HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: elw4@po.CWRU.Edu (Evan L. Werkema)
Newsgroups: rec.railroad
Subject: Re: 79mph
Date: 28 Jan 1993 17:32:59 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: elw4@po.CWRU.Edu (Evan L. Werkema)
NNTP-Posting-Host: thor.ins.cwru.edu


>In a previous article, roma@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Jon Roma) says:
>
>>The ICC had ordered signal improvements in the past, notably the 1922 order
>>that required a number of large railroads to install cab signals on one
>>crew district.  However, the 1947 order marked the first time the ICC
>>issued a blanket order regulating train speeds -- prior to that time, 
>>speeds had been entirely at the discretion of the railroad operating
>>department.  A more recent regulation sets standards for the physical
>>track structure for various ranges of operating speeds.
>>
>>The 1947 ICC order intended to improve rail safety by mandating new signal
>>and cab signal installations.  The net result was the lowering of speed
>>limits on many roads who were unwilling to make the huge investment for
>>the benefit of comparatively few passenger trains.  A number of the major
>>roads (Chicago & North Western, Santa Fe, etc.) did install cab signals
>>in order to maintain existing passenger train timings.

  Santa Fe, to my knowledge, only had one section of cab signals, on the
Illinois Division between Fort Madison, IA and Pequot, IL.  Its installation
was mandated by the ICC in 1925, and, although the order was rescinded in
1928 (just after the installation was completed!) the system lasted into the
1970's.  
  Santa Fe still maintains long stretches of Automatic Train Stop, however,
on routes where the Southwest Chief runs 80+ mph.  Much of the trackage 
through New Mexico, Colorado, and Kansas is still guarded by the old upper-
quadrant semafore signals as well, though these are on the way out.

-- 
   ----__________,,_-------     -------_,,___________----     
  _IooI ==          ~~~~~~I     I~~~~~~           == IooI_   I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I
|_II__I____Santa Fe_______I_| |_I_____Evan Werkema___I__II_| Ielw4@po.cwru.eduI
`-~O==O~=============~O==O~-`~`-~O==O~==============~O==O~-`~~o==o~~~~~~~~o==o~
From: romeo@niagara.Tymnet.COM (Michael Stimac)
Newsgroups: rec.railroad
Subject: Re: historical question
Keywords: stainless cars
Date: 23 Jan 93 00:19:24 GMT
Organization: BT North America (Tymnet)

In article <1993Jan22.190431.10121@news.columbia.edu> brennan@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Joseph Brennan) writes:
>In article <u0ZqXB1w165w@1776.COM> bob@1776.COM (Robert Coe) writes:
>>> the "Budd-Michelin" railcars, which had stainless bodies and rubber tires
>>What sort of roadbed were these rubber-tired vehicles intended to run on?
>>If rails, what was supposed to keep them on the rails?

>They had flanges, so they ran on regular track, but the main part of
>the wheel that takes weight had rubber tire.  Trains like this ran on
>main lines in France once.

>I do not know whether these are pneumatic or solid rubber.

There is a cross-section drawing of the rubber-tired wheels on the
Pennsy railcars on page 166 of the book _Interurbans Without Wires_
by Edmund Keilty, pub. Interurban Press PO Box 6444, Glendale CA 91205
ISBN 0-916374-38-6. 

According to this drawing, there is a steel wheel with an attached
steel flange. There is a pneumatic rubber tire with inner tube (!)
around the wheel. Inside the rubber tire is an aluminum tire
presumably for relief in case of a "flat".

There is also a detailed plan drawing, as well as a chart of all
the Budd-Michelin production. I suspect, but do not know, that these
wheels with rubber tires are similar to those on the famous Paris Metro.
The Michelin association suggest that it is so.

Michael Stimac
-- 
Michael Stimac
(415) 355-8889
romeo@tymnet.com
These opinions are not necessarily anyone's but my own.
From: M00209@MBVM.Mitre.Org
Subject: Re: Fort Devens as a container terminal?
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, Bedford MA 01730
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 18:03:55 GMT

In article <lmamvgINN481@news.bbn.com>
rnewman@bbn.com (Ron Newman) writes:
 
>
>In article <16B61E73B.M00209@MBVM.Mitre.Org>, M00209@MBVM.Mitre.Org writes:
>
>|> As far as I know, the plan is still on.  The idea is to run double-stacks
>|> from the west to Fort Devens, re-package the trains there to single-level
>|> container jobs and run them to Moran Terminal at Mystic Wharf in Boston.
>
>What route will the single-stack trains take, and just where is
>Mystic Wharf?  Won't all this freight traffic interfere with
>the Fitchburg commuter rail operation?
>
>--
>Ron Newman              rnewman@bbn.com
 
Mystic Wharf is in Charlestown, directly underneath the Tobin Bridge.  It
used to be a major point for rail/sea transshipment but hasn't been for many
years now.  It is reached by a spur track from the vicinity of Tower C, at
roughly the point where the High Line used by the Lowell trains rises up over
the Grand Junction track.  The point at which the High Line leaves the
original Boston and Lowell roadbed is called Mystic Junction.  It is still
I believe the location of a functioning yard office.  It is alongside the
intersection of Washington Street and the McGrath Highway (Medford Street)
in Somerville.  Without checking old maps to verify it, I assume that the
name derives from a connection there between the original Boston and Lowell
(later B&M Southern Division, later New Hampshire Division, etc.) main line
and a branch (the Mystic Branch) to the wharf.  Now, the Mystic Branch joins
with I believe the Valley Track in the general area of Tower C, behind the
BET enginehouse.  All this trackage was rebuilt when the High Line was built
as part of the "new North Station/new freight terminals" projects circa 1927.
 
It is my understanding that the routing will be via the Stony Brook Branch,
Lowell, Wilmington and Mystic Junction.  Getting there over the Fitchburg
Division would be difficult since the closure of the Hills Crossing Cutoff,
and there are some tight clearance bridges (notably Newton Street in Waltham).
The New Hampshire Route main line between Boston and North Chelmsford was
rebuilt with improved clearances circa 1980 when they closed the Cutoff in
preparation for the MBTA Red Line Alewife Extension.  I suspect that the
clearances they established then would be sufficient for single stack container
trains but probably not for double stacks.
 
 
Len Bachelder        Archives Committee, Boston and Maine RR Historical Society
MITRE Corp.           Secretary, Massachusetts Bay Railroad Enthusiasts
Bedford MA 01730      Member, 470 Railroad Club
<M00209@mbvm.mitre.org>
 
"Amazing love, how can it be that Thou, my God, should'st die for me!"
                                                 - Charles Wesley
From: wbrill@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Warren Brill)
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 22:26:53 GMT
Subject: Re: Genesee & Wyoming Now in Oregon
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA
Newsgroups: rec.railroad

In rec.railroad, johnm@hpmcaa.mcm.hp.com.mcm.hp.com (John Mosbarger) writes:

>      As had been mentioned in various railfan publications, SP has selected
> the Genesee & Wyoming RR to operate its westside branchlines, except for the
> Coos Bay and Tillamook Branches.  Last Friday (1/15) the agreement was
> finally signed, and the new operator should be running its own trains by
> this summer.  Instead of trains operating out of Portland on the north end
> and Eugene on the south, The G&W will run from Eugene to Albany via trackage
> rights, and then onto the Toledo Branch to access Corvallis, McMinnville, 
> Dawson, Monroe, Newberg, et.al.  
> 
>      These branches had been pretty much the domain of SD9's, but rumor has
> it that SP informed the G&W that it did not want them to run any 6-axle
                                      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                                      Why not? Wasn't the whole purpose of
                                      S(pecial) D(uty) locomotives with 6
     				      axles to better distribute the weight
  				      so as to not damage lighter (branch
				      line) track? Or am I missing something?
 				      Is the weight that much higher on an
				      SD than a Geep?

> power over their trackage.  Also, there is a rumor that SP's Traffic Mgr.,
> Bob Melbo, will resign from SP and take an equivalent position with the G&W.
> 
> John
> --
>  John Mosbarger                *      Do not condemn the judgement of others
>  HP McMinnville, OR            *      because they differ from your own.  You
>  johnm@hpmcaa.mcm.hp.com       *      may both be wrong.                  
>                                *                         --Dandemis
>             Opinions are mine and HP is not authorized to use them
> 

 
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
o                                          i---i_________________      o
o    Warren T. Brill, a.k.a.          *----|[|]|__RIO GRANDE_____|*    o
o    wbrill@hpxxx.fc.hp.com         i_|___/|___|\________________|_i   o
o    wbrill@hpfcso.fc.hp.com       =++()=()=() `========' ()=()=()++=  o
o                                  =================================== o
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

Newsgroups: rec.railroad
From: pratta@rpi.edu (Anthony Edward Prattico)
Subject: Re: Genesee & Wyoming Now in Oregon
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
	<1993Jan28.002233.7516@gw.wmich.edu>
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 16:32:23 GMT

In article <1993Jan28.002233.7516@gw.wmich.edu> 195ochs@gw.wmich.edu writes:

>SD's are mostly used for more traction, since they have more traction
>motors. GP's are lighter and are also typically used for highspeed trains
>(intermodal, etc)
>Here's some typical weights of locos from Chessie System and CSX
>(sort of an approximate, since different class engines weighed differently)
>
>GP 7/9 250,000
>SD 7/9 370,000 (these were ballasted to make them slightly heavier)
>GP35   260,000
>SD35   390,000
>GP38   270,000
>SD38   380,000
>GP40   275,000
>SD40   390,000
>
>and also some GE's to compare:
>U30B   277,000
>U30C   377,000
>B30-7  277,000
>C30-7  385,000 and 411,500 (they have 2 different weights listed)
>B40-8  288,000
>C40-8  395,000
>
>So you can clearly see that there is typically 120,000-140,000
>pounds between a B and a C trucked engine. This is very crucial on branch
>lines. Most branchlines will be restricted to a GP30, GP35 or GP38 or GP40
>or GP7/9 on some RR's (CSX doesn't have any GP7/9's left, they usually use
>GP30,GP38.GP39,GP40 GP16 (rebuilt GP7/9's) and U18B,U36B, and B30-7's
>on the locals in Michigan. Mostly GP30's and GP40's since they have scads
>of GP40's (and GP40-2's)

True, but the real limit is the weight PER AXLE. Of all the engines above, the
weight per axle of the six axle engines is EQUAL TO OR LESS THAN that of the
four axle units. Many of the problems with branchlines stems from the sharper
curves that cause problems with the six axle units, which have a much larger
minimum radius. I don't know about the particular trackage in question, but I'd
assume this is more likely the case, giving the lower axle loads of the six
axle units. In your example of locals, I bet that there are many industries
sharp curved sidings to be served, which would demand a four axle unit.
From: romeo@niagara.Tymnet.COM (Michael Stimac)
Newsgroups: rec.railroad
Subject: Re: NEC
Date: 22 Jan 93 21:08:30 GMT
Organization: BT North America (Tymnet)

In article <38731@cbmvax.commodore.com> grr@cbmvax.commodore.com (George Robbins) writes:
>In article <16B5CF000.M00209@MBVM.Mitre.Org> M00209@MBVM.Mitre.Org writes:
  

>>            7.) Other Philadelphia area stuff.  You can't get out of 30th Street
>>          Station without using the Corridor for at least a short distance.
>>          In addition to the Amtrak local service to Harrisburg that I already
>>          mentioned, SEPTA runs trains (multiple unit electrics) to several
>>          other destinations (Paoli, Chestnut Hill West, Philadelphia Inter-
>>          national Airport, Media) that start their trip from 30th Street on the
>>          Corridor for at least a few yards!  Also, New Jersey Transit is

>Not exactly true - The NEC runs "through" the basement concourse, while the
>commuter lines run crosswise through the upper level.  I don't know the exact
>routing off all the commuter lines into the station, but some, at least the
>Paoli Local don't (obviously) tread on the corridor.

This cannot pass unchallenged!

The suburban station tracks proceed to the "Main Line" (i.e. to Paoli
for example) via Zoo Junction.

George, are you trying to claim that *some* of the tracks in Zoo Junction
are part of the corridor while some other tracks are *not* part of the 
corridor?

That's pretty darn nit-picky, and I doubt if you'll find very many
railroaders who would agree that "part" of Zoo Junction is not the
corridor. 

NB - the term "Main Line" has a both a general and a special meaning
with regard to the Pennsy in Philadelphia. The general meaning is
what you would expect, the special meaning is those tracks departing
Zoo Junction to the west up to about Paoli. The term also includes
the towns and real estate within several miles of such track.

Michael Stimac

-- 
Michael Stimac
(415) 355-8889
romeo@tymnet.com
These opinions are not necessarily anyone's but my own.
From: rambler@pnet51.orb.mn.org (Dan Meyer)
Newsgroups: rec.railroad
Subject: Re: ? about engine sets
Date: 24 Jan 93 17:45:12 GMT
Article-I.D.: orbit.8932
Organization: People-Net [pnet51], Minneapolis, MN.

>In article <1jp1qtINN4as@grapevine.EBay.Sun.COM> maral@repare.EBay.Sun.COM  
>(Mark Maral) writes:
>> My son asked me a question the other day and I couldn't answer him
>> so I thought I would tap the knowledge of all you experts.  The
>> question is why do trains utilize various engine types when pulling
>> a string of cars and why do some point forwards and some backwards?
>> I kind of would like to know myself.  A 10 year old and 36 year old kid
>> appreciates your response.
>> 

The simple answer is, they pull a train just as well no matter 
which direction they are pointed.

-- Dan Meyer
Remember: " Buffalo never Oink " Seen on a South Dakota travel brocure.
Advertisment: Try the Railway Post Office , a railfan BBS ! (612) 377-2197.
UUCP: {crash tcnet}!orbit!pnet51!rambler
INET: rambler@pnet51.orb.mn.org
From: hawesgb@ucbeh.san.uc.edu
Newsgroups: rec.railroad
Subject: Railroad Club needs help.
Date: 24 Jan 93 19:29:50 EST
Distribution: world
Organization: Univ. of Cincinnati

The Cincinnati Railroad Club would like not to re-invent the wheel !!!!
We would like to hear from other clubs and groups of how they organized their
records. For example we have all of the prints for the building of the
Cincinnati Union Terminal. We have reams and reams of B & O records and much
much more.

Our problem is, we only want to organize it once and do it right the
first time. E-mail me and tell me what package(s) your group is uon the system
you are using.
From: dboone@IASTATE.EDU (David L. Boone)
Subject: Re:  RDC prices
Reply-To: dboone@IASTATE.EDU (David L. Boone)
Organization: Iowa State University
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 23:56:35 GMT

In article <1993Jan21.233052.6237@ryn.mro4.dec.com>, pierson@empror.enet.dec.com
(dave pierson) writes:
> In article <1jkn74INNo90@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, bw936@cleveland.Freenet.Edu
> (Gregory K. Ramsey) writes, in part:
> 
> >Anybody have any idea how much a surplus RDC will sell for?
> 	I've a friend who got one for well under $1k.  That's uncommon, tho.
> 	Many have engine or engines removed, and parts fo the drive train
> 	pulled.

I recently saw a number of RDC's listed for sale at $10,000 each.  Some still
had their engines and drive trains; others were less complete.
--
David L. Boone
Engineer, Iowa State University Computation Center
Internet: dboone@iastate.edu    Bitnet:  gn.dlb@isumvs
Voice:    (515) 294-1977        US mail: 74 Durham Hall, Ames, IA 50011
Newsgroups: rec.railroad
Newsgroups: rec.railroad

In rec.railroad, romeo@niagara.Tymnet.COM (Michael Stimac) writes:

> In article <p8f3_#j@rpi.edu> caer@iear.arts.rpi.edu (Charlie Figura) writes:
> 
> >   	What is a question that contains the word
> >     	'canteloupe' for no apparent reason?
> 
> "Canteloupe?"
***********Whaddya mean, I canteloupe?**************
> 
> Michael Stimac
> -- 
> Michael Stimac
> (415) 355-8889
> romeo@tymnet.com
> These opinions are not necessarily anyone's but my own.
Newsgroups: rec.railroad
From: brennan@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Joseph Brennan)
Subject: Re: NEC
Reply-To: brennan@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Joseph Brennan)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 20:34:32 GMT

In article <3220@tymix.Tymnet.COM> romeo@niagara.Tymnet.COM (Michael
Stimac) writes:

>Zoo Junction *is* part of the corridor!
. . .
>So, for operations, they cannot be "operated separately".

Schedules for Main Line--30th St Upper trains can be made out with no
reference to schedules of Northeast Corridor--30th St Lower trains.
Likewise, late running on one of the two routings would not cause any
conflicting use of one track or block the other routing.  This seems
significant to me, that's all.  It's not as if the Main and NEC merged
at Zoo and then diverged again into the two 30th St approaches; rather
the two 30th St approaches are distinct already as a train moves south
out of the Zoo triangle.

Of course the routings are not totally independent in at least two
respects-- firstly, Zoo is a single interlocking, and secondly, many
other trains run a routing Northeast Corridor--30th St Upper.
Compare, though, a case where any two rail lines cross and there are
some trains running from one line into the other-- there too you would
have a single interlocking and some interdependence of scheduling.
Zoo is of course a LOT more complex than that.

There is good reason to say all of Zoo is part of the corridor; there
is also reason to distinguish the parts of Zoo between those tracks
used by corridor train services and others.  I see it both ways.

How do you consider the freight High Line past 30th St?  he asks 
fiendishly.

>Next you'll tell me that 0 track and 5 track, et al, are not
>part of the corridor either! Get real!

This refers to the 5th and 6th track, right?  I don't know of any
places where there is any reason to say so.  

Joe Brennan     Columbia University in the City of New York
                ("affiliation shown for identification only")
via Internet:   brennan@columbia.edu
via BITNET:     brennan@cunixf
Newsgroups: rec.railroad
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Subject: FRA High-Speed Rail Corridors
Organization: LLNL
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 01:39:56 GMT


	Maybe this is old news, but I discovered the five corridors
named by the Federal Railroad Administration late last year (Bush was
trying to be the "Railroad President", get it?). These are all
existing lines and are to be upgraded to 100 mph running with grade
separations and improved signaling, among other things. Not quite up
to TGV snuff, you understand. Here they are:

	[this group of three]
	Chicago -- Detroit, MI
	Chicago -- Milwaukee, WI
	Chicago -- St. Louis, MO

	Washington, DC -- Charlotte, NC

	Miami, FL -- Tampa, FL

	Seattle, WA -- Portland, OR [the Pacific Northwest]

	Oakland?/Sacramento? -- Stockton -- Bakersfield [all in CA]

	Currently, the nominal average speeds, from the schedules, are
in the range of 45-60 mph.

	Has anything happened since then?
-- 
/Loren Petrich, the Master Blaster
/lip@s1.gov
From: bob@1776.COM (Robert Coe)
Newsgroups: rec.railroad
Subject: Dealing with signal malfunctions
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 93 09:55:56 EST
Distribution: world
Organization: 1776 Enterprises, Sudbury MA

Steve_Hooper@tvbbs.wimsey.bc.ca (Steve Hooper) writes:
> This situation [signals changing to red as a result of a malfunction] has
> happened to me numerous times...probably every 20th trip or so it will 
> happen.  You get a 568 to pass the red signal, proceed at restricted speed
> looking out for switches turned, broken rail etc to the next signal.

How do you do that?  By peering out the windshield with binoculars?  By the
time you get in sight of such an obstruction, you don't have much time to
stop, do you?

   ___            _                                           -  Bob
   /__) _   /    / ) _   _
(_/__) (_)_(_)  (___(_)_(/_______________________________________ bob@1776.COM
Robert K. Coe ** 14 Churchill St, Sudbury, Massachusetts 01776 ** 508-443-3265
Newsgroups: rec.railroad
From: Joe.Russ <Joe.Russ@mixcom.mixcom.com>
Subject: More problems for the WC in buying the GB&W and FRVR
Organization: Milwaukee Internet Xchange BBS, Milwaukee, WI U.S.A.
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 02:18:12 GMT


Thought I'd pass along the following to everyone here in netland:
 
From t Business Section of the Jan. 26, 1993 Milwaukee Journal]
 
ACQUISITION DETOURED: The Interstate Comerce Commission said it would
orde Wisconsin Central Transportation Co. to negotiate with the United
Transportation Union before it could complete its purchase of the
Green Bay & Western and Fox River Valley Railroads, according to
Wisconsin Central executive vice president Thomas Power and Edwrd
Garvey, an attorney for the union, which represents workers at the
Green Bay & Western. Fox River Valley workers are scheduled to vote on
union representation by Feb. 5. Wisconsin Central orkers are not
unionized.
 -----------------------------------------------------------
 
Also, I head the following Bessemer & Lake Erie units were heading
north on the WC today: SD38 861, SD38 862 & SD38AC 865. Also in the
consist was WC GP30 707 and 2 SD45's and a GP40.
-- 
Joe.Russ@mixcom.com
WISE Div., NMRA
From: plaws@uafhp.uark.edu (Peter Laws)
Newsgroups: rec.railroad
Subject: Light Rail Proponents Score Victory with New Administration
Date: 22 Jan 1993 12:25:56 -0600
Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu


  Well known Light Rail Transit proponent Fred Rogers presented
President-elect Bill Clinton with a replica of the trolley car that plies
the rails of the tiny town featured on the TV show "Mr. Rogers'
Neighborhood". 

  The presentation was made Tuesday during a live children's
inauguration special on The Disney Channel. 

  Mr. Clinton said that he was "honored" to receive the gift and went on
to outline his administration's 15-point plan for improved transportation to
the group of five- to ten-year-olds assembled for the special.

  Transportation Secretary-designate Federico Pena's press
secretary-designate issued a statement later in the day that said "Any
promises made during the campaign regarding transportation are being
reviewed for viability at this time". 












































8-)





Newsgroups: rec.railroad
From: FCHARY@ucs.indiana.edu
Subject: More chicago train accidents
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 93 18:54:38 EST
X-Received: by usenet.pa.dec.com; id AA23857; Thu, 21 Jan 93 15:54:44 -0800
X-Received: by inet-gw-1.pa.dec.com; id AA02005; Thu, 21 Jan 93 15:54:41 -0800
X-Received: from PRISM.DECnet by PO1.Indiana.EDU; id AA03707
	(5.65c+jsm/2.5.1jsm); Thu, 21 Jan 1993 18:54:11 -0500
X-To: PO1::"rec.railroad.usenet@decwrl.dec.com"
X-To: rec.railroad.usenet

There have just been 2 more accidents involving trains in the Chicago area.

Near ARGO tower, an Indiana Harbor Belt train collided with a
Santa Fe engine at a switch, Nobody was hurt.

Amtrak train 371 (Grand Rapids- Chicago, engine 211) hit a dump
truck at a road crossing 2 miles north of where the South Shore collision
occured. The dump truck container wound up on #1 track and one car derailed
on the #2 track. Last night, passenger on train 370 waited 3 hours at
Hammond, IN while 211 was called in to repleaced 296, which broke down.
The accident occured at 10 AM, and trains are being detoured by the
Porter Branch etween Hammond and Porter, IN or through the Pine Yard
siding, at the site of the accident. The electric generating station
for the steel plants are near that crossing, so truck traffic is heavy
and the crossing is protected by gates.


Dave Chary
fbcb@iunsys.iun.indiana.edu