The BNSF Transcon between Needles and Barstow is 168 miles of Mojave mountainess desert. This line was originally constructed by the Southern Pacific and acquired by BNSF's predecessor Santa Fe early in 1902 as part of a trade agreement.
Westward from Needles, elev. 470, to Goffs, elev. 2580, there is a 31 mile ruling ascending grade of 1.40 percent compensated. Continuing west the ruling grade (for eastward trains) decending into the desert is 1.00 percent compensated for a distance of 51 miles to the low point, elev. 604. Continuing west 82 miles to a high point of 1944 feet there is a ruling grade of 1.40 percent compensated. Then descending toward Barstow there is a 1.40 percent ruling grade (for eastwrd trains) for six miles to an elevation of 1869 feet. Barstow with an elevation of 2100 feet is then 34 miles west with no ruling grades encountered.
The ruling grades describded above do not apply for the entire diatance between high and low elevation points but are the most extreme gradients encountered for a length sufficient to be called RULING.
ChuckCobleigh [snip] A few years ago, there was a piece in Trains about the SF/BNSF main between maybe Cadiz or Ludlow and Daggett east of Barstow having some interesting profiles that required some careful train handling as well. [snip]
This one ?
Mojave Crossing Trains, August 1977 page 30 Santa Fe between Barstow and Needles ( ATSF, CALIFORNIA, DESERT, DIVISION, "STEINHEIMER, RICHARD", TRN )
It has a profile from Needles to Barstow on the top 1/3 pf page 38, and comments about the grades in a couple of places - typ. 1-1/2 % for 17 miles and 31 miles WB, as I recall from last night.
- Paul North.
When the RR's originally built what are now prominent corridors the plan was to build from A to B as quickly as possible and as inexpensively as possible. This did not then then and for many subsequent years substantially effect operations. It took many years and a more receptive management for this to change.
In 1960 when Santa Fe constructed the 44 mile Williams to Crookton line change through the Arizona mountains on its TRANSCON it was apparent that new engineering concepts would benefit operation, and those with the purse strings agreed to spend what was necessary. From Williams Jct., MP 374.6, elevation 6946, to Eagle Nest, MP 406.4, elevation 5436, a continuous one percent descending gradient (compensated for curviture) was used and then a 10,000 foot verticle curve intersected an ascending gradient of 0.88 percent. This and subsequently many other modern engineering concepts along the route are why the BNSF TRANSCON is such an efficient and trouble free operation fifty years later.
Paul_D_North_JrLike this: - PDN.
Like this:
- PDN.
An interesting engineering challenge illustrated as well, in terms of the trade between spending the money gouging more earth out to reduce the "whoopdedoos" in the alignment as opposed to the operational risk of delays from break apart events. Even though the perspective is definitely compressed in the shot, that is still an amazing local profile. A few years ago, there was a piece in Trains about the SF/BNSF main between maybe Cadiz or Ludlow and Daggett east of Barstow having some interesting profiles that required some careful train handling as well.
Of course, what is even more interesting is the train handling of the 3.6 mile train with DP in several places, which really represents an unusual problem in the cab when traversing profiles like the one in the picture.
That is unbelievable. If they can get it to work, it will be OK, but they would definitely need extra engines throughout the train with a crewman in case of problems. That would be a nightmare if it would break down somewhere.
diningcar Paul, thanks for the wonderful illustration. [snip]
You're quite welcome - but the real credit belongs to Steve Schmollinger, who recognized it for what it was and could be, and took the photo accordingly - appparently he's been working on photos of those for a while. The link to it on RP.net is - http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=202127 - where it engendered many similar comments. This location - on the BNSF's Fort Worth Subdivision, between Bowie and Bellevue, Texas, per his caption - has to be one of the best illustrations that I've ever seen, which is why I merely 'bookmarked' it for future reference - and it came to mind immediately when I read your comment. It would be worthwhile for someone to rent a 'cherrypicker' or 'bucket truck' and make some arrangements to park it in this vicinity - maybe on that stone driveway or road leaving the right border of the picture ? - to get a higher viewpoint to get rid of the 'viewblock' of the 2 little hills, and maybe shoot a video of a long train 'snaking' its way down this 'staircase'. One thing about the double-stacks - with a pretty much uniform 'roofline' as with this one, it's a lot easier to see the effects and nuances of this kind of grade, as opposed to the randomly varying tops of the cars with a general freight train of mixed car types.
See also the other significant thread on this train - "State of California investigating Evil Monster UP Intermodal Train" - at - http://cs.trains.com/trccs/forums/t/166962.aspx?PageIndex=1 , which is presently up to 5 pages.
http://cs.trains.com/trccs/forums/t/166962.aspx?PageIndex=1
Paul_D_North_Jr Like this: - PDN.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Undulating grades can present a significant operating problem, especially for a train this long.
I can visualize, as an example, 6000 feet ascending, the next 6000 feet decending and the last 6000 feet ascending; (or vice versa) and each segment on different percent grades. Now throw in programed speed restrictions; or much worse, a necessary application of brakes because something happens such as a eighteen wheeler high centered at a road croswsing.
I suggest undulation is as significant, perhaps more so, than ruling grade.
blownout cylinder What is the average grade on that route anyways?
cacole In Arizona between Dragoon and Mescal there are many curves and grades of one to two percent, with the Benson, Arizona crossing of the San Pedro River being the low spot. Dragoon is the highest point between New Mexico and Tucson, Arizona, the San Pedro River is the lowest point, and Mescal is the second-highest point. I would not want to be the guinnea-pig engineer having to maneuver a train of this length and weight through SE Arizona.
I would not want to be the guinnea-pig engineer having to maneuver a train of this length and weight through SE Arizona.
The best source I could find quickly on this is the profile of the Rock Island - Southern Pacific as one of the Southwestern Transcontinentals on page 42 of the April 2004 issue of Trains on Mountain Railroads. Although that profile therefore does not include the former SP / T&P east of El Paso, Texas, here are the significant/ ruling grades as shown therein for the rest of this train's route, as I understand it (mileages below are scaled/ estimated and hence very approximate only):
El Paso, TX to Continental Divide, NM - long (100 miles) of +1.0 %
Lordsburg, NM to somewhere, AZ - 50 miles of -1.0 %
Somewhere, AZ to Dragoon, AZ - 50 miles of +1.0 %
Dragoon, AZ to west - 25 miles of -1.4 %
(between Dragoon and Gila appears to be around -0.8 to -1.0 % typically, with 2 short/ 10 miles upgrades in the range of +1.0 %)
Approaching Gila, AZ - 20 miles of -1.0 %
From Indio, CA to Beaumont Hill/ San Gorgonio Pass, CA - 40 miles of +2.0 %
Between Beaumont Hill/ San Gorgonio Pass, CA and Los Angeles, CA - 30 miles of -1.9 %
Paul_D_North_Jr What I don't know - because I'm not conversant with it's route - is the magnitude of the individual grades that this train would have encountered. The ruling grade effect, too, for this train might have been a little different from the calculated or posted standard - because it was so long, it might have draped over beyond the ends of a steep segment onto the flatter sections on either side, thus reducing the overall weighted average grade that it was exposed to at any one 'worst case' - or not. - Paul North.
What I don't know - because I'm not conversant with it's route - is the magnitude of the individual grades that this train would have encountered. The ruling grade effect, too, for this train might have been a little different from the calculated or posted standard - because it was so long, it might have draped over beyond the ends of a steep segment onto the flatter sections on either side, thus reducing the overall weighted average grade that it was exposed to at any one 'worst case' - or not.
Figure 2.0% ascending, 1.8% descending, as the ruling grades en route. Both are long enough and with sufficient speed limits to eliminate any "long train" or momentum effects.
RWM
jeffhergert Paul_D_North_Jr By another measure, the TPOB = Tons Per Operable Brake ratio would be in the range of 16,000 tons/ 295 wells = 54 TPOB - not bad or unsafe at all, considering that anything up to 100 TPOB is usually often permitted to operate unrestricted. TPOB is going to depend on the equipment used. A 5-platform articulated well car is figured at 3 brakes. A 3-platform articulated car is 2 brakes. There are solid drawbar connected multi platform cars as well as single well cars. It could be as low as 54 TPOB or it could be higher. [snip] Jeff
Paul_D_North_Jr By another measure, the TPOB = Tons Per Operable Brake ratio would be in the range of 16,000 tons/ 295 wells = 54 TPOB - not bad or unsafe at all, considering that anything up to 100 TPOB is usually often permitted to operate unrestricted.
TPOB is going to depend on the equipment used. A 5-platform articulated well car is figured at 3 brakes. A 3-platform articulated car is 2 brakes. There are solid drawbar connected multi platform cars as well as single well cars. It could be as low as 54 TPOB or it could be higher.
[snip]
Jeff
Thanks, Jeff, for straightening me out on that one. When I wrote the above I actually was wondering about how well cars are handled/ computed for this purpose, with the shared 4-wheel truck between the middle ends. The best I could recall was that in the NTSB report on the CSX runaway on 17 Mile / Sandpatch a few years ago, in a footnote it defined 'brake' as a 'brake valve', which didn't seem too helpful or accurate either way for this context or application.
From a recent post by Carl over on the 'Lounge' thread:
'' . . . This train shows as having 295 cars, but it's a stack train--a lot of these cars are articulated, which translates to no slack at all between units. There were a total of 86 distinct cars on the train, which means 209 slack-free connections, 86 minimal slack connections just the slack in the couplers--not much in the draft gear) and the nine locomotives. . . .''
Since 295 wells / 86 cars = 3.43 wells or platforms per 'car' on average, it's likely that most of them were the 3-platform types. (Mathematically, one solution would be around 67.5 3-platform cars, and 18.5 5-platform cars - please ignore the '1/2 car' issue and just choose the nearest integer numbers that you prefer.) So, adjusting my previous TPOB ratio of 54 per Jeff's info above x 3 cars before/ 2 'brakes' now = 81 TPOB - practically the same as Carl's recalled figure of 82, and again still not a restriction on the train.
It's interesting how a statistic or metric like this enables us to quickly get a rudimentary understanding of the nature and some of the handling characteristics of a train like this.
Note that Jeff's 'equivalent brakes' information makes perfect and logical sense when you think it through. A 3-platform car has 4 of the 4-wheel trucks - 1 at each of the 2 outer ends, and 1 at each of the 2 inner ends or connections. Hence, those 4 trucks are pretty much the equivalent of 2 regular cars, as Jeff says. Likewise, for the 5-platform car, just add 2 more interior trucks, for the equivalent of 3 regular cars. That makes it simple to remember to figure out for the future - basically, just count the number of trucks in the entire train and divide by 2, or the number of axles - such as from a Hot Box Detector - and divide by 4, etc.
Thanks again for the supplementary info.
Carl
Railroader Emeritus (practiced railroading for 46 years--and in 2010 I finally got it right!)
CAACSCOCOM--I don't want to behave improperly, so I just won't behave at all. (SM)
By another measure, the TPOB = Tons Per Operable Brake ratio would be in the range of 16,000 tons/ 295 wells = 54 TPOB - not bad or unsafe at all, considering that anything up to 100 TPOB is usually often permitted to operate unrestricted.
The number of cars/platforms also figures in for all intermodal trains. That alone would restrict this big one to Maximum Subdivision Speed minus 10mph, no slower than 50mph. (System instructions, there could be specific subdivision instructions that are more restrictive.)
From Carl's data in a couple of the previous posts, it seems that this train weighed 16,000 tons over its 18,061 ft. length, for an average weight of 0.886 tons per ft.
Similar to what I noted in the other thread about California's 'sky is falling' reaction - that's roughly equivalent to about a Cooper's E-18 loading, down far enough in the bridges structures that are longer than a couple car lengths and ignoring the locomotives, etc., etc. - I know, lots of qualifications needed here - but still.
People would be screaming as to how dangerous the wheel is. We all know who they would be as the "sky is falling crowd" can't think of anything productive to do.
Modeling the "Fargo Area Rapid Transit" in O scale 3 rail.
nothing is ever acomplished by standing still. no new idea has never been instigated without its naysayers. if new idea were never brought forth and put to test, where would this world be today???
tree68 OK, so I counted three sets of DPU's. Can they all be controlled from one unmodified head end equipped locomotive, or did this one have to have extra equipment installed?
OK, so I counted three sets of DPU's.
Can they all be controlled from one unmodified head end equipped locomotive, or did this one have to have extra equipment installed?
All GEVOs...nice train!
Dan
Here is a video just outside of LA on the UP LA Subdivision, running very fast
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zm4c0vIre9M this one is coming right at you....
mp
CShaveRRCNW 6000 So how will that affect crewing/districts? As the case showed, (seemingly) no problems for the monster. Did it stop to change crews? Would it take 12 hours at "track speed" over the taken route to get from one end of a crew district to the other? What happens to any hours "left over" when you hit the border of the district: are they simply lost if there isn't another train for you to hop on? Dan, the train changed crews in the usual places--it appears that seven crews handled the train from Dallas to Long Beach. Some took the full twelve hours, some got their run done in five. I'm not a road guy, so I can't tell you all of the ins and outs of how they get paid. But the guys who worked all twelve hours did pretty well--and the guys who worked only five hours still got a day's pay, at least. Conceivably, the crew that made their run in five hours could be called right away and catch another run back to their home terminal within the twelve-hour limit. That would be another day's pay.
CNW 6000 So how will that affect crewing/districts? As the case showed, (seemingly) no problems for the monster. Did it stop to change crews? Would it take 12 hours at "track speed" over the taken route to get from one end of a crew district to the other? What happens to any hours "left over" when you hit the border of the district: are they simply lost if there isn't another train for you to hop on?
So how will that affect crewing/districts? As the case showed, (seemingly) no problems for the monster. Did it stop to change crews? Would it take 12 hours at "track speed" over the taken route to get from one end of a crew district to the other? What happens to any hours "left over" when you hit the border of the district: are they simply lost if there isn't another train for you to hop on?
Dan, the train changed crews in the usual places--it appears that seven crews handled the train from Dallas to Long Beach. Some took the full twelve hours, some got their run done in five. I'm not a road guy, so I can't tell you all of the ins and outs of how they get paid. But the guys who worked all twelve hours did pretty well--and the guys who worked only five hours still got a day's pay, at least. Conceivably, the crew that made their run in five hours could be called right away and catch another run back to their home terminal within the twelve-hour limit. That would be another day's pay.
The revised HOS regulations require crews to get 10 hours undisturbed rest before being called on duty with a full 12 hours to work. Since the normal 'call' is 2 hours, this is in effect 12 hours rest between off duty and going back on duty.
One carrier limits it's callers from calling ANY crew member until the 10 hour undisturbed clock has run...ie. the callers cannot call crew members that have been instructed to return to duty at a specified time under the respite provisions of the regulations.
tree68 Can they all be controlled from one unmodified head end equipped locomotive,
Can they all be controlled from one unmodified head end equipped locomotive,
Yes.
or did this one have to have extra equipment installed?
No. But it did have new software.
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
I believe it had new GE software on board...that was part of the test.
My train videos - http://www.youtube.com/user/karldotcom
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jdIzRFOaTCY&feature=sub
Snuffy posted a video of this thing passing through Southern California this afternoon....
Chris30 One benefit that the train crew has when running such a long train is that they know they won't be making a lot of planned stops / meets, etc. Once heard a dispatcher tell the crew of a 12,000 foot intermodal train that they weren't going to stop anywhere because he didn't have anywhere to stop them. CC
One benefit that the train crew has when running such a long train is that they know they won't be making a lot of planned stops / meets, etc. Once heard a dispatcher tell the crew of a 12,000 foot intermodal train that they weren't going to stop anywhere because he didn't have anywhere to stop them.
CC
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.