Talk:Cascade Tunnel

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Trains Mid‑importance Trains Portal DYK February 6, 2009 This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article lacks references. It is requested that an a map be included in this article to improve its quality. Please work with the Maps task force to create and add a map to this article. United States: Washington / Eastern Washington Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Washington. This article is supported by WikiProject Washington - Eastern Washington task force.

What is the gradient of the second Cascade tunnel, and which end (E or W) is higher in elevation?

Tabletop 07:54, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The gradient in the tunnel is 1.7% and the higher elevation is at the eastern end.

After reviewing more articles the gradient appears to be closer to 1.6% so I've corrected it. Also close inspection of pictures of the west portal gives the length as 41152 ft. and the elevation as 2247ft. and pictures of the east portal gives the length as 41183 ft. and the elevation as 2881 ft. The difference in length is due to adding to the tunnel for the doors at the east end. The length on the west portal is the original length without the doors. The difference in elevation of 634 ft. divided by the original length of 41152 ft times 100 for percentage gives 1.54% for the gradient. However the gradient is slightly higher since the gradient transitions to level as the track exits the east portal before starting down hill at a 2.2% gradient. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.19.45.169 (talk) 23:17, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More research turn up the precise number as 1.565%. 24.19.45.169 (talk) 02:02, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the article, the gradient in the old tunnel is given as 1.7%. However, the tunnel connected Wellington on the west with Cascade Station on the east. The elevation of Tye (= Wellington) is 3,264 ft ( http://www.lat-long.com/Latitude-Longitude-1530262-Washington-Tye.html ) and the elevation of Cascade Station is 3,383 ft ( http://myweb.msoe.edu/~westr/stevens.htm ). The difference in elevation is 119 ft, which, divided by the tunnel length (13,813 ft) yields a gradient of just 0.9%. So which gradient is correct, and what are the elevations of both portals? 79.199.55.159 (talk) 10:46, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the old tunnel didn't avoid all switchbacks, and that there was one at Scenic and one north of Deception Falls. Is this correct? --SPUI (talk) 20:13, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind - I found a map that shows a sharp hairpin curve at each end. The one north of Deception Falls was in a tunnel. --SPUI (talk) 23:26, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

the article states "It is the longest tunnel in the United States." i think it was the longest tunnel when originally constructed, but is it still? there are longer tunnels that are not rail tunnels - there's a 100+ mile tunnel providing water to NYC, for instance, but i'm not sure if there are longer rail tunnels or road tunnels in the US. —The preceding

Can someone familiar with the subject clarify the ventilation system? At present, it refers to trains entering the EASTERN portal, which means trains going downhill. Why would they need any ventilation at all? And why does closing doors and turning on fans at the same time help? - I would have thought closing doors would defeat the purpose of the fans. --Ian Page 23:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"In addition there are stations spaced every 1500 and 2500 (based on location in tunnel) that provide additional air tanks and equipment to be used in the event of a failure."

What measurement is being used here? Murderbike 07:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the measurement is feet. However, I could not find any reference to verify it. The fans and doors go together and are at the east end of the tunnel. Turning on the fans without closing the doors will allow the air to blow out the east end without ventilating the tunnel. The tunnel is basically 8 miles long and a 100 car freight train is around a mile long or 1/8 of the tunnel. A train travels at 20-25 mph through the tunnel taking around 20 minutes to traverse the tunnel. A train in the tunnel is like a piston in a cylinder. It pushes the air in the tunnel out ahead of it. This leaves the hot exhaust gases in the tunnel causing the engines on the next train through the tunnel to overheat. Even a westbound (downhill) train will have the engines idling. Blowing both fans behind a westbound train will clear the tunnel of exhaust gases as the train exits the tunnel allowing the next train to immediately enter. For more detailed information see http://www.halcyon.com/tawhite/CASCADE%20TUNNEL.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.19.45.169 (talk) 20:18, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I separated the material on the original Cascade Tunnel from the material on the second Cascade Tunnel to make it easier to add material and perhaps at some point create separate articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.19.45.169 (talk) 23:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright Tag entered. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.77.221.54 (talk) 12:40, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article says current tunnel "was built ... by A. Guthrie of St. Paul, Minnesota." Would that be Arlo Guthrie? Ha. Is there a more complete name for the contractor? Sca (talk) 17:52, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article gives the power of each unit as 1500 hp. However, the article

• William D. Middleton in When the Steam Railroads Electrified gives the figure of 1500 hp; although it's not footnoted I assume that's where the number in this article came from. Middleton tends to be authoritative on this subject. An article from Railway Age from 1909 says that the specification called for 1000 hp, but that the locomotives did 1500 in operation, with 1900 as a maximum. The Electric Journal from 1911 gives the 1900 figure. A contemporary GE bulletin backs this up: four traction motors, each with a specified output (over three hours) of 250 hp, with an output in tests from 375 hp to 475 hp, depending on voltage and air (for cooling?). That gives a combined figure of 1000 hp specified, and 1500-1900 hp in operation. Brian Solomon in Electric Locomotives follows Middleton. Mackensen (talk) 00:13, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Electric locos have two ratings, starting and continuous. I suspect that is the cause of the confusion.Sturmovik (talk)
  • @Sturmovik: That's possible, but the sources appear to discuss the expected continuous output compared to the actual performance of the production models. Further clarification would help, do you have additional sources? Most modern sources follow Middleton so they aren't much help. Mackensen (talk) 02:26, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Trying to analyze the rating of electric locos from a century ago to what we understand today seems like comparing apples with oranges. It is true that modern electric locos have a continuous rating and a maximum rating (generally for one hour). But trying to relate this to what was done back in 1909 for a system that was only a four miles in length is pushing things too far. For a start, the locos would have been designed for this very specific location and duty, whereas modern locos tend to be more general purpose in nature. For what its worth, I have some other sources of data. (1) Burch (1911), p.134 quotes a figure of 1700 h.p. (2) Manson (1923), Table F, Line 8, p.318-319 quotes a one hour of 1500 h.p. and a continuous of 1400 h.p. Whilst I have the greatest respect for Middleton, and he always listed all of his sources, for early locomotives I prefer to rely on data published closer to the time. Luckily Manson gives us a very complete listing, including the actual motor reference which is either "GE I506" or "GE 1506" - KirksKeyKard (talk) 10:45, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • When dealing with overload or observed power ratings of electrics I believe the standard practice is to use the catalogue listed motor hp as the official rating and then explain that there was an overload capability. That's how its done on the
        PRR GG1 article. You need to find out the exact motors used and then get the hp rating. I'm sure it's in Google Books somewhere.Sturmovik (talk) 12:13, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply
        ]
        • I've made my contribution. From the evidence collected the rating of 1500 h.p. may not be exactly right, but it's well within the range of what various sources state. On that basis, it gives a reader a good idea of the relative power of this locomotive in comparison to others. I don't see any overwhelming reason to change it, other than an OCD need to be precise. KirksKeyKard (talk) 13:26, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • My final words on this issue. From Manson, we get that the one-hour tractive effort was 38,000 lbf (170 kN). Based on the maximum speed of 15 mph, and doing the maths, then this equates to a one-hour power of 1528 h.p. (1140 kW), which just happens to be right where the article claims. Also, motor power does not equate to the power at the wheels because of losses in the transmission, it is just the power at the output shaft. In other words, multiplying the number of motors by the motor power (as printed on the rating plate) is not the same as the actual power required to pull a train. If you want a to learn more about this subject, and the maths, then I suggest you read Andrews, H.I. (1986). Railway Traction, The Principles of Mechanical and Electrical Railway Traction. Elsevier.
            ISBN 0-444-42489-X. - KirksKeyKard (talk) 15:40, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply
            ]
            • I've added a full-text reference to a 1909 paper by Hutchinson, of a presentation given to the American Institute of Electrical Engineers. As he was consulting engineer this should be definitive enough. He states that "the specification of the motor required an output of 250 h.p. continuously for three hours ....". As there were four motors per locomotive, that adds up to 1000 h.p.. But as he also makes clear, the actual performance of the motors greatly exceeded the specification, giving a continuous output of 375 h.p., a total of 1500 h.p.. So you can take your pick. I've left in the 1500 h.p. figure, but if you want to add more technical clarification that's fine. Kognos (talk) 10:07, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cascade Tunnel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050314190422/http://www.btinternet.com:80/~ucrs/ucrs/rl/rl470.html to http://www.btinternet.com/~ucrs/ucrs/rl/rl470.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:02, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]