Length of Freight Trains

[GWRjake]

I've just returned from Canada where I was amazed to read that their freight trains can be up to 4km long! But how long do freight trains here get?

 

[The Planner]

The aspiration/reality is 775m.

 

[Alistair G.]

Whilst not technically a freight train, we do have the HOBC (High output Ballast cleaner). I believe that's over 2000ft?... Someone will no doubt correct me on that!.

 

[Llanigraham]

I've just returned from Canada where I was amazed to read that their freight trains can be up to 4km long! But how long do freight trains here get?

Whilst we were on The Canadian in May we were told that one that passed us one night was 3 miles long, and we counted 230 wagons on another one, 2 locos on the front, 1 in the middle and 1 at the back.

 

[Minilad]

Whilst we were on The Canadian in May we were told that one that passed us one night was 3 miles long, and we counted 230 wagons on another one, 2 locos on the front, 1 in the middle and 1 at the back.

Sorry to stop you there drive. You've set off the HAB detector. Axle 460. Can you check and report back please

 

[LAX54]

I've just returned from Canada where I was amazed to read that their freight trains can be up to 4km long! But how long do freight trains here get?

On our route (Anglia) most freights are around 2100' or 641 metres, the HOBC that trundles past is approx 763 metres, (2500) of couerse with the longer freights there are less places to recess them, once they are up and running they have to keep going ! Ipswich Yard has just been remodelled and can handle almost anything that is thrown at it, as long as it's in the right direction !
One problem that seems to arise is that as they get longer, they get heavier, but the trimetable(s) seem not to have been updated to cater for this

 

[sprinterguy]

Outside of intermodal trains, which tend to be the longest due to their relatively low gross weight per wagon, some of the longest bulk trains in the country up until recently have been the Lindsey to Jarrow oil trains, which totalled 495 metres in length, formed of 28 bogie tank wagons.

MGR coal trains are typically formed of 21 bogie hoppers, totalling around 373 metres in length depending on type. For a while, in about 2005, jumbo trains formed of two hopper rakes, hauled by a pair of class 66s, operated between Milford sidings in York and Carlisle Kingmoor yard, via the ECML and the Tyne Valley line, which would have been a total train length of 746 metres.

 

[class303]

Whilst we were on The Canadian in May we were told that one that passed us one night was 3 miles long, and we counted 230 wagons on another one, 2 locos on the front, 1 in the middle and 1 at the back.

I did the Canadian too a few years ago. A lot of the freight trains are "double staked" throughout as well. Impressive.

 

[HSTEd]

With reference to the FRA ECP braking standard - the objective maximum length is twelve thousand feet.
Which is the sort of length that makes freight worthwhile these days.

 

[GB]

Longest WTT freight these days probably has to be car trains that regularly run at around 2200-2450 feet.

 

[Tio Terry]

There are a number of Projects in progress:-
Southampton to West Midlands
Felixstowe to Nuneaton
Peak Forest to London
are three I know of, which plan to improve passing loops to allow at least 750m long freight trains to run. The in and out speeds of the point work is also being raised, with the target being 40mph (not always possible).

I believe that the EU plans for TEN's Routes throughout the EU are for 1500M long trains.

 

[Western Lord]

You can see many long US freight trains on Google Earth, more than two miles long is not unusual. There are many reasons why British trains are not as long, not least coupling strength. In North America they use knuckle couplers rather than screw couplings.

 

[Ediswan]

With reference to the FRA ECP braking standard - the objective maximum length is twelve thousand feet.

By way of comparison, that is the same length as Heathrow's southern runway.

 

[Noddy]

Yes I was in British Columbia in summer 2013 on a road trip and seeing many extremely long freight trains was was very impressive.

You can see many long US freight trains on Google Earth, more than two miles long is not unusual. There are many reasons why British trains are not as long, not least coupling strength. In North America they use knuckle couplers rather than screw couplings.

I never understood why the UK freight operators didn't/don't properly get together (like the AAR) and agree on a set of standards. Eg a standard UK knuckle coupler for freight locos and wagons, and a single multiple working system for locos. It seems farcical to me that we still have many incompatible systems, and it will make it difficult to run long freight trains at speeds compatible with modern passenger ones. As swills says as the get longer they get heavier and slower. We could double up as they get longer to mitigate this but the new the new 68s are incompatible with the 59s, 66s, 67s and 70s. In addition many freight wagons can't couple together and you can't couple certain wagons directly to locos! Plus the reliance on screw couplings means hauling round a load of heavy buffers. Not exactly efficient.

 

[Ploughman]

Longest WTT freight these days probably has to be car trains that regularly run at around 2200-2450 feet.

I thought that we had gone metric years and years back.

Anyway 2450 ft equates to approx 746 metres / 817yds

 

[DaveNewcastle]

I thought that we had gone metric years and years back. . . . .

Ah, yes.
That will be why we then created the Standard Length Unit (SLU) for freight. Which is defined in feet.

 

[GB]

I thought that we had gone metric years and years back.

Anyway 2450 ft equates to approx 746 metres / 817yds

SLU and feet are very much alive in the freight world.

 

[ac6000cw]

Sorry to stop you there drive. You've set off the HAB detector. Axle 460. Can you check and report back please

What, only half-way back in the train ? - axle 900 would be much more fun, just a mere 3 mile walk in the cold and dark

(Over there, the conductor sits up front with the driver, and they're the one who has to go and take a look. At least with a hot-box report they are just having a look, unlike after an emergency brake application when they might have to carry a spare brake hose and spanner all that way as well to change the broken hose....)

One big issue with longer trains is that they take longer to clear junctions and get in and out of loops/yards/terminals. This is OK when everything else on the line is similar trains, but it eats up a lot of line capacity when your main traffic is frequent passenger trains, as is the case in the UK on many routes.

The reason US and Canadian freights have grown to the length they are now is to maximise crew productivity and line capacity on routes which are largely single-track (except for the really busy corridors). In steam days the trains were generally shorter since each loco had to have it's own crew, so there was less of a cost advantage in running longer, multi-loco trains.

 

[GM228]

Yes I was in British Columbia in summer 2013 on a road trip and seeing many extremely long freight trains was was very impressive.



I never understood why the UK freight operators didn't/don't properly get together (like the AAR) and agree on a set of standards. Eg a standard UK knuckle coupler for freight locos and wagons, and a single multiple working system for locos. It seems farcical to me that we still have many incompatible systems, and it will make it difficult to run long freight trains at speeds compatible with modern passenger ones. As swills says as the get longer they get heavier and slower. We could double up as they get longer to mitigate this but the new the new 68s are incompatible with the 59s, 66s, 67s and 70s. In addition many freight wagons can't couple together and you can't couple certain wagons directly to locos! Plus the reliance on screw couplings means hauling round a load of heavy buffers. Not exactly efficient.

Indeed the AAR got it righ many years ago, new and old can work together perfectly, however it should be noted that the Chiltern (AAR MW fitted) 68s can work in multiple with 59s, 66s, 67s, 70s and 73/9s using the AAR! Most likely has never/might never happen, but very possible without any further mods.

 

[LAX54]

I thought that we had gone metric years and years back.

Anyway 2450 ft equates to approx 746 metres / 817yds

The Driver's always give us SLU's or Metres, and all the Siggies (or most) in the box then convert to feet !

 

[Jamesb1974]

Deleted

 

[edwin_m]

I never understood why the UK freight operators didn't/don't properly get together (like the AAR) and agree on a set of standards. Eg a standard UK knuckle coupler for freight locos and wagons, and a single multiple working system for locos. It seems farcical to me that we still have many incompatible systems, and it will make it difficult to run long freight trains at speeds compatible with modern passenger ones. As swills says as the get longer they get heavier and slower. We could double up as they get longer to mitigate this but the new the new 68s are incompatible with the 59s, 66s, 67s and 70s. In addition many freight wagons can't couple together and you can't couple certain wagons directly to locos! Plus the reliance on screw couplings means hauling round a load of heavy buffers. Not exactly efficient.

The situation in the UK is less clear-cut. In a smaller country loads per train are usually smaller too, because the time to gather enough payload for a long train becomes more significant relative to the journey time. And we have a complicated railway crowded with passenger trains so long freights are often difficult to accommodate. Also European railway have standardised on buffers and screw couplings, so having the same in Britain allows through trains to Europe and (perhaps more importantly) suitable UK gauge wagons to be hired out either here or on the Continent.

Running freight trains at passenger speeds is difficult too. Track forces increase dramatically with both axle load and speed, and when EWS trialled a 90mph intermodal freight the loads in the containers had to be limited. Brakes would have to match the greater decelerations that are needed at higher speeds to stop within the same signal spacings, but would need to dissipate much more energy because the freight train is that much heavier. And much more power would be needed if a freight train was to accelerate like a passenger train and sustain the higher speeds on gradients.

Having said that, DBS coal wagons have AAR knuckle couplers, so why don't their coal trains run at 775m long, with two locos if necessary?

 

[RichmondCommu]

Having said that, DBS coal wagons have AAR knuckle couplers, so why don't their coal trains run at 775m long, with two locos if necessary?

How many routes that see DBS operated coal trains have loops that can hold trains that are 775m long? That perhaps is the answer to your question. I guess the same could be said for power station infrastructure and its possible limitations.

 

[The Planner]

1 SLU equates to 21 feet. It really shows how the railways are changing when you run a 90+SLU freight over a route with loops than can only take half that length!

Thats what the exceptional loads book is for, a joker card to allow that sort of thing to happen.

 

[8A Rail]

Whilst we were on The Canadian in May we were told that one that passed us one night was 3 miles long, and we counted 230 wagons on another one, 2 locos on the front, 1 in the middle and 1 at the back.

I understand that 107 bogie wagons in Canada equals 1 mile in length if that helps.

 

[class 9]

The situation in the UK is less clear-cut. In a smaller country loads per train are usually smaller too, because the time to gather enough payload for a long train becomes more significant relative to the journey time. And we have a complicated railway crowded with passenger trains so long freights are often difficult to accommodate. Also European railway have standardised on buffers and screw couplings, so having the same in Britain allows through trains to Europe and (perhaps more importantly) suitable UK gauge wagons to be hired out either here or on the Continent.

Running freight trains at passenger speeds is difficult too. Track forces increase dramatically with both axle load and speed, and when EWS trialled a 90mph intermodal freight the loads in the containers had to be limited. Brakes would have to match the greater decelerations that are needed at higher speeds to stop within the same signal spacings, but would need to dissipate much more energy because the freight train is that much heavier. And much more power would be needed if a freight train was to accelerate like a passenger train and sustain the higher speeds on gradients.

Having said that, DBS coal wagons have AAR knuckle couplers, so why don't their coal trains run at 775m long, with two locos if necessary?

Length restrictions at power stations and loading points.

 

[WestCountry]

It should be noted that the Chiltern (AAR MW fitted) 68s can work in multiple with 59s, 66s, 67s, 70s and 73/9s using the AAR! Most likely has never/might never happen, but very possible without any further mods.

Is that the case? I heard elsewhere that they've been fitted with an incomplete version of 'AAR', capable of receiving input from the DVTs but not suitable for multiple-working, even within the subclass.

That was specifically in contrast to the 73/9s, which apparently do have proper AAR compatibility.

 

[GM228]

Is that the case? I heard elsewhere that they've been fitted with an incomplete version of 'AAR', capable of receiving input from the DVTs but not suitable for multiple-working, even within the subclass.

That was specifically in contrast to the 73/9s, which apparently do have proper AAR compatibility.

No the AAR system is fully functional, there is no incomplete version of the AAR, to work properly with the DVTs and allow alarms etc work it must be fully functional, The first loco of a MW consist would send the same signals to the rear loco as a DVT would to the 68.

 

[Rugd1022]

Whilst not technically a freight train, we do have the HOBC (High output Ballast cleaner). I believe that's over 2000ft?... Someone will no doubt correct me on that!.

I worked the HOBC from Willesden Euroterminal to Northampton (6Y15) last night with a colleague, it's 129 SLUs which equates to 2,709 feet, however, when we punch this in to the length counter in the cab it adds a bit more to account for the couplings stretching throughout the train.

On arrival at Northampton I walked from the back loco to the front where we were releived by a nother pair of Drivers, take it from me.... it's a bloody long walk on the ballast!

 

[snowball]

Whilst we were on The Canadian in May we were told that one that passed us one night was 3 miles long, and we counted 230 wagons on another one, 2 locos on the front, 1 in the middle and 1 at the back.

Several decades ago I read about a train, possibly in South Africa, with 12 locomotives, 8 at the front and 4 in the middle.