting to compare this information with the corresponding details of the WP&Y.
The railroads in Alaska: are they all private or is the Alaska still state-owned?
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
There are only 2 railroads in Alaska - the Alaska Railroad (ARR) and White Pass & Yukon (WP&Y). Since its formation by the U.S. Government from the failed Alaska Northern and the Fairbanks-area narrow-gauge mining roads, the ARR has been government owned. Ownership was transferred to the State of Alaska in 1984 as a "crown corporation." The WP&Y has always been privately owned. At present it is owned by Tri-White Corporation, a publically traded corporation listed on the Toronto exchange.
There are some random bits of tramway and abandoned rail, track still in place, at various location such as Solomon River, Valdez, and Yakutat, but none of them are "railroads" from a railroader's point of view.
BucyrusI am curious if anyone knows anything about the Drummond coal railroad in Columbia, SA. I have never been able to find anything online except references to a lot strife and warfare that seems to have the region embroiled. But I have seen somewhere a reference to the line being about as heavy duty and high capacity as 3-foot-gage can get. I have no idea what type of terrain they operate in, but I wonder if narrow gage was chosen to negotiate mountainous territory. I would like to learn about their physical plant such as train size, locomotive types, track construction, and the capacity of their rolling stock. And it would be interesting to compare this information with the corresponding details of the WP&Y.
That would be FENOCO, or Ferrocarriles del Norte. I've done a little bit of work there. Here's their website http://www.fenoco.com.co/index1.php
The plan is to rebuild it to heavy-haul standards, but it's not there yet. The marquee heavy-haul narrow-gauge in the world is Saldanha Bay.
Thanks for that information RWM. I took a look at the FENOCO site. Why was it built to 3-foot-gage? Is it correct to assume that the capacity standards of the FENOCO would fall somewhere between those of the current WP&Y and an upgraded WP&Y to standard gage? If so, is there any consideration of the option to simply upgrade the 3-foot-gage standards of the WP&Y to the maximum possible capacity?
BucyrusThanks for that information RWM. I took a look at the FENOCO site. Why was it built to 3-foot-gage?
Is it correct to assume that the capacity standards of the FENOCO would fall somewhere between those of the current WP&Y and an upgraded WP&Y to standard gage?
If so, is there any consideration of the option to simply upgrade the 3-foot-gage standards of the WP&Y to the maximum possible capacity?
Bucyrus Thanks for that information RWM. I took a look at the FENOCO site. Why was it built to 3-foot-gage? Is it correct to assume that the capacity standards of the FENOCO would fall somewhere between those of the current WP&Y and an upgraded WP&Y to standard gage? If so, is there any consideration of the option to simply upgrade the 3-foot-gage standards of the WP&Y to the maximum possible capacity?
Bucyrus,
That document I posted the link to does discuss that option.........
Railway Man Since its formation by the U.S. Government from the failed Alaska Northern and the Fairbanks-area narrow-gauge mining roads, the ARR has been government owned. Ownership was transferred to the State of Alaska in 1984 as a "crown corporation."
Since its formation by the U.S. Government from the failed Alaska Northern and the Fairbanks-area narrow-gauge mining roads, the ARR has been government owned. Ownership was transferred to the State of Alaska in 1984 as a "crown corporation."
I think Canada has "crown corporations", not the USA since we're a republic??
Call them what you wish. If you prefer, you might use state-owned enterprise or government-owned corporation.
wjstix I think Canada has "crown corporations", not the USA since we're a republic??
Then there's Amtrak . . . more properly known as the National Railroad Passenger Corporation. I believe every discussion I've ever heard or read about its legal status essentially calls it or refers to it as analogous to a 'crown corporation' - likely because as you say, we don't have them here otherwise here in the US, at least not until recently. But I don't know how else you'd use a short-hand or summary reference to the legal status of the Postal Service, or more aptly, such quasi-governmental entities such as Fannie Mae, the Federal Reserve Bank, etc., without getting into the real nitty-gritty of their legal structural taxonomy, etc.
- Paul North.
Railway ManTrainManTyMost of the line could be upgraded to standard-gauge without a lot of realignment and noticeable reconstruction, but the steepest sections of the canyon would have to be blasted away and realigned How do you know that?
I don't have a degree in railroad engineering or know exactly what the degrees of those curves are, but from what I've seen, many of the sharpest curves couldn't handle anything bigger than a unit the length of a GP40 pulling, say, 50-foot long cars. Obviously ore cars are short enough to handle those curves, but I can't imagine an SD70, AC44, or GEVO could take those curves.
I would guess there's a reason the locomotives are relatively short, beyond weight and traffic requirements. The older 6-axle Alcos were build when the WP&Y still hauled freight, even triple-heading them to handle trains. They may be 6-axle units, but their wheelbase is more like an RSD than a Century unit...
I don't think it would take much blasting or grinding of the cliff faces to even out the curves, but freshly blasted rock is very noticeable, even to an uneducated tourist.
Just my
Appearances can be deceiving. The maximum main track curvature of the WP&Y is 18 degrees. The maximum curvature of a SD70ACE or ES44AC is something like 28 degrees. There are 16 degree curves in the main line of the Union Pacific Railroad with 105-car, DPU-equipped, 15,000-ton coal trains passing through them multiple times daily. I know of at least one 18 degree curve on a main line with unit coal trains.
I don't know much about the psychology of tourists, but why would they care if the cliff face was freshly blasted?
TrainManTy [snip] I would guess there's a reason the locomotives are relatively short, beyond weight and traffic requirements. The older 6-axle Alcos were build when the WP&Y still hauled freight, even triple-heading them to handle trains. They may be 6-axle units, but their wheelbase is more like an RSD than a Century unit... [snip]
That was back when the rail was mostly an 80 or 85 lb. lb. section, if I recall correctly (without checking any of my sources). Now that it's 115 lb. per RWM above, that component of the track structure is no longer the limiting factor. Based on what he also wrote above regarding the ties, ballast, and bridges being more adequate than 'back in the day', the more immediate need might be utilizing a locomotive with radial or 'steering' trucks to minimize the rail and wheel wear on those curves.
I don't believe that anyone has yet mentioned the 3 ft. narrow-gauge East Broad Top RR's dual-gauge interchange at its connection with the standard-gauge PRR in Mount Union*, PA. That was accomplished by swapping the trucks under the cars, similar to what CN did with its standard gauge cars to access the 3'-6'' Newfoundland narrow gauge. The EBT used its timber transfer crane - actually, it looked more like a wood plank-sided mineshaft hoist house on stilts - to lift the standard gauge cars so that the standard gauge car trucks could be rolled out, and the narrow gauge trucks rolled in to replace them. Almost any article of decent length has a description of the operation and a photo of the crane. For example, from - http://www.ebtrr.com/history.html :
"After the McKelvey Brothers went out of business in 1933, the timber transfer was used to change the trucks under standard gauge cars to move on the EBT rails until abandonment."
and at - http://www.spikesys.com/EBT/Tour/timbt.html
From "Narrow-Gauge Railroad, A Historian's Dream, Sings of the Past - NOTES FROM ACADEME - From The Chronicle of Higher Education - By Lawrence Biemiller - Copyright (c) 1997 by The Chronicle of Higher Education, Inc. http://chronicle.com Title: Narrow-Gauge Railroad, a Historian's Dream, Sings of the Past. Published: 97/07/11" at - http://www.iceandcoal.org/ebt/ebtnfa.html -
"The tracks at Mount Union had three rails, accommodating both narrow- and standard-gauge rolling stock, and the railroad operated two standard-gauge engines for moving cars around the yard. In later years it also used its timber-transfer crane to lift standard-gauge cars off their wheels and mount them on narrow-gauge substitutes for trips to destinations along its line."
and from - http://www.totalracing.com/ebt/ttoperation.htm -
"These graphics show the sequence of operations in replacing a standard-gauge freight car's trucks with narrow-gauge trucks so that the freight car can be delivered on the EBT RR.The videotape "The East Broad Top - A Living Landmark" available from the Friends of the East Broad Top includes a rare black-and-white film clip showing a standard-gauge gondola having it's trucks swapped. I've used this film, along with other published photos and some conjecture to come up with the following sequence of operations."
The remains of the timber transfer crane in the upper background of the photo at this link - http://sbiii.com/boxsrvpx/mack4-4b.jpg
Further proving that ''It's a small world'', on the same webpage - http://home.att.net/~Berliner-Ultrasonics/boxmack4.html - is a little story about how that same timber transfer crane was considered for use to load about 20 old surplus EBT narrow gauge hopper cars into standard gauge gondolas. It wasn't, though, apparently due to the repair/ restoration costs. So another arrangement was worked out - which is also depicted - to accomplish the transition from 3 ft. gauge to standard gauge. Oh - the purpose of all this ? To move those hoppers to the same WP&Y railroad that we have been discussing extensively above !
*In south-central Pennsylvania, about 1/3 of the way from Harrisburg to Pittsburgh, and about 30 miles east of Altoona, in Huntingdon County, just southwest of the junction of US Routes 22 and 522 there.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.