HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Newsgroups: rec.railroad,sci.environment,alt.activism
Subject: Re: _Scientific American_ profiles Maglev Trains
Date: 31 Jul 92 05:03:58 GMT
Organization: LLNL

In article <JMC.92Jul30204522@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes:
:I'll speculate that the pro-maglev sentiment starts from the idea
:that airplane travel is less energy efficient than train travel,
:and in response to the argument that trains are too slow, counters
:with maglev and other exotic schemes - ignoring cost.

	Would you call the French TGV, the Train a` Grande Vitesse,
exotic technology? Despite it being un-exotic, it regularly travels at
speeds approaching 200 mph (usually 150-180 mph), and is competitive
with the airlines on the routes it runs on, despite super-low air
fares.

	And even Amtrak, which hardly approaches Bullet Train
standards, carries more people on its New York -- Washington leg than
any airline.

:Airplanes are an extremely flexible means of long distance travel,
:and I don't believe they will be displaced for any significant
:amount of their prsent applications.  A Japanese told me that he
:went from Osaka to Tokyo by airplane rather than by the bullet
:train.

	Tell that to French TGV riders some time. :-)

	And when you travel by air, do you count in the time taken to
reach the airport?

	Compare the time necessary to travel to a typical railroad
station.

	Which is usually bigger?
From: pierson@cimnet.enet.dec.com (dave pierson)
Newsgroups: rec.railroad
Subject: Re: New Signals on NEC Mainline ?
Date: 21 Jul 92 14:13:00 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation

In article <1992Jul20.162046.4639@gw.wmich.edu>, 31ochs@gw.wmich.edu writes...
>In article <83833@netnews.upenn.edu>, sfsmith@pennsas.upenn.edu (Sandy F.
>Smith, Jr.) writes:
>> Coming back from the Delaware Coast last night, I noticed something different
>> about the signals on the Amtrak (PRR) main line, which parallels I-495 for a
>> few miles northeast of Wilmington.
>> 
>> The old-style PRR position-light signals (three yellow aspects) had been 
>> replaced by colored aspects positioned as the yellow ones would have been
>> for the same instruction, i.e. two green aspects aligned vertically=proceed,
>> two yellow aspects aligned diagonally=approach with caution, two red aspects
>> aligned horizontally=stop.

>I know on the former Pennsy
>line that Conrail has abandoned in Indiana, at some of the interlockings
>(The C&O for one) had red lights for the horizontal.(I've never seen it lined
>for one across the diamond, since the line is abandoned)

	The semi conversion of the Horizontal to "sort of color position light"
	dates from 1955ish, under PRR.  It was principally implemented on
	"Lines West" (of Pittsburgh).  This was desribed in aextended article on
	PRR Position Light Signals in the PRR H & T S publication, The Keystone,
	perhaps 10 years ago.

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: romeo@niagara.Tymnet.COM (Michael Stimac)
Newsgroups: rec.railroad
Subject: Re: No Horns Allowed (was Re: accidents at level crossings)
Keywords: accidents
Date: 25 Jul 92 02:29:52 GMT
Organization: BT North America (Tymnet)

In article <1992Jul23.125838.13463@tellab5.tellabs.com> dawdy@tellabs.com (Dan Dawdy) writes:
> (someone else wrote, I forget who)
>>5) The trains did NOT blow their horns to signal their
>>approach to the crossing.
>>
>> and I subsequently wrote:
>>>I find this hard to believe. I've never heard of a railroad which
>>>did not have the Rule 14(l) which mandates sounding the horn or
>>>whistle while approaching and crossing any grade (level) crossing.
>>>I also doubt that there is any state in the US which does not
>>>have a state law requiring the same thing.
>>
>
>
text of railroad rule requiring engineers to obey city
ordinance forbidding horn-blowing except in certain 
exceptional cases
>

Everyone seems to have taken a pot shot at my statement of
the rules requiring horn-blowing (or whistling), however,
no one seems to have paid the least attention to a further
paragraph in my posting in which I pointed out that city
ordinances sometimes do forbid such blowing and whistling.
I went on to say, that on some railroads at least, the
rule required them to ring the engine bell in lieu of
the other. The Pennsylvania, for one, had "RING" posts
in addition to "WHISTLE" posts just for that reason.

Can anyone cite a situation in which bell-ringing was
ALSO banned by local ordinance?



-- 
Michael Stimac
(408) 922-7539
romeo@tymnet.com
These opinions are not necessarily anyone's but my own.
Newsgroups: rec.railroad
From: CZ94 <CZ94@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA>
Subject: Montreal/Deux-Montagnes commuter trains
Organization: McGill University
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 17:44:02 GMT

The Montreal Urban Community Transit Company has just announced
that commuter train service will be reduced on CN's Montreal to
Deux-Montagnes line, as of August 2  (one day after I move from
downtown to a new suburban home near this line :-(  :-(  :-(  ).

Monday-Friday service will be cut from 28 trains southbound and
27 northbound, to 24 southbound and 23 northbound.  Two mid-day
trains and two late evening trains will be cut.  Rush hour
service is not affected.

Saturday service will be cut from 20 to 9 trains/day in each direction,
and Sunday service from 9 to 5 trains/direction/day.

This line was built by the Canadian Northern Railway during World
War I.  I believe it is CN's only electrified trackage.

The service reductions have been necessitated as the rolling stock
rapidly crumbles into ruin.  Off-peak service is provided by three-
car MUs (1 powered, 2 trailers), built by Canadian Car & Foundry
in 1952.  Rush-hour service is augmented by locomotive-hauled
trains.  Some of the locomotives are GE boxcabs dating from the
opening of the line, others are GE steeple-cabs built in 1950.
Until recently, English Electric boxcabs were also used, but these
were retired when cracks were found in their frames.

The cars pulled by these engines include some 1920s vintage heavy-
weights, with 6-wheel trucks and clerestory roofs.  Coaches leased
from VIA Rail (from the 5437-5654 series, built in 1954) are also
used.

New rolling stock is on order from Bombardier, but delivery won't
be until 1995.

Tom Box
CZ94@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA
From: pierson@cimill.enet.dec.com (Dave Pierson)
Newsgroups: rec.railroad
Subject: Re: _Scientific American_ profiles Maglev Trains
Date: 31 Jul 92 15:23:20 GMT
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation


	Hmmmm.  The makings of ripsnortin' flame war.  8)>>
I (fwiw) have no problem with mag-lev in rec.railroad.
The "original" comment (I looked) was to write your congressperson _IF_ you
wanted mag-lev.  _IF_.

Myself I would write saying that the benefits/cost of spending on mag-lev
vis-a-vis wheel on rail should be compared, as, also, the energy aspects.
Even if all the trick superconducting magnets are in the "train", there is
still a substantial energy cost to keep them cold.

The track _can_ be relatively plain, with the superconductinb magnets on the
vehicle.  The Japanese are starting (finally) a longer test section, which
will be aligned os as to part of a hypothetical Shin Shin Kansen route.
(It is intersting to note that their protype was down (may still be) because
of a fire.  In the _wheels_.  Seems it has 30 odd wheels to land on: some
caught fire due to dragging brakes.  After 10 odd years of tests with the German
version, they had to competely rebuild the track, seems the bolts were
shearing.)

I think the comparison to the SST was apt: shiny, new, but, as yet, of
questionable utility.  One can also ponder some of the current concerns about
possible health effects due to magnetic fields...

I believe that the TGV-A record run exceeds ANY speed by ANY (manned) maglev.
By a notable margin.

thanks
dave pierson			|the facts, as accurately as i can manage,
Digital Equipment Corporation	|the opinions, my own.
146 Main Street
Maynard, Mass
01754				pierson@cimnet.enet.dec.com
"He has read everything, and, to his credit, written nothing."  A J Raffles
From: afsidgb@cidsv07.Berkeley.EDU (Gerard Burridge)
Newsgroups: rec.railroad
Subject: Re: Push-Pull
Date: 21 Jul 92 23:32:00 GMT
Reply-To: afsidgb@cid.aes.doe.CA
Organization: Environment Canada

In article <20JUL92.09435641.0063@VM1.MCGILL.CA>, CZ94@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA (CZ94) writes:
|> In article <9207200236.AA25301@cs.utexas.edu> PLAWS@UAFSYSB.UARK.EDU (Peter Laws  >>==) writes:
|> >Re: Montreal-Rigaud
|> >Didn't the F9s run on the West end when they ran the "TownTrain" CCF gallery
|> > cars?  BTW, what configuration is the STCUM on the trains equipped w/hep?
|> >Are they still using a separate power box-car?
|> >
|> I'm not a regular user of this service, so I wouldn't attach a 100 %
|> guarantee to the accuracy of the following comments...
|> 
|> The gallery cars are still occasionally seen, but they now have the
|> engines on the east end.  I don't know what the former set up was.
|> 
|> Just nitpicking, but the locomotives are F7's, not F9's.

   One more nit: the cabs are FP7s, ex CP.

|> 
|> Yes, they still use a separate electric generator car.
|> 
|> Tom Box
|> CZ94@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA

-- 
 Gerry Burridge                        afsidgb@cid.aes.doe.ca
 Canadian Meteorological Centre        Tel.: 514-421-4646
 2121 North Service Road - #404        Fax.: 514-421-4639
 Dorval, Que.  -  H9P 1J3
From: prking@silver.cs.umanitoba.ca (Peter King)
Newsgroups: rec.railroad
Subject: AMTRAK On-time-liness ?
Date: 22 Jul 92 21:25:31 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Dept., University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada

What sort of experience do folks have with AMTRAK's punctuality performance?
Especially on their long distance trains. I would be particluarly
interested in knowing if anybody has any experience with the
eastbound Empire Builder -- it is usually on-time as it crosses
Wisconsin?

This may not be of particluarly wide interest, so please e-mail
any responses -- I'll post anything which appears to be of general
interest.

Peter King

<prking@cs.UManitoba.ca>
--
From: brennan@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Joseph Brennan)
Newsgroups: rec.railroad
Subject: Re: SEPTA "Norristown Trolley" (P&W) Equipment?
Date: 21 Jul 92 22:36:16 GMT
Reply-To: brennan@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Joseph Brennan)
Organization: Columbia University

In article <16824B859.M00209@MBVM.Mitre.Org> Len Bachelder writes:
>If your question was meant to ask what other interurban lines used third rail
>in lieu of trolley overhead, some examples would be . . . 
>New York, Westchester & Boston

No!  NYW&B was entirely overhead wire and pantographs.  

--Joe Brennan
From: bob@1776.COM (Robert Coe)
Newsgroups: rec.railroad
Subject: Re: Push-Pull Service: Which Way do the Locomotives Point?
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 92 21:39:40 EDT
Reply-To: bob%1776.UUCP@XAIT.Xerox.COM (Robert Coe)
Distribution: world
Organization: 1776 Enterprises, Sudbury MA

grr@cbmvax.commodore.com (George Robbins) writes:
> In article <1992Jul20.212713.26735@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) 
  writes:
> > I'm not sure why there are not many double-ended flat-road vehicles.
> 
> Well, double-ended requires two operator stations and sets of controls,
> so if there is no difficulty in turning the vehicle, then why bother?

If I'm not mistaken, the crawler/transporter that moves booster rockets from
the assembly building to the launch pad at Cape Canaveral is double-ended
(two control stations mounted on diagonally opposite corners).  Whether it's
a "flat-road vehicle" depends on how you define the term.  Its caterpillar 
treads ride on two parallel tracks of crushed stone (there being no pavement 
known that could stand up to the weight).  If the vehicle were not double-
ended, the problems encountered in turning would be similar to those of a 
railroad, necessitating loops or wyes.

   ___            _                                           -  Bob
   /__) _   /    / ) _   _
(_/__) (_)_(_)  (___(_)_(/_____________________________ bob@1776.Sudbury.MA.US
Robert K. Coe ** 14 Churchill St, Sudbury, Massachusetts 01776 ** 508-443-3265
Xref: sparky rec.railroad:6057 soc.culture.canada:5404 can.general:3673
From: clive@x.co.uk (Clive Feather)
Newsgroups: rec.railroad,soc.culture.canada,can.general
Subject: Re: Railway police in Canada (was Re: NYC's Transit Police)
Date: 30 Jul 92 15:25:27 GMT
Organization: IXI Limited, Cambridge, UK

In article <1992Jul22.115219.9014@samba.oit.unc.edu> Nigel.Allen@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Nigel Allen) writes:
> In Britain, the British Transport Police serve both the British Rail
> system and the London Underground.

And the airports. And they act on cases involving road transport over a
wide area (for example, lorry hijacking).
-- 
Clive D.W. Feather     | IXI Limited         | If you lie to the compiler,
clive@x.co.uk          | 62-74 Burleigh St.  | it will get its revenge.
Phone: +44 223 462 131 | Cambridge   CB1 1OJ |   - Henry Spencer
Fax:   +44 223 462 132 | United Kingdom      |
Newsgroups: rec.railroad
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Subject: Newsweek: Commuter Trains Article
Organization: LLNL
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 21:58:29 GMT

	In this week's _Newsweek_, there is an article about what
looks to be a commuter-train comeback. It featured a picture of people
getting on the Virginia Railway Express, which runs 55 miles from
Fredericksburg to Washington, DC.

	The cost of the VRE? Only $131 million. And by using automatic
ticketing and having tickets sold at convenience stores, the rail line
expects to recover 70% of costs. As the article points out, it's hard
to survive without subsidies when one's competition has free roads and
employer-subsidized parking.

	One curiosity mentioned is that when a 40-mi rail line from
Perryville to Baltimore was opened, the majority of the 600 daily
riders were headed to Washington, 40 miles further (!)

	The article concluded with:

	Enjoy the ride -- and good luck finding a parking spot at the
station.
From: Steve_Hooper@mindlink.bc.ca (Steve Hooper)
Newsgroups: rec.railroad
Subject: Re: CP Rail multimark orientation
Date: 26 Jul 92 17:29:37 GMT
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Distribution: world

> Robert Coe writes:
> 
> OK, I'll bite.  :^)  Why would the conductor need to look out the rear on
> unit
> trains but not on other trains?


They have to look at the rear on all trains, but it is operatioanl-wise
impossible to 'turn' cabooses so they are in the correct direction at all
times.  But on a unit train that has reverse loops at either end of it's
destination, they HAD to have the kitchen end trailing since it was the easiest
direction to check to the rear.

When your cab was turned around, you just walked through the bedroom and looked
out the door.  There are ditch lights on both ends.

--

 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
Newsgroups: rec.railroad
From: roma@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Jon Roma)
Subject: Re: New Signals on NEC Mainline ?
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 16:38:22 GMT

jps@dworkin.wustl.edu (James Sterbenz) writes:

>>Those new-style signals (or similar ones) go as far as New Haven
>>I think -- there may be a few gaps around stations.

>South of GCT are the PRR position light signals that are being colorised.

No doubt you mean `south of Penn Station' since there is no `south of
GCT' rail-wise.

By the way, does anyone know the status of the modernization of the
interlocking and signaling at GCT?  I understand the signaling of the
terminal tracks and approaches is being completely redone; the old towers
will close and be replaced with CRT-based remote control.

The old electro-mechanical interlockings at Grand Central were the largest
of their type ever built; they had 400 and 350 levers apiece!  I presume
these are the machines being replaced unless they were replaced during a
previous modernization.
-- 
Jon Roma
Computing and Communications Services Office,
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Internet:  roma@uiuc.edu      	UUCP:      uunet!uiucuxc!uiuc.edu!roma
Newsgroups: rec.railroad
From: roma@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Jon Roma)
Subject: Re: Comments wanted on Broadway Limited, Cardinal, train to Mount Prospect
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 20:34:41 GMT

paula@PRC.Unisys.COM (Paula Matuszek) writes:

>We also have to get from Chicago Union Station to Mount Prospect; I'm
>told that there is a train somewhere near Union Station.  Can anybody
>give me more information about where it is, how often it runs, and how
>to get there from Union Station?

Metra runs suburban service on the Chicago & North Western northwest line
to Mount Prospect.  These trains leave Chicago from the North Western
station, located on Madison Street.   This is two blocks north of Union
Station.

This service runs hourly with departures from Chicago every hour at 30
minutes past the hour.  Travel time is approximately 40 minutes.
-- 
Jon Roma
Computing and Communications Services Office,
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Internet:  roma@uiuc.edu      	UUCP:      uunet!uiucuxc!uiuc.edu!roma
From: 11jodom@gallua.gallaudet.edu
Newsgroups: rec.railroad
Subject: Re: MARC loco at Penn Stationy
Date: 27 Jul 92 18:21:23 GMT
Organization: Gallaudet University

In article <1992Jul27.082619.19147@panix.com>, dfl@panix.com (Danny O'Bedlam) writes:
> 
> 	While scoping out the area around the 'new' Penn station,
> (the JAF post office) I observed a MARC locomotive moving around the
> Penn tracks, in and around the 'yard' area adjacent, visible from
> the area just west of  the JAF building.  This is the first time I've
> ever seen a M.A.R.C equipment in Penn, let alone anywhere else in NY.
> 
> 
> -- 
> ***********************************************************************
> * Danny O'Bedlam  = dfl@panix.com = cmcl2!panix!dfl = Danny Lieberman *
> * PO Box 3131 Church St Station, New Yawk, New Yawk, 10008-3131 (usa) *
> ***********************************************************************



Its possible that MARC [Maryland Rapid Commuter] and NYCTA-MetroNorth made
a swap or something like that, cuz there were some MetroNorth cars here in
Md/DC.   I don't know.  Your guess is as good as mine...
Newsgroups: rec.railroad
From: dewi@bnr.ca (Dewi Williams)
Subject: Re: Assorted general questions
Originator: dewi@bcrks78
Reply-To: dewi@bnr.ca (Dewi Williams)
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ltd
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 16:32:23 GMT


In article <1992Jul28.143341.28663@e2big.mko.dec.com>, pierson@cimill.enet.dec.com (Dave Pierson) writes:
> In article <1992Jul28.113436.19862@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>,
> ggg9y@poe.acc.Virginia.EDU (Garth G. Groff) writes, in part:
> 
> >In reference to your question about loosening rail joint bolts: yes, it has
> >been done.  The City of San Francisco was wrecked near Eureka, Nevada, about
> >1938. I believe this was the method used.  Don Denevi has an interesting book
> >about this wreck called TRAGIC TRAIN or something like this.
> 
> 	If memory serves, that was more than _just_ loosening the track bolts.
> 	Its been a while since a read of it, but I think the track was
> 	"rearranged" to some extent.  And no, i am not about to post details.
> 
> 	A train can, in fact, operate over shocking bad track, tho at elevated
> 	risk.  During WWII, the partisans discovered that they had to do some
> 	fairly specific things to guarantee a wreck.

It's been a long while since I read about the great train chase during the
(U.S.) Civil war, but as I remember it, Andrew's Raiders tried to 
derail the locomotive that chased them. Their first attempts were just to
loosen the rail joints, but this didn't work: they had to remove a 
section of rail, and this was quite time-consuming. 

... Dewi
From: BRANDT_JOBST/HP1900_01@HPLOMG.HPL.HP.COM
Newsgroups: rec.railroad
Subject: Re: ICE high speed train
Date: 23 Jul 92 07:32:32 GMT

Ernest Robl writes:

> Based on some of the material I received from the DB, I believe that
> they made a conscious effort not to use articulation between the
> cars so as not to have to bad-order an entire train-set if there
> was a problem with a single car.  (On the German trains it is much
> simpler to take a car out of a train than it is on the TGV; in the
> latter case this can only be done in a shop with heavy equipment.)
> Whether this was a good decision is apparently debatable.

As I mentioned in an earlier post, the individual car feature was probably
chosen for the reason mentioned by Ernest but subsequent design changes to
improve high speed stability between cars (and the need for pressure sealed
vestibules between cars) made the ICE just as the TGV a train that can be
disconnected only in the car shops.  Thus the ICE has twice as many wheels
and bogies as the equivalent TGV but poorer inter-car stability to make up
for it.  Reinventing the high speed train in Germany seems to be the best
coverup of a horrendous boondoggle in government that appears so obviously
bungled in many ways.

The power pickup, of the TGV uses a single pantograph for both power units
so that at high speed the pickup slider sees only an undisturbed contact
wire.  The ICE uses a front and rear pantograph that required a great
engineering effort to keep the trailing pantograph from arcing.  This is
effort is proudly stated in their newsletter.

The aerodynamic shrouds between cars were removed for some reason (I suspect
instability at speed - flapping) to exposes a large air trap and visual
discord.

The front-end styling with a blunt nose causes a larger shock wave when
meeting other trains in tunnels than the long snout of the TGV.  The TGV
nose is more than a styling statement that has functional shape.

The interior layout is an appalling waste of space that is excused by high
ticket prices that prove this to be a luxury train.  Three seats across and
24-30 seats per car isn't what I expect of an airline competitor.

I make this criticism because I believe this will surface at the expense of
taxpayer disenchantment with the effort to get people on the train and off
the highway and airlines.  I don't believe the people in charge are clear on
their goals.  It seems they prefer to build monuments to themselves at the
expense of the system.  This, in face of double decked articulated TGV trains
that are faster, more energy efficient and probably functionally better
designed or at least debugged, does not make sense.  The double decked
TGV is lighter than the original steel chassis ones currently running.
RGI has a series of good descriptive articles on these trains and their
design.  They don't make any critical comments but the discerning reader
can deduce the facts.

jobst_brandt@hplabs.hp.com
From: mjs+@cs.cmu.edu (Mark Stehlik)
Newsgroups: rec.railroad
Subject: Re: O. Winston Link audio/video available???
Keywords: Winston Link audio video CD
Date: 29 Jul 92 15:22:07 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon


Does anyone know if there is a compilation of O. Winston Link's still photos
still in print?

				Mark
Newsgroups: rec.railroad
From: dave@opus.csd.uwm.edu (Dave Rasmussen)
Subject: Re: AMTRAK On-time-liness ?
Originator: dave@opus.csd.uwm.edu
Reply-To: dave@opus.csd.uwm.edu
Organization: University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 19:29:35 GMT

From article <1992Jul24.124823.8040@cbnewsk.cb.att.com>, by rmrin@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (r.m.rickert):
>I saw something in print recently that said AMTRAK had better than 90%
>on time in the NE corridor but only between 50 and 60% west of Chicago.
> 
Don't forget the 95% on-time performance on the Sooline  (now CP)
Milwaukee Chicago corridor!  (well, one has to brag while they can! :-)