Re: CN-CP
- From: "John Sutherland" <sutherail@xxxxxxxx>
- To: cpsig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2009 20:45:22 -0000
--- In cpsig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, David HILL <techill@...> wrote:
Hi Re Running in the Frazer canyon.That seems completely opposite to what I
would expect wouldn,t the line with less grade be used up bound and the
steeper line downbound?? That would make sense to me especially when fuel
costs come into play that would be a major consideration for the interchange
of Railways equipment . Also the CPR was the first line thru the canyon so
would have they surveyed the best route possible ? regards DAVID HILL
--- On Fri, 6/19/09, Drew <drew.kay@...> wrote:
Try reading some history, Dave. CP picked the easiest (and safest) side to
build a railway. The specification allowed a maximum grade of 2.2%. So the
route down the Thompson and Fraser canyons has a somewhat roller-coaster
profile as the track followed existing benches and avoided the worst slide
areas.
When the Canadian Northern built through, they kept to a maximum grade of 1%.
Technology had advanced in 25-30 years, so heavier construction was more
feasible. As a result they built a line that was much cheaper to operate (for
successor CN), but the increased capital cost and slower completion helped
force the CNoR into bankruptcy. The CN also inherited a much greater problem
with rock slides, since maintaining the easy grades forced the alignment to
traverse some very unstable locations, and suffer more than its share of
derailments. The CN route also crosses the Fraser and Thompson Rivers in at
least 9 locations, all very expensive bridges, compared to just once for CP.
So the bottom line is that CP did pick the best route possible, accepting a
less favourable profile for the more immediate needs and benefits of safety,
affordability and getting the line into operation as soon as possible.
The CN engines through Kamloops are repaying horsepower hours owed by CN to CP.
Other related posts:
- » CN-CP- John
- » Re: CN-CP - John Sutherland
