EMD SD80ACe

[nfotis]

beaulieu

So here is a typical mixed manifest train on the Soo Line with the count and weight as it departed LaCrescent, MN yesterday after making a pickup and setout;

Train 270 (St. Paul to Kansas City)

97 loads

79 emptys

14,587 tons

That yields a TPOB of 84.3, on the BNSF that train would be allowed to run at 60 mph.

The train had 2 SD60s and a SD40-2 for 10,600hp or 0.72hp per ton.

Let's see:

97+79 = 176 wagons (or 'brake sets', if you prefer)

14587 / 176 = 82.9 - how do you get the TPOB of 84.3?

You did discount some inoperative wagons?

Also, I would like to note that 0.72 hp/ton is too low for European standards.

We would typically have ten times that amount on electrified lines which carry passenger traffic (and we could have grades as steep as 2.6% in routes like the Gotthard in Switzerland).

The very low cost of electricity compared to diesel permits such fast freight trains in European rails.

Cheers,

N.F.

[oltmannd]

beaulieu

So here is a typical mixed manifest train on the Soo Line with the count and weight as it departed LaCrescent, MN yesterday after making a pickup and setout;

Train 270 (St. Paul to Kansas City)

97 loads

79 emptys

14,587 tons

That yields a TPOB of 84.3, on the BNSF that train would be allowed to run at 60 mph.

The train had 2 SD60s and a SD40-2 for 10,600hp or 0.72hp per ton.

JB

Using a little calculator I built a while back, looks like this train would balance out at roughly 41 mph on the level with no wind and would be good for a ruling grade ~0.75%.  It could get to 60 mph on a 0.18% down grade.

[BaltACD]

nfotis

beaulieu

So here is a typical mixed manifest train on the Soo Line with the count and weight as it departed LaCrescent, MN yesterday after making a pickup and setout;

Train 270 (St. Paul to Kansas City)

97 loads

79 emptys

14,587 tons

That yields a TPOB of 84.3, on the BNSF that train would be allowed to run at 60 mph.

The train had 2 SD60s and a SD40-2 for 10,600hp or 0.72hp per ton.

Let's see:

97+79 = 176 wagons (or 'brake sets', if you prefer)

14587 / 176 = 82.9 - how do you get the TPOB of 84.3?

You did discount some inoperative wagons?

Also, I would like to note that 0.72 hp/ton is too low for European standards.

We would typically have ten times that amount on electrified lines which carry passenger traffic (and we could have grades as steep as 2.6% in routes like the Gotthard in Switzerland).

The very low cost of electricity compared to diesel permits such fast freight trains in European rails.

Cheers,

N.F.

 

Thus the differences between US  and Europe and their operating philosophies.

Europe - #1 Passenger #2 Freight (to the extent it doesn't affect passenger)

USA - #1 Freight - #2 Passenger (to the extent it doesn't affect freight)

The European rail route structure was seriously damaged during WW II and needed to be rebuilt from the subgrade up after the War. A rebuilding that was undertaken with primarily public funding and used state of the art technologies as they became available during the after war years.  Petroleum is a scarce commodity in Europe and must be imported at relatively high costs (witness the evolution of car maker products in Europe vs US products of the same age).  Since the European railroads needed to be totally rebuilt, the incremental costs associated with electrification vs. imported petroleum made electrification the economical way to go.

The US rail route strucure sustained no damages from WW II, other than to be heavily used with minimum investments into maintaining and improving the rplant.  At the conclusion of the War the US was left with a well worn physical plant and worn out motive power that had exceeded it's economic life and was in need of immediate replacement.  Both physical plant and motive power enhancements would have to be undertaken with private investment funds by carriers that existed in a highly over regulated financial world.  Rules  that were designed to limit the carriers abilties to return a profit on the investment, as the carriers were still viewed as the 'Robber Barons' from the first part of the 20th Century.  In the immediate after War years the US was awash in cheap petroleum, thus the decisions were made that the diesel-electric locomotive was the more economical choice than the additional investments that would be required to electrify large route segments of the US (in fact  the Great Northern, Milwaukee Road and Virginian (after being merged into Norfolk Western) removed  their electrified territories in favor of the through operation of diesel-electrics. 

The public investments in the US during the after War period went into improving the highway system of the country, in direct competition to the privately financed railroads - is it any wonder the US railroads had trouble attracting investment at affordable rates?  The inability to attract affordable investment after the War was the cause of the financial collapse of many carriers in the late 60's & early 70's and what brought about the Staggers Act of 1980 that released the US railroads from their financial prison.

The present day operations of railroads in Europe and the US are vastly different due to their vastly differenty post War financial histories.