Trains.com

Number of freight cars allowed on train

74930 views
27 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Number of freight cars allowed on train
Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, May 24, 2001 9:35 PM
I was wondering if anyone had information on the number of freight cars allowed on a train. I was reading a article on the interstate commerece commision and now i forgot how many freight cars are allowed on a moving train. Any information would be appreciated
  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, May 24, 2001 9:56 PM
I would be surprised (but not quite shocked!) if there were a number of cars allowed by law (or regulation) on a single train. I would think that it would be a practical limit because of drawbar pulling capacity. I remember when I was young that my father would turn off the engine of the car if more than three engines were at the front of a train and we were waiting at a crossing. Sometimes there would be two more farther back in the same train. Funny thing is that now I would think that wait was a great event, but back then I just wanted the train to go by so we could get moving. Ed
  • Member since
    April 2001
  • From: US
  • 2,849 posts
Posted by wabash1 on Thursday, May 24, 2001 9:58 PM
other railroads maybe differant but on the ns we are restricted to 150 cars unless its a radio train. the other exception is if the cheif dispatcher authorize for more cars.
  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Friday, May 25, 2001 4:45 PM
It's usually not the number of cars but the length of the train (in feet) that would be the governing factor. Considerations would have to include the length of sidings along the route to accommodate meets with other trains. Also, the longer the train, the less responsive the air brake system will be. In addition, at least up here, winter temperatures also play a part in limiting train length. Normally, the limitations are stated in terms of train length and not the total number of cars. Mid-train power and air repeater cars allow for some very long trains even in winter months. We ran some that were 10 to 11 thousand feet this winter.

Bob Dunn
Canadian Pacific Rwy
Winnipeg, Canada
  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Saturday, May 26, 2001 12:30 PM
VERY INTERESTING CHART----I GET LOT OF INFO FROM THESE>>>>>.THANKS HUB
  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Saturday, May 26, 2001 12:31 PM
I GOOFED THAT SHOULD BE CHATS,NOT (CHARTS) OOP'S
  • Member since
    January 2001
  • From: Niue
  • 735 posts
Posted by thirdrail1 on Sunday, May 27, 2001 11:02 AM
The Interstate Commerce Commission no longer exists. There has never been a governmental limitation on the length of trains. Each railroad limits train length, and may vary it by line of road dependent on siding length, grades, restrictions on time blocking highway crossings in towns, and type of train, as it is easier to handle a train of all the same type of car in the same status (load or empty) than a train of mixed type cars both loaded and empty.
"The public be ***ed, it's the Pennsylvania Railroad I'm competing with." - W.K.Vanderbilt
  • Member since
    May 2008
  • 77 posts
Posted by Justicar on Sunday, May 27, 2001 7:17 PM
I agree with Gregg. AFAIK, there has never been a legal limit on the number of cars in a train by law or buraucratic regulation. Unlike locomotive inspections, for example. Each railroad probably has its own policies on car counts but they're sure not telling us. I've seen nearly 140 to date.
Physically there really isn't any limit, or more precisely, not really any limit that we're going to test. Given enough horsepower in the right place on flat terrain and several hundred cars could be transported without much fuss.

Lastly, labor unions can dictate car counts in trains, like they can dictate most anything. On the Milwaukee there used to be a limit of 120 cars. The unions have since sold that provision of the contract, along with many others, for other things like better benefits, quality of life, etc.

jc
CP-TCT
  • Member since
    April 2001
  • From: US
  • 62 posts
Posted by PaulWWoodring on Thursday, May 31, 2001 2:52 PM
Physics really dictate the absolute limits of train length. CSX, like all other railroads has guidelines for train length. Trainline air doesn't work well much beyond 10,000 ft. and works worse in cold weather, coupler knuckles are designed to be able to withstand about 250,000 lbs. of tractive effort, and it's always best to have loads on the front of the train. I've heard stories of incredibly long/heavy trains in past years, but it looks like things have settled down to practical limits of about 10,000 tons for general merchandise trains, 20,000 tons for unit trains of coal, grain or other bulk commodities and a max. length of 160 cars for loaded coal trains with helpers on the rear. About 11,000 ft. has been the longest trains I've heard of since I've been with CSX since '99.
  • Member since
    May 2008
  • 77 posts
Posted by Justicar on Thursday, May 31, 2001 3:09 PM
My old-head engineer last night was telling me a story back when he was an operator in Mankato, MN about some dispatcher being a bit obnoxious telling the yardmaster to throw every car you got on this train get him out of town. The train left town with 244 cars much to the dispatcher's consternation.
  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Monday, June 11, 2001 3:02 AM
244 cars! How many engines? Anyone got any comments on the UP Challenger-hauled freight in 1990?

Jason.
  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Monday, July 2, 2001 10:17 PM
If I remember correcly, I believe there was an ICC regulation that restricted the number of cars with inoperative brakes on a freight train. I believe the ratio was something like there could be no more than one out of every ten cars with defective brakes. The other cars could provide the additional braking force for the defective car. This allowed a defective car(s) to be moved for repairs. Perhaps this is what you are refering to. Anyone with more knowlege care to update this?
  • Member since
    April 2001
  • From: US
  • 2,849 posts
Posted by wabash1 on Tuesday, July 3, 2001 11:07 AM
in the trusty NS rules at initial terminal you must have 100% working brakes after you leave for what ever reason the amount of brakes in your train cut out can not exceed 80% and you cannot cut out the head car or the rear car. other railroads may be differant.
  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Tuesday, July 3, 2001 2:49 PM
A bit off from the original question, but it was claimed that a UP Big Boy could move a loaded train 5 miles long on level ground. Based on the typical 40 ft car of the era that would have been about 660 cars. Anyone know if it was actually tried, or was this claim based on theoretical calculations based on tractive effort, drawbar pull etc? Ron
  • Member since
    January 2001
  • From: Niue
  • 735 posts
Posted by thirdrail1 on Wednesday, July 4, 2001 8:40 AM
I don't believe that claim, if such a claim was ever made, was based on anything but wishful thinking. There have been some weird claims made about this engine, which seems to be an obsession with some.
"The public be ***ed, it's the Pennsylvania Railroad I'm competing with." - W.K.Vanderbilt
  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, July 5, 2001 7:00 AM
One of the iron ore carriers in the north of Western Australia assembled a train consisting of 10 loco's and 501 cars for Locotrol III tests a couple of years ago. Locotrol III is a remote control system for slave locos. Maybe someone else has some info about this train.
  • Member since
    January 2001
  • From: Niue
  • 735 posts
Posted by thirdrail1 on Thursday, July 5, 2001 8:37 AM
BHP has just operated a 686 car iron ore train weighing close to 100,000 tons on its iron ore line to Port Headland. Motive power was four groups of AC6000's. See www.trainboard.com for details.
"The public be ***ed, it's the Pennsylvania Railroad I'm competing with." - W.K.Vanderbilt
  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, July 12, 2001 5:33 AM
During my '95 holidays I saw a almost endless CP traƮn. There were 6 SD40 at the front, 100 grain hoppers, another 4 SD40's, 100 grain hoppers, 3 SD40 and the last 60-70 grain hoppers. Even if I saw lots of long trains this one was definitely the longest I ever saw. I have no idea whether this was a special train for testing purposes or a regular one. Well I forgot to mention that I saw this train rolling thru Revelstoke B.C on his way to Jasper.
  • Member since
    June 2001
  • From: US
  • 270 posts
Posted by favuprailroadfan on Saturday, July 14, 2001 3:36 PM
I was up in Denison Iowa a couple of years ago. And I saw the longest coal train I have ever seen. It had 3 Sd90MAC's up front, and 2 AC44's on the rear, in DP mode I'm sure. It came in at 185 cars long. It just kept going and going. I don't know whether it was a test train or not, but that was the longest coal I've seen. The longest freight I have ever seen was 197 cars in Liberal Kansas, it weighed in at around 20,000 tons. It was huge. He had to double his train in the yard, and the other half in the siding. The siding there is 8700 feet long, he was probably 14,000 to 15,000 feet long. If I remember correct, I believe it was KCWCQ. There trains where usually big anyways, so it didn't come as a surprise. He had 9 units on board. 6 SD40T-2's and 3 SD40-2's. It was a very impressive for a freight.

Dru
  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Wednesday, August 8, 2001 3:08 PM
....just an observation, but Charles Atlas pulled the Broadway Limited all by himself!!
  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Tuesday, August 14, 2001 6:09 AM
According to the most recent issue of TRAINS, a Big Boy was rated to pull 4450 tons up a 1.14% ruling grade. Based on this, it would certainly seem possible that this claim of 5 miles might be true. It certainly would'nt set any speed records, though.
  • Member since
    January 2001
  • From: Niue
  • 735 posts
Posted by thirdrail1 on Tuesday, August 14, 2001 9:10 AM
By my calculations, two miles of EMPTIES would weigh 4600 tons, Tractive effort is based on gross weight, not lading weight. 4450 tons would be 60 loaded 50 ton carloads.
"The public be ***ed, it's the Pennsylvania Railroad I'm competing with." - W.K.Vanderbilt
  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Wednesday, August 22, 2001 5:23 AM
After writing my response, I decided that I should "do the math". My conclusions were wery similiar to yours. This of course means that it is highly unlikely that the 5 mile event occured. Not completely impossible, but highly unlikely.
Todd
  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, August 23, 2001 12:29 AM
The "5 mile long train" claim is made on several videos and UP "Corporate propaganda films" which featured the "Big Boy". Apparently it was based on tractive effort calculations etc. and probably was never actually tried. But, how would you like to be the poor guy that had to wait for THAT baby at a grade crossing? Ron H.
  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, August 23, 2001 5:08 AM
Sounds like nap time!!
  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Friday, September 14, 2001 3:02 PM
THE NUMBER OF CARS ALLOWED ON THE DIVISION I HAVE WORKED ON FOR 32 YEARS (PACIFIC-CASCADE) SEEMS TO BE IN A CONSTANT STATE OF FLUX. IT SEEMS EVERYTIME SOME-ONE GETS PROMOTED IN THE EXECUTIVE RANKS, THEY LIKE TO CHANGE SOME-THING TO PUT THEIR STAMP ON THINGS SO TO SPEAK. MANY TIMES THIS IS "CAR-COUNT". MOST OF THE TIME IT DEPENDS ON THE POWER AVAILABLE AT THE TIME, THE WEIGHT OF THE SHIPMENTS, THE GRADE ON THE DIVISION IF ANY, AND HOW MUCH HAZARDOUS MATERIAL YOU MAY HAVE IN THE TRAIN. AMBIENT TEMP. ALSO CAN COME INTO PLAY IF IT'S HOT. WE HAVE LOWER SPEED LIMIT'S AT 85 AND ABOVE. THUS SLOWER SPEEDS EFFECT THE ABILITY TO PULL UP CERTAIN GRADES. WE HAVE A MOUNTAIN GRADE OF 2.2, AND 5.6 BY EVERETT WASHINGTON! I DON'T THINK THE ICC REALLY HAS THAT MUCH TO DO WITH THE DAY TO DAY DECISIONS. ONE THING THAT I FORGOT TO MENTION IS THE LENGTH OF THE SIDINGS THAT A TRAIN MAY ENCOUNTER ON A TRIP SO AS TO BE ABLE TO GET IN THE CLEAR TO MEET OTHERS. BUT THE B.N.S.F. EVEN IGNORES THIS SOME-TIMES. THEY HAVE A LONG HISTORY OF DOING JUST ABOUT ANYTHING THEY WANT...THE GOVERNMENT BE DAMNED...HOMMIE
  • Member since
    June 2001
  • From: US
  • 270 posts
Posted by favuprailroadfan on Tuesday, September 18, 2001 11:35 AM
What type of main line do you work on. Is it a passenger line also. I hope that when you was talking about the grades of 2.2% and 5.6%, that is a branchline. If that mainline has a 5.6% grade on it, wouldn't that be the steepest grade on a mainline? So much for Saluda huh? If this is a mess up, I'll understand. But if it is at 5.6%, where does this line run, and I would like to know how much power yall use. I was just wondering if this is a typo or the truth. Plus if you have those kind of grades, and run trains at 85 mph, must be Amtrak, how in the world can they run that fast, when Amtrak has trouble over Raton Pass at 3.5 to 4.0%. You got me.

Write back please and tell me what you mean by all this. Dru
  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Tuesday, September 18, 2001 2:48 PM
Hello Dru: The 5.6 % grade is in fact just off the main-line in Everett Washington. It's used to move Boeing air-plane parts and fuselages from the water front up to the Boeing assembly plant at Paine Field. It's quite an operation. The special engines they use needless to say have horrendous dynamic braking power.

As for the 2.2% grade, yes that is main-line grade for about 25 miles in the Cascade Mtn. area. This is the main east-west express route the B.N.S.F. uses for shipping their container business etc. Amtrak also uses this line. It's a great ride in the summer, going through our 8 mile Cascade tunnel. The views are great. Not as good as Glacier Park, but darned good just the same. Think about the trip. You would probably start in Seattle, and run as far east as you wanted. If you go, place your-self on the firemans side, as leaving Seattle you first travel along spectacular water front called Puget Sound...Good Luck...Hommie

Join our Community!

Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.

Search the Community

Newsletter Sign-Up

By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy