Lac-Mégantic tracks were a roller coaster.
If anybody bothered to look at the 2 dimensional maps or the 3D views on internet you would see that the tracks East of the lake have too many curves.
It might be fun for a Steam Powered passenger train.
That is a poor design for a modern freight railroad.
They underreacted by not rebuilding the tracks straight East to West, just like the paved road grid.
The tracks head South in a twisting manner, then cross the Quebec-Maine border, and then head back up North. There are no visible business demanding these dramatic curves. River would not have blocked the path of the tracks if they had kept the tracks futher North and straight East to West.
They had chosen to follow the Moose River to get water for Steam Locomotives. If they are going to keep using tracks on a path built for Steam Locomotives, the owners of the rail line would be best going back to Steam Locomotives.
Freight car weight ratings increased decades ago, but they were still following a path for freight and passenger trains from 100 years ago.
It is a scenic rail line, but they are not in the business to haul people to view the scenery.
Watch my videos on-line at https://www.youtube.com/user/AndrewNeilFalconer
Andrew Falconer Lac-Mégantic tracks were a roller coaster. If anybody bothered to look at the 2 dimensional maps or the 3D views on internet you would see that the tracks East of the lake have too many curves. It might be fun for a Steam Powered passenger train. That is a poor design for a modern freight railroad. They underreacted by not rebuilding the tracks straight East to West, just like the paved road grid. The tracks head South in a twisting manner, then cross the Quebec-Maine border, and then head back up North. There are no visible business demanding these dramatic curves. River would not have blocked the path of the tracks if they had kept the tracks futher North and straight East to West. They had chosen to follow the Moose River to get water for Steam Locomotives. If they are going to keep using tracks on a path built for Steam Locomotives, the owners of the rail line would be best going back to Steam Locomotives. Freight car weight ratings increased decades ago, but they were still following a path for freight and passenger trains from 100 years ago. It is a scenic rail line, but they are not in the business to haul people to view the scenery.
Most all railroads that were surveyed and contstructed during the 19th Century are still following those alignments today. To steal a line from 'Field of Dreams' - "Build it and they will come!" - they built the railroads and the population built around the railroads on the properties that the railroads did own or have leaseholding interest in.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
What the OP is missing are GRADES! (You know, the reason why the train started rolling...) A straight line would contend with nasty grades in excess of 6% and/or some heavy earthwork.
Besides the early UP, nobody builds a line longer than neccesary by putting curves in it. They add train resistance and track wear. Take a good look at the topography.
If you look at a topographic map, you will see that the rail line follows countour lines to minimize grades in this rocky hilly area. The straight roads got up and down hills. At the following link, click on Canada, and enter "Lac Megantic, QC" in the search box.
http://www.mytopo.com/maps/
The fault was not in the alignment -- no terrible tragedies before this that anybody remembers today -- but in the oddball operation. For this reason, it's tough to generalize from Lac Megantic -- altho the anti-fossil fuel people will seize on anything to bolster their case.
But none of this matters unless you have a GE locomotive that has had major failures (disintegration of damaged cast power assembly components "repaired" with polyurethane filler) with the net result that the locomotive catches fire while idling.
That problem wouldn't have occurred had an over-age EMD locomotive been leading the train, but some other failure could have been badly mis-repaired with the same result.
However, having seen an EMD G8 in Cairo Egypt in 2001 looking like it hadn't been washed since 1956, let alone maintained, (it was black in colour but underneath was the original red and white) running around with a single coach with a driving cab which had been hard wired into the MU control through the hole in the headstock where the MU socket should be.... some EMDs must be indestructible.
But you can't treat an old GE that badly and not expect some trouble, and fire is always an option with Alcos and old GEs.
M636C
The heavy tonnage tank car trains were not around during the steam era and early diesel era.
The locomotives, cars, and the trains have more than doubled in weight over the past 50 years.
Railroad management like to simplify the direction the mainline runs by saying North and South or East and West.
This is a case of nothing being simple and straight.
Andrew FalconerThe heavy tonnage tank car trains were not around during the steam era and early diesel era.
A lot of oil was moved in trains during WWII because costal shipping was subject to attack by German submarines. Yes, there were accidents but most didn't make the news.
Norm
Andrew FalconerRailroad management like to simplify the direction the mainline runs by saying North and South or East and West.
Recall that on SP, everything headed toward San Francisco was west, regardless of compass direction. Don't know if UP continued that.
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...
What difference does that make? The highway system does the same thing.
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
But heavy tonnage trains were, coal, ore, etc.
I have seen some documentation and reference to the oil trains of the WWII era. I am guessing that these were made up of 10,000 gallon tank cars in train lengths of perhaps 100 cars. I have heard that there were also similar trains carrying gasoline in that era.
I wonder how that phase of “oil trains” statistically compares with oil trains of the current era in terms of fireball derailments. Has anyone ever seen such a comparison published?
Euclid I have seen some documentation and reference to the oil trains of the WWII era. I am guessing that these were made up of 10,000 gallon tank cars in train lengths of perhaps 100 cars. I have heard that there were also similar trains carrying gasoline in that era. I wonder how that phase of “oil trains” statistically compares with oil trains of the current era in terms of fireball derailments. Has anyone ever seen such a comparison published?
WW II era - I suspect any incidents were minimized 'out of existance' for national security.
Maybe so. I have never understood to what extent mainline derailments and collisions are investigated, and by who, and where that information actually resides. Perhaps the news media was forbidden to cover derailments in the WWII era.
But with the sensitity of security during the WWII period, I would think than all railroad accidents received exceptionally exhaustive scrutiny.
The original poster makes absolutely no sense. Topography forced the curved alignment. Railroads generally followed rivers in mountainous terrain because that is the only route that permitted feasible grades at affordable costs. Where the rivers run in the wrong direction, it becomes necessary to follow tributaries up and over into the next watershed.
Railroads do not build curves just for fun. They restrict speed, accelerate rail wear, increase drag, and so on. But they are unavoidable. In a few places modern machinery has made some curve reduction economically feasible, but such features as Horseshoe Curve, Tehachapi Loops, Donner Pass will never see a straight line like a road grid. And perhaps he has not noticed that even roads often are forced off a straight grid pattern.
The reason for continuing to use "a path for freight and passenger trains from 100 years ago" is that it is still the best available. They did not "follow the Moose River to get water for Steam Locomotives". Water was readily available from any number of lakes and streams, and in any case steam locomotives would get water at a tank, not directly out of a trackside river. The tank may have been supplied by pumping it out of the river but there were advantages to having gravity feed the tank from an uphill source.
John
I suggest that the I-75 designers in Kentucky liked the straight line idea as it goes up and down hills with lots of cuts and fills and while it has some curves, it is pretty much straight except in the stretch coming out of the Ohio River valley. The CNO&TP (Southern, now NS) winds its way through the hills and through tunnels and long high bridges as does the L&N (CSX) to get from Cincinnati to Tennessee.
A comparison between an interstate highway and a U.S. highway can be found between Asheville, N.C., and Johnson City, Tenn. Two years ago, I drove south from Bristol, Va. to Savannah, Ga., using insterstate highways as much as I could. The route through the gap (Sam's Gap) at the state line was almost unnoticeable as to curves. About two months later, I drove from Asheville to Roanoke, using the old highway to cross the gap. Even though I had been on that highway many times when I was in college, I had forgotten just how winding it is; I certainly rehoned my mountain driving skills on that trip.
Last year, I drove east from Asheville to Charlotte and was reminded of how winding the highway across Hickory Nut Gap is. On one trip way back when, I was picked up by a man from New York State, who told me that in New York a tunnel would have been bored through the ridge.
Does anyone have any suggestion as to how to bypass the loops near Old Fort on the line between Salisbury and Asheville? or bypass the steep grade up/down Saluda Grade? Certainly the civil engineers did the best they could without boring long tunnels.
Johnny
Electroliner 1935 suggest that the I-75 designers in Kentucky liked the straight line idea as it goes up and down hills with lots of cuts and fills and while it has some curves, it is pretty much straight except in the stretch coming out of the Ohio River valley.
If you've seen the movie "Cars," there is an interlude where one of the characters laments the coming of the Interstate. It may be a cartoon, but in fact that allowed it to "time lapse" how the old route (66) wound through the landscape while the Interstate just plowed right on through.
Simpistic, yes. But it made the point.
Electroliner 1935 I suggest that the I-75 designers in Kentucky liked the straight line idea as it goes up and down hills with lots of cuts and fills and while it has some curves, it is pretty much straight except in the stretch coming out of the Ohio River valley. The CNO&TP (Southern, now NS) winds its way through the hills and through tunnels and long high bridges as does the L&N (CSX) to get from Cincinnati to Tennessee.
Roadways and the vehicles that use them can function with much more severe grades that can a railroad. Double digit grades are easily traversed with automotive vehicles - RR's no way, besides maybe a cog railway.
The interstates were planned to have a maximum grade of 6% with exceptions for mountainous terrain.
BaltACD RR's no way, besides maybe a cog railway.
It was well-established in HSR theory fairly early on in LGV development that a 'conventional' high-speed line could easily have peak gradients as high as 8 to 10 percent, which raised very interesting possibilities for how 'new lines' explicitly for high-speed passenger service could be routed. The vertical-curve spiral was much more important than the absolute grade, and it didn't really matter much how long the actual grade persisted, for reasons I'm sure you'll recognize if you think about the situation a bit.
For more modern levels of high speed, the required vertical curves (both negative and positive) require almost as much grading or compensation as a level route with "TBM-boreable" tunnels would. But the fact remains that peak gradients are of relatively little effective consequence to most practical "TGV" operation...
RME BaltACD It was well-established in HSR theory fairly early on in LGV development that a 'conventional' high-speed line could easily have peak gradients as high as 8 to 10 percent, which raised very interesting possibilities for how 'new lines' explicitly for high-speed passenger service could be routed. The vertical-curve spiral was much more important than the absolute grade, and it didn't really matter much how long the actual grade persisted, for reasons I'm sure you'll recognize if you think about the situation a bit. For more modern levels of high speed, the required vertical curves (both negative and positive) require almost as much grading or compensation as a level route with "TBM-boreable" tunnels would. But the fact remains that peak gradients are of relatively little effective consequence to most practical "TGV" operation...
BaltACD
My grade comments were couched toward the ability to move tonnage on grades - with the overpowered nature of passenger, especially HSR passenger, grades are a lesser impediment. From the limited amount of flying I have done over the years, it would appear that following Hi-Tension Electrical Transmission line would be a route for HSR to follow as the Transmission line could supply the power and the grades the line follows in many case could be 'doable' for HSR.
RMEIt was well-established in HSR theory fairly early on in LGV development that a 'conventional' high-speed line could easily have peak gradients as high as 8 to 10 percent, which raised very interesting possibilities for how 'new lines' explicitly for high-speed passenger service could be routed.
Not the case on the "new stretches" of HSR lines in Germany. They are loaded with tunnels, cuts and fills; eg., the line from Köln-Deutz to the Frankfurt Airport.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
I have been working on a partial answer to this in the context of BaltACD's mention of high-tension line co-location but the forum interface keeps kicking back to the 'previous page' and wiping out everything I write...
As you increase speed above the original LGV speed, the required accommodations in vertical curves rapidly build up to the point where it's more cost-effective to consider the advantages of greater 'flatness' achievable with great construction expense. This is especially true when that construction expense is State-subsidized in some way, or the higher ranges of presently-available speed are desired -- there are a number of documented European projects in open country where the need for vertical-curve attenuation has resulted in heroic levels of earthwork and fill/viaduct construction.
In my opinion the 'lesson' is far more important, and perhaps more valuable, for American continental projects, where the money and land accessibility may be more constrained vs. the need to capitalize on achieving high speed over a relatively great percentage of a longer route to justify high levels of expense on it. (Most of the potential routings for a 'second spine' in the Northeast Corridor being, in my opinion, some of the best poster children for the idea...)
It does bear noting that in the 35-odd years since I first came across the idea, I cannot point to any practical true HSR construction that utilizes it 'to the degree proposed'. While that may not demonstrate that the idea is inadvisable, it certainly shows that none of the substantial number of HSR developments worldwide in the subsequent time have needed or chosen to use it, whether for a variety of reasons or a few stronger or 'operational' ones.
RMEof BaltACD's mention of high-tension line co-location
Sounds plausable but I know of many transmission lines that where the towers are located on hilltops and a long span (>500 ft) connects to the other side of a stream that is many feet below the base of the towers. In many cases, the utility does not own the land but has a perpetual easement. Not too conducive to a RR ROW.
Back to the OP on freight routes, an "Air Line" type rail route does not always work out as expected. The NY&NE built an air line route between New Haven and Boston (thru topography somewhat similar to southern Quebec) as a more direct alternative to the NH Shoreline route. However, they incured so much debt building the heroic trestles and fills, that they were bought out by the NH, which never saw the need to utilize the route that much, and is now a rails-to-trails.
Maybe you are familiar with the Michigan Air Line between Jackson and Niles. It was built as a direct alternative to th MC mainline that curved thru Kalamazoo. MC/NYC aquired it but didn't really use it until the 50s, and even then just used the Jackson-Three Rivers segment to get the trains to Elkhart to consolidate freight at that yard. By Conrail times, Michigan freight was consolidated further to the Waterlevel route and the Toledo-Detroit line. The old airline route was out of service by the early 80s and is now gone, while the original MC mainline is Amtrak corridor and local freight.
Someone could have invested in steel bridges and steel trestles on a more direct mainline, like on the Algoma Central in Ontario.
Andrew Falconer Someone could have invested in steel bridges and steel trestles on a more direct mainline, like on the Algoma Central in Ontario.
Coulda, woulda, shoulda - the bain of human existance. No BIG money, no BIG investments.
A good analogy would be the Donner Pass crossing of the Sierra’s. There’s actually 4 major east-west alignments there – (1) Union Pacific track 1, (2) Union Pacific track 2, (3) I-80, and (4) little known or traveled US 40. All are drastically different in alignment from each other, and for the most part have differing grades, and all were built in different eras.
My recollection of the pass is more than a decade old. But I’ve transited the pass more than a dozen times on all 4 alignments, but my memory may be a bit rusty. The railroad’s transit of the pass as far as gradients go start a bit west of Reno and continue on a pretty constant grade of 1% to 1.7% to the summit at Norden, where it descends in a pretty constant grade of around 2% to Roseville. Track 1 and track 2 have differing alignments in a lot of places and in some cases are not within sight of each other, but generally hold to the same gradient. US highway 40 generally follows the railroad r/w, but deviates significantly approaching the summit with many hairpin switchbacks and a very steep grade. You can see the tunnels and snowsheds of the original, but now abandoned track 1 on the hillside off to the south.
Interstate 80 is entirely different and except for a bit of parallel running in the Floriston area, is not even in sight of the railroad. The grades are around 6% but it’s not a constant gradient to the summit and then a straight shot down to Sacramento, but with several major hills and valleys to climb to then descend. Truckers are warned with big signs that there’s 5 miles of 6% downgrade on the UP to the summit, so a train on a hill like that would be so much scrap metal at the bottom. It has a LOT fewer curves than the railroad or US 40 and is great for cars and trucks, but totally unworkable for a train – it’s WAY too STEEP.
So, Mr Falkner, a straight shot may not be the answer you’re looking for. There’s advantages and disadvantages to any route, and the design engineers have to weigh all the options before making a choice.
I have ridden the Algoma Central 4 times to the Canyon. The only big tresstle I remember is the big one across the dam. The way the bridge is built into the dam, I suspect that it was a cooperative project. It is a fairly up-and-down RR on its northward route, crossing a number of stream valleys flowing west to Lake Superior. North of the canyon, the topography flattens out.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.