"Taking a certain period of time for our study, we found that 32 local passenger trains on track 3 were passed by 53 express or semi-express trains on track 1, and 22 on track 4 by 38 on track 2. "At a certain station on our line, on July 22, 1917, a 24-hour period taken at random as covering daily heavy traffic, and at a point where there was about the average density of traffic within the territory considered, there were 101 eastbound and 102 westbound passenger trains, and 49 eastbound and 51 westbound freight trains, or an average of about 1 to each 4.75 minutes. Necessarily, with such heavy traffic in both directions, including both passenger and freight, there was no opportunity to consider successful operation by reversing traffic. It would necessitate practically suspending the traffic in one direction while operating against the current. "We have studied some other lines where operations were being conducted against the current of traffic, and found that their situation was entirely different from ours, so that while it was practicable for them it was decidedly undesirable for us." CONCLUSION The replies to the questionnaire have demonstrated that trains can be operated successfully on multiple tracks against the current of traffic in the regular course of business, thereby facilitating their movement and effecting material economies without introducting additional hazards when proper precautions are taken; also in some cases avoiding or delaying the construction of additional main and passing tracks. The following is, therefore, recommended for insertion in the Manual: Operation of trains against the current of traffic on multiple tracks should receive consideration with other methods whenever congestion, delay or overtime prompt investigation of means of facilitating the movement of traffic or increasing the capacity of a line. COMMITTEE 21-ECONOMICS OF RAILWAY OPERATION QUESTIONNAIRE (NOTE This questionnaire is not intended to apply to multiple tracks on which the current is reversed at certain hours of the day, unless trains are operated against the current in effect at the time the reverse movement is made.) 1. Does your Company operate tracks against the current of traffic on double or multiple tracks? 2. If so, what is the number of main line tracks used, i. e., 2, 3 or 4? 3. What is length in track miles used in this manner? Is all "double" or "multiple" track so operated or only in special locations? If the latter, please state special circumstances and between what stations. 4. What is the traffic on all tracks? Ans. (Average daily.) Freight Trains. Maximum-Pass. Trains. 5. How many trains are operated against current of traffic? 6. Is the track controlled by Train Order? Manual Block? Automatic Block Signals? Combination of the Above? Maximum-Pass. Trains. Freight Trains. If by Automatic block signals, are they installed so as to secure protection in both directions the same as for single track? Or in one direction only giving rear protection only (straight automatic), as is ordinarily used on two or four tracks. Is control by staff? 7 Are trains operated against current at any time of day when same is necessary to facilitate movement of traffic? Or are they so operated only at stated periods of the day, i, e., morning, evening, night? 8. Are all classes of trains diverted to the opposing track as required. or are the passenger trains only diverted? Or is any distinction made? 9 *What is the maximum distance which you permit a train to run against the current in one movement? 10. Are all facing point crossovers interlocked? If not, what per cent are interlocked? 11. *What is your experience as to the safety in operating trains against current? (The Committee would appreciate a very full reply to this question, also your opinion in order to establish definitely the safety record or hazard under different methods of operation.) 12. What has been approximate extra cost of signals and other facilities made necessary by operation against current? Cost per road mile-$. Total Cost-$.. 13. Has operating against current relieved your company of necessity of building additional main tracks to handle its traffic? If so, how many miles of additional tracks has it saved and approximately what expenditure saved? 14. What in your opinion are the other advantages gained by operating against the current of traffic? *(No. 9) The purpose of this question is to find out if trains are run against current of traffic any extensive distance, and if so how far, or are they returned to the normal track as soon as convenient to do it. (No. 11) The Committee will appreciate a very full reply to this question, also your opinion in order to determine definitely the safety record or hazard under dif ferent methods of operation. OPERATION OF ONE-ENGINE AND TWO-ENGINE TRAINS In Comparison With Three-Engine Trains BY J. E. TEAL The report of the Committee on Economics of Railway Operation for 1920 included a paper on "The Effect of Speed of Trains on the Cost of Operation." This study was based on the operation of the Cumberland Division of the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad, which consists of two freight divisions. The west end freight division crosses the Alleghany Mountain range with maximum grades rated over two per cent, as described in Bulletin 234, Volume 22, February, 1921. In March, 1921, the operation of this freight division was changed from three-engine trains eastbound and two-engine trains westbound to two-engine trains eastbound and one-engine trains westbound. Subsequent records of fuel consumption of these trains prompted the management to have a number of tests made in order to determine, as nearly as possible, the most economical method of operating over the mountain grades, particularly as to fuel consumption. In conducting these tests it was assumed that the standard locomotive ratings, as previously determined for this division, were correct and the speed of freight trains between stops was practically the same in each test. The results, however, are of particular interest and show a much improved operation in getting the trains over the road by the lighter gross train load handled by the one-engine and two-engine trains. Conclusions obtained from the tests follow: (1) Assuming the same number of trains each way per day and filling out at Rinard to 5,000 adjusted tons on three-engine trains eastbound, the coal consumption between terminals on the 100 ton-mile basis is practically the same for the one-engine and two-engine trains as with the two-engine and three-engine trains. (2) The Mallet engine on this division is more economical in coal consumption than the Mikado, where the Mikado is used as a helper on the 17 Mile Grade, westbound, between Piedmont and Altamont. (3) The average miles per hour westbound is practically the same with the one-engine and two-engine trains. (4) The average miles per hour eastbound is practically 7 per cent slower with the three-engine trains than with the twoengine trains. (5) The time lost by stops eastbound with two-engine trains was 2 hours 24 minutes, while with the three-engine trains the time lost was 3 hours 39 minutes, showing one hour and 14 minutes longer, due mostly to cutting in the second helper on the three-engine trains, over what was lost where only one helper was used. The following curves showing the tendency for slow freight trains to take longer time between terminals as the volume of traffic increases also shows the average crew time of one-engine and two-engine trains compared with two-engine and three-engine trains. Since the one-engine and two-engine trains have been operated (March, 1921) the traffic has not been heavy enough to determine the economies of this operation with maximum traffic conditions. A study is now being made to determine the cost of this operation, taking all factors into consideration, as compared with the operation of two-engine and three-engine trains. Place of Test The West End of the Cumberland Division between Grafton and Keyser was selected for this test where these two methods of operation have been in vogue, and page 775 shows the general profile of the division. Fuels Used The fuel used was that usually used on the division and it was mostly from Consolidation 37 and Glendale Mines, all of the nut, pea and slack size. Equipment Used Baltimore & Ohio Mallet locomotive 7133, Class EL-3, was used as road engine on these tests, stoker fired on all runs. The helper on the 17 Mile Grade was Baltimore & Ohio Mikado 4235 Class Q-1-c. It was used as a helper on the rear of the train. The helpers on the other grades were Baltimore & Ohio Mallet 7023 Class EL-4 and Baltimore & Ohio Mallet 7049, Class EL-4. Where one helper was used it was put on the rear of the train. When the second helper was used it was cut in about forty cars from the front of the train. Duration of Tests Five round trips were run with one-Mallet-engine train westbound and two-Mallet-engine train eastbound. Then five round trips were run with two-engine train westbound, consisting of one Mallet and Mikado, and three-Mallet-engine train eastbound filling out at Rinard to 5,000 adjusted tons. General Condition of Tests The conditions under which the tests were run were as near the same as possible, so that the coal consumption under the two different methods of operating would be comparative. The tonnage hauled and other data collected are shown on pages 771 to 774. The Standard coal measuring box was built into the tender of each engine and all the coal used was measured through this box, before going to the stoker trough. The depth of the fire on the grates was the same at the start and finish of each run as far as conditions would allow. |