Trains.com

Semi-official Rochelle webcam discussion thread

373237 views
3712 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    December 2001
  • From: Northern New York
  • 25,020 posts
Posted by tree68 on Tuesday, October 20, 2015 4:18 PM

CBT
Just saw a bit underpowerd UP autorack train go by. It seems like all autorack trains now are a bit underpowerd?

Might not have been all that underpowered - although I'm not up to speed on HP/T calculations and certainly have no idea what numbers to plug in for that example.

Underpowered was the ICG train I saw back in the 70's in Rantoul.  Normal loaded coal trains had around 90 or so cars, and plenty of power.

One night I saw a rather dim headlight coming south, quite slowly.

Two locomotives passed the station, pulling for all they were worth (there's an upgrade coming south into Rantoul), and on a hunch, I started counting cars (easy - they weren't exactly flying by).  I don't recall the exact count, but it amounted to about double a normal loaded coal train.

I figure they were short power but needed the empties, so these two locomotives were left to slug their way south with two trains worth of cars.  In today's horsepower terms, that was about 1.5 locomotives worth for a ? two mile long train.

LarryWhistling
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...

  • Member since
    December 2001
  • From: Winnipeg, Mb
  • 628 posts
Posted by traisessive1 on Tuesday, October 20, 2015 4:27 PM

What is your definition of underpowered?

15000 tons and 2 units is normal operations for CN. .4 or .5 hpt being normal operations.  

10000 feet and no dynamics? Today is going to be a good day ... 

  • Member since
    October 2004
  • From: Allen, TX
  • 1,320 posts
Posted by cefinkjr on Tuesday, October 20, 2015 8:13 PM

CBT
Just saw a bit underpowerd UP autorack train go by. It seems like all autorack trains now are a bit underpowerd?

I know just what you mean, CBT.  I've seen a couple on the UP that I wondered how the power was managing to move them at all but they were moving right along at or near track speed.
 
The trains I'm talking about were headed by a single unit (hp?) with another single unit DMU shoving on the rear of 80 or 90 cars.  I'm guessing they were empty but why so many empty auto racks moving west at Rochelle?
 
Of course, any time I see a single unit on anything other than a very short local it looks strange to me.  We (NYC/PC) never let a train out of a yard with less than two units but that was as much a matter of reliability as anything. 
 
But our ML (MultiLevel) trains from Detroit to the East Coast invariably had 5 or 6 of the best power available (3000 hp GP-40s) at the time.  The rules said no more than 6 but I once saw 8 on an ML-12 at Collinwood (Cleveland, OH).  I asked the inbound engineer about it and he assured me that only 6 were online.  Riiiight.  Then why did I see 8 plumes of exhaust when the train pulled out?  Confused

Chuck
Allen, TX

  • Member since
    March 2003
  • From: Central Iowa
  • 6,901 posts
Posted by jeffhergert on Tuesday, October 20, 2015 9:29 PM

One up front of 80 loaded autoracks and one in the back isn't unusual across Illinois and Iowa.

Jeff

  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: US
  • 25,292 posts
Posted by BaltACD on Tuesday, October 20, 2015 9:53 PM

2 on the head end and 120 loaded auto racks is the norm on my territory.

Never too old to have a happy childhood!

              

  • Member since
    December 2001
  • From: Northern New York
  • 25,020 posts
Posted by tree68 on Tuesday, October 20, 2015 10:19 PM

traisessive1
What is your definition of underpowered?

My definition would be "not enough power to handle the train at normal/expected speeds."

But that's just me.

LarryWhistling
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...

  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: US
  • 25,292 posts
Posted by BaltACD on Tuesday, October 20, 2015 10:57 PM

tree68
traisessive1

My definition would be "not enough power to handle the train at normal/expected speeds."

But that's just me.

Your expected speeds or the carriers expected speeds with the power assigned to it.

Never too old to have a happy childhood!

              

  • Member since
    December 2001
  • From: Northern New York
  • 25,020 posts
Posted by tree68 on Wednesday, October 21, 2015 12:06 AM

BaltACD
Your expected speeds or the carriers expected speeds with the power assigned to it.

The carrier, of course.  

I would expect that a carrier would expect a given train to be able to maintain a certain speed and would normally assign the appropriate power to achieve that speed.  Especially on a busy corridor, having all trains running at their "design" speed would be desirable, otherwise things could get balled up even worse than they can otherwise.

Witness the effect Amtrak or a "high/wide" has on a double track corridor.

Crews are an issue as well - while the CSX St Lawrence Division was a 25 MPH line, it took two crews to get a train from Syracuse to Massena.  Now, at 40 MPH, they can again do it with one.

I would opine that an underpowered train would likely occur due to one of a couple possibilities - one, the example I gave where the train was bigger than usual, the other, where the normally required power was not available for some reason (power shortage, unit failed enroute, etc).

Just my observations.  Corrections welcome.

 

LarryWhistling
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...

  • Member since
    August 2015
  • 12 posts
Posted by SushiLover on Wednesday, October 21, 2015 5:56 AM

CBT
Just saw a bit underpowerd UP autorack train go by. It seems like all autorack trains now are a bit underpowerd?
 

 

That doesn't surprise me. The auto industry has had problems with rail transport for a few years now due to engine shortages. That shortage has increased the overall delivery time for new orders getting to the dealers and has caused a lot of complaints.

CBT
  • Member since
    February 2015
  • 191 posts
Posted by CBT on Thursday, October 22, 2015 6:28 AM

traisessive1

What is your definition of underpowered?

15000 tons and 2 units is normal operations for CN. .4 or .5 hpt being normal operations.  

 

The autorack had 1 locomotive on it.

  • Member since
    September 2014
  • From: Muskogee Oklahoma
  • 185 posts
Posted by MKT Dave on Thursday, October 22, 2015 11:36 AM

BaltACD
 
tree68
traisessive1

My definition would be "not enough power to handle the train at normal/expected speeds."

But that's just me.

 

 

Your expected speeds or the carriers expected speeds with the power assigned to it.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fdq_EhQt-QU

Here's a video where a underpowered double stack on Indian Railroads as it just tops the hill.

 

...
  • Member since
    October 2004
  • From: Allen, TX
  • 1,320 posts
Posted by cefinkjr on Thursday, October 22, 2015 6:22 PM

SushiLover
The auto industry has had problems with rail transport for a few years now due to engine shortages.

A few years? Try 40+ that I know about.  There was a GM assembly plant somewhere along the Hudson River (Poughkeepsie? High Bridge?  Yonkers?) that frequently had "shutdown" cars.  These were car loads, usually of engines but sometimes other parts, that had to be delivered to the assembly plant "yesterday" or the plant would be shutdown and cost GM millions.  There were times, of course, when NYC was at fault but it was more normal that the car had not been released by the engine or other parts plant in time to make the cutoff.  I remember many times when a crew would be called and a "train" of one or two cars dispatched from Selkirk to that assembly plant.

Chuck
Allen, TX

  • Member since
    December 2001
  • From: Winnipeg, Mb
  • 628 posts
Posted by traisessive1 on Thursday, October 22, 2015 8:25 PM

I think a lot of you guys are so used to seeing well powered trains that when you see one that is 'normal' powered you think it's underpowered. Loaded auto trains are not near as heavy as other loaded trains. An empty auto train will do just fine with one unit where there are no substantial grades. 

10000 feet and no dynamics? Today is going to be a good day ... 

  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: US
  • 25,292 posts
Posted by BaltACD on Thursday, October 22, 2015 8:42 PM

cefinkjr
SushiLover

A few years? Try 40+ that I know about.  There was a GM assembly plant somewhere along the Hudson River (Poughkeepsie? High Bridge?  Yonkers?) that frequently had "shutdown" cars.  These were car loads, usually of engines but sometimes other parts, that had to be delivered to the assembly plant "yesterday" or the plant would be shutdown and cost GM millions.  There were times, of course, when NYC was at fault but it was more normal that the car had not been released by the engine or other parts plant in time to make the cutoff.  I remember many times when a crew would be called and a "train" of one or two cars dispatched from Selkirk to that assembly plant.

Worked territory that served two GM Assembly plants.  Daily train originating in Michigan would handle 80-120 car loads of parts for the two plants.  In the days of cabooses, a cab would be the 'cut car' between the blocks for the two plant's cars.  

Upon arrival at each plant's serving yard, cars would be switched as ordered by GM - some from the arriving train and some from the on hand inventory and they would get placed in the plant to support continuing production of the assembly lines.  Frequently some of the arriving cars were considered 'shut down' cars by GM.  In some cases the shut down cars had been delayed by the railroad (shopped for various reasons); some times they were 'shut down' for reasons known only to GM - whatever the reason, the carrier cooperated with GM to solve the issues.  Worst 'shut down' issue I witnessed, GM sent a truck from their plant to meet a specific car as it came off the Main Track to unload 20 or 30 items that were needed to continue that nights production.

Feeding a production line is the epitome of JIT - just in time inventory management and with that being the case, there will always be 'shut down' cars - it is the way the system is designed.

Never too old to have a happy childhood!

              

  • Member since
    July 2006
  • 267 posts
Posted by CatFoodFlambe on Thursday, October 22, 2015 10:28 PM

I think the GM plant was in Tarrytown, NY - methinks they made minivans there.  Really bad minivans...

Back in the 1980's and early 1990's, a lot of so-called JIT systems were that in name only - in a lot of cases, it was just a matter of using the same old supply chain and forcing your vendors to shoulder all the costs of inventory  and supply management.  The suppliers eventually learned how to identify the real costs in this process, and today's systems usually drive the overall costs right down to the optimum level, no matter who is paying the bill.

Having been a operations manager for a large less-than-truckload trucking company in terminals that supported major vehicle plants, I can verify that "shutdown shipments" were the bane of our miserable lives.  Typically, we'd see 40-50 LTL shipments from as many suppliers arrive at the delivering terminal every day.   The phone would start ringing about 4 AM, telling us which particular parts were needed at which dock at what time that day.  If all or part of a shipment wasn't needed that day, we were expected hold it until directed for delivery.  At times, we could have 40-50 trailerloads of LTL shipments stacked up in the yard - and of course, they never called for them in the order we had loaded them.    It wasn't unusual to handle a given shipment 5-6 times before we delivered it.

  Sometimes we'd have as much as a month of shipments from a particular supplier stacked up, especially for parts that were used only when a plant was producing a certain option package for a few days a month (say, rear spoilers for a "sport model" package).  Of couse, we'd get the dreaded 11 am call telling us to pull the all eight pallets of the Wombat Widgets shipment from four days ago, the two pallets of part ABD from their shipment made sixteen days ago, and just 1 pallet of part CED from nine days ago - and have 'em at dock X  by 2 pm or we'd have to pay a shutdown penalty.

On the long-haul OTR runs to Ohio from the west coast staging forwarders (import parts) and domestic suppliers, at least once a week we'd have to hunt down a linehaul team somewhere out in the wilderness (in the days before cell phones, this wan't easy), have them duck into one of our terminals or a for-hire crossdock faciliy in someplace like Missoula or Tulsa, dig out a few pallets of parts, and arrange to to take said parts to meet a chartered plane to fly the stuff to an assembly plant. 

I can only imagine what the corresponding process would be like on the railroad. Tongue Tied.  And they wonder why we leave... Grumpy

  • Member since
    February 2005
  • From: Cordes Jct Ariz.
  • 1,305 posts
Posted by switch7frg on Friday, October 23, 2015 10:38 AM

Question Would the loss of tractive effort on a single engine 120 car train have any effect on the engines performance?? just courious.

                                  switch7frg

Y6bs evergreen in my mind

  • Member since
    October 2004
  • From: Allen, TX
  • 1,320 posts
Posted by cefinkjr on Friday, October 23, 2015 11:36 AM

CatFoodFlambe
I think the GM plant was in Tarrytown, NY

You're probably right; Tarrytown rings a (very quiet) bell in my memory.

Chuck
Allen, TX

  • Member since
    December 2001
  • From: Aurora, IL
  • 4,515 posts
Posted by eolafan on Saturday, October 24, 2015 7:37 AM

Yes, the GM plant was indeed in Tarrytown, NY.  I grew up in Yonkers which is about fifteen miles south of Tarrytown.  The GM plant was in the shadow of the Tappan Zee bridge on the east bank of the Hudson River and I passed by it many, many times as a kid and young adult.

Eolafan (a.k.a. Jim)
  • Member since
    December 2001
  • From: Aurora, IL
  • 4,515 posts
Posted by eolafan on Saturday, October 24, 2015 7:39 AM

I just clicked onto the Rochelle webcam and a split second later I heard a horn and what did I see coming eastbound but the UP office car special train with one G.E. unit (couldn't tell what model as it is still somewhat dark here) and a whole pile of office cars including at least three or four domes. Such a nice thing to wake up to on a Saturday morning.

Eolafan (a.k.a. Jim)
  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: US
  • 25,292 posts
Posted by BaltACD on Saturday, October 24, 2015 9:38 AM

switch7frg

Question Would the loss of tractive effort on a single engine 120 car train have any effect on the engines performance?? just courious.

                                  switch7frg

The loss of tractive effort on a single engine anything - even a light engine move will have at a minimum near catastrophic results ending in lack of movement.  If the engine doesn't have the abiltity to move it isn't much good as an engine.

Never too old to have a happy childhood!

              

  • Member since
    August 2015
  • 12 posts
Posted by SushiLover on Wednesday, October 28, 2015 6:41 AM

Was kind of cool to watch a BNSF roll by in the dark while being silhouetted by a waiting UP's headlights.

  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: US
  • 25,292 posts
Posted by BaltACD on Wednesday, October 28, 2015 12:31 PM

Anyone know when the UP will activate the new signals they have erected and remove the old ones?

Never too old to have a happy childhood!

              

  • Member since
    July 2008
  • 2,325 posts
Posted by rdamon on Wednesday, October 28, 2015 5:32 PM

Nice Photo of the local on RailPictures ..

http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=552002&nseq=100

  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: US
  • 25,292 posts
Posted by BaltACD on Wednesday, October 28, 2015 5:54 PM

rdamon

Nice Photo of the local on RailPictures ..

http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=552002&nseq=100

 

The BNSF signals that are out of view of the Rochelle camera.

Never too old to have a happy childhood!

              

  • Member since
    October 2004
  • From: Allen, TX
  • 1,320 posts
Posted by cefinkjr on Wednesday, October 28, 2015 8:50 PM

rdamon

Nice Photo of the local on RailPictures ..

http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=552002&nseq=100

 

I'm not a real big fan of Diseasels but I have to admit this is a very nice photo.  But, help us out here; wouldn't the park pavilion (where the web cam is located) be visible if BNSF 2008 were not there?

Chuck
Allen, TX

  • Member since
    March 2003
  • From: Champaign, IL
  • 185 posts
Posted by DennisHeld on Wednesday, October 28, 2015 9:03 PM

cefinkjr

 

I'm not a real big fan of Diseasels but I have to admit this is a very nice photo.  But, help us out here; wouldn't the park pavilion (where the web cam is located) be visible if BNSF 2008 were not there?

This photo seems to be facing East.  But, the park pavilion is to the left, behind the trees and outside the view of view even if the trees weren't there.

 

 

  • Member since
    June 2001
  • From: Lombard (west of Chicago), Illinois
  • 13,681 posts
Posted by CShaveRR on Thursday, October 29, 2015 9:04 AM

No--the edge of the pavilion's roof is visible to the right of the locomotive, about on a line with the swoosh on the hood.  We're looking toward the diamonds. 

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)

  • Member since
    October 2004
  • From: Allen, TX
  • 1,320 posts
Posted by cefinkjr on Thursday, October 29, 2015 10:47 AM

CShaveRR

No--the edge of the pavilion's roof is visible to the right of the locomotive, about on a line with the swoosh on the hood.  We're looking toward the diamonds. 

 
You and I came to the same conclusion but literally from different angles.  I'm fairly certain that the extra high telephone poles to carry lines over the UP are the same ones seen in the web cam view.  Then there's the yellow slow board (?) on the other side of the track from the photographer.  I also think you can see the concrete slab of the upper viewing area and the fence around the lower just behind BNSF 2008.
 
I came to this conclusion last night but couldn't see the web cam picture and didn't trust my memory well enough to say that until I had checked it this morning.
 
BTW: The meanings of "UP" and "XING" on the sign board above BNSF 2008 are fairly obvious but what does "NX" mean? 

Chuck
Allen, TX

  • Member since
    March 2003
  • From: Champaign, IL
  • 185 posts
Posted by DennisHeld on Thursday, October 29, 2015 1:25 PM

Yeah, I believe that you are correct.  The photo faces west and the concrete slab is the rise to the pavillion.

  • Member since
    September 2007
  • 192 posts
Posted by MrLynn on Thursday, October 29, 2015 3:23 PM

Is that a GP40?  And what are the two white blisters on top of the cab?

/Mr Lynn

Join our Community!

Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.

Search the Community

Newsletter Sign-Up

By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy