dehusman VOLKER LANDWEHR Currently work is underway to allow train length of 840 m(2755 ft) on selected routes. Just to put it in perspective, on many US railroads, a cut 2800 ft long would not be large enough to warrant running as a through freight. The railroad would hold for more tonnage or combine it with another train. As a comparison, when my son worked at Ogden, UT, they would kick out a 12,000-14,000 ft train several times a month.
VOLKER LANDWEHR Currently work is underway to allow train length of 840 m(2755 ft) on selected routes.
Just to put it in perspective, on many US railroads, a cut 2800 ft long would not be large enough to warrant running as a through freight. The railroad would hold for more tonnage or combine it with another train.
As a comparison, when my son worked at Ogden, UT, they would kick out a 12,000-14,000 ft train several times a month.
European railroads have different operational requirements.
Try to run the American 12,000 tons train at 80 mph. That is primary needed in Europe to reduce interference with passenger traffic and keep pace with it running at its average speed including station stops.
That are two completely different worlds, passenger oriented (Europe) and freight oriented (USA).Regards, Volker
VOLKER LANDWEHRCurrently work is underway to allow train length of 840 m(2755 ft) on selected routes.
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
That and the rapid adoption of steel for freight car construction that could hold up to over 100,000 lb of tractive effort.
Prior to the adoption of air brakes and automatic couplers in 1900 as mandated by the safety Appliance Act of 1893, freight trains were usually around 20-25 cars maximum (only 34-36' typically). Lengths increased quickly after that to 50 or more cars.
VOLKER LANDWEHR There never was a requirement for those giant locomotives. (Re: C&O H-8)
There never was a requirement for those giant locomotives. (Re: C&O H-8)
At least for European railroads.
With a few exceptions, the North American rail system derived most of its revenues from freight from the very beginning. Since most of the North American rail system composed of single track main lines, there was an incentive to reduce the number of meets which translates into longer trains and thus larger locomotives.
- Erik
P.S. Vance's book, The North American Railroad, goes into detail about the divergence between American and European practice.
Piper106aEven if there was enough room for them to fit, Europeans would not even want to think about the distruction to rails and bridges a C&O H-8 Allegeny 2-6-6-6 (over 40 ton axle load, and roughly 350 ton engine weight) would have left in their wake.
There never was a requirement for those giant locomotives.
Europe and USA have different railroading philosophies. In most European countries passenger trains have absolute priority. To avoid too much interference/delays the speed gap between passenger and freight needs to be small. Freight trains are mostly run near the average speed of the passenger trains (including station stops).
Freight train length (limited by historically short yards and sidings), axle loads and thus weight seem to be a good compromise to run passenger and freight together.
Currently work is underway to allow train length of 840 m(2755 ft) on selected routes.Regards, Volker
Don't forget the difference in the strength of the track and bridges. In Europe, 25 tons per axle was / is considered heavy. In the US, 35.8 tons (71500 pounds) is the modern standard for load per axle.
Even if there was enough room for them to fit, Europeans would not even want to think about the distruction to rails and bridges a C&O H-8 Allegeny 2-6-6-6 (over 40 ton axle load, and roughly 350 ton engine weight) would have left in their wake.
When Krauss-Maffei built the first locomotives for SP and DRGW the contour of thr turret/cab followed the German and Austrian loading gauge. For test in Austria and Germany the air horn needed lowering and grabirons weren't mounted yet.
The Bombardier ALP-46 and ALP-45DP wee built in Kassel, Germany, and trucked to the Port of Hamburg and transported to the USA on ships: http://www.andreas-fotogalerie.de/Hansebube/0635-0026k.jpgRegards, Volker
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 cylinders to fit the NYC clearance.
Comparing the NYC Niagaras with the Rock Island 4-8-4s shows the dramatically lower boiler mountings required by the older Eastern lines on basically similar locomotives.
But the same problem occurred in Europe in 1937 when the Russians sent two of their latest locomotives to Paris for an exhibition. These were a "Felix Dzerzhinsky" 2-10-2 and a "Joseph Stalin" 2-8-4, which were both based on a Baldwin 2-10-2 supplied in 1931, but significantly lighter.
The locomotives were easily converted to standard gauge, but the cabs, stacks and possibly the dome covers if not the domes were removed. However the tenders didn't fit. The upper corners of the coal space exceeded the clearances in Europe. So two special tenders were built, angled in at the loading gauge in order to get to Paris. The author John Westwood photographed an FD 2-10-2 with one of these special tenders during the 1950s. Clearly nothing was wasted, even special vehicles for exhibitions...
Peter
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
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".
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.
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).
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
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.
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...
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.
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.
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.
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
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
charlie hebdo W6A is at the end of the linked article: width 9' 3", height 13"
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...
Thanks for the correction. Yes meant channel tunnel. Any idea what the new Gottard base tunnel loading guage is ?
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
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
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!
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.
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.
Question. Is the channel tunnel loading guage even larger than the US plate "H" ?
Good to see you back, Ulrich. Still raining in Hamburg?
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!"
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.