Train Length Question

[azimmer]

Why are freight trains limited in length? The longest trains seldom exceed two miles.

It would seem to be quite possible to construct a train of ten miles or more in length by putting more locomotives (i.e. distributed power) within the train at a spacing of every mile or so. Ultra-long trains should be beneficial for cross country freight movement.

CN runs two-mile-length trains down the Shoreline sub (or at least they used to). This length is rarely seen on any other road.

My guess is that excessive train length would disrupt the block structure of the existing rail network.

It may be a stupid idea, but I like to think big. If I could redesign the rail system I would increase the track gauge to 10 feet and implement a block system to accomodate 5-10 mile long trains. The engineering limitations of the 19th century have given us this legacy of short and narrow railroads which no longer make sense.

[SD80MAC]

Siding lengths, power availability, not to mention insane slack forces and train handling physics. Plus where would you yard it?

[J T]

Have fun sitting at a crossing waiting for a 10 mile long train to pass.

[conrailmike]

I'm sure conductors would be so HAPPY to walk a train that's 10 miles in length just to find a broken hose or coupler.....especially in the summer when it's 100 degrees out or in the winter when it's below zero.

[tazer]

That might work out west where there are wide open spaces and 400 mile long divisions through the desert with very few crossings There are railroad people that think that way now and it doesn't work very well in the real world
Long trains are plagued with air problems and the slack action would rip it apart even with DP . then there are the safety concerns with hauling hazmat cars and the first time it stopped and blocked crossings for ten miles and a town burned down or someone died waiting for medical attention the public would want to lynch the train crew.

[firemedic54]

Not to mention the costs to upgrade sidings, rail gauge etc. etc. Looks good on paper but the reality is way too many problems.

[AARR]

We laugh and throw obstacles out why it won't happen but you watch, another EHH will come along and once again push the boundries of railroading. It may be another 100 years but never say never.

[azimmer]

One way to increase cpacity has already arrived. The Class I railroads have introduced the 386,000 lb hopper car and even want to bring in larger versions.

These heavier cars are causing problems (in Michigan and elsewhere) for short lines because a lot of trackage will have to be improved to carry them. If the 386,000 lb car becomes the norm, many short lines will be in danger of closing, unless public money supports new track.

But larger freight cars are all that realistically can be done. The current rail infrastructure just cannot be ripped up and redesigned. Only in places like China and India where expansion is just beginning can any serious thought be given to building a rail network based on larger lrack gauges and longer trains, but it's not happening even there.

It appears that the pattern of the future for rail transport will still be the ancient Roman ox cart.

[gtw5812]

Airbrakes.....you would never get air to the rear of the train......and on a cold day...forget it.

[Mr. Tops]

There are just so many factors that go into this, as have already been stated. Siding length, train tonnage, road crossings, etc.

Siding length- Lets take the subdivision where I work, where the longest siding is about 10,000 ft. If you have two trains that are longer than that siding, where are they going to meet? Even trains that are just under 10,000 ft, then will only be able to fit in a select few sidings. This would make dispatching a nightmare, if not impossilbe on single track mains. Like has been said, it is possible out west in the desert and has been done; UP ran an 18,000 foot train last year with several mid-train helpers. And keep in mind, down the line the sidings may be smaller yet.

Road Crossings- Trains aren't always moving. Whether it's stopped in a siding, the crew has hogged and the train has been tied down, the train is making a setout/pickup, or waiting at a holding point, etc. These are all factors that I have to deal with. Near Chicago, we often have to wait at holdout points for several hours sometimes. The best/biggest spots are about 10,000 ft. We have one that is 12,000 ft. So, in 150 miles, there is one spot that will fit 12,000 feet without blocking crossings. Once again, this would make the dispatcher and crew's jobs a pain in the arse. In Villa Grove, the siding is 10,500 ft long, but the main crossing in town basically makes the siding just over 8,000 feet. Trains over 8,000 feet making setout/picks in the yard would have to block the main crossing when doing such work, otherwise would have to make a mid-train pickup and things would get real sticky.

Train restrictions- On UP, there are certain restrictions in place. For example, empty auto rack trains cannot exceed 10,000 feet. A train weighing 7,000 tons or more, the rear 1/4 of the train cannot weigh more that 1/3 of the total train weight. There is also a TPA (tons per axle) rating that you have to stay under. As the train size goes up, so does that number. TPOB (tons per operative brake) works under the same theory. In the instance where DPU is not available or conventional, there are coupler strength ratings.

These are just a few factors to give you an idea. There is a lot more behind it than you may think in addition to the obvious stuff.

[Mr. Tops]

One way to increase cpacity has already arrived. The Class I railroads have introduced the 386,000 lb hopper car and even want to bring in larger versions.

These heavier cars are causing problems (in Michigan and elsewhere) for short lines because a lot of trackage will have to be improved to carry them. If the 386,000 lb car becomes the norm, many short lines will be in danger of closing, unless public money supports new track.

But larger freight cars are all that realistically can be done. The current rail infrastructure just cannot be ripped up and redesigned. Only in places like China and India where expansion is just beginning can any serious thought be given to building a rail network based on larger lrack gauges and longer trains, but it's not happening even there.

It appears that the pattern of the future for rail transport will still be the ancient Roman ox cart.

Larger cars will not allow for longer trains. You will still be plagued with the same problems. You will, however, be able to fit more product into each car, reducing the number of cars needed, and eventually reducing train size. Even Class I railroads have tonnage restrictions. On UP, the Villa Grove Sub max car weight is 143 tons. Even though locomotives weight 200+ tons, cars loaded over 143 tons cannot be sent down the Villa Grove Sub. So, a 386,000 tons car loaded to it's max will be 50 tons too heavy to ship. To rectify this problem, cars will not be loaded to their max capacity. Shortlines will not close because the cars are getting bigger. Customer has X tons or cargo to ship, shortline will do what they need to to ship the product, whether it's in 15 small cars or 10 big cars. If the customer doesn't like the shortline shipping their product in 15 small cars rather than 10 big cars, they can look at the alternative dozens upon dozen of trucks...

[MIGN-Todd]

I'VE JUST HAD TWO BRAN MUFFINS AND A LARGE CARAMEL MACCHIATTO FROM STARBUCKS- I GOTTA GO! (Just then, your 5-10 mile long train begins to pass by) I'm sending somebody this cleaning bill.........

[chapmaja]

I do think the possibility is there given future advancements in train technology to have those type huge trains. The technology currently isn't present to have trains of that length successfully. Once technology improves it is possible that from a pure train operations standpoint trains could be run that lenghth.

The issue then becomes where to run them. It wouldn't work in the Eastern US due to contrainsts with traffic. About the only place I could see trains of this type running in the US is the SW. I could see, given the technology upgrades trains running across the Sunset Corridor at 5 miles in length. It would be a very good way to move very large quantities of product with less manpower running the trains.

I could see eastern IM trains combined out of the ports, taken in a long length to west of El Paso (new yard being built) then have them get seperated in EP for points eastward and northward. The increased length would save manpower. A 5 mile train running 60 miles per hour would be no different in terms of waiting time than a mile long drag running mile long train running significantly slower than 60, such as entering a yard.

[azimmer]

I'VE JUST HAD TWO BRAN MUFFINS AND A LARGE CARAMEL MACCHIATTO FROM STARBUCKS- I GOTTA GO! (Just then, your 5-10 mile long train begins to pass by) I'm sending somebody this cleaning bill.........

The case would be thrown out of small claims court. The judge would just ask about your Pee-Wee bag:
http://www.easycaretoilet.com/site/7796 ... t/D604PW12

CN used to (maybe still does) regulary run 10,000-12,000 ft. (that's 2 miles) trains down the Mount Clemens and Shoreline subs. The dispatcher would usually refer to these trains an "monsters." On the MC south of 8 Mile Road there used to be (maybe still is) a speed limit of 20 mph (or close to this) until Forest Lawn (which is just before East/North Yard). The crossings affected were 7 mile, Nevada, Davison, Van Dyke, and McNichols -- but these are all in the Detroit city limits and no one cares.

[CharlieX90]

I'VE JUST HAD TWO BRAN MUFFINS AND A LARGE CARAMEL MACCHIATTO FROM STARBUCKS- I GOTTA GO! (Just then, your 5-10 mile long train begins to pass by) I'm sending somebody this cleaning bill.........

The case would be thrown out of small claims court. The judge would just ask about your Pee-Wee bag:
http://www.easycaretoilet.com/site/7796 ... t/D604PW12

CN used to (maybe still does) regulary run 10,000-12,000 ft. (that's 2 miles) trains down the Mount Clemens and Shoreline subs. The dispatcher would usually refer to these trains an "monsters." On the MC south of 8 Mile Road there used to be (maybe still is) a speed limit of 20 mph (or close to this) until Forest Lawn (which is just before East/North Yard). The crossings affected were 7 mile, Nevada, Davison, Van Dyke, and McNichols -- but these are all in the Detroit city limits and no one cares.

These Monsters still frequent the Shoreline sub from time to time.

[hoborich]

A 5 mile train running 60 miles per hour would be no different in terms of waiting time than a mile long drag running mile long train running significantly slower than 60, such as entering a yard.

A five mile train running 60 would be irresponsible. Not gonna happen.

[BerkshireKid]

I think he meant to say 286K instead of 386K for car loadings as these are the new normal.

[conrail767596]

A five mile train running 60 would be irresponsible. Not gonna happen.

Oh, I dunno about that. How about a 3.5 mile long stack train going 60? Lots and lotsa crossings from LA all the way through the Inland Empire; basically 100+ miles of urban and suburban sprawl.

[A No.1]

CN frequently runs 10 and 11 thousand foot trains on the South Bend sub. Not to mention. Last night that 392 that hit the yard at about 7 or 8 pm was over 11thousand TONS.


This 490 was 11,000 feet. http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.p ... 972&nseq=4

[Mr. Tops]

Last night that 392 that hit the yard at about 7 or 8 pm was over 11thousand TONS.

I've had a mixed freight that was 14,000 tons before. Grain trains, depending on the length can weight the same. Coal trains can weigh 17,000+ tons. 10,000-11,000 TON trains are quite common. They are heavy, yes, but common.