Steepest non-cog line in the world?
ERIKG3
Bill Maltby wrote:
>
> Walter Mann wrote:
>
> > A passing reference in the British magazine "Modern Railways" has
> > caught my eye. It mentions a branch line to a Boeing construction
> > facility in the US having "the steepest adhesion-worked gradient in the
> > world".
> >
> > Does anybody know where this is and whether it is, indeed, still true?
> > I should be grateful for any details.
> >
> >
>
> Yes, I'm pretty sure this is still true. ( It may just be the steepest U.S.
> line) The line is a spur off of BNSF's ex-Great Northern mainline along
> Puget Sound to the Boeing plant in Everett, Washington. This plant is the
> 747 plant, now building 767 and 777 models besides. I can't recall the
> gradient but I recall when opened there was a photo of a GN SD9 and the
> caption stated that one end was 2 or 3 feet higher than the other end while
> it was on the grade..
>
> Perhaps some one can supply the grade.
I don't have the reference handy at the moment but it's about 5.5
percent (1 in 18)
Requires specifically assigned units equipped with extended range
dynamic brake and if I remember correctly an additional oil pump.
Locomotive must always be at the downhill end when moving in either
direction
The hill is protected against runaway movement by derails that must be
lined by hand for a movement <<
If this is the case, can anyone on m.t.r.e tell us the grade of the Flam line
in Norway which runs from Myrdal to Flam, off of the Oslo-Bergen Mainline.
-Erik
Jan-Martin Hertzsch
In article <199804200458...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, eri...@aol.com (ERIKG3) writes:
|> Bill Maltby wrote:
|> >
|> > Walter Mann wrote:
|> >
|> > > facility in the US having "the steepest adhesion-worked gradient in the
|> >
|> > Yes, I'm pretty sure this is still true. ( It may just be the steepest U.S.
|> > line) The line is a spur off of BNSF's ex-Great Northern mainline along
|> > Perhaps some one can supply the grade.
|>
|> I don't have the reference handy at the moment but it's about 5.5
|> percent (1 in 18)
In central Germany, there are/were at least two lines with grades of
about 1 in 16. One is between Suhl and Schleusingen in Thuringia, it
has been abandoned only recently (see the German WWW pages of R. Siegling
at http://www.thueringen-web.de/bahn/fbb.htm ), the other one between
Blankenburg and Koenigshuette in the Harz mountains. Both were originally
equipped with rack sections, but with stronger locomotives (E and 1'E1'
tank locos) these weren't needed any more. The Harz line is now electrified
and carries heavy freight traffic. There are also special requirements
to the locomotives on these steep grades, of course.
It is said that in Algeria there is even an adhesion-worked 1:10 grade.
I can't imagine that, but it was mentioned in a magazine article some
years ago where they wrote about the locomotive factory at Hennigsdorf
who had built (or was asked to build) locomotives for this line. Does
anybody know more?
Jan-Martin
Janos ERO
ERIKG3 wrote:
>
> Bill Maltby wrote:
> >
> > Walter Mann wrote:
> >
> > > facility in the US having "the steepest adhesion-worked gradient in the
> > > world".
> > >
> > > I should be grateful for any details.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > line) The line is a spur off of BNSF's ex-Great Northern mainline along
> > 747 plant, now building 767 and 777 models besides. I can't recall the
> > gradient but I recall when opened there was a photo of a GN SD9 and the
> > caption stated that one end was 2 or 3 feet higher than the other end while
> > it was on the grade..
> >
>
> I don't have the reference handy at the moment but it's about 5.5
> percent (1 in 18)
AFAIK the Swiss narrow gauge Bernina line is steeper.
There was a narrow gauge line in Italy, from Riva at the Lake Garda. It was 7%.
It was operated with steam railcars, all-wheel-drive. AFAIK, abandoned now.
Janos Ero
Alistair Bell
ERIKG3 wrote in message <199804200458...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
>Bill Maltby wrote:
>>
>> Walter Mann wrote:
>>
>> > A passing reference in the British magazine "Modern Railways" has
>> > caught my eye. It mentions a branch line to a Boeing construction
>> > facility in the US having "the steepest adhesion-worked gradient in the
>> > world".
>> >
>> > Does anybody know where this is and whether it is, indeed, still true?
>> > I should be grateful for any details.
>> >
>> >
>>
>> Yes, I'm pretty sure this is still true. ( It may just be the steepest
U.S.
>> line) The line is a spur off of BNSF's ex-Great Northern mainline along
>> Puget Sound to the Boeing plant in Everett, Washington. This plant is
the
>> 747 plant, now building 767 and 777 models besides. I can't recall the
>> gradient but I recall when opened there was a photo of a GN SD9 and the
>> caption stated that one end was 2 or 3 feet higher than the other end
while
>> it was on the grade..
>>
>> Perhaps some one can supply the grade.
>
>I don't have the reference handy at the moment but it's about 5.5
>percent (1 in 18)
The Docklands Light Railway in London (which despite the name is relatively
heavy rail) has a gradient of 1 in 17 between Bank and Royal Mint Street
Junction. Worked by regular passenger trains.
If you want to expand to trams you can get 1 in 10 in Sheffield and probably
more in San Francisco.
--
Alistair Bell
I don't speak for anyone (including myself!)
"They couldn't hit an elephant at this dist..."
Ernst Kers
ERIKG3 wrote:
> Requires specifically assigned units equipped with extended range
> dynamic brake and if I remember correctly an additional oil pump.
>
> Locomotive must always be at the downhill end when moving in either
> direction
>
> The hill is protected against runaway movement by derails that must be
>
> lined by hand for a movement <<
>
> If this is the case, can anyone on m.t.r.e tell us the grade of the
> Flam line
> in Norway which runs from Myrdal to Flam, off of the Oslo-Bergen
> Mainline.
>
> -Erik
Flamsbane 5.5% gradient.
In Switzerland does exist the Berninabahn (narrow gauge 1000mm) with
7.0% gradient. This line starts in St.Moritz (1778 m above sealevel),
reaches its highest point in Bernina Hospiz (2256 m above sealevel) and
descends to Tirano (429 m above sealevel).
The Montreux-Oberland-Bernois (also narrow gauge 1000mm) has even a
section with 7.2% gradient.
And the steepest adhasion tramtracks can be found in Lisbon (Portugal):
15% gradient.
Ernst.
Steffen Graether
Jan-Martin Hertzsch (j...@titan.mpae.gwdg.de) wrote:
: In central Germany, there are/were at least two lines with grades of
: about 1 in 16. One is between Suhl and Schleusingen in Thuringia, it
: has been abandoned only recently (see the German WWW pages of R. Siegling
: at http://www.thueringen-web.de/bahn/fbb.htm ), the other one between
: Blankenburg and Koenigshuette in the Harz mountains. Both were originally
: equipped with rack sections, but with stronger locomotives (E and 1'E1'
: tank locos) these weren't needed any more. The Harz line is now electrified
Does anyone know the grade on the Geislinger-Steige in Southern Germany?
My grandfather always use to talk about testing out the E50's with
I-can't-remember-how-many tonnes of freight he was carrying.
Steffen
--
*************************************************************************
* * *
* Steffen Graether * grae...@jeff-lab.queensu.ca *
* * *
*************************************************************************
Ulf Kutzner
Ernst Kers wrote:
> Flamsbane 5.5% gradient.
> In Switzerland does exist the Berninabahn (narrow gauge 1000mm) with
> 7.0% gradient. This line starts in St.Moritz (1778 m above sealevel),
> reaches its highest point in Bernina Hospiz (2256 m above sealevel) and
> descends to Tirano (429 m above sealevel).
> The Montreux-Oberland-Bernois (also narrow gauge 1000mm) has even a
> section with 7.2% gradient.
> And the steepest adhasion tramtracks can be found in Lisbon (Portugal):
> 15% gradient.
What about the St- Gervais - Chamonix SNCF metric gauge line?
Regards, ULF
_______________________________________________________________________________
Ulf Kutzner
Backhaushohl 46
D-55128 Mainz
_______________________________________________________________________________
Jobst Brandt
Walter Mann wrote:
> A passing reference in the British magazine "Modern Railways" has
> caught my eye. It mentions a branch line to a Boeing construction
> facility in the US having "the steepest adhesion-worked gradient in
> the world".
There were probably some other qualifications in that article, such as
standard gauge common carrier, becasue otherwise the door is left open
for all sorts of all wheel drive trams and narrow gauge logging
railways such as the ones that operated gear driven by Shay, Heisler,
and Climax steam locomotives. These were often built to haul empties
up and practically skid the logs down amazingly steep grades.
The SNCF meter gauge line to Chamonix climbs a 9% grade. In San
Francisco, the Union Street Tram (long gone) had greater than 10%
grades. In contrast, the Pilatus (CH) 800mm gauge opposing side
engagement cogwheel line climbs 48%.
Jobst Brandt <jbr...@hpl.hp.com>
WooF
I read once that the Fineview (tram) line of Pittsburgh Railways had an
instantaneous (that is, at the steepest point of a continually varying
profile) grade of 17%. One assumes that the cars made a run at it.
Some logging railroads had remarkably steep grades -- rather than bridging
a short valley, they would lay tracks down one slope and up the next,
depending on the speed gained on the down-hill slope to climb out the
other side.
But then, have you noticed how many pictures there are of wrecks on
logging railroads?
George Scithers of owls...@netaxs.com
(Philadelphia PA USA suburbs)
Steve Kraus
Cass Senic claimed a 13% grade in a brochure I have.
Access Systems
In misc.transport.rail.americas WooF <owls...@netaxs.com> wrote:
> I read once that the Fineview (tram) line of Pittsburgh Railways had an
> instantaneous (that is, at the steepest point of a continually varying
> profile) grade of 17%. One assumes that the cars made a run at it.
Well the book says it was "only??" 15.5% with 9% more normal...
it Japan the Hakone Tozan is considered the steepest mainline grade, with
8% for several miles, however the equipment is specially designed just for
this line.
on regular JR lines
the recently closed Usui Pass line had many miles
of 6.67% mainline grade, with double electric helpers on eight car
passenger trains.
Bob
David Bromage
Access Systems (acce...@smart.net) wrote:
>In misc.transport.rail.americas WooF <owls...@netaxs.com> wrote:
>> I read once that the Fineview (tram) line of Pittsburgh Railways had an
>> instantaneous (that is, at the steepest point of a continually varying
>> profile) grade of 17%. One assumes that the cars made a run at it.
>
>Well the book says it was "only??" 15.5% with 9% more normal...
>
>it Japan the Hakone Tozan is considered the steepest mainline grade, with
>8% for several miles, however the equipment is specially designed just for
>this line.
Anybody know the gradient up Snaefell on the Isle of Mann?
Cheers
David
Daniel Wilson
> David Bromage wrote:
> > Anybody know the gradient up Snaefell on the Isle of Man?
and Anthony Coulis replied:
> Steep - but it's worked on the Fell system - part from when they
> put "Caledonia" up part of it in 1995. I think it was something
> between 1 in 11 and 13.
It _was_ worked on the Fell system when it first opened. For many years
the Fell rail has only been used for emergency braking - and "Caledonia"
was fitted with a Fell brake displaced sideways three inches to allow for
the difference in gauge (a third running rail was laid for her).
I had a good look at this rail, halfway up the line, in the 1960s. It was
double-head like the Ffestiniog's older rail, laid sideways on pillars,
with rusty faces that were obviously rarely used, and the web entirely
rusted through in places. One could easily imagine a car snatching
several hundred yards of it off and carrying it away down the gradient.
Dan Wilson
André Sintzoff
Ulf Kutzner <kutz...@mail.uni-mainz.de> wrote (écrivait) :
> What about the St- Gervais - Chamonix SNCF metric gauge line?
9 % between Chedde and Servoz
--
André Sintzoff "Toutes les grandes personnes
Braine-l'Alleud, Belgique ont d'abord été des enfants.
email : Andre.S...@ping.be (Mais peu s'en souviennent.)"
http://www.ping.be/sintzoff Antoine de Saint-Exupéry
Horst Ebert
eri...@aol.com (ERIKG3) wrote:
>...
>If this is the case, can anyone on m.t.r.e tell us the grade of the Flam line
>in Norway which runs from Myrdal to Flam, off of the Oslo-Bergen Mainline.
The Flåm line's grade is 5,5%.
Some time ago I read on a former cog line in Czechia steeper than the
Flåm line.
In Austria, tramlike and narrow gauge Pöstlingbergbahn in Linz has
10,5%
--
Horst Ebert
D-Hamburg
Roderick Smith
Modern Tramway in 1981-82 had a series by J H Price on this subject. I
always thought that the Hakone - Tozan mountain tram (about 120 km south of
Tokyo, Japan) was the winner. It climbs at 1 in 12.5 (8%) with no special
braking rail either. It is beaten by Pöstlingberg: 1 in 9.5 (10.5%).
--
Regards
Roderick Smith
Rail News Victoria Editor
Francois CANCALON
I thought the steepest non-cog line in the world was the SNCF (French
Railway) meter-gauge line between St-Gervais-le-Fayet and Chamonix, in the
Alps, with a grade of 9 %. That line is equipped with a central rail for
braking security system. It's a very pleasant touristic line, not too far
from Geneva, with beautiful views over the Mont-Blanc summit.
Apart of this line, in the Alps the usual maximum grade for a non-cog line
is ~ 7 %.
Yves Dessaux
In article <6i5f2q$28h$1...@buggy.news.easynet.net>, fcan...@easynet.fr
says...
>
>I thought the steepest non-cog line in the world was the SNCF (French
>Railway) meter-gauge line between St-Gervais-le-Fayet and Chamonix, in
Less touristic but very busy, is Metro line 1 in Paris. There is a
very steep grade around "Bastille" station. Looks like ca. 7 to 10%
but I do not have the real figures. Note that trains on this line
operates on steel wheels + rubber tires.
Yves
Jobst Brandt
Yves Dessaux writes:
> Less touristic but very busy, is Metro line 1 in Paris. There is a
> very steep grade around "Bastille" station. Looks like ca. 7 to 10%
> but I do not have the real figures. Note that trains on this line
> operates on steel wheels + rubber tires.
The Metro line #1 was all steel wheel before converting to rubber so
that isn't the problem but rather that the question was about railways
without all wheel drive, or at least with locomotive and trailers
operation.
Jobst Brandt <jbr...@hpl.hp.com>
Martin Murray
Jobst Brandt (jbr...@hpl.hp.com) wrote:
:
: The Metro line #1 was all steel wheel before converting to rubber so
: that isn't the problem but rather that the question was about railways
: without all wheel drive, or at least with locomotive and trailers
: operation.
Was it? Not that I remember. One of the problems with Usenet is that
people don't specify questions well in the first place, then others
interpret them as they see fit. It is becoming glaringly obvious that
no-one knows the question here, let alone the answer.
Martin Murray
Who has ridden up 1 in 14 with steam (Cromford & High Peak, ca. 1961).
John McCoy
co...@zeus.bris.ac.uk (Martin Murray) wrote:
I assume the question was "what is the steepest no-cog line in
the world", judging by the subject line. Granted, not having the
original post makes it unclear whether the question is "currently
operating" or "ever operated historically". I have a vague idea
that there was a line with 11% grades, operated with geared
locos, in the western US at one time, but can't seem to find the
right book to verify that (possibly the line up to Argentine in
Colorado, the highest elevation line to operate with non-cog
engines?).
John
(who figures you understood, the question, judging by your
parenthetical comment. What's 11%, roughly 1 in 9?)
ERIKG3
>>I assume the question was "what is the steepest no-cog line in
the world", judging by the subject line. Granted, not having the
original post makes it unclear whether the question is "currently
operating" or "ever operated historically". I have a vague idea
that there was a line with 11% grades, operated with geared
locos, in the western US at one time, but can't seem to find the
right book to verify that (possibly the line up to Argentine in
Colorado, the highest elevation line to operate with non-cog
engines?).
John
(who figures you understood, the question, judging by your
parenthetical comment. What's 11%, roughly 1 in 9?)<<
As I was the original poster, I can answer that, yes, I was curious what the
steepest railway in the world is currently, that does not use a rack or a cog
or a cable.
This came from a observation by another poster (in rail.americas) that the
"Boeing Spur" near Seattle, USA was the steepest railway in "the world" (Said
poster had gotten this info from a British Magazine.) I was wanting to verify
this, since I had been on the Flam-Myrdal (Norway) line and had been told that
*that* was the steepest "adhesion" line in the world.
Often, when something is "The steepest/biggest/largest (etc.) in America", it
soon becomes quoted as the largest, etc. in "the World".
(My favorite incident of this was being told that Washington State (USA) had
the "Largest ferry system in the world", when next-door B.C.'s (Canada) is
bigger!)
So I was curious.
-Erik
Shalom Septimus
On Sat, 02 May 1998 01:50:38 GMT, igo...@ix.netcom.com (John McCoy)
wrote:
> I have a vague idea
>that there was a line with 11% grades, operated with geared
>locos, in the western US at one time, but can't seem to find the
>right book to verify that (possibly the line up to Argentine in
>Colorado, the highest elevation line to operate with non-cog
>engines?).
I don't thing the Argentine Central got quite that steep. You might be
thinking of the Green Mountain spur off the Silverton Northern RR,
which was at 7%. "On that, one engineer testified, his engine could
barely pull one car of coal and one 'empty' up to the mouth of the
mine; the return was a matter of setting the brakes and kneeling in
prayer all the way down." (Treasury of Railroad Folklore, p.266)
The steepest grade on a US common carrier is said to have been the
grade from Atchee, CO up to Baxter Pass, on the Uintah Rwy, which was
7.5%. Note that both this and the above were 3-footers.
Some of the logging railroads may have gone even steeper. One former
logging road that is now a tourist pike (Cass Scenic? I don't
remember) has a short grade as high as 11%. They weren't ever common
carriers, though. As you mentioned, this road used Shay geared
locomotives, as did the Uintah (which also used some truly weird
equipment; narrow-gauge articulateds come to mind).
--
Shalom Septimus, RPh
drug...@p0b0x.c0m <---unmung in obvious fashion
james whyte
The Remutaka (spelling?) incline near Wellingtion, New Zealand
used the Fell system with a center rail for extra adhesion, it was not a
cogged system.
If I remember rightly it went as steep as 1 in 17 (5.8%). The incline
was a temporary measure untill a several kilometer long tunnel was built
but it still managed to last 70 odd years. It has long since been
uplifted and is now a (steep) walkway for trampers.
James Whyte
B.Rumary
> Some of the logging railroads may have gone even steeper. One former
> logging road that is now a tourist pike (Cass Scenic? I don't
> remember) has a short grade as high as 11%. They weren't ever common
> carriers, though. As you mentioned, this road used Shay geared
> locomotives, as did the Uintah (which also used some truly weird
> equipment; narrow-gauge articulateds come to mind).
>
in a US magazine (Trains?) some years ago. I believe that it was in
the northern US, or possibly Canada, and was standard gauge. The main
line reached a sizeable valley, with moderately steep sides and a flat
bottom, which had to be crossed. A trestle or embankment would have
been out of the question because of size and expense, and a zig-zag
down one side and up the other would also be difficult and costly, so
they decided to just tackle it head on!
The line was simply laid straight down one side, across the flat
valley floor, and straight up the other side. The gradients reached a
maximum of 25% (1 in 4)!! The trains crossed by going down one side as
fast as they dared, then opening up on the flat bottom and racing
across at full speed to storm up the far side by sheer momentum. Not
only that, but the locos were not Shays or other geared locos, but
second hand, ex-mainline tender locos (4-4-0 or 4-6-0). A Shay would
not work, as it could not get up enough speed to rush the hill.
However it gets better. Apparently there was a stand of timber in the
valley bottom that had to be cut out, so it was necessary to make a
connection to a spur line in the valley bottom. This meant that trains
now had to get out of the valley from a standing start. Once they had
assembled their train, they backed up one side of the valley as far as
they could go before loosing traction, then they charged forward
again. If one go did not get them out, then they reversed direction
and see-sawed across the valley until they built up enough momentum to
get over the lip of the valley.
As far as I can remember all this took place before World War I, and
only lasted a few years - how long the engine crews lasted is anyone's
guess! The whole operation must have been terrifying and would give a
modern safety expert a heart attack. Don't forget, these are the sort
of gradients usually found only on mountain rack railways.
Does anyone else remember seeing this magazine article?
Brian Rumary, England
http://freespace.virgin.net/brian.rumary/homepage.htm
Deayton
The tramway at Gmunden, Austria is very steep, marketed as the steepest tramway
line in Europe. A small tramway with a single line from the statioin to the
lake (Traunsee).
Alistair Deayton
Paisley, Scotland
Graeme Wall
In message <6i5f2q$28h$1...@buggy.news.easynet.net>
"Francois CANCALON" <fcan...@easynet.fr> wrote:
> I thought the steepest non-cog line in the world was the SNCF (French
> Railway) meter-gauge line between St-Gervais-le-Fayet and Chamonix, in the
> Alps, with a grade of 9 %. That line is equipped with a central rail for
> braking security system. It's a very pleasant touristic line, not too far
> from Geneva, with beautiful views over the Mont-Blanc summit.
>
> Apart of this line, in the Alps the usual maximum grade for a non-cog line
> is ~ 7 %.
>
>
As featured in my video: French Alpine Railways. Shameless plug :-) see web
site for details: http:://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/videos.html
--
Graeme Wall
Television Cameraman: www.greywall.demon.co.uk
B.Rumary
_squeeze_ the Fell rail, rather than use gravity!
Ulf Kutzner
Graeme Wall wrote:
> As featured in my video: French Alpine Railways. Shameless plug :-) see web
> site for details: http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/videos.html
(Two points eliminated)
Roderick Smith
Rimutaka.
The Fell centre rail is for braking, not for traction adhesion, so the line
certainly counts in the scope of the question (but isn't the steepest, or
even close).
AFAIK the construction was never intended to be temporary pending the
construction of a tunnel.
A moment of glory came when a royal train went over it in 1954.
NZ also had a Fell centre rail on part of the line from Greymouth to
Rewanui, serving a coal mine. The rail was not needed when diesel locos
replaced steam.
AFAIK part of the Arica - La Paz railway (the Chilean portion) had a rack
ascent, not needed when diesels replaced steam.
--
Regards
Roderick Smith
Rail News Victoria Editor
B.Rumary <brian....@virgin.net> wrote in article
> > The Remutaka (spelling?) incline near Wellingtion, New Zealand
> > used the Fell system with a center rail for extra adhesion, it was not
a
> > cogged system.
Charles Towler
Continental Railway Journal No.113 reports the closure in October 1997, of
the 1067mm gauge line fromYokokawa to Nagano which it says was until then
was Japan's steepest Railway (presumably excluding trams), with a 1 in 15
incline
between Karuizawa and Yokokawa.
The article says that the section was built as a rack railway, but was
converted to adhesion working with all trains (including EMUs) banked by
pairs of EF63 Bo-Bo-Bo electrics, a specially low geared design. The Line
was replaced by a standard guage Shinkansen, opened in time for the Winter
Olympics.
Charles Towler
Roderick Smith <rods...@werple.net.au> wrote in article
<01bd72a8$39cdc220$332e11cb@rodsmith>...
> Modern Tramway in 1981-82 had a series by J H Price on this subject. I
> always thought that the Hakone - Tozan mountain tram (about 120 km south
of
> Tokyo, Japan) was the winner. It climbs at 1 in 12.5 (8%) with no
special
> braking rail either. It is beaten by Pöstlingberg: 1 in 9.5 (10.5%).
John Dennis
On 11 May 1998 13:42:51 GMT, "Roderick Smith" <rods...@werple.net.au>
wrote:
>Rimutaka.
>The Fell centre rail is for braking, not for traction adhesion, so the line
>certainly counts in the scope of the question (but isn't the steepest, or
>even close).
My memory says that the Fell centre rail on Rimutaka was most
certainly used for adhesion. The 'H' class locos were equipped with
horizontal wheels for this purpose. I could be wrong though ... its
happened before :-)
>NZ also had a Fell centre rail on part of the line from Greymouth to
>Rewanui, serving a coal mine. The rail was not needed when diesel locos
>replaced steam.
This statement is true. Rewanui was used only for braking, and IIRC
used standard locos (with a gap cut into the cowcatcher) and Fell
brake vans.
Crossposted to m.t.r.australia-nz for maybe an authoritative answer.
Cheers...JD
==========================================================
John Dennis jde...@acslink.net.au
Melbourne den...@cai.com
Australia http://www.acslink.net.au/~jdennis
Dutton Bay Tramway pages updated 1 January
DBT URL: http://www.acslink.net.au/~jdennis/dbt.html
Geoff Lambert
jde...@acslink.net.au (John Dennis) wrote:
>On 11 May 1998 13:42:51 GMT, "Roderick Smith" <rods...@werple.net.au>
>wrote:
>>Rimutaka.
>>The Fell centre rail is for braking, not for traction adhesion, so the line
>>certainly counts in the scope of the question (but isn't the steepest, or
>>even close).
>My memory says that the Fell centre rail on Rimutaka was most
>certainly used for adhesion. The 'H' class locos were equipped with
>horizontal wheels for this purpose. I could be wrong though ... its
>happened before :-)
Not this time.
Roderick Smith
I rode the famous Karuizawa line in Jan.83, with the geared locos assisting
my emu. An electric rack loco was preserved at Karuizawa.
Regards
Roderick Smith
Rail News Victoria Editor
Charles Towler <charle...@yahoo.com> wrote in article
B.Rumary
> Rimutaka.
> The Fell centre rail is for braking, not for traction adhesion, so the line
> certainly counts in the scope of the question (but isn't the steepest, or
> even close).
>
photos of this line in operation, you will see that trains often had several
locos on a train. This would not have been necessary if they were only using
the Fell rail for breaking. In fact they would probably not have needed
special Fell locos at all; just a normal loco and some special Fell rail
gripper vans for breaking.
There is an electric line in England, the Snaefell Mountain Railway on the
Isle of Man, that also has the Fell rail. When the line was built it was
planned to use the Fell for traction, but the electric cars managed to climb
OK without it. However the Fell rail is still retained for breaking. I think
that this is now the last Fell line in the world.
K.D.Ba...@lboro.ac.uk
In article <VA.00000189.0054a602@default>,
B.Rumary <brian....@virgin.net> wrote:
>> Rimutaka.
>No, the Fell rail _was_ for traction, as well as braking. If you look at
>photos of this line in operation, you will see that trains often had several
>locos on a train. This would not have been necessary if they were only using
>the Fell rail for breaking. In fact they would probably not have needed
>special Fell locos at all; just a normal loco and some special Fell rail
>gripper vans for breaking.
I'm afraid I just don't understand this logic. You are saying that if the
Fell rail was not used for extra tractive effort, then extra locos are
not needed?. I would have thought the converse, depending on the
power of the engines.
( I'm not saying that the Fell rail on Rimutaka wasn't used for
traction, by the way).
--
Cheers, Keith.
B.Rumary
> I'm afraid I just don't understand this logic. You are saying that if the
> Fell rail was not used for extra tractive effort, then extra locos are
> not needed?. I would have thought the converse, depending on the
> power of the engines.
>
> Rimutaka.
> The Fell centre rail is for braking, not for traction adhesion, so the
> line certainly counts in the scope of the question (but isn't the
> steepest, or even close).
I said that the Fell _was_ for traction, hence the need for more locos when
hauling larger trains. My point was that if the line had _only_ used the
rail for breaking on the descent, then extra locos would not have been
necessary. In fact they could have just used normal locos in conjunction
with special Fell rail break vans (gripper cars?), to handle this job of
breaking on the descent.
hamish
> On 11 May 1998 13:42:51 GMT, "Roderick Smith" <rods...@werple.net.au>
> wrote:
>
> >Rimutaka.
> >The Fell centre rail is for braking, not for traction adhesion, so the
line
> >certainly counts in the scope of the question (but isn't the steepest,
or
> >even close).
The Fell Centre rail was definitely used for adhesion on this line the
centre rail starting at Cross Creek and ending in the tunnel just before
Summit station. as the rail ended in the tunnel a bell was positioned
inside the tunnel which rang by way of a mechanical attachment located
close to the track this was so the engine drivers would know when to shut
of the steam to the horozontal engine. There was for some time a locomotive
used on the incline which didn't use the centre rail as it was built as a
standard loco from a design of an engineer who worked for the NZGR his name
was Pearson and the loco was classed as E 66 but carried the nickname of
Pearsons dream It was very unpopular as the fireman had to wear asbestos
pads when firing this particular loco.
Geoff Lambert
"hamish" <ham...@voyager.co.nz> wrote:
>The Fell Centre rail was definitely used for adhesion on this line
> There was for some time a locomotive
>used on the incline which didn't use the centre rail as it was built as a
>standard loco from a design of an engineer who worked for the NZGR his name
>was Pearson and the loco was classed as E 66 but carried the nickname of
>Pearsons dream It was very unpopular as the fireman had to wear asbestos
>pants when firing this particular loco.
This loco was unusual in many ways, a 2-6-6-0T engine and was one of
only 4 (?) steam locomotives in the world with 8 cylinders.
Geoff Lambert
L.Chi...@massey.ac.nz
In article <6kd81r$6qr$1...@mirv.unsw.edu.au>,
G.La...@unsw.edu.au (Geoff Lambert) wrote:
>
> "hamish" <ham...@voyager.co.nz> wrote:
>
> >The Fell Centre rail was definitely used for adhesion on this line
Re the Rimutaka Incline :
I've only just joined this discussion due to Internet problems, but
I can contribute a few facts and suppositions from memory - all reference
works are at home.
Unlike many other steep lines, this was part of the National Railway system
and all traffic passing along the country traversed the incline.
( Although it could be avoided by using a privately owned railway line up the
other coast, which was later nationalised ).
I think the grade was 1 in 12 through severe country. It included several
medium length tunnels and high embankments ( fills ). A passenger train was
blown off at one curve ( Siberia Curve ) except the loco which still gripped
the track.
The H class locos were two-outside-cylinder 0-4-2Ts operating on the 3'6"
track.
Underneath the loco were two pairs of horizontal dual-flanged wheels driven by
the inside engine, which was also two-cylinder. These wheels were clamped
with strong springs against the horizontal bull-head centre rail for adhesion.
Each engine had separate throttles, cut-off etc.
Each loco had a rated tonnage ( about 3 carriages, I think ), and they were
marshalled into the train at the appropriate intervals ( up to five locos per
train, I believe ).
There were also Fell vans to supply extra brake force for the downhill
journeys. These had cast-iron shoes which gripped the centre-rail and were
replaced every journey. I have a vague feeling that the locos were all at the
front on the downhill journey but the vans were dispersed through the train.
The centre-rail was mounted several inches above the running rails, but ran in
one un-broken section the entire length of the incline ( about 5 miles ? ) as
there were no passing loops.
> > There was for some time a locomotive
> >used on the incline which didn't use the centre rail as it was built as a
> >standard loco from a design of an engineer who worked for the NZGR his name
> >was Pearson and the loco was classed as E 66 but carried the nickname of
> >Pearsons dream It was very unpopular as the fireman had to wear asbestos
> >pants when firing this particular loco.
>
> This loco was unusual in many ways, a 2-6-6-0T engine and was one of
> only 4 (?) steam locomotives in the world with 8 cylinders.
Pearson's Dream was a loco assembled out of bits the CME found lying around
the shops ! A Mallet Compound Tank ! ( ps New Zealand still has a 2-4-4-2
tender Mallet Compound logging loco in operational order on a preserved line
).
The wheelsets were from 0-6-0 tanks, the cylinders were Vauclain Compound sets
from some other loco type ( these have one HP and one LP cylinder mounted on a
common crosshead on each side - 4 sets = 8 cylinders ). The cylinders were
mounted at the outer corners of the loco, with the rear cylinders exhausting
up their own funnel up the back of the cab. The firebox was a design (
Jacobsen ? ) which didn't have a water jacket , which was why the asbestos
gear was needed - ordinary clothes caught fire due to the heat.
I have a more detailed description stored somewhere which I can post if
required.
New Zealand also had several gravity operated inclined planes, the most famous
bringing coal down from mines on a high plateau at Denniston down to
sea-level on the West Coast of the South Island. This incline required
several cable sections to get wagons down. Hopper wagons with detachable
hoppers were used for this service, and after a journey to the port, the
hoppers were lifted out and emptied into ships by crane.
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
james whyte
hamish wrote:
>
> > On 11 May 1998 13:42:51 GMT, "Roderick Smith" <rods...@werple.net.au>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >Rimutaka.
> > >The Fell centre rail is for braking, not for traction adhesion, so the
> line
> > >certainly counts in the scope of the question (but isn't the steepest,
> or
> > >even close).
>
> The Fell Centre rail was definitely used for adhesion on this line the
> centre rail starting at Cross Creek and ending in the tunnel just
>Rewanui, serving a coal mine. The rail was not needed when diesel locos
>replaced steam.
I belive the brake pipe pressure was raised in later years (the wasgons
so modified had a symbol painted on each side) so the fell brake wagons
were redundant later and the center rail removed.
Fell center rails were also used for braking on the Blackball line, the
chairs for it still visible on one of the still standing bridges.
James Whyte
Deayton
Further to my posting of a few weeksa ago, the Gmunden tramway has a gradient
of 9.6%.
The Postlingberg line at Linz has a gradient of 10.6%
Alistair Deayton
Paisley, Scotland
Steve Shotton
The steepest non-cog line in NSW Australia is the Richmond Vale Railway, in
the section Weston - Pelaw Main. The grade approaching Pelaw Main is 1:19.
In the section Ricmond Main - Pelaw Main the steepest grade is 1:22.
Steve Shotton
Martin Turner
hamish wrote:
> > On 11 May 1998 13:42:51 GMT, "Roderick Smith" <rods...@werple.net.au>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >Rimutaka.
> > >The Fell centre rail is for braking, not for traction adhesion, so the
> line
> > >certainly counts in the scope of the question (but isn't the steepest,
> or
> > >even close).
>
> The Fell Centre rail was definitely used for adhesion on this line the
> centre rail starting at Cross Creek and ending in the tunnel just before
> Summit station. as the rail ended in the tunnel a bell was positioned
> inside the tunnel which rang by way of a mechanical attachment located
> close to the track this was so the engine drivers would know when to shut
> of the steam to the horozontal engine. There was for some time a locomotive
> used on the incline which didn't use the centre rail as it was built as a
> standard loco from a design of an engineer who worked for the NZGR his name
> was Pearson and the loco was classed as E 66 but carried the nickname of
> Pearsons dream It was very unpopular as the fireman had to wear asbestos
> pads when firing this particular loco.
>
> > >NZ also had a Fell centre rail on part of the line from Greymouth to
> > >Rewanui, serving a coal mine. The rail was not needed when diesel locos
> > >replaced steam.
> >
> > This statement is true. Rewanui was used only for braking, and IIRC
> > used standard locos (with a gap cut into the cowcatcher) and Fell
> > brake vans.
> >
> > Crossposted to m.t.r.australia-nz for maybe an authoritative answer.
In 1987 I spent some time helping in the restoration of the sole survivor of
the fleet of "H" Class Fell locomotives that worked the Rimutaka Incline. The
locomotive is currently on display at Featherston, about an hours drive from
Wellington. For information on these locomotives a good reference is "A
Cavalcade of New Zealand Locomotives" by A.N. Palmer. The book is now out of
print but most NZ rail enthusiasts should have a copy in their private library.
For anyone ionterested there is now a walking track from Cross Creek to Kaitoke
that follows the route of the Rimutaka Incline. Cheers Martin
Jonathan Stone
In article <3573BE3C...@senet.com.au>, Martin Turner <mfturner_r...@senet.com.au> writes:
|>
|> In 1987 I spent some time helping in the restoration of the sole survivor of
|> the fleet of "H" Class Fell locomotives that worked the Rimutaka Incline.
Careful with the word "restoration", bro.
Some people think there's a difference between restoration, and
butchering the loco to install electric motors to make the Fell wheels
move for tourists.
Deayton
In article <6l0ijg$78j$4...@nntp.Stanford.EDU>, jona...@Kowhai.Stanford.EDU
(Jonathan Stone) writes:
>Some people think there's a difference between restoration, and
>butchering the loco to install electric motors to make the Fell wheels
>move for tourists.
The Snaefell Railway, on the other hand, was built for tourists from the start.
Alistair Deayton
Paisley, Scotland
james whyte
Jonathan Stone wrote:
>
> In article <3573BE3C...@senet.com.au>, Martin Turner <mfturner_r...@senet.com.au> writes:
> |>
> |> In 1987 I spent some time helping in the restoration of the sole survivor of
> |> the fleet of "H" Class Fell locomotives that worked the Rimutaka Incline.
>
> Careful with the word "restoration", bro.
>
> butchering the loco to install electric motors to make the Fell wheels
> move for tourists.
Carefull with your assumptions "bro",
I belive the loco has not been "butchered" to install electric motors,
but rather the loco wheels run on rollers driven by electric motors.
Thus the loco is unaltered.
James Whyte