johne@haddock.UUCP (01/03/84)
#R:dciem:-58500:haddock:15300002:177600:1809 haddock!johne Jan 2 17:47:00 1984 The throttle of a Budd RDC operates directly on the governors of the diesel engines, by means of solenoid-operated pilot valves within the governors, which are (presumably) hydraulic devices. MU is accomplished electrically, as usual. Each RDC has two Detroit Diesel "truck engines" of about 300 HP; each engine drives the inboard axle (only) of the adjacent truck through an Allison torque convertor (GM again) and conventional gearing. Now, the torque convertor is a device whose intimate acquaintance I have yet to make. I have always envisioned it as a fluid transmission with a continuously-variable ratio, consisting perhaps of opposing "fans" moving within a compact and pressure-tight enclosure so designed as to allow a finite amount of fluid to circulate other than through the vanes, thus allowing only a finite amount of slip. Perhaps someone can clarify this. On the subject of MU, it is interesting to note that while the electric transmission itself showed up pretty early on (notably, in gas-electric cars, precursors of the RDC), practical diesel-electric MU had to await the development of automatic load regulation mechanisms which could match the electric transmission with its inherent overload tolerance to the finite power output of internal combustion prime-movers. Early gas-electrics had generator excitation controlled manually by the engineman; this worked fine as long as that person was sitting next to the prime-mover and could guage its loading by ear. When a cab was added at the other end, however, and the prime-mover was out of earshot, embarrassment, rather than acceleration, was often the result of over-enthusiastic rheostat operation. This is a fascinating topic and I look forward to further discussions. John Ewing Boston, MA
johne@haddock.UUCP (01/08/84)
#R:ihuxu:-22500:haddock:15300003:000:2214
haddock!johne Jan 6 20:03:00 1984
The American Coal Enterprises ACE-3000, at least as described heretofore
in public, will not be a coal-electric like the uniformly unsuccessful
experimentals built in the past by UP, C&O, and N&W.
It will instead be a "conventional" reciprocating machine, with the
refinement (developed, apparently, by Withuhn) that it will have four
cylinders, arranged in opposing pairs, at the four "corners" of the set
of driving axles. The pistons on each side will be phase displaced
180 degrees from each other; presumably each piston will in turn be
90 degrees from its neighbor on the other side of the locomotive (as is
the case in a conventional locomotive where the right hand piston
customarily leads the other by 90 degrees, a state of affairs called
quartering). This has two big advantages. First, the fore-and-aft
acceleration of each piston will be counterbalanced by that of its neighbor
on the same side of the locomotive, thus the tendency of those accelerations
to cause the engine to "nose" will be eliminated. Second, the elimination
of the need to attempt to counterbalance those accelerations by making
the driving wheel counterweights larger than ideal means that the rotating
masses of connecting rods and so forth can be counterbalanced much more
precisely. This means that the engine will run much more smoothly on the
track at higher speeds, rather than "pounding" it as a conventionally
(not-quite-)counterbalanced locomotive can.
I believe the prototype envisioned is a four-coupled machine (i.e.
four driving axles). Each cylinder will drive the second driving wheel
from it, which will in turn drive the adjacent end axle by a connecting
rod. The two center axles will be tied together by a Stephensonian
crank arrangement between the frames.
Other innovations will, I believe, include high-tech boiler design,
the use of an on-board condenser (?), and probably MU.
One of the designers was quoted somewhere as saying that this engine
has been designed within the weight-power-adhesion-tractive effort-etc
envelope of the contemporary GP40-2 (not a direct quote).
It will be interesting to see the prototype in operation.
John Ewing
Boston, MAstevel@haddock.UUCP (03/15/84)
#R:avsdT:-69100:haddock:15300009:177600:470
haddock!stevel Feb 22 12:47:00 1984
Steam Town has a Big Boy. It has run but I don't know it's
current status. Steam Town is in the process of moving to
Scanton PA and should be open for buisness sometime late this
spring.
If anybody knows for sure when it's opening please let me know.
Steve Ludlum, decvax!yale-co!ima!stevel, {ucbvax|ihnp4}!cbosgd!ima!stevel
decwrl!amd70!ima!stevel, {uscvax|ucla-vax|vortex}!ism780!stevel
Interactive Systems, 7th floor, 441 Stuart st, Boston, MA 02116; 617-247-1155johne@haddock.UUCP (03/15/84)
#R:ihdev:-11000:haddock:15300010:177600:134 haddock!johne Feb 23 19:11:00 1984 The 4012 is at Steamtown. Whether that means she's in Bellows Falls or Scranton at this moment I don't know. John Ewing, Boston
johne@haddock.UUCP (03/15/84)
#R:decwrl:-571100:haddock:15300011:177600:515 haddock!johne Feb 23 19:17:00 1984 While it is not a "plan book" per se, John Armstrong's TRACK PLANNING FOR REALISTIC OPERATION (paperback, Kalmbach) is a classic on the subject. I don't have my copy in front of me, but if memory serves the book does include at least one shelf type layout as an example. With Armstrong's advice, you ought to be able to design at least as good a layout as you will find published in a plan book. I believe the book is still in print; it ought to be available at most hobby shops. John Ewing, Boston
johne@haddock.UUCP (03/15/84)
#R:wivax:-1922500:haddock:15300012:177600:543 haddock!johne Feb 27 17:54:00 1984 Santa Fe had 2-10-10-2 Mallets running over Raton Pass. It seems to me that they were built of spliced conventional 2-10-2's (the "Santa Fe" type), proved unwieldy, and were shortly rebuilt to conventional engines. Early in this century Santa Fe was very enthusiastic about various schemes of compounding (e.g. Mallets), but that enthusiasm apparently gave rise to very few lasting examples of the technology. I'm sure there were other 2-10-10-2's out west; the Santa Fe examples I happen to recall at the moment. John Ewing, Boston
johne@haddock.UUCP (03/15/84)
#R:teldata:-25100:haddock:15300013:177600:338 haddock!johne Mar 8 18:06:00 1984 There was, I believe, a Chicago & Alton, also known as the Alton Route. It was a busy railroad back then, and at one point did something really historical, which I think was conveying the first Pullman car in one of its trains. I have a further vague recollection that it was ultimately absorbed by the GM&O. John Ewing, Boston
johne@haddock.UUCP (03/16/84)
#R:teldata:-25100:haddock:15300015:000:350 haddock!johne Mar 15 16:55:00 1984 The remains of the Camden & Amboy are part of CR in central NJ. The line is no longer unbroken between those two points; the stretch between Hightstown and Bordentown (more or less) has been abandoned. The electrified cutoff between Perth Amboy and Monmouth Junction by way of Jamesburg includes a portion of the C & A. John Ewing, Boston
johne@haddock.UUCP (03/23/84)
#R:ucbvax:-28400:haddock:15300014:177600:358 haddock!johne Mar 12 16:18:00 1984 The U23B's went to MEC presumably because MEC has a bunch of ex-RI GE's and it made sense to have all the U-boats on the Mellon lines running in the same neighborhood for maintenance purposes. Heard a report that the GP-49's are the greatest thing since no-flip pancakes, are capable of feats which would do an SD-40 proud. John Ewing, Boston
johne@haddock.UUCP (03/27/84)
#R:ucbvax:-28400:haddock:15300016:000:566 haddock!johne Mar 26 17:40:00 1984 Briefly (and without consulting a reference to be sure) it's a 12-cylinder, turbocharged, 2800-HP, 4-axle road unit, a member of the "50 series." Like other current EMD's, it has sophisticated wheel-slip control, enabling it to run continuously in the creep range (just short of slip) where adhesion is maximized. Thus it can use all that horsepower at lower speeds (like an SD-40). It has, on the other hand, four fewer cylinders to maintain than does an SD-40, and two fewer motors. Alaska Railroad got the first production units. John Ewing, Boston
johne@haddock.UUCP (04/20/84)
#R:uiuccsb:11100015:haddock:15300017:177600:431 haddock!johne Apr 18 18:51:00 1984 According to this month's TRAINS Magazine (which as usual is at home, not here with me), the B&M got 15 of the Geeps and they are straight 40's, not Dash-2's. Of course, as the oldest of Dash-2's are approaching 12 years of age, it's about time for them to start showing up as second-hand units as well! If I go home and find I misremembered the news item, I'll be sure to post a correction. John Ewing Boston
johne@haddock.UUCP (06/06/84)
I remember reading somewhere that conduit power distribution was used in Washington primarily for reasons of appearance. John Ewing Boston
burton@fortune.UUCP (06/08/84)
#R:uiucdcs:-2060000800:fortune:8900010:000:627
fortune!burton Jun 8 09:09:00 1984
< ... get poor Charlie off the MTA ... >
Boston has never maintained *anything* very well. If you had to deal
with their labor situation (27 different crafts unions) and you could
get the Feds to kick in up to 80% of cost for new capital items, i.e.
rolling stock, you too might tend to slack off on maintenance.
The boston PCC's are 30+ years old. Compare that with the average age
of the Boston bus fleet: 7 years.
Philip Burton 101 Twin Dolphin Drive-MS 133
Fortune Systems Redwood City, CA 94065 (415) 595-8444 x 526
- - -
{ihnp4 [ucbvax | decvax!decwrl]!amd70 harpo hpda }!fortune!burtonburton@fortune.UUCP (06/21/84)
#R:inmet:-147400:fortune:8900017:000:285
fortune!burton Jun 21 09:22:00 1984
Subway construction is also much, much, much more expensive than El
construction.
Philip Burton 101 Twin Dolphin Drive-MS 133
Fortune Systems Redwood City, CA 94065 (415) 595-8444 x 526
- - -
{ihnp4 [ucbvax | decvax!decwrl]!amd70 harpo hpda }!fortune!burtonbenk@inmet.UUCP (07/05/84)
#R:homxa:-25900:inmet:7900006:177600:667 inmet!benk Jul 4 15:02:00 1984 I believe that it is still running. It is(?)/was used by the MTA to ship newly acquired subway cars from the Brooklyn docks ( they get 'ferried' over from 'Jersey -- Hoboken, I believe ) to the Coney Island yards, where they are cheked out before being inflicted on the riding public. This, of course works only for the 'IND' and 'BMT' cars. Does anybody know how the 'IRT' cars get shipped to NYC and where they are eventually introduced into the system ? -- Ben Krepp (inmet!benk) P.S. For anybody who is keeping score, this is one more Stuyvesant alumnus checking in ... my age must be starting to show also ... I can vividly recall the 15c fare.
percus@acf4.UUCP (11/17/84)
As for rail service, The Crescent, leaving New York at
about 2:30 PM, is rather comfortable and convenient
(not to scenic, though), and arrives in Atlanta at
about 6:30 PM the next day.
Of course, you can take almost any train from Boston to
New York. The 8:40 AM Colonial from Boston should
give you quite enough time to change.
Best of Luck.
percus@nyu-acf4jis1@ahuta.UUCP (jis1) (11/28/84)
REFERENCES: <48400003@acf4.UUCP> The Crescent arrives at New Orleans at 6:20 pm the next day. It arrives at Atlanta around 8am. Been on the Crescent in the recent past! Jishnu Mukerji ihnp4!ahuta!jis1
chris@hplvla.UUCP (chris) (04/04/85)
I called the number listed and spoke with the person there, who said July 4 is probably optimistic, that late August or later this Fall was more likely the startup time. The service will be fashioned after the Cumbres and Toltec or Durango and Silverton lines in New Mexico and Colorado, running about 2-3 trains per day, tickets about $25-$30. There will be no AMTRAK connection to Williams, the start point in the South, but possibly (possibly) bus from Flagstaff. It seems to be aimed at car travellers who want to spend the day-trip on the train, with possibly 2-3 hours at the Canyon each trip. Sounds like fun, and who could ask for a nicer route? -Chris hpfcla!hplvla!chris
rfw@lan000 (12/03/85)
> Subject: TAG Computer Program > Message-ID: <172@tekigm2.UUCP> > Date: 21 Sep 85 04:05:28 GMT > Date-Received: 14 Nov 85 06:14:47 GMT > Organization: Tektronix, Beaverton OR > Lines: 19 > > Has anyone out there been able to successfully use the computerized traffic > generator program written by Bob Fink in the Februrary 1984 issue of Model > Railroader magazine? Either as written in Microsoft BASIC for the TRS80 Model > .... As it arrived here Sunday Dec. 1. Don't ask me where the inquiry has been since then. I would like to extend the inquiry to include any and all railroad-related software. Trains magazine has a 'locomotive simulator' program advertised monthly - about $90 as I recall. Has anyone taken the plunge for this or other similar products? I'll be glad to post a summary if I get any mail. Oh - IBM-PC stuff of particular interest here. Randy Wright allegra \ Lantech Systems, Inc. ihnp4 >!convex!infoswx!lan000!rfw 9635 Wendell Road uiucdcs / Dallas, TX 75243 (214) 340-4932
roma@uiucuxc.CSO.UIUC.EDU (08/01/86)
> A couple of years back there was a fatal railroad crash just north of Boston. > Four people were killed, three of them railroad employees. The fourth, however, > was a railroad buff who had talked one of the engineers into letting him ride > in the locomotive cab, against company policy and instructions to employees. > Now, (you guessed it) the guy's widow is suing the Boston and Maine for her > husband's death. This disgusts me, but doesn't surprise me at all. This is one reason why cab rides are frowned upon by railroad management. > Is there any chance that the B&M could countersue the man's estate for his > action in suborning one of their employees to dereliction of duty, thus > involving the company in an expensive lawsuit? Not being a lawyer, I don't know whether the B&M would have a case against the railfan for causing them to break the rules because the railfan was not subject to the B&M rule book since he was not an employee. I believe they are basically responsible for everything they do unless it is under duress. The fan was not officially authorized to be in the locomotive cab, but I don't know if the trespass laws come into play here. If the train was a passenger train, would it have any bearing on the case if it could be determined that the passenger did not pay a fare and was thus a "stowaway"? However, if the railroad employees' widows were to try to make a case against the B&M, I suspect the railroad would make light of the fact that a rule violation was involved. To what extent is an employer liable for its employees' actions and how does a violation of rules by the employee affect such liability? Is the agreement to follow the Book of Rules merely an agreement or is it part of the employee's contract with the railroad? If it was part of the contract, could the B&M try to collect damages for breach of contract? Are there any lawyers or law students that can add anything? Jon Roma Computing Services Office, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign ARPANET: roma%uiucuxc@a.cs.uiuc.edu CSNET: roma%uiucuxc@uiuc.csnet UUCP: {ihnp4,pur-ee,convex}!uiucdcs!uiucuxc!roma