How come trains are getting much longer and allowed to hold up traffic?

Question

How come trains are getting much longer and allowed to hold up traffic?

Answer 1

it's just your imagination.........or lack of patience........

Answer 2

Possibly due to a higher demand for rail freighting because it's less fuel intensive than trucking and fuel prices are through the roof.

Answer 3

There is always an overpass or an underpass within a few blocks.  And trains are really only slightly longer than they have traditionally been.  Longer trains are actually safer because there are fewer of them.

More importantly, the future belongs to rail transport, and automobiles and trucks will be fading into memory over the next few decades.  Rail is much more efficient, and you should look forward to a safer, more convenient, more environmentally friendly future based on rail travel and freight.

Answer 4

Maybe to save fuel costs. It is better to pull a large amount of cars in one trip than pull a smaller amount of cars with several trips. Simple economics......

Answer 5

YIKES Hogshead is a FONT of knowledge today !!

ONE thing you can do... write your city and suggest a GRADE-SEPARATION project !!  It costs ALOT, but our city did it for the 5 grade-crossings, and now the trains pass OVER the road-ways and don't interfere with traffic any more.

Answer 6

QUIT GRIPING -- In a majority of situations, IF YOU GOT IT, A TRAIN BROUGHT IT.  If you're so "maxed out" that you can't even take time to relax and wait for a train, then I pity you.  The next time you ***** about the wait, just remember; if you didn't wait, you might not have gotten something you wanted.

Math -- Human -- 180 lb.  Car -- 2500 lb.  Train -- 25 000 TONS.  Don't think about racing it.  If it's a tie, YOU LOSE.  And I really don't want to be one of those people picking up parts of your carcass if you do race it.  I've done it too many times, and I really, really, really hate telling the next-of-kin.

Answer 7

You are correct.  This is a dangerous practice.

The truth is, whenever an advance is made in the area of improved braking capacity, etc., all value for increased safety is done away with in favor of increasing tonnage.  It always has been and forever shall be that way.

Case en pointe:  Electronically Controlled Pneumatic braking systems. "ECP".

They sure sound like a good idea.  At this time, the signal to the control valves on freight cars to apply or release the brakes requires a pressure differefrential in the brake pipe to either apply or realease the brakes.  It takes time for this pressure to travel through the brake pipe.  At a service rate, rounded off to 500 feet per second.  On an 8,000 foot long train, it takes 16 seconds for the pressure drop (or increase) to travel the length of the train.

If traveling at 60 MPH, you have traveled more than 1/4 mile before the application arrives at the rear of the train, with several more seconds before the application starts to take effect.

With the ECP brakes, that signal will be sent electronically, taveling near the speed of light.  This means an instantaneous, equally applied application of the brakes throughout the train.  It is estimated that stopping distances of trains will be reduced nearly a whopping 60% !  That's the good news.

That bad news is that the railroad companies will increase tonnage by 60% wherever possible..  Improvements to safety and braking efficiency disregarded for the sake of tonnage.  Net safety improvement = Zero.  Net tonnage increase = 60%.

There is an old saying amongst we rails:  "Uphill slow, downhill fast, tonnage first and safety last."  It would be comical, were it not true.

The FRA is spearheading this drive, and rightly so.  IF, strict legislation accompanies the implementation of this technology enjoining the carriers from this kind of disregard for the safety of the public whilst trying to optimise quarterly dividend postings.

Solution?  Write your congressional representatives and urge others to do so as well.  The public is being sold a bill of goods in this matter.

If you would like more in depth info, click on my smiling face and acces my 360, then read the blog post of 05-02-07.

As a footnote:

Train length used to have limitations.  With the advent and implementation of DPU (radio controlled helper engines) length is now nearly limitless.

And, "non-clearing" trains (those too long to fit into any siding) are a day in and day out reality.  And, they do pose considerable operating headaches for dispatchers and crewmen alike.  The companies don't care.  If they can move an extra 1,000 or 2,000 tons on this train, they are gonna do it. Period.

So, in the not too distant future, if waiting at a crossing for a train traveling at 10 MPH to clear, and it is 3 miles long, be prepared to wait 18 minutes until it does.

Maybe you can catch up on some reading...  or, write that letter to Washington.  But, by then, it'll be too late for the latter.

Addendum:  No disrespect, avio, as your answers always indicate an impressive degree of railroad knowledge.  But, a friendly correction, here.

Average train tonnage, and length, has increased nearly 300% (actually it's closer to 270%, but 300% sounds much more imposing) during my own career.  In 1970, most everywhere, a 16,000+ ton train was the stuff of stockholders' dreams, and usually resulted in nocturnal emission.  A train with 80 Tons Per Operative Brake (TPOB) was considered very heavy and was subject to speed limitations because of the high TPOB ratio, which greatly effects train handling and stopping distances.  A train with 140 TPOB these days is the norm.

Extremely long, extremely heavy trains are most certainly NOT safer, and it has nothing to do with the number of train movements, which on the railroad are called "starts."  Which is easier to control? A 2,000lb automobile or a 40,000lb semi?  Now, put 'em on a slick roadway.  Which is safer?  Which would you prefer to have following you on your rear bumper?

'Tis the same for the modern freight train.

With reference again to the new and coming ECP brake technology, consider this;  

When implemented, if tonnage restrictions mandated by statute accompany the new technology, with a 60% reduction in stopping distance that will NOT be erroded by corresponding tonnage increase, means an engineer just might be able to get today's "tonnage" train, which is already extremely heavy (topping out around 32,000,000 lbs [by the by, when these tonnage figures are bantied about, they refer only to "trailing tonnage," and does NOT include the weight of the locomotives.  Add 200 tons per unit]), STOPPED, before plowing into you.  Or a school bus. Or a tanker truck. And, if you're in the car behind or ahead of that tanker truck, you're going to burn to death along with truck driver and train crew.

More tonnage is delayed today, even on clogged main tracks, due to no rested crews.  The work force has been pared to "skeleton" crew level and men are worked to, and beyond, exhaustion.  The carriers tell employees, when trying to hire out, they'll be worked like dogs and hung out to dry at every opportunity, and that's supposed to make it okay.  That's no different than a rapist telling a victim what he's gonna do before doing it.

As it is now, if my train is moving at nearly any appreciable speed, if I can see you, it is already too late to stop for you and you are as good as dead.  The only help we'll get is from God.

The question is simple, my friends:  Do we opt for the obvious safety advantages offered by this new technology, which is definitely soon to be a reality, or do we do what we've always done, allowing improvements in safety to be lost only to further line the pockets of shareholders.  All bristle at the mention of the "big oil companies", but the public has been screwed by the railroads since their inception.  Where do you think the term "getting railroaded" came from?

Federal Railroad Administration.  Government agency, therefore subservient to the public demand via representatives in D.C.  It will take propositions and a vote.  It has been done in the past.  Ask any "C-6" fireman who was working in 1964-5.  The public voted and did away with their jobs, legally.  It was called, "The Feather-bedding Initiative." That is the absolute truth.

The FRA has the teeth, you've got the power.  A law will override any 'big business' influence by Washington lobbyists, in the event of FRA non-intervention.

Do you know what the five most often spoken words in yard offices, shanties, lodging facilities and locomotive cabs all across North America are? (Exculding obvious railroad related communications).

"If the public oooonly knew."

Now you know.

The choices number exactly two: write the letters or follow the gentleman's advice below and quit chur bitchin'...

Answer 8

There's also the issue of capacity.  Many main lines are currently running at close to full capacity.  Trains need to be spaced far apart to operate safely.  For instance, if one train leaves the yard, a second train could not leave on the same track until the first one is several miles down the line.  This is because it takes so long for a train to stop in an emergency.

So, if a railroad is already running the maximum number of trains, one way to carry more freight is to just make each train longer.  That way, the railroad can effectively expand capacity without increasing the number of trains in the line.

Of course, train length has its limitations too.  Trains cannot be made longer than the sidings or yard tracks on the route or else they will cause lots of operational headaches.

As for holding up traffic, that is an unfortunate side-effect of longer trains.  To combat this, many large cities are working to separate the tracks from the roads by using bridges or tunnels.  Reno, for example, built a huge trench that is miles long.  Trains can speed through the city without delay while roads cross over the trench on bridges.  LA has something similar.

Answer 9

bend use more my husband lov e e work on the than train befor he die.

Answer 10

Trains are getting longer because now the materials and technology for better tracks, specialized freight cars, and more powerful locomotives allow for this, and allow better fuel economy over other types of transportation. As for holding up traffic, I think that may be from longer trains, or the fact that there are more trains now, or a combonation of these two facts.

Answer 11

Visit

http://www.shvoong.com/social-sciences/1...

http://www.shvoong.com/social-sciences/1...

Answer 12

It's NOT your imagination. Train lengths are actually getting longer while safety continues to give way to profit.

Answer 13

Occasionally,  a train may be extended to conserve fuel,  or because more cars needed moved.   Train length is limited by the length of sidings on that particular line,  most about a mile or slightly longer.  

Train speed may be slowed due to track conditions,  making your wait at the crossing a bit longer.   Plan to leave a little earlier then.   However,  if trains continually block a particular crossing,  notify your city or county.

Turtle 6,  that expression "if you got it"   rightfully belongs to the trucking industry.   Trains are best at hauling large quantities of non-time sensitive goods,  such as coal and timber,  but trucks haul the stuff that folks have to have on schedule.   And even most of the consumer products that trains do haul,  such as timber and cars,  are later delivered to the final destination by trucks.   TOFC and COFC are an important part of both modes,  and serve to take much truck traffic off the highways or allow through shipments of none time-sensitive goods at a lower rate to a yard near the destination.   The railroad industry however,  is not suitable for JIT or perishable goods due to time constraints on those goods.

Answer 14

The other answers concerning train length are good.  

As far as holding up traffic, that narrow stretch of land that the tracks sit on are owned by the railroad, and you cross over them at the railroad's pleasure.