5 ms·

>The City was among America’s premier trains, a luxury streamliner that could hit 110 miles per hour while white-jacketed waiters balanced trays of cocktails I

>The City was among America’s premier trains, a luxury streamliner that could hit 110 miles per hour while white-jacketed waiters balanced trays of cocktails I wonder how passengers back then would have imagined rail travel today, 75 years later (aside from the life-threatening storms, of course). The Overland Route is now freight-only, and the closest equivalent, the California Zephyr, takes about 52 hours to make the journey this train did in just 40! More on topic, I was surprised to read: > When the steam generators’ water tanks ran dry, heat disappeared, too. Weren't there surrounded by frozen water? Is there any reason snow couldn't be used in an emergency to heat the train?

colonelspace 2y ago
A few reasons that occur to me: 1. The volume of snow to be collected would have been significantly greater than the resulting water. 2. Heating snow at elevation requires more energy. 3. Perhaps getting snow into the steam generator wasn't so easy.
- glaucon 2y ago
  > The volume of snow to be collected would have been significantly greater than the resulting water. Yes, dependent on the nature of the snow but a broad idea is that if you want a litre of water, you need five litres of snow.
  - SketchySeaBeast 2y ago
    The stat I've seen is even worse at 10:1.
    - xarope 2y ago
      anecdotally I think I've had to scoop about 30l of snow in a stuff sack, to get about 2-3l of melted water (of which I've probably added at least a cup or 2 of water to get started - to prevent the bottom of the pot being scorched by heat before the snow melts), so that sounds about right.
    - Arjeigh 2y ago
      Depending on elevation, the type of parent storm, the ambient temperature, and other factors, the water content to snow can vary from 1:6 - very heavy chunky lake effect snow falling right at the freezing point, the kind you get wet just walking from the car to the door, to 1:12 , the kind typically seen in mountainous, more semi-arid locales. The fine white snowboarding/skiing snow. Generally the colder the air, the less moisture in the snow, same with height, unless it's precipitating out due to orographic uplift first.
deepsun 2y ago
There were special water filling stations on many stops. That's why currently running steam engines are better off with diesel pushing them: https://youtu.be/12Zpb0Yh-sM https://youtu.be/12Zpb0Yh-sM
- Animats 2y ago
  UP's Big Boy got some upgrades after a year or two of touring the UP system. It no longer needs a Diesel helper. Previously, the helper engine carried the modern Positive Train Control gear, and the steam engine cab had a display connected by a cable to the Diesel helper. Now, UP 4014 has its own PTC gear and antenna in the tender, so it's self-sufficient. UP runs that engine on heavily used main line track, so it needs to be fully connected to safety and dispatching systems. This was mostly a power problem. UP 4014 had a small steam turbogenerator atop the boiler to power lights and such. Now it has three such generators, and there's enough electric power to run auxiliary equipment. UP did a serious rebuild on the Big Boy, to original main-line standards. Many parts were fabricated from scratch. It's ready for regular use for decades. Most heritage railroads lack the resources for such major overhauls. Here's the first test run with no Diesel, in May 2024.[1] [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khJZ6NO5rhQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khJZ6NO5rhQ
  - DonHopkins 2y ago
    Oh, "PTC gear" as in equipment, not just one magical gear that prevents accidents, as popped into my mind at first!
  - redmajor12 2y ago
    Is PTC the first step in getting rid of human engineers, billed as a safety system?
dylan604 2y ago
> I wonder how passengers back then would have imagined rail travel today, 75 years later Show them the airplane that gets them to the same destination in a couple of hours vs days
- Retric 2y ago
  It was January 13, 1952 they had airlines.
  - stevenwoo 2y ago
    OTOH, flying was considered a luxury in the USA until the airlines were deregulated in 1978. https://www.npr.org/2024/07/05/1197960905/flying-airlines-deregulation-competition-unbundling https://www.npr.org/2024/07/05/1197960905/flying-airlines-de...
    - Retric 2y ago
      Deregulation had far less impact on prices than people generally quote. Getting out of the energy crisis did a lot to shift prices quickly which made it seem like deregulation was suddenly working. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1970s_energy_crisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1970s_energy_crisis Longer term Airlines got a lot better and a lot cheaper worldwide at roughly the same rates because things like fuel economy and engine maintenance timescales skyrocketed.
      - stevenwoo 2y ago
        I am not an expert, just recalling the latest thing I heard/read about the subject but I think we can both agree that in the 1950-1960s inclusive, flying was not egalitarian as it was after the changes in operating environment we discuss.
        vel0city 2y ago
        Yeah I mean you hear about what a lot of airlines were like and many domestic first/business class seemingly don't even compare despite energy costs were significantly higher.
basementcat 2y ago
> I wonder how passengers back then would have imagined rail travel today, 75 years later (aside from the life-threatening storms, of course). The Overland Route is now freight-only, and the closest equivalent, the California Zephyr, takes about 52 hours to make the journey this train did in just 40! I don't think people ride the California Zephyr to get from Chicago to the Bay Area as quickly as possible. Most of us spent as much time as possible in the observation car marveling at the Rockies and Sierras.
- pessimizer 2y ago
  > I don't think people ride the California Zephyr to get from Chicago to the Bay Area as quickly as possible. Of course they don't. It's too slow. Our rail shouldn't be as bad as it is. I love that trip, and I've taken it more than twice, oohing and ahhing all the way, but I do not need it to last as long as it does.
worik 2y ago
> Weren't there surrounded by frozen water? Is there any reason snow couldn't be used in an emergency to heat the train? I have tried this. Snow is not very dense. A lot of snow makes a very small amount of water. Quite an astonishingly small amount of water I expect the steam generators were quite thirsty, I do not know.
sonofhans 2y ago
Snow is dirty, and getting dirty water into a high pressure steam engine is an awful idea, even in the short term.
- PaulDavisThe1st 2y ago
  Why, where and how is snow dirty? The much bigger issue that steam is massively less dense that liquid water: roughly a 1:10 ratio. Loading up 10x more snow than you need water is no small task.
  - sonofhans 2y ago
    Snow is dirty all the time, everywhere, especially near commonly-used train lines. It’s not difficult science. Particulates, dead insects, leaves, mouse shit — all end up in snow. Scoop up a bucket of snow and melt it and I guarantee you’ll see a bunch of crap in the bottom of it.
    - gaadd33 2y ago
      Is that true at 7k ft on a train line that only has 1 train on it? I can understand next to a busy freight line or something like that but it seems like freshly blown snow (to the volume that it stops a train) wouldn't have much in it. I can't say I know the purity of snow at that altitude though.
      - bobmcnamara 2y ago
        A 12 foot snowslide might have trees in it.
    - PaulDavisThe1st 2y ago
      You must be thinking of a different kind of snow than I am. Have you ever been through Donner Pass?
      - RandallBrown 2y ago
rsynnott 2y ago
> The Overland Route is now freight-only, and the closest equivalent, the California Zephyr, takes about 52 hours to make the journey this train did in just 40! I mean, this is largely a product of the US's general disinterest in and underinvestment in passenger rail; with a modern high speed system it'd be about 10 hours. 10 hours is _probably_ too long to be particularly useful, mind you; people would just fly. The sweet spot for high-speed rail is more in the 5 hour and less range; at that point when you factor in the faffing around involved in getting to airports, going through security, the inevitable delays etc, the train is still faster. The longest high-speed route in the world is about this length: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beijing–Kunming_high-speed_train https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beijing–Kunming_high-speed_tra...
- campl3r 2y ago
  10 hours are perfect for a night train
- chrisco255 2y ago
  It's doubtful that you could build a high speed rail that could fly from Chicago through the Rockies to California in 10 hours. Even more doubtful that the cost benefit would be worth it considering you can fly from Chicago to the Bay Area in 3.5 hours. And you can't factor time spent getting to airport and not factor time to train station and time to stop at other major cities on the way (as trains are wont to do). The Chinese route you mentioned does not need to go through one of the largest mountain ranges in the world. It's also at least 15-20% shorter than the distance from Chicago to SF, and experiences much less elevation change over the course of the journey. And the wiki article claims it "averages 10.5 to 13.5 hours", so there is a huge amount of variability in time to travel on that route.
  - rsynnott 2y ago
    > And the wiki article claims it "averages 10.5 to 13.5 hours", so there is a huge amount of variability in time to travel on that route. Yeah, I think it depends on how many stops it calls it; there are a few different services on that line. While it's a high speed line they're mostly not classic express services and actually have quite a few stops. I'd expect a notional Chicago->California high speed line would have fewer. A journey with no stops at all at 300km/h (ie high standard high speed rail, but not absolute state of the art) would be 10 hours; any stops would add a bit. > And you can't factor time spent getting to airport and not factor time to train station As a general rule, airports are not hugely conveniently located. Normally intercity rail in big cities will depart from a central train station, which usually will really be quite central, and will be linked into all the other transport. You get there, and walk onto the train, and you're done. The airport will _never_ be central, for obvious reasons, and if it has a rail line at all, it will likely be a single line, usually relatively infrequent, and, for some reason, with the airport end almost always extremely inconveniently located (this seems to be a law of nature). You'll want to get there at least an hour in advance, and the plan will likely be delayed at least somewhat on both ends. At least one queue will be involved. On the other end, you will then make your way slowly into the city.

colonelspace 2y ago

A few reasons that occur to me: 1. The volume of snow to be collected would have been significantly greater than the resulting water. 2. Heating snow at elevation requires more energy. 3. Perhaps getting snow into the steam generator wasn't so easy.

glaucon 2y ago
> The volume of snow to be collected would have been significantly greater than the resulting water. Yes, dependent on the nature of the snow but a broad idea is that if you want a litre of water, you need five litres of snow.
- SketchySeaBeast 2y ago
  The stat I've seen is even worse at 10:1.
  - xarope 2y ago
    anecdotally I think I've had to scoop about 30l of snow in a stuff sack, to get about 2-3l of melted water (of which I've probably added at least a cup or 2 of water to get started - to prevent the bottom of the pot being scorched by heat before the snow melts), so that sounds about right.
  - Arjeigh 2y ago
    Depending on elevation, the type of parent storm, the ambient temperature, and other factors, the water content to snow can vary from 1:6 - very heavy chunky lake effect snow falling right at the freezing point, the kind you get wet just walking from the car to the door, to 1:12 , the kind typically seen in mountainous, more semi-arid locales. The fine white snowboarding/skiing snow. Generally the colder the air, the less moisture in the snow, same with height, unless it's precipitating out due to orographic uplift first.

deepsun 2y ago

There were special water filling stations on many stops. That's why currently running steam engines are better off with diesel pushing them: https://youtu.be/12Zpb0Yh-sM https://youtu.be/12Zpb0Yh-sM

Animats 2y ago
UP's Big Boy got some upgrades after a year or two of touring the UP system. It no longer needs a Diesel helper. Previously, the helper engine carried the modern Positive Train Control gear, and the steam engine cab had a display connected by a cable to the Diesel helper. Now, UP 4014 has its own PTC gear and antenna in the tender, so it's self-sufficient. UP runs that engine on heavily used main line track, so it needs to be fully connected to safety and dispatching systems. This was mostly a power problem. UP 4014 had a small steam turbogenerator atop the boiler to power lights and such. Now it has three such generators, and there's enough electric power to run auxiliary equipment. UP did a serious rebuild on the Big Boy, to original main-line standards. Many parts were fabricated from scratch. It's ready for regular use for decades. Most heritage railroads lack the resources for such major overhauls. Here's the first test run with no Diesel, in May 2024.[1] [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khJZ6NO5rhQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khJZ6NO5rhQ
- DonHopkins 2y ago
  Oh, "PTC gear" as in equipment, not just one magical gear that prevents accidents, as popped into my mind at first!
- redmajor12 2y ago
  Is PTC the first step in getting rid of human engineers, billed as a safety system?

dylan604 2y ago

> I wonder how passengers back then would have imagined rail travel today, 75 years later Show them the airplane that gets them to the same destination in a couple of hours vs days

Retric 2y ago
It was January 13, 1952 they had airlines.
- stevenwoo 2y ago
  OTOH, flying was considered a luxury in the USA until the airlines were deregulated in 1978. https://www.npr.org/2024/07/05/1197960905/flying-airlines-deregulation-competition-unbundling https://www.npr.org/2024/07/05/1197960905/flying-airlines-de...
  - Retric 2y ago
    Deregulation had far less impact on prices than people generally quote. Getting out of the energy crisis did a lot to shift prices quickly which made it seem like deregulation was suddenly working. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1970s_energy_crisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1970s_energy_crisis Longer term Airlines got a lot better and a lot cheaper worldwide at roughly the same rates because things like fuel economy and engine maintenance timescales skyrocketed.
    - stevenwoo 2y ago
      I am not an expert, just recalling the latest thing I heard/read about the subject but I think we can both agree that in the 1950-1960s inclusive, flying was not egalitarian as it was after the changes in operating environment we discuss.
      - vel0city 2y ago
        Yeah I mean you hear about what a lot of airlines were like and many domestic first/business class seemingly don't even compare despite energy costs were significantly higher.

basementcat 2y ago

> I wonder how passengers back then would have imagined rail travel today, 75 years later (aside from the life-threatening storms, of course). The Overland Route is now freight-only, and the closest equivalent, the California Zephyr, takes about 52 hours to make the journey this train did in just 40! I don't think people ride the California Zephyr to get from Chicago to the Bay Area as quickly as possible. Most of us spent as much time as possible in the observation car marveling at the Rockies and Sierras.

pessimizer 2y ago
> I don't think people ride the California Zephyr to get from Chicago to the Bay Area as quickly as possible. Of course they don't. It's too slow. Our rail shouldn't be as bad as it is. I love that trip, and I've taken it more than twice, oohing and ahhing all the way, but I do not need it to last as long as it does.

worik 2y ago

> Weren't there surrounded by frozen water? Is there any reason snow couldn't be used in an emergency to heat the train? I have tried this. Snow is not very dense. A lot of snow makes a very small amount of water. Quite an astonishingly small amount of water I expect the steam generators were quite thirsty, I do not know.

sonofhans 2y ago

Snow is dirty, and getting dirty water into a high pressure steam engine is an awful idea, even in the short term.

PaulDavisThe1st 2y ago
Why, where and how is snow dirty? The much bigger issue that steam is massively less dense that liquid water: roughly a 1:10 ratio. Loading up 10x more snow than you need water is no small task.
- sonofhans 2y ago
  Snow is dirty all the time, everywhere, especially near commonly-used train lines. It’s not difficult science. Particulates, dead insects, leaves, mouse shit — all end up in snow. Scoop up a bucket of snow and melt it and I guarantee you’ll see a bunch of crap in the bottom of it.
  - gaadd33 2y ago
    Is that true at 7k ft on a train line that only has 1 train on it? I can understand next to a busy freight line or something like that but it seems like freshly blown snow (to the volume that it stops a train) wouldn't have much in it. I can't say I know the purity of snow at that altitude though.
    - bobmcnamara 2y ago
      A 12 foot snowslide might have trees in it.
  - PaulDavisThe1st 2y ago
    You must be thinking of a different kind of snow than I am. Have you ever been through Donner Pass?
    - RandallBrown 2y ago

rsynnott 2y ago

> The Overland Route is now freight-only, and the closest equivalent, the California Zephyr, takes about 52 hours to make the journey this train did in just 40! I mean, this is largely a product of the US's general disinterest in and underinvestment in passenger rail; with a modern high speed system it'd be about 10 hours. 10 hours is _probably_ too long to be particularly useful, mind you; people would just fly. The sweet spot for high-speed rail is more in the 5 hour and less range; at that point when you factor in the faffing around involved in getting to airports, going through security, the inevitable delays etc, the train is still faster. The longest high-speed route in the world is about this length: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beijing–Kunming_high-speed_train https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beijing–Kunming_high-speed_tra...

campl3r 2y ago
10 hours are perfect for a night train
chrisco255 2y ago
It's doubtful that you could build a high speed rail that could fly from Chicago through the Rockies to California in 10 hours. Even more doubtful that the cost benefit would be worth it considering you can fly from Chicago to the Bay Area in 3.5 hours. And you can't factor time spent getting to airport and not factor time to train station and time to stop at other major cities on the way (as trains are wont to do). The Chinese route you mentioned does not need to go through one of the largest mountain ranges in the world. It's also at least 15-20% shorter than the distance from Chicago to SF, and experiences much less elevation change over the course of the journey. And the wiki article claims it "averages 10.5 to 13.5 hours", so there is a huge amount of variability in time to travel on that route.
- rsynnott 2y ago
  > And the wiki article claims it "averages 10.5 to 13.5 hours", so there is a huge amount of variability in time to travel on that route. Yeah, I think it depends on how many stops it calls it; there are a few different services on that line. While it's a high speed line they're mostly not classic express services and actually have quite a few stops. I'd expect a notional Chicago->California high speed line would have fewer. A journey with no stops at all at 300km/h (ie high standard high speed rail, but not absolute state of the art) would be 10 hours; any stops would add a bit. > And you can't factor time spent getting to airport and not factor time to train station As a general rule, airports are not hugely conveniently located. Normally intercity rail in big cities will depart from a central train station, which usually will really be quite central, and will be linked into all the other transport. You get there, and walk onto the train, and you're done. The airport will _never_ be central, for obvious reasons, and if it has a rail line at all, it will likely be a single line, usually relatively infrequent, and, for some reason, with the airport end almost always extremely inconveniently located (this seems to be a law of nature). You'll want to get there at least an hour in advance, and the plan will likely be delayed at least somewhat on both ends. At least one queue will be involved. On the other end, you will then make your way slowly into the city.