I have always noticed but never really asked why European freights seem to be much shorter compared to North American consists?
Completely different systems and philosophies. Passenger service is the real use for rail there, freight is secondary if only because it travels shorter distances than here. The US went for “heavier” loading guages, i.e. heavier equipment, heavier rail, bigger stuff than European and other rail. The “lighter” loading guages allows for lighter weight equipment thus more and faster passenger trains. That’s a very brief, touch the surface, explanation.
The Europeans also have less freight moving by rail. Because the distances are smaller (i.e. one country in Europe is about the size of one state in America) it’s more economical to move by truck. However as noted they have excellent passenger and mass transit systems, since they have pretty stiff gasoline taxes that are used to fund them.
I know in Britain they had two problems affecting train length. One problem with train length was that more than half of their freight cars (“trucks”) were privately owned, and they had trouble convincing the private owners to add airbrakes. This meant in steam days a train could only be as long as an engine and a “brake van” at the rear could stop by themselves, meaning frequent short trains.
The other problem as mentioned earlier was the loading gage or size of equipment. The UK has many mainlines that were built in the 1830’s-50’s when equipment was tiny and didn’t have much power. This meant grades were kept to an absolute minimum which was good; however, things like tunnels were built to fit the smaller equipment of the time and they normally couldn’t afford to increase the size, so they had to squeeze engines into a smaller height and width. A typical UK engine like say a 4-6-2 is about 1/8th smaller than a typical US counterpart because of that. In the US - especially outside of the northeast - we could just build bigger and bigger engines. The largest UK engine, a 2-10-0 from about 1960, would only be about a medium sized US engine.
Yes almost all Eropean freights are shorter than even peddlers in the US. But mainly the shorter European trains have a much higher power to weight ratio to maintain speeds closer to passenger speeds when operating on grades.
The local European passenger trains for most applications are shorter or about the same length of an Amtrak train (ex CHI regional trains). The situation changes dramatically for long distance trains in Europe and Japan. The French to use an extreme example are actively lengthening many of their main lines; station platforms (at great expense at many older locations) to allow for 22 - 24 passenger car TGVs which are 2 TGV trains coupled together and then add in 2 motors at each end of each train set for a total of 4 motors and 22+ passenger cars. For inter country trains Germany is already lengthening platforms at Munic and Berlin (brand new station) for trains to France
Other countrys are using the same metric to allow more capacity without adding any more trains.
Platform length in the US with a few exceptions do not allow for passenger trains over 14 car lengths (NYP and WASH as examples) Many longer passenger trains have to do double stops at short platform stations. I have done double stops in Europe so it is not unheard of there.
Because of the number of trains by a station (one a day each direction at many intermediate long distance stations) and/or the lack of equipment to have longer train lengths there has not been a push for longer platforms in the US. RRs in the 50s and 60s actually shortened many platforms (WASH an example). Now especially on the NEC spine and branches the lengths of platforms is becoming an issue since at rush hours no more trains can be run . The big problem is NYP and I have no idea how that can be resolved.The only train in North America that consistently equals
You also need to take in mind the European buffer style couplers can’t take the same loads that US style couplers can.
That is true in the areas with significant grades (not all of which are in the mountains). DB has run test trains of 1500 meters (nearly a mile). A bigger problem is signal block length, typically 600 to 700 meters. On lines equipped with the advanced LZB-CIR-ELKE or ETCS this isn’t a problem, but elsewhere it is. Germany has committed to having their portion of Corridor “A” fully equipped with either system by 2017.
Edit - European Corridor “A” is Rotterdam - Ruhr - Basel - Milano - Genoa. For Germany this means Emmerich/Venlo to Basel.
I lived in Britain in 1959 - 1960 and one thing that I became very homesick for, more so than root beer or peanut butter, was a good LONG freight train. I spent a year watching short freights pulled by ex-GWR 2800 class 2-8-0’s and sometimes Hall and Grange class 4-6-0’s.In the spring of 1960 I went to Germany and did see the Austerity class 2-10-0’s, they seemed much more able to handle tonnage than the British engines. The trains they worked were much longer and the German boxcars were much larger than British ones; though still much smaller than the 40 foot boxcar found in North America.
Remember also that European freight trains have changed just like they have here.In 1960, local freights switched the sidings and moved a lot more freight than they do now.In 1959, Britain opened its first Motorway and it was a bonanza for the trucking industry. Today Britain’s Motorways are clogged with trucks,not just the smaller trucks that British truckers drive, but those from Continental Europe which are as big as anything on the Interstates here.
I just have a hard time understanding why American roads do not try smaller train concepts to add more options and faster service for potential customers.
Shorter trains = more trains crews = more rail congestion = more costs = is not worthwhile for small customers. The last issue of trains had an article about a shortline grain operation in Oklahoma. Interesting to see there how UP doesn’t even want to accept anything by 100 car unit trains of grain, and makes them pay more if there’s less than 100 cars. Railroads want big shippers and will always run additional trains for companies that ship hundreds of cars - but don’t expect railroads to go much out of their way for people that have one boxcar every 2 weeks.
Simple economies of scale–it would cost too much.
Besides, the Americans did it in the past.
The longer trains are more efficient in manpower costs, etc.
John
**
**__
American railroads thrive on the economy of scale. Over the road truckers handle 1, 2 or 3 trailers (containers) max. A stack train handles 280 or more containers. Volume customers care more about price and consistency than they do about absolute speed. American railroads will cater to the customers options, that make logistical sense for the railroads and that make enough sense for the customer for them to make the required investments. American railroads shy away from customers that are trying to shift their costs to the carriers without compensation, as any smart business would do. Railroads do add options and premium service for those customers that value those options and service enough to pay for the differences.
One counterbalancing point for European railroads is smaller crew, as in just one. Now of course people will bring up broken knuckles or the European equivalent, but they just don’t happen anywhere near as often, as European trains don’t have free slack. The North American model for Intermodal won’t work for Western Europe as there are too many cities spread just far enough apart that drayage would kill any possibility of profit. Another big difference is the dreaded “Open Access”. In Germany DB published their latest report on competition, as of December 31, 2009 there were 320 companies engaged in railfreight in Germany. Many of these companies are quite small, but in any case DB’s marketshare has fallen to 75% of all railfreight carried in Germany, down from 90% in just 10 years, yet DB’s tonne-kilometers are up over the same period.