Re: (rshsdepot) "450-Ton Locomotive at the Waldorf-Astoria"

["Steven Delibert" <stevdel_@_prodigy.net>]

Oh, Paul, you are just giving me a chance to show off.
- ----- Original Message -----
From: Paul S. Luchter <luckyshow_@_mindspring.com>
> Ok some good and some dumb railroad questions:
> 1. Which station did GN enter in Chicago?

Via the CB&Q, Union Station.

> 2. Which line had an arrangement with the C&NW for passengers to get to
the
> west coast?

UP, until they got royally p*ssed *ff with the Northwestern in about 1956,
and switched to the Milwaukee.
>
> 3. (Maybe a dumb one): Why did CMStP&P have isolated patches of
> electrification?
Not so dumb.  They electrified the tough mountain parts first -- over the
Rockies and the Cascades -- which made sense when there were no diesels,
electrics really outperformed steam in the mountains, and even 3d-arrival
railroads in the back country had decent traffic density.  If they hadn't
run out of money and luck, and if the country hadn't run out of business for
railroads, they would have connected the sections up, had a continuous
electric RR running across the northwest,  and would have been geniuses.

>
> 4. There are a lot of catenary railroads in Europe, what would the longest
> rout for one be?

Yah got me on that one.  Seems like the whole continent is pretty well wired
up.
>
> 5. Are diesel locos much more in need of much more maintenance than
electric
> power.,,
Loco for loco, yes --  figure they both have pretty much the same electric
traction motors, then the diesels have that whole diesel motor to maintain
as well.  The cost differences work out in traffic density -- maintenance of
all that catenary and other fixed plant on an electrified line is expensive,
and if you apply the cost to only a couple of trains a day, it's cheaper to
maintain a diesel loco; if you divide the same cost (it doesn't go up nearly
directly with the number of trains) to a couple of hundred trains a day, it
gets  a lot cheaper than maintaining all those individual diesel motors.

 an analysis of costs, was it truly made...it seems at NH the
> thought pattern had more to do with trends and who knows what powers
behind
> the scenes...

As Jim confirmed, the kindest thing that can be said about the NH study is
that it was recklessly sloppy -- I don't know if it was sponsored by GM who
consciously pulled the wool over someone's eyes (they did do bad tricks from
time to time), or whether somebody put some $ in the McGinnis pocket (as Jim
pointed out, he ended up going to the slammer for his
"conscientious management" of the B&M a few years later), but it was a
seriously unfortunate series of events, especially if you think about it
helping to cripple (economically and politically both) what should have been
the viable alternative to the hugely expensive I-95, air shuttles, Big Dig,
and all the other incredible buckets of money we've spent to avoid giving
business to railroads.  Isn't the Boston Big Dig alone more money than all
the subsidies Amtrak has gotten in its entire 30-year history?  In fact,
isn't the cost OVERRUN on the Big Dig more money than Amtrak has ever
gotten? Who's got these numbers?  Next time you're in the Times, Paul, look
this stuff up if no one has it at their fingertips.  It would make nice
letters to the editor and to Congress.

=================================
The Railroad Station Historical Society maintains a database of existing
railroad structures at: http://www.rrshs.org

------------------------------