HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Steve_Hooper@mindlink.bc.ca (Steve Hooper)
Newsgroups: rec.railroad
Subject: Re: locomotive cables
Date: 6 Oct 92 03:42:25 GMT
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Distribution: world

> Evan L. Werkema writes:
>
>   On the subject of braking, I had been wondering how an engineer handles
> the
> slack-action in a train when he reaches the summit of a hill.  If the train
> was "strung-out" on the way up, all that slack would run in on the way
> down,
> to the accompaniment of a mighty roar and probably some flattened wheels on
> the locomotives.  How to they get around this?


There is many different ways, the easiest being "power braking".

As the train tips over the hill, you set a minimum brake in the train.  Then,
as the train tips over further, suck off another 3-5 pounds.  Note that
throughout the brake application, you usually will not reduce the throttle.
Now your train is going downhill, yet because you have the air set, you are
"pulling" the train down the hill and the slack stays stretched.  Once you
are on the level, you can kick off the brake.

This method is used usually for small dips, sags, and generally small spots
that require train control.  On a LONG hill, you use dynamic brake.

As the train starts tipping over, reduce your throttle.  Eventually you will
shut off.  Then, go into dynamic and apply it sloooowwly, thereby taking the
slack in gently as the tail end tips over the hill.  Eventually the train is
on the downhill side of the hill and you can apply full DB (or whatever is
necessary to hold the train to speed).

This method is preferred over power braking by the railroad companies because
there is less wear and tear on the cars.  However, it is also the true test
of a hogger.  If he gets a big kick in the ass while applying the DB, you
know he either applied the DB too quickly (ie all at once, not a slow gradual
increase) or he waited too long before applying it (doesn't matter how gentle
you apply the DB if the train has already tipped over the grade and 14000
tons of train is running into your behind.


--

 steve_hooper@mindlink.bc.ca   []  Conductor on the High Iron of
 OR      a777@mindlink.bc.ca   []     CP Rail - Cascade Sub
 The Great White North in      []
 Vancouver, BC CANADA          []   Opinions are mine, NOT CP's
From: grr@cbmvax.commodore.com (George Robbins)
Newsgroups: rec.railroad
Subject: Re: garbage trains, money trains, and other novelties for out of towners.
Date: 3 Oct 92 17:26:26 GMT
Reply-To: grr@cbmvax.commodore.com (George Robbins)
Organization: Commodore, West Chester, PA

In article <1992Oct3.001710.9356@ulysses.att.com> smb@ulysses.att.com (Steven Bellovin) writes:
> In article <1992Oct2.112716.10104@samba.oit.unc.edu>, Nigel.Allen@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Nigel Allen) writes:
> > On the surface, the most visible piece of work equipment for the TTC's
> > streetcars is the rail grinding car, which is bright yellow. As the name
> > suggests, it grinds the rails to eliminate corrugation in them.
> 
> Hmm -- that reminds me of something I heard, or at least think I heard,
> long ago.  When one of NY's transit strikes was settled, it took several
> hours before service could be resumed -- a rail-grinder had to come out
> first to polish the rails, which were normally kept clean by the wheels
> of passing trains.
> 
> Is this sort of thing common?  I've seen plenty of rusty sidings, and
> for that matter shortline main tracks.  Is it peculiar to electrified
> systems?

It would probably depend on the length of time that the rail was out of
service.  Normal amounts of rust vanish quickly under the wheels and
contact shoes, so they could probably just bull through, perhaps with
a long train to insure the end cars always had good power.

On the other hand, in subway service, you might get quite a bit of rust,
combined with oil or slime of there was any high water, in which case
a very light pass with a rail grinder would be the quickest way to clean
up things for immediate normal service.

The more frequent problem with electic railways was freezing rain that
could form a slick ice coating on sub-freezing wires or 3-rails, requiring
special ice-buster runs or extra weighted/edged contact shoes on a work car.
Probably less of a problem with under-running or shielded rail.
Newsgroups: rec.railroad
From: rabin@CS.Yale.Edu (Dan Rabin)
Subject: Re: Chicago Rapid Transit reference.
Reply-To: rabin-dan@cs.yale.edu
Organization: Computer Science, Yale University, New Haven, CT 06520-2158
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 17:45:01 GMT

There was an 8-train in New York City.  It was the remaining Bronx
portion of the Third Avenue El.  I have a subway map of the former
color scheme (colors for routes) on which it is present.  The line
died before the new maps were made.  

-- Dan Rabin (rabin-dan@cs.yale.edu)
From: BRANDT_JOBST/HP1900_01@HPLOMG.HPL.HP.COM
Newsgroups: rec.railroad
Subject: Re: Three-phase electrification (was something about tunnels
Date: 28 Sep 92 15:18:50 GMT

Max Wyss writes:

> The ARB (Arth-Rigi-Bahn) never ran on 3-phase AC. They electrified in 1907
> with 750 VDC and switched to 1500 VDC later.

That may be true because I didn't talk to the operators when I rode this
line in 1948 when it was run under two overhead wires with two trolley
poles.  Maybe you could clarify this.  I assumed that the only reason to run
two pickups would be for three phase.  What was it.  The line to Arth ran
under one wire and had no provision for cog operation.

As you may know, the two Rigi railroads have been merged into one company
although they still retain their color schemes of ARB blue & white, and VRB
red.  I wonder if they have run a steamer over the hill no that it is an
organizational possibility.

> The TGV uses only one pantograph when running under DC. But, they need a
> high-voltage cable through the whole train to feed the other power car.
> This could be accepted with an articulated train (with all it's
> disadvantages). As the ICE is not an articulated train, but has individual
> cars, it would be extremely difficult to couple a high-voltage line. So,
> the research the German industry had to do is the price for operational
> flexibility and simplicity.

As was discussed here a while back, the ICE is as much a unit train as the
TGV and cannot be broken into individual cars outside of the car shops.  This
came about when it was discovered that the reason for the TGV's articulated
design was one of stability at high speed as much as any other reason and the
ICE cars were subsequently linked with longitudinal, lateral and torsional
shock absorbers as well as air tight vestibule connections.  There would be
no problem in running a power conductor the length of the train.

Meanwhile, how is the double track work coming along in Bonstetten/Wettswil?
... and why did the nation vote against the Transalpine tunnels?

jobst_brandt@hplabs.hp.com
From: jordan@IMSI.COM (Jordan Hayes)
Newsgroups: rec.railroad
Subject: Re: NYC color-coding, again
Date: 1 Oct 92 11:20:06 GMT
Organization: Investment Management Services Inc., NYC

Sandy F. Smith, Jr. <sfsmith@pennsas.upenn.edu> writes:

	As for the H (or HH), somehow I recall that on that abstract
	wonder of a subway map the TA used in the 1970's, the line was
	magenta, but my memory often plays tricks on me...

Actually, I just remembered that the H is still in service, running
along the A line in Queens ...

	As for the 2 Av subway (R.I.P.), as the TA assigned the next
	letters in sequence to the ex-BMT lines, who knows?  BTW, how
	was this line to connect with the rest of the IND system?

I thought it would connect to the F at 2nd Avenue?

/jordan
Newsgroups: rec.railroad
From: kolt@quads.uchicago.edu (Matt K/Gonzo)
Subject: Re: CTA color coding (was Re: Chicago Rapid Transit reference.)
Summary: slight corrections
Keywords: close
Reply-To: kolt@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 00:01:38 GMT

In a previous article roma@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Jon Roma) writes:
[mentions that Englewood and JP are split at 51st St. It is 59th I think.]
>For those interested in CTA operations trivia, I have a list of front and
>rear marker light codes used in 1974.  They may have changed since.
>
>Front marker lights:
>
>	W W	extras and lay-ups (all branches)
>	Y Y	Howard-Englewood ``A'' and all-stop trains
>	G G	Howard-Jackson ``B'' and all-stop trains
>	G R	Ravenswood ``A'' and all-stop trains
>	R G	Ravenswood ``B'' and all-stop trains
>	                         (No, all stops are G R)
	R R	Ravenswood and Loop shuttles
>	Y R	    "       "   "      "
Here, the Ravenswood shuttle carries Y Y, and the Loop shuttle no longer
exists.
>	R R	Evanston Express
>	W W	   "        "
Today, only W W.
>	R R	Evanston shuttle
>	Y R	   "        "
Only Y R.
>	R R	Skokie Swift
>	Y Y	  "      "
>	Y Y	Lake-Dan Ryan ``A'' and all-stop trains
>	G G	Lake-Dan Ryan ``B'' and all-stop trains
Again, the all-stops is Y Y, only.
>	Y Y	Congress-Milwaukee ``A'' and all-stop trains
>	G G	Congress-Milwaukee ``B'' and all-stop trains
                Douglas-Milwaukee (O'Hare) B/All Stops

>Jon Roma




-- 
Matt Koltnow   B0 t-- w- c g+ k s+ e r- p   "Truth is not kind; and you
Email: kolt@midway.uchicago.edu              say neither am I." --Toad the    
Ntalk: kolt@ellis.uchicago.edu (or @quads)   Wet Sprocket      
Boycott the IP... R.I.P. MSS...Hugs to all...Standard Disclaimers Apply...
From: pierson@cimcad.enet.dec.com (Dave Pierson)
Newsgroups: rec.railroad
Subject: Re: Tunnel motors (was Re: Three-phase electrification)
Date: 2 Oct 92 12:51:29 GMT
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation

In article <01OCT92.15083075.0072@VM1.MCGILL.CA>, CZ94@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA (CZ94)
writes, in part:

>In article <1992Sep29.233810.29041@nntpd.lkg.dec.com>
>pierson@empror.enet.dec.com (dave pierson) writes:

>> Also the Grand Trunk and its tunnel motors under the Detroit River. 
>>Also darn near all the electrified RRs of Europe.

>Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe the Grand Trunk ever had
>a tunnel under the Detroit River.

>You're probably thinking of the GT's tunnel under the St. Clair River
>between Sarnia and Port Huron.  Completed in 1891, it was electrified
>in 1908.  The electrification was removed in 1958, following the
>dieselisation of CN.

	Right.

	My mistake.  I missed the name change on the river at Lake St Clair.
	(I've visited both tunnels, but was paying more attention to RR items
	(and car ferries...) than the river names.)

thanks
dave pierson			|the facts, as accurately as i can manage,
Digital Equipment Corporation	|the opinions, my own.
200 Forest St			|I am the NRA.
Marlboro, Mass		01752	pierson@cimnet.enet.dec.com
"He has read everything, and, to his credit, written nothing."  A J Raffles
From: gurd@next04wor.wam.umd.edu (Daffy Duck)
Newsgroups: rec.railroad
Subject: MARTA & the Georgia Dome
Date: 3 Oct 92 02:25:45 GMT
Reply-To: gurd@wam.umd.edu

The following commentary appeared in a recent issue of the Atlanta  
Constitution on MARTAs excellent job of getting people to the Georgia  
Dome.

     "The Falcons weren't the only winners in the Georgia Dome opener, so  
was MARTA.
     The public transit system transported an estimated 55,000 of the  
almost 67,000 football fans who attended the game.  And its accomplishment  
of the feat was efficient and relatively trouble-free.
     Yes the parking spaces at MARTA's rapid-rail stations went pretty  
quickly.  And yes, the trains got to be crowded at times.  But those  
inconveniences were minor compared to what would have happened if those  
55,000 people had converged on the Dome in their cars.  The traffic jams,  
parking hassles, and fouled air would have been major headaches.
     There were plenty of skeptics when only 3.400 parking spaces were  
provided for a facility that seats 71,594.  The worry was that people  
simply would want to drive their cars from door to Dome, and you wouldn't  
be aple to pry them out with a crowbar.
     But people didnt't drive, after all.  That was because MARTA was  
there to offer an infinitely better alternative and people were smart  
enough to take advantage of it.
     The public transit system showed its ability to accomodate the crowds  
that will attend events at the Dome.  Planners who are trying figure out  
what transportation improvements will enable Atlanta to handle the huge  
influx of people who come to the 1996 Olympics should take note of MARTA's  
success."
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Anybody in Atlanta have anything to add to this?  What MARTA extensions  
will open before the Olympics?
Newsgroups: rec.railroad
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Subject: Re: BART 20th. Anniversary
Organization: LLNL
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 02:16:18 GMT

In article <schumach.718329256@convex.convex.com> schumach@convex.com (Richard A. Schumacher) writes:
>In <1992Oct5.073224.16054@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
>
@ :    He said it was one of the best investments every made by the people of  
@ : the Bay Area [and now he want's them to make the WORST investment ever by  
@ : building some maglev toy lines].

@ 	How is maglev supposed to be so HORRIBLE?

>And then goes on to answer his own question:

@ anytime soon. Maglev is just too _new_ for that. I think it will
@ probably be for short branches like a people-mover from the Oakland
@ Coliseum station and the Oakland airport. There is already a simple
@ maglev system operating in Birmingham for just such a purpose.

>Until cheap and reliable maglevs have been demonstrated (including
>little things like switches) they will be uselessly expensive
>novelties. What's the value, beyond the gee-whiz factor, of a maglev
>people mover? What can it do that a rubber-tired vehicle can't do?
>Whisk folks 1.2 miles at 300 mph? Maybe we need maglev escalators, too.

	I see what you mean. But I do think that the technology has to
be tested _somewhere_, and where is a better place but relatively
short lines without any branches? No branches means no switches to be
repeatedly thrown, which gets around _that_ conundrum.

	And I don't think that a Coliseum -- Airport maglev is likely
to go 300 mph.

>I suppose I should be thankful; at least most people have lost
>their World-Of-Tomorrow fascination with monorails. One hopes that
>maglevs will soon follow.

	Well, MAYBE. But maglevs _are_ a relatively new technology,
with plenty of room for growth.

Newsgroups: rec.railroad
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Subject: Re: something about tunnels
Organization: LLNL
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 01:29:33 GMT


	What is "tofc/cofc"?

	I certainly agree on sending a lot of car and truck traffic by
train. Here in the United States, there is only one car-train service,
Amtrak's Auto Train, which runs between Lorton, VA (near DC) and
Sanford, FL (in the center of the state). I looked at a comprehensive
European schedule that I bought not too long ago out of curiosity, and
I found inside this thick book mention of several car trains, both
inside any of several countries, and international.

	I'm guessing that the new Swiss rail tunnels will be run just
like the Channel Tunnel (Chunnel?) will be run: a rail line that will
carry cars, truck trailers, and freight, as well as passengers.

Newsgroups: rec.railroad
From: gurd@next04wor.wam.umd.edu (Daffy Duck)
Newsgroups: rec.railroad
Subject: Rail links under Alps
Date: 28 Sep 92 18:13:04 GMT
Reply-To: gurd@wam.umd.edu

I saw a AP summary that Swiss voters had approved by a 63.5% majority a  
$10.7 billion (no that's not a typo) plan to build two high-speed rail  
tunnels under the Swiss Alps.  The two tunnels are supposed to be 31 miles  
and 19 miles long and will provide an alternate route for north-south  
freight traffic as well as inter-city rail service.  Could anybody who has  
more information about this post it along with relevant commentary like  
how this project is financed, how much freight/passenger traffic it is  
expected to carry, and whether this is a private (i.e. Chunnel) or public  
project.
From: ba903@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Charles P. Hobbs)
Newsgroups: rec.railroad
Subject: Re: Anybody how Metrolink is coming along?
Date: 28 Sep 1992 06:29:37 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: ba903@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Charles P. Hobbs)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, adrian@ntmtv.UUCP (Adrian Brandt) says:

>In article <144@gallery.UUCP>, sysop@gallery.UUCP (John Powers) writes:
>|>  You missed one other thing that might hold Metrolink back....
>|> 
>|>  Cost.
>|> 
>|>  It will cost me six bucks one way to ride this thing for about 18 miles and
>|> then I would have to walk two miles to work.
>
>Holy cow!  That's really expensive-sounding for commuter rail.  The
>example you give is 33 cents per mile.  Metrolink ought to run at
>a profit at that rate!  (as long as it isn't empty due to high fares)
>
>Can anyone shed some more light on the fare structure?  What would
>a monthly ticket for the same trip cost, what would a round-trip
>ticket cost?  Rail transit in the SF Bay Area isn't nearly that
>expensive!  It's more like in the 5 to 15 cent per mile range,
>depending on the system and ticket type.
>
I have some information on the Metrolink fares.
 
>
>

The basic fare is based on purchase of a 10-trip ticket.
 
A base fare of $2.50 is charged, plus $1.00 for each additional zone
entered (Zones are approximately 11 miles long)
 
Monthly passes will be available for 32 x basic fare.
 
One way tickets will be available for $1 + the basic fare; round trip
tickets will sell for $1 + 2 x basic fare.
 
Seniors, handicapped and youth (under 18) receive a 50% discount on all
tickets; adult students may also buy discounted tickets.
 
For each of the three initial lines, the number of zones traversed in
travelling to Union Station (Downtown Los Angeles) are as follows:
 
San Bernadino Line:
Claremont      3 zones
Pomona         3
Covina         2
Baldwin Park   2
El Monte       2
Cal State LA   1
 
Santa Clarita Line:
Santa Clarita  3
Sylmar         2
Burbank        1
Glendale       1
 
Moorpark Line
Moorpark       4
Simi Valley    4
Chatsworth     3
Van Nuys       2
Burbank        1
Glendale       1
 
Your Metrolink ticket serves as a transfer for service to and from
the stations. There will be trackside shuttle bus service available
at Union Station, and additional bus service will be provided at
other stations. In June 1993 (perhaps as early as October 1992), the
Metro Red Line will be operating between Union Station and other
Downtown points.
From: sfsmith@pennsas.upenn.edu (Sandy F. Smith, Jr.)
Newsgroups: rec.railroad
Subject: Re: NYC color-coding, again
Date: 5 Oct 92 21:09:37 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

In article <1992Oct2.184015.11147@news.columbia.edu>, brennan@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Joseph Brennan) writes:
> 
[wrt how 2 Av Subway would connect w/rest of system; btw, thanx for answering
my question...]
> NYCTA plans kindly supplied me by Danny O'Bedlam indicate that the
> Grand St station on Chrystie St would have a cross-platform transfer
> to the 2d Ave line, the new 2d Ave tracks being on either side of the
                                                     ^^^^^^^^^^^
> present station.  I don't know about planned track connections in that
> complicated area, but expect there would at least be service connections.

This sounds interesting, especially since I believe the present Grand Street
subway station is island-platform already...

Perhaps a parallel pair of tracks/platform would be built (or already
exists, given the planned/abandoned services that were to run/ran through
the Chrystie St connector tunnel?
**************************************************************************
Sandy F. Smith, Jr. ____________________________ sfsmith@pennsas.upenn.edu
Graduate Division, School of Arts and Sciences, University of Pennsylvania
16 College Hall, Philadelphia, PA 19104-6378.  (Opinions mine, not Penn's)
 
"The God I serve don't make no trash!"
      -- Rev. Emanuel Cleaver, Mayor, City of Kansas City, Mo.
Newsgroups: rec.railroad
From: ajw@squid.mel.dit.CSIRO.AU (Andrew Waugh)
Subject: K type brakes
Organization: CSIRO, Division of Information Technology, Melbourne
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 92 23:17:02 GMT

About a month ago, Steve Hooper asked what exactly are K type brakes
which he had seen fitted to freight cars. I've recently found a great
reference which mentions this type of brake. (Victoria apparently
never used it, which is probably why I'd never heard of it.)

Around the turn of the century, the increasing lengths of trains
posed a problem for continuous brakes. Long trains meant long
train pipes. The propagation speed of pressure changes in the
pipes became important. With a very long pipe, the brakes at the
front of the train would apply before those at the rear resulting
in an almighty kick. Similarly, the brakes at the front of the
train would release first resulting in considerable stresses in the
draft gear!

The K type triple valve was an attempt to alleviate these problems.
It was introduced around 1906 and was intended to cope with freight
trains of up to 80 vehicles.

To quote the reference:
	The K triple had a quick service function added, which
	passed brakepipe air to the brake cylinder at a reduced
	rate during service applications, to ensure that the brake
	pipe drop was maintained and to increase the propagation
	rate. To assist brake release a retarded recharge and release
	function was provided with slowed down the release of the
	brakes and the recharge of the auxiliary reservoirs at the
	front of the train in order to make release more uniform
	and to ensure that adequate air passed to the rear to move
	all the triple valves to release.

Unfortunately, freight train lengths increased so rapidly that the
K type triple valve rapidly became inadequate. The AB type brake
gear was introduced in 1933 and became mandatory for new stock in
1937.

The reference is:
	The Development of Railway Brakes
	G.H. Marsh & A.C. Sharp
	Railway Engineering Journal
	January & March 1973
I would recommend this article to anyone interested in the development
of continuous brakes. It is by far the best discussion that I've found;
particularly as it covers developments in the U.S., U.K. and Europe.
My only criticism is that I wish that it was about twice as long with
even more details!

andrew waugh
From: BRANDT_JOBST/HP1900_01@HPLOMG.HPL.HP.COM
Newsgroups: rec.railroad
Subject: Re: Three-phase electrification (was something about tunnels
Date: 30 Sep 92 15:26:16 GMT

Calvin Henry-Cotnam writes:

> But for higher speeds where a pantograph is used, how does one control
> where the pantograph comes in contact with the catenary?

Two wires are run about 40 cm apart centered over the track and its
super elevation, with a pantograph under each wire.  As was described,
at switches where there must be an insulated dead zone, a second set of
pickups are located at the other end of the locomotive to give continuous
power as do the third rail pickups on single EMU's while crossing switches.

> This is how 3-phase power is made available for AC traction motors when
> the power must come from a catenary.

I think you'll find that Italy and France run extensive 3000 and 1500 VDC
systems with DC traction motors as do most older light rail systems.
Central Europe has run on single phase 15 kv 16 2/3 Hz for most of this
century with newer converters becoming popular recently.  Three phase has
been in the minority for this use until solid state switching was developed
for high power.

jobst_brandt@hplabs.hp.com
Newsgroups: rec.railroad