Recently I have been looking at pictures of trains in other countries--Australia, china, UK, India, and a few others. Having grown up in the midst of the North American rail system myself, I've gotten used to it, but the railways in those other countries look alien.
I assume it's the same for people from other countries looking at pics of North American railroads? If so, I'm curious: what features of the American Railroad system seem most bizarre to those not used to it?
The Beaverton, Fanno Creek & Bull Mountain Railroad
"Ruby Line Service"
One consistent comment heard on the Deshler railcam chat from those located outside of North America is how big our trains are. Consists in the 13,000 to 14,000 foot range are, well, foreign to them.
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...
Going the other way, do other (non North American) rail systems use any type of extended/cushioned drawbars?
They make handling our long trains even more difficult.
Greetings from Alberta
-an Articulate Malcontent
One thing I noticed while searching Railpictures, is that hood units seem to be rare outside North America. Also, most pictures of diesels elsewhere are either shovel nosed, or have the cab at the very front of the locomotive like a city bus.
Any idea why?
KBCpresidentOne thing I noticed while searching Railpictures, is that hood units seem to be rare outside North America. Also, most pictures of diesels elsewhere are either shovel nosed, or have the cab at the very front of the locomotive like a city bus. Any idea why?
I am GUESSING - less chance for highway grade crossing incidents.
The early Burlington Zephyrs had locomotives with the operating cab at the front of the unit and some killed their operator in grade crossing incidents. The original B&O road diesel #50 was built as a box cab locomotive.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Wouldn't that be an incentive then to do american-style short hoods?
KBCpresident The early Burlington Zephyrs had locomotives with the operating cab at the front of the unit and some killed their operator in grade crossing incidents. The original B&O road diesel #50 was built as a box cab locomotive. Wouldn't that be an incentive then to do american-style short hoods?
You are misunderstanding what I am postulating.
Europen and other operating enviornments have fewer highway grade crossings - thus they don't percieve the need to protect the locomotive operator that american continent operators do. Either that or they just don't care about the safety of the operator.
Many countries' railroads have a smaller loading gage to fit all the required equipment into. They may not have room for an extended nose on locomotives.
Mark Vinski
BaltACD KBCpresident The early Burlington Zephyrs had locomotives with the operating cab at the front of the unit and some killed their operator in grade crossing incidents. The original B&O road diesel #50 was built as a box cab locomotive. Wouldn't that be an incentive then to do american-style short hoods? You are misunderstanding what I am postulating. Europen and other operating enviornments have fewer highway grade crossings - thus they don't percieve the need to protect the locomotive operator that american continent operators do. Either that or they just don't care about the safety of the operator.
I've ridden a lot of trains both in the U.S. and Europe/Central Asia, and I think you've hit on one of the biggest infrastructure differences: grade crossings. I would bet that Europeans are shocked when they ride on a U.S. train and find that the engineer is constantly blowing the horn for grade crossings. There are very few grade crossings over there, and especially the minimally protected rural ones that are so ubiquitous in the U.S.
Just another example of the half-assed way we do infrastructure here.
In England there are a fair amount of road crossings but the big difference is that most of the right of way is fenced in except for some rural areas. Also crossing gates cover the entire width of the road.
Psychot BaltACD KBCpresident The early Burlington Zephyrs had locomotives with the operating cab at the front of the unit and some killed their operator in grade crossing incidents. The original B&O road diesel #50 was built as a box cab locomotive. Wouldn't that be an incentive then to do american-style short hoods? You are misunderstanding what I am postulating. Europen and other operating enviornments have fewer highway grade crossings - thus they don't percieve the need to protect the locomotive operator that american continent operators do. Either that or they just don't care about the safety of the operator. I've ridden a lot of trains both in the U.S. and Europe/Central Asia, and I think you've hit on one of the biggest infrastructure differences: grade crossings. I would bet that Europeans are shocked when they ride on a U.S. train and find that the engineer is constantly blowing the horn for grade crossings. There are very few grade crossings over there, and especially the minimally protected rural ones that are so ubiquitous in the U.S. Just another example of the half-assed way we do infrastructure here.
There are grade crossings in Germany, too, with horn blowing, though mostly on secondary lines and with four-gate protection.
Psychot Just another example of the half-assed way we do infrastructure here.
PsychotJust another example of the half-assed way we do infrastructure here.
Out in my part of the country, there are crossings every mile. The farmers need to move heavy, wide machinery to each side of the tracks.
To eliminate crossings means the farmer must move his machinery miles to get across. It's impractical to build elevated crossings each mile, and it's impractical to build crossings that would need a quarter mile to gain elevation.
I'm speaking only for my part of the continent -- basically flat, wide-open flyover country.
York1 John
York1 Psychot Just another example of the half-assed way we do infrastructure here. Out in my part of the country, there are crossings every mile. The farmers need to move heavy, wide machinery to each side of the tracks. To eliminate crossings means the farmer must move his machinery miles to get across. It's impractical to build elevated crossings each mile, and it's impractical to build crossings that would need a quarter mile to gain elevation. I'm speaking only for my part of the continent -- basically flat, wide-open flyover country.
I grew up on a ranch in North Dakota, so I'm familiar with the situation. In fact, we had one of those unprotected grade crossings on a section line. Yet somehow, European countries manage to minimize them.
JPS1 Psychot Just another example of the half-assed way we do infrastructure here. The amount of money spent to protect a grade crossing should be a function of the risks associated with it. If the grade crossing has a lot of vehicle and train traffic, the risk of an accident may be relatively high. Accordingly, the crossing should be protected robustly. If the crossing has little vehicular and train traffic, simple warning signs may be appropriate. Investing more for any functional activity than is warranted by a sophisticated risk assessment is not a good idea irrespective of whether the spend is by a private business or a government entity.
I was riding on the Empire Builder a few years ago when we hit a gravel truck at one of those unprotected crossings near Williston ND. The locomotive stuck the truck at something like 60 mph, but the driver was unharmed because the tractor was already on the other side of the crossing and the trailer was ripped off the kingpin. An employee of my family's livestock auction market was killed at a similar crossing when he crossed the then-BN mainline near Dickinson ND with a dump truck and apparently wasn't paying attention. Yes, there's less traffic at these rural crossings and therefore less risk of an incident, but they do happen, and it sometimes costs lives. There has to be a better way of doing things.
As an expat living in Italy for the last 15 years, I've noticed that heavily traveled roads are narrow and depressed to go under the tracks while the ones in towns or rural areas are FULLY protected by gates. The US on the other hand, has built roads that are as wide as the Panama Canal and protect only half of the road, as there is no money left over from the ongoing wars in Iraq or Afghanastan to pay for anything besides bare bones grade crossing protection. Obviously, the prioroities of the US is out of sync with the Italy, and appearently most of the world.
GN_Fan The US on the other hand, has built roads that are as wide as the Panama Canal and protect only half of the road, as there is no money left over from the ongoing wars in Iraq or Afghanastan to pay for anything besides bare bones grade crossing protection.
I think you'll find that the initial cost of crossing protection (or any upgrade thereof) falls on the road owner - usually a local municipality, county, or state. Thus they make the decision on how much said protection is worth to them. If it's a problematic crossing, they'll be more willing to shell out the dollars.
The railroad may insist on a higher level of protection if they see the risk differently.
Unless some portion of the funding is coming out of the highway trust fund, the feds aren't involved.
In reading the 'High Speed' article in the December 2020 issue of trains it is mentioned on the Chicago-St.Louis high speed line that there are 189 protected highway crossings in a specified 220 miles of the 260 mile corridor- approaching a protected crossing each mile through the countryside.
I'm not sure if this is still true, but it used to be that in Europe freight cars were significantly shorter than ours. Same with most of their engines.
And in Europe pretty much ALL major lines are electrified.
One thing I love about North American lines is that very few have catenary. I'm not a big fan of electric railroads; too much visual clutter.
Not a visual thing, but MANY other countries have passenger trains with better time-keeping than Amtrak!
GN_FanThe US on the other hand, has built roads that are as wide as the Panama Canal and protect only half of the road, as there is no money left over from the ongoing wars in Iraq or Afghanastan to pay for anything besides bare bones grade crossing protection. Obviously, the prioroities of the US is out of sync with the Italy, and appearently most of the world.
This is horsefeathers.
Switzerland has plenty of grade crossings too.
I suspect it is a function of closing speed and volume more than anything else. The faster and more frequent a US segment is, the less likely there's grade crossings. too.
When I made my first trip to Europe, I was shocked at how tiny their rolling stock is.
Lithonia Operator Not a visual thing, but MANY other countries have passenger trains with better time-keeping than Amtrak!
That's true, but let's be fair to Amtrak: the passenger railroads in those countries don't have to contend with host railroads that are borderline hostile to passenger trains. Moreover, freight density in Europe is much lower than in the U.S., so dispatchers aren't trying to get passenger trains through a gauntlet of slower-moving freights.
Freights in Europe are way shorter, too. There seems to be a lot more cars built for one purpose, unlike a North American box car which can carry anything. You rarely see boxcars over there anyway. The famed "40 men or 8 horses" type are just about extinct. Most freights have the dual buffers with the turnbuckle coupler but passenger trains can have various types with or without the buffers.
I do recall how in Switzerland in the 1970s every station seemed to have a boxcar sitting on a spur track and these all had a covered platform at one end. I don't know if that is still the case. All over Europe and Britain you see abandoned freight platforms near stations and in East Germany you can see the sites of freight yards that were torn out when the factories that needed them closed down when the country reunited. In Bielefeld, Germany is a huge roundhouse and water tower all falling into ruins.
They're afraid Mussolini's going to come back, in Italy anyway.
Flintlock76 Lithonia Operator Not a visual thing, but MANY other countries have passenger trains with better time-keeping than Amtrak! They're afraid Mussolini's going to come back, in Italy anyway.
CSSHEGEWISCHHe did, in the person of Silvio Berlusconi. He got booted out of office, too.
Couldn't make the trains run on time? At least he didn't get mixed up with a crazy German housepainter.
One thing about Italy is that the infrastructure of steam still exists. At the Florence station there are water columns at the ends of the platforms and coaling silos can be seen here and there. I was in Italy in 2004 and in the outskirts of the Florence station sat a 2-6-2 that obviously wasn't a derelict, it was most likely used for excursions.
I'm enjoying this discussion a lot! Lots of differences around the world it seems--I suppose this is the result of differences in how railroads evolved depending on local cultures/governments/geography?
It seems to me like North American rialroads are fairly unique--bigger equipment, longer trains, early dieselization. And I'm pretty sure the locomotive bell is unique to North America.
Is that just a factor of politics and geography?
54light15 Most freights have the dual buffers with the turnbuckle coupler
Most freights have the dual buffers with the turnbuckle coupler
Those bumpers on British railways some one mentioned earlier look so weird to me. I figure they are there in case of collisions, but a train collision is possible anywhere--why aren't they found worldwide?
When I was a kid watchign Thomas and Friends I coudln't understand why none of the locomotives looked familiar. Took me a few years to figure that one out....
KBCpresident 54light15 Most freights have the dual buffers with the turnbuckle coupler Those bumpers on British railways some one mentioned earlier look so weird to me. I figure they are there in case of collisions, but a train collision is possible anywhere--why aren't they found worldwide? When I was a kid watchign Thomas and Friends I coudln't understand why none of the locomotives looked familiar. Took me a few years to figure that one out....
Feature the Buffer Pads were a 'safety' item with either link & pin or turnbuckle coupling systems - gives a worker a guaranteed space to complete the coupling.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.