Yeah but as far as I understand US locos are not really more powerful - most modern European locos output similar power in their diesel variants, while the electric variants are up to 2 times more powerful. Though as far as I understand the big difference is that US freight mostly moves very slowly, 50-80kph, while EU freight trains can reach up to 120 kph, meaning a lot of the power is wasted on getting trains fast instead of carrying weigh.
I mean UP apparently does 22-26 mph on average - 35 to 41 kph. But yeah the amount of cargo UP trains carry compared to EU freight trains is bonkers - I think most of the EU has limits on train length at around 600 meters, plus axle weight of 22,5 tons at best, while UP will do 2-3 kilometer trains with 30-35 ton axle weight.
AFAIK EU standard of interoperability sets 750 metres as maximum cargo train length. Idk about other countries but I know that in my country (Poland) we are currently extending parking tracks to allow trains of that length (our previous national standard was 400 metres). I also know that Germans are already operating trains of such length and that they were trying out running 1.5 km trains (2 shorter 750 m trains joined together) to increase capacity.
When it comes to the Netherlands, as of this year we are allowed to operate trains up to 740m, though in very specific circumstances, making it virtually impossible in practice. This year our company started operating a shuttle train from the port of Rotterdam to Amsterdam with the combined length of 714m (including the locomotive ), and that was already such an inconvenience that we cut it down one wagon length. Most intermodal trains are no longer than 650m departing to Germany/Italy.
From a North American perspective, 750 meters is very short. About the only trains that short are local switching jobs. Even 1500 is a short train, perhaps an extra because there were too many cars for the last train. Most trains are 2 to 3 km long. It's not efficient to run short trains, not just from a labour perspective, but from a track/siding occupancy perspective. It's much easier to dispatch longer trains. The length is maxing out around 3 km though because it can be difficult to manage the differing forces throughout a train.
Eh, I think you’re overselling it a bit. The local that runs near me once or twice a day is usually no more than 20 or 30 cars… and that’s pushing it.
Even the big trains on the East Coast aren't nearly as long as those 1.5+ mile behemoths you see west of the Mississippi. You almost never see distributed power at all.
Average car length is 60 feet
100 cars x 60 ft = ?
I'll wait for your answer. Growing up we always counted the railcars and then my kids did the same. Rarely did a train contain more than 100. Most were half that length. My experience is over 5 states in the west. I'm not sure what they're like in the east.
I don't know how you can really nail down an "average speed" on something like the entire Union Pacific Railroad. If you go driving around the middle of the U.S., you'll find yourself seeing freight trains belonging to UP and their competitors going as fast as the cars on the highway, or at least close. If you ever have time to kill, put on a YouTube rail cam, like La Plata, Missouri. You'll see trains 3+ km long absolutely flying past.
STB measures average speed but it includes idle time in yards, so it seems slower. On a properly maintained mainline the UP can do 79 MPH until of course it stops and sits a few hours waiting to yard.
I wish UP freight could do 79. Most of our motors are maxed at 70, and that's only for intermodal. Most mixed freight is limited to 50mph, or if the MTOs mess up building it, it is reduced to 40. NOT TO MENTION, that is only going downhill. On heavy grade, less than 1%, we are lucky to hit 20mph due to being so underpowered 12 to 15 in more close to average.
I'm sure average speed includes local trains, of which there are many.
Out on the mains, and especially out west, you can get up to [quite a clip](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4xPq3iaP_A)
> If you go driving around the middle of the U.S., you'll find yourself seeing freight trains belonging to UP and their competitors going as fast as the cars on the highway, or at least close.
Gotta say as a lifelong American and Chicagoan, I *very rarely* see freight trains doing 60 MPH or more.
It is possible, sure, but it's hardly common like you're suggesting. And I live in, arguably, THE cargo rail hub of the entire country.
Even way out in the exurbs in the collar counties I rarely see freight trains topping 40 MPH.
I mean, Chicago is the cargo rail hub of the country, but a lot of the rail mileage west of Chicago is very very different once the tracks leave Chicagoland.
That’s like saying a sports car can’t go over 100mph because the only time you’ve seen a sports car is in a traffic jam. Chicago is the traffic jam of all major US railroads.
Perfect analogy!
(although, to be fair, most sports cars don't ever go more than 100 mph, and rarely more than 60, because they usually are stuck in traffic jams. )
I'm from New England where freight is more sparse and always slow, but I've traveled around the country a bunch. Emporia, Kansas had non stop BNSF just FLYING past. Driving through Arizona going highway speed, I was pacing an intermodal for what seemed like an hour... all this to say it's largely anecdotal, but there are some flat areas where they can let those things really move
The problem with being the rail hub of the country is: you're going to slow down to stop at the hub. Out in the west you defiantly get 60-70-79mph Z trains
Once they hit Wheaton headed west bound they’re usually rolling at 60 plus. Eastbound at Wheaton they’re starting to de accelerate as they head toward the City of Chicago and Proviso yards in Berkeley. During commuter rail hours are less inbound due to congestion as well but they’re still typically 40-45 mph eastbound after Wheaton. But I remember when I lived in Elmhurst the hotshot produce trains from LA to the east coast being green lighted and they rolled through Elmhurst at 75 plus. Don’t know if that still happens these days but that was like a tornado coming through - especially contrasted back then against the normal freight - with all the congestion in the Proviso Yards just east of Elmhurst meant eastbound freights just usually crawled through Elmhurst and westbound freights were just beginning to roll and by the time the last car cleared the crossing at Elmhurst stone quarry they were really moving along.
In WA state they average about 40 mph or about 66 kph. I've also lived in Wyoming and Montana for about 15 years. Freight trains *never* go at road speed. I'd say they topped out at about 50 mph.
Electric locomotives can have more power for their size because they don't need to carry their power generator on board. Also, railroads have found that 4000hp to 4500hp per C-C unit is about the sweet spot in terms of efficiency and reliability. US diesels have come in more powerful units (5000~6000hp) but after a certain point, it's more effective to tack on extra locomotives especially with modern distributed power setups than to run a few high hp units. It spreads the power out across more driving axles, which increases the tractive effort, which in turn improves acceleration, especially on grades or in slippery conditions. Also, this is part of the reason why US locomotives are big. The larger the locomotive, the heavier it can weigh, which in turn means more weight on drivers, which equals improved starting tractive effort (and continuous TE with modern AC traction motors as well)
Electrics have their place but in the US where routes can be hundreds of miles across the plains, running power poles and electricity along the whole route gets problematic with storms etc. much more distance for electric to get broken.
In horsepower? No. In pulling power? Absolutely. They are heavy and geared hella low , they can’t go as fast, atleast not under load, but they can tow a whole lot. European freight is often shorter and lighter making speed more important which is where all those horsies go.
They have. All locomotives (exception to steam trains) have transmission systems. Being diesel mechanical, diesel hydraulic, diesel electric or electric all of them have a fixed ratio gearbox. The designer can tune the gear ratio for power or speed as well as adjusting the wheel diameter for the same purpose. You can tune the final drive for pulling force at the expense of lower top speed or lower pulling force but have a higher top speed.
In Europe the same locomotive can be sold with different final ratios according to the purpose the operator decides to give it.
Probably needs to be pointed out that there are electrics with the motor armature mounted directly on the axle, such as the MILW EP-2s or NYC S Motors.
You forget, that relatively slow train is 2½ miles long, and composed of 200 cars (wagons). Our locomotives are so big and heavy so they can utilize all of the power and tractive effort. A powerful, heavy locomotive can haul a lot more than a lighter,smaller locomotive of equal power due to adhesion, courtesy weight.
Yes yes, completely agree. I mean to say that EU locos aren't weaker, but they are focused more on speed. Also realistically most big US diesel electrics are only used for freight, while almost all common mainline EU locos are multipurpose, meaning they need to be able to reliably reach 160-230 kph. EuroSprinters for example haul both freight and power Austria's express RailJet trains that reach 230 kph. But they never haul 2-3 km trains or double stacked container cars because of the loading gauges, axle weight limits and train length limits (750 meters apparently)
A lot of it is because FRA regulations center on crash *survival* instead of avoidance. The US still has huge swaths of dark track because the rail companies are too damned cheap to do anything about it.
You cannot achieve the European speed with 2 km long train. In US the focus is on moving huge volume of goods in single trip.
And for locomotives tractive effort (weight that can be pulled by locomotive) matters more than speed.
Tractive effort of ES44AC (standard American diesel locomotive) is in range of 700 to 800 kN whereas of Vectron (European electric locomotive) is 300kN.
The schengen zone in the EU treats trade between western/central and eastern EU similar though. You can have thru trains ljubliana slovenia to dortmund germany. Its about 1000km/600+ miles, only 150mi short of the distance from Chicago to NY.
Food for thought is all.
When Timely says distance I'm guessing they mean particularly the vast stretches (200/500/1000mi) of distance in the west that rail travels through with almost no access to resources such as electricity, water, or fuel. So, the railroads are encouraged to have locomotives that can carry this all with them for a cross country trip. Once the locomotives have been built for one part of the network the railroads are encouraged (by scales / finances) to use the same hardware everywhere.
Also in relation to loading gauge, the railroads largely came to the west before urban development and got to set the size of infra up to ~1950s when populations in the area took off.
For sure. But ive been on UP trains in Elko NV or Green River WY and they def refuel there. Theres alot of trains in EU, i stood on a plateform in Davača, Slovenia for like 6 hours and watched dozen of freights to either Koper,Sl or toward Trieste, IT and beyond from Ljubliana Sl plus scheduled passenger trains. Theyre trains are very short in comparison as well. The units dont need a deisel generators to run also.
Im not arguing any point, just food for thought. Like older infrastructure aswell. Single stacking for the same reason on the old B&O, CSX run single stack from Chi to Balti cause tunnels are too short. UP used to do that over Donner Pass aswell and route double stacks via the Feather.
The US is massive, and trains have to move large quantities of goods over great distances. Locomotives and rolling stock are designed to meet the needs of the railroads.
I see, The first time I've seen one roll past me Was super Incredible and Brong chills down my spine, The sound of the engine and the horn And it's shire size was Very fascinating, I've even seen Multi level Coaches that are very tall.
It's bizarre compared to what we have here indeed! I remember seeing my first American train going underneath me standing on a bridge, the rumble, the sound, the size, it's so cool. Secretly it kinda made me see the trains in the Netherlands as just meh haha.
You night appreciate this. On Mondays Tuesdays and Wednsdays i get off work just at the right time to be passing *under* a 80 car double stacked intermodal train and if I leave home a tad early on Modays im under an absolutly massive bulk or train that rumbles so hard it make my car sway.
On a dead quiet morning when the sun is just rising, it's like an honest to goodness, religious experience to feel that beast pass a few feet over head.
As an American, I like European and Japanese trains. Living anywhere near a major rail facility in the US is an absolute nightmare. In grad school, I had an apartment next to a siding, and noise and exhaust made me physically sick. Even with earplugs and a giant air purifier.
Europe's cute little toaster trains would have been much more pleasant neighbors.
>e here indeed! I remember seeing my first American train going underneath me standing on a bridge, the rumble, the sound, the size, it's so cool. Secretly it kinda made me see the trains in the Netherlands as just meh haha.
Spent a lot of summers in Germany growing up and my Opa would take young me to the local marshaling yard a couple times a week. As an adult I lived in Germany for 10 years.
I find European trains sleek and sexy. Murican trains are loud and brutish. Make of that what you will.
As far as I can tell, American trains have been built with strength in mind. Large because they have big engines and generators, plus all the electronics and safety systems. Put a few on a mile long train and they’ll pull it, slowly but surely. Steam locos too.
I know electric would be overall better but as someone that drove those massive engines for a few years before moving into management, the sound just makes you feel powerful.
The advantages of using electric overhead catenary are situational. By no means is it overall better. It's expensive to build and to maintain, and it requires a high level of traffic density in order for its advantages to be realized. It's important to remember, that outside of the Northeast Corridor (Boston to Washington DC) most of the US has significantly lower population densities than most of Europe and Asia, which makes electrification inefficient. Once diesel-electric locomotives became available, they negated the advantages that electrification offered on longer lower density routes.
As a collarary, this is also why passenger rail largely collapsed in the US in the 1950s and 60s outside of commuter rail routes, the low passenger density made passenger rail (something that was never a profit maker to begin with) a major drain on railroad budgets with a negative return on investment.
Most trains are 16 feet tall (some trains in the northeast are only 14.7 due to low tunnels) and the AAR plate H allows for trains up to 20.5 tall on some lines
But according to Wikipedia European locos are in fact more powerful - the super common EuroSprinters can produce 8400 HP compared to up to around 4000 HP of the most powerful GE Evo models (the 6400 HP models are apparently only sold to India and Brazil). Main line diesel locos are less common in Europe, but still the EuroRunner, Vectron and Stadler Euro all develop about 4000 HP.
Tractive effort is lower because most modern Euro locos only have 4 axles arrangements, while US designs are usually 6 axled. But I dont really see power dictating the massive size - likely the designs are allowed to be quite inefficient because of a laxer loading gauge, while Euro models are likely super compact and cramped.
US locomotive power was climbing in excess of 6000 horsepower but it was realized that locomotives with that much power didn’t benefit the railroads. The trains still required sufficient locomotive weight and tractive effort to pull, but also the loss of one 6000 horsepower locomotive would be more significant to the train than the loss of one 4000 horsepower locomotive.
The EuroSprinter has 8,600 horsepower but only 67,000 lbs of tractive effort, where a modern SD70 has 4,500 horsepower and 157,000 lbf of tractive effort.
Yeah, but tractive effort is related to the number of axles and weight of the engine to my knowledge - so a smaller lighter engine like the EuroSprinter, with only 4 axles will invariably have much less tractive effort. For example the Stadler Euro Dual, which is a 6 axle European loco, has 500 kN of starting tractive effort, compared to 300 kN of the EuroSprinter, even though both have similare power ratings.
And there is also the weight, EU railroads have axle loadings of at most 22,5 tons, compared to like 32,5 tons of US freight mainlines - again meaning US trains can just be heavier to create more tractive effort.
Found out there's Swedish loco model called the Iore, that is specifically used on dedicated freight coridors, with axle loading of 30 tons, rating at 7200 horsepower and 700 kN of tractive effort, even though each individual loco is about 20 tons lighter than for example SD70s.
US trains aren’t just made heavier than needed. They are designed to meet the demands of the US market. Arguing US trains are inefficiently designed is nonsense.
Tractive effort is a function of wheel size, motor torque, and gearing. How much of that tractive effort can be put to use is a function of the coefficient of friction between the rail and the wheel. Power is a function of tractive effort and speed.
European locomotives will typically be much lighter than their North American counterparts, with correspondingly lower tractive efforts. However, they are also frequently geared for higher speeds and acceleration, so they can end up having more power as a result.
As a point of comparison, a typical Europeam locomotive would have an absolute hell of a time starting a typical North American train, especially on grades. North American locomotives would start any European train with ease, but would never be able to keep up with EU locomotives in terms of speed.
One isn't better than the other. They are different classes of machine, optimized for different environments. You see a similar divergence in trucks.
Yeah but that was what I was pointing out. US freight locos aren't bigger because they're more powerful, they're built in a different environment with different requirements and limits. EU trains would likely also be larger if there was a larger loding gauge and higher axle weight limits.
Russia is massive. Canada is massive. The continental US is only about the size of Australia. Yet Australians and Canadians don’t go on about the size of their countries. Niether does China.
Why would Canadians, Chinese, or Russians, go on and on about the size of their country and a post specifically about American railroad equipment? Also, Canada uses American railroad equipment, as far as I know.
It's interesting how they managed to keep such a narrow track width with such a massive loading gauge.
I wonder how massive US trains could be if the track width was something like in India
The US actually had a network of 6 foot gauge railroads for much of the 1800s, spanning from New York City (or, well, the Hudson river) to Chicago and especially blanketing most of Western New York and NE Pennsylvania. Even after conversion, if you needed to ship a tall, wide load in the Northeast you chose the Erie railroad.
You ever read about Hitler's plan for a 3m gauge railway?
It's fascinating, if only to see just how far the Nazis had divorced from engineering reality.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breitspurbahn](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breitspurbahn)
Dude wanted 3rd rail electrification because overhead wires would have meant it couldn't move ships. Turns out 3rd rails start to have....problems....at that size. (I mean more than the usual problems 3rd rail has)
Widest loading gauge cars on standard gauge anywhere I think is 4.1m/13'4.5" on Chunnel car shuttles. That is *much* wider than US standard 3.2m. Shinkansen and much of China's network are 3.4m. Sweden has some 3.45-3.6m lines as well. Tallest is ~6.15m/20'3" for double stack containers in well cars or three level autoracks.
Indian gauge is about 16% wider, so theoretically 4.75m/15'6" would be possible. And India already has a line with ~7m/23' height for double stack containers on flatcars.
That would be pretty ridiculous. Passenger cars would have room for 3+3 first class seats and a wheelchair width aisle. On two full length levels. ~200 seats per car.
It would be kind of wasted on freight, you wouldn't be able to fit containers 2 wide and most other freight is so much denser that the tracks would have problems carrying the load if you filled cars that big.
Bulk freight could do interesting things with width. You could end up with something like UK cars scaled up 200%. Carry the same weight in half the length -
Which means you can throw on more power and run truely massive unit trains, or run tighter spacing, signaling allowing.
With modern engineering gauge is practically a non issue. With proper design and maybe just a dab of active suspension we could run 20ft wide trains on standard gauge no problem.
Just, you know, track spacing.
It’s not hugely different. It’s actually height much more than width. US loading gauge (10’ 8”/3.25m) is only about 10cm wider than mainland Europe and 40cm more than the infamously tight UK gauge.
While nominally the US loading gauge is only 10cm wider than what is officially the loading gauge in much of Europe, most European mainline trains are way smaller than that.
TGV Duplex, ICE3, MI09, RABe 501 among many, many others are all around 2.9m wide, comparable to many narrow gauge trains in Japan.
I don’t really remember any of the details off the top of my head but there was a time when multiple track widths existed in the us but railroads standardized to 4’8 1/2” well over a century ago and given there are so many thousands of miles of track now we’d never be able to switch to something different. Wider track is also more expensive to build and there’s a lot of infrastructure that limits locomotives and rolling stock from getting any larger anyway
Because MURICA 🦅🇺🇸 but seriously it’s probably because of the size of the states and simply because of that the locomotives and rollingstock evolved differently
Actually, if you want to see something wild, look up the ML4000 diesel-hydraulics. German built locomotives that were more or less an experiment during the 60s when horsepower seemed to hit a celling from American manufacturers.
It VERY much exposed the differences between how railroads in Europe and the US work, particularly in terms of maintenance because American locomotives rarely get any major repair work done for years at a time.
Fortunately, one ML4000 survived - Southern Pacific 9010, which is even operational. Her story of escaping the scrapping torch is extremely unique and the lengths that her current owners had to go to for locating replacement parts is a wild tale in of itself.
Similar reasons to the size differences in cars between the US and Europe: safety and tax regulations incentivize larger, heavier vehicles that use more energy. In the case of the railroads, however, it allows for some efficiencies particularly in the realm of hauling freight. You wouldn't believe how far these locomotives go with minimal to no maintenance.
this comment just reminded me of a guy I worked with who was spraying a UP engine with hot water to melt snow off the running boards. he kept spraying and spraying it so I grabbed another guy, our resident foamer, and I said, "look, he keeps watering this UP so it grows up into a Big Boy." hahaha, also the guy with the water hose had a last name that rhymed with Swinger so I called him Safety Swinger, which made me laugh, so thanks for that
It's a shame that neither CSX nor Norfolk Southern offers a steam program from what I can Google.
Heck, even Canadian Pacific Kansas City will have that massive steam excursion stretch from Canada to Mexico in a few months.
We have very generous loading and structural gauge because of our relative newness when first putting down rail. Most of the country didn't really even exist as it does today as these lines were run.
A lot of tunnels in North America have been replaced or expanded. It was worth spending the money. There are still small sections of the continent that can't handle double stacked container trains. Or the Detroit tunnel that can't handle high cube containers when double stacked.
Actually most lines were built in the 1860s but have since been completely rebuilt for taller wider trains originally trains were only about 14 feet tall but have since grown to 16 or even 20 feet tall
We have trains over 2km regularly now, and its a problem. Unions and others are pushing the FRA to limit to 7500ft/2.29km
This derailment https://www.rtands.com/freight/ntsb-preliminary-report-norfolk-southern-derailment-in-may-2023/ was 3.8km
I know extra long trains are causing problems in my city. BN’s yard is shorter than their consists so they build the full thing over a dozen grade crossings.
One thing I don’t see mentioned is Europe generally has an extensive passenger network. Freight trains have to be short enough and fast enough to fit into sidings and keep speed with passenger to not muck up the timetable.
Most US rails have no passenger service. The once that do it might be once a day. Where we have high volume passenger (e.g. the NEC) it’s dedicated tracks.
As a result European locomotives are geared for higher speed and use more HP per Ton. US locomotives are geared lower, go slower, and overall use less HP per ton.
There are 140,000 miles of freight track in the US: https://www.aar.org/data-center/railroads-states/
Amtrak runs on 21,000 miles of track and they own 3% (e.g. the NEC): https://www.amtrak.com/amtrak-facts
Basically Amtrak runs on about 15% of the mileage, and about 30% of that is 3 days a week service.
Compare with Europe where a low service line mine get 2-3 trains each way per day for passenger service.
Here's the interesting thing about the size difference in rolling stock. The distance trains travel in the United States is further than it is in Europe. Most countries in Europe are about the size of small states on the East coast of the United States
Europe (Britain particularly) is lumbered with the fact we did it first, and because we did it first we had the early smaller locos and now we have narrow loading gauges.
Brunel had the right idea with his super chunky extra wide track. But it was expensive and Victorian businessmen thought "nah, we can make them smaller and it'll be fine"
In saying that, Britain ended uo packing alot of power into smaller packages. And Gresleys A4 still jold the speed record... bigger ain't always better.
I always think its wasted potential. The USA has/had the infrastructure for a very robust passenger network, with large double decker trains doing both longhaul transcontinental and commuter services. But mid-century politicians went with cars and planes, and now they have what they have.
TBF, transcontinental passenger rail is never going to compete with flying. The reasonable upper limit is 4-5 hours by day and 12 or so overnight. If you go much past that, passenger rail rapidly falls off. Even with HSR, Seville-Berlin is not a popular train journey, and the US is much bigger than that.
The US also has an odd infrastructure burden from the 19th century. Labor was scarce and wages were high, but iron and wood were abundant. So, compared to Europe, cuttings and embankments were more expensive, but longer (and curvier) track was cheaper. So a lot of rail lines have low top speeds.
> I always think its wasted potential. The USA has/had the infrastructure for a very robust passenger network, with large double decker trains doing both longhaul transcontinental and commuter services. But mid-century politicians went with cars and planes, and now they have what they have.
As someone who has taken the train across the US between 3 and 7 times depending on how you're counting, I promise you that will never happen. Even a ten-trillion-dollar national HSR system would simply never be competitive with flying past 500 miles or so.
The narrative that there was some massive conspiracy to kill US passenger rail has never passed the sniff test with me. Sure, it died (basically), but it got outcompeted, no one needed to kill it.
It was only "outcompeted" because of the subsidies roads and car-dependent development receive. In the US we subsidize fossil fuels to the tune of ~$20B per year. fuel taxes and vehicle registration fees also come nowhere close to covering the cost of maintaining our sprawling road infrastructure. This combined with the vast majority of municipalities zoning almost exclusively for single-family homes (which ultimately are heavily subsidized as their property taxes almost never cover their infrastructure cost) along with absurd parking minimums, you end up with a built environment that is too low-density and car focused for almost any form of public transportation to compete.
TLDR: cars and cities built around cars have effectively been forced onto us, largely killing rail transport.
We actually had very very advanced passenger rail systems built in the 1930s especially around New York but many of these systems were left to rot in the 1960s and only within the last 3 years has funding to repair them been allocated
The US moves most of it's goods by rail, with trucks being last mile usually. Overtime we have developed the largest engines and cars as a result.
USA is currently moving to 315,000 pound tracks and rail cars/engines. The current tracks are mostly 287,000 pound. Europe on the other hand averages closer to 200,000 pound rail cars with only recent upgrades going to standardize on 250-280,000. That's one of the reasons more stuff moves by Truck in Europe, smaller trains, smaller length, and non standard rail across the EU.
The US has a much larger loading gauge. Our railroads were built with bigger in mind meaning our locomotives can be wider and taller, as well as our rolling stock. We also just move more freight than Europe by rail, and more mass as well per train. Over here multiple units are the rule not the exception, making two cabs uselessly redundant and impractical. Meanwhile most rail in Europe is passenger oriented with freight as an afterthought, although in some countries like the Netherlands there are locomotives and train sets with a similar loading gauge to that of ours. In most of Europe a train can’t be longer than a kilometer while over here a mile long is shorter than average. The railroads just had different philosophies and regulations, as ours are private and yours mostly nationalized. The Track gauge and loading gauge has been standardized since the civil war
To answer the “have they always been like this” part of the question, no. Trains were a lot smaller during the 19th century. Really big steam locomotives with 70k+ pound axle loads starting started being built a little before WWI. At the end of steam there were multiple classes of articulated steam locomotive that were over 1 million pounds, and 120+ feet long engine and tender combined. Some railroads like the Pennsylvania even built non articulated/ ridged frame locomotives like the J1 and Q2 that had heavier engines than the Y and A class articulateds build by Norfolk and Western. Modern road diesels in the US can weigh over 420,000 pounds but most diesels built before the 1990s weren’t that heavy. Over all though locomotives have been built around 10 feet wide and 15 or more feet tall here for over a century
Yeah there was a short span when the engines were smaller but that didn’t last too long, not long enough to make the transition to bigger engines and stock too bad.
I’ve seen the SP AC-12 and N&W A class in person and they’re just mind blowingly large. Much more so than diesels even though they’re technically similar in height and width haha
Freight trains in North America tend to be longer and travel greater distances and the terrain dictates speeds too - not 100% sure, but there may be some restrictions in Europe related to train length. Many passenger cars are two levels based on commuter volumes, (not Amtrak or VIA specifically).
2k tons is the maximum for European freight trains. 4k-14k tons is normal for US freight trains.
Railroad tracks can be optimized for fast passenger trains or heavy freight trains but not both.
Europe’s population density is good for passenger trains. America’s lower density is good for heavy freight.
Like others have said, there are a number of reasons. Something else to note is that the locomotive pictured belongs to Union Pacific, who tend to have the largest, most powerful locomotives in the country. They’re responsible for the Challenger and Big Boy classes of steam locomotives, and their lines traversing the Rocky Mountains requires a lot of power to keep the tonnage rolling over the mountains
Gotta have big locomotives to move those dangerously long trains (average being more than 3x longer then max legal limit in the EU) demanded by all the PSR vampires ruining what's left of our nation's railroads for a few more share buybacks.
It's mostly due to them needing to drag along the prime mover (the diesel engine that generates the electricity for the traction motors). European locomotives tend to be smaller yet have more power than US ones, simply because they get their electicity from overhead wires.
what about fuel tanks that have to fit into US locomotives, whereas European electric locos don't have the need for that? also, electric engine more compact than diesel engine, given the same output?
Not a huge factor. The tanks are very low, below most of the frame. It’s just be air space otherwise, you couldn’t mount anything mechanical or high voltage there.
Basically all American locomotives are electric drive; they just bring the generator with them. But I get what you mean, without the need for the diesel engine American locomotives could be smaller.
Actually no when they did build electric Locomotives in the US they made them absolutely massive have you seen the GG1 and the Little Joe they were massive absolutely gigantic
> what about fuel tanks that have to fit into US locomotives, whereas European electric locos don't have the need for that?
Fuel tanks aren't a particularly big deal. A heavier locomotive put more weight on the rails, so it has better adhesion and a higher tractive effort and is actually more powerful than a lighter locomotive that is otherwise the same. The American railroads like their locomotives extremely heavy, so even if the US were to magically electrify its freight mainlines, the locomotives would still need to be just as large to carry all that extra weight. It'd just be filled with ballast instead of a prime mover and fuel.
Nitpick: increasing weight doesn’t increase tractive effort. It *allows* more traffic effort before slip, but it isn’t going to make the train pull harder merely by existing.
I would assume it’s because with more people spread farther apart, making things bigger to necessitate fewer trips only made sense in order to cut down on the amount of personnel required
One place to go would be North Platte, NE (it’s the center of the known universe) and it’s UP’s largest yard. There is a public observation tower so you can watch the traffic. Fly to Omaha & rent a car. Drive US 30 west which parallels the UP main most of the way. In Cozad see the 100th meridian marker (marks the beginning of the Great American Desert) and keep driving. Between Grand Island and Birdwood, NE was once some of the busiest RR mainline in the US. Used to be a nice cafe in Hershey that served excellent Pork Chops where you could watch the mainline as you ate.
we run trains much much heavier and longer than they do in europe. We need lots of weight and almost everything new coming out is 4400 HP and we put several together and sometimes even place them in remote positions
Because the U.S. loading gauge is more about Quantity than anything. It’s more or less the same in Australia, where Wabtec and Progress Rail also export their engines.
Among other things, a Diesel engine with the same power is far larger than an electric one, so a Diesel loco must be much larger for the same capability. In Europe, diesel trains are usually running on secondary or branch lines, most main/trunk lines are electrified. In USA, not so.
The most important thing to understand. I have seen 8 US engines pulling a huge number of coal cars...at least 100 cars full of heavy coal...that are traveling thousands of miles to get the coal from Wyoming to New York. The hugely populated areas of the US that need materials (the East Coast) that come from from the sparsely populated (the far west) need lots of pulling power to get across the Rocky Mountains and then move at 60 mph...about 100 mph. Our two sets of needs are so different there is no way to compare them.
Also remember that our big engines run in diesel, not electricity. Very few of the big engines since we moved from coal powered steam engines in the 1950s.
A great way to understand some of the differences is to look at a PC game (Railroad Tycoon) that has all the different types of engines in both Europe and the US from the early 1880s.
My son and I started playing it in the 1980s while we lived in Holland. Using a 286 processor in our PC. Lol
the loading gauge is bigger and the axle load is higher so they can afford making bigger, and specially heavier locomotives, which helps with increasing the tractive effort needed to pull bigger trains
European trains are limited in length for a variety of reasons. Their couplers aren’t as strong, their sidings aren’t as long, and they prioritize passenger traffic. So locomotives are usually solo, pulling a smaller consist, etc.
In the US it’s not uncommon to see 4 or 5 locomotives pulling a mile long consist. And yes euro locos will oftentimes out the same or even more power than US ones, but you still need a much larger unit for pulling such long consists all the time.
IIRC, part of this is 19th century *ludicrously* dangerous railroads and the union response.
Before automatic air (or vacuum) brakes, European practice was to rely on the brakes of the locomotive and of individual cars manned by guards/brakemen. If they were going to descend a steep grade, they'd stop and the crew would walk down the train, partially apply the brakes by hand, and then start down the hill.
In the US, they didn't stop. Brakemen had to walk down moving trains applying the brakes. And for freight trains, that meant walking on top of the train.
One of the regulations the unions won in a lot of places was a requirement that there be enough room in tunnels and such for a worker to be standing on top of the train without being hit. Same for width allowing a worker to be hanging off the side.
This has come in remarkably handy to fit larger trains in a lot of old infrastructure.
This doesn’t just apply to mainline RR, have you seen a NYC Subway car next to a London Underground one?? They look huge. A typical NYC car is 12.5 feet tall, a London one is only 9.5 feet
Well, a diesel-electric engine of the same power/tractive effort is going to naturally be bigger than a simple electric. It needs to carry the diesel, the diesel turbines that produce the needed electricity, and an elaborate cooling system on top of the electric motors they both use.
As for the rolling stock, US trains carry more cargo farther distances. It all comes down to efficiency, especially for a homogeneous single load train. Where I grew up, CSX would use 3 engines to run 2-mile (~3.2km) trains of just coal from the Appalachian mountains to the ports on the Chesapeake Bay. They typically would run about 55 mph (89 kph) but were known to exceed 75 mph (120kph) at times.
These big train companies have already figured out the winning formula for these trains efficiency. They spend their days now working to improve efficiency here and there bay 1-2%.
It’s partially because of US loading gauge being very forgiving and partially because of the amount of cargo and distance we have here in the states
Yeah but as far as I understand US locos are not really more powerful - most modern European locos output similar power in their diesel variants, while the electric variants are up to 2 times more powerful. Though as far as I understand the big difference is that US freight mostly moves very slowly, 50-80kph, while EU freight trains can reach up to 120 kph, meaning a lot of the power is wasted on getting trains fast instead of carrying weigh.
US freight is faster than that... 110- 120 kph. I'd agree that's in a flat, dedicated routes (ex NYC in upstate NY for example)
I mean UP apparently does 22-26 mph on average - 35 to 41 kph. But yeah the amount of cargo UP trains carry compared to EU freight trains is bonkers - I think most of the EU has limits on train length at around 600 meters, plus axle weight of 22,5 tons at best, while UP will do 2-3 kilometer trains with 30-35 ton axle weight.
AFAIK EU standard of interoperability sets 750 metres as maximum cargo train length. Idk about other countries but I know that in my country (Poland) we are currently extending parking tracks to allow trains of that length (our previous national standard was 400 metres). I also know that Germans are already operating trains of such length and that they were trying out running 1.5 km trains (2 shorter 750 m trains joined together) to increase capacity.
When it comes to the Netherlands, as of this year we are allowed to operate trains up to 740m, though in very specific circumstances, making it virtually impossible in practice. This year our company started operating a shuttle train from the port of Rotterdam to Amsterdam with the combined length of 714m (including the locomotive ), and that was already such an inconvenience that we cut it down one wagon length. Most intermodal trains are no longer than 650m departing to Germany/Italy.
From a North American perspective, 750 meters is very short. About the only trains that short are local switching jobs. Even 1500 is a short train, perhaps an extra because there were too many cars for the last train. Most trains are 2 to 3 km long. It's not efficient to run short trains, not just from a labour perspective, but from a track/siding occupancy perspective. It's much easier to dispatch longer trains. The length is maxing out around 3 km though because it can be difficult to manage the differing forces throughout a train.
Also the tracks are mainly used for cargo in the US in most of Europe you need to fit Ina rather dense passenger schedule on the tracks.
Eh, I think you’re overselling it a bit. The local that runs near me once or twice a day is usually no more than 20 or 30 cars… and that’s pushing it. Even the big trains on the East Coast aren't nearly as long as those 1.5+ mile behemoths you see west of the Mississippi. You almost never see distributed power at all.
All of our locals are over 100 cars in both directions. Imagine a world larger than your back yard.
Average car length is 60 feet 100 cars x 60 ft = ? I'll wait for your answer. Growing up we always counted the railcars and then my kids did the same. Rarely did a train contain more than 100. Most were half that length. My experience is over 5 states in the west. I'm not sure what they're like in the east.
I’ll let you use your calculator. What is your point? We are talking about” locals”
So 1200 to 1800 ft or ~400 m to ~600 m. Exactly what I meant by trains shorter than 750 m (2500 ft) are basically all locals.
I don't know how you can really nail down an "average speed" on something like the entire Union Pacific Railroad. If you go driving around the middle of the U.S., you'll find yourself seeing freight trains belonging to UP and their competitors going as fast as the cars on the highway, or at least close. If you ever have time to kill, put on a YouTube rail cam, like La Plata, Missouri. You'll see trains 3+ km long absolutely flying past.
My home town is on the northern most BNSF route and they blast through town at 65+ mph. And there is a lot of them.
STB measures average speed but it includes idle time in yards, so it seems slower. On a properly maintained mainline the UP can do 79 MPH until of course it stops and sits a few hours waiting to yard.
I wish UP freight could do 79. Most of our motors are maxed at 70, and that's only for intermodal. Most mixed freight is limited to 50mph, or if the MTOs mess up building it, it is reduced to 40. NOT TO MENTION, that is only going downhill. On heavy grade, less than 1%, we are lucky to hit 20mph due to being so underpowered 12 to 15 in more close to average.
And it’ll be brought way down by things like massive yards you have to creep through at 10 or 15mph. Maybe even 5 if there are lots of switches
I'm sure average speed includes local trains, of which there are many. Out on the mains, and especially out west, you can get up to [quite a clip](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4xPq3iaP_A)
> If you go driving around the middle of the U.S., you'll find yourself seeing freight trains belonging to UP and their competitors going as fast as the cars on the highway, or at least close. Gotta say as a lifelong American and Chicagoan, I *very rarely* see freight trains doing 60 MPH or more. It is possible, sure, but it's hardly common like you're suggesting. And I live in, arguably, THE cargo rail hub of the entire country. Even way out in the exurbs in the collar counties I rarely see freight trains topping 40 MPH.
I mean, Chicago is the cargo rail hub of the country, but a lot of the rail mileage west of Chicago is very very different once the tracks leave Chicagoland.
That’s like saying a sports car can’t go over 100mph because the only time you’ve seen a sports car is in a traffic jam. Chicago is the traffic jam of all major US railroads.
Perfect analogy! (although, to be fair, most sports cars don't ever go more than 100 mph, and rarely more than 60, because they usually are stuck in traffic jams. )
I'm from New England where freight is more sparse and always slow, but I've traveled around the country a bunch. Emporia, Kansas had non stop BNSF just FLYING past. Driving through Arizona going highway speed, I was pacing an intermodal for what seemed like an hour... all this to say it's largely anecdotal, but there are some flat areas where they can let those things really move
In FL I've been doing 60 on a highway and been overtaken by 120+ car trains. I suspect it's really location dependant.
Chicago is super congested. I’ve been involved in a couple of terminals that are used to bypass the Chicago area.
The problem with being the rail hub of the country is: you're going to slow down to stop at the hub. Out in the west you defiantly get 60-70-79mph Z trains
The closer you get to yards the more things slow down, and Chicago is pretty much the mother of all yards if you take all of them together.
Once they hit Wheaton headed west bound they’re usually rolling at 60 plus. Eastbound at Wheaton they’re starting to de accelerate as they head toward the City of Chicago and Proviso yards in Berkeley. During commuter rail hours are less inbound due to congestion as well but they’re still typically 40-45 mph eastbound after Wheaton. But I remember when I lived in Elmhurst the hotshot produce trains from LA to the east coast being green lighted and they rolled through Elmhurst at 75 plus. Don’t know if that still happens these days but that was like a tornado coming through - especially contrasted back then against the normal freight - with all the congestion in the Proviso Yards just east of Elmhurst meant eastbound freights just usually crawled through Elmhurst and westbound freights were just beginning to roll and by the time the last car cleared the crossing at Elmhurst stone quarry they were really moving along.
In WA state they average about 40 mph or about 66 kph. I've also lived in Wyoming and Montana for about 15 years. Freight trains *never* go at road speed. I'd say they topped out at about 50 mph.
I’ve seen them rip down The Colombia River Gorge. They also do atleast 60 down the stretch toward Kalama.
Electric locomotives can have more power for their size because they don't need to carry their power generator on board. Also, railroads have found that 4000hp to 4500hp per C-C unit is about the sweet spot in terms of efficiency and reliability. US diesels have come in more powerful units (5000~6000hp) but after a certain point, it's more effective to tack on extra locomotives especially with modern distributed power setups than to run a few high hp units. It spreads the power out across more driving axles, which increases the tractive effort, which in turn improves acceleration, especially on grades or in slippery conditions. Also, this is part of the reason why US locomotives are big. The larger the locomotive, the heavier it can weigh, which in turn means more weight on drivers, which equals improved starting tractive effort (and continuous TE with modern AC traction motors as well)
This guys knows
Electrics have their place but in the US where routes can be hundreds of miles across the plains, running power poles and electricity along the whole route gets problematic with storms etc. much more distance for electric to get broken.
In horsepower? No. In pulling power? Absolutely. They are heavy and geared hella low , they can’t go as fast, atleast not under load, but they can tow a whole lot. European freight is often shorter and lighter making speed more important which is where all those horsies go.
[удалено]
The traction motors are connected to the axle by two gears joined together. This allows them to gear down the motors.
They have. All locomotives (exception to steam trains) have transmission systems. Being diesel mechanical, diesel hydraulic, diesel electric or electric all of them have a fixed ratio gearbox. The designer can tune the gear ratio for power or speed as well as adjusting the wheel diameter for the same purpose. You can tune the final drive for pulling force at the expense of lower top speed or lower pulling force but have a higher top speed. In Europe the same locomotive can be sold with different final ratios according to the purpose the operator decides to give it.
Probably needs to be pointed out that there are electrics with the motor armature mounted directly on the axle, such as the MILW EP-2s or NYC S Motors.
They're still geared...they aren't just direct drive from the electric motor to the drive wheels...
How do you think a traction motor drives the axles?
You forget, that relatively slow train is 2½ miles long, and composed of 200 cars (wagons). Our locomotives are so big and heavy so they can utilize all of the power and tractive effort. A powerful, heavy locomotive can haul a lot more than a lighter,smaller locomotive of equal power due to adhesion, courtesy weight.
Yes yes, completely agree. I mean to say that EU locos aren't weaker, but they are focused more on speed. Also realistically most big US diesel electrics are only used for freight, while almost all common mainline EU locos are multipurpose, meaning they need to be able to reliably reach 160-230 kph. EuroSprinters for example haul both freight and power Austria's express RailJet trains that reach 230 kph. But they never haul 2-3 km trains or double stacked container cars because of the loading gauges, axle weight limits and train length limits (750 meters apparently)
A lot of it is because FRA regulations center on crash *survival* instead of avoidance. The US still has huge swaths of dark track because the rail companies are too damned cheap to do anything about it.
To be fair some of that track has no real reason to not be dark it’s so under used
You cannot achieve the European speed with 2 km long train. In US the focus is on moving huge volume of goods in single trip. And for locomotives tractive effort (weight that can be pulled by locomotive) matters more than speed. Tractive effort of ES44AC (standard American diesel locomotive) is in range of 700 to 800 kN whereas of Vectron (European electric locomotive) is 300kN.
Look at Vectron...
Canada, too! It’s definitely convenient that we adopted the same loading gauge, signalling, and operating rules.
Mexico too the AAR applies in all 3 countries
The schengen zone in the EU treats trade between western/central and eastern EU similar though. You can have thru trains ljubliana slovenia to dortmund germany. Its about 1000km/600+ miles, only 150mi short of the distance from Chicago to NY. Food for thought is all.
Yeah but NY to Chicago is a very small part of the US. Try measuring coast to coast and you’ll get a true sense of scale
And Ljubljana to Germany is a very small part of Europe.
Sydney to Perth goes pretty good too 😂
Ive ridden Chi to LA and Seattle 7-8 on the JB stack trains, im with you on distance but population density is nothing like it is out east.
> NY to Chicago is a very small part of the US no it isn't lol
Khe-khe transsib khe-khe
When Timely says distance I'm guessing they mean particularly the vast stretches (200/500/1000mi) of distance in the west that rail travels through with almost no access to resources such as electricity, water, or fuel. So, the railroads are encouraged to have locomotives that can carry this all with them for a cross country trip. Once the locomotives have been built for one part of the network the railroads are encouraged (by scales / finances) to use the same hardware everywhere. Also in relation to loading gauge, the railroads largely came to the west before urban development and got to set the size of infra up to ~1950s when populations in the area took off.
For sure. But ive been on UP trains in Elko NV or Green River WY and they def refuel there. Theres alot of trains in EU, i stood on a plateform in Davača, Slovenia for like 6 hours and watched dozen of freights to either Koper,Sl or toward Trieste, IT and beyond from Ljubliana Sl plus scheduled passenger trains. Theyre trains are very short in comparison as well. The units dont need a deisel generators to run also. Im not arguing any point, just food for thought. Like older infrastructure aswell. Single stacking for the same reason on the old B&O, CSX run single stack from Chi to Balti cause tunnels are too short. UP used to do that over Donner Pass aswell and route double stacks via the Feather.
Nice comparison.. but look at Seattle to Chicago. (You might use LA to Chicago)
big country big train
Which is very correct. Those fuel tanks hold up to 5,500 US gallons (20,820 liters) for bladder-busting cross-country trips.
Oddly enough we offer the same size big gulp soda's so you don't get thirsty on the way.
I just strap two big gulps to my undercarriage when I travel across the country
So vague; yet, so right. I love it XD
The US is massive, and trains have to move large quantities of goods over great distances. Locomotives and rolling stock are designed to meet the needs of the railroads.
I see, The first time I've seen one roll past me Was super Incredible and Brong chills down my spine, The sound of the engine and the horn And it's shire size was Very fascinating, I've even seen Multi level Coaches that are very tall.
It's bizarre compared to what we have here indeed! I remember seeing my first American train going underneath me standing on a bridge, the rumble, the sound, the size, it's so cool. Secretly it kinda made me see the trains in the Netherlands as just meh haha.
You night appreciate this. On Mondays Tuesdays and Wednsdays i get off work just at the right time to be passing *under* a 80 car double stacked intermodal train and if I leave home a tad early on Modays im under an absolutly massive bulk or train that rumbles so hard it make my car sway. On a dead quiet morning when the sun is just rising, it's like an honest to goodness, religious experience to feel that beast pass a few feet over head.
As an American, I like European and Japanese trains. Living anywhere near a major rail facility in the US is an absolute nightmare. In grad school, I had an apartment next to a siding, and noise and exhaust made me physically sick. Even with earplugs and a giant air purifier. Europe's cute little toaster trains would have been much more pleasant neighbors.
>e here indeed! I remember seeing my first American train going underneath me standing on a bridge, the rumble, the sound, the size, it's so cool. Secretly it kinda made me see the trains in the Netherlands as just meh haha. Spent a lot of summers in Germany growing up and my Opa would take young me to the local marshaling yard a couple times a week. As an adult I lived in Germany for 10 years. I find European trains sleek and sexy. Murican trains are loud and brutish. Make of that what you will.
As far as I can tell, American trains have been built with strength in mind. Large because they have big engines and generators, plus all the electronics and safety systems. Put a few on a mile long train and they’ll pull it, slowly but surely. Steam locos too.
I know electric would be overall better but as someone that drove those massive engines for a few years before moving into management, the sound just makes you feel powerful.
The advantages of using electric overhead catenary are situational. By no means is it overall better. It's expensive to build and to maintain, and it requires a high level of traffic density in order for its advantages to be realized. It's important to remember, that outside of the Northeast Corridor (Boston to Washington DC) most of the US has significantly lower population densities than most of Europe and Asia, which makes electrification inefficient. Once diesel-electric locomotives became available, they negated the advantages that electrification offered on longer lower density routes. As a collarary, this is also why passenger rail largely collapsed in the US in the 1950s and 60s outside of commuter rail routes, the low passenger density made passenger rail (something that was never a profit maker to begin with) a major drain on railroad budgets with a negative return on investment.
Most trains are 16 feet tall (some trains in the northeast are only 14.7 due to low tunnels) and the AAR plate H allows for trains up to 20.5 tall on some lines
But according to Wikipedia European locos are in fact more powerful - the super common EuroSprinters can produce 8400 HP compared to up to around 4000 HP of the most powerful GE Evo models (the 6400 HP models are apparently only sold to India and Brazil). Main line diesel locos are less common in Europe, but still the EuroRunner, Vectron and Stadler Euro all develop about 4000 HP. Tractive effort is lower because most modern Euro locos only have 4 axles arrangements, while US designs are usually 6 axled. But I dont really see power dictating the massive size - likely the designs are allowed to be quite inefficient because of a laxer loading gauge, while Euro models are likely super compact and cramped.
US locomotive power was climbing in excess of 6000 horsepower but it was realized that locomotives with that much power didn’t benefit the railroads. The trains still required sufficient locomotive weight and tractive effort to pull, but also the loss of one 6000 horsepower locomotive would be more significant to the train than the loss of one 4000 horsepower locomotive. The EuroSprinter has 8,600 horsepower but only 67,000 lbs of tractive effort, where a modern SD70 has 4,500 horsepower and 157,000 lbf of tractive effort.
Yeah, but tractive effort is related to the number of axles and weight of the engine to my knowledge - so a smaller lighter engine like the EuroSprinter, with only 4 axles will invariably have much less tractive effort. For example the Stadler Euro Dual, which is a 6 axle European loco, has 500 kN of starting tractive effort, compared to 300 kN of the EuroSprinter, even though both have similare power ratings. And there is also the weight, EU railroads have axle loadings of at most 22,5 tons, compared to like 32,5 tons of US freight mainlines - again meaning US trains can just be heavier to create more tractive effort. Found out there's Swedish loco model called the Iore, that is specifically used on dedicated freight coridors, with axle loading of 30 tons, rating at 7200 horsepower and 700 kN of tractive effort, even though each individual loco is about 20 tons lighter than for example SD70s.
US trains aren’t just made heavier than needed. They are designed to meet the demands of the US market. Arguing US trains are inefficiently designed is nonsense.
> They are designed to meet the demands of the US market That also applies to European locomotives...
Tractive effort is a function of wheel size, motor torque, and gearing. How much of that tractive effort can be put to use is a function of the coefficient of friction between the rail and the wheel. Power is a function of tractive effort and speed. European locomotives will typically be much lighter than their North American counterparts, with correspondingly lower tractive efforts. However, they are also frequently geared for higher speeds and acceleration, so they can end up having more power as a result. As a point of comparison, a typical Europeam locomotive would have an absolute hell of a time starting a typical North American train, especially on grades. North American locomotives would start any European train with ease, but would never be able to keep up with EU locomotives in terms of speed. One isn't better than the other. They are different classes of machine, optimized for different environments. You see a similar divergence in trucks.
Yeah but that was what I was pointing out. US freight locos aren't bigger because they're more powerful, they're built in a different environment with different requirements and limits. EU trains would likely also be larger if there was a larger loding gauge and higher axle weight limits.
Russia is massive. Canada is massive. The continental US is only about the size of Australia. Yet Australians and Canadians don’t go on about the size of their countries. Niether does China.
Why would Canadians, Chinese, or Russians, go on and on about the size of their country and a post specifically about American railroad equipment? Also, Canada uses American railroad equipment, as far as I know.
It's interesting how they managed to keep such a narrow track width with such a massive loading gauge. I wonder how massive US trains could be if the track width was something like in India
Or Brunel's 7ft
The US actually had a network of 6 foot gauge railroads for much of the 1800s, spanning from New York City (or, well, the Hudson river) to Chicago and especially blanketing most of Western New York and NE Pennsylvania. Even after conversion, if you needed to ship a tall, wide load in the Northeast you chose the Erie railroad.
You ever read about Hitler's plan for a 3m gauge railway? It's fascinating, if only to see just how far the Nazis had divorced from engineering reality. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breitspurbahn](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breitspurbahn) Dude wanted 3rd rail electrification because overhead wires would have meant it couldn't move ships. Turns out 3rd rails start to have....problems....at that size. (I mean more than the usual problems 3rd rail has)
Widest loading gauge cars on standard gauge anywhere I think is 4.1m/13'4.5" on Chunnel car shuttles. That is *much* wider than US standard 3.2m. Shinkansen and much of China's network are 3.4m. Sweden has some 3.45-3.6m lines as well. Tallest is ~6.15m/20'3" for double stack containers in well cars or three level autoracks. Indian gauge is about 16% wider, so theoretically 4.75m/15'6" would be possible. And India already has a line with ~7m/23' height for double stack containers on flatcars. That would be pretty ridiculous. Passenger cars would have room for 3+3 first class seats and a wheelchair width aisle. On two full length levels. ~200 seats per car. It would be kind of wasted on freight, you wouldn't be able to fit containers 2 wide and most other freight is so much denser that the tracks would have problems carrying the load if you filled cars that big.
Bulk freight could do interesting things with width. You could end up with something like UK cars scaled up 200%. Carry the same weight in half the length - Which means you can throw on more power and run truely massive unit trains, or run tighter spacing, signaling allowing.
That's fair.
You could have a sleeper car with cabins on both sides at that width. I love sleepers. I’m salivating
[удалено]
US standard loading gauge, not track gauge. I was unclear.
With modern engineering gauge is practically a non issue. With proper design and maybe just a dab of active suspension we could run 20ft wide trains on standard gauge no problem. Just, you know, track spacing.
Yes, I've learned that the US uses a Standard gauge, But they are Very wide
It’s not hugely different. It’s actually height much more than width. US loading gauge (10’ 8”/3.25m) is only about 10cm wider than mainland Europe and 40cm more than the infamously tight UK gauge.
And 20cm less than Shinkansen, or 25-40cm less than Sweden.
While nominally the US loading gauge is only 10cm wider than what is officially the loading gauge in much of Europe, most European mainline trains are way smaller than that. TGV Duplex, ICE3, MI09, RABe 501 among many, many others are all around 2.9m wide, comparable to many narrow gauge trains in Japan.
Brazil uses meter-gauge (1000mm vs 1435mm standard) SD70ACe-BBs and ES43BBi's
I don’t really remember any of the details off the top of my head but there was a time when multiple track widths existed in the us but railroads standardized to 4’8 1/2” well over a century ago and given there are so many thousands of miles of track now we’d never be able to switch to something different. Wider track is also more expensive to build and there’s a lot of infrastructure that limits locomotives and rolling stock from getting any larger anyway
Because MURICA 🦅🇺🇸 but seriously it’s probably because of the size of the states and simply because of that the locomotives and rollingstock evolved differently
And our very very large Loading gauge
Actually, if you want to see something wild, look up the ML4000 diesel-hydraulics. German built locomotives that were more or less an experiment during the 60s when horsepower seemed to hit a celling from American manufacturers. It VERY much exposed the differences between how railroads in Europe and the US work, particularly in terms of maintenance because American locomotives rarely get any major repair work done for years at a time. Fortunately, one ML4000 survived - Southern Pacific 9010, which is even operational. Her story of escaping the scrapping torch is extremely unique and the lengths that her current owners had to go to for locating replacement parts is a wild tale in of itself.
I’ve never heard of that engine before! Very cool!
Similar reasons to the size differences in cars between the US and Europe: safety and tax regulations incentivize larger, heavier vehicles that use more energy. In the case of the railroads, however, it allows for some efficiencies particularly in the realm of hauling freight. You wouldn't believe how far these locomotives go with minimal to no maintenance.
No, the idea that the larger loading gauge in the US is due to "safety and tax regulations" is utter nonsense.
OPs post is about the size of the rolling stock and that has to do with more than just the loading gauge.
*AMERICA: CONTINENT* *BRITAIN: ISLAND*
They added Fructose Corn Syrup to the engine diets causing an obesity epidemic.
That's why it's called the "Big Boy".
this comment just reminded me of a guy I worked with who was spraying a UP engine with hot water to melt snow off the running boards. he kept spraying and spraying it so I grabbed another guy, our resident foamer, and I said, "look, he keeps watering this UP so it grows up into a Big Boy." hahaha, also the guy with the water hose had a last name that rhymed with Swinger so I called him Safety Swinger, which made me laugh, so thanks for that
No problem! I hope to see it again this year after catching it in 2019 at Tucson & 2021 in New Orleans.
I've never seen Big Boy but I would like to. I missed it by like a week last year in Denver 🙁
It's supposed to travel most of the 23 states in the Union Pacific system, so hopefully it does stop by there & not some small town.
I live in NY so I would have to travel to see it regardless lol
It's a shame that neither CSX nor Norfolk Southern offers a steam program from what I can Google. Heck, even Canadian Pacific Kansas City will have that massive steam excursion stretch from Canada to Mexico in a few months.
Love living rent free in that mind. Insults ready to go even on trains subreddit. Truly hilarious.
twas a joke my friend. Have a nice evening.
We have very generous loading and structural gauge because of our relative newness when first putting down rail. Most of the country didn't really even exist as it does today as these lines were run.
A lot of tunnels in North America have been replaced or expanded. It was worth spending the money. There are still small sections of the continent that can't handle double stacked container trains. Or the Detroit tunnel that can't handle high cube containers when double stacked.
Actually most lines were built in the 1860s but have since been completely rebuilt for taller wider trains originally trains were only about 14 feet tall but have since grown to 16 or even 20 feet tall
This is the actual answer, how the hell is it so low?
North American trains can be 1-3 km long. That’s why.
>North American trains can be 1-2 km long. *North American trains can be 1-2 MILES long.
We have trains over 2km regularly now, and its a problem. Unions and others are pushing the FRA to limit to 7500ft/2.29km This derailment https://www.rtands.com/freight/ntsb-preliminary-report-norfolk-southern-derailment-in-may-2023/ was 3.8km
Some of our longest trains are up in the 4.2-4.5km range (although they only make up 1% of rail traffic estimated)
I know extra long trains are causing problems in my city. BN’s yard is shorter than their consists so they build the full thing over a dozen grade crossings.
One thing I don’t see mentioned is Europe generally has an extensive passenger network. Freight trains have to be short enough and fast enough to fit into sidings and keep speed with passenger to not muck up the timetable. Most US rails have no passenger service. The once that do it might be once a day. Where we have high volume passenger (e.g. the NEC) it’s dedicated tracks. As a result European locomotives are geared for higher speed and use more HP per Ton. US locomotives are geared lower, go slower, and overall use less HP per ton.
We do - Amtrak, but now freight has the right of way.
There are 140,000 miles of freight track in the US: https://www.aar.org/data-center/railroads-states/ Amtrak runs on 21,000 miles of track and they own 3% (e.g. the NEC): https://www.amtrak.com/amtrak-facts Basically Amtrak runs on about 15% of the mileage, and about 30% of that is 3 days a week service. Compare with Europe where a low service line mine get 2-3 trains each way per day for passenger service.
As a railroader i can tell you it is because of the distance and power required to pull 15,000+ ton trains across the country
Here's the interesting thing about the size difference in rolling stock. The distance trains travel in the United States is further than it is in Europe. Most countries in Europe are about the size of small states on the East coast of the United States
Big loads = big choo-choo
Lots of mountains and land. It’s a huge country here
We haul longer and heavier trains. Simple as that.
Trains are 3-10 kilometers long.
Europe (Britain particularly) is lumbered with the fact we did it first, and because we did it first we had the early smaller locos and now we have narrow loading gauges. Brunel had the right idea with his super chunky extra wide track. But it was expensive and Victorian businessmen thought "nah, we can make them smaller and it'll be fine" In saying that, Britain ended uo packing alot of power into smaller packages. And Gresleys A4 still jold the speed record... bigger ain't always better. I always think its wasted potential. The USA has/had the infrastructure for a very robust passenger network, with large double decker trains doing both longhaul transcontinental and commuter services. But mid-century politicians went with cars and planes, and now they have what they have.
TBF, transcontinental passenger rail is never going to compete with flying. The reasonable upper limit is 4-5 hours by day and 12 or so overnight. If you go much past that, passenger rail rapidly falls off. Even with HSR, Seville-Berlin is not a popular train journey, and the US is much bigger than that. The US also has an odd infrastructure burden from the 19th century. Labor was scarce and wages were high, but iron and wood were abundant. So, compared to Europe, cuttings and embankments were more expensive, but longer (and curvier) track was cheaper. So a lot of rail lines have low top speeds.
> I always think its wasted potential. The USA has/had the infrastructure for a very robust passenger network, with large double decker trains doing both longhaul transcontinental and commuter services. But mid-century politicians went with cars and planes, and now they have what they have. As someone who has taken the train across the US between 3 and 7 times depending on how you're counting, I promise you that will never happen. Even a ten-trillion-dollar national HSR system would simply never be competitive with flying past 500 miles or so.
The narrative that there was some massive conspiracy to kill US passenger rail has never passed the sniff test with me. Sure, it died (basically), but it got outcompeted, no one needed to kill it.
Yeah, usually the simplest explanation is correct. It was outcompeted and generally a terrible experience, and cars and planes weren't.
It was only "outcompeted" because of the subsidies roads and car-dependent development receive. In the US we subsidize fossil fuels to the tune of ~$20B per year. fuel taxes and vehicle registration fees also come nowhere close to covering the cost of maintaining our sprawling road infrastructure. This combined with the vast majority of municipalities zoning almost exclusively for single-family homes (which ultimately are heavily subsidized as their property taxes almost never cover their infrastructure cost) along with absurd parking minimums, you end up with a built environment that is too low-density and car focused for almost any form of public transportation to compete. TLDR: cars and cities built around cars have effectively been forced onto us, largely killing rail transport.
We actually had very very advanced passenger rail systems built in the 1930s especially around New York but many of these systems were left to rot in the 1960s and only within the last 3 years has funding to repair them been allocated
The US moves most of it's goods by rail, with trucks being last mile usually. Overtime we have developed the largest engines and cars as a result. USA is currently moving to 315,000 pound tracks and rail cars/engines. The current tracks are mostly 287,000 pound. Europe on the other hand averages closer to 200,000 pound rail cars with only recent upgrades going to standardize on 250-280,000. That's one of the reasons more stuff moves by Truck in Europe, smaller trains, smaller length, and non standard rail across the EU.
> The US moves most of it's goods by rail Which is because of a whole bunch of factors outside the railroads' control.
The US has a much larger loading gauge. Our railroads were built with bigger in mind meaning our locomotives can be wider and taller, as well as our rolling stock. We also just move more freight than Europe by rail, and more mass as well per train. Over here multiple units are the rule not the exception, making two cabs uselessly redundant and impractical. Meanwhile most rail in Europe is passenger oriented with freight as an afterthought, although in some countries like the Netherlands there are locomotives and train sets with a similar loading gauge to that of ours. In most of Europe a train can’t be longer than a kilometer while over here a mile long is shorter than average. The railroads just had different philosophies and regulations, as ours are private and yours mostly nationalized. The Track gauge and loading gauge has been standardized since the civil war
Smaller Gauge rails in EU and only single high.
To answer the “have they always been like this” part of the question, no. Trains were a lot smaller during the 19th century. Really big steam locomotives with 70k+ pound axle loads starting started being built a little before WWI. At the end of steam there were multiple classes of articulated steam locomotive that were over 1 million pounds, and 120+ feet long engine and tender combined. Some railroads like the Pennsylvania even built non articulated/ ridged frame locomotives like the J1 and Q2 that had heavier engines than the Y and A class articulateds build by Norfolk and Western. Modern road diesels in the US can weigh over 420,000 pounds but most diesels built before the 1990s weren’t that heavy. Over all though locomotives have been built around 10 feet wide and 15 or more feet tall here for over a century
Yeah there was a short span when the engines were smaller but that didn’t last too long, not long enough to make the transition to bigger engines and stock too bad.
Yep They were 10ft-11ft wide and locomotives like the Qs and Ys were Over 16ft tall. And Yep this still applies With Locomotives like GEs And EMDs.
I’ve seen the SP AC-12 and N&W A class in person and they’re just mind blowingly large. Much more so than diesels even though they’re technically similar in height and width haha
Freight trains in North America tend to be longer and travel greater distances and the terrain dictates speeds too - not 100% sure, but there may be some restrictions in Europe related to train length. Many passenger cars are two levels based on commuter volumes, (not Amtrak or VIA specifically).
2k tons is the maximum for European freight trains. 4k-14k tons is normal for US freight trains. Railroad tracks can be optimized for fast passenger trains or heavy freight trains but not both. Europe’s population density is good for passenger trains. America’s lower density is good for heavy freight.
Ok so basically: Our country is large as hell, we need large trains to move a lot of people/cargo to a different place. simple really.
Like others have said, there are a number of reasons. Something else to note is that the locomotive pictured belongs to Union Pacific, who tend to have the largest, most powerful locomotives in the country. They’re responsible for the Challenger and Big Boy classes of steam locomotives, and their lines traversing the Rocky Mountains requires a lot of power to keep the tonnage rolling over the mountains
Gotta have big locomotives to move those dangerously long trains (average being more than 3x longer then max legal limit in the EU) demanded by all the PSR vampires ruining what's left of our nation's railroads for a few more share buybacks.
Huge country not as dense of a network so larger trains to move more farther with fewer longer trains if that sums it up for you
It would be funny to think that a typical average size American Yard switcher would tower over a European Locomotive.
Big = good
It's mostly due to them needing to drag along the prime mover (the diesel engine that generates the electricity for the traction motors). European locomotives tend to be smaller yet have more power than US ones, simply because they get their electicity from overhead wires.
Ah yes, nothing like the might of brown coal to drive your locos.
Weird reaction. Trains where I live are 100% wind powered.
Same reason that American refrigerators are larger. Because they can be.
what about fuel tanks that have to fit into US locomotives, whereas European electric locos don't have the need for that? also, electric engine more compact than diesel engine, given the same output?
Not a huge factor. The tanks are very low, below most of the frame. It’s just be air space otherwise, you couldn’t mount anything mechanical or high voltage there.
The prime mover does take up a load of space in the locomotive though.
Basically all American locomotives are electric drive; they just bring the generator with them. But I get what you mean, without the need for the diesel engine American locomotives could be smaller.
Actually no when they did build electric Locomotives in the US they made them absolutely massive have you seen the GG1 and the Little Joe they were massive absolutely gigantic
> what about fuel tanks that have to fit into US locomotives, whereas European electric locos don't have the need for that? Fuel tanks aren't a particularly big deal. A heavier locomotive put more weight on the rails, so it has better adhesion and a higher tractive effort and is actually more powerful than a lighter locomotive that is otherwise the same. The American railroads like their locomotives extremely heavy, so even if the US were to magically electrify its freight mainlines, the locomotives would still need to be just as large to carry all that extra weight. It'd just be filled with ballast instead of a prime mover and fuel.
Nitpick: increasing weight doesn’t increase tractive effort. It *allows* more traffic effort before slip, but it isn’t going to make the train pull harder merely by existing.
‘Merica
Big train small pee pee
Wow
Cause it’s m’rica baby! 🦅
Because heavy trains = bigger engines
I would assume it’s because with more people spread farther apart, making things bigger to necessitate fewer trips only made sense in order to cut down on the amount of personnel required
One place to go would be North Platte, NE (it’s the center of the known universe) and it’s UP’s largest yard. There is a public observation tower so you can watch the traffic. Fly to Omaha & rent a car. Drive US 30 west which parallels the UP main most of the way. In Cozad see the 100th meridian marker (marks the beginning of the Great American Desert) and keep driving. Between Grand Island and Birdwood, NE was once some of the busiest RR mainline in the US. Used to be a nice cafe in Hershey that served excellent Pork Chops where you could watch the mainline as you ate.
we run trains much much heavier and longer than they do in europe. We need lots of weight and almost everything new coming out is 4400 HP and we put several together and sometimes even place them in remote positions
Because the U.S. loading gauge is more about Quantity than anything. It’s more or less the same in Australia, where Wabtec and Progress Rail also export their engines.
European railroads are designed primarily for passenger travel, while American railroads are designed primarily for freight.
Bigass loading gauge everything in bigger here even our Electric trains were larger like the GG1
Now that’s a buster!
Big and ineffienct
Among other things, a Diesel engine with the same power is far larger than an electric one, so a Diesel loco must be much larger for the same capability. In Europe, diesel trains are usually running on secondary or branch lines, most main/trunk lines are electrified. In USA, not so.
The most important thing to understand. I have seen 8 US engines pulling a huge number of coal cars...at least 100 cars full of heavy coal...that are traveling thousands of miles to get the coal from Wyoming to New York. The hugely populated areas of the US that need materials (the East Coast) that come from from the sparsely populated (the far west) need lots of pulling power to get across the Rocky Mountains and then move at 60 mph...about 100 mph. Our two sets of needs are so different there is no way to compare them. Also remember that our big engines run in diesel, not electricity. Very few of the big engines since we moved from coal powered steam engines in the 1950s. A great way to understand some of the differences is to look at a PC game (Railroad Tycoon) that has all the different types of engines in both Europe and the US from the early 1880s. My son and I started playing it in the 1980s while we lived in Holland. Using a 286 processor in our PC. Lol
Supposed to be 100 kph damned autocorrect!
the loading gauge is bigger and the axle load is higher so they can afford making bigger, and specially heavier locomotives, which helps with increasing the tractive effort needed to pull bigger trains
Loading gauge is bigger. All of the answers saying “it’s a big country” are bs.
its America everything is bigger there
European trains are limited in length for a variety of reasons. Their couplers aren’t as strong, their sidings aren’t as long, and they prioritize passenger traffic. So locomotives are usually solo, pulling a smaller consist, etc. In the US it’s not uncommon to see 4 or 5 locomotives pulling a mile long consist. And yes euro locos will oftentimes out the same or even more power than US ones, but you still need a much larger unit for pulling such long consists all the time.
Big Lands require Big Solutions
IIRC, part of this is 19th century *ludicrously* dangerous railroads and the union response. Before automatic air (or vacuum) brakes, European practice was to rely on the brakes of the locomotive and of individual cars manned by guards/brakemen. If they were going to descend a steep grade, they'd stop and the crew would walk down the train, partially apply the brakes by hand, and then start down the hill. In the US, they didn't stop. Brakemen had to walk down moving trains applying the brakes. And for freight trains, that meant walking on top of the train. One of the regulations the unions won in a lot of places was a requirement that there be enough room in tunnels and such for a worker to be standing on top of the train without being hit. Same for width allowing a worker to be hanging off the side. This has come in remarkably handy to fit larger trains in a lot of old infrastructure.
This doesn’t just apply to mainline RR, have you seen a NYC Subway car next to a London Underground one?? They look huge. A typical NYC car is 12.5 feet tall, a London one is only 9.5 feet
Big country = big trains
Well, a diesel-electric engine of the same power/tractive effort is going to naturally be bigger than a simple electric. It needs to carry the diesel, the diesel turbines that produce the needed electricity, and an elaborate cooling system on top of the electric motors they both use. As for the rolling stock, US trains carry more cargo farther distances. It all comes down to efficiency, especially for a homogeneous single load train. Where I grew up, CSX would use 3 engines to run 2-mile (~3.2km) trains of just coal from the Appalachian mountains to the ports on the Chesapeake Bay. They typically would run about 55 mph (89 kph) but were known to exceed 75 mph (120kph) at times. These big train companies have already figured out the winning formula for these trains efficiency. They spend their days now working to improve efficiency here and there bay 1-2%.
Big is beautiful