|
Post by emd16645 on Jan 13, 2014 10:53:40 GMT -5
Hey guys,
So I’ve been doing a lot of thinking lately about my plans for my Eastern Alaska and Yukon (EAY) railroad and my future layout, and was looking for some insight from the forum.
First some background on my concept: The EAY was built to connect Anchorage, Alaska to the rest of the North American railroad system in the late 1950’s through the 1960’s. The scenario I’ve developed has the EAY interchanging with the Alaska RR at Palmer, just north of Anchorage (as opposed to Delta Junction, which is where the modern proposals are focusing). From there, the line runs east to connect with the BC Rail Dease Lake line (in my world this line was completed), with trackage rights / haulage agreement to the CN interchange at Prince George, BC. Also of interest, the EAY connects to White Pass and Yukon at Whitehorse, YT (does not directly interchange due to gauge difference). This background I’m fairly comfortable saying that it is pretty well set in stone at this point.
The big question I’ve been struggling with lately is the era. Initially, this railroad concept was developed with a focus on the Alaska side of things. I spent a summer in Alaska eight years ago, and absolutely fell in love with the railroad and landscape there. I opted for the freelanced line to give me the flexibility I wanted in running my road rather than sticking to strict prototype operations on the ARR. When I originally set the era for my railroad, I chose the year 2000. I chose this year as this was the first year that the ARR operated their SD70MACs, which I really wanted to include. Also, it opens up the possibility of big, modern foreign power for run though operations (SD70MACs, AC4400s, etc). Note: I plan that foreign power will primarily run on through coal trains, with manifest trains being handled by homeroad or BC Rail power.
Lately though, I’ve really been my interest has shifted the BC Rail side of things. I really enjoy seeing all the pictures of the scenery with the mix of Alco/MLW, GE and EMD power operated by the BC Rail, all of which I’d like to include on my layout. Prototypically, the 6-axle MLWs were replaced by the GE 8-40CMs purchased in 1990. Also, I’d like to have a few of the Dash 9’s the BC Rail bought starting in 1995. The other plus side to the 1990 concept is the variety of foreign power that could appear, rather than likely being a few locomotive types.
So my dilemma boils down to justifying running power that was retired in 1990 with power bought new in 2000. Obviously, I could use the “it’s my railroad, I run what I like” excuse, but in this case I feel like it’s a cop out. I could possibly make the claim that traffic levels went up in the early 90’s, justifying the extended use of the Alcos, and possibly justifying a somewhat earlier order for the later new power, but at the same time 10 years is a pretty big gap to try and close together. As far as home road power, The EAY purchased a fleet of SD40-2Ws in the early 1970’s, which were upgraded/supplemented with a large fleet of SD60s purchased in the late 1980’s. This leaves the SD60s being the prime power in either the 1990 scenario or the 2000 scenario.
Basically I am looking for the following: 1) opinions regarding trying to compress the 1990’s and running the MLWs past their 1990 retirement date, along with possible early ordering of ARR SD70MACs, and 2) instead of trying to justify mixing the two, I’d be interested in knowing what the membership of the DD would be more interested in seeing.
Chris
|
|
|
Post by poweredby251 on Jan 13, 2014 11:51:56 GMT -5
Have the EAY purchase the retired BCR loco's you want to run, and just patch them with EAY markings. John Hey guys, So I’ve been doing a lot of thinking lately about my plans for my Eastern Alaska and Yukon (EAY) railroad and my future layout, and was looking for some insight from the forum. First some background on my concept: The EAY was built to connect Anchorage, Alaska to the rest of the North American railroad system in the late 1950’s through the 1960’s. The scenario I’ve developed has the EAY interchanging with the Alaska RR at Palmer, just north of Anchorage (as opposed to Delta Junction, which is where the modern proposals are focusing). From there, the line runs east to connect with the BC Rail Dease Lake line (in my world this line was completed), with trackage rights / haulage agreement to the CN interchange at Prince George, BC. Also of interest, the EAY connects to White Pass and Yukon at Whitehorse, YT (does not directly interchange due to gauge difference). This background I’m fairly comfortable saying that it is pretty well set in stone at this point. The big question I’ve been struggling with lately is the era. Initially, this railroad concept was developed with a focus on the Alaska side of things. I spent a summer in Alaska eight years ago, and absolutely fell in love with the railroad and landscape there. I opted for the freelanced line to give me the flexibility I wanted in running my road rather than sticking to strict prototype operations on the ARR. When I originally set the era for my railroad, I chose the year 2000. I chose this year as this was the first year that the ARR operated their SD70MACs, which I really wanted to include. Also, it opens up the possibility of big, modern foreign power for run though operations (SD70MACs, AC4400s, etc). Note: I plan that foreign power will primarily run on through coal trains, with manifest trains being handled by homeroad or BC Rail power. Lately though, I’ve really been my interest has shifted the BC Rail side of things. I really enjoy seeing all the pictures of the scenery with the mix of Alco/MLW, GE and EMD power operated by the BC Rail, all of which I’d like to include on my layout. Prototypically, the 6-axle MLWs were replaced by the GE 8-40CMs purchased in 1990. Also, I’d like to have a few of the Dash 9’s the BC Rail bought starting in 1995. The other plus side to the 1990 concept is the variety of foreign power that could appear, rather than likely being a few locomotive types. So my dilemma boils down to justifying running power that was retired in 1990 with power bought new in 2000. Obviously, I could use the “it’s my railroad, I run what I like” excuse, but in this case I feel like it’s a cop out. I could possibly make the claim that traffic levels went up in the early 90’s, justifying the extended use of the Alcos, and possibly justifying a somewhat earlier order for the later new power, but at the same time 10 years is a pretty big gap to try and close together. As far as home road power, The EAY purchased a fleet of SD40-2Ws in the early 1970’s, which were upgraded/supplemented with a large fleet of SD60s purchased in the late 1980’s. This leaves the SD60s being the prime power in either the 1990 scenario or the 2000 scenario. Basically I am looking for the following: 1) opinions regarding trying to compress the 1990’s and running the MLWs past their 1990 retirement date, along with possible early ordering of ARR SD70MACs, and 2) instead of trying to justify mixing the two, I’d be interested in knowing what the membership of the DD would be more interested in seeing. Chris
|
|
|
Post by antlorch on Jan 13, 2014 14:54:50 GMT -5
I would move on from the MLW's and keep the SD60's as the main power with help from a couple SD40-2W's still in active service. And at this time I would be introducing the SD70MAC's new to the EAY. Use some GP style engine for yard switching and local work also.
Just some thoughts.
|
|
|
Post by emd16645 on Jan 13, 2014 16:57:37 GMT -5
Anthony, you are pretty much spot on with my plans for my EAY roster. Basically my thought had been several GP38-2s for local power with a few SD38/39s for switching power. Road power would primarily be SD60s. I decided that the EAY installed a signaling system that requires cab signals, so several SD40-2Ws are used in leader service for foreign power along with fill in for the road sets.
Another branch of the the EAY is the Matanuska Rail Leasing Division (MRLX). The primary function for the MRLX is to provide unit trains for lease to haul coal from alaska to stateside power plants. MRLX uses SD70MACs for this service. As of 2000, the EAY had yet to purchase SD70MACs, but my plan had them purchasing some in the 2002 timeframe and returning for SD70ACes in 2005.
I think the only plausible use for the MLWs would be in secondhand service on my previously posted CMRC mining shoreline.
|
|
|
Post by antlorch on Jan 13, 2014 17:25:56 GMT -5
Nice new shinny SD70MAC's for the EAY will be nice next to the wore SD60's. Are these going to be painted in same scheme as the SD60's with the lease reporting marks in small letters on the cab side maybe?
Do the SD60's include the M series?
Got a paint scheme as of yet?
|
|
|
Post by emd16645 on Jan 13, 2014 20:14:41 GMT -5
I have a paint scheme figured out, and a few partially painted SD60s. I will post drawings tomorrow when I have the files handy. The MRLX scheme will be similar in design, but a different color scheme. Technically speaking, MRLX owns all EAY power on paper (similar to other railroad arrangements), so the general lease power will be painted in the lease scheme.
I had planned for exclusively doing standard cab SD60s, but I have a few widecabs in my collection that I might do as well.
|
|
|
Post by MitchGDRMCo on Jan 13, 2014 20:19:04 GMT -5
Knowing ARR only got the SD70MACs due to the radial bogies, they were limited to 4-axle power before. I'm guessing the EAY doesn't have the same curve problems?
|
|
|
Post by emd16645 on Jan 14, 2014 4:13:45 GMT -5
Knowing ARR only got the SD70MACs due to the radial bogies, they were limited to 4-axle power before. I'm guessing the EAY doesn't have the same curve problems? Correct. Keep in mind that the ARR was completed in 1923. The EAY was completed to modern standards in the 1960s and also has undertaken several projects to modernize the right of way to keep pace with newer equipment.
|
|
|
Post by emd16645 on Jan 14, 2014 14:02:19 GMT -5
|
|
georgiaroad
Chairman
Purveryor of all things of the prototype freelance GEORGIA ROAD
Posts: 250
|
Post by georgiaroad on Jan 16, 2014 0:09:43 GMT -5
One thing about the Alaska RR, it is a boom and bust operation. When the oil business is booming, so is the ARR, and so would any overland connection railroad. In hard times, a good chunk of revenue could quickly dry up. A good example was the BCR Tumbler Ridge trains. I caught the series on Travel Channel about the Alaska RR and they document how the railroad is struggling due to the Great Recession and beyond. Up until the last twenty years or so, the ARR was a government subsidized operation that was basically a lifeline to the military bases and all the urban sprawl that was associated with them. As military rationalized in the 90s, the oil boom made up for it and then some. Now Alaska is behind many states in oil and mineral production.
I say all this to say your connection railroad would also be much dependent on not only industry in the area it crosses (likely timber and export coal) but highly sensitive to changes in its interchange partner ARR. This would lead to two schools of thought in locomotive power acquisition, both played out on the ARR in reality. For many years in the 1970s.1980s and very early 1990s, Alaska kept its railroad running with what it had. It rebuilt its own GP units, and bought second hand or refurbished units, filling in gaps with new locomotive purchases. In the 2000s, the feel of the railroad was changing, DPU technology was finally generally accepted and they found that a few DPU new units could replace much of the older, more maintenance intensive power for a leaner railroad.
In terms of your railroad, it would not be odd the not only copy what the BCR was buying as add on to the builds, but to buy the cast offs from BCR as a way to cheaply maintain a working stable of locomotives without breaking the bank in the lean times. Personally, I would figure your road would buy the BCR ahead of CN to keep itself firmly entrenched as the Yukon route and as the ARR primary overland interchange partner. The system would have a split personality in some ways. It would look and work like the BCR on the British Columbia side, with heavy timber and mineral revenue, and on the Yukon side be little more than a fast track to and from the ARR. The Yukon side would be looking for heavy units to move freight over the overland leg to ARR. New heavy power would make sense here, while the old MILW and GP units would be kept to do the road switching, terminal support and transfer. In some cases, sticking with the traditional older stuff is cost effective over paying a capital (mortgage) lease on new power where its cost cannot be effectively matched with the needs of certain types of service. It could be a stable part supply on hand, familiarity of maintenance crews with the older power, good general upkeep practices, and the fact that the units are completely amortized (no capital cost).
Had your railroad built itself in the BCR image and later purchased it to keep CN from dictating its south end, you would make the decision when or if to retire and what if anything you should add. Combining the YNRail with BCRail would streamline some operations where the BCR and YNR meet you would have some duplicity rationalized, some operations combined and some locomotives displaced. As you work further away from merger day, you can go your own way or look to how CN rationalized the BCR in how it reassigned power, changed trains etc. That would give you a template as to how to update your motive power, though your system would not be quite to fast to totally change as the bigger CN did to the BCR with its ranks of EMDs displaced by new EMDs and GEs.
I see the YNRail looking just like the Red White and Blue BCR and in the later years just after the merger going to the same dip job BCR was giving its older GE units. IN the YNR case, I would change the blue to a different primary color--maybe red.
Get Anthony Lorch of the Kansas Pacific to show you his CI Rail scheme design. It would really work on the YNR. I can see a mix of BCR and YNR units rolling up to Palmer Lake, the BCR units in the Blue and silver and the YNR in maybe a red or Green--- all lettered with the same BCR font---who knows...
|
|
|
Post by emd16645 on Jan 16, 2014 7:46:07 GMT -5
Hank,
Thanks for your information. I really appreciate the insight.
You are right in that the oil and mineral commodities have a cycle of boom or bust. However, I see a rail connection between Alaska and BC as a means to stabilize that cycle. The EAY provides a much more robust and regular means of transport into the state as compared to by ship.
You are correct that timber products and coal will be two major commodities on the EAY. A third major commodity that will be tapped into are the extensive iron ore reserves in the Yukon Territory. In fact, a study accomplished in the last few years estimated the traffic hauled on a line from Alaska to BC would be up to 60% ore products. An additional traffic source would be intermodal traffic from Asia. Currently, the ARR is building a connection to Port Mackenzie, a terminal north of Anchorage which will increase container traffic on the ARR. With the construction of the connection to the rest of North America, it is quite conceivable that such a project would be undertaken at a much earlier point in time. Regarding the purchasing of locomotives, I have employed the following. My intent was that on startup in the 1960’s, the EAY utilized locomotives from the second hand market, which likely would be early geeps and SDs. Being that in the early 1960s, EMD was the largest producer, and arguable the most reliable locomotives on the market. In the 1970’s the secondhand startup power was wearing out, so the EAY stuck with EMD (not willing to shift to the startup GE product line) and ordered a fleet of GMD GP38-2s in 1973 and GMD SD40-2Ws in the late 70’s, tacked on to CN orders. The deregulation and recession of 1980 hit all the railroad hard, but traffic rebounded towards the end of the decade. In the late 80’s the EAY needed additional power. Secondhand power and rebuilds were considered, but ultimately the EAY opted in 1987 to add 20 locomotives to the first SOO Line SD60 order for mainline power. The new units were successful, replacing the SD40s on a 3-2 ratio, so the EAY added additional units to each of the SOO’s successive orders, the last order consisting of SD60Ms. For secondary services (locals, wayfrieghts, etc), the EAY purchased several secondhand GP38-2s in the late 1980’s and early 90’s. The repeated purchases from EMD echo the purchasing of the ARR for EMD only products.
I see the railroad following the BCR (and ARR) fluctuations fairly closely, due to the common commodities hauled as well as their connections. Therefore, when traffic is booming on the ARR and BCR, resulting in new power purchases, then it is likely that the EAY would do the same. The BC Rail purchased several SD40s from GMD in 1980, CN orders for GMD SD40-2Ws began in 1975, going through 1980. At the same time, in leaner times, none of the roads would likely be buying much power, if any, and I doubt that they would be trying purchase power from each other. You are absolutely right with your thought about the EAY purchasing the BCR instead on CN. The purchase of the BCR occurred in 2004, and I am focusing on modelling prior to that date. However, the purchase of the BCR by CN was also fraught with accusations of corruption and insider trading. The CP Rail wanted to bid on the property, but ultimately did not, instead accusing the BC government for providing CN with inside information regarding BCR finances, etc. If a similar situation occurred with the EAY, then the EAY may be powerless to prevent a CN purchase of the BCR (although some concessions would be required regarding interchange points, etc).
I anticipate that only up to half of the manifest traffic delivered to the BCR from the EAY originates on the ARR, in fact it probably would be much less. The ARR does not haul forest products in any significant quantities, those would be more likely to originate along the EAY right of way. My scenario builds a paper mill in the Palmer, AK area (still on the EAY) which ships paper loads south. The operation schedule I developed has manifest trains to the south originating at the following locations: two at Palmer (likely one for ARR interchange and one for local industries), one at Tok, AK (200 miles east of Palmer for local industries), and one at Whitehorse (again, local industries). Also an additional train would likely be generated at Dease Lake, but this would be a BCR train on BCR rails. Any intermodal traffic would be runthrough off the ARR. Coal traffic would mostly come off the ARR as well. It has been reported that there are coal fields in Alaska that are much more substantial than the Powder River Basin. Therefore, when the BN began building into the PRB in the 1970s, the ARR and EAY decided to push into the Alaskan fields as competition to the PRB coal. Today, the PRB generates approximately 80 trains per day, in my scenario, about half that number instead originate in Alaska. I agree with your thoughts about using older power for road switching and local work, hence the continued use of the GP38-2s. for the mainline trains, as size increases, then additional power is obviously required, hence the later purchase of SD60s. After the ARR successfully deployed the SD70MAC for operations on their lines, the EAY evaluated using the same power as well, leading to orders in 2002 and SD70Aces starting in 2005.
I anticipate that the EAY/BCR line from Prince George, BC to at least Whitehorse would be run with a power pool agreement, so mixing of EAY and BCR power will likely occur. I’ve only been really focused on things prior to a sale of the BCR, so I haven’t given a whole lot of thought to operations after a merger.
I would like to see what Anthony has come up with for his road. I know he has put a lot of thought into his KP road, as you have into your Georgia Road and other lines. There may even be need for some common runthrough power in the future ;-)
|
|
|
Post by emd16645 on Jan 16, 2014 8:27:40 GMT -5
The last few posts had some specific locations mentioned. The image below labels the major locations of the railroad for your reference. Edit: I just realized that Palmer is not labelled. Palmer is located at the highway junction just northeast of Anchorage.
|
|
georgiaroad
Chairman
Purveryor of all things of the prototype freelance GEORGIA ROAD
Posts: 250
|
Post by georgiaroad on Jan 19, 2014 21:14:33 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by emd16645 on Jan 19, 2014 22:07:06 GMT -5
Thanks for the link
|
|
|
Post by jmlaboda on Jan 22, 2014 16:37:25 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by emd16645 on Feb 20, 2014 7:10:10 GMT -5
I've been working on putting together a roster for the EAY. This is what I've developed so far. Right now I am looking at modeling somewhere between 1990 and 2000.
Road Numbers Quantity Man. Model Heritage Acquired Service EAY 2001 2019 20 GMD GP38-2W New 1972-75 Local/Switching EAY 2020 2039 20 EMD GP38-2 Ex. MP 1990 Local/Switching EAY 2301 2306 6 EMD GP39-2 New 1973 Passenger EAY 2351 2356 6 EMD SD39 New 1970 Yard Switching EAY 3001 3076 75 GMD SD40-2W New 1975-78 Road Power EAY 3101 3176 2 EMD SD49W Rebuild 1994 Road Power EAY 3801 3899 99 EMD SD60 New 1985-88 Road Power EAY 4001 4025 25 EMD SD70I New 1995 Road Power MRLX 4026 4099 74 EMD SD70MAC New 1997-98 Coal Service EAY 4101 4199 99 EMD SD70MAC New 1998-99 Road Power EAY 4301 4350 50 EMD SD70ACe New 2005 Road Power
|
|
|
Post by milwelfan on Dec 20, 2015 20:00:29 GMT -5
How was the Eastern Alaska and Yukon started? Would it be jointly owned by Alaska, British Columba and the Yukon? Is it an extention of an existing line or a whole new line? Will it have a connection to a deep water port in it's middle? The used locomotive market in the 1960s was very limited and the locomotive requirements for the line would be limited until the line was completed. Then it would probably be power short for the next decade. I think the overhead traffic would have a major affect on all three lines. An eastern Canadian ore line rebuilt their MLW units with PLCs and used them until they were replaced by Dash 9s.
|
|
pault
Road Foreman
Posts: 57
|
Post by pault on Aug 29, 2018 10:31:36 GMT -5
to me this is interesting I like to see how others are doing things as I mostly model current roads from the 70s to late 2000s as vision has become an issue don't do as much kitbashing or scratch building as i'd like
|
|