When comparing US and European diesel locomotives, it seems road switchers are more popular in the US but full-cowl carbodies are more popular in Europe. Is there a reason road switchers didn’t catch on across the pond? Or am I wrong?
The Europeans with shorter freight trains do more of their carload delivery with switch locomotives. They do have large numbers of roadswitcher configured locomotives, but they rarely use them for linehaul freight movement, they tend to keep them on roadswitch jobs
For example Deutsche Bahn’s type 294 of which they have nearly 400 locomotives
SBB Cargo has been buying Vossloh’s new G1700
The most popular roadswitcher in production in Europe is Vossloh’s G1206
The G1206 is the smaller brother to the G1700. The G120x series has been in production for about 20 years now and total production is near 1000 locomotives (with minor variations).
Because European freights are much shorter/lighter, relatively few trains require multiple locomotives. Having twin-cabs saves the trouble of turning the locomotives. As to why these should be carbodies rather than hood units, that is less obvious. There are some twin-cab hood units (e.g. most Irish locomotives since the '60s, the British Rail class 58 and forthcoming GE JS37ACi for Freightliner UK). Many European locomotives were built for mixed traffic duties, so in some cases the choice of carbody types may have stemmed from a desire for a better looking machine for passenger work (just as US roads specified FP45s instead of SDP45s).
In the UK, our restricted loading gauge does not allow for external walkways, so a carbody is necessary if crew need to get from one cab to the other (the JS37ACi are apparently to have external walkways, but no doubt crews will be prohibited from using them whilst the locomotive is moving).
That’s it! Also the lighter axle loadings makes it harder to put all the structural strength into the frame alone.
RWM
Intersting, A lot of these locomotives actually look very similar to Alco RS-3s onyl a bit more squared off.
I’ve heared that the loco’s are also a lot smaller over there too. Probably because there is less terrain to cover.
Overall foriegn railroads are not as “heavy” as North American roads…that’s why there is very little compatability and one cannot just buy a locomotive or car for off the shelf ere from an off shore manufacturer.
The equipment is smaller because the loading gauge is smaller. That’s the clearances for equipment. Much of mainland Europe’s mainlines are electrified so they don’t rely on diesels as much for road power.
Parts of Europe have very dramatic terrain, particularly in the Alps and sections of Scandinavia. Some of the railways over there use electric locomotives with single unit power ratings in excess of 12,000 horsepower…
Some European countries have wider loading gauges like Sweden, standard track gauge but almost 2 feet wider loading gauge. Makes for nice room in passenger coaches.
European railways are an entirely different railway culture. Their needs are so different, so their motive power reflects that. You pretty much can’t design a locomotive or roling stock in Europe and bring it to USA and expect it to work. In spite of repeated tries. US track standards allow sharper curves and more crooked track, but allow heavier weights and taller cars.
Not to mention brakes, couplers, signal standards and genaraly more ruggged conditions in th US and perhaps more sophisticated in Europe. European trains usualy require a bigger clearance between top of rail and roling stock, ie a US pilot or cow catcher and well cars are too close to the rail by Euro standars.
That’s how kids can get away with that stunt mentioned in another thread where they lie between the rails as the train goes over. You’d have to be a bit skinny in USA not to get a glad hand knock you !
After reading your post (above) and then looking at your avatar, TH&B, I’m thinking it’s kind of like the differences between the European automobiles and American automobiles of - oh, say 40 years ago. The American “muscle” cars were big and had “brute force” big powerful engines, but were not as nimble. The European sports cars were small and fuel efficient, had great transmissions and were very maneuverable. Nothing cornered as well as a late 60s Porche ! But as you say - it reflects the culture and the conditions of the times.
- PDN.
If by sophistication you mean “complexity” I’d agree. There is a requirement in Europe to hang a lot more train-control and communications equipment onto a locomotive in order to obtain interoperability across borders. That makes for a large difference in oversight controls complexity, but all of that stuff is just appendages to the locomotive itself. U.S. and European locomotives are both highly optimized for their respective conditions and both use identical leading-edge technology, with extensive borrowing and sharing of ideas and techniques that disregard national boundaries. There’s nothing more crude about U.S. locomotives. U.S. practice in contrast has been to strongly resist the proliferation of different train-control and communications technologies in order to achieve interoperability at a much lower cost and much higher reliability.
Another definition of sophistication is “impure, adulterated.” That’s what we want to avoid in the U.S. The interoperability task force fo
Well by “sophisticated” I mean for example to achive a better fuel ecconomy or less energy consumtion and higher speeds the equipement might get more complex but still sophisticated and refined to achive such goals. The complexity required to adapt railway equipement to cross boarders and meet required rules is just complex for complexity’s sake.
The newer US locos themselves are also pretty sophisticated and not so crude, but US railroading is cruder. For example hosebags don’t break apart on European trains, and they are hung up when not in use so they don’t get bashed about on level crossings. Also on time reliability of passenger trains to me is a good indicater of how crudely the railroad is run. And Amtrak as a whole has a bad on time track record by any western world standard. I also consider operating passenger trains with hundreds of people on board at restricted speed crude, slow and unsafe in poor visability. On the flip side Japanese trains have very good on time perforemance, putting everyone else to shame and they do not have a crude operation**.
But it’s all about adapting to operating conditions, European railways serve many close towns and citys, it’s hard to find 80 miles circumfrance without a major railway shop and most trips are short, relatively. It’s not the same in the USA , plus deserts and rugged landscapes, it’s gonna influence the design of trains. And I’m just reflcting geography wich I beleive has more to do with it all , then the economics.
I would also say my favorite locomotives still commun are the GP9 and SD40 types are more “crude” then them new “sophisticated” units on US railways. The word sophisticated is not neccessarily flattering and yes newer locos in the US are sophisticated
What is the typical horsepower on the units?
These are all examples of the large family of diesel-hydraulic roadswitchers built in Germany by MaK and its successor Vossloh. These ones are in the range of 1350-2000hp. Vossloh do a larger twin-cab hood unit, the G2000 of up to 3620hp (
http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=267720&nseq=3
Here’s a good example of European diesel roadswitcher type engines in heavy freight service. This kind of train can be up to 6000 tonnes.