I notice the difference in height between the two in size in general. Why the difference?
Two big factors are originally built with lower clearances(especially Great Britain), and of course electrification. So in Europe bilevel autoracks and single-stacked containers. The single-stacked containers is less of a expense as in general Western Europe is more densely settled, so the effort to load up a train with double-stacked containers would be wasted, with the new exception being containers shipped from China. A more useful improvement to European railways would be to enable longer trains, in some countries the length limit is only 400 meters.
The electrification started in the early 1900 in Germany when high cube cars weren't even thought of. The electrification limited railcar height from the beginning.
The German loading gauge was determined in 1928. It wasn't changed as a lot of buildings, bridge piers, station platforms were built according to it in the early years. The population density and the narrowness of towns and cities didn't allow easy adjustments.
Container shipping follows a special procedure. Comming from China on mega carriers (20,000+ TEU) containers are transloaded in the large harbors like Rotterdam, Antwerp, Hamburg etc. on smaller container feeders (1,500 to 3,000) and then shipped to smaller harbors e.g. on the Baltic Sea. From all harbors containers are transported by train or truck over much shorter distances than in the USA.
The relatively short length of freight trains is determined by the length of sidings. Currently sidings are extended where necessary for 2,400 ft long freight trains. As passenger trains have absolute priority freight trains must be able to run at 65 to 75 mph not to hinder the passenger trains. Longer freight train length ala USA are counterproductive.Regards, Volker
The containers moving to or from China that might benefit from doublestacking are the ones that move by rail across Kazahkstan, Russia, and Poland before reaching Germany, obviously the ones reaching NW Europe via mega Containership wouldn't benefit.
Of course the problems with tunnels and Electrification are not going away.
beaulieuThe containers moving to or from China that might benefit from doublestacking are the ones that move by rail across Kazahkstan, Russia, and Poland before reaching Germany, obviously the ones reaching NW Europe via mega Containership wouldn't benefit. Of course the problems with tunnels and Electrification are not going away.
Poland has the same catenary height as Germany.
In Russia and Kazahkstan the catanary is at 21 fr. With the typical safety distance to the waggon top of 20 inch they fit in CSX Doublestack (DS) 2, 19'-2''.
Perhaps someone can which restriction come with DS 2 compared to DS 3 which is 1' higher.Regards, Volker
There are also major differences in length and weight. A Spanish company was benchmarking US locomotive assignment and management. They asked what engine we would assign to a train of their typical size, about 300 m and 1000 tonnes. I didn't have heart to tell him, no engine, because on our railroad, that wouldn't be enough traffic to meet the minimum requirements to operate the train. I went with an SD40-2 since that was the smallest road engine we had.
On the other hand, the Australians and Russians run as big or bigger trains than the US.
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
beaulieu The containers moving to or from China that might benefit from doublestacking are the ones that move by rail across Kazahkstan, Russia, and Poland before reaching Germany, obviously the ones reaching NW Europe via mega Containership wouldn't benefit. Of course the problems with tunnels and Electrification are not going away.
CSSHEGEWISCHCatenary height is not even the chief issue. There is also a minor issue of gauge difference that causes its own set of problems.
The containers of one train are transloaded at the borders of China to Russia and Belarus to Poland within one hour. The whole run takes about two weeks so that doesn't matter. If there were not the different coupler systems the gage changing process could be executed on a slowly rolling train with special freight cars.
The train is an offer for those who don't need air transport or find it too expensive but find ship transport too slow with shipping times of 30+ days.Regards, Volker
European railways had to deal with tunnels, bridges etc. built for railroads as they existed in the 1840's-50's, when equipment was very small. They had to carefully design their engines to get the most power out of a limited space. In the US, particularly in the midwest and west, there were few size restrictions, so we just made things bigger.
beaulieuA more useful improvement to European railways would be to enable longer trains, in some countries the length limit is only 400 meters.
That´s right now in the process of changing to 750 meters, requiring changes in signalling.
Happy times!
Ulrich (aka The Tin Man)
"You´re never too old for a happy childhood!"
Good to see you back, Ulrich. Still raining in Hamburg?
Question. Is the channel tunnel loading guage even larger than the US plate "H" ?
blue streak 1 Question. Is the Eurostar loading guage even larger than the US plate "H" ?
Question. Is the Eurostar loading guage even larger than the US plate "H" ?
Eurostar? Perhaps you mean the Channel Tunnel's loading gauge where they operate Rolling Highway trains for loaded semi-trailers. Eurostar operated on the low-clearance routes on the southside of London into Waterloo Station before HS1 was built. It isn't very tall.
I may be exaggerating a bit but it seems that the clearance diagram for British railways is only a bit larger than the one for the Chicago Transit Authority.
CSSHEGEWISCHI may be exaggerating a bit but it seems that the clearance diagram for British railways is only a bit larger than the one for the Chicago Transit Authority.
WITHOUT knowing the facts - is the normal British clearance diagram even up to the level of USA Plate B?
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
blue streak 1Question. Is the Eurostar loading guage even larger than the US plate "H" ?
The Eurotunnel loading gauge is between AAR plates F and H. Eurotunnel: width 13'-5''; height 18'-4''
It is larger than the British and the French loading gauge. So the Euroshuttle trains, transporting trucks or cars, is restricted to the tunnel and the according yards.
There is not one British loading gauge. In the past each railroad had its own.
The current standard gauge, W6A, is the smallest of those, the smalest common denominator. I haven't found a drawing of W6A but the the width seems to be 9'-3'' and the height 13'-0''. Here are historic British loading gauges: http://www.devboats.co.uk/gwdrawings/loadinggauges.phpRegards, Volker
Edit: W6A dimensions corrected
W6A is at the end of the linked article: width 9' 3", height 13"
charlie hebdoW6A is at the end of the linked article: width 9' 3", height 13"
Thank you. Sorry, I didn't expect it anymore. I corrected my post.Regards, Volker
Thanks for the correction. Yes meant channel tunnel. Any idea what the new Gottard base tunnel loading guage is ?
charlie hebdo W6A is at the end of the linked article: width 9' 3", height 13"
13 inches???? (FWIW, Volker got the notation right).
The British loading gauge does appear to be closer to the CTA subway/El lines than AAR plate B. As an example, the North Shore's Electroliners are 9'2" wide and 12'4" high. Don't think a VGN 2-10-10-2 would work on the British rail lines...
- Erik
erikem charlie hebdo W6A is at the end of the linked article: width 9' 3", height 13" 13 inches???? (FWIW, Volker got the notation right). The British loading gauge does appear to be closer to the CTA subway/El lines than AAR plate B. As an example, the North Shore's Electroliners are 9'2" wide and 12'4" high. Don't think a VGN 2-10-10-2 would work on the British rail lines... - Erik
Volker noted the correction in width, even if you could not. Sorry if I had a typo on the abbreviation for feet, which should hve been obvious to anyone.
blue streak 1Any idea what the new Gottard base tunnel loading guage is ?
The distance of buidings etc. to track center is ruled by Swiss loading gauge EBV 4. Its width is roughly 16'-5'', the height is a bit difficult.
Height of contact wire is 17'-8.6''. The necessary space above the contact wire depends on type of catenary.
The outline of the rail equipment is ruled in EBV O4: width is 10'-9.5'', max. height is 15'-5''. In the last 7'' no movable parts are allowed and everything needs to be grounded.
I hope that helps.Regards, Volker
charlie hebdo Volker noted the correction in width, even if you could not. Sorry if I had a typo on the abbreviation for feet, which should hve been obvious to anyone.
My son had an amuisng typo about being part of the staff at a BSA event, referring to the other staff as "other staph"...
FWIW, the 13" brought some amusing thoughts about the UK loading gauge being unusually tight.
FWIW, the 13" brought some amusing thoughts about the UK loading gauge being unusually tight
The problem is at least partly due to the British rail network dating back to 1825.
To visualise the problem, there are photographs of the first of the recent British EMD locomotives, the JT26C (Class 59), visually similar to the more recent JT42CWR (Class 66) standing next to the nose of an SD50. The Class 59 is a little taller than the top of the low nose of the SD50.
So think about that: what was basically an SD40-2 in a full width body not much taller than the nose of an SD40-2.
EMD did a good job fitting it all in, for a start... You would not be surprised to know that they couldn't include dynamic brakes because a large muffler was required to meet the sound requirements.
The JT42CWR are used in Europe where they look small but not ridiculously so.
Of course, there are very much smaller trains in Britain. The London Transport "tube" trains have to fit into a twelve feet diameter tunnel so they are much smaller given that they run on standard gauge track in the base of the "tube".
Peter
erikemFWIW, the 13" brought some amusing thoughts about the UK loading gauge being unusually tight.
Makes for a good chuckle.
Reminds me of the time my son told someone he'd caught a 13' bass...
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
Admittedly, the Talgos are pretty low-slung even by European standards. That being said, I observed that I had a clear view over the roof of the Talgo on the next track at Portland Union Station while sitting in my sleeping car on the Coast Starlight.
CSSHEGEWISCHAdmittedly, the Talgos are pretty low-slung even by European standards.
The Talgo trains use a passive tilting system. The angle of tilt is limited to about 3.5° while active tilt angles can reach 8.6°. The lower center of gravity compensates for part of the angle disadvantage.
The low center of gravity is made possible by the articulated construction and independent wheel suspension. http://trn.trains.com/~/media/images/railroad-reference/ask-trains/july-2011/trn-at0711_a-talgo-suspension.jpg?mw=1000&mh=800
Taken from http://trn.trains.com/railroads/ask-trains/2011/07/talgo-speed-comparison
The Talgo Series 8 (Cascade) wouldn't fit the W6A loading gauge. It is 3'' too wide. Shouldn't be a problem when required.Regards, Volker
M636C FWIW, the 13" brought some amusing thoughts about the UK loading gauge being unusually tight The problem is at least partly due to the British rail network dating back to 1825.
I'm quite aware of the age of the British Rail network and it does make sense that the tunnels and such were built to smaler dimensions than for consruction that started 50-90 years later. An American example is the tight clearances in the lines out of New York City. Or that Alco had to deliver the VGN 2-10-10-2's minus cabs and low pressure cylinnders to fit the NYC clearance.
I don't remember if it was Trains or R&R that had an article about the development of the JT42CWR - it was an impressive feat of engineering in getting the size and weight down. Contrast this to comments about emissions conntrol hardware not fitting in latest locomotives for US use (and the Charger being quite a bit longer than the F40PH to accomodate SCR).
M636C Of course, there are very much smaller trains in Britain. The London Transport "tube" trains have to fit into a twelve feet diameter tunnel so they are much smaller given that they run on standard gauge track in the base of the "tube". Peter
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.