How much longer........

[Anonymous]

It's obviously the SD90MACs that I was thinking about then.

[Junctionfan]

I go to the NMRA site and look for the "Motive Power Review", it gets updated almost weekly at times.

[Junctionfan]

The only thing CP has that is 6000 hp is a few of SD90ACs, the rest are 4400 hp SD90/43MACs. I think CP should get more of the SD90ACs though or when it comes out, the ES6000.

Write now CP is doing o.k even with their old SD40-2s; I did hear that CP was considering buying SD70 variations (M, MAC or ACE) any confirmations?

P.S -Sorry I'm off topic.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by BNSF railfan.

The CP do not own any AC60CW's,Only AC44CW's.

I'm pretty sure CP had a handfull of AC6000s, they were then prompty de-rated to 4400 hp.

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

CGW & KCS both had William Deramus as president which probably explains why both of them operated high-tonnage yard-clearing trains.

[Anonymous]

The CP do not own any AC60CW's,Only AC44CW's.

[Anonymous]

CSXrules4eva........I don't mean to sound rude or ignorant...but did you by chance mean AC440CW's on CP? It's just that I've been out of the loop for sometime and I didn't know CP had any AC6000CW's.
Brian

[BaltACD]

QUOTE: Originally posted by FThunder11

At the beginning you were talking about draw bars and couplers on the trains. WOuldnt that not put as much strain on them if you have locomotives throughout the train?

That was when DPU's and manned Helpers entered the discussion.

[FThunder11]

At the beginning you were talking about draw bars and couplers on the trains. WOuldnt that not put as much strain on them if you have locomotives throughout the train?

[BaltACD]

To have a successful operation....The Business Plan and train size must, must match the physical plant of the territory involved.

Trains too big for sidings wreak havoc with attempting to keep the line of road fluid.

Trains too big for the Terminal facilities bring the terminals to a stop as the trains are either doubled up or yarded into multiple track.

For the most part, railroad operating plans are predicated up the principal of daily service between the significant Orign/Destination pairs. That philosophy works fine, up to the point that the available traffic is too much for one train and too little for two. The problem then becomes two fold....ONE-build the biger train and disrupt the flow of line of road, or.....TWO-hold the excess traffic in the terminal and thus use capacity that will be needed for the terminals other traffic. Decisions such as this are what makes the railroad business the maddening, second guessing business it tends to be.

The orignal CSX Melt Down after the ConRail assumption was caused by the wrong operating plan implemented upon the wrong physical plant.....The Conway plan was to run fewer bigger trains.....the result was that trains were held out of yards waiting for enough yard tracks to yard them, however the yard track were occupied by trains that needed the power from the inbound trains....a total 'Catch 22'. The plan did not account for the relatively 'small' nature of the original CSX terminals and their need to turn traffic over quickly to remain fluid. Conway's association and knowledge of ConRail blinded him to the realities of the original CSX properties and he choked the railroad to a stop.

[Anonymous]

That's why they use DPU's now!

[kevarc]

A few items.

A Mark stated, the KCS was a tonnage RR. Back in the early 80's, I used to do a lot of dove hunting along the line between Baton Rouge and Alexandria, LA. They ran long trains. I remember them running through there a nd you would sit for a while at a crossing. Present day, I do not see that long of trains. I go to our plant along the KCS line in New Roads LA, about 20 mile north of Baton Rouge. I can usually catch a couple of trains. I have noticed them to be quite a bit shorter and usually have a TOFC or container block attached to the end.

The Granddaddy of tonnage trains was the CGW. They would do yard clearers, 7 or more engines on the front and 200+ cars behind them.

Another was the GM&O across Alabama, Mississippi, and into Memphis. They ran 200+ trains all the time.

The N&W and C&O ran 200+ car coal trains out of the Ohio River valley to the Columbus and other points.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by tree68

When I was watching IC/ICG in the early 70's, most of the coal drags on their double track main ran around 90 cars. I do recall seeing a returning (southbound) empty one night that was apparently two such drags combined, nearly 200 hoppers behind two Geeps. They were struggling on the long uphill into Rantoul.

I was chatting with a fellow from the CP, the CP runs a bunch of unit coal trains from Roberts Bank out to the coal basin in South Eastern BC, they run them back and forth 24/7... the trains are always in the 'round 'bouts of 115 - 120 or so coal cars always with an AC4400 on either end of the train.

Anyway, because CP and CN do directional running in the Fraser Canyon, and there's no passing CP has wanted to double all the coal trains up from Roberts Bank to Kamloops, and run them as 230 car trains with an AC4400 on the front, two in the middle and one on the end, then when the train gets to Kamloops just split it back into two trains again and continue on.

It would be awsome to see, but apparently (and understandably so) the Union has been fighting it.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd

390,000# would be grade E couplers/knuckles common only on unit train equipment. Figure more on 250,000 # for garden variety freight equipment (grade C). ...which is why you don't see more than 2 AC units on the head end of most freight trains.

Yes, the reference I found listed Grade C at 250,000 to 280,000 lbs but also refered to them as "Pre 1970" so I thought they would have all been replaced with the newer stronger Grade E couplers by now. But, considering the age of some of the rolling stock I can understand that they haven't been!

[bobwilcox]

I agree about the terminals. When coal unit trains first got started in the 1970s on the C&NW the coal department was concerned that the trains would not stay together as a unit. Therefore, the trains off the UP to Oak Creek, WI were designed to be long enough so no one in their right mind would take one into beautiful Proviso for processing.

[oltmannd]

390,000# would be grade E couplers/knuckles common only on unit train equipment. Figure more on 250,000 # for garden variety freight equipment (grade C). ...which is why you don't see more than 2 AC units on the head end of most freight trains.

[Anonymous]

In reply to a question that was asked way earlier, the couplers are rated at 390,000 pounds. There is a little reserve figured in, but if there are any stress fractures they could break at a lower loading.

[oltmannd]

Intermodal trains tend to be rather light per foot of train length, so, on low-grade routes, you can have some really LOOONG trains without getting near the drawbar limits. Two mile long trains are not all that rare.

[Anonymous]

The UP runs there Intermodel Stack Trains over 2 Miles long,Some times even longer!

[BentnoseWillie]

Around here (Nova Scotia) I've seen 13,000', and 10,000' happens a few times a year. All without DPU.

[tree68]

When I was watching IC/ICG in the early 70's, most of the coal drags on their double track main ran around 90 cars. I do recall seeing a returning (southbound) empty one night that was apparently two such drags combined, nearly 200 hoppers behind two Geeps. They were struggling on the long uphill into Rantoul.

[Anonymous]

I'll second what Mark pointed out, with distributed power you are only limited by siding length. We came accross this when we were trying to figure out ways to make RoadRailer and RailRunner trains more profitable. Although both are limited to about 125 units behind the lead locomotive, with DPU we could increase the number of revenue units to the siding length of the target railroad of 9,000' to 162 units, about a 25% increase in revenue loads. That 25% can make the difference between loss and profit for a potential client.

[Anonymous]

All of my previous thoughts were that it was purely based on siding length, I had not really considered equipment strain.

I am used to coal drags through here that are all about 125 cars in length and I always just assumed that the length was limited by the sidings and number of cars that a particular power facility could accommodate.

Thanks to this question and answers, I not only learned something, but corrected a poor misconseption. Thank you to all that answered.

[Junctionfan]

There is a picture I saw of a 200 car train through Deshler, with only 2 AC6000CW. I don't know where it originated but I would imagine that a lot were either single stacked and empties. I doubt UP and BNSF could do something like this because of the grades through the mountains (if heading that way of course). I don't know what kind of grades are on the route to New York but the real long ones tend to come from their. However, there is one train that uses the Sand Patch route that was well over 10,000 feet and only 3 engines (railpictures.net). I would be interested to know what happens through there.

[BaltACD]

QUOTE: Originally posted by macguy

Surely there is a limit on how much the drawbars/couplers can handle....

I suppose another limiting factor would be the fact that they all have to be run as priority trains when they can't fit in any of the sidings...

The 4 SD40 and 5 GP40 restrictions on CSX approximate the maximum permitted drawbar load, unfortunately, I don't know that figure by its number.

[Anonymous]

Surely there is a limit on how much the drawbars/couplers can handle....

I suppose another limiting factor would be the fact that they all have to be run as priority trains when they can't fit in any of the sidings...

[BaltACD]

On CSX the nominal maximum train length is 9000 feet, except on the old New York Central Water level route where intermodal trains up to 14000 feet are permitted.

On certain of the old Seaboard, ACL and L&N territories trains can be restricted to a maximum of 6200 feet account of the siding configurations on the mostly single track subdivisions.

Drawbar strain is more dependent on grades and tonnage than it is on train length. The rule of thumb on CSX is the maximum tonnage for a train is the tonnage that 4 SD40 locomotives rate over a territory ie. SD40 is rated for 2500 tons over a territory, the max train tonnage, without a helper, is 10000 tons. Adding helpers to the rear of trains changes the 'trailing tonnage' and trains that exceed the tonnage of 4 SD40's can be handled with a rear end helper. CSX as a norm does not use Distributed Power locomotives, the helper territories are too short to the necessary benefits from Distrubuted Power. The 4 SD40 calculation applies to bulk commodity trains only as the cars in these types of service are normally fitted with high strength draft gear and coupler assemblies as well as high strength knuckles.

Merchandise trains have a maximum of what 5 GP40's can haul over the ruling grade of the terrirory. Where an SD40 is rated for 2500 tons, a GP40 may be rated for 1800 tons, thus the Merchandise type train is resticed to 9000 tons. General service freight cars do not routinely get constructed with the 'high strength' components.

[CSXrules4eva]

This is a very good question now you've got me thinking. . . .. .. .. I never thought their was a length limit. Anyway I've seen trains that were two miles long before. Once was on the CP on Kicking Horse Pass it had 3 AC6000CWs with two in front and one in the middle. So. . . it had 18,000 total Hp and two miles of mainifest freight. It was pretty kewl. I don't know how much stress that was put on the poor knuckles though, I would imagine it to be alot. Dats all I know. . . .. .. .

As Terry C would say "KEEP ASKING KEEP LEARNING" :)

[Junctionfan]

CSX runs intermodals that can run as much as 200 cars long. I would be fasinated to know what kind of lengths we would be talking about than.