AsstChiefMark From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Posted (5 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 2654 times:
The smoke you'll see is caused by oxygen starvation of the locomotive engines, thereby making them run rich. The locomotives in the the front, center, and rear of the train are staffed by people. They're not remote controlled. Montana RailLink requires crew members to wear self-contained breathing apparatus when operating trains in this tunnel.
San747 From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 4936 posts, RR: 13 Reply 1, posted (5 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 2648 times:
Wow... No wonder they have to wear SCBA gear! Looks like a death trap in there!
Zkpilot From New Zealand, joined Mar 2006, 4740 posts, RR: 10 Reply 2, posted (5 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 2627 times:
why don't they install overhead electric lines and use electric locomotives? no problem with O2 starvation then! They'd be able to operate at a faster speed.
WunalaYann From Australia, joined Mar 2005, 2839 posts, RR: 31 Reply 4, posted (5 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 2594 times:
Quoting VHVXB (Reply 3): Or they could install fans at both ends of the tunnel to suck out the fumes
Yes, I am sure the good people at transurban would be very happy to provide anyone else with insight on how to deal with toxic, 500°C-hot fumes in tunnels...
Mir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 19813 posts, RR: 56 Reply 5, posted (5 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 2575 times:
Quoting Zkpilot (Reply 2): why don't they install overhead electric lines and use electric locomotives? no problem with O2 starvation then! They'd be able to operate at a faster speed.
Electrified lines are practically non-existant in the US outside of public transportation and the main Boston-New York-Washington line. I have no idea why. Possibly because the lines have long stretches of nothingness, and maintaining the wires would be cost-prohibitive.
-Mir
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
WunalaYann From Australia, joined Mar 2005, 2839 posts, RR: 31 Reply 6, posted (5 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 2573 times:
Quoting Mir (Reply 5): Possibly because the lines have long stretches of nothingness, and maintaining the wires would be cost-prohibitive.
Honestly, if all the major networks in Europe can do it, there is no receivable reason why it could not be done in the world's largest and most prosperous economy...
Klaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 20901 posts, RR: 55 Reply 7, posted (5 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 2531 times:
Quoting WunalaYann (Reply 6): Honestly, if all the major networks in Europe can do it, there is no receivable reason why it could not be done in the world's largest and most prosperous economy...
The problem is that a smaller population is stretched across a larger area in the USA. That doesn't make it impossible, but it's still a matter of costs, especially in a country which simply doesn't support the necessary investment and blows all its subsidies on road and air traffic.
I'd also expect that you could make those diesels a whole lot cleaner if you really cared; But it would again be a matter of cost.
Zkpilot From New Zealand, joined Mar 2006, 4740 posts, RR: 10 Reply 8, posted (5 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 2497 times:
Quoting Mir (Reply 5): Electrified lines are practically non-existant in the US outside of public transportation and the main Boston-New York-Washington line. I have no idea why. Possibly because the lines have long stretches of nothingness, and maintaining the wires would be cost-prohibitive.
Understandable I guess. Still if these trains are struggling in certain areas because of altitude and tunnels for Oxygen why not have certain parts of the network electrified... have 3 locos ready to go when the train turns up quickly hook em up (wouldnt take long at all) then they could pull the whole thing along. I guess costs would probably be prohibited if it was only for short sections of the network but if it can be done elsewhere then why not the US?
Flyorski From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 978 posts, RR: 1 Reply 9, posted (5 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 2484 times:
Quoting WunalaYann (Reply 6): Honestly, if all the major networks in Europe can do it, there is no receivable reason why it could not be done in the world's largest and most prosperous economy
The USA is much much much larger than Europe, and installing electric wires would up costs (for installation and maintenance) while decreasing profits. In America large amounts of freight often need to travel huge differences, one way it is possible is by "Double stacking" containers. This allows trains to have double the containers per rail car. "Double Stacking" is not possible in Europe because the top container would brush against the electric lines.
"None are more hopelessly enslaved, than those who falsly believe they are free" -Goethe
ZANL188 From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 3258 posts, RR: 0 Reply 11, posted (5 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 2421 times:
Quoting Mir (Reply 5): Electrified lines are practically non-existant in the US outside of public transportation and the main Boston-New York-Washington line. I have no idea why. Possibly because the lines have long stretches of nothingness, and maintaining the wires would be cost-prohibitive.
Electrification has been done in the U.S. (particularly in tunnels) and then removed later for the reasons you site. Strikingly, electrification went by the wayside about the same time steam did and, in many cases, for the same reason - diesels did not require the infrastructure that steam and electric did.
Quoting Klaus (Reply 7): I'd also expect that you could make those diesels a whole lot cleaner if you really cared; But it would again be a matter of cost.
Actually those diesels are fairly clean when run in the environment for which they are optimized... Tunnels represent a fairly low percentage of the track mileage those locomotives are expected to operate on.
Legal considerations provided by: Dewey, Cheatum, and Howe
JFKTOWERFAN From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 1100 posts, RR: 17 Reply 13, posted (5 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 2409 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW DATABASE EDITOR
Wow how long is that tunnel?
I have been to a fire on a train that was running rich and ended up catching fire. The train stopped next to a parking lot so we could get to it easy. After we put the fire out (just in the stack) they restarted the train and it still was running rich. It wasn't till after we got back to the firehouse that we realised that EVERYTHING from our gear to our vehicles was covered in little specks of diesel. The RR had to pay to get everything cleaned.
LTBEWR From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 12365 posts, RR: 12 Reply 14, posted (5 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 2384 times:
Besides the load, it seems to me that there was a significant grade, the tunnel was at a significant altitude, perhaps at more than 1,800 meters or 6,000 feet above sea level,where the air is thinner, thus making operation of engines less efficient and compounding the lack of air in the tunnel. I also suspect that tunnel is quite long. Still, it looks pretty nasty. Imaege what it was like in the past with coal fired or older diesel-electric locomotives.
Here is a website about this tunnel and other ops in the region of the Blossburg tunnel. Some pics (done in 1999) include 737 fuselages on flatcars going to Boeing in Renton, so they might go through that tunnel. The tunnel apparently goes under or very near the Continental Divide. http://www.mtnwestrail.com/roadtrip/aug0999b.htm
Quoting ZANL188 (Reply 11): Electrification has been done in the U.S. (particularly in tunnels) and then removed later for the reasons you site. Strikingly, electrification went by the wayside about the same time steam did and, in many cases, for the same reason - diesels did not require the infrastructure that steam and electric did.
Exactly. There were several rail lines electrified in the early 1900s, however, the electrification was removed, abandoned, or in some cases, the whole rail line was abandoned.
Also, don't forget about the interurbans than ran between cities in much of the U.S.A. All of these were electric, and pretty much operated like a "long-distance trolley." Most of these went belly up around the 1930s. Although, these lines were the first casualties of the automobile and trucks, which would later bring down the Flagships of the industry, not so much their electric power.
Halls120 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 16, posted (5 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 2305 times:
Quoting Klaus (Reply 7): The problem is that a smaller population is stretched across a larger area in the USA. That doesn't make it impossible, but it's still a matter of costs, especially in a country which simply doesn't support the necessary investment and blows all its subsidies on road and air traffic.
Right - we should stop investing in air travel, and electrify the entire rail system. After all, people are clamoring for the ability to travel coast to coast by train. It's so efficient, after all.
AsstChiefMark From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 17, posted (5 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 2274 times:
Quoting Halls120 (Reply 16): After all, people are clamoring for the ability to travel coast to coast by train
If you could operate a TGV at maximum speed nonstop between New York and Los Angeles, the trip would still take 14 hours. That's assuming you have a straight, flat track between the cities.
Klaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 20901 posts, RR: 55 Reply 18, posted (5 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 2269 times:
Quoting Halls120 (Reply 16): Right - we should stop investing in air travel, and electrify the entire rail system. After all, people are clamoring for the ability to travel coast to coast by train. It's so efficient, after all.
It's not quite that simple.
Before we in Germany decided to make rail travel a backbone of our transport infrastructure again, our own railway was on a downward slope as well, with most of the subsidies going to roads and to some extent air travel. You may not notice it with our shiny, expensive and highly popular ICE network today, but it took political decisions to get us there.
The challenges in the USA are certainly not identical, but still related. And the decision to neglect rail traffic and near-exclusively plan for cars and planes has its own problematic consequences as well.
It wouldn't be cheap or easy to revise some of those decisions, but cheap or easy aren't qualifications you'd hear a lot in connection with your other infrastructure either...
Klaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 20901 posts, RR: 55 Reply 19, posted (5 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 2257 times:
Quoting AsstChiefMark (Reply 17): If you could operate a TGV at maximum speed nonstop between New York and Los Angeles, the trip would still take 14 hours. That's assuming you have a straight, flat track between the cities.
Sure, for those long distances many if not most people will probably still opt for air travel if they can afford it. But cost relations are shifting, and on shorter distances flying just isn't the better option over high-speed rail. Even the hobbled Acela apparently competes well on the route it operates.
Halls120 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 20, posted (5 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 2254 times:
Quoting AsstChiefMark (Reply 17): Quoting Halls120 (Reply 16):After all, people are clamoring for the ability to travel coast to coast by train
If you could operate a TGV at maximum speed nonstop between New York and Los Angeles, the trip would still take 14 hours. That's assuming you have a straight, flat track between the cities.
And I doubt that you could run such a train without stopping. After all, the union rules would never permit it.
Quoting Klaus (Reply 18): The challenges in the USA are certainly not identical, but still related.
Yes, if we had planned better, we could have better train connectivity in those places where it is logical to have it. But coast to coast rail service isn't logical, given the vast distances that one covers in the US.
Klaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 20901 posts, RR: 55 Reply 21, posted (5 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 2248 times:
Quoting Halls120 (Reply 20): And I doubt that you could run such a train without stopping. After all, the union rules would never permit it.
At distances like that, a reasonable number of stops wouldn't make any meaningful difference by relation.
Quoting Halls120 (Reply 20): Yes, if we had planned better, we could have better train connectivity in those places where it is logical to have it. But coast to coast rail service isn't logical, given the vast distances that one covers in the US.
It would simply make sense to connect major cities along the route, so whether any single traveller would decide to only use a segment or the entire length would be up to them. The greater distances change some variables, but they don't make it moot.
Not that many people travel by ICE from Munich to Hamburg either, but the train will make the entire run nevertheless, with a few stops in between.
Halls120 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 23, posted (5 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 2218 times:
Quoting Klaus (Reply 21): Not that many people travel by ICE from Munich to Hamburg either, but the train will make the entire run nevertheless, with a few stops in between.
Klaus, the "as the crow flies" distance is between Munich and Hamburg is 379 miles.
Th distance between Washington DC and Chicago is 596 miles. Washington to San Francisco is 2438 miles. Even if we adopt your analogy, that some people will take a train from DC to Chicago, and some from Chicago to San Francisco, the latter distance is 1855 miles.
Your attempt to suggest that if the US had done what Germany has done with its train system simply isn't logical. The differences in distances between our major cities and your major cities is vast.
AsstChiefMark From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 24, posted (5 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 2195 times:
Quoting Halls120 (Reply 20): And I doubt that you could run such a train without stopping. After all, the union rules would never permit it.
I'm pointing out that our country is so damned big that even high-speed trains would still be undesirable for fast, long distance trains.
I'd say anything longer than four hours on a high-speed train operating from city center to city center is about the point at which most Americans would consider flying.
25 ZANL188: In this day and age of enviromental stuff.... The transmission losses on an electrified line would likely more than make up for the smoke you see in
26 Mdodd: Wow that is ALOT of smoke! Interesting...
27 Klaus: The principle still applies. And I'm pretty sure that a sizable portion (if not the majority) of US domestic travelling is done over far shorter dist
28 OB1504: What about a locomotive that could switch from diesel to electric while in the tunnel and then switch back? Something similar to the Genesis P32AC-DM?
29 ZANL188: True for places like New York & possibly LA, but for most of the country to get from one major city to another involves longer distances. And if ther
30 Klaus: Not generally coast-to-coast distances, however. Which was my point. In Germany rail is a good alternative for most domestic flights. In a USA with h
31 Jafa39: Hmmm, what would the SUV tyre slashing activists make of this video?....like to see them slash a train's tyres though
32 AsstChiefMark: Loads of batteries! A small diesel engine/generator unit keeps them charged.
33 ZANL188: It matters not... Locomotives need ballast to achieve traction performance targets anyway. Swap batteries for ballast = no loss of efficiency Exactly
34 57AZ: Actually, some tunnels such as the Moffat Tunnel do have large ventilation systems. Actually, the last major electrified freight railway didn't shut
35 Klaus: Modern high-speed trains don't have separate locomotives. They use motorized bogies all through the train with merely a driver cabin each at the head
36 Halls120: I agree. Unfortunately, our German friend, who knows us and our country better than we do, doesn't agree. You are? Based on what? Your gut feeling? B
37 Pyrex: The transsiberian railway, the longest railway track in the world, is fully electrified, and I bet maintaining power lines in Siberia is much harder
38 AeroWesty: I have to concur with this point. I'm not sure of the latest figures on it, but the Cascades just keeps getting better and more popular, and new dedi
39 ZANL188: But we are talking about freight locomotives, hybrids inparticular But there is always an environmental impact even with renewables. BTW: Ever heard
40 Pyrex: Not politically-motivated at all: just a government using its resources (ok, and its political dissidents, etc.) to do one of the things it is suppos
41 57AZ: However, there are plenty of city pairs that could support high speed rail that are not linked. Houston-New Orleans: 340 miles Orlando-Tampa: 80 miles
42 Halls120: And the trans-Siberian rail There are indeed a number of city pairs in the US that could probably support high speed rail. But not on the order of DB
43 57AZ: On a national scale, no. On a regional scale, yes-no probably about it. Passenger rail is rapidly developing here in the west-CalTrans is the best ex
44 Klaus: Are you telling me that all the US domestic flights except a negligible fraction are coast-to-coast or comparable in distance? That looks rather impl
45 ZANL188: Ah yes you were speaking of a non-existent high speed hybrid diesel passenger locomotive then I presume? In terms of potential environmental impact I
46 Klaus: Carbon copies rarely work. That's why I never advocated them: One thing to remember is that the US transportation market is as skewed (or even more s
47 Halls120: I'm one of them. But I agree with AsstChiefMark - four hours is about the longest trip I'd care for. Maybe five. I've taken 8 hour train trips, and t
48 Klaus: We were talking about fundamental issues of rail transportation. A different kind of impact, but problematic nevertheless.
49 Klaus: I wasn't offering a fully-researched study, just common sense based on rather plausible assumptions. You can laugh all you want if that pleases you,
50 Halls120: Actually, I did, Klaus. You just choose to ignore them. When you said "It would simply make sense to connect major cities along the route, so whether
51 Klaus: Your argument was that any kind of system was useless since people were always flying coast to coast: It's only an extreme case. Most trips should be
52 Halls120: Where did limit my argument to just coast to coast flying? I didn't, of course, but don't let the facts get in the way of your preconceived and erron
53 AsstChiefMark: I noticed that a while ago. I still don't understand how and why a German believes his ideas about American railroad operations have never been consi
54 Mirrodie: Very cool video. I was expecting to see a few Alco C-420s blowing through. What RR? MNRR? What motive power?
55 Klaus: In the multiple posts I just quoted, for instance? You've always been coming back to that same extreme argument with very limited applicability. I ha
56 Klaus: I never said that. As far as I'm aware the formerly essential railway infrastructure has just been abandoned when road and air traffic became (and we
57 Halls120: Well, the real issue is, Klaus can never admit to being wrong. He's incapable of admitting it. Really? I started out my posts with the coast to coast
58 AsstChiefMark: That is correct. And they're trying to rebuild and refurbish it, but it ain't going happen in just a couple of years. High-speed rail will work in ce
59 Klaus: Been there, done that. You just haven't delivered on your own part, beyond some sloppy reading so far. Then why could I quote so many posts echoing t
60 TEBguy: Why not just electrify just the section of tunnel? Those locomotives operate by using huge diesel engines to generate electricity to run electric moto
61 Halls120: Have you seen the draft High Speed Passenger Rail Act (HSPRA) of 2007? If passed, it would "provide up to $3 billion per year in federal matching fun
62 Klaus: Yeah, such changes take a lot of time. But at least there are several model cases which make it easier finding your own way. At least some mistakes o
63 OB1504: It would really be more like 4 hours by air (minimum), if you factor in time spent at the airport. IMHO, a lot of passengers traveling between WAS an
64 Klaus: I don't see where your general conclusion is coming from. Taking 50% of formerly airborne trips says quite the opposite, especially when considering
65 Halls120: "So many?" In two posts, Klaus, #16 and #20, I mentioned coast to coast travel. And in post 23, I challenged your assertions in post 21. Which you ar
66 Halls120: I flew from ATL to DCA last week, and we spent 1.5 hours in the air. Even if I arrived at the airport 2 hours before we departed, that's still 3.5 ho
67 Halls120: No stop in DC???? Or Bawlmer??? Hon, you can't be serious! The problem with your assertion is that you assume a significant amount of "local" traffic
68 AsstChiefMark: It'll fail. Every Congress, regardless if it's Democratic or Republican, has approved just enough money for Amtrak to maintain the status quo. Right
69 Klaus: It's been the point from which you've continued to derive your entire argumentation. You are again wilfully misrepresenting what I've actually said.
70 Zkpilot: Actually I did... was quite a pleasant journey too! Hamburg-Munich-Rome (the latter sector being quite slower and not as pleasant but still interesti
71 FlyDeltaJets87: No, it doesn't. And Lord only knows what kind of routings you're looking at. How would I travel by rail from Greensboro to San Antonio (which I flew
72 57AZ: While we're talking infrastructure, let's consider some additional factors. Congress has options that they have not (and will not take) to improve Amt
73 57AZ: That's nothing new. The railroads were using SCBA type gear well before the fire departments had though of it (1930s). I've seen photographs of engin
74 Halls120: Actually, for every month that Acela makes a profit, I believe that the tide may slowly turn. Maybe not this year, but eventually, I see rail making
77 AsstChiefMark: Oil flowed from the tender to the firebox. The oil chamber in the tender was pressurized so it flowed evenly while ascending or descending grades.
78 Klaus: Ah, right. I still can't seem to get used to the idea of oil-fired steam engines for some reason... I've only ever seen the coal-fired ones myself as
79 KaiGywer: I'd like to see more passenger trains here. There are many dead train tracks around here (I don't count one or two trains a day as "traffic") that cou
80 AsstChiefMark: A high-speed rail link between Minneapolis and Chicago has been in the works for about 30 years.
81 57AZ: They were common here in the West. Union Pacific, Southern Pacific and the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe all used oil in the Western Regions and coal
82 KaiGywer: Although I wouldn't call Amtrak high speed by any means, 8 hours isn't too bad compared to driving.
83 AndesSMF: My two cents, perhaps a little too late in the discussion. Some foreigners do not realize the distances between cities in the US, especially out West.
84 AsstChiefMark: It's not Amtrak. Most of the proposals have been from private companies.
85 KaiGywer: I know. But the current train is Amtrak, and not THAT slow
86 AndesSMF: The problem is twofold, and Mark please correct me as required: 1. Lack of track maintenance forces some corridors to have a less than ideal speed. 2.
87 Itsjustme: Back to the video for a second; Mark (or any other train expert), what is the origin of those rhythmic noises? They're in groups of 7. I assume it's t
88 AsstChiefMark: You are correct. Union Pacific is really plays hardball with Amtrak. I've heard where they leave a 100% full Amtrak train waiting on a siding out in
89 57AZ: #1 is due to a realignment of maintenance of way departments. Instead of having a smaller dedicated maintenance of way gang for each section of line,
90 AndesSMF: And it was their track that bent that caused an Amtrak auto-train derailment not long ago. How much track does UP own out West? Hmm...we took the Zep
92 AndesSMF: I take it that they can really put a damper on Amtrak's operations, then?
93 AsstChiefMark: Big time. Amtrak's #11 and #14 trains (Coast Starlight) are NEVER on time because UP stops it several times to allow slower freight trains to pass. I
94 AndesSMF: As we realized, long distance train trips are very pleasant, with the only caveat being that you CANNOT expect to get there at a certain schedule.
95 Halls120: Unless we end this sort of freight preference, passenger trains will never become an effective alternative to air travel.
96 AsstChiefMark: The reason Amtrak does well in the NEC is because they own their own dedicated trackage.
97 57AZ: That is what makes the difference. Of course, right now they are having to confront some major deferred repairs due to insufficient funding from Cong
98 57AZ: The train is rolling over a couple of joints in the rail-most likely at the end of a turnout. For reasons of safety and maintenance, the joints betwe
99 Itsjustme: Interesting. Thanks for the explanation, 57AZ.
100 AsstChiefMark: Here's a maintenance-of-way train carrying of sections of welded rail Attach them to that concrete ties using E-clips (instead of the old wooden ties
101 57AZ: Of course, a real sight to behold is stressing the rail in the wintertime for installation. It is necessary to use open flame heaters to get the rail
102 KaiGywer: Do the tracks bend? Or how do they get through curves with that long load?
103 57AZ: Rails have a certain degree of natural flexibility. However, for curves beyond a certain radius the rails have to be passed through a rail bender to
104 Halls120: Thanks to 57AZ and AsstChief Mark for a very informative thread.
107 57AZ: On a left hand turnout no less. Probably deferred maintenance as that point rail only takes a load when a train procedes through the main route. The
108 PPVRA: Looks like Amtrak is taking some unorthodox steps to attract customers. . $100 bucks in booze? Now that's addiction-based customer loyalty edit: forgo
109 AsstChiefMark: No different dan da charter bus to da Vikings game, doncha know.
110 57AZ: Nope. Long Island RR is also keeping their few remaining bar cars in service.
111 A342: Actually, this solution has been out there for 50 years now... See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EMD_FL9
112 L-188: Not only maintainence but also installation, and poweing them, Line losses would be a significant amount. Atoms, The nice thing about DF1 is that it
113 A342: Why should a government-owned company NOT care about costs?
114 Halls120: LOL, in a perfect world, they should and would. In the real world, they don't.
115 57AZ: At least that's true for the French National Railways. Amtrak is VERY concerned about costs and maximizing the ROI for each dollar spent. Now as for
Sponsor Message: 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From New Zealand, joined Mar 2006, 4740 posts, 
From Australia, joined Apr 2006, 5517 posts, 
From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 20901 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
Printer friendly format 
