I think that for most main lines on most railroads, train lengths are already at or close to the maximum that the infrastructure will reasonably allow, dictated mostly by siding length and terminal R/D track lengths. Thirty years ago there were some length limits that were dictated more by train-handling concerns and low-strength couplers than by infrastructure. Since 1980 the advent of DP, more uniform consists, air brake improvements and high-strength couplers have enabled train lengths to approach what the infrastructure will allow. I think we will see a continued steady increase in train length, though to what upper limit I don’t know. (But clearly there is one.) Current planning envisions 175-car bulk trains within the next 3-5 years, and new sidings at 12,500 feet.
Increased weight limits are more dictated by metallurgy and rail/wheel interface. The closed-system Australian iron ore lines have successfully reached the 315K plateau, but the methods used to do so are not readily transferred economically to North American open-network railroading. The Australian iron ore lines found that if they pay very close attention to wheel profile and rail profile it’s possible to achieve 315K economically without uneconomical rail and wheel wear, or rail failures, but they can do so because they control the car fleet and there are no bad-actor cars.
I assumed capacity was a key problem against increasing train speeds, but does it seems there is no point in increasing speeds without suitable capacity. It seems unless a third party get involved with the funding of increased capacity, we are not going to see faster speeds on much of the rail network.
When I rode UP City of St. Louis with my parents “back in the day” near Green River, WY, we were in the diner and the staff kept dropping dishes. My Dad said we have to be going faster than normal, because they are used to serving as the train is moving.
We were running late and when we went up to the Dome car after dinner, Dad talked to a man who was tracking mileposts with his stopwatch. He said we’d been running about 100 mph. Not something that would be allowed today. That’s my experience with “high speed” rail.
"It seems unless a third party get involved with the funding of increased capacity, we are not going to see faster speeds on much of the rail network. "
Third party involvement has nothing to do with it. If the need is there, and there is a return on investment, the money is there to do it. This is frieght not passenger rail, so it would be done if the product was in need of the speed and the client would pay enough to recover the cost of building and maintainence, ie, ROI or Return On Investment.
And, yes, “back in the day”, there was a lot of 100mph running. Some sanctioned but more often than not, not. Railroaders knew their railroad, thier equipment, and their job. Management knew its railroaders and who among them they could count on to deliver. It was not as romantic as Freeman Hubbard and David P. Morgan would have you believe, but rather nuts and bolts operations.
On a slight tangent: I spent a couple of months each in 1967 & 1968 in the Utica, NY area, and was impressed with the speed of the freights on the NYC. I remember my car rocking side to side at a grade-crossing from the wind stirred up. Does any one know what speeds were common in that area around that time? Seemed like about 90 MPH to me, though I don’t think it’s likely.
My train of thought was coming from the perspective of how more people want freight to move on a faster rail network, really should not assume that the railroad companies are just going to add capacity because it is “needed” vs. being financially fruitful for the railroad company.
You are punny BT CPSO 266! But it is the managers of the private investor railroad who make the determination of what and where a railroad will build or improve based on the need to serve their definition of railroad and service. The public can demand that trucks come off the roads but that will not build nor improve track unless the public is also willing to pay for it. And if the railroad company thinks something is needed to make money they will add it, if they don’t see how it will help make money, they won’t, “Financially fruitful” ventures is what investment is all about.
Maybe it’s the “vision thing.” Some managers/executives are very good at maximizing profits within the status quo; others (not many) are able to project their company into the future, investing R&D dollars in new projects that may or may not pay off for years.
Now when you say “public is also willing to pay for it” are you speaking in terms of the business community or government investing for the benefit of the public?