Canadian Railroads > Sightseer Sunday - Rocky Mountaineer at Seddall and Lasha

Continuing the series (getting my RMRR shots scanned and posted), resumed two weeks ago, this time it's August 14, 2006. I can't quite figure out from my photo logs and the Logan file why we didn't pick up the WB Rocky Mountaineer, #609, much further east.
1. We're humming along the TransCanada Highway near Seddall at 1042, where things lined up to get a shot or two through the open Jeep window. Former CN units are in charge, 8012 and 8015; you'll notice the very different fuel tanks on this pair. The lead unit is former CN 9562, GP40-2L(W), and 8015 is the former CN 9635, GP40-2(W), 2000 lbs lighter according to the TSG. I'm guessing the fuel tanks are 4,000 US gallons (3,340 Imperial) and 3,200 US gallons (2,672 Imperial), respectively; these are the two standard capacities.
2. At 1106 we were in position at Lasha, as the train is about to enter the last tunnel at this series of slide sheds and tunnels. The purple and orange rocks are a very distinctive feature at the west end of White Canyon, as it's (sometimes?) called. This location is gained by a short walk from a pull-out which is just past a whitewater adventure company's site.
Fred

---

---

Nice images !!  I had the 8015 on the BC Rail for a few trips and recall the 8013 leading for many trips one season on the the RMR on BC Rail. Another oddity was the 8017 for a few trips (trailing) and in my notes I saw it while railfanning in Ontario when it was Penn Central 3114.
Also very near if not at the spot of your second image is where a CN train hit a rock slide and the crew rode the lead unit down to the edge of the river and spent a miserable night waiting for rescue. Lucky to have survived with minor injuries.
Doug

Standard EMD fuel tanks on most later four axles were 3600g and 2600g which I believe is what you're seeing here.  The profile of the tank is such that it is just about exactly 200g per linear foot. 

hoggerdoug Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Nice images !!  I had the 8015 on the BC Rail for
> a few trips and recall the 8013 leading for many
> trips one season on the the RMR on BC Rail.
> Another oddity was the 8017 for a few trips
> (trailing) and in my notes I saw it while
> railfanning in Ontario when it was Penn Central
> 3114.
> Also very near if not at the spot of your second
> image is where a CN train hit a rock slide and the
> crew rode the lead unit down to the edge of the
> river and spent a miserable night waiting for
> rescue. Lucky to have survived with minor
> injuries.
> Doug

I have some info on that; it made the papers when it happened, and I tracked it down on the web. The photos were perfect for lectures I used to give on mass movements, and the methods used to mitigate their effects. The Lock Block wall wasn't up to the scale of the flow (not slide; my sloppy slide caption) or avalanche. The images are from the website noted; I hoped to track it down to give a link or better credit, but it appears this domain is for sale i.e. inactive. These are screenshots of my PowerPoint lecture slides.
Fred



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/28/21 18:31 by feclark.

---

---

---

Chessie Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Standard EMD fuel tanks on most later four axles
> were 3600g and 2600g which I believe is what
> you're seeing here.  The profile of the tank is
> such that it is just about exactly 200g per linear
> foot. 

Thanks for the note of fuel tank capacities; I was thinking of the SD40-2 tank sizes. I see in Zuter's 1993 CP Rail book that the GP38-2 tank on those was 2,000 Imperial gallons, about 2,400 USG, a bit shy of your 2600 number. Scaling the length of the tanks in the broadside view makes the long one around 3,600, which would be around 3,000 Imperial gallons.
Fred

A further note about the piles of flow debris that are stacked up by CN as they clear the tracks. You'll occasionally see a foreman and crew out with a Pettibone or its equivalent clearing the tracks, but apparently they have to keep it on the ROW, and can't push it over the side to the river below. This is for environmental reasons; the rule-makers don't seem to understand that the debris would have made it to the river without the rails being there, so they are inadvertently starving the river of part of its normal sediment supply that would be part of the balance between erosion and sediment supply.
Fred