Rumors, myths, urban legends??

[jeffhergert]

In Richard Steinheimer"s book, "The Electric way across the Mountains," it is said that one of the first test trains generated more electricity going downhill in regeneration than it used going uphill. After checking the electrical meters, it was figured that the power company owed the Milwaukee Road $1.40.
Jeff

[tatans]

Well, with all those flat spots on the wheels, WILL the train be able to move??

[rrnut282]

QUOTE: Originally posted by jeffhergert

In Richard Steinheimer"s book, "The Electric way across the Mountains," it is said that one of the first test trains generated more electricity going downhill in regeneration than it used going uphill. After checking the electrical meters, it was figured that the power company owed the Milwaukee Road $1.40.
Jeff

This is the same train going back up the same hill? Not possible. You cannot get the same amount of energy (or more) back out of a system as you put in. There is always some loss as no machine is 100% efficient.

Now if he is talking about powering another train or the same train on the next (smaller) hill, then it's plausible.

[tree68]

QUOTE: Originally posted by rrnut282

QUOTE: Originally posted by jeffhergert

In Richard Steinheimer"s book, "The Electric way across the Mountains," it is said that one of the first test trains generated more electricity going downhill in regeneration than it used going uphill. After checking the electrical meters, it was figured that the power company owed the Milwaukee Road $1.40.
Jeff

This is the same train going back up the same hill? Not possible. You cannot get the same amount of energy (or more) back out of a system as you put in. There is always some loss as no machine is 100% efficient.

Now if he is talking about powering another train or the same train on the next (smaller) hill, then it's plausible.

This would involve two trains - One headed upgrade, and the other headed down. The down train would, using regenerative braking, put power back on the catenary. The train climbing the hill uses that power.

It would a challenge to store that much power, although it could be done.

I've already addressed line losses in the catenary and infrastructure. The thing for the electrical engineers to tell us is how much power could be generated vs how much power was needed for "equal" down and up trains, respectively.

As has been stated, the "down" train probably wouldn't generate enough power to completely supply the "up" train, but it would cut down greatly on the amount of power the RR would need to buy to make it all happen. It was obviously worth it - the did it for a long time.

[mloik]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

While we're on the subject of (railroad) rumors, myths, and urban legends.........................

(Never fear, no flaming here......)

There is a story in one of those Little House books about the CNW trying to buck some pretty deep snow filled cuts to reopen the line back in the 1880's. The story as related says the Superintendent of the railroad took the controls of the lead engine pushing a flatcar mounted snow plow after the engineer declined to do so. They (the superintendent and an engineer in a second locomotive) backed up a mile or so, pulled full throttle, and hit the train-high drift head on. After the resultant snow shower cleared, they found the lead engine stuck fast completely encapsulated in a foot thick layer of ice, and they had to chop a hole in the ice just to get to the cab.

Can anyone ascertain from records that this event actually took place as told, or is it simply artistic license at play?

Sounds like you may have seen too many Thomas the Tank Engine episodes! While I'm sure that the Tracy Cut sees its share of snowy weather, do you know how long it sat trapped in the snow bank? Even if the impact and heat of the engine melted the snow immediately in contact with the engine, virtually all of it would have infiltrated through lower layers of the snow, and then drained off the surface of the ground (or any ice layers on the ground.) What you describe is essentially flash-freezing, which requires extremely low temperatures, especially for something as big and (at least partially) hot as a locomotive. Temperatures during snowstorms are generally relatively high (close to the freezing point) due to the release of the heat of fusion from the precip to the atmosphere. Just my humble opinion, but I deal with heat and mass (water) transfer phenomena within snow and the atmosphere on a daily basis.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by mloik

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

While we're on the subject of (railroad) rumors, myths, and urban legends.........................

(Never fear, no flaming here......)

There is a story in one of those Little House books about the CNW trying to buck some pretty deep snow filled cuts to reopen the line back in the 1880's. The story as related says the Superintendent of the railroad took the controls of the lead engine pushing a flatcar mounted snow plow after the engineer declined to do so. They (the superintendent and an engineer in a second locomotive) backed up a mile or so, pulled full throttle, and hit the train-high drift head on. After the resultant snow shower cleared, they found the lead engine stuck fast completely encapsulated in a foot thick layer of ice, and they had to chop a hole in the ice just to get to the cab.

Can anyone ascertain from records that this event actually took place as told, or is it simply artistic license at play?

Sounds like you may have seen too many Thomas the Tank Engine episodes! While I'm sure that the Tracy Cut sees its share of snowy weather, do you know how long it sat trapped in the snow bank? Even if the impact and heat of the engine melted the snow immediately in contact with the engine, virtually all of it would have infiltrated through lower layers of the snow, and then drained off the surface of the ground (or any ice layers on the ground.) What you describe is essentially flash-freezing, which requires extremely low temperatures, especially for something as big and (at least partially) hot as a locomotive. Temperatures during snowstorms are generally relatively high (close to the freezing point) due to the release of the heat of fusion from the precip to the atmosphere. Just my humble opinion, but I deal with heat and mass (water) transfer phenomena within snow and the atmosphere on a daily basis.

Any of you Upper Midwest boys care to educate mloik on the essential properties of a plains blizzard?

[germanium]

There's another story (probably another myth) about a Great Northern steam locomotive on wet rails in the Cascade Tunnel (?) grinding an inch out of the rail before the crew noticed. Anybody heard that one ?

[tatans]

36 responses and no answer yet to my question yet (is it really that bizarre???) guess I'll try another network, although a couple of responses were "strange " enough for a few laughs( could they be serious???)

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by tatans

36 responses and no answer yet to my question yet (is it really that bizarre???) guess I'll try another network, although a couple of responses were "strange " enough for a few laughs( could they be serious???)

Would a train going down hill into a town be going so fast that it couldn't stop within a reasonable distance?

I've never driven a train but something tells me that it's not like soapbox derby where you get up to the tops of tall hills and and shout "wheeeee!" as you free coast down the slope.

Wouldn't a train want to make a controlled descent?

Sure U can believe that such an occurance would grind flat spots into the wheels, but grind them so far that the loco couldn't even turn the wheels?

my bet is that the tale is slightly exaggerated, it probably wore flat spots in the wheels so bad that it was INADVISEABLE to drive the loco out, because the flats would have beaten up the rail so badly. NOT because the loco couldn't turn them

[tatans]

Antigates: I seem to remember long freights hauled by steam up a hill going a lot slower than than the track opposite coming down, obviously the downward train would be going a lot faster, although not faster than posted limits, after hitting a truck is it not the norm to stop? and this happened 20 miles out of town, heading TO town. Another of life's big mysteries. someone better check out these stories from real steam engineers before they are all gone to that big roundhouse in the sky.

[tree68]

QUOTE: Originally posted by tatans

36 responses and no answer yet to my question yet (is it really that bizarre???) guess I'll try another network, although a couple of responses were "strange " enough for a few laughs( could they be serious???)

QUOTE:
...after the train stopped it was unable to move again as all the wheels had huge flat spots and the train couldn't regain any traction.

A real operating type will have to tell us how far a wheel has to slide before it gets a flat spot that is too big for the wheel to roll (or even how big that would be).

Given the available power on most steam engines, I doubt anything short of broken drive wheels would prevent the drivers from turning - thus your question is somewhat faulty - the engine would have traction.

Going in the direction your question appeared to be headed, however, I would opine that it would take a pretty long slide to flatten the wheels on all of the cars enough to prevent them from rolling.

So we really need three questions answered -
1. How big a flat spot would be required to prevent a freight car wheel from turning from a standing start?
2. How far would the average wheel have to slide along the rail to make that a flat spot that big?
and,
3. How long would it take an average steam powered train of the period, on the plains, to stop (in emergency) with a moderate downgrade?

If the distance in question 2 is less than the distance in question 3, then it looks like you may have a true story on your hands.

[mloik]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

Any of you Upper Midwest boys care to educate mloik on the essential properties of a plains blizzard?

Hey FM,

I've forgotten more about blizzards than you'l EVER know (I grew up in Canada.) Let me know when you've completed your PhD in climatology, meteorology, or environmental physics, than we can talk.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by tatans

Antigates: I seem to remember long freights hauled by steam up a hill going a lot slower than than the track opposite coming down, obviously the downward train would be going a lot faster, although not faster than posted limits, after hitting a truck is it not the norm to stop? and this happened 20 miles out of town, heading TO town. Another of life's big mysteries. someone better check out these stories from real steam engineers before they are all gone to that big roundhouse in the sky.

Trains, on their own, would logically move down hill faster than up, gravity being the constant that it is.

And the framework that tree sets aside seems like the logical avenue to proceed, for any definitive answer.

Still, your original question stated the train was 'coming into town down hill, very fast'

Now you've got the train 20 miles out in the boonies, which while it may surely be headed towards a town, that hardly constitutes "coming into a town"...so here it is this thread is only one week old , and the story has already evolved.

Which feeds into my initial conclusion that the story is likely based upon a kernel of truth, but has been romanticized, dramatized, and/or exaggerated in the retelling.

A lot can happen to a story that's been told and retold for 300 years. [8)]

[zardoz]

QUOTE: Originally posted by mloik

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

Any of you Upper Midwest boys care to educate mloik on the essential properties of a plains blizzard?

Hey FM,

I've forgotten more about blizzards than you'l EVER know (I grew up in Canada.) Let me know when you've completed your PhD in climatology, meteorology, or environmental physics, than we can talk.

How about a B.S. in Meteorology? Does that qualify me to comment?

[mloik]

QUOTE: Originally posted by zardoz

QUOTE: Originally posted by mloik

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

Any of you Upper Midwest boys care to educate mloik on the essential properties of a plains blizzard?

Hey FM,

I've forgotten more about blizzards than you'l EVER know (I grew up in Canada.) Let me know when you've completed your PhD in climatology, meteorology, or environmental physics, than we can talk.

How about a B.S. in Meteorology? Does that qualify me to comment?

As they used to say on the Grey Poupon commercials, "But, of course!"

[zardoz]

Blizzards are dangerous winter storms that are a combination of blowing snow and wind resulting in very low visibilities. While heavy snowfalls and severe cold often accompany blizzards, they are not required. Sometimes strong winds pick up snow that has already fallen, creating a ground blizzard.

Officially, the National Weather Service defines a blizzard as: a storm which contains large amounts of snow OR blowing snow, with winds in excess of 35 mph and visibilities of less than 1/4 mile for an extended period of time (at least 3 hours). When these conditions are expected, the National Weather Service will issue a "Blizzard Warning". When these conditions are not expected to occur simultaneously, but one or two of these conditions are expected, a "Winter Storm Warning" or "Heavy Snow Warning" may be issued.

Blizzard conditions often develop on the northwest side of an intense storm system. The difference between the lower pressure in the storm and the higher pressure to the west creates a tight pressure gradient, or difference in pressure between two locations, which in turn results in very strong winds. These strong winds pick up available snow from the ground, or blow any snow which is falling, creating very low visibilities and the potential for significant drifting of snow.

The upper Midwest and Great Plains of the United States tends to be the region that experiences blizzards most often. With few trees or other obstructions to reduce wind and blowing snow, this part of the country is particular vulnerable to blizzards. However, blizzards can occur in any location that has a climate that experiences snowfall. Even northern Arizona can experience blizzard conditions when a strong low pressure system moves across southern Arizona and high pressure builds strongly into the Great Basin. However, these conditions are rarely met due to the infrequency of strong low pressure systems moving through the state.

Blizzards can create life-threatening conditions. Traveling by automobile can become difficult or even impossible due to "whiteout" conditions and drifting snow. Whiteout conditions occur most often with major storms that produce a drier, more powdery snow. In this situation, it doesn't even need to be snowing to produce whiteout conditions, as the snow which is already on the ground is blown around, reducing the visibility to near zero at times.

The strong winds and cold temperatures accompanying blizzards can combine to create another danger. The wind chill factor is the amount of cooling one "feels" due to the combination of wind and temperature. During blizzards, with the combination of cold temperatures and strong winds, very low wind chill values can occur. It is not uncommon in the Midwest to have wind chills below minus-60F during blizzard conditions. Exposure to such low wind chill values can result in frostbite or hypothermia.

People should never venture out in blizzards, nor should they continue to travel if a storm is upgraded to a blizzard.

[tatans]

BLIZZARD: you mean like the one outside right now in Nova Scotia?? up to 50cm of snow, large drifts, 90 to 100kmh winds and a temperature of 0 c. they call them Nor'easters, the only saving grace is it is not minus40.

[StillGrande]

Okay, another story told to me by an ex-Santa Fe guy when I was in college. Seems they were running a train one dark, stormy night in West Texas when the train broke in half on a curve. Well they walked the train, found the break, and reconnected everything. Went on to their merry way. About an hour later the dispatcher calls them to ask if everything was okay. Seems the local sheriff had called. He had found a boxcar across the highway from railroad and down in a creekbed. The crew did not notice it in the rain. Driving back and forth to school, I always looked at the tracks along side the road to see if it was possible. I could find spots were it could have happened (track much higher than the roads, no ditches near the track. A car, if it got off the tracks, could go a long way.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by tatans

Antigates: someone better check out these stories from real steam engineers before they are all gone to that big roundhouse in the sky.

LOL! why? no one uses steam loco's to haul freight in regular revenue service any longer...[}:)]

[mloik]

QUOTE: Originally posted by zardoz

Blizzards are dangerous winter storms that are a combination of blowing snow and wind resulting in very low visibilities. While heavy snowfalls and severe cold often accompany blizzards, they are not required. Sometimes strong winds pick up snow that has already fallen, creating a ground blizzard.

Officially, the National Weather Service defines a blizzard as: a storm which contains large amounts of snow OR blowing snow, with winds in excess of 35 mph and visibilities of less than 1/4 mile for an extended period of time (at least 3 hours). When these conditions are expected, the National Weather Service will issue a "Blizzard Warning". When these conditions are not expected to occur simultaneously, but one or two of these conditions are expected, a "Winter Storm Warning" or "Heavy Snow Warning" may be issued.

Blizzard conditions often develop on the northwest side of an intense storm system. The difference between the lower pressure in the storm and the higher pressure to the west creates a tight pressure gradient, or difference in pressure between two locations, which in turn results in very strong winds. These strong winds pick up available snow from the ground, or blow any snow which is falling, creating very low visibilities and the potential for significant drifting of snow.

The upper Midwest and Great Plains of the United States tends to be the region that experiences blizzards most often. With few trees or other obstructions to reduce wind and blowing snow, this part of the country is particular vulnerable to blizzards. However, blizzards can occur in any location that has a climate that experiences snowfall. Even northern Arizona can experience blizzard conditions when a strong low pressure system moves across southern Arizona and high pressure builds strongly into the Great Basin. However, these conditions are rarely met due to the infrequency of strong low pressure systems moving through the state.

Blizzards can create life-threatening conditions. Traveling by automobile can become difficult or even impossible due to "whiteout" conditions and drifting snow. Whiteout conditions occur most often with major storms that produce a drier, more powdery snow. In this situation, it doesn't even need to be snowing to produce whiteout conditions, as the snow which is already on the ground is blown around, reducing the visibility to near zero at times.

The strong winds and cold temperatures accompanying blizzards can combine to create another danger. The wind chill factor is the amount of cooling one "feels" due to the combination of wind and temperature. During blizzards, with the combination of cold temperatures and strong winds, very low wind chill values can occur. It is not uncommon in the Midwest to have wind chills below minus-60F during blizzard conditions. Exposure to such low wind chill values can result in frostbite or hypothermia.

People should never venture out in blizzards, nor should they continue to travel if a storm is upgraded to a blizzard.

Zardoz,

Thanks. I love reading about snowfall and blizzards almost as much as being in one.

My response was about the likelihood of ice-encasement for a locomotive that slammed into a static snowbank. It was a question about whether that could cause a one-foot thick layer of ice buildup on the locomotive. I think that the collision itself could not, but perhaps if the loco was stalled long enough, there could obviously be lots of snow buildup. I still say urban legend.

One foot of ice???? Maybe in a maritime environment...see for example http://www.markdaviesmedia.com/cold.

[tree68]

Any account I've ever heard about avalanches says that when the snow stops moving, it's like concrete. One could extrapolate from that the situation where a snowplow or locomotive would cause conditions in the snow not far removed from those found in an avalanche. While it may not be ice in the usual sense, it would still be very hard, and very hard to move. Consider, too, the effect of hitting a relatively solid wall of snow with any large object at 10-15 MPH...

As for blizzards and snowdrifts:

That's not from a blizzard, though. That's Lake Effect.

[AlcoRS11Nut]

seems logical to an extent

[zardoz]

When running a freight train in an area where there are cuts that fill with wind-driven snow, the engineer has to try to take that into account when operating. A sufficiently dense or large snowpack will considerably slow a train, and if the engineer did not take precautions, there could be a drastic run-in of slack as the locomotives slow when encountering the snow.

Where I ran was not subject to that much in the way of serious snow drifts, but in the areas prone to them, my technique was to enter the drift at full power to ensure the slack was fully stretched, while holding a 6-10 psi application on the train brakes, and about a 5 psi application on the locomotive brakes.

In suburban territory, the CNW had the first suburban train of the morning (that laid over overnight at each outlying point) turned so the locomotive would lead inbound, so it could cut the crossings safer than a cab-car, which have been known to ride up on the ice on a hard-packed crossing. During bad storms, the CNW ran light units back and forth to keep the crossings clear. I do not know if they do that anymore.

[oubliette]

One of the main myths in the UK was something called the Strategic Reserve, whereby it was alleged that locomotives (mainly steam) were being hidden away in secret tunnels and locations. I investigated a number of sites in the UK and when I have more time there are other places to look at. I doubt that this strategic reserve exists but its always fascinated me how this story of steam locomotives being hidden away for reasons unknown came about.

If your interested in this sort of thing and other unusual rail stories then have a look at my site
http://www.angelfire.com/mn2/Oubliette/

It's in the process of being updated.

[Leon Silverman]

Employing regenerative power from a descending train to power an ascending train is a definite possibility. The aformentioned inefficiencies and line losses simply mean that the train descending a hill at, say 20 mph, would be able to supply only enough power to the ascending train for it to achieve only ten or fifteen mph.
This is the principle behind the hybrid car or locomotive. The prime mover has to generate only enough power to compensate for system losses. This is what enables a 300 hp engine-battery hybrid to have the performance of a 2000 hp straight locomotive.

[germanium]

Oubliette - That Strategic Reserve was probably the scrapyard in Barry !!

[oubliette]

QUOTE: Originally posted by germanium

Oubliette - That Strategic Reserve was probably the scrapyard in Barry !!

It was one of the those endless perpetuated myths that did the rounds. Funnily enough Barry was rarely mentioned. I've visited quite a few sites and spoke to a lot of people from both sides of the belief fence. When I get time I have some more accounts to publish on the site but having said that I still believe it all to be just that - a myth. My site mentions a few places that were always the favourites.

[mersenne6]

StillGrande, the case of the missing freight car has happened more than once. I have several first person accounts of this type. Obviously, these occurred in the days when not every car had air brakes.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal
They (the superintendent and an engineer in a second locomotive) backed up a mile or so, pulled full throttle, and hit the train-high drift head on. After the resultant snow shower cleared, they found the lead engine stuck fast completely encapsulated in a foot thick layer of ice, and they had to chop a hole in the ice just to get to the cab.

this is a physical impossibility; snow just doesn't act that way!

there are only two ways i know where a locomotive can be encapsulated in ice, and one is only theoretical.

a locomotive with no fire burning, out in the open, during an ice storm, is likely to become encapsulated in ice.

set a locomotive on top of a large icecube, and it will slowly over time sink down and become encapsulated. pressure from the loco's weight will melt the ice under pressure, and the water will refreeze as it is displaced and no longer under pressure

[mloik]

QUOTE: Originally posted by tree68

Any account I've ever heard about avalanches says that when the snow stops moving, it's like concrete. One could extrapolate from that the situation where a snowplow or locomotive would cause conditions in the snow not far removed from those found in an avalanche. While it may not be ice in the usual sense, it would still be very hard, and very hard to move. Consider, too, the effect of hitting a relatively solid wall of snow with any large object at 10-15 MPH...

As for blizzards and snowdrifts:

That's not from a blizzard, though. That's Lake Effect.

tree68,

Gotta love that Lake Effect.

Actually, it would not be advisable to extrapolate from avalanche conditions to a static snowbank. Avalanche conditions are generated by particularly transient discontinuities in water and temperature gradients within the snow stratigraphy. Such dramatic discontinuities generally do not occur in a static snowbank (even one undergoing a lot of metamorphosis due to high radiative loads at the snow-atmosphere interface.) Not to mention that the avalanche stratigraphy gets entirely re-mixed during the slide. The avalanche run-out and a static snowbank are not really comparable at all.