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.