QUOTE: Originally posted by GP40-2 QUOTE: Originally posted by chad thomas I think you are wrong here. Diesels do loose power with altitude. I believe the factor is 2% per every 1000'. (Newer microprocessor controlled locomotives probably have less loss due to the fact that they can adjust fuel/air ratio constantly) No, I am not. The turbochargers provide more than enough oxygen charge to provide full rated horsepower at any operating condition found in North America. Most of you railfans might not realize this, but GE and EMD actually have engineers that might know a little more about this stuff than you do. The most severe operating conditions encountered are taken into account and the locomotives are designed accordingly. That's why most of the stuff posted on this forum is incorrect, silly or both. It's painfully apparent that most of you here don't even have an understanding of basic science and engineering principles.
QUOTE: Originally posted by chad thomas
QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol The Cascade Tunnel is a problem but not the only problem on Stevens Pass. The Eastbound approach is also presents a similar constraint. The Pass is nearly at capacity, and there are no likely solutions. Washington DOT, 2004: The primary geographical feature of the route is the nearly 8-mile long Cascade Tunnel. Due to its length the tunnel must be flushed behind every train that operates through it. Consequently, the time required for eastbound trains to traverse the tunnel, including flushing time behind the train, can be up to 55 minutes. The tunnel can be cleared for the next movement behind a westbound train in approximately 25 minutes. To test the impact of the segment between Skykomish and Scenic during the model simulation analysis in 1994, trains were “free-flowed” through the tunnel as if there were no requirements for tunnel flushing. That analysis determined that free-flowing the tunnel under the same train operating scenarios did not increase overall throughput on the route, indicating that the long, single track eastbound segment on ascending grade is as much of a limiting factor for maximum throughput as is the tunnel itself. Electrification to solve tunnel exhaust evacuation limitations would be a complete waste of time from the standpoint of adding capacity to the route. Best regards, Michael Sol
QUOTE: Originally posted by nanaimo73 Which tunnel between Michigan and Ontario had electrics ? Was it the NYC tunnel at Detroit or the CN tunnel from Sarnia to Port Huron ? Or both ? Ventilation was the reason the BC Rail Tumbler line was electrified. Those two tunnels were 29,570' and 19,536'.
QUOTE: Originally posted by greyhounds Computer model simulations can be wonderful tools or they can be crap. I don't know the specifics of this one, so I can't comment. But using the same train operating scenario certainly does not enhance the credibility of the study. They wouldn't be using the same train operating scenarios if they didn't have to wait 55 minutes to put another eastbound through the bore, now would they. They're naturally going to space out the trains so they don't have to stop one on the stiff grade and wait for the tunnel to clear. Free of that limitation, they'd change their operations. To make it a meaningful study, you'd have to optimize the operating scenario to what would be possible if trains didn't have to be spaced so much, then judge the effects of electrification. If that wasn't done, I don't put much credence in the report.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
QUOTE: Originally posted by jchnhtfd For those who need credentials: The full name is Dr. James C. Hall, BA, MSCE, PhD, PE, and I have been in the railroad business off and on since 1960. Which is worth very little, since there are a lot of others on this forum (and this thread) who have probably forgotten more about practical railroading than I've ever known.
Originally posted by BaltACD The reality of this entire discussion devolves to one thing..... If electrification of the Cascade tunnel district of the BNSF made economic sense in today's financial markets they would be doing it. Exactly-and not about to spend a lot of money on Stampede. They bought Milwaukee's Snoquamie Pass line, they should have kept it. Dale Reply jchnhtfd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: US 1,537 posts Posted by jchnhtfd on Friday, May 20, 2005 10:51 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol QUOTE: Originally posted by jchnhtfd For those who need credentials: The full name is Dr. James C. Hall, BA, MSCE, PhD, PE, and I have been in the railroad business off and on since 1960. Which is worth very little, since there are a lot of others on this forum (and this thread) who have probably forgotten more about practical railroading than I've ever known. A lot railroading under the bridge since 1960. Amazing how computer modeling has changed everything. I created my first computer model in 1967, on an IBM 360 identical to Milwaukee Road's Carscope, using Fortran. Didn't create software then, you created "code." One line per card. When all the bugs were worked out, you put it on tape. I think the rule of thumb then was 5 hours on the card punch, 20 minutes on the compiler, and 5 minutes on the computer. Then back to the card punch. I can see why some PhD's refer to "Excel" as the greatest invention of modern civilization. Best regards, Michael Sol I still use Fortran! And did you ever drop a stack of cards? Was it before, or after that, that you learned to draw a diagonal line on top of the stack to help get them back in order?![:D] The power which is available in Excel is really amazing. Happy computing, and keep it up, Michael! Jamie Reply MichaelSol Member sinceOctober 2004 3,190 posts Posted by MichaelSol on Friday, May 20, 2005 11:21 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by jchnhtfdI still use Fortran! And did you ever drop a stack of cards? Was it before, or after that, that you learned to draw a diagonal line on top of the stack to help get them back in order?![:D] The power which is available in Excel is really amazing. Yes, I learned the hard way to "draw the line" before picking up the cards. Learned the hard way about three or four times. Fortran. A couple of weeks ago, we were finishing up a pricing model for a railroad competition analysis. The remaining three members of my team were of a younger generation, who learned on Quattro Pro, Excel or other "modern" programs. After a couple of weeks of working on the model, one of the team members -- the one with five or six degrees in Mathematics -- finally asked, "why do you keep referring to these as "IF-THEN" statements?" Of course, in Excel, "IF" statements automatically bring up the logical test and variable requests. There is no "THEN" in the Excel formula. I didn't understand her question at first. They are all "IF-THEN" statements. It dawned on me, and I hadn't realized it until she pointed it out. After all these years, I still THINK in Fortran! Best regards, Michael Sol Reply Randy Stahl Member sinceJune 2004 From: roundhouse 2,747 posts Posted by Randy Stahl on Friday, May 20, 2005 1:50 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by GP40-2 QUOTE: Originally posted by chad thomas I think you are wrong here. Diesels do loose power with altitude. I believe the factor is 2% per every 1000'. (Newer microprocessor controlled locomotives probably have less loss due to the fact that they can adjust fuel/air ratio constantly) No, I am not. The turbochargers provide more than enough oxygen charge to provide full rated horsepower at any operating condition found in North America. Most of you railfans might not realize this, but GE and EMD actually have engineers that might know a little more about this stuff than you do. The most severe operating conditions encountered are taken into account and the locomotives are designed accordingly. That's why most of the stuff posted on this forum is incorrect, silly or both. It's painfully apparent that most of you here don't even have an understanding of basic science and engineering principles.
QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol QUOTE: Originally posted by jchnhtfd For those who need credentials: The full name is Dr. James C. Hall, BA, MSCE, PhD, PE, and I have been in the railroad business off and on since 1960. Which is worth very little, since there are a lot of others on this forum (and this thread) who have probably forgotten more about practical railroading than I've ever known. A lot railroading under the bridge since 1960. Amazing how computer modeling has changed everything. I created my first computer model in 1967, on an IBM 360 identical to Milwaukee Road's Carscope, using Fortran. Didn't create software then, you created "code." One line per card. When all the bugs were worked out, you put it on tape. I think the rule of thumb then was 5 hours on the card punch, 20 minutes on the compiler, and 5 minutes on the computer. Then back to the card punch. I can see why some PhD's refer to "Excel" as the greatest invention of modern civilization. Best regards, Michael Sol
QUOTE: Originally posted by jchnhtfdI still use Fortran! And did you ever drop a stack of cards? Was it before, or after that, that you learned to draw a diagonal line on top of the stack to help get them back in order?![:D] The power which is available in Excel is really amazing.
QUOTE: Originally posted by GP40-2 QUOTE: Originally posted by chad thomas I think you are wrong here. Diesels do loose power with altitude. I believe the factor is 2% per every 1000'. (Newer microprocessor controlled locomotives probably have less loss due to the fact that they can adjust fuel/air ratio constantly)
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.