What is a "mixed train"?

[hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com]

As I understand, it is a combination freight and passenger train,
as opposed to just baggage cars for express and mail.

What does that mean for the passengers? Presumably, they
take longer for a trip, but that would be reflected in
the schedule.

[Robert Heller]

In modern times it would be really small branch line with too little traffic
for dedicated passenger *and* freight trains, so one of the local box shifts
gets a passenger car hitched up and carries the "handfull" of locals. Often
this is someplace too remote for any other sort of transit (eg no roads for a
bus or cars, etc.). Sometimes the "freight" is just as "meager" as the
passengers -- eg all LCL freight, eg a train with engine, passenger/baggage, a
couple of box cars, and a cabose. I believe I've seen a video/TV program about
such a service running in Alaska in some really remote area. I expect that
there are trains something like this in remote parts of Africa or Asia. There
*might* be some of this in some of the more "rural" parts of Europe.

The other is something that goes back to the "earlier" days of railroading (eg
1860s/1870s), pretty much before the idea of dedicated types of trains.

Note: there is something called a "mixed freight", which just a freight train,
but with a mix of car types/freight, as opposed to a unit train (eg a train of
just coal cars or oil tankers or TOFC or containers, etc.).

--
Robert Heller -- 978-544-6933
Deepwoods Software -- Custom Software Services
http://www.deepsoft.com/ -- Linux Administration Services
hel...@deepsoft.com -- Webhosting Services

[houn...@yahoo.co.uk]

On 13/12/2018 02:40, Robert Heller wrote:
> At Wed, 12 Dec 2018 17:07:33 -0800 (PST) hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>
>>
>> As I understand, it is a combination freight and passenger train,
>> as opposed to just baggage cars for express and mail.
>>
>> What does that mean for the passengers? Presumably, they
>> take longer for a trip, but that would be reflected in
>> the schedule.
>
> In modern times it would be really small branch line with too little traffic
> for dedicated passenger *and* freight trains, so one of the local box shifts
> gets a passenger car hitched up and carries the "handfull" of locals. Often
> this is someplace too remote for any other sort of transit (eg no roads for a
> bus or cars, etc.). Sometimes the "freight" is just as "meager" as the
> passengers -- eg all LCL freight, eg a train with engine, passenger/baggage, a
> couple of box cars, and a cabose. I believe I've seen a video/TV program about
> such a service running in Alaska in some really remote area. I expect that
> there are trains something like this in remote parts of Africa or Asia. There
> *might* be some of this in some of the more "rural" parts of Europe.
>
> The other is something that goes back to the "earlier" days of railroading (eg
> 1860s/1870s), pretty much before the idea of dedicated types of trains.
>
> Note: there is something called a "mixed freight", which just a freight train,
> but with a mix of car types/freight, as opposed to a unit train (eg a train of
> just coal cars or oil tankers or TOFC or containers, etc.).
>

Trains from Winnipeg to Churchill would probably qualifы as a mixed
train, as might the train from Sept-Îles to Schefferville.

[John Levine]

In article <puua63$olh$1...@dont-email.me>,

houn...@yahoo.co.uk <houn...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>Trains from Winnipeg to Churchill would probably qualifы as a mixed
>train, as might the train from Sept-Îles to Schefferville.

The tri-weekly Via train to Churchill (which resumed running all the
way to Churchill last week) is just a passenger train with a baggage
van. Until the washout last year there was a weekly freight train,
which will presumably resume. The new owner is planning to reopen
the deep water port which would greatly increase the demand for
freight service.

I think the Schefferville train is mostly passenger but they might
hook on a box car if there's freight.

--
Regards,
John Levine, jo...@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly

[Mike Powell]

-=> John Levine wrote to houn...@yahoo.co.uk <=-

JL> The tri-weekly Via train to Churchill (which resumed running all the
JL> way to Churchill last week) is just a passenger train with a baggage
JL> van. Until the washout last year there was a weekly freight train,
JL> which will presumably resume. The new owner is planning to reopen
JL> the deep water port which would greatly increase the demand for
JL> freight service.

I had not heard that line had been washed out. How did they manage to get
supplies (and people) in and out? Isn't the rail line the only land link
to the rest of Canada?

I did some research on it once upon a time as I would like to one day visit
there.

Mike


... DalekDOS v(overflow): (I)Obey (V)ision impaired (E)xterminate

[John Levine]

In article <5448...@f10.n1.z44985.fidonet.org>,

Mike Powell <Mike....@f10.n1.z44985.fidonet.org> wrote:
>I had not heard that line had been washed out.

It was in the CBC and provincial news.

> How did they manage to get
>supplies (and people) in and out? Isn't the rail line the only land link
>to the rest of Canada?

By air, very, very expensively. Churchill has a large deepwater seaport,
but it's been closed for a few years.

[danny burstein]

In <pv208i$31kf$1...@gal.iecc.com> John Levine <jo...@taugh.com> writes:

>In article <5448...@f10.n1.z44985.fidonet.org>,
>Mike Powell <Mike....@f10.n1.z44985.fidonet.org> wrote:
>>I had not heard that line had been washed out.

>It was in the CBC and provincial news.

>> How did they manage to get
>>supplies (and people) in and out? Isn't the rail line the only land link
>>to the rest of Canada?

>By air, very, very expensively. Churchill has a large deepwater seaport,
>but it's been closed for a few years.

update courtesy of Wikipedia:

"On November 1, 2018, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau joined
Churchill residents to celebrate the return of rail service."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Churchill,_Manitoba#Transportation

--
_____________________________________________________
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
dan...@panix.com
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]

[Mike Powell]

-=> John Levine wrote to Mike Powell <=-

>I had not heard that line had been washed out.

JL> It was in the CBC and provincial news.

Thanks. Being in KY, USA, and not having looked lately, I had missed that!
Glad they apparently have it fixed now.

> How did they manage to get
>supplies (and people) in and out? Isn't the rail line the only land link
>to the rest of Canada?

JL> By air, very, very expensively. Churchill has a large deepwater
JL> seaport, but it's been closed for a few years.

That will be a good thing for Churchill, I am sure.

Thanks!
Mike


... Computer Hacker wanted. Must have own axe.

[houn...@yahoo.co.uk]

Is the seaport reopening, now that the rail link is back?

They were earlier exporting cereals from the prairies, IIRC.

[John Levine]

In article <pv3gqo$42g$1...@dont-email.me>,

houn...@yahoo.co.uk <houn...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>Is the seaport reopening, now that the rail link is back?
>
>They were earlier exporting cereals from the prairies, IIRC.

The port closed in 2015, apparently because of low usage. You'd think
that with global warming making the season longer, it'd make sense to
reopen it, but the politics are more complex than I understand. Some
reports say that Saskatchewan farmers want it open because it is
1000km closer than anything else. Another report said that the Thunder
Bay port is underused and they should increase shipments there
instead.

[hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com]

On Wednesday, December 12, 2018 at 9:40:11 PM UTC-5, Robert Heller wrote:
> At Wed, 12 Dec 2018 17:07:33 -0800 (PST) hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>
> >
> > As I understand, it is a combination freight and passenger train,
> > as opposed to just baggage cars for express and mail.
> >
> > What does that mean for the passengers? Presumably, they
> > take longer for a trip, but that would be reflected in
> > the schedule.
>
> In modern times it would be really small branch line with too little traffic
> for dedicated passenger *and* freight trains, so one of the local box shifts
> gets a passenger car hitched up and carries the "handfull" of locals. Often
> this is someplace too remote for any other sort of transit (eg no roads for a
> bus or cars, etc.). Sometimes the "freight" is just as "meager" as the
> passengers -- eg all LCL freight, eg a train with engine, passenger/baggage, a
> couple of box cars, and a cabose. I believe I've seen a video/TV program about
> such a service running in Alaska in some really remote area. I expect that
> there are trains something like this in remote parts of Africa or Asia. There
> *might* be some of this in some of the more "rural" parts of Europe.

Thanks for the info.

In the Official Guide of 1954, there were many 'mixed trains' shown
on little branch lines. For whatever reason, they felt it necessary
to mark the train as such.

(Also, a lot of branch lines were served by bus.)

I remember in the 1970s seeing a local freight work a light
branch line. It would be a locomotive hauling one or two
cars. I couldn't imagine how such a service made any money.
The train needed a full screw to flag crossings, do switching,
etc. After deregulation, many of those lines closed or were
turned over to a shortline. The lines I saw were closed.

Had the railroads had their way, many branch lines would have
been abandoned after WW II, or even before the war. The car,
truck, and bus, eliminated the need for such lines. The RDC
kept some lines going for a while, but that only reduced losses,
not make them profitable.

[Robert Heller]

Right, these were lines with "parallel" roads, so there services moved from
steel wheels to rubber wheels (trucks, cars, busses, etc.). This sort of
service is really only going to survive where there are no roads -- it is by
rail or not at all, like remote parts of (northern) Canada / Alaska or in some
remote "third world" countries (South America, Africa, and Asia).

[hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com]

Also, note that in the 1950s (even earlier) states were busy
upgrading roads--this was before and separate from the Interstate
System. A narrow curvy lousy road was upgraded, making it more
favorable for all vehicles, and bringing out the traffic.

Many cities got expressways. Suburban roads were upgraded to
four lane divided highways. All of this hurt trains. Sadly,
the ICC ignored the highways and mandated the railroads keep
running empty trains*.

*The FCC ignored the widespread growth of the telephone in the
1970s and mandated that Western Union maintain telegraph offices
where they were no longer needed.

[John Levine]

In article <7e15ae78-39ca-499b...@googlegroups.com>,

<hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
>> I believe I've seen a video/TV program about
>> such a service running in Alaska in some really remote area. I expect that
>> there are trains something like this in remote parts of Africa or Asia. There
>> *might* be some of this in some of the more "rural" parts of Europe.

The only railroad in Alaska is the Alaska RR and I'm reasonbly sure
they don't run mixed trains.

As far as I know the only mixed train left in North America is the
Keewatin Railway between The Pas and Pukatawagan, Manitoba. They
attach a few passenger cars to twice weekly freight trains.

http://www.krcrail.ca/passenger-service

https://www.viarail.ca/en/explore-our-destinations/trains/regional-trains/the-pas-pukatawagan/description

[Robert Heller]

At Sat, 15 Dec 2018 21:06:55 -0000 (UTC) John Levine <jo...@taugh.com> wrote:

>
> In article <7e15ae78-39ca-499b...@googlegroups.com>,
> <hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
> >> I believe I've seen a video/TV program about
> >> such a service running in Alaska in some really remote area. I expect that
> >> there are trains something like this in remote parts of Africa or Asia. There
> >> *might* be some of this in some of the more "rural" parts of Europe.
>
> The only railroad in Alaska is the Alaska RR and I'm reasonbly sure
> they don't run mixed trains.

I think the video / TV program included a passenger train, that carried "LCL"
"freight", but I'm thinking it was stuff like bags of grain or dog food and
the like, carried in the baggage car or in a coach/baggage combo car, not
anatual box car. It was along a line serving peole who were "off the grid" /
homesteading / etc. People would to the full shopping ("everything") and then
bringing it all home on the train.

>
> As far as I know the only mixed train left in North America is the
> Keewatin Railway between The Pas and Pukatawagan, Manitoba. They
> attach a few passenger cars to twice weekly freight trains.
>
> http://www.krcrail.ca/passenger-service
>
> https://www.viarail.ca/en/explore-our-destinations/trains/regional-trains/the-pas-pukatawagan/description

--

[John Levine]

In article <uomdnZd9C7XP44jB...@giganews.com>,

Robert Heller <hel...@deepsoft.com> wrote:
>I think the video / TV program included a passenger train, that carried "LCL"
>"freight", but I'm thinking it was stuff like bags of grain or dog food and
>the like, carried in the baggage car or in a coach/baggage combo car, not
>anatual box car. It was along a line serving peole who were "off the grid" /
>homesteading / etc. People would to the full shopping ("everything") and then
>bringing it all home on the train.

That could be the Churchill train, but I'm pretty sure that putting stuff in
the baggage car doesn't turn a passenger train into a mixed train.

For another ambiguous situation, consider the Amtrak Autotrain. It
has two engines, 16 passenger cars including sleepers, diners, and
coaches, and 33 auto carrier cars. I don't think anyone calls it a
mixed train.

[houn...@yahoo.co.uk]

On 15/12/2018 18:54, John Levine wrote:
> In article <pv3gqo$42g$1...@dont-email.me>,
> houn...@yahoo.co.uk <houn...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> Is the seaport reopening, now that the rail link is back?
>>
>> They were earlier exporting cereals from the prairies, IIRC.
>
> The port closed in 2015, apparently because of low usage. You'd think
> that with global warming making the season longer, it'd make sense to
> reopen it, but the politics are more complex than I understand.

Do you know exactly what the politics are? Because otherwise I would

> Some
> reports say that Saskatchewan farmers want it open because it is
> 1000km closer than anything else.

What is their primary market, BTW, China? I would imagine, in that case,
that Vancouver would probably be more suitable.

If they are exporting to someplace like Russia, however, then perhaps
Churchill would be a good option. But what about ice? That noticeably
pushes up prices.

[John Levine]

In article <pv47jr$dcd$1...@dont-email.me>,

houn...@yahoo.co.uk <houn...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> that with global warming making the season longer, it'd make sense to
>> reopen it, but the politics are more complex than I understand.
>
>Do you know exactly what the politics are? Because otherwise I would

Nope. Why don't you do some research and let us know what you find?

>> Some reports say that Saskatchewan farmers want it open because it is
>> 1000km closer than anything else.
>
>What is their primary market, BTW, China? I would imagine, in that case,
>that Vancouver would probably be more suitable.

This dandy page from the Canadian Grain Commission has the numbers:

https://grainscanada.gc.ca/statistics-statistiques/cge-ecg/cgem-mecg-eng.htm

It depends on the crop. Largest importers of wheat are Japan,
Indonesia, US, Peru, and Nigeria. Durum wheat largely goes to Italy,
Algeria, and Morocco. Barley goes to China. Rapeseed goes to China,
Japan, Mexico, and UAE. Soybeans go to China, peas go to India. Wheat
goes all over the place, from Colombia to Japan.

Remember that bulk shipping by sea is incredibly cheap, so a 1000 mi
shorter rail trip to the port could more than make up for a much
longer sea trip via Panama.

[Robert Heller]

At Sat, 15 Dec 2018 22:42:49 -0000 (UTC) John Levine <jo...@taugh.com> wrote:

>
> In article <uomdnZd9C7XP44jB...@giganews.com>,
> Robert Heller <hel...@deepsoft.com> wrote:
> >I think the video / TV program included a passenger train, that carried "LCL"
> >"freight", but I'm thinking it was stuff like bags of grain or dog food and
> >the like, carried in the baggage car or in a coach/baggage combo car, not
> >anatual box car. It was along a line serving peole who were "off the grid" /
> >homesteading / etc. People would to the full shopping ("everything") and then
> >bringing it all home on the train.
>
> That could be the Churchill train, but I'm pretty sure that putting stuff in
> the baggage car doesn't turn a passenger train into a mixed train.
>
> For another ambiguous situation, consider the Amtrak Autotrain. It
> has two engines, 16 passenger cars including sleepers, diners, and
> coaches, and 33 auto carrier cars. I don't think anyone calls it a
> mixed train.

I guess it depends on whether the "freight" is or is not associated with the
passengers. In the case of the Autotrain, the 33 auto carriers are kind of
like "baggage", in that the autos in the auto carriers belong to the
passengers in the passenger cars -- eg instead of you carrying your bags to
the station, your "bags" carry you... :-) It is not like the Autotrain hauls
new cars from the factory or seaport to dealerships or something like that.

The Churchill train (or the Alaska train), the "freight" all belongs to the
passengers -- eg it is their procedes from their weekly shopping excursion.

Their are likely true mixed trains out there, but probably not in North
America (anymore). Probably in remote areas.

[John Levine]

In article <ocydnWzELpRWMIjB...@giganews.com>,

Robert Heller <hel...@deepsoft.com> wrote:
>Their are likely true mixed trains out there, but probably not in North
>America (anymore). Probably in remote areas.

See my previous message about the mixed train in Saskatchewan.

[houn...@yahoo.co.uk]

On 16/12/2018 01:25, John Levine wrote:
> In article <pv47jr$dcd$1...@dont-email.me>,
> houn...@yahoo.co.uk <houn...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>> that with global warming making the season longer, it'd make sense to
>>> reopen it, but the politics are more complex than I understand.
>>
>> Do you know exactly what the politics are? Because otherwise I would
>
> Nope. Why don't you do some research and let us know what you find?
>
>>> Some reports say that Saskatchewan farmers want it open because it is
>>> 1000km closer than anything else.
>>
>> What is their primary market, BTW, China? I would imagine, in that case,
>> that Vancouver would probably be more suitable.
>
> This dandy page from the Canadian Grain Commission has the numbers:
>
> https://grainscanada.gc.ca/statistics-statistiques/cge-ecg/cgem-mecg-eng.htm
>
> It depends on the crop. Largest importers of wheat are Japan,
> Indonesia, US, Peru, and Nigeria. Durum wheat largely goes to Italy,
> Algeria, and Morocco. Barley goes to China. Rapeseed goes to China,
> Japan, Mexico, and UAE. Soybeans go to China, peas go to India. Wheat
> goes all over the place, from Colombia to Japan.

All over the place, in a word.

Thus, the more ports the better.

>
> Remember that bulk shipping by sea is incredibly cheap,

Yes, considering the glut of boats out there.

[houn...@yahoo.co.uk]

On 15/12/2018 21:06, John Levine wrote:
> In article <7e15ae78-39ca-499b...@googlegroups.com>,
> <hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
>>> I believe I've seen a video/TV program about
>>> such a service running in Alaska in some really remote area. I expect that
>>> there are trains something like this in remote parts of Africa or Asia. There
>>> *might* be some of this in some of the more "rural" parts of Europe.
>
> The only railroad in Alaska is the Alaska RR and I'm reasonbly sure
> they don't run mixed trains.

I would have thought that they would have, considering that they supply
communities along the rail route.

> As far as I know the only mixed train left in North America is the
> Keewatin Railway between The Pas and Pukatawagan, Manitoba. They
> attach a few passenger cars to twice weekly freight trains.

I would have thought that Winnipeg-Churchill also run mixed trains, as
they also supply the communities along the line. Plus, with the port
being out of service ...
>
> http://www.krcrail.ca/passenger-service
>
> https://www.viarail.ca/en/explore-our-destinations/trains/regional-trains/the-pas-pukatawagan/description

Tshiuetin Rail Transportation, which provides service to
Sept-Îles-Schefferville?

[John Levine]

In article <pv6p1a$fha$1...@dont-email.me>,

houn...@yahoo.co.uk <houn...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> The only railroad in Alaska is the Alaska RR and I'm reasonbly sure
>> they don't run mixed trains.
>
>I would have thought that they would have, considering that they supply
>communities along the rail route.

They run freight trains. Why would they fool around with mixed trains?

These days mixed trains only make sense in rare situations: you need a
place that has passenger rail service but no road good enough for
trucks, and that doesn't have enough demand to be worth running separate

freight trains.

>I would have thought that Winnipeg-Churchill also run mixed trains,

But if you spent 15 seconds looking at the Via Rail web site, you would
know otherwise. They run freight trains for freight and passenger trains
for passengers.

>Tshiuetin Rail Transportation, which provides service to
>Sept-Îles-Schefferville?

Look at the web site, hard to tell. They may have a box car they can
attatch to the train but since their network isn't attached to the
national network, they're not set up to move much freight.

[Robert Heller]

At Mon, 17 Dec 2018 01:50:53 -0000 (UTC) John Levine <jo...@taugh.com> wrote:

>
> In article <pv6p1a$fha$1...@dont-email.me>,
> houn...@yahoo.co.uk <houn...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >> The only railroad in Alaska is the Alaska RR and I'm reasonbly sure
> >> they don't run mixed trains.
> >
> >I would have thought that they would have, considering that they supply
> >communities along the rail route.
>
> They run freight trains. Why would they fool around with mixed trains?
>
> These days mixed trains only make sense in rare situations: you need a
> place that has passenger rail service but no road good enough for
> trucks, and that doesn't have enough demand to be worth running separate
> freight trains.
>
> >I would have thought that Winnipeg-Churchill also run mixed trains,
>
> But if you spent 15 seconds looking at the Via Rail web site, you would
> know otherwise. They run freight trains for freight and passenger trains
> for passengers.

It probably depends on how you define "freight" and "freight car". Is a
"baggage car" a "freight car"? Is carrying a 25lb bag of potatoes in a
"baggage car" as "checked baggage" for a passenger in a passenger car on the
same train considered "freight"? Yes, there are all sorts of semantic issues
here...

>
> >Tshiuetin Rail Transportation, which provides service to
> >Sept-Îles-Schefferville?
>
> Look at the web site, hard to tell. They may have a box car they can
> attatch to the train but since their network isn't attached to the
> national network, they're not set up to move much freight.
>
>
>
>

--

[John Levine]

In article <b42dnTuYcsLSl4rB...@giganews.com>,

Robert Heller <hel...@deepsoft.com> wrote:
>> But if you spent 15 seconds looking at the Via Rail web site, you would
>> know otherwise. They run freight trains for freight and passenger trains
>> for passengers.
>
>It probably depends on how you define "freight" and "freight car". Is a
>"baggage car" a "freight car"? Is carrying a 25lb bag of potatoes in a
>"baggage car" as "checked baggage" for a passenger in a passenger car on the
>same train considered "freight"? Yes, there are all sorts of semantic issues
>here...

I would be pretty surprised if anyone seriously argued that a baggage
car turns a passenger train into a mixed train. Passenger cars and
freight cars are different and the differences are not subtle -- the
former have heat and power connections and soft suspensions, the
latter don't. If you look at some youtube videos of the Keewatin
train, you can see it's three old Via Rail passenger cars hung on the
end of a freight train. Not clear where the heat is generated but
considering where the line is, it must be heated somehow.

[Robert Heller]

At Mon, 17 Dec 2018 04:13:19 -0000 (UTC) John Levine <jo...@taugh.com> wrote:

>
> In article <b42dnTuYcsLSl4rB...@giganews.com>,
> Robert Heller <hel...@deepsoft.com> wrote:
> >> But if you spent 15 seconds looking at the Via Rail web site, you would
> >> know otherwise. They run freight trains for freight and passenger trains
> >> for passengers.
> >
> >It probably depends on how you define "freight" and "freight car". Is a
> >"baggage car" a "freight car"? Is carrying a 25lb bag of potatoes in a
> >"baggage car" as "checked baggage" for a passenger in a passenger car on the
> >same train considered "freight"? Yes, there are all sorts of semantic issues
> >here...
>
> I would be pretty surprised if anyone seriously argued that a baggage
> car turns a passenger train into a mixed train. Passenger cars and
> freight cars are different and the differences are not subtle -- the
> former have heat and power connections and soft suspensions, the
> latter don't. If you look at some youtube videos of the Keewatin
> train, you can see it's three old Via Rail passenger cars hung on the
> end of a freight train. Not clear where the heat is generated but
> considering where the line is, it must be heated somehow.

Either there is a steam generator car (really old steam heat) or a HEP
generator car -- newer diesel locos lack steam generators and older diesel
locos lack HEP generators and these cars cover these two cases. Both types of
cars were commonly used at different times and places on *regular* passenger
trains for various reasons. No reason not to do the same for a "mixed" train.
I wonder if one of the those "old Via Rail passenger cars" was in fact a steam
generator car or HEP generator car.

[John Levine]

In article <L72dnYv8UMYBO4rB...@giganews.com>,

Robert Heller <hel...@deepsoft.com> wrote:
>> latter don't. If you look at some youtube videos of the Keewatin
>> train, you can see it's three old Via Rail passenger cars hung on the
>> end of a freight train. Not clear where the heat is generated but
>> considering where the line is, it must be heated somehow.
>
>Either there is a steam generator car (really old steam heat) or a HEP
>generator car -- newer diesel locos lack steam generators and older diesel
>locos lack HEP generators and these cars cover these two cases. Both types of
>cars were commonly used at different times and places on *regular* passenger
>trains for various reasons. No reason not to do the same for a "mixed" train.
>I wonder if one of the those "old Via Rail passenger cars" was in fact a steam
>generator car or HEP generator car.

That's what I would have thought but look at the cars. None of them
look like a steam generator:

https://youtu.be/AkMaHnRUduY?t=85

This wikipedia page even lists the three cars, two coach/baggage and
a snack bar:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Via_Rail_rolling_stock

Maybe the train's just cold in the winter.

[Robert Heller]

At Mon, 17 Dec 2018 22:15:03 -0000 (UTC) John Levine <jo...@taugh.com> wrote:

>
> In article <L72dnYv8UMYBO4rB...@giganews.com>,
> Robert Heller <hel...@deepsoft.com> wrote:
> >> latter don't. If you look at some youtube videos of the Keewatin
> >> train, you can see it's three old Via Rail passenger cars hung on the
> >> end of a freight train. Not clear where the heat is generated but
> >> considering where the line is, it must be heated somehow.
> >
> >Either there is a steam generator car (really old steam heat) or a HEP
> >generator car -- newer diesel locos lack steam generators and older diesel
> >locos lack HEP generators and these cars cover these two cases. Both types of
> >cars were commonly used at different times and places on *regular* passenger
> >trains for various reasons. No reason not to do the same for a "mixed" train.
> >I wonder if one of the those "old Via Rail passenger cars" was in fact a steam
> >generator car or HEP generator car.
>
> That's what I would have thought but look at the cars. None of them
> look like a steam generator:

Does Via Rail still use steam heated cars? I know that Amtrak scrapped or
converted all of the steam heated cars (there was a bad winter in the late
'70s or early '80s and Amtrak gave up dealing with steam heated cars) -- ALL
current Amtrak equipment is HEP. Having an under floor HEP generator would be
no worse than a DMU with an under floor engine for traction (it might even be
possible to convert a DMU traction engine to be a HEP generator). Or park a
small generator set at one end of one of baggage cars.

>
> https://youtu.be/AkMaHnRUduY?t=85
>
> This wikipedia page even lists the three cars, two coach/baggage and
> a snack bar:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Via_Rail_rolling_stock
>
> Maybe the train's just cold in the winter.

Maybe... The might just go really old school and have kerosene or possibly
propane heaters.

[houn...@yahoo.co.uk]

On 17/12/2018 01:50, John Levine wrote:
> In article <pv6p1a$fha$1...@dont-email.me>,
> houn...@yahoo.co.uk <houn...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>> The only railroad in Alaska is the Alaska RR and I'm reasonbly sure
>>> they don't run mixed trains.
>>
>> I would have thought that they would have, considering that they supply
>> communities along the rail route.
>
> They run freight trains. Why would they fool around with mixed trains?
>
> These days mixed trains only make sense in rare situations: you need a
> place that has passenger rail service but no road good enough for
> trucks, and that doesn't have enough demand to be worth running separate
> freight trains.
>
>> I would have thought that Winnipeg-Churchill also run mixed trains,
>
> But if you spent 15 seconds looking at the Via Rail web site, you would
> know otherwise. They run freight trains for freight and passenger trains
> for passengers.
>
>> Tshiuetin Rail Transportation, which provides service to

>> Sept-ÃŽles-Schefferville?

>
> Look at the web site, hard to tell. They may have a box car they can
> attatch to the train but since their network isn't attached to the
> national network, they're not set up to move much freight.
>

That line would carry iron ore down to Sept-Isles.

[Mike Powell]

> I would be pretty surprised if anyone seriously argued that a baggage
> car turns a passenger train into a mixed train. Passenger cars and

I am with you, it does not make it a mixed train, otherwise there would be
no passenger trains outside of interurban commuters.

---
* SLMR 2.1a * Heisenberg may have slept here.

[hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com]

On Saturday, December 15, 2018 at 8:43:44 PM UTC-5, Robert Heller wrote:

> I guess it depends on whether the "freight" is or is not associated with the
> passengers. In the case of the Autotrain, the 33 auto carriers are kind of
> like "baggage", in that the autos in the auto carriers belong to the
> passengers in the passenger cars -- eg instead of you carrying your bags to
> the station, your "bags" carry you... :-) It is not like the Autotrain hauls
> new cars from the factory or seaport to dealerships or something like that.

As I understand it, a 'passenger train' does not normally
carry freight cars. It would carry post office or baggage cars,
which are designed to run with a passenger train. Freight cars
could be attached, but not as efficiently. I don't think freight
cars have such things as tight lock couplers, HEP lines, signal
lines, etc.

I don't know, but it's possible a 'mixed train' may have a rocky ride
due to the freight cars being in the consist.

Amtrak attempted to carry 'express' shipments, but that didn't work
out.

[Robert Heller]

At Tue, 18 Dec 2018 14:43:48 -0800 (PST) hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:

>
> On Saturday, December 15, 2018 at 8:43:44 PM UTC-5, Robert Heller wrote:
>
> > I guess it depends on whether the "freight" is or is not associated with the
> > passengers. In the case of the Autotrain, the 33 auto carriers are kind of
> > like "baggage", in that the autos in the auto carriers belong to the
> > passengers in the passenger cars -- eg instead of you carrying your bags to
> > the station, your "bags" carry you... :-) It is not like the Autotrain hauls
> > new cars from the factory or seaport to dealerships or something like that.
>
> As I understand it, a 'passenger train' does not normally
> carry freight cars. It would carry post office or baggage cars,
> which are designed to run with a passenger train. Freight cars
> could be attached, but not as efficiently. I don't think freight
> cars have such things as tight lock couplers, HEP lines, signal
> lines, etc.
>
> I don't know, but it's possible a 'mixed train' may have a rocky ride
> due to the freight cars being in the consist.

Unless it is a "slow" train on a low-maintainence branch line (eg jointed
rail), in which case the addition of a few freight cars will make little
difference. One is not going to having a "funky" little 'mixed train' on a
main, welded-rail main line -- these are going to end up in exotic back-end of
nowhere places.

>
> Amtrak attempted to carry 'express' shipments, but that didn't work
> out.

They used special cars, ones designed to work with passenger trains --
"express" box cars (with tight lock couplers, high-speed trucks/bearings,
etc.) and Road Railers (also with tight lock couplers, high-speed
trucks/bearings, etc.). The reason it was disontinued was *political*, not
economic -- Congress did not like that Amtrak might actually make a profit
hauling a *small* bit of "express" freight and take some business away from a
*few* truckers and/or help the USPS be more self-sufficient or even profitable
as well. Can't have government entities be effiencent and/or self-sufficient,
especially if those government entities might actually compete with private
sector entities -- that makes it really hard to accuse those government
entities of being a drain on the taxpayer and/or of being unused or usable,
etc. The GOP has been trying its best to make Amtrak fail since Amtrak was
created, pretty much without success. Ditto WRT the USPS.

[houn...@yahoo.co.uk]

Actually, I do know of a case of a mixed train: The iron ore trains that
run between Zouerat and Nouadhibou, in Mauretania. National Industrial
and Mining Company (SNIM) is the owner/operator.

The consist is primarily iron ore hoppers, though they couple one or two
passenger cars at the end of the stretch.

https://youtu.be/BIeWnS4FTA0

https://youtu.be/EpLQBgT-fHU

[John Levine]

In article <9fOdnaJEsMtnrYXB...@giganews.com>,

Robert Heller <hel...@deepsoft.com> wrote:
>Does Via Rail still use steam heated cars?

Look at the Wikipedia page. Most of their fleet is HEP but they've
held onto these three old cars from 1954 for the Keewatin train. If
you look at the youtube video you can see they're still in the old
blue paint scheme.

>> This wikipedia page even lists the three cars, two coach/baggage and
>> a snack bar:
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Via_Rail_rolling_stock
>>
>> Maybe the train's just cold in the winter.
>
>Maybe... The might just go really old school and have kerosene or possibly
>propane heaters.
--

[hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com]

On Wednesday, December 12, 2018 at 9:40:11 PM UTC-5, Robert Heller wrote:
> At Wed, 12 Dec 2018 17:07:33 -0800 (PST) hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>
> >
> > As I understand, it is a combination freight and passenger train,
> > as opposed to just baggage cars for express and mail.
> >
> > What does that mean for the passengers? Presumably, they
> > take longer for a trip, but that would be reflected in
> > the schedule.
>
> In modern times it would be really small branch line with too little traffic
> for dedicated passenger *and* freight trains, so one of the local box shifts
> gets a passenger car hitched up and carries the "handfull" of locals. Often
> this is someplace too remote for any other sort of transit (eg no roads for a
> bus or cars, etc.). Sometimes the "freight" is just as "meager" as the
> passengers -- eg all LCL freight, eg a train with engine, passenger/baggage, a

> couple of box cars, and a cabose. I believe I've seen a video/TV program about

> such a service running in Alaska in some really remote area. I expect that
> there are trains something like this in remote parts of Africa or Asia. There
> *might* be some of this in some of the more "rural" parts of Europe.
>

> The other is something that goes back to the "earlier" days of railroading (eg
> 1860s/1870s), pretty much before the idea of dedicated types of trains.
>
> Note: there is something called a "mixed freight", which just a freight train,
> but with a mix of car types/freight, as opposed to a unit train (eg a train of
> just coal cars or oil tankers or TOFC or containers, etc.).


In some checking of the Official Guide of 1954, many branch lines
were served by buses. I _think_ the government forced railroads
to stop that. I know of some local branch lines that had only
buses in the 1950s, yet by the 1970s they were back to buses.
The railroad owned a bus company but apparently had to divest it.
Indeed, I think several railroads had bus subsidiaries.

One wonders what it would be like to ride one of those rural
bus trips back in the 1950s. Probably rather unpleasant--maybe
an old rough riding hot bus, scuzzy people, dusty. The towns
served probably were rough places, perhaps oil fields or
industrial sites. (Maybe I watch too much TCM.)

Curiously, the reference to bus service was always both the
word BUS at the column head, and, the notation, "service provided
by motor bus operating over the public highway" (where else
would a bus run?*)

Anyway, regarding mixed trains, the scheduled speeds were quite
slow, averaging out to 10-20 MPH. From what I've read elsewhere,
not many people rode them. They basically stuck a coach on
a freight train apparently to meet govt regulations.

One listing said the passengers rode in the caboose. How many
people could a caboose hold? I'd think only one or two beyond
the train crew.


* Red Arrow Lines actually converted a small stretch of an
interurban ROW to a busway. I think it's still there today as
part of SEPTA. It was kind of stupid since a road parallels
it. It is _still_ marked as such on the schedule!
http://www.septa.org/schedules/bus/pdf/103.pdf

[houn...@yahoo.co.uk]

Like they do in Mauritania, though I don't know if that is by government
regulation. It would not surprise me, however, if the government did
require it as the National Mining and Industrial Company (SNIM) is
state-owned. I also imagine that the railroad does connect some remote
communities.

Thinking about it, would not QNS&L couple a two or three passenger
coaches to some of their stretches?

> One listing said the passengers rode in the caboose. How many
> people could a caboose hold? I'd think only one or two beyond
> the train crew.

IIRC, Russian Railways (RZhD) offers some sort of passenger service on
postal trains.

[Robert Heller]

In some urban areas, there were dedicated bus roads. I believe Boston still
has dedicated *trolly* bus "roads" (actually tunnels connecting between
streets and underground terminals).

>
> Anyway, regarding mixed trains, the scheduled speeds were quite
> slow, averaging out to 10-20 MPH. From what I've read elsewhere,
> not many people rode them. They basically stuck a coach on
> a freight train apparently to meet govt regulations.
>
> One listing said the passengers rode in the caboose. How many
> people could a caboose hold? I'd think only one or two beyond
> the train crew.

If there were only 1-2 people using the service 90% of the time that might be
good enough.

>
>
> * Red Arrow Lines actually converted a small stretch of an
> interurban ROW to a busway. I think it's still there today as
> part of SEPTA. It was kind of stupid since a road parallels
> it. It is _still_ marked as such on the schedule!
> http://www.septa.org/schedules/bus/pdf/103.pdf
>
>
>
>
>

[John Levine]

In article <GtydnZX4fK4lTLvB...@giganews.com>,

Robert Heller <hel...@deepsoft.com> wrote:
>In some urban areas, there were dedicated bus roads. I believe Boston still

>has dedicated *trolley* bus "roads" (actually tunnels connecting between
>streets and underground terminals).

The Harvard Square T station has an underground bus loop used by both
trolley buses and regular buses.

The newish silver line between South Station and the airport uses dual
mode buses that run on overhead wire in the the tunnel and diesel
elsewhere. Next year they're supposed to have new buses that run on
batteries on the unwired section.

[Larry Sheldon]

On 12/28/2018 21:19, John Levine wrote:
> In article <GtydnZX4fK4lTLvB...@giganews.com>,
> Robert Heller <hel...@deepsoft.com> wrote:
>> In some urban areas, there were dedicated bus roads. I believe Boston still
>> has dedicated *trolley* bus "roads" (actually tunnels connecting between
>> streets and underground terminals).
>
> The Harvard Square T station has an underground bus loop used by both
> trolley buses and regular buses.
>
> The newish silver line between South Station and the airport uses dual
> mode buses that run on overhead wire in the the tunnel and diesel
> elsewhere. Next year they're supposed to have new buses that run on
> batteries on the unwired section.
>

I missed the beginning of this, but to me and a lot of other folks from
places like San Francisco, a "trolley bus" is simply a bus, like any
other bus (usually large or even articulated) with rubber wheels,
steering wheel, etc., free to go where-ever the driver or happenstance
may direct it, except the powered portions of its trip is limited by the
fact that instead of a smelly diesel engine, it is powered by an
electric motor fed by trolley poles connected to overhead wires except
when bad luck, angry pedestrians, sloppy driving and driver inattention
cause one or the other or both of the trolleys to lose their grip on the
wires (and hence, because the stalled torque of a DC motor is
approximately infinite and the stall torque of a diesel engine is
approximately zero, able to scramble passengers much more completely).


--
quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
-- Juvenal

[John Levine]

In article <g8odog...@mid.individual.net>,

Larry Sheldon <lfsh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On 12/28/2018 21:19, John Levine wrote:
>> The Harvard Square T station has an underground bus loop used by both
>> trolley buses and regular buses.
>>
>> The newish silver line between South Station and the airport uses dual

>> mode buses ...

>I missed the beginning of this, but to me and a lot of other folks from
>places like San Francisco, a "trolley bus" is simply a bus, like any
>other bus (usually large or even articulated) with rubber wheels,
>steering wheel, etc., free to go where-ever the driver or happenstance
>may direct it, except the powered portions of its trip is limited by the
>fact that instead of a smelly diesel engine, it is powered by an

>electric motor fed by trolley poles connected to overhead wires ...

Yes, that's a trolley bus. There are two trolley bus lines from
Harvard Square that go west into the adjacent town of Belmont, with a
pair of overhead wires over each. What else would it be?

The dual-mode buses are what they sound like, trolley buses in the
tunnel, diesel buses outside. The driver puts the poles up or down
when they switch at a bus stop.

[danny burstein]

In <q085tl$pk0$1...@gal.iecc.com> John Levine <jo...@taugh.com> writes:

>The dual-mode buses are what they sound like, trolley buses in the
>tunnel, diesel buses outside. The driver puts the poles up or down
>when they switch at a bus stop.

With the increasing improvement in storage batteries,
would you know of any pseudo trolleys that use overhead
lines where available, and then switch to batteries
for the rest?

Thanks

--
_____________________________________________________
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
dan...@panix.com
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]

[John Levine]

In article <q086ok$1r5$1...@reader2.panix.com>,

danny burstein <dan...@panix.com> wrote:
>In <q085tl$pk0$1...@gal.iecc.com> John Levine <jo...@taugh.com> writes:
>
>>The dual-mode buses are what they sound like, trolley buses in the
>>tunnel, diesel buses outside. The driver puts the poles up or down
>>when they switch at a bus stop.
>
>With the increasing improvement in storage batteries,
>would you know of any pseudo trolleys that use overhead
>lines where available, and then switch to batteries
>for the rest?

See the message I posted three back in this thread.

[hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com]

On Friday, December 28, 2018 at 10:19:25 PM UTC-5, John Levine wrote:

> The newish silver line between South Station and the airport uses dual
> mode buses that run on overhead wire in the the tunnel and diesel
> elsewhere. Next year they're supposed to have new buses that run on
> batteries on the unwired section.

The newest generation of trackless trolleys (such as at SEPTA)
supposedly have batteries to allow some off wire operation.
This would be useful is the street is blocked and the coach has
to take a short detour offwire.

In actual practice, would anyone know how well this has functioned?

I can't help but suspect claimed battery power isn't as good as
claimed. Today, not only does the battery have to supply
traction, but also HVAC and that's a big draw, too.

[hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com]

On Saturday, December 29, 2018 at 11:04:07 AM UTC-5, John Levine wrote:

> The dual-mode buses are what they sound like, trolley buses in the
> tunnel, diesel buses outside. The driver puts the poles up or down
> when they switch at a bus stop.

I think NJT's predecessor tried vehicles like that in the 1950s,
but it didn't work out.

I don't think SEPTA likes running its three remaining trackless
routes. It killed off two of them. I think the remaining exist
only from city pressure. Maintaining the overhead and substations
is expensive.

[hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com]

On Saturday, December 29, 2018 at 11:18:29 AM UTC-5, danny burstein wrote:
> In <q085tl$pk0$1...@gal.iecc.com> John Levine <jo...@taugh.com> writes:
>
> >The dual-mode buses are what they sound like, trolley buses in the
> >tunnel, diesel buses outside. The driver puts the poles up or down
> >when they switch at a bus stop.
>
> With the increasing improvement in storage batteries,
> would you know of any pseudo trolleys that use overhead
> lines where available, and then switch to batteries
> for the rest?

a little blurb
http://www.septa.org/media/50th/trackless-trolleys.html

[John Levine]

In article <512fc691-bb36-4641...@googlegroups.com>,

<hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
>On Saturday, December 29, 2018 at 11:04:07 AM UTC-5, John Levine wrote:
>
>> The dual-mode buses are what they sound like, trolley buses in the
>> tunnel, diesel buses outside. The driver puts the poles up or down
>> when they switch at a bus stop.
>
>I think NJT's predecessor tried vehicles like that in the 1950s,
>but it didn't work out.

I can believe it, the technology has changed a lot in 70 years.

The dual-mode buses in Boston serve a specific need. Under the wire
they run in a tunnel where it would be impractical or at least very
expensive to provide ventilation for diesel exhaust. They have a
direct transfer to and from the heavy rail red line at South Station.
On diesel they travel with regular road traffic through the newish Ted
Williams tunnel to the airport and stop at the airport terminals. The
airport has long had a station on the blue line, but it's at the west
edge of the airport, you have to use an airport shuttle bus to the
terminals, and the blue line has poor downtown connections. The red
line+dual-mode trip is a lot faster for most people than blue
line+shuttle.

Nonetheless, the dual-modes haven't provided the capacity they were
supposed to. Massport has been subsidizing them so they're free at
the airport and people can board through all doors, which helped a
little. Apparently that didn't affect blue line boardings, so more
people have been using transit overall.

[Mike Powell]

-=> hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote to Robert Heller <=-

ha> Curiously, the reference to bus service was always both the
ha> word BUS at the column head, and, the notation, "service provided
ha> by motor bus operating over the public highway" (where else
ha> would a bus run?*)

IIRC, a couple of short lines in Kentucky actually had rail busses... not
RDCs or anything like that, but actual "bus-looking" vehicles powered by
Mack (??) engines with rail wheels on them.

[houn...@yahoo.co.uk]

On 29/12/2018 16:18, danny burstein wrote:
> In <q085tl$pk0$1...@gal.iecc.com> John Levine <jo...@taugh.com> writes:
>
>> The dual-mode buses are what they sound like, trolley buses in the
>> tunnel, diesel buses outside. The driver puts the poles up or down
>> when they switch at a bus stop.
>
> With the increasing improvement in storage batteries,
> would you know of any pseudo trolleys that use overhead
> lines where available, and then switch to batteries
> for the rest?
>
> Thanks
>

Translohr in Padova.

[houn...@yahoo.co.uk]

Like in Peru?

[John Levine]

In article <5461...@f10.n1.z45023.fidonet.org>,

Mike Powell <Mike....@f10.n1.z45023.fidonet.org> wrote:
>IIRC, a couple of short lines in Kentucky actually had rail busses... not
>RDCs or anything like that, but actual "bus-looking" vehicles powered by
>Mack (??) engines with rail wheels on them.

The UK has had several generations of railbus. The most recent, built
in the 1980s, is known as Pacers, bus bodies mounted on a four wheel
freight wagon frame. I've ridden on them, and they're not pleasant.
They're all supposed to be finally retired at the end of next year.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacer_(train)

They have lots of other self-powered diesel railcars known as DMUs that
are not based on bus designs.

[danny burstein]

In <q08ugn$2i3k$1...@gal.iecc.com> John Levine <jo...@taugh.com> writes:

>They have lots of other self-powered diesel railcars known as DMUs that
>are not based on bus designs.

I was recently in Camden, NJ, and was impressed by their
fairly new light rail system using Stadler GTW's. THese
are typically a set of two cars with a small generator
cab/car in between them.

Hmm, I see it's over a decade old and some of the track
is shared with other railroads under a timesharing
agreement.

Anyway,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/River_Line_(NJ_Transit)

and

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stadler_GTW

dannyb used to ride Budd Cars on the Penn Central's
Harlem Line, then later when it became something
else or another...

[Mike Powell]

-=> houn...@yahoo.co.uk wrote to Mike Powell <=-

> IIRC, a couple of short lines in Kentucky actually had rail busses... not
> RDCs or anything like that, but actual "bus-looking" vehicles powered by
> Mack (??) engines with rail wheels on them.
>

ho> Like in Peru?

Maybe, I will have to google those. These would have been in the 1930's or
thereabouts. IIRC, one of them also had at least one "Galloping-Goose"
like rail vehicle that was for hauling small amounts of freight.


... Computer Hacker wanted. Must have own axe.

[houn...@yahoo.co.uk]

On 29/12/2018 08:20, Mike Powell wrote:
> -=> houn...@yahoo.co.uk wrote to Mike Powell <=-
>
> > IIRC, a couple of short lines in Kentucky actually had rail busses... not
> > RDCs or anything like that, but actual "bus-looking" vehicles powered by
> > Mack (??) engines with rail wheels on them.
> >
> ho> Like in Peru?
>
> Maybe, I will have to google those.

Similar rail vehicles continue to run in revenue service on Czech
Railways (ČD) and on Railways of the Slovak Republic (ŽSR).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ČD_Class_810

[houn...@yahoo.co.uk]

There's also this:

http://www.bahnalltag.de/dr/page-0086.html

[hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com]

On Saturday, December 29, 2018 at 4:15:20 PM UTC-5, Mike Powell wrote:

> IIRC, a couple of short lines in Kentucky actually had rail busses... not
> RDCs or anything like that, but actual "bus-looking" vehicles powered by
> Mack (??) engines with rail wheels on them.

Over the years, a variety of light-duty railed vehicles were built
for branch line service, including buses mounted on rail wheels.
The New Haven bought a few Mack units.

The most successful unit was the RDC. Excellent design.
Unfortunately, even though it was much cheaper to operate,
branch line service was still a money-loser in most cases.

[hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com]

On Saturday, December 29, 2018 at 6:34:46 PM UTC-5, danny burstein wrote:

> I was recently in Camden, NJ, and was impressed by their
> fairly new light rail system using Stadler GTW's. THese
> are typically a set of two cars with a small generator
> cab/car in between them.

Yes, they ride very well.

However, I think the line still loses considerable money.
It probably should not have been built. It would've been
more useful 50 years ago when the end points had more commerce.

> Hmm, I see it's over a decade old and some of the track
> is shared with other railroads under a timesharing
> agreement.

The timesharing agreement forces the River Line to shut down
relatively early. There are times when service is needed late
at night, such as when certain arenas let out or other special
events.

[David Lesher]

I've often wondered about one aspect of trolley-bus technology.

You have a hot pole, and a ground pole. (I believe on some
routes, the hot cat can also serve railed/streetcar vehicles,
but I'm not sure.)

If the hot pole comes off the cat, the bus stops dead.

If the ground pole comes off, the bus stops...
BUT with no ground, the chassis must float above ground.
Someone boarding or departing would be straddling the voltage
difference; if they stepped into water, or grabbed a handrail...

I can think of a few solutions to the bus issue; I just wonder how
it's actually handled.

(I recall reading of a similar fatality in the Princeton area;
she was boarding or disembarking from an Amtrak train, and an
Acela went by at high speed on a parallel track. That raised
train-ground to well above station ground; she was the conductor
between them.)
--
A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz@nrk.com
& no one will talk to a host that's close..........................
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433

[houn...@yahoo.co.uk]

They were good trains, the Budd cars were.

They ran between Brewster North (now Southeast) and Dover Plains, on the
Harlem Line, as well as between Suffern and Port Jervis on the Port
Jervis Line.

BC Rail also ran them before ending passenger service, IIRC, whilst VIA
Rail Canada ran them between Halifax and Sydney.

Anybody else?

[John Levine]

In article <q0emgi$i3j$1...@reader2.panix.com>,

David Lesher <wb8...@panix.com> wrote:
>If the ground pole comes off, the bus stops...
>BUT with no ground, the chassis must float above ground.
>Someone boarding or departing would be straddling the voltage
>difference; if they stepped into water, or grabbed a handrail...

It is my impression that trolleybuses can go either way under the
wire, so I doubt they tie either side to the chassis.

[David Lesher]

John Levine <jo...@taugh.com> writes:

>In article <q0emgi$i3j$1...@reader2.panix.com>,
>David Lesher <wb8...@panix.com> wrote:
>>If the ground pole comes off, the bus stops...
>>BUT with no ground, the chassis must float above ground.
>>Someone boarding or departing would be straddling the voltage
>>difference; if they stepped into water, or grabbed a handrail...

>It is my impression that trolleybuses can go either way under the
>wire, so I doubt they tie either side to the chassis.

Floating the bus raises other issues. In any case, there's always
leakage....

[danny burstein]

In <q0emss$2bf$1...@dont-email.me> "houn...@yahoo.co.uk" <houn...@yahoo.co.uk> writes:

>They ran between Brewster North (now Southeast) and Dover Plains, on the
>Harlem Line, as well as between Suffern and Port Jervis on the Port
>Jervis Line.

I used to take the train from Pawling to NYC.

I think... think... I remember some Budd Cars actaully
making the whole treck to Grand Central without us
having to transfer.

I might be mistaken, but this would have been
sometime between 1964 and 1972 or so.

No guarantee my memory is correct. In any event,
if it did occur, it would have been pretty rare.

[Mike Powell]

-=> hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote to Mike Powell <=-

ha> The most successful unit was the RDC. Excellent design.
ha> Unfortunately, even though it was much cheaper to operate,
ha> branch line service was still a money-loser in most cases.

I like the RDCs and the idea of one. I wish they had been more successful.
They would have been great for the branch lines.


... DalekDOS v(overflow): (I)Obey (V)ision impaired (E)xterminate

[Kurt Hackenberg]

houn...@yahoo.co.uk <houn...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>They were good trains, the Budd cars were.
>
>They ran between Brewster North (now Southeast) and Dover Plains, on the
>Harlem Line, as well as between Suffern and Port Jervis on the Port
>Jervis Line.
>
>BC Rail also ran them before ending passenger service, IIRC, whilst VIA
>Rail Canada ran them between Halifax and Sydney.
>
>Anybody else?

The Reading Railroad (on its Reading line), the Boston and Maine.

[houn...@yahoo.co.uk]

On 01/01/2019 05:57, danny burstein wrote:
> In <q0emss$2bf$1...@dont-email.me> "houn...@yahoo.co.uk" <houn...@yahoo.co.uk> writes:
>
>> They ran between Brewster North (now Southeast) and Dover Plains, on the
>> Harlem Line, as well as between Suffern and Port Jervis on the Port
>> Jervis Line.
>
> I used to take the train from Pawling to NYC.
>
> I think... think... I remember some Budd Cars actaully
> making the whole treck to Grand Central without us
> having to transfer.
>
> I might be mistaken, but this would have been
> sometime between 1964 and 1972 or so.

When trains went as far a Chatham.

>
> No guarantee my memory is correct. In any event,
> if it did occur, it would have been pretty rare.
>
>

I actually think that I saw a Budd car travelling south of White Plains
in revenue service. It was but one time, however.

[houn...@yahoo.co.uk]

I take it that you've never seen the SPV-2000, which Budd built as a
successor to the RDC?

In a word, these units were a lesson of how ***not*** to build a rail car.

The SPV-2000 ran on New Haven Line's Waterbury Branch, where the speed
was relatively low. But it would also run on the Hudson Line between
Poughkeepsie and Croton-Harmon, where speeds were 79 miles

That's where the SPV-2000 truly demonstrated how much a piece of junk it
was with its lateral motion.

I also realise that it might take a couple of seconds for relays and
circuits to energise on a DMU or EMU when departing, but it was a
completely different scenario with the SPV-2000; At times, when the
engineer engaged the controller, the unit would simply respond with:
"Huh? Oh, yeah, erm ... okay."

The passenger salon had absolutely shoddy work and easily visible
welding points, though the exterior was a different story as it looked
rather futuristic for its time -- a perfect case of "don't judge a book
by its cover."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budd_SPV-2000

[bob]

VIA ran them on Victoria to Courtney until that service ended in, IIRC,
2010, and still run them on Sudbury - White River.

Robin

[Wayne Hines]

Both CN and CP ran RDCs in various parts of Canada before VIA took over
passenger service.

The Dominion Atlantic, and later VIA, ran them between Halifax and
Yarmouth in Nova Scotia. CN and VIA also ran RDCs from Halifax to parts
of New Brunswick.

I rode CN RDCs in southern Quebec in the 1960s. I believe both CN and CP
operated RDC service in southern Ontario.

gwh

--
I used to care but things have changed.

[hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com]

There's an excellent book on the RDC by Chuck Crouse. Gives
the whole history.

[hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com]

On Tuesday, January 1, 2019 at 11:15:11 AM UTC-5, Mike Powell wrote:
> -=> hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote to Mike Powell <=-
>
> ha> The most successful unit was the RDC. Excellent design.
> ha> Unfortunately, even though it was much cheaper to operate,
> ha> branch line service was still a money-loser in most cases.
>
> I like the RDCs and the idea of one. I wish they had been more successful.
> They would have been great for the branch lines.

The RDC was very successful, and they were great for branch lines.
However, they came along late in the game, and passenger patronage
was dying. People were driving, taking the bus, or flying, and
ridership on the trains was way down. Branch lines, which offered
only one slow train a day, were particularly vulnerable to the
convenience and speed of a car, especially has highways were
upgraded in the 1950s.

[hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com]

On Tuesday, January 1, 2019 at 2:34:47 PM UTC-5, houn...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:

> > I like the RDCs and the idea of one. I wish they had been more successful.
> > They would have been great for the branch lines.

> I take it that you've never seen the SPV-2000, which Budd built as a
> successor to the RDC?

> In a word, these units were a lesson of how ***not*** to build a rail car.

I rode the SPV a few times and it was ok.

However, they had a very poor reliability record.

I'm not sure what went wrong. Budd had extensive experience
with the RDC and certainly knew how to build a reliable
self-powered train. I don't know what they did differently
on the SPV that made that a failure.

[hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com]

On Monday, December 31, 2018 at 10:30:38 PM UTC-5, houn...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:

> Anybody else?

Many (most?) U.S. railroads operated an RDC at one time or another.
In some cases, the service was short lived. In other cases the
railroad bought a fleet and used them extensively.

Canada used them extensively, and may still even now.

The B&M had the largest fleet and used them for Boston commuter
service.

Sadly, (per Crouse's book), the MBTA/B&M screwed up the rebuild
project and went instead of unmotored coaches. I think they're
gone.

[hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com]

On Monday, December 31, 2018 at 10:24:03 PM UTC-5, David Lesher wrote:
> I've often wondered about one aspect of trolley-bus technology.
>
> You have a hot pole, and a ground pole. (I believe on some
> routes, the hot cat can also serve railed/streetcar vehicles,
> but I'm not sure.)
>
> If the hot pole comes off the cat, the bus stops dead.
>
> If the ground pole comes off, the bus stops...
> BUT with no ground, the chassis must float above ground.
> Someone boarding or departing would be straddling the voltage
> difference; if they stepped into water, or grabbed a handrail...

I question that. Given the extensive service of a trackless,
sooner or late those circumstances would occur and someone
get zapped. But I don't think that has ever happened.

> I can think of a few solutions to the bus issue; I just wonder how
> it's actually handled.
>
> (I recall reading of a similar fatality in the Princeton area;
> she was boarding or disembarking from an Amtrak train, and an
> Acela went by at high speed on a parallel track. That raised
> train-ground to well above station ground; she was the conductor
> between them.)

For the Acela, that would be a relatively recent incident, but
I don't recall hearing of it. Are you sure of the details?

Electric trains have been around for 100 years and I suspect
they long ago worked out grounding issues.

[houn...@yahoo.co.uk]

Hit and miss, I suppose.

[John Levine]

In article <q0emgi$i3j$1...@reader2.panix.com>,
David Lesher <wb8...@panix.com> wrote:

>(I recall reading of a similar fatality in the Princeton area;
>she was boarding or disembarking from an Amtrak train, and an
>Acela went by at high speed on a parallel track. That raised
>train-ground to well above station ground; she was the conductor
>between them.)

I grew up in Princeton and never heard of such an incident. The only
electrical injury I know of is a student who climbed up on top of the
parked Dinky one night in 1990, grabbed the wire, and was nearly killed. It
led to a court case where the student got a lot of money from the
railroad and the university. The guy went on to med school and specializes
in hospice care:

https://www.ucsfhealth.org/doctors_and_clinics/features/miller_bj/index.html

[bob]

David Lesher <wb8...@panix.com> wrote:
> I've often wondered about one aspect of trolley-bus technology.
>
> You have a hot pole, and a ground pole. (I believe on some
> routes, the hot cat can also serve railed/streetcar vehicles,
> but I'm not sure.)
>
> If the hot pole comes off the cat, the bus stops dead.
>
> If the ground pole comes off, the bus stops...
> BUT with no ground, the chassis must float above ground.
> Someone boarding or departing would be straddling the voltage
> difference; if they stepped into water, or grabbed a handrail...
>
> I can think of a few solutions to the bus issue; I just wonder how
> it's actually handled.
>
> (I recall reading of a similar fatality in the Princeton area;
> she was boarding or disembarking from an Amtrak train, and an
> Acela went by at high speed on a parallel track. That raised
> train-ground to well above station ground; she was the conductor
> between them.)

One method used at least on some networks is to have the OHL voltage float
so neither wire is directly grounded. My understanding is trolleybuses are
designed with the intention of fully insulating the bus from the traction
supply rather than using it for grounding, and attempting to ground the
vehicle to the road as best as is possible.

Robin

[Robert Heller]

Just like modern power tools...

>
> Robin
>
>

--
Robert Heller -- 978-544-6933
Deepwoods Software -- Custom Software Services
http://www.deepsoft.com/ -- Linux Administration Services
hel...@deepsoft.com -- Webhosting Services

[hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com]

On Wednesday, January 2, 2019 at 9:41:13 PM UTC-5, John Levine wrote:
> In article <q0emgi$i3j$1...@reader2.panix.com>,
> David Lesher <wb8...@panix.com> wrote:
> >(I recall reading of a similar fatality in the Princeton area;
> >she was boarding or disembarking from an Amtrak train, and an
> >Acela went by at high speed on a parallel track. That raised
> >train-ground to well above station ground; she was the conductor
> >between them.)
>
> I grew up in Princeton and never heard of such an incident. The only
> electrical injury I know of is a student who climbed up on top of the
> parked Dinky one night in 1990, grabbed the wire, and was nearly killed. It
> led to a court case where the student got a lot of money from the
> railroad and the university. The guy went on to med school and specializes
> in hospice care:
>
> https://www.ucsfhealth.org/doctors_and_clinics/features/miller_bj/index.html

Unfortunately, kids climbing atop railcars under catenary and getting
zapped has been a problem for years in many places. We lost a kid
in high school who climbed up a boxcar. Not too long ago a kid
was zapped at SEPTA's Wayne Jct, but SEPTA had left the fence wide
open.


Since that accident the Dinky layover spot has been enclosed
by a high fence.

Unfortunately, a lot of people are killed by trains despite fencing.
They cut through the fences as soon as they're installed.

[hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com]

On Monday, December 31, 2018 at 10:24:03 PM UTC-5, David Lesher wrote:

> (I recall reading of a similar fatality in the Princeton area;
> she was boarding or disembarking from an Amtrak train, and an
> Acela went by at high speed on a parallel track. That raised
> train-ground to well above station ground; she was the conductor
> between them.)

The Pennsy hauled freight behind electrics and there could be
multiple GG-1s or E-44s pulling a heavy train. All there were
the Metroliners flying along at speed. That all would
represent a heavy current draw. Such trains used to pass
stopped commuter trains all the time, with passengers having
one foot on the platform and one foot on the metal train floor.

There was also the risk of lightning hitting a commuter
train as well as a broken catenary wire hitting a train.
AFAIK, none of those ever caused injuries.

[David Lesher]

John Levine <jo...@taugh.com> writes:


>I grew up in Princeton and never heard of such an incident. The only
>electrical injury I know of is a student who climbed up on top of the
>parked Dinky one night in 1990, grabbed the wire, and was nearly killed.

I can't recall or cite details. But as an EE, it made sense to
me. The rails are not grounded through the roadbed as they run,
they are instead isolated by a choke (Wee-Z Bond) and grounded
at the substation. So drawing a lot of current would raise
the rail-to-ground voltage. And thus the train would be above
ground. Usually that's no issue as the train is not drawing high
current. But when the adjacent train is.....

[David Lesher]

hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com writes:


>I question that. Given the extensive service of a trackless,
>sooner or late those circumstances would occur and someone
>get zapped. But I don't think that has ever happened.


>> I can think of a few solutions to the bus issue; I just wonder how
>> it's actually handled.

Surely the bus is not connected to either side, but it will tend
to float to the midpoint. I suspect the simplistic approach is
to use a relay from pole to pole, and when either pole comes
off, it opens. That cuts all power to the bus.

[John Levine]

In article <q0s49r$stp$1...@reader2.panix.com>,

David Lesher <wb8...@panix.com> wrote:
>John Levine <jo...@taugh.com> writes:

>>I grew up in Princeton and never heard of such an incident. ...

>I can't recall or cite details. But as an EE, it made sense to

>me. ...

I'm not denying that something like that could happen. I'm
just saying that there's no evidence that it actually has.

[hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com]

On Sunday, January 6, 2019 at 12:39:08 AM UTC-5, David Lesher wrote:
> John Levine <jo...@taugh.com> writes:
>
>
> >I grew up in Princeton and never heard of such an incident. The only
> >electrical injury I know of is a student who climbed up on top of the
> >parked Dinky one night in 1990, grabbed the wire, and was nearly killed.
>
> I can't recall or cite details. But as an EE, it made sense to
> me. The rails are not grounded through the roadbed as they run,
> they are instead isolated by a choke (Wee-Z Bond) and grounded
> at the substation. So drawing a lot of current would raise
> the rail-to-ground voltage. And thus the train would be above
> ground. Usually that's no issue as the train is not drawing high
> current. But when the adjacent train is.....

Rails aren't grounded through the roadbed?

In any event, as mentioned, the NEC is a very busy railroad.
Heavy electric freights and high speed Metroliners used to
pass paused commuter trains at stations all the time. The
only risk was the blowback from fast trains sometimes knocking
a frail person over.

To this day, Acelas pass paused MU trains making a station stop.

Electric trains, both MU and locomotive, have been around
for 100 years. I've never heard of a passenger electrocuted
on a train or station (except illegally climbing atop). Sadly,
there are many suicides when people deliberately jump in front
of trains; NJT has installed hot-line phones for that purpose.

[hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com]

On Sunday, January 6, 2019 at 1:08:06 AM UTC-5, John Levine wrote:

> I'm not denying that something like that could happen. I'm
> just saying that there's no evidence that it actually has.

While I am no engineer, I have ridden electric trains my
whole life and I am saying it can't help. Every day high
powered trains pass loading commuter trains without incident,
and have been doing so for 100 years.

I can't help but suspect designers of MU trains long ago
took safety into account.

[danny burstein]

In <c60fa514-d13f-48d6...@googlegroups.com> hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com writes:

>Rails aren't grounded through the roadbed?

Partially but far from entirely. Can't comment directly
to Amtra[c]k and the commuter rails, but in the NYC subway
system there Big and Thick and Heavy copper cables that
help ground the tracks.

I'm not sure just where the the other ends connect up.

A frequent problem is that the copper thieves, or at least
the smarter ones [a], cut into/steal them for the metal.

When this happens, the next time a train comes through
all sorts of ugly electrical stuff occurs and the safeties
shut down power to the third rail, etc.

[a] the dumber ones get Darwin Awards.

[Robert Heller]

At Mon, 7 Jan 2019 22:02:47 +0000 (UTC) danny burstein <dan...@panix.com> wrote:

>
> In <c60fa514-d13f-48d6...@googlegroups.com> hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com writes:
>
> >Rails aren't grounded through the roadbed?
>
> Partially but far from entirely. Can't comment directly
> to Amtra[c]k and the commuter rails, but in the NYC subway
> system there Big and Thick and Heavy copper cables that
> help ground the tracks.

I expect that subways are a little different than outdoor, above ground
railroads. The subway tunnels might (probably) have a concrete "floor", with
the rails/ties bolted to the concrete and not have anchors driven "deep" into
the ground.

>
> I'm not sure just where the the other ends connect up.

Probably a Big and Thick and Heavy ground rod...

>
> A frequent problem is that the copper thieves, or at least
> the smarter ones [a], cut into/steal them for the metal.
>
> When this happens, the next time a train comes through
> all sorts of ugly electrical stuff occurs and the safeties
> shut down power to the third rail, etc.
>
> [a] the dumber ones get Darwin Awards.
>
>

--

[David Lesher]

hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com writes:


>Rails aren't grounded through the roadbed?

No. They are isolated from ground; the return currents go via
those cables Danny mentioned through a Wee_Z bond low pass
filter to the substation. That's so the signaling system will
work.

[danny burstein]

In <q13lao$6pe$2...@reader2.panix.com> David Lesher <wb8...@panix.com> writes:

>hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com writes:

>>Rails aren't grounded through the roadbed?

>No. They are isolated from ground; the return currents go via
>those cables Danny mentioned through a Wee_Z bond low pass
>filter to the substation. That's so the signaling system will
>work.

Huh? I'll agree that a hefty chunk of the current goes back
to, well, somewhere... but it would be damn tricky to isolate
metal tracks from ground.

There are a gazillion metal plates and spikes fastning
the track to, well, the ground. Even if they've got
rubber padding (which sure ain't universal) there's plenty
of metal to metal to ground connectivity.

[spsfman]

On 1/8/2019 7:41 PM, danny burstein wrote:
> In <q13lao$6pe$2...@reader2.panix.com> David Lesher <wb8...@panix.com> writes:
>
>> hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com writes:
>
>>> Rails aren't grounded through the roadbed?
>
>> No. They are isolated from ground; the return currents go via
>> those cables Danny mentioned through a Wee_Z bond low pass
>> filter to the substation. That's so the signaling system will
>> work.
>
> Huh? I'll agree that a hefty chunk of the current goes back
> to, well, somewhere... but it would be damn tricky to isolate
> metal tracks from ground.
>
> There are a gazillion metal plates and spikes fastning
> the track to, well, the ground. Even if they've got
> rubber padding (which sure ain't universal) there's plenty
> of metal to metal to ground connectivity.
>

Perhaps my understanding is way off, but, with DC, doesn't the ground
have to return to the source rather than just to the actual earth,
doesn't it?

It was my simple understanding that with AC that wasn't necessary but
with DC it was. That was one of the reasons AC won out over DC for
domestic electricity. Didn't Edison have a complex set of heavy return
(ground) wiring to maintain in lower Manhattan, and wasn't that part of
what killed DC.

I'd love to have non-insulting comments. If I'm wrong, tell me,
politely. If I'm somewhat right, an affirmation would be nice.

Cheers,

DAVe

[John Levine]

In article <q13lao$6pe$2...@reader2.panix.com>,

David Lesher <wb8...@panix.com> wrote:
>hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com writes:
>
>
>>Rails aren't grounded through the roadbed?
>
>No. They are isolated from ground; the return currents go via
>those cables Danny mentioned through a Wee_Z bond low pass
>filter to the substation. That's so the signaling system will
>work.

This sounds peculiar to 600 or 750V DC third rail systems. 12 or 25Kv
AC systems with catenary doubtles have different issues and much lower
current.

[Larry Sheldon]

I am not sure how railroads and elevators and such do it now but I
suspect there are as many standards as there are governing boards.

But there are some things I am pretty sure of.

One is that builders of transmission facilities HATE buying copper so if
there is no reason not to, one of the conductors in the system will be
Earth, AC, DC, or RF.

When I was a little kid, people who lived on streets with street cars
had (I think I remember) corrosion problems with buried metal stiff like
water pipes. (What I am sure I remember is later we had a house on a
street where every house wit a streetlamp near the water meter had to
replace the water pipe every ten years or make extraordinary repairs.)

We did not have any electric trains and the signal systems were base on
Wheatstone bridges which were balanced (I think) for the "no train
present" condition on the rails which were bonded longitudinally but not
(as far as I could tell) isolated from ground except by the
creosote-soaked sleepers. Some signals and controls were activated by
engine-whistle-microphone links.

AS regards the original trolley bus connection lethality question, I
still don't know the answer but I think if it were mine to solve I would
provide and on-board battery to provide for lights, controls and such,
recharged but trolley power when available. I would have the
high-voltage part of the system isolated from the bus body, and probably
arrange for the poles to be disconnected from the wires electrically if
the doors are open.

Does the presence of poles imply DC service? Why?
--
quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
-- Juvenal

[Robert Heller]

Tradition. The *early* subways and trolley systems were 600VDC (or so). At the
time AC was not on the radar (more or less). The "modern" LRVs (like the
Boeing ones in Boston) use pantographs, not trolley poles like the old PCC
cars, but use the same wires at the same 600VDC.

Generally the AC is a much higher voltage, which needs bigger insulators and
more air separation overhead (higher trolley wires), and is pretty much not
suitable for ground-based power (eg third rail).

[houn...@yahoo.co.uk]

Don't worry, I like to think that we are all nice enough that we don't
see the need to insult if somebody who is asking a question or trying to
understand something is incorrect.

I myself have learned much on these groups, and continue to do so. And
that is because somebody has either corrected me if I was mistaken or
explained something that I did not quite understand.

So, ask away and learn. And maybe your questions will lead to other
topics of discussion that you and others could find interesting.

[hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com]

On Wednesday, January 9, 2019 at 1:09:39 AM UTC-5, spsfman wrote:
> On 1/8/2019 7:41 PM, danny burstein wrote:
> > In <q13lao$6pe$2...@reader2.panix.com> David Lesher <wb8...@panix.com> writes:
> >
> >> hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com writes:
> >
> >>> Rails aren't grounded through the roadbed?
> >
> >> No. They are isolated from ground; the return currents go via
> >> those cables Danny mentioned through a Wee_Z bond low pass
> >> filter to the substation. That's so the signaling system will
> >> work.
> >
> > Huh? I'll agree that a hefty chunk of the current goes back
> > to, well, somewhere... but it would be damn tricky to isolate
> > metal tracks from ground.
> >
> > There are a gazillion metal plates and spikes fastning
> > the track to, well, the ground. Even if they've got
> > rubber padding (which sure ain't universal) there's plenty
> > of metal to metal to ground connectivity.
> >
>
> Perhaps my understanding is way off, but, with DC, doesn't the ground
> have to return to the source rather than just to the actual earth,
> doesn't it?
>
> It was my simple understanding that with AC that wasn't necessary but
> with DC it was. That was one of the reasons AC won out over DC for
> domestic electricity. Didn't Edison have a complex set of heavy return
> (ground) wiring to maintain in lower Manhattan, and wasn't that part of
> what killed DC.

Originally, telegraph lines used a single conductor with ground
as the return. That worked reasonably well. When they went to
teleprinters and carrier, they needed better transmission
and switched to metallic circuits.

When the telephone came out, that too used a single conductor
and ground return, but the transmission quality was very poor.
So early on they switched to metallic circuits, too.

[hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com]

Unfortunately, using the ground as a return is a poor medium,
so communication and power companies long ago realized it was
necessary to use copper.

> When I was a little kid, people who lived on streets with street cars
> had (I think I remember) corrosion problems with buried metal stiff like
> water pipes. (What I am sure I remember is later we had a house on a
> street where every house wit a streetlamp near the water meter had to
> replace the water pipe every ten years or make extraordinary repairs.)

Our trolley company had detector vehicles that looked for leaks, so
as to avoid corrosion of nearby pipes.

> We did not have any electric trains and the signal systems were base on
> Wheatstone bridges which were balanced (I think) for the "no train
> present" condition on the rails which were bonded longitudinally but not
> (as far as I could tell) isolated from ground except by the
> creosote-soaked sleepers. Some signals and controls were activated by
> engine-whistle-microphone links.

I never heard of an "engine whistle microphone" link. Until relatively
recently, microphone and detector technology was not good enough to
accurately discern real from false signals. Signals had to be highly
reliable.

> AS regards the original trolley bus connection lethality question, I
> still don't know the answer but I think if it were mine to solve I would
> provide and on-board battery to provide for lights, controls and such,
> recharged but trolley power when available. I would have the
> high-voltage part of the system isolated from the bus body, and probably
> arrange for the poles to be disconnected from the wires electrically if
> the doors are open.

For nearly 100 years electric vehicles had a battery to supply
power for controls and emergency lights, but not traction.

> Does the presence of poles imply DC service? Why?

I think poles could be used for either AC or DC service. I
think the decision to use poles or pantographs depends on the
type of service. Pantographs are better for higher speeds
and reversing ends. Note that SEPTA's city streetcars still
use poles, while its suburban cars use pantographs.

I think trackless trolleys will use poles due to the double feed.

[Larry Sheldon]

On 1/9/2019 15:15, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 9, 2019 at 11:39:01 AM UTC-5, Larry Sheldon wrote:
>> On 1/9/2019 00:09, spsfman wrote:
>>> On 1/8/2019 7:41 PM, danny burstein wrote:
>>>> In <q13lao$6pe$2...@reader2.panix.com> David Lesher <wb8...@panix.com>
>>>> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com writes:

<gobble on>
<gobble off>

>> We did not have any electric trains and the signal systems were base on
>> Wheatstone bridges which were balanced (I think) for the "no train
>> present" condition on the rails which were bonded longitudinally but not
>> (as far as I could tell) isolated from ground except by the
>> creosote-soaked sleepers. Some signals and controls were activated by
>> engine-whistle-microphone links.
>
> I never heard of an "engine whistle microphone" link. Until relatively
> recently, microphone and detector technology was not good enough to
> accurately discern real from false signals. Signals had to be highly
> reliable.

I am pretty sure I have over my 80 summers seen several examples but one
I remember with clarity was at Southern Pacific's station on their
Peninsula
line. Eastbound trains stopped at the station just west of the
Sunnyvale Avenue crossing and the crossing guards would time out and
rise, clearing the crossing. There was a microphone on a box on a pole
that allowed the train to whistle the arms back down. (I don't know if
the lash-up had enough intelligence to listen for long long short long
or just loud. I AM pretty sure that the spare engine that parked on a
siding there could whistle down the arms.

[Larry Sheldon]

There are loads of places where they same thing is accomplished by tracks
circuits closer to the street. I don't know one way is chosen over the
other--the thing probably dates back to steam if that makes a difference.

[Robert Heller]

What is going on here is with twisted pair and/or "balanced" circuits is
noise cancelation and improving signal-to-noise ratios. This is a different
problem from bulk power transmission.

[Larry Sheldon]

On 1/9/2019 21:19, Robert Heller wrote:
> At Wed, 9 Jan 2019 13:09:29 -0800 (PST) hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>
>>
>> On Wednesday, January 9, 2019 at 1:09:39 AM UTC-5, spsfman wrote:
>>> On 1/8/2019 7:41 PM, danny burstein wrote:
>>>> In <q13lao$6pe$2...@reader2.panix.com> David Lesher <wb8...@panix.com> writes:
>>>>> hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com writes:

>> When the telephone came out, that too used a single conductor
>> and ground return, but the transmission quality was very poor.
>> So early on they switched to metallic circuits, too.
>
> What is going on here is with twisted pair and/or "balanced" circuits is

> noise cancellation and improving signal-to-noise ratios. This is a different

> problem from bulk power transmission.

Tru Dat. But even in power, in my limited experience, to the extent
possible
stuff is arranged so most of the power travels via well balanced,
Y-connected three phase circuits with the common-point of the three
transformers grounded very little current flowing in the ground.

[rcp...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, 9 January 2019 17:39:01 UTC+1, Larry Sheldon wrote:

> I am not sure how railroads and elevators and such do it now but I
> suspect there are as many standards as there are governing boards.
>
> But there are some things I am pretty sure of.
>
> One is that builders of transmission facilities HATE buying copper so if
> there is no reason not to, one of the conductors in the system will be
> Earth, AC, DC, or RF.
>
> When I was a little kid, people who lived on streets with street cars
> had (I think I remember) corrosion problems with buried metal stiff like
> water pipes. (What I am sure I remember is later we had a house on a
> street where every house wit a streetlamp near the water meter had to
> replace the water pipe every ten years or make extraordinary repairs.)

For very low current applications like telephone you can just about get away with it, but for something like railway traction, the current involved is sufficiently high that the electrolytic corrosion from earth-return is extremely damaging. Modern on-street tramways have quite strict rules about how much earth leakage current is permissible. This kind of electrolytic corrosion is much less of a problem with AC systems.

> AS regards the original trolley bus connection lethality question, I
> still don't know the answer but I think if it were mine to solve I would
> provide and on-board battery to provide for lights, controls and such,
> recharged but trolley power when available. I would have the
> high-voltage part of the system isolated from the bus body, and probably
> arrange for the poles to be disconnected from the wires electrically if
> the doors are open.

That all seems like a pretty sensible design concept. Add in some attempt to make as good an earth connection to the road surface too.

> Does the presence of poles imply DC service? Why?

Not necessarily. Pretty much all on-street systems are DC, though (with a few exceptions, for example the Chur-Arosa line in Switzerland running through the streets of Chur). DC is much easier to handle on board in terms of controlling the power. The reason not to use DC is to allow a much higher OHL voltage, which allows the feeders and substations to be significantly further apart. Most mainline railways have converged on 25 kV as the right balance of safety and economics, but plenty of legacy systems remain. For on-street running, though, anything more than 1 kV is going to have serious safety implications, which is why most systems both streetcar and trolleybus run somewhere in the 500 - 750 V region. At that voltage there is really no advantage to using AC, but using AC adds complexity to the vehicle. Hence DC is favoured.

Trolley poles have almost entirely been replaced by pantographs for single-wire rail (with track return) applications for a whole host of reasons: better high speed performance, not directionally sensitive, much easier to make junctions in the OHL. The trolley pole has one specific advantage, though, and that is that it does not require the vehicle to be aligned directly under the overhead. For a rail based vehicle this is a non-issue as the track defines the path of the vehicle, but for a trolley bus, the flexibility of vehicle path is inherent to the system, hence trolley poles remain in use.

As a side note, there are dual-overhead pantograph base systems, eg the three-phase AC overhead on the Jungfraubahn in Switzerland, but they are decidedly niche.

Robin

[David Lesher]

spsfman <sps...@hotmail.com> writes:

>> Huh? I'll agree that a hefty chunk of the current goes back
>> to, well, somewhere... but it would be damn tricky to isolate
>> metal tracks from ground.

Railroads have been managing for a long time.

>Perhaps my understanding is way off, but, with DC, doesn't the ground
>have to return to the source rather than just to the actual earth,
>doesn't it?

>It was my simple understanding that with AC that wasn't necessary but
>with DC it was. That was one of the reasons AC won out over DC for
>domestic electricity. Didn't Edison have a complex set of heavy return
>(ground) wiring to maintain in lower Manhattan, and wasn't that part of
>what killed DC.

>I'd love to have non-insulting comments. If I'm wrong, tell me,
>politely. If I'm somewhat right, an affirmation would be nice.

In the early days, AC & DC each held aces.

For DC, it was we knew how to make DC motors that worked. They
were heavy and large, but delivered great torque at 0 RPM, vital
for starting a train or trolley (or a V8..). But DC is usable
at low voltages (if you understand that 60V is "low". And for a
given power, say 10 KW (~13 HP) the lower the voltage the higher
the current;

10KW = 600v*16.8A = 60V*168A = 6000V*1.6A etc.

and the higher the current, the larger the cables needed for the same loss.

For AC, we didn't know how to make AC motors. But AC allows us
to use a transformer. A transformer lets us change the voltage
up or down easily. (Yes, there are transformer losses I'm
skipping...)

There's no free lunch; the power is the same in & out, but we
can feed the transformer at 6000V and get 60V out. When we pull
150A at 60V (9KW) we'll need 9000/6000 or 1.5A at 6KV. With 1.5A
we need smaller cable, less copper, and still enjoy only a small
loss.

Enter an under-sung genius, Nikola Tesla. He made the first
viable AC motors. Game Over. With transformers, you could put in
HV lines to near the load, step down the voltage and go.

Tesla's motors were fixed speed; set by the line frequency (60
Hz here, 50 Hz in the UK and less-rebelling colonies Belize,
Falklands, etc.) DC motors were variable speed. You needed that
for transit and rail and elevators and .....

There's also a limit to the voltage you can use; will it arc
through the air to ground or supports? [In both AC & DC
systems one side is grounded for safety reasons.] Transit has
traditionally used 600-750VDC, but BART went to 1000V, and
regretted it later.

The NE Corridor was electrified in ~1905. The catenary is
at 12KV AC. The Acela engines draw ~4E9 watts each, and the
HVAC is ~10MW, I read somewhere. But overhead, there's 132 KV
transmission lines overhead, with transformers every 8 miles or
so apart.

The irony is this: since AC motors are stuck at line frequency
speed, locomotives used DC motors; even those getting AC from
the NEC cat system. How takes too long for this post, but...

And further, we now have a way to use Tesla's electric motors
directly, and we do so.

Do read:

Empires of Light: Edison, Tesla, Westinghouse, and the Race to Electrify the World

for insight...