beaulieu The WB freight will act like a plunger and force the EB's exhaust plume ahead of itself while the turbulence around its cars will drag the plume from the WB behind it........WB trains act as natural method of flushing the tunnel of fumes, as since they are traveling downhill they generate relatively little exhaust themselves, and their speed is faster which creates its own airflow.
zardozUnless, of course, the train goes into emergency for some reason; if it does, the crew will be trapped inside the exhaust
Unless, of course, the train goes into emergency for some reason; if it does, the crew will be trapped inside the exhaust
Which is why they issue Airpacs to each crew and have extras in all the refuge bays. The bigger problem comes when the Dispatcher thinks that an Airpac is a tool to make his job easier, rather than a safety device
Just think of all the carbon you would be saving by putting rails in over Snoqualmie. Ha!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GaxPh-zb4_A
The line looks to be in great condition, although I hear some of the tunnels have been closed to the public due to integrity issues.
My train videos - http://www.youtube.com/user/karldotcom
beaulieuWhich is why they issue Airpacs to each crew and have extras in all the refuge bays.
karldotcom Just think of all the carbon you would be saving by putting rails in over Snoqualmie. The line looks to be in great condition, although I hear some of the tunnels have been closed to the public due to integrity issues.
Just think of all the carbon you would be saving by putting rails in over Snoqualmie. The line looks to be in great condition, although I hear some of the tunnels have been closed to the public due to integrity issues.
karldotcom Just think of all the carbon you would be saving by putting rails in over Snoqualmie. Ha! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GaxPh-zb4_A The line looks to be in great condition, although I hear some of the tunnels have been closed to the public due to integrity issues.
Now just a man on a bike Trains, August 1988 page 33 signals remain along Milwaukee Road roadbed ( FRONTISPIECE, MILW, "MORGAN, DAVID P.", "RAYMOND, G., JR.", TRN )
That is a interesting topic and despite all the research I have done on the old Cascade tunnel I never thought about running a new line through the old tunnel.I'm not sure if you have ever been in the Cascades but terrian wise it is as brutal as it gets.Winters are very harsh and the main reason they built the new tunnel was to get away from dealing with all the snow.If I remember right they had to build around 23 miles of snowsheds extending West from the original Cascade tunnel.This was very expensive both to build and to maintain.Avalanches were common and wrecked havoc with the railroad destorying structures and track.There was also several tunnels some timber lined,some concrete lined.Steep grades,sharp curves,and slippery rail from the never ending rain didn't help matters.Great Northern was also eager to get far away from Tye (formally Wellington) where the worst rail diaster in Americas history happened.
I suppose you could run a new line through the old tunnel but no matter which way take you would have to run many miles leading up to the tunnel over the old grade and it was that last few miles before the tunnel where the snow was the worst.They would have many of the same problems the Great Northern had.New snowsheds would have to be built and snow removal would be costly.
In the interest of completeness, note that there's a rebuttal to this article and premise in the ''Letters to the Editor'' section on page 3 or 5 or so of the current - May 2010 - issue of Trains, together with a couple of panoramic photos of the location by Jerry A. Pinkepank. The photos are too small to discern what they are intended to depict, in my opinion - some super-imposed graphics would have helped to understand that. But the facts and opinions of Mr. Downing - a former high official of BN, and before that GN, I believe - in his accompanying letter leave no doubt that he thinks the suggested solution is not far from nonsense, and that the railroad and the country was well-served by the Cascade Tunnel, especially during World War II.
- Paul North.
All things considered, would it have been easier to just build continuous concrete snowsheds over the troublesome, higher elevation lines?
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
Murphy,
Part of the problem is defining "troublesome". Vis Major makes clear that the biggest single problem in 1910 was that a forest fire above shed 3.3 the summer before enabled the snow to slide immediately east of the shed where it had not previously done so. This spot was about 300' long IIRC. The other approach whould have been to shed the entire line from Wellington to Scenic, a total of about 10 miles.
Even that 10 miles would not have solved the problem as there was a slide at Cascade, just east of the east end of the tunnel in 1910.
The tunnel shortened the line by about 8 miles IIRC and lowered the summit by more than 500 feet. That is a lot of energy savings over time that was attainable no other way.
Mac
Bruce Kelly Snoqualmie would pose only a 0.7 percent climb against WB grain headed for Puget Sound ports, coal headed for Centralia, WA, and coal, petroleum coke, and potash headed for Vancouver, BC, area ports (Roberts Bank, Neptune Terminals), vs. 2.2 percent on either Stevens or Stampede (and vs. the long way around via Wishram and Vancouver, WA). EB loaded stacks (if able to clear the tunnel and if Americans ever get back to buying foreign stuff in droves again) would face 1.74 percent on the west slope, which tapers down to only 0.4 percent through Snoqualmie Tunnel. New trackage over Snoqualmie would likely connect to the current BNSF Stampede Sub near Easton on the east side of the mountains. Don't have my fleet of maps handy here at work to tell you exactly where the connection would be on the west side. I believe there's one bridge on the west slope that would need rebuilding. MILW grade is currently a trail. I imagine BNSF would face some major P.R., legal, and environmental hurdles to get that property back from the public.
Snoqualmie would pose only a 0.7 percent climb against WB grain headed for Puget Sound ports, coal headed for Centralia, WA, and coal, petroleum coke, and potash headed for Vancouver, BC, area ports (Roberts Bank, Neptune Terminals), vs. 2.2 percent on either Stevens or Stampede (and vs. the long way around via Wishram and Vancouver, WA).
EB loaded stacks (if able to clear the tunnel and if Americans ever get back to buying foreign stuff in droves again) would face 1.74 percent on the west slope, which tapers down to only 0.4 percent through Snoqualmie Tunnel.
New trackage over Snoqualmie would likely connect to the current BNSF Stampede Sub near Easton on the east side of the mountains. Don't have my fleet of maps handy here at work to tell you exactly where the connection would be on the west side.
I believe there's one bridge on the west slope that would need rebuilding.
MILW grade is currently a trail. I imagine BNSF would face some major P.R., legal, and environmental hurdles to get that property back from the public.
If such a proposal were to happen.. Would BNSF not want to connect at Lind? This would appear to be the easier connection. Avoiding NP's Yakima Canyon route with all it's curves.
SD60MAC: I think you will find that the Milwaukee line west from Lind disappeard several years ago.
SD60MAC9500Would BNSF not want to connect at Lind? This would appear to be the easier connection. Avoiding NP's Yakima Canyon route with all it's curves.
Note that it's been over a decade since the comment was made...
Note that it's been over a decade since the comment was made... and much longer since the fabled wars on the forum about restoring part of the PCE. I am not sure I'd recommend poking that particular lion, though, in case it isn't quite dead...
diningcar SD60MAC: I think you will find that the Milwaukee line west from Lind disappeard several years ago.
Yes I'm aware that it's a trail now, but wasn't there a proposal to restore it sometime ago?
Overmod Interesting hypothetical ... might want to discuss exactly what BNSF would have to build out to make the connection at that point. Note that it's been over a decade since the comment was made... and much longer since the fabled wars on the forum about restoring part of the PCE. I am not sure I'd recommend poking that particular lion, though, in case it isn't quite dead...
Apparently I missed out on the flame wars throughout the years looking back through some of the old threads....
If I remember wasn't wsDOT considering restoring this portion of the MILW? I thought BN purchased this portion of the MILW? If anyone familiar with this matter has any more details it would be appreciated.
SD60MAC9500 Bruce Kelly Snoqualmie would pose only a 0.7 percent climb against WB grain headed for Puget Sound ports, coal headed for Centralia, WA, and coal, petroleum coke, and potash headed for Vancouver, BC, area ports (Roberts Bank, Neptune Terminals), vs. 2.2 percent on either Stevens or Stampede (and vs. the long way around via Wishram and Vancouver, WA). EB loaded stacks (if able to clear the tunnel and if Americans ever get back to buying foreign stuff in droves again) would face 1.74 percent on the west slope, which tapers down to only 0.4 percent through Snoqualmie Tunnel. New trackage over Snoqualmie would likely connect to the current BNSF Stampede Sub near Easton on the east side of the mountains. Don't have my fleet of maps handy here at work to tell you exactly where the connection would be on the west side. I believe there's one bridge on the west slope that would need rebuilding. MILW grade is currently a trail. I imagine BNSF would face some major P.R., legal, and environmental hurdles to get that property back from the public. If such a proposal were to happen.. Would BNSF not want to connect at Lind? This would appear to be the easier connection. Avoiding NP's Yakima Canyon route with all it's curves.
Going all the way east to Lind in the MILW would involve the stiff grade over the Saddle Mts, which I recall was a long 2%+ grade.
MidlandMike Going all the way east to Lind in the MILW would involve the stiff grade over the Saddle Mts, which I recall was a long 2%+ grade.
Thanks Mike I searched and found a PDF of the operating profile between Beverly and Boylston showing 2.2% Comp on the East Summit. West Summit 1.6% Comp.
If all diesels on all trains could be of one AC type. they could econoomically be converted to DC-dual-power, with the third rail voltage equal to the regular constant DC voltage integral to the existing AC-3-phase generator to DC to variable-frequency AC that is current practice for modern diesels.
I think such a program for the Cascade Tunnel by BNSF is long overdue.
Possibly a center-third rail with retractable rolling shoes makes more sense for this application than normal side third rail/..
daveklepper If all diesels on all trains could be of one AC type. they could econoomically be converted to DC-dual-power, with the third rail voltage equal to the regular constant DC voltage integral to the existing AC-3-phase generator to DC to variable-frequency AC that is current practice for modern diesels. I think such a program for the Cascade Tunnel by BNSF is long overdue. Possibly a center-third rail with retractable rolling shoes makes more sense for this application than normal side third rail/..
Center third rail?
I think this should be mandated by the new presidential administration. It should be supported on railroad aesthetic grounds, perhaps awarded a grant, if all the money hasn't been earmarked for bringing back the caboose?
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
Paul: The new administration is going to MANDATE?
Paul Milenkovic daveklepper If all diesels on all trains could be of one AC type. they could econoomically be converted to DC-dual-power, with the third rail voltage equal to the regular constant DC voltage integral to the existing AC-3-phase generator to DC to variable-frequency AC that is current practice for modern diesels. I think such a program for the Cascade Tunnel by BNSF is long overdue. Possibly a center-third rail with retractable rolling shoes makes more sense for this application than normal side third rail/.. Center third rail? I think this should be mandated by the new presidential administration. It should be supported on railroad aesthetic grounds, perhaps awarded a grant, if all the money hasn't been earmarked for bringing back the caboose?
daveklepper Possibly a center-third rail with retractable rolling shoes makes more sense for this application than normal side third rail/..
A center third rail would allow for the train crew to walk along the train in case of a problem, and alternative would be and under-running outside third rail with a walkway on top. Since there would be no need for compatiblity with other third rail installations, the third rail could be placed further away from the track center than on the NYC GCT trackage.
I do recall a British proposal for a center third rail with a pair of shoes sliding on the sides of the third rail (think spring loaded vise).
The experience the B.A.&P. had with roller pantographs suggests that bearings and inertia could be a problem. One solutions could be having the contact cylinder being elastomer mounted on the roller axle to reduce effective unsprung weight.
Other concern is that 7.79 miles is a long way between substations for the power required. One workaround would be running an aluminum bus bar energized at 2 to 4kVDC with buck converters at frequent intervals to provide third rail power. Buck converters can be made to be very compact and very efficient compared to a transformer/rectifier running off 60Hz.
It worked for Lionel.
Jeff
This sounds awfully complicated... BNSF seems to get all traffic through today with minimal issue..
GN had electrics for Cascade until the middle 50's didn't they?
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
It sounds like someone wants their own Lionel life size 3 rail setup. It's all nice and safe until you have to go in between two cars to hook up an airbrake line or work on a balky coupler.
The only 'third rail' that would make any sense would be a higher-current version of the sectional-activation systems used for some modern streetcar setups, or alternatively a point-contact system like the old GE setup, with soft inrush upon activation and only activated when locomotive is present -- see the discussions of the various evolved systems in one of the recent transit threads.
I am reaonably sure this could be developed to have any desired cross-sectional area for pickup, and reasonable sliding contact in all weather; in fact it might be easier to keep a continuous sectional-activation rail either heated internally or 'scraped clear' in inclement weather than outside where flangers or plows would have difficulty keeping a third-rail structure with boards clear of snow or ice...
Erik can gin up the required sled length, area, suspension, etc. better that I could. The simplest thing, probably, would be to put the pickups into road-slug vehicles with bidirectional power leads to dual-mode-lite power's electrical gear.
I am reasonably sure this could be developed to have any desired cross-sectional area for pickup, and reasonable sliding contact in all weather; in fact it might be easier to keep a continuous sectional-activation rail either heated internally or 'scraped clear' in inclement weather than outside where flangers or plows would have difficulty keeping a third-rail structure with boards clear of snow or ice...
Erik can gin up the required sled length, area, suspension, etc. better that I could. The simplest thing, probably, would be to put the pickups into road-slug vehicles with bidirectional power leads to dual-mode-lite power's electrical gear. If keeping the 'special pickups' within a known territory while maximizing consist flexibility elsewhere were important, anyway...
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.