European freight yard operations vs US Operations

On Sat, 29 Aug 2009 18:23:20 -0700, "Roger T."


No. They're not articulated - each has two bogie trucks. It's a rake of several wagons with a standard coupling on the outside to couple with an engine of a similar rake. Between the bagons is a different kind of simpler coupling more like a drawbar that is not designed to be separated in service. I've never heard them called articulated before, they're separate wagons with standard couplers on the outside of the rakes,
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Now I understand. I think they made some hoppers like that in North America and perhaps some intermodal cars. Two cars, with drawbar and carrying one number.
--
Cheers.

Roger T.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Christopher A. Lee wrote:

[...] Try Google for "unit train",

This was done with some ore trains in the USA, too.
wolf k.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Were there not "Four Packs", four of the "shorty" ore hoppers with fixed drawbars?
--
Cheers.

Roger T.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I think they also did it with shorty tank cars.
This included connecting the tanks so they could act as one large tank for filling or draining.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Roger T. wrote:

GN or DMIR, IIRC.
wolf k.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Roger T. wrote:

And many unit coal trains have cars fitted with special couplers (so they can be rotated) or bottom hatches (so that they don't need manual opening) in order to unload them without uncoupling, or without stopping.... Now that's an operation I'd like to see done in HO. ;-)
wolf k.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Local HO club has it.
Starts with a working coal loding facility all the way around the layout to a working rotary dump facility.
Cars have custom modified rotary couplers on them.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 30 Aug 2009 13:29:50 -0400, Alan Larsson wrote:

Neat - any web cites?
--
Steve

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Just looked and have not found one yet. I will keep looking
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Alan Larsson wrote:

Lovely. Any pics or videos posted somewhere?
wolf k.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 8/29/2009 11:39 AM Christopher A. Lee spake thus:

I find this hard to believe. After all, in the US, airbrakes were standard well before the end of the steam era, and I think that the rest of the world wasn't that far off in adopting them either. (Not sure of exact dates, and sure that others will give the correct info here.)
Not that there aren't those who model pre-airbrake eras; more power to 'em. But I think it's safe to say that *most* of us model times when trains had airbrakes (and trainlines) as standard equipment.
By the way, I think you're making waaaay too much of the OP's perceived difficulties with English. His writing seems perfectly clear to me.
--
Found--the gene that causes belief in genetic determinism

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 29 Aug 2009 15:23:45 -0700, David Nebenzahl

It's fact though.
Most steam era goods wagons were un-braked apart from a handbrake lever. The trains trundled along pretty slowly. When they had to go up or down a hill, the brakes were pinned down to prevent running away, and thengine dragged the wagons against the friction of the brakes. Rather like driving a car with the handbrake on. The wheels would still go round but it took a lot of power.
There were vacuum braked freights which were faster but there were less of these. Typically for perishable goods.
Coal was probably the highest volume freight traffic. Prior to WW2 the railway companies could provide wagons at a daily rate, but because these would spend so much time at the colliery or the coal merchant, it was cheaper to own or lease your own.
The average coal merchant wanted a load that would fit in a short wheelbase 4-wheeled wagon. The GWR and other lines tried to streamline things with larger wagons but these were too big for the customers, as well costing more to hire per day.
The 4-wheel wagons were built as cheaply as possible, and were little more than mobile coal bins. The customers disn't want anything more than that
As previously pointed out, the only brake force for these trains came from the engine and tender, with a screw-down hand brake on the guard's van at the rear.
During WW2 all these were commandeered for the war effort. Nationalisation came after WW2 and while there were modernisation plans, things carried on pretty much as before. If you don't believe me, try to find brake hoses on this wagon built in 1948.
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/foxfield/LNER_20ton_loco_coal_wagon_E300831_as_built_at_Shildon_in_May_1948.JPG
This was larger than most because it was internal use, for locomotive coal. The average coal merchant still only wanted half that load.

Air brakes came into general use in the UK after the end of steam.
Passenger trains and fast freight used vacuum brakes. In the early 1980s a train I rode from Manchester to London was very late because the dual fitted (vacuum and air) failed, and the first replacement they sent only had air. This was the Manchester Pullman whose stock had been built in the 1960s
During this era newer passenger stock was air braked and older vacuum, with some of the older having both. Many nut all locomotives were dual braked. Incidentally the train I mentioned was the Manchester Pullman and the carrengines but not all dual braked, a
But coal, mineral and other unfitted freight ran until well after the end of steam.
Here's a diesel brake tender to brovide extra braking force for a diesel engine pulling an unfitted train of 10-ton mineral wagons..
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Nope. He's absolutely correct. The majority of British freight trains ran with only the locos brakes, the hand brake on the tender and the guard's hand brake in the brake van at the rear of the train. That's why most UK trains ran at less then 40 mph, because all the braking was in the loco and the weighted brake van at the rear.

I agree with this.
--
Cheers.

Roger T.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 8/29/2009 5:07 PM Roger T. spake thus:

Wow. How quintessentially ... British, which is to say insular. Little cars trundling around a little island ...
--
Found--the gene that causes belief in genetic determinism

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 29 Aug 2009 17:48:42 -0700, David Nebenzahl

Not really. It is what the customers wanted.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Umm, not really! Many freight trains, but more especially coal, were often built up through accessing many short branch lines, collecting from, and delivering to, other short branch lines, throughout industrial districts or coal mining districts, with difficult access. They were often very short runs.
The merry-go-round coal trains for power stations came very much later with longer runs, collecting from fewer and much larger coal pits. (I worked on some of the coal handling plants which received these trains) The system was and is very efficient.
If I may take the opportunity and go slightly OT, I have never been able to understand US practice with coal drags, where as many as 100 wagons (?) were coupled (10,000 tons ?) being typical but frequently ran at well below locomotive economic running speed, walking speed no less, and, I understand, often stalled. How come? This has puzzled me for a long time.
I have several CD's of C&O showing Allegheny H8's just crawling with mile long coal drags!
Any explanations, please.
I mean, one could equally ask, why choose the Mallet system as opposed to the Beyer Garratt?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Brian Bailey wrote: [...]

Ore trains in the Missabe Range were in that range, too. That's the reason for the Yellowstone, a 2-8-8-4 that had greater weight on drivers and greater tractive effort than the Bog Boy (which was heavier overall.)

Here are some of the things I've figured out from my reading, and from recall of the thermodynamics course I took many years ago. I don't claim it's a complete explanation, but it's certainly part of it.
Those locos were designed as "drag" locos, for low speed and heavy trains. The economics of steam locomotive speeds are complicated. The drag locos were designed to be most economical at low speeds, in the 15-20mph range. Articulation was used because you essentially get two engines for the price of 1-1/2, with a single crew. And as with all engines, bigger means more efficient.
Mallet vs Beyer-Garratt is a "cultural" difference, heavily influenced by NIH syndrome. Also, IIRC, Beyer-Garratt was patented, while the Mallet was just a compound articulated loco, anybody could build one without paying royalties. A lot of so-called Mallets were simple engines, though.
There are other aspects to the economics of trains. The sheer amount of coal to be hauled is one. The logistics of managing many short, lighter, faster trains are complex compared to fewer, longer, heavier, slower ones, and it's worse when they run on the same tracks. Railroads hate mixing freight and passenger trains for this reason. It requires extra tracks and passing sidings, more complex signalling, and so on.
By the time all these and other factors are balanced against each other, running a heavy trains at less than the engine's most economical speed was a minor cost compared to others.
I'm sure there are many things I've overlooked.
HTH wolf k.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Yes, they were big weren't they. As I understand it the Big Boy wasn't especially efficient, or wasn't run efficiently, and threw a lot of coal, unburnt, up the stack. The fuel was just so cheap that it didn't matter.

Sometimes, it depends how you run them.

I'm sure your right!

True! That must have influenced decision making.

The early one's, yes.

I think that 'all' the later ones were, weren't they?

That's certainly true in the UK.
But, weren't many US long haul tracks virtually dedicated solely to coal and/or ore, though?

ie. fuel was cheap at the time. But, as an admirer of the engineering of both the Yellowstones and the Lima H8's, I am aware that the economical running speed of both was far higher than what was current running practice. I mean, CD's showing Yellowstones on the Doluth Missabe and Iron Range show them to be really shifting, whereas the H8's were capable of far higher speeds than was normal practice which appeared to be slow coal drags. I think that I am correct in thinking that C&O didn't really know the H8's full capabilities until it was far too late to utilise it.

No worries, me too.
Brian
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 21:35:53 +0100, Brian Bailey
[big snip]

Not all - the last of Norfolk & Western's Y6bs was built in 1952, and they were compound to the end. It is said that the next N&W drag loco (the Y7) would have been a simple, however.
Tim
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.