UP 4014 and Trackage Rights

I have never heard of any trackage rights agreement that restricted certain kinds of equipment, e.g. steam locomotives.  The bill to the tennant is normally based on wheel count, or gross tonnage, and the owner railroad does not micromanage the tennant's trains.  The tennant road's trains get the same treatment as the owner road's in regard to complying with bridge and clearance requirements.

Now, in the case of steam, the owner railroad has to provide extra services -- security, defect detector management, extra dispatching measures, etc. and those are going to be on the bill that month, probably somewhat generous to the owner road.

A steam locomotive traveling over the railroad requires a number of Signal Maintainers to be away from their normal work, in order to manage the defect detectors, which are typically affected by the firebox heat.  Then there will be catch-up, which is limited because of Signal Maintainer hours of service laws.

One issue I keep hearing is passenger restrictions. I hear "for Insurance Reasons" they would not allow a passenger excursion to run through. Almost always the case with CSX and NS, including the lines they sub out to short lines. So the train would pass through empty. 

I don't think UP would use those routes if they didn't permit passengers. 

As Tom noted, there can be a "Charge by the owner to accommodate" the train passing through. 

CSX FAN posted:

One issue I keep hearing is passenger restrictions. I hear "for Insurance Reasons" they would not allow a passenger excursion to run through. Almost always the case with CSX and NS, including the lines they sub out to short lines. So the train would pass through empty. 

I don't think UP would use those routes if they didn't permit passengers. 

As Tom noted, there can be a "Charge by the owner to accommodate" the train passing through. 

I presume UP is self-insuring their passenger moves. Wouldn't that pacify the host railroad?

Number 90 posted:

I have never heard of any trackage rights agreement that restricted certain kinds of equipment, e.g. steam locomotives.  The bill to the tennant is normally based on wheel count, or gross tonnage, and the owner railroad does not micromanage the tennant's trains.  The tennant road's trains get the same treatment as the owner road's in regard to complying with bridge and clearance requirements.

Now, in the case of steam, the owner railroad has to provide extra services -- security, defect detector management, extra dispatching measures, etc. and those are going to be on the bill that month, probably somewhat generous to the owner road.

A steam locomotive traveling over the railroad requires a number of Signal Maintainers to be away from their normal work, in order to manage the defect detectors, which are typically affected by the firebox heat.  Then there will be catch-up, which is limited because of Signal Maintainer hours of service laws.

Thank you. I knew I'd get an answer on this forum.

Just because there are passenger cars on the train does not mean it is a "passenger train".  If UP is not charging for paying passengers, the steam moves to me would be closer to an Officer Car Special on 'droids.

Dominic Mazoch posted:

Just because there are passenger cars on the train does not mean it is a "passenger train".  If UP is not charging for paying passengers, the steam moves to me would be closer to an Officer Car Special on 'droids.

I'm aware of the distinction. I've been at this for a few years (50+ years to be more precise). I specifically asked about steam locomotives and passenger excursions (by which I mean a train occupied by ticket bearing human beings and also those other life forms with limited social skills and questionable hygiene who unfortunately seem to gravitate towards our hobby.)

Up until the 1980's, Santa Fe was self-insured for things like employee injuries, grade crossing accidents, landowner damages, etc.  There was probably some insurance for major catastrophes such as catastrophic flooding caused by a bridge failure.  Not all railroads did this, and I'm not sure where UPRR stood on the matter.

However, with evolving societal changes in the U.S., tort damages increased significantly, and the railroad could not absorb the risk of outlandish jury awards.  They have used commercial liability insurance since then, but the deductible is large.

I can't speak for UPRR, but it would be no surprise if they also use commercial liability insurance and possibly even have a rider to cover steam locomotive movements.  Part of any trackage rights agreement is risk management and division of liability for damages.  And, when two railroads are involved, they both are typically sued.  If you scatter your shots, you might recover more, so the thinking goes, and many states have "Deep Pockets" laws that bring defendants with minimal involvement into a lawsuit.

So, probably, no railroad can afford the financial risk of self-insurance these days.  It's just business.

Number 90 posted:

Up until the 1980's, Santa Fe was self-insured for things like employee injuries, grade crossing accidents, landowner damages, etc.  There was probably some insurance for major catastrophes such as catastrophic flooding caused by a bridge failure.  Not all railroads did this, and I'm not sure where UPRR stood on the matter.

However, with evolving societal changes in the U.S., tort damages increased significantly, and the railroad could not absorb the risk of outlandish jury awards.  They have used commercial liability insurance since then, but the deductible is large.

I can't speak for UPRR, but it would be no surprise if they also use commercial liability insurance and possibly even have a rider to cover steam locomotive movements.  Part of any trackage rights agreement is risk management and division of liability for damages.  And, when two railroads are involved, they both are typically sued.  If you scatter your shots, you might recover more, so the thinking goes, and many states have "Deep Pockets" laws that bring defendants with minimal involvement into a lawsuit.

So, probably, no railroad can afford the financial risk of self-insurance these days.  It's just business.

Thanks again, Tom.

Vaguely from my past, I recall that some bridges were designed for "steam impact."  Which leaves the question, would some routes be unsuitable for steam????

RJR posted:

Vaguely from my past, I recall that some bridges were designed for "steam impact."  Which leaves the question, would some routes be unsuitable for steam????

There are basically four things that would restrict movement of a specific steam engine over a certain line....

1) clearances -- often, this is in the valve gear area.  Cylinders, that type of thing.  Things that stick out that you wouldn't expect to cause an issue.  Articulated steam also tends to occasionally cause an issue here as well on curves.

2) curvature

3) axle loading.  Some bridges may be unsuitable because of weight, or have a speed restriction placed on them.

4) Weight.  Same basic thing as #3 for some lightweight branchlines with questionable maintenance and rotting ties.  Take anything heavy through there (steam, diesel, or even heavy loaded freight cars), and you may likely end up on the ground.

That's it.  There is no "steam impact" on bridges, other than physical weight per axle.

I  beg to differ.  Years ago when involved in railroad relocations I encountered analyses of bridges that considered steam impact.

I would refer you to the Bridge Engineering Handbook, edited by Wai-Fah Chen & Lian Duan, sections 23.1.1 and 23.5.3.3.

See also Coping with the Older Railroad Steel Bridges, published by IMA Infrastructure Engineering Inc., Edmonton, Alberta, CANADA, September 2005.

In all the years I planned the movements for NKP 765, I never ran across the term "steam impact" as it relates to bridges.

All bridges have a "Cooper Rating" or it may also be called an "E-Rating." These ratings are determined by the length of the bridge span and other construction details of the bridge. The equipment that will pass over that bridge will demand a certain E-rating, depending on that equipment's weight and wheelbase, in other words, exactly where the weight is concentrated.

Whenever the 765 was to operate on a new railroad, I would send them a package of info on the locomotive. That package included several pages of Bridge Loading Analysis done for us in 1983 by Chris Berger, who was then VP of Operations at the Chicago & Northwestern Railroad. The "Complete Mechanical Package" as I called it, also included a Clearance Diagram, so the host railroad could determine if there were any places on the railroad where clearances would not allow the engine to go.

Here are a few pages from that package:

The Cover Page

The Clearance Diagram

One of the FIVE Bridge Loading Analysis pages. This one is for the full engine consist. There are other loading sheets for the locomotive only, the tender only, the loco and tender, the auxiliary tender and the full consist of loco, tender and A-tank.

The Union Pacific has a similar package of information on the 4014 that they provide other railroads where they have trackage rights and will want to move the locomotive.

Thank you very much for that interesting peek behind the curtain, Rich. 

Rich Melvin posted:

Whenever the 765 was to operate on a new railroad, I would send them a package of info on the locomotive. That package included several pages of Bridge Loading Analysis done for us in 1983 by Chris Berger, who was then VP of Operations at the Chicago & Northwestern Railroad. The "Complete Mechanical Package" as I called it, also included a Clearance Diagram, so the host railroad could determine if there were any places on the railroad where clearances would not allow the engine to go.

Here are a few pages from that package:

The Cover Page

Rich,

Very cool stuff, and nothing less than I would expect from FWRHS.  Is there a specific reason why the cylinders and tender frame sticks out more on the fireman's side, or is there just a variation in the drawing?  Everything shifts to the right just below the "note" box.

kgdjpubs, you just discovered something that I never really noticed, but it is correct.

Here is the original, hand-drawn diagram from the Lima Locomotive Works that I used to make the diagram in the computer. That same offset is there.

I think the offset is there because there are a couple of appliances on the Fireman's side, such as the cold water pump and the feedwater hot water pump that demand slightly more clearance on the left side.

I think by "Steam impact," the RJR is referring to dynamic augment.  I have never seen this force taken into account for bridges any more than any other track, but I am not sufficiently well versed to judge, so I leave that to those who know more.

I do know that, during WW II, a Frisco spot-series 2-10-2 (#41, IIRC)  kicked the rails out from under herself on a curve on a trestle bridge approach near Ft. Leonard Wood in MO.  It took the track gangs quite a while and a LOT of trouble to jack the engine up and put the rails back while hanging off the side of the trestle many feet above the Big Piney River.  The spot-series was limited to 35 mph because they were old drag-ear engines with insufficient balancing and had a bad habit of damaging track.  Apparently, the engineer got in too much of a hurry on the bridge/curve.

Yes, it could be Dynamic Augment that they are referring to.

On a bridge where there was some concern about that, the host railroad would just put a 10 mph speed restriction on us for that bridge. There's not much Dynamic Augment at that speed!

90:

I thought the SP banned some of the larger ATSF power off the SP-ATSF line with the "Loop" south of Bakersfield, CA?

this is one of the problems with the c&0 2-6-6-6 being much heaver per axle than lima rated them at and they tore the rail apart at speed.  It was so bad that they had to be limited on them and they were not that successful.  get the huddleston book on them and read of all the problems the c&0 had with them and c&o won the lawsuit the had against lima.  I haven't looked lately but I think they were limited to 35 mph because dynamic augument was quite bad at speed.  There 2-10-4 s were a much better engine and that is what they (the c&o) should have purchased for more high power steam.

Plus the PRR built 125 C&O based 2-10-4's!

RJR posted:

I  beg to differ.  Years ago when involved in railroad relocations I encountered analyses of bridges that considered steam impact.

I would refer you to the Bridge Engineering Handbook, edited by Wai-Fah Chen & Lian Duan, sections 23.1.1 and 23.5.3.3.

See also Coping with the Older Railroad Steel Bridges, published by IMA Infrastructure Engineering Inc., Edmonton, Alberta, CANADA, September 2005.

I believe you are correct. The engineering design of railroad bridges as per the AREMA Manual of Railway Engineering  requires consideration of dynamic forces. This is not limited to steam equipment. Speed, load, wheel spacing, and span length all contribute to the load. The bridge response depends on the natural frequency of the structure based on it's stiffness and mass, and damping characteristics. The load component consists of vertical forces from unbalanced drivers and reciprocating components (dynamic augment), uneven track, flat wheels, or wheels with other irregularities. There are also horizontal rocking forces that contribute a vertical dynamic component of force which can be applied to either rail as a moment couple force. For ordinary, simple steel bridges and speeds less than 90 mph, a simple set of equations reduces the vertical effect to a percentage of the live load. But it is often a significant percentage of the live load when both direct vertical forces, and vertical forces due to rocking are added together. These plug into the Cooper E rating.

Dominic Mazoch posted:

90:

I thought the SP banned some of the larger ATSF power off the SP-ATSF line with the "Loop" south of Bakersfield, CA?

Dominic, I don't know, but I know how to find out.  Since you mentioned it, I do not recall seeing photos of the large ATSF 4-8-4's (2900 and 3776 classes) on the SP trackage rights from Mojave to Kern Jct.

They were pretty large locomotives, but, considering the size of some of SP's own steam engines, I am skeptical as to large ATSF engines being banned from the Tehachapi line.  ATSF did send some small (well, compared to the huge 2900 and 3776 classes) 3751 and 3765 class 4-8-4's to Bakersfield, but farther north to the Bay Area (timetable west) there was no need for any ATSF 4-8-4's as the line across the San Joaquin Valley is flat, except for a mild grade to get through the Berkely Hills.  4-6-2's and small 3450 class 4-6-4's had no trouble with any Valley Division passenger trains.

ATSF 2-10-4's were not regularly used west of Winslow, Arizona, but that was for other reasons.

But, I will append an accurate answer after I find out for sure.

Dominic, you are correct!  Use of Santa Fe 3776 Class and 2900 Class 4-8-4's was prohibited by the Southern Pacific on the joint trackage between Mojave and Kern Jct., California.  Stan Kistler verified it, and has seen the correspondence file of letters sent between Southern Pacific and Santa Fe on this subject.  The main reason was the SP curves and the ATSF wheelbase.

One place where a steam locomotive would probably never be permitted to run is Amtrak’s NEC. Too busy with high speed trains. And into Manhattan because of the tunnels and underground Penn Station. Is liability insurance one of the main reasons most freight railroads say no to public excursions? Who is insuring the Big Boy public excursions on UP? They should have had one out of Chicago to make up for 765’s absence this year. Big Boy is visiting Chicago though.

Nick Chillianis posted:

I've been mapping out UP 4014's upcoming travels through the upper Midwest, an area that I am woefully unfamiliar with, so I'm learning as I go.

From what I've figured out, she will be leaving the former C&NW Clinton Sub at Nevada, IA and traveling the Mason City  and Albert Lea Subs (former CRI&P Spine Line ) to St. Paul Union Depot. From St. Paul to Superior, the Union Pacific operates over Warren Buffett's Lionel Set (BNSF) via trackage rights, inherited from the acquisition of C&NW.

Not being an expert on trackage rights, I have a question which someone on here can probably answer.

Does a tenant railroad have the right to operate any piece of equipment over the host's line, provided it meets the dimensional and weight requirements of the line, or can the host railroad object to the type of equipment or service being operated , e.g., steam locomotives, passenger excursions etc.?

 

Hello Nick....aside from your inquiry, (since I have no clue about trackage rights), I live in St. Pail, and haven't heard anything about the 4014 trip thru here! Details please, I'd love to catch a ride on that one!

Rich Melvin posted:

kgdjpubs, you just discovered something that I never really noticed, but it is correct.

Here is the original, hand-drawn diagram from the Lima Locomotive Works that I used to make the diagram in the computer. That same offset is there.

I think the offset is there because there are a couple of appliances on the Fireman's side, such as the cold water pump and the feedwater hot water pump that demand slightly more clearance on the left side.

OMG! where do you guys gt this stuff!!! That's why I love this forum!

Kudos to you all!

Lion L 226E posted:

Nick Chillianis posted:

I've been mapping out UP 4014's upcoming travels through the upper Midwest, an area that I am woefully unfamiliar with, so I'm learning as I go.

From what I've figured out, she will be leaving the former C&NW Clinton Sub at Nevada, IA and traveling the Mason City  and Albert Lea Subs (former CRI&P Spine Line ) to St. Paul Union Depot. From St. Paul to Superior, the Union Pacific operates over Warren Buffett's Lionel Set (BNSF) via trackage rights, inherited from the acquisition of C&NW.

Not being an expert on trackage rights, I have a question which someone on here can probably answer.

Does a tenant railroad have the right to operate any piece of equipment over the host's line, provided it meets the dimensional and weight requirements of the line, or can the host railroad object to the type of equipment or service being operated , e.g., steam locomotives, passenger excursions etc.?

 

Hello Nick....aside from your inquiry, (since I have no clue about trackage rights), I live in St. Pail, and haven't heard anything about the 4014 trip thru here! Details please, I'd love to catch a ride on that one!

Rather than retyping or cutting and pasting, let me just link to the UP Steam Schedule Page.

She will be on public display at St. Paul Union Depot from 9:00 a.m. – 3:00 p.m. CDT on Thursday July 18th. Enjoy!

I can only hope that they send her east to Memphis at some point as that's probably my only shot at seeing her. 

I would make the 6+ hour drive from my home near Atlanta, but I can't justify the time and expense of traveling to the upper Midwest, Wyoming or California just for a few fleeting runbys and the endless frustration of sitting in massive traffic jams. 

I used to chase all the big steam excursions of the late '80s and early '90s but I flew for free on passes in those days and the chase motorcades never looked anything like what I see now. At the age of 61, and after two back surgeries I no longer have the patience, agility or energy I had back then.

Between the paucity of options for seeing big steam on the main line and the uniqueness of a live 4000 class, whenever it runs it's going to attract incredible mobs.

If the crowds and motorcades were that huge in the sparsely populated communities between Cheyenne and Ogden, just imagine what the scene will be like around the Twin Cities or in the Cajon Pass.

I'll let YouTube take me there. Some of the video I have seen, especially the drone footage, has been nothing short of spectacular.

I found the schedule for the UP 4014 Heritage run online for anyone who might be interested.   Go See It!

https://www.up.com/heritage/steam/schedule/index.htm 

Lion