• Announcements

    • Robin

      Welcome!   03/05/2016

      Welcome, everyone, to the new 910CMX Community Forums. I'm still working on getting them running, so things may change.  If you're a 910 Comic creator and need your forum recreated, let me know and I'll get on it right away.  I'll do my best to make this new place as fun as the last one!
mlooney

NP, Friday Feb 7 2020

Recommended Posts

On 2/14/2020 at 11:48 PM, hkmaly said:

Hard to say ; it's definitely not true that ALL trains would have, and it would need expert in field to say if "most" do or if, for example, this is difference between trains in Europe and US.

Compared to old steam locomotives, what ALL trains seem to have is something in front of wheels ; for steam locomotive the cowcatcher might be only thing in front of wheels, while modern locomotives usually have wheels partially inside the main body of train. But seems it's not always "plow-shaped", that sometimes it would direct the debris under the train which seem counterproductive ...

The 19th Century environment in Europe vs North America was quite different during the developing years of steam. North America had vast areas of wilderness, with massive herds of cattle and bison.

My impression that train robbing was more of an American thing, because you could actually hope to get away with it, vs in Europe, you really have little area to hide in. Much less, anyway. Anyone happen to know if that is true?

The main difference between North American trains vs European is the North American train is loosely coupled, with a lot of slack, no dampers pushing between cars (perhaps minor exceptions for specialty car sets), whereas the European trains are tightly coupled, with dampers pushing between cars and couplings pulling. When a European train starts moving, the entire thing more or less starts moving at one time; the engine has to apply the requisite torque to do so. North American trains start one car at a time; there is a slight delay between car, and it adds up. When you see it underway, it's all in tension, and there does not appear to be slack, but when it starts, you can see each car as it is jerked into motion. Imagine, if there is a centimeter slop in the coupling, in a hundred car train, there is an aggregate meter of slack to take up. Less initial torque is required, because of the progressive nature of the starting; however I'm pretty sure this method is much harder on the coupling mechanism, and the North American couplers are quite beefy.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Darth Fluffy said:

The 19th Century environment in Europe vs North America was quite different during the developing years of steam. North America had vast areas of wilderness, with massive herds of cattle and bison.

Exactly why I suggested that it's likely there would be difference. Although would that still apply? I think there is considerably less cattle and bison on plains of North America now ...

4 hours ago, Darth Fluffy said:

My impression that train robbing was more of an American thing, because you could actually hope to get away with it, vs in Europe, you really have little area to hide in. Much less, anyway. Anyone happen to know if that is true?

Not exactly expert, but I would like to note that it's hard to do any train robbing when you have 20 minutes between stations, and during that time the train goes through three rail crossings (I mean, crossing of rail and road).

4 hours ago, Darth Fluffy said:

The main difference between North American trains vs European is the North American train is loosely coupled, with a lot of slack, no dampers pushing between cars (perhaps minor exceptions for specialty car sets), whereas the European trains are tightly coupled, with dampers pushing between cars and couplings pulling. When a European train starts moving, the entire thing more or less starts moving at one time; the engine has to apply the requisite torque to do so. North American trains start one car at a time; there is a slight delay between car, and it adds up. When you see it underway, it's all in tension, and there does not appear to be slack, but when it starts, you can see each car as it is jerked into motion. Imagine, if there is a centimeter slop in the coupling, in a hundred car train, there is an aggregate meter of slack to take up. Less initial torque is required, because of the progressive nature of the starting; however I'm pretty sure this method is much harder on the coupling mechanism, and the North American couplers are quite beefy.

I would say the main difference is there are no hundred car trains in Europe. At least not passenger ones ... and I'm not sure if the freight ones are that tightly coupled.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, hkmaly said:

Exactly why I suggested that it's likely there would be difference. Although would that still apply? I think there is considerably less cattle and bison on plains of North America now ...

No, ranches have fences and bison are rare. The modern engines out-mass their mid 19th century counterparts by a significant factor. I think the end result of a collision would be hamburger.

 

39 minutes ago, hkmaly said:

Not exactly expert, but I would like to note that it's hard to do any train robbing when you have 20 minutes between stations, and during that time the train goes through three rail crossings (I mean, crossing of rail and road).

It's a wild west trope that has some basis in history. It would not be as feasible today. For one thing, trains carried and distributed wealth. Today, not so much.

 

39 minutes ago, hkmaly said:

I would say the main difference is there are no hundred car trains in Europe. At least not passenger ones ... and I'm not sure if the freight ones are that tightly coupled.

When I was a kid, hundred car trains were not uncommon. It has been decades since I've seen those. Always freight. If there were ever such long trains of passengers, I'm not aware of it. The infrastructure, the passenger stations, do not support it. The typical Amtrak in our area is typically about four cars.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Darth Fluffy said:
55 minutes ago, hkmaly said:

Exactly why I suggested that it's likely there would be difference. Although would that still apply? I think there is considerably less cattle and bison on plains of North America now ...

No, ranches have fences and bison are rare. The modern engines out-mass their mid 19th century counterparts by a significant factor. I think the end result of a collision would be hamburger.

I don't believe that. There is not enough ketchup nor mustard involved, also where would the bread-roll came from?

6 minutes ago, Darth Fluffy said:
57 minutes ago, hkmaly said:

Not exactly expert, but I would like to note that it's hard to do any train robbing when you have 20 minutes between stations, and during that time the train goes through three rail crossings (I mean, crossing of rail and road).

It's a wild west trope that has some basis in history. It would not be as feasible today. For one thing, trains carried and distributed wealth. Today, not so much.

Note that I was describing Europe. But yes, good point: nowadays, most of wealth doesn't really exists so it doesn't need to be transported. And debt is usually transported by internet.

8 minutes ago, Darth Fluffy said:
1 hour ago, hkmaly said:

I would say the main difference is there are no hundred car trains in Europe. At least not passenger ones ... and I'm not sure if the freight ones are that tightly coupled.

When I was a kid, hundred car trains were not uncommon. It has been decades since I've seen those. Always freight. If there were ever such long trains of passengers, I'm not aware of it. The infrastructure, the passenger stations, do not support it. The typical Amtrak in our area is typically about four cars.

I see. Hmmm ... not sure what is average length of freight train in Europe. I remember counting them when young, but not the result.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, hkmaly said:

I don't believe that. There is not enough ketchup nor mustard involved, also where would the bread-roll came from?

Lol, to be sure. I was referring to the raw ingredient, not the finished product, but I know you know that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Darth Fluffy said:
8 minutes ago, hkmaly said:

I don't believe that. There is not enough ketchup nor mustard involved, also where would the bread-roll came from?

Lol, to be sure. I was referring to the raw ingredient, not the finished product, but I know you know that.

Yes I know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now