Train Festival 2009: Update

[sd70accsxt700]

Ah yes I forgot about that Amtrak route. Tisk Tisk on me and EPIC FAIL.

[RailCanon]

If they have to take a whole new route out of Chicago, I really hope it is the IC/GTW. That would be so awesome to get that rare milage, since I'm riding the train.
I wonder which bridge is the problem spot?

[Norm]

So much speculation; so few facts.

[CSX_CO]

I wonder which bridge is the problem spot?

Are steam engines THAT much larger than their diesel counterparts? I can't believe that a steam engine has a larger plate profile than a diesel engine...

Upon further thought...I find it extremely difficult to believe that they 'just discovered' a problem bridge on the route. All railroad routes have 'close clearances' known, and registered in a database. All railroad equipment has plate measurements and is known. Plug the equipment onto the route, and the computer should spit out any problem areas. If it won't fit, it will throw up a red flag. That's a long as the demensions of the shipment are known. Seeing that a steam move is a special equipment move, I find it extremely hard to believe that at this late in the ball game, a clearance problem is 'popping up'. All these details would have been hashed out well before the train was to leave.

Then again...it is the railroad we are talking about...

Practice Safe CSX

[MDH]

Late change on the 4449.
From another board

This is to let all of you know we have a bridge clearance issue out of Chicago that was not detected by Amtrak until this morning.
There will be a new route determined out of Chicago in the morning. We will keep you posted.
We have plotted a solution... but a new route will be necessary. Stay tuned.

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!

A little late to the frustration party - but just as frustrated...

[sd70accsxt700]

Well I just went along the Amtrak Michigan Line, from Porter to BC and this is what I found. Aside from normal auto overpasses, that by logical thought, should clear, seeing as how they used superliners on a run this year, and how this line back in NYC and PC, and even CR days should have seen the old racks, that should be taller then the 4449 this is what I found.

Porter west of the waste water treatment plant there is a bridge.
Michigan City the swing bridge, and the coaling tower.
New Buffalo the CSX bridge
North of Mattawan at Stadium Dr
KZoo E Michigan Ave, west of yard
Wowlandsburgs Coal tower
Agusta you have a bridge over the KZoo river, and a few miles further a bridge over a old abandon something along side

That is all I can find.

I should add that given all things are the same, the NS and CN both run double stacks and hi-wide shipments all the time that are bigger then 4449 so there should be no problem there.

[Typhoon]

From what I have been told the clearence problem is on the NS west of Porter, not the ex MC line. I was told it was the bridge at Hick, though I read on another site that the problem was around the Englewood area. I have on good information that the 4449 group asked the IHB to run over their railroad and they were turned down. There are many ways around both problems so who knows. BTW just to stir the pot there is a DLMX 4449 listed in the CSX mainframe.

[J T]

How about CSX via GR to Ann Pere?

I would be SO down with that!

Ahhh...speculation is so much fun!

[CSX_CO]

BTW just to stir the pot there is a DLMX 4449 listed in the CSX mainframe.

So is the 765, 1225, so are the UP steamers, etc. CSX's data comes from UMLER, so if its in the UMLER system, its in the CSX system.

So I take it the 4449 is larger than any steamer the NYC ran through Hick? Those bridges have been there since NYC steam days. I could see issue on some of the old plate girder bridges along the former PRR between Whiting and Englewood, but those have been there since PRR steamer days. 4449 is that much wider at rail level than any other railroad equipment that traverses those bridges every day or has in the last 80 to 90 years?

Practice Safe CSX

[GLC 392]

would it be a width or height problem at hicks?

[PAT.C]

Ahhh...speculation is so much fun! ---NO MORE SPECULATION--NOW THE FACTS!!!!!

I JUST SPOKE TO TYRONE [HE B DA MAN !!!!!!!!!! ] AND HE SAID THAT TRACK IS BEING EXTENDED FROM THE END OF MQT. YARD IN LUDINGTON TO THE BADGER'S DOCK.
IT IS A RUSH JOB THAT MUST BE READY BY SUNDAY MORNING-EITHER BY DAYLIGHY OR FOR DAYLIGHT [NOT SURE]
HE SAID SOME SPECIAL CARGO IS COMING IN FROM WISC. IT IS SHIPMENT #21.

I HAVE A CALL INTO DUMBO'S PHONE TO CONFIRM THIS.

WHERE'S AVERY WHEN WE NEED HIM ???

UPDATES TO FOLLOW SOON.

[J T]

BTW just to stir the pot there is a DLMX 4449 listed in the CSX mainframe.

So is the 765, 1225, so are the UP steamers, etc. CSX's data comes from UMLER, so if its in the UMLER system, its in the CSX system.

So I take it the 4449 is larger than any steamer the NYC ran through Hick? Those bridges have been there since NYC steam days. I could see issue on some of the old plate girder bridges along the former PRR between Whiting and Englewood, but those have been there since PRR steamer days. 4449 is that much wider at rail level than any other railroad equipment that traverses those bridges every day or has in the last 80 to 90 years?

That's the first thought that came to my mind. What about in the old days when steam regularly ran on those rails? Is 4449 one of the larger steam locomotives ever built or something?

[SD80MAC]

NYC ran 4-8-4's (Niagra's) bigger than 4449. Don't see what the issue would be there. PRR ran 4-8-2's and enourmous T1 4-4-4-4 Duplex's to and from Chicago as well. The GTW hosted a myriad of 4-8-4's, and the PM was stomping grounds for the Van Sweargian 2-8-4's. Any route should work, although that's not to say that a new overpass or something built since the steam era might have tight clearences that a 4-8-4 couldn't negotiate.

[CSX_CO]

NYC ran 4-8-4's (Niagra's) bigger than 4449. Don't see what the issue would be there. PRR ran 4-8-2's and enourmous T1 4-4-4-4 Duplex's to and from Chicago as well. The GTW hosted a myriad of 4-8-4's, and the PM was stomping grounds for the Van Sweargian 2-8-4's. Any route should work, although that's not to say that a new overpass or something built since the steam era might have tight clearences that a 4-8-4 couldn't negotiate.

Height at Hick isn't a problem, it clears 20'2" racks. 4449 isn't taller than 20'2". Superliners are under 19'2", as they go a lot of places that have a 19'2" vertical clearance limit. Also, I'd imagine a 89' autorack or flat car has the same , and possibly more, overhang as a 4-8-4.

Also, anyone with the railroad that approves construction of a NEW overpass that limits the railroads size dimensions is a moron. I may be wrong, but its highly unlikely that new construction would crimp clearances on a line. Conrail used to get a lot of high wide loads because their railroad could clear them. Any low bridges were undercut to allow for 20'2" double stacks when the doublestack 'revolution' came about. We've got bridges on the St. Louis and Indy lines that were built in 1908 that were undercut and clear extremely wide loads.

Anyone consider the source of this 'clearance' problem'? Any 'offical' word from one of the organizations, or could it just be some railran or railroader looking to start a rumor and watch the fur fly? Again, all these details would have been hashed out well before 4449 turned its first wheel towards Owosso.

Practice Safe CSX

[sd70accsxt700]

Well it could still be a pipe question or something like that. 4449 is wider then a superliner, so it could be one of the pipes or something down on the bottom will hit at a low clearance point. And at the bottom of 4449 i am sure it its wider then the high wide loads at rail level.

[RailCanon]

While you guys make valid points that NYC, PRR and other railroad's steam locomotives have operated through these areas in the past, it should be noted that western railroads used higher and sometimes wider clearances than eastern railroads. Recall that 4449 cannot enter Chicago Union Station due to these issues.

From Trainorders.com...

Don't forget that clearance isn't just a height issue, but also width, which may boil down to a small pipe, outline of the cylinders, or the pilot. Even a clearance of a few inches may not be acceptable due to the natural "walking" of a locomotive as it leans from side to side. And once you figure heights and widths, then there's weight and axle loadings. For people that don't deal with steam locomotives or aren't familiar with the territory, these can be mistakenly overlooked and critical factors. Nevertheless, it's good to find out ahead of time, even in the 11th hour, than at track speed on the mainline.

This being noted, after conversing with Russell (Rsinoms), we've figured the easiest way around the problem would be to follow the route of the Cardinal/Hoosier State to Dolton Junction and then hop the CSX Ex-B&OCT to CP-497, where they would then reenter the Chicago Line to CP-482/Porter.
This of course is purely speculation, and it remains to be seen what will actually happen.

[GTWFRED]

Anyone consider the source of this 'clearance' problem'? Any 'offical' word from one of the organizations, or could it just be some railran or railroader looking to start a rumor and watch the fur fly? Again, all these details would have been hashed out well before 4449 turned its first wheel towards Owosso.

Pretty good question!

[sd70accsxt700]

Well if the IHB is not going to let them go around, I would guess that CSX wont either. Hum maybe a run down the IC to the EJE also and over to Pine. Then back down to the NS yard, could also do it. I know but I am not going to tell.

[RailCanon]

Anyone consider the source of this 'clearance' problem'? Any 'offical' word from one of the organizations, or could it just be some railran or railroader looking to start a rumor and watch the fur fly? Again, all these details would have been hashed out well before 4449 turned its first wheel towards Owosso.

Pretty good question!

What has been posted on Trainorders is OFFICIAL word from the crew of the 4449. This IS NOT a rumor.
And you guys evidently don't realize how many challenges are involved with operating steam locomotives. The operators of this trip undoubtably spent MONTHS on end trying to plan for this and make it work. Even then, as I QUOTED above, details like this can be easily overlooked.
These machines ARE NOT easy to operate. Can you see why diesels replaced them in the 50s???

[CSX_CO]

This being noted, after conversing with Russell (Rsinoms), we've figured the easiest way around the problem would be to follow the route of the Cardinal/Hoosier State to Dolton Junction and then hop the CSX Ex-B&OCT to CP-497, where they would then reenter the Chicago Line to CP-482/Porter.
This of course is purely speculation, and it remains to be seen what will actually happen.

Cept for the little problem of CSX not being very receptive to steam on their railroad. Let alone the stretch from Dolton to 497 is a busy peice of railroad for CSX, and they have their own concerns of moving THEIR trains. Hopefully they can find a way around it. An 11th hour call from some organization asking permission to alter their route probably isn't going to be met with a whole lot of open arms. Sounds like the railroads involved can either be the villian or savior.

So what exactly is the location or nature of the problem? Or are you going to hold out on that bit of information? Between CUS and CP 509? 509 and 501? If between CUS and 509, take the former C&WI to 80th and then across the BRC to avoid getting on the UP and CSX at the last minute. BRC may be more receptive since they are a smaller outfit, and the management would be centrally located. If CSX wanted to 'kill' the move without publicly coming out and saying no, they could let the request get lost in the corporate communications ladder since it is a weekend....

As far as taking the steamer through CUS and associated clearances, I doubt the PRR ever ran steamers THRU the station. Wasn't the river by-pass track an addition by AMTRAK only a few years ago? The trains all backed into the station, leaving the steamers on the 'outside' end of the tracks. This was obviously for smoke and noise abatement under the shed and so the passengers wouldn't have to walk past the locomotive to board the trains. AMTRAK pulling into the station is a new thing. Obviously steamers fit under the sheds, but its no wonder they don't fit through the station.

Also sounds like someone didn't do all their homework when planning the move...

Practice Safe CSX