American freight trains-59 mph....German Freight Trains-80mph The FRA is FAXing US railroads over.

[oltmannd]

QUOTE: Originally posted by trainfinder22

The best way to not a crash is to prevent one. CTC and real time dispatching systems using GPS to tell the tower where the trains are at all times means that passenger and freight CAN run together

There are plenty of other ways to cause crashes other than route conflict or exceeding movement authority

Trains can derail.
Cars can fail.
Train handling can cause derailments.

to name a few.

As long as there in no perfection in frt railroading, some sort of pass. car safety stds are needed.

[Hugh Jampton]

QUOTE: Originally posted by martin.knoepfel

european freight trains are quite short, because the screw couplers do not allow for heavier trains. otherwise, you have to cut in additional locomotives (radio-controlled). unfortunately, the euro-coupler was never introduced although it works.

in britain, they run some freight trains (stone) at 100 mph, I guess, to avoid delaying passenger trains. the germans run some freight trains at this speed to on high-speed-corridors. the french have trains with refrigerator-cars (fruit and vegetables) for 90 oder 100mph.

err,,, In Europe freight train length limited more by siding length than by the strength of the coupler.. According to Group Standards (GM/RT2102) screw couplers have an ultimate strength of 270,000lbs while the FRA says knuckle couplers have a strength of 400,000lbs. Yet train lengths in Europe are limited to750m (2460ft) while train lengths in North America can run upwards of 6000ft. plus. Plus.. most new freight wagons are fitted with knuckle couplers,, yet the train length remains the same. There are a couple of exceptions though.. The High Capacity Track Replacement Train is 846m (2775ft.) and can only be stabled in a limited number of places.

100mph Freight trains in Britain eh?? And stone yet?!?!?! Where is this exactly because I have never seen one.. As far as I know the fastest freight tains are the "Enterprise" intermodals that run on the East Coast Mainline at 75 mph, which also happens to be the top speed of any freight train running in Europe (where this 80mph figure came from in the title I'll never know).

[martin.knoepfel]

european freight trains are quite short, because the screw couplers do not allow for heavier trains. otherwise, you have to cut in additional locomotives (radio-controlled). unfortunately, the euro-coupler was never introduced although it works.

in britain, they run some freight trains (stone) at 100 mph, I guess, to avoid delaying passenger trains. the germans run some freight trains at this speed to on high-speed-corridors. the french have trains with refrigerator-cars (fruit and vegetables) for 90 oder 100mph.

[TH&B]

FRA ?
When was the last time a passenger train in the USA crashed and killed 100 people?
When was the last time a passenger train in Europe crashed and killed 100 people?
In Japan ?

[Anonymous]

Using CTC and Global Positioning Systems means that Passenger and Freight Can run Together
There was a lot of epermentation in the 60s but everytime the FRA shot them down. Railbuses and RDCs built in Europe cant run here because of the FRA.

[Anonymous]

The best way to not a crash is to prevent one. CTC and real time dispatching systems using GPS to tell the tower where the trains are at all times means that passenger and freight CAN run together

[oltmannd]

QUOTE: Originally posted by trainfinder22

American Railroads can build cars with Aircraft alnummun and contruction. They can use Polumers and light weight trucks to save fuel and increase speed...But the FRA wont let them because of crash standerds that are outdated..

The people at the FRA are hardly stupid.


As long as you are mixing frt and passenger along the same ROW, it would be a real stretch to call the FRA crash standards "outdated". You can build passenger cars from whatever material you like, they just have to meet the performance standards for buff strength and collision post strength. Those standards have saved a lot of lives over the years, don't dismiss them so easily......


Besides, fuel cost ain't what's killing passenger service. And lack of high speed equipment isn't the problem, either. That stuff is all small potatoes compared to creating high speed routes.

[Anonymous]

American Railroads can build cars with Aircraft alnummun and contruction. They can use Polumers and light weight trucks to save fuel and increase speed...But the FRA wont let them because of crash standerds that are outdated..

[oltmannd]

QUOTE: Originally posted by railman

QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd

I'll add just one more item:

Welded rail + tangent track + 3 pc frt truck (and 1:20 tread taper) + high speed = truck hunting = derailment!

You can sneak up on 80 mph with some intermodal equipment, but, if you want to go faster than that, you start needing some better suspension. Amtrak's Roadrailers use swing motion trucks, for example. For "regular" freight cars, the truck hunting threshold speed is much lower - much past 60 and you're looking for trouble. Conrail once tried what was really a pretty slick move - moving empty mill gons back from Chicago to Buffalo on the head end of TV11. It saved about two day's transit. Unfortunately, the empty mill gons with worn wheels would become unstable at speeds just over 50 mph and there was a large derailment just east of Cleveland.

In the jointed rail days, truck hunting wasn't a problem because the slight irregularities at the joints stopped the instability from "building up".

And they called it progress!

Here's another equation:

no diesels + no roller bearings + no welded rail + no CTC = no more railroads left today!

Take any one of the 4 away and railroading as we know it, would be uneconomical.

[railman]

QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd

I'll add just one more item:

Welded rail + tangent track + 3 pc frt truck (and 1:20 tread taper) + high speed = truck hunting = derailment!

You can sneak up on 80 mph with some intermodal equipment, but, if you want to go faster than that, you start needing some better suspension. Amtrak's Roadrailers use swing motion trucks, for example. For "regular" freight cars, the truck hunting threshold speed is much lower - much past 60 and you're looking for trouble. Conrail once tried what was really a pretty slick move - moving empty mill gons back from Chicago to Buffalo on the head end of TV11. It saved about two day's transit. Unfortunately, the empty mill gons with worn wheels would become unstable at speeds just over 50 mph and there was a large derailment just east of Cleveland.

In the jointed rail days, truck hunting wasn't a problem because the slight irregularities at the joints stopped the instability from "building up".

And they called it progress!

[Junctionfan]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Grinandbearit

Kevin ! Even though the CPs AC4400CW have 75 mph gearing, I doubt very much if they get up to that speed, and Vias F40s have max gearing for 95mph and while P42s are 110mph ,they never will attain that on CN track with even with the banking on the LRC cars.

You should take a train from Toronto to Montreal. On the Kingston Subdivision, the train with 2 P-42s and 8 LRCs went over 100mph.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Grinandbearit

Kevin ! Even though the CPs AC4400CW have 75 mph gearing, I doubt very much if they get up to that speed, and Vias F40s have max gearing for 95mph and while P42s are 110mph ,they never will attain that on CN track with even with the banking on the LRC cars.

I don't know about that- intermodals really shoot it up off the island of montreal- The Cn detector reports via trains proceeding at 97, 102,, 107, 45.. And thats just yesturday!

CP intermodals have gone 75 MPH- that is the max- and I have seen them do it. Better check the max. Gear ratio speed for those locomotives-

On CP track with our EMD 59PHi We get up to 75, 80-
unless it's around the 55 MPH curve.

[Anonymous]

I have heard of two frieght trains that were probably "fast." The Pacific Fruit Express, which is supposed to be the most profitable unit train ever, and the "Salad Bowl Express."

Does anyone know what the schedule of these trains was and how fast they had to go to make it?

TIA,
Dennis

[Anonymous]

Oh, and double stacks and piggybacks aren't supposed to be humped - you're likely to end up with some second layer containers shearing off (held on in most modern doubles stack equipment by nothing but the fasteners used to join them together when stacked on ships)....

[Anonymous]

Most freight locomotives are geared for 70-73 mph maximum speeds, and most operating practices limit freight trains to 70mph maximum or less. BNSF did run test UPS "Bullet Trains" with high speed geared units up to 79mph, but UPS didn't want to pay the cost of delays such a fast train causes to other trains, and BNSF has a whole fleet of hot trains that equal or better the fastest schedules on other RRs, so that cost was not inconsequential. UP "bought" the business by offering the service without the premium price; they have less hot traffic to delay and were trying to win points with UPS. Result was UP has been paying UPS to highway haul their loads because they can't handle it (gotta love new twists on old UP slogans LOL), and now UP has canceled the contract for this business they bought from BNSF (and the extreme high speed schedule business will stay on the highway for now since UPS doesn't want to pay BNSF for the premium service).

Super C used to run 90mph in many places, since ATSF had plenty of ATS equipped sections of mainline - and curves superelevated for high speed passenger trains. Today, much of the ATS is gone, and the curves have less elevation as well as the focus is now solidly on freight as opposed to passenger. 79mph is doable if somebody wants to pay the bill. You've got to be impressed with BNSF's ability to run the Bullet Trains fast enough to match the Super C's old Chicago - LA times (UNDER 40 hours!) given the tremendous traffic levels they have today and despite losing some of their top speed capacity, but replacing some of the ability to run at 90mph with more 2 MT/CTC on the "Transcon."

As for Federal Law, without ATS (Automatic Train Stop) or some modern train separation system, maximum authorized speed is 79mph. This by the way has NOTHING to do with "safety" in terms of 80mph or higher needing such safety appliances; it was the government's way of trying to force the RRs into expanding their ATS systems post WWII. The RRs reaction, more often than not, was to simply slow their trains down.

[Anonymous]

Thank you bnsfmemptm for clarifying that for me.

[AntonioFP45]

Mudchcken, Jeaton and Mr. Hemphill have pretty much laid it out.

High speed freight service in the U.S, with very few exceptions, would not be overwhelmingly beneficial as nowadays (unfortunately) a lot of lines that were once multi-tracked are now single tracked. A number of yards were either reduced in sized or closed. Freight trains, particularly in the west still "Wait their turn" to enter major yards.

Additionally Uncle Sam doesn't give the Class 1s a lot of incentives to run fast freight anymore. I clearly remember in the 1970s that 70 mph freight runs were still common. Correct me if I'm wrong, Mr. Hemphill, but I read that the Santa Fe Super C running with the cowl locomotives hit between 85 and 90 mph in some stretches in the early 70s.

Cheers!

[TH&B]

Different hump yards are capable of different things. I once worked at one hump that handled only single cars but could handle empty cars in pairs, some hump masters did "illegaly" let larger cuts of emptys go but could get in trouble for it. I later worked for a diferent railroad at a different hump that routinely humps large cuts of cars at a time.

So we can use our imagination and take it a step further and sugest perhaps a more higher tech hump yard with more acurate control of coupling speeds in all weather that would eventualy be able to carfully "hump" even double stacks. Perhaps this would neither be a gravity "hump" nor a very large hump. I see stand alone well cars being built in large numbers now. What's up with that?

[Junctionfan]

I am wondering if it would be easier if the railroads used containers with openings on the sides instead of the back. That way if say Wal-Mart requires a whole bunch of different stuff, you might have a 20 foot container from Hong Kong, a 20 foot container from Seatle and 2 20 foot containers form Los Angelas. Load onto an 89 foot flat car and take it to the Wal-Mart siding and they could unload it themselves. Of course on flats and spine cars would work. I don't see Wal-Mart having much use for containers in well cars.

[Modelcar]

...Even if railroads wanted to run higher speed freights doesn't it require different wheel trucks under the freight cars....? Thought ordinary freight car trucks were limited to lower speed of operation.

[oltmannd]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Junctionfan

Don't they seperate containers and trailers before Chicago. If you only load containers on certain designated well cars, than it would be easier for Chicago to just simply hump the well cars. Seperated the Los Angelas bound cars from the Seatle bound cars. Is there any way that the railroads could do that quickly?

Steel wheel interchange in Chicago is the holy grail of intermodal operations. There are many high volume lanes that allow thru blocks to be built in the west and these are steel-wheeled across Chicago - a growing trend, in fact. However, there are just too many point pairs with low volume to do a steel wheel interchange with all of them. Another trend has been construction of load centers, where box destinations are mixed and matched between rail cars to get enough volume for a steel wheel interchange. Rutherford on NS does this, taking well cars with mixed destinations from a half dozen eastern terminals and reloads them in solid destination blocks.

Another reason for all the rubber tire interchange in Chicago is IMCs (Intermodal marketing companies) will often handle a transcon load as two separate local trips. For example, to NS, it will look like a Chicago local trip, but the IMC will then dray it across town to BNSF to get it to it's final destination. They do this because sometimes the sum rates for the two "local" trips is cheaper than the thru billed rate.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by y-back guy

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that a freight train that has all articulated cars can do the same speed as a passenger train is permited to around curves. I remember reading that somewhere. Whether it was a true statment I'm not sure. I also believe that Santa Fe had or attempted to run fast piggy backs at 79 miles per hour with a few locomotives which were re-geared to achieve the higher speed. Correct me if I'm wrong on this. I'm interested to know. I seem to remember reading something on this.

You are not far off. A train on the BNSF that is totally articulated cars can run a max of 70 mph,loaded or empty...an empty NON-articulated car will restrict you to 55 in most areas. The locomotives are not geared to run 90 as Amtrack does here in the desert...70 mph ,after that the overspeed alerter goes off and will shut down the train if the engineer does not respond and reduce to 70 mph or below......Santa Fe did have 79 mph Super-c freight service in the late 60's,but running one train so much faster that the others created problems,IE, the slower trains had to be sure to be clear well ahead of the super-c....that basically slowed down the entire railroad down to expedite one train....not a good trade off.....BNSF Conductor.......

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by M.W. Hemphill

For one thing, five-well double-stack cars don't hump properly -- they're too long. Hump retarders only grab two trucks at a time. The technology of a hump yard is inappropriate for the technology of a double-stack car.

You obviously have never worked the Hump as I have...It does not matter how many wheels are being retarded ,as long as the braking force exist to slow the entire car.I have humped many 3 & 5 pak cars,you can stop them dead in their tracks if you need to. I have done that before to keep pigs from striking a slow rolling hazardous tanker. I wi***hat I had attended college and became a writer,then I would know what cannot be done with railcars in a hump yard.----------

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by tomtrain

Will the train culture ever truly come into its own? Or will the loose-car culture always prevail?

In 20 years you will not see a boxcar on a major railroad,It's all going intermodal with the big RR,s.
We bring you a container or two,you load it,thus no hump yards needed as they are a hugh waste of space,labor,track,specialized equipment & produce no income whatsoever.It will probably be sooner here on the BNSF transcon.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by trainfinder22

its not that US RRs cant do more then 59 its that the FRA wont let them exeed that limit

I better tell the hogger today about this 59 mph stuff...we usually go 70 across the Needles Sub to Barstow,California from Needles,Ca.,unless we have a manifest train with emptys,then it's 55 mph.
BNSF Conductor--Needles,California---

[Anonymous]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that a freight train that has all articulated cars can do the same speed as a passenger train is permited to around curves. I remember reading that somewhere. Whether it was a true statment I'm not sure. I also believe that Santa Fe had or attempted to run fast piggy backs at 79 miles per hour with a few locomotives which were re-geared to achieve the higher speed. Correct me if I'm wrong on this. I'm interested to know. I seem to remember reading something on this.

[DSchmitt]

SDI was never really built. The threat that we would build it helped bring down the old Soviet Union. Their enonomy was aready weak because of the inefficiency and mismanagement inherent in a centrally controlled system, and from the burden of their military establishment. . They believed we would build SDI and knew their economy couldn't compete. Gorbachev tried to reform their system and it collasped. Many of the actions and threats from the Soviets after WW2 were because they feared us so they created a buffer of client states around themselves. Regan extended the hand of friendship and convinced Gorbachev that he meant it. They worked together to end the Cold War. Unlike many of the enemys we face today, they leaders of the Soviet Union were reasonable people.

[Junctionfan]

What happened to all the systems that were there during the cold war? What about the SDI defence systems that were supposedly built to stop the Soviet's missles? I was certain that they installed a satelite that sent out a trigger signal that detonated the missle upon entering orbit.

To answer you about India; India has always been a target of terrorist attacks ever since Pakistan separated from India. India will attack Iran if they think that they will supply nukes to the terrorist.

[ericsp]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Junctionfan

I don't think Iran will get the ICBM at all because if the U.S does attack Iran, Isreal will. I also have a strange feeling that India won't let Iran have them have it either. Although Pakistan and Indian hate each other, they both know that a nuclear battle would do more harm than good. India has a president and Pakistan has a military like government. Iran how ever concerns me because the whole suicide bombing thing that thease Muslim extremest governments, supposedly is a big thing with Allah. I would have to read the Kuran on that because it sound like a twist of words to me. At any rate that is how they contrue their beliefs and so why wouldn't they nuke someone. If they got nuked than they go to Allah so you can see why we need to me more concerned with Iran than with North Korea. If the U.N is not going to do their job, than the U.S and Isreal who would also be on Iran's hit list; will have no choice but to attack long before a missle system would be needed. Besides why do we need another missle defence system? What's wrong with NORAD?

NORAD cannot shoot down any missile. It is a warning system only. The best it can do is tell Air Combat Pacific (USAF), Pacific Air Forces (USAF), or the Navy and hope someone can get lucky and do something. By that time it would be too late. Also, I forgot to mention that presently, there are no air interceptor missiles (AIM) that can be depended upon shoot down another missile. We have no missile defense system currently.

How will India keep Iran from getting or developing ICBMs?

I am not willing to just sit around and hope the best case happens. It is better to be prepared than to be caught off guard.

[Junctionfan]

Don't they seperate containers and trailers before Chicago. If you only load containers on certain designated well cars, than it would be easier for Chicago to just simply hump the well cars. Seperated the Los Angelas bound cars from the Seatle bound cars. Is there any way that the railroads could do that quickly?