A question for those who know the line…is it reasonable to expect most trains going over the hill are adequately powered to maintain track speed while climbing the grade or is that an unrealistic expectation? I asked because I tried several runs west out of Cheyenne and it seemed like all trains would stop gaining speed well below the speed limit once they hit the uphill grade. I expect coal trains etc to be a slower drag, but I would expect higher priority trains like intermodal, autoracks etc to be powered such that they can maintain track speed. I mainly ask because I’m wondering if I’m doing something wrong (maybe DPUs aren’t functioning as expected?) or if my expectations of maintaining track speed just aren’t realistic. Thanks
Try to see some real life railfanning footage taken around Sherman Hill (UP's Laramie Subdivision). It is a usual things that every train run on this subdivision drive that slow. Well, about the speed limit, that's a self explanatory, it's just a limit, not a target.
Railroads assign just enough power to get you up and down the hill. I was surprised we were able to do thirty.
Ok thanks everyone! I had figured they’d want to keep the high priority trains moving at full track speed, but I guess it doesn’t make sense to overpower them for that short stretch.
I watched a grain train do about 5mph up track 3, waited almost an hour for it at Harriman. There is a hill a couple miles from my house here in Missouri that heavy trains often climb at very slow speeds. Trains have stalled numerous times and have needed help to get up the hill, the UP power desk seems to like to cut it really close on how much power they assign to trains.
To add to what StratPlayer62 stated, listening to Railradio.net, it isn’t too uncommon to hear a unit or two fail which drops a consist with marginal power to being under powered to the extent that some need to “doubled” to get over the hill. For those new to heavy freight - doubling means splitting the train in half, placing the first portion in a siding after summiting then reversing back for the rest.
This is a really important thing about freight traffic compared to passenger traffic. Cost matters way more than speed. Sea traffic is getting slower nowadays, because it's cheaper and frieght customers care more about the costs then about an extra day of delivery time. Bringing this back to the world of trains, there have been many experiments on German and French railways to utilise high speed infrastructure for fast overnight freight. None of these have been very succesful, because customers aren't willing to pay the costs for a quicker delivery. I assume the same goes for Sherman Hill. Adding more power to the important trains requires more locos, more fuel, and more maintenance. Unless they're perishables, I don't think the speed matters as much as the cost.
