ML
GDRMCo wrote:Please, please stick to American stuff, its too hard to explain to yanks why things are the way they are outside the US
Hey! Knuckle head this just a Forum. If you know the answer tell us why? IF not, keep your comments to yourself.
RWM
chefjavier wrote: GDRMCo wrote:Please, please stick to American stuff, its too hard to explain to yanks why things are the way they are outside the USHey! Knuckle head this just a Forum. If you know the answer tell us why? IF not, keep your comments to yourself.
nanaimo73 wrote: chefjavier wrote: GDRMCo wrote:Please, please stick to American stuff, its too hard to explain to yanks why things are the way they are outside the USHey! Knuckle head this just a Forum. If you know the answer tell us why? IF not, keep your comments to yourself. This angry, arrogant response is familiar to those of us that live outside the USA, and gives all Americans a bad name.
This angry, arrogant response is familiar to those of us that live outside the USA, and gives all Americans a bad name.
Dale:
It's that the answer he should give us?
I grew up outside the U.S.A. and serve in the US Marines. I know what you mean by ugly American. There's culture that we need to respect both abroad and at home. I work with Australian Marines and Canadians. Both them have different views in Infantry tactics but one out of three would work. Team Work!
I may be a dreamer, but it seems to me that once people have visited other countries for a while, they wouldn't be so judgmental so quickly. There are exceptions, notably people who don't want to go over there. In some Asian countries, even American junior-year-abroad students have earned their programs, their colleges (and by implication, all us Yanks) a bad name because of drunkenness, clannishness, and snobbery. OT but such spoiled brats -- I earned my money to go abroad and you better believe I was ready to enjoy the experience!
Besides, once you go abroad it's them furriners' country, and they might start citing some stats back at you re: infant mortality rates, learning at the high-school level and among us--how many nations have HST's operating that are faster than our Accela? - a. s.
PS: I'm starting a thread under Passenger for the last part of the last sentence.
GDRMCo wrote:I'm not saying that to abuse anyone, its just how it is sadly. Simple answer to the reason for the flat nose cabs, its because our loading guage is smaller over here, meaning that we can fit a big nose on the front without making the locos longer than necessary. Regarding dual cabs, its simple, you dont need a wye or turntable to reverse the loco, just jump in the other cab.
Thank you for taking the time and explaining us the reasoning.
Railway Man wrote: GDRMCo wrote:Please, please stick to American stuff, its too hard to explain to yanks why things are the way they are outside the US
Go here for my rail shots! http://www.railpictures.net/showphotos.php?userid=9296
Building the CPR Kootenay division in N scale, blog here: http://kootenaymodelrailway.wordpress.com/
May I add to GDRMCo's explanations:
The primary cause for the use of "nose-less" locomotives and two-ended locomotives are the smaller and lighter loading gauges typical on most rail systems other than the U.S., Canada, Mexico, Russia, and Western Australia. This is a historical artifact that has little to do with any prescience on the part of North American railroaders but stems to the high cost of money available to build railways in the U.S. in the early 19th century. Since money wasn't available to build the low-grade, broad curve alignments that Britain and Continental Europe could afford, U.S. railways instead solved the problem by adopting large, heavy, locomotives that could overcome steep grades with the same tonnage. The consequence of large, heavy, locomotives was a larger loading gauge, and since U.S. railroads weren't investing in mile upon mile of tunnel like British and Continental railways, and since most or their routes were in open country instead of woven through urban congestion, they didn't lock themselves into a small loading gauge from the beginning and were able to increase loading gauge later without stranding billions of dollars of fixed plant.
Smaller loading gauges means short, light trains. As a result multiple-unit locomotive consists are unusual or unnecessary, so double-ended locomotives eliminated the need for turning single locomotives at the ends of lines and runs.
Double-ended locomotives devote twice as much space and weight to the cabs as a single-ended locomotive. As a result, the attempt to use a North American style cab-and-nose on each end adds so much weight to the locomotive that it usually exceeds maximum allowable axle loadings (or means that weight must be saved elsewhere, such as in fuel tank size). The flat-front cab economizes on weight to the maximum extent possible. In most railroads outside North America, Russia, and Western Australia, the axle loadings are so low that getting locomotive weight down while still maintaining sufficient structural strength and fuel stores is a serious problem, whereas in North American practice, often weight is added beyond what is necessary for structural strength.
Most of the world followed British and Continental practice instead of North American practice, because Britain, Germany, France, et al., had expansive continental colonial possessions whereas the U.S. got into the colony business rather late. People tend to export the practices and technology that they already know -- doing things in foreign places is plenty hard enough without trying to adopt something new -- and so many countries were given the small loading gauges and light axle loadings typical of European practice even if they could have benefitted from a larger loading gauge and heavier axle loading. It's noteworthy that recent de novo railways such as the western Australia iron-ore lines, which have the luxury of picking whatever they want, have maximized the loading gauge and axle loadings right to the very limits of the metallurgy. Countries on the periphery of the European Community, such as the Middle East, to this day look to Europe for the example, not to the U.S., the sole exception being the Saudi railways which were an ARAMCO (American) project and thus adopted their home-town practices.
There are also cultural reasons for double-ended, flat-face locomotives. British practice was to use assigned locomotives to crews. U.S. railways switched to pooled locomotives at a very early date, which enabled U.S. railways to adopt multiple-unit, variable-size locomotive consists without having to undo deeply embedded systems of jobs, pay, and organization. I've worked with several overseas railways that still use assigned locomotives, that could use multiple-unit locomotives, and the difficulties of making the change were deemed too politically and socially onerous by the management.
Railway:
Let me ask you what is more efficient to run the American or European railroads? Do you think the locomotives are more complicated?
North American and European railroads have different purposes, different histories, different cultures. They're both very efficient at delivering what's expected of them (and those expections are, of course, different). I suppose you could measure ton-miles or passenger-miles generated per $ of cost or $ of investment, but even that comparison would be very difficult to make and could easily lead to very misleading conclusions. I apologize that this is a vague answer but it's not a question that's easily answered.
U.S. and European locomotives are equivalent in complexity, though many European locomotives have to deal with multiple cab-signal and transponder systems so they can operate on different systems across borders, that North American locomotives don't have to have. Locomotive technology is multinational -- North American locomotives have many components and systems that have European manufacture or design, at least somewhere in their history, and vice versa.
Railway thanks for the info.
Australian railroading has a remarkable resemblance to North American railroading once you get beyond the double-ended locos with two bulldog noses and and GE's with cabs that look like they came from a U50. The CL class is one of my personal favorites, http://locopage.railpage.org.au/anr/cl.html
For Alco fans, http://locopage.railpage.org.au/sra/44.html
Two (count 'em) bulldog noses, http://locopage.railpage.org.au/vline/b.html
There's more where those came from but it goes a long way in explaining why I'm fascinated by Australian railroading, even from 9,000 miles away.
chefjavier wrote: Dale:I grew up outside the U.S.A. and serve in the US Marines. I know what you mean by ugly American. There's culture that we need to respect both abroad and at home. I work with Australian Marines and Canadians. Both them have different views in Infantry tactics but one out of three would work. Team Work!
In fact, Javier, the Australians you would have worked with would have been Australian Army troops, probably from what the US Army would call "Airborne Infantry" (I might have that name wrong). But Australia has never had Marines (although the British Royal Navy does). We have some British Royal Marines on exchange duty with our Amphibious forces, and they have been a great help in working out the design of our new Amphibious ships.
I'm a naval officer working in our Navy Headquarters, and I've often thought it would be easier for everyone if we had Marines, because Army equipment isn't always designed with going on ships in mind.
But to return to Australian locomotives, I have recently seen coal trains each with four double ended JT42Cs, thus eight cabs at the head of the train, and these trains run around loops at each end, so only one cab is used during the period the train runs with that power (up to 90 days). The locomotives were designed for other more general duties, but are more and more involved in export coal traffic where the extra cab is not needed.
Those units were built in 1994 and most new units built since then have only one cab (although there have been very few new units at all since 1998).
A number of the flat cab designs have very strong reinforced structures at the front of the cab and the cabs themselves are isolated to reduce vibration and noise. So they are probably as safe as conventional low nose cabs, but probably not as safe as current US safety cabs. Sadly, although our trains are restricted to a smaller size than US locomotives, our road trucks are just as big as those in the USA (although they have extra axles to spread the load).
M636C
You are right about the Australia Marines. I made a typo error. We did use Army Infrantry in our LPD Amphibious ships.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.