Train lenght?

[Anonymous]

I disagree with you wabash1. I've ran a few 80 car rack trains and lots of 115 or so car coal trains, and there is no way that two ac44's could get a coal train rolling better than they do with an autorack train. I dont know how you got that idea.

[Anonymous]

lol, this reminds me of the time a saw a SD-45 take off up horseshoe curve from altoona alone pulling 100 loaded coal cars... Needless to say about a few seconds later 3 helpers ran down the same track to catch up with it.

[bkdavidson]

Hi Zardoz

Apparently the ore trains don't have a caboose, (we call them "guards vans" down under) so there wouldn't be a "rocky ride" problem.

Davo.

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

TRAINS had a nice write-up a while back about N&W's super-size coal trains, culminating in a 500-car train with 3 SD45's up front and 3 SD45's 2/3 of the way back. It required a fair amount of advance preparation and a whole lot of supervisory oversight to operate this train so the whole idea was technically feasible but not very practical.

[Anonymous]

Back in the dark ages on the N&W, the heaviest coal train I ever had was 254 loads, 24,785 tons. Power - 1 GP18, 2 Alco RS-11s and 1 Alco RS-36. Took 19 miles to get it up to 20 MPH; gradual downhill river grade but the curves were murder.

Longest train I ever had was 281 cars, mixed time freight and coal empties, with three GP30/35 types. Cruised along at 35 MPH. Set out 81 enroute, went into the other terminal with 200. 275-car empty hopper trains were routine in warm weather on this division.

Old Timer

[zardoz]

QUOTE: Originally posted by bkdavidson

In the December 03 edition of the Australian "Railway Digest" the following statement appeared:

"...the world's longest train with eight GE AC6000CW locomotives and 682 ore cars operated over 275 kilometres in the Newman to Port Headland section on 21 June 2001. The train length was 7.353 kilometres."

Apparently the ore cars were betreen 100 and 120 tonnes. I calculate this to be, with locos, around 80,000 tonnes. The length in miles is approx. 4.57 miles.
Davo.

Just think of the potential slack action. I'd hate to be in the caboose of that train!

[TH&B]

bkdavidson,

Amtrak's Auto Train has occasionaly been 50 cars long, many of the cars being auto transporters. Technicaly the longest pure passenger only train I beleive was in Holland of 60 passenger cars.

[bkdavidson]

I've just done some more research and that 682 iron ore train had "...only one driver for the entire train."
It used the "Locotrol" system to control all 8 locos.
The weight was "almost 100,000 tonnes".

Davo.

[bkdavidson]

Hi Erik,

I don't think the 682 car ore train was a test, certainly not a gimmic. As I undsrstand it, most of the ore is being shipped to China, millions of tonnes of it. This requires a number of trains each with hundreds of ore cars each week.
With regard to drivers, apparently they use two on each train, two hours on and two hours off over about eight hours. This is probably for cost cutting and it's quite safe as there are no passenger trains or towns in this wilderness.
Talking of passenger trains, on the 1st February 2004 "The Ghan" travelled from Adelaide to Darwin (approx. 3,000 km) which took two days. It was powered by two 4,000 hp NR class locos with two car transporters and 42 passenger cars. It was just over 1one kilometre long, (.656 mile) and was apparently the world's first ever north/south transcontinental train. It weighed 2,077 tonnes.
Is this the longest passenger train?

Davo.

[UP_North]

Long, heavy, underpowered trains are much easier to run than short and fast trains. I'm lazy and its much easier to put in the 8th notch and never get to track speed than always messing with the throttle on a light train.

[Anonymous]

God I loved working for the Santa Fe , short fast trains! This long monsters are nitemares!

[Anonymous]

I don't think so...TRAINS had a picture in a back issue of that Aussie beast.

I do wonder how long it took to pump that train up.

I also wonder if it was done as some kind of test, as a publicity gimmick, or if a train like that is really economically feasible. (Yeah I know... the more cars, the less locomotives, the cheaper it is.) I also wonder what the crew size was. Somehow I doubt there were only two guys on board, with the division chief filing his nails in an office reaching over to his speaker phone saying, "Hey, Mark...we got a 4-5 mile long train headed your way." to a dispatcher.

I can imagine the yardmaster at the receiving end was thrilled too.

Erik

[bkdavidson]

In the December 03 edition of the Australian "Railway Digest" the following statement appeared:

"...the world's longest train with eight GE AC6000CW locomotives and 682 ore cars operated over 275 kilometres in the Newman to Port Headland section on 21 June 2001. The train length was 7.353 kilometres."

Apparently the ore cars were betreen 100 and 120 tonnes. I calculate this to be, with locos, around 80,000 tonnes. The length in miles is approx. 4.57 miles.

Does anyone know if this has been surpassed since 2001 either in Australia or the US or anywhere else for that matter?

Davo.

[dwil89]

NS occasionally runs stack trains well over 10.,000 feet on the Pittsburgh Line. I have witnessed a couple of Eastbound Stacktrains call out the defect detector at Lilly, MP 253.1, when the head end is passing the Station Inn at Cresson at MP 251. Once in awhile, an Eastbound Autorack will rival that length... Power for these trains is usually 2 or three Widecabs on the head-end and perhaps a pair of SD40-2 pushers on the rear, depending on tonnage....Dave Williams @ [e-mail]

[tree68]

QUOTE: Originally posted by gabe

Wow, what I would give to see two Geeps pull a 180+ car coal drag.
I guess in the flat lands of Illinois you can get away with that.
Gabe

I seriously doubt that the crew was enjoying it. Had the hoppers been loaded, I'd have been witness to a stall... And don't get fooled by that "flatlands of Illinois" stuff- coming south into Rantoul, IL is a lloonngg upgrade...

[gabe]

Wow, what I would give to see two Geeps pull a 180+ car coal drag.

I guess in the flat lands of Illinois you can get away with that.

Gabe

[tree68]

Something over 180 cars (I lost count) - empty coal hoppers headed south on the IC main behind just two Geeps, which were pulling for all they were worth. Normally the unit coal trains ran around 90 cars, so I can only guess that they were short motive power on the north end (Chicago) and had joined two trains worth to take them south.

[Anonymous]

It's in the Guiness Book, I think it was on N&W back in the 70's: about 300 cars of coal, 4 locos up front and 2 sets of 2 locos 1/3 and 2/3 in train....Get the women and chidren off the street..

Basically, CSX limits it's train to 8500 to 9000 feet, with engines, tonnage is usually not critical. My own experience: 1975 Waycross Ga. to High Springs Fl, train 307, 205 cars, 4 locos, dark territory at night, and a cushioned cab....what a ride.

[canazar]

I unfortunaly have nothing to contribute to this thread, but i Was compelled to comment on BlatACD graphic in his signiature.... That is just plain funny, I dont care who you are !!

Of course, i think of the fellow in another thread who had to kick someone off his yard for being stupid and sitting in the middle of active tracks...

John k

[Grinandbearit]

On Sunday afternoon April 10, CN 149 (double stacks)running from Montreal to Chicago was 11,000 ft long. It had three engines, a Dash -8 and two Sd75s and was doing at least 55mph through Kingston.

[BaltACD]

Train size is a function of the physical characteristics and operation philosophy of the particular railroad and service being provided.

In single track territory, siding size will normally limit train size.

In other territories terrain or the size of terminal tracks will be the practical limiting factors to train size.

Bigger is not always better.

[Anonymous]

thanks for the info

[wabash1]

if you would take 2 dash 9 engines you can get a 100 car coal train up and runing track speed easier than you can a 75-80 car auto rack train. and you might get that auto rack train to track speed. most every one on here keeps talking about what type of power ( mostly newer engines) and weight of train . the main facter in powering a train is of course weight then the size. 70 parachutes( auto racks) takes a long time to get up to speed and in some cases if the wind is blowing you will never reach track speed. if your train is long enough the drag from the rail is enough to try and overcome. the is a formula to figure how much a engine will pull. but it only means that what it will pull not how fast it will pull it

[spbed]

Actually your question is most difficult to reply to due to many factors. Take a coal train rail cars are short & stubby but they carry 100 Ts or more loads per car. OTH autorackers are much longer then coal cars but also much lighter so you can have longer auto rackers since there is far less weight with 2 locos but a coal train may need 3 to do the same job. Also all locos do not have the same capacity to pull so that is another consideration to take into account when you ask a question like you did. [:)] [:D]

Originally posted by CSXtrainredneck17
[

Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR  Austin TX Sub

• Reply