Post trains that are just a bit weird or different from the norm. All trains welcome, passenger, freight, locomotive, rolling stock, etc.Saw this one in the Netherlands and it's a bit odd.>EMU>Only one motor car>Which has three bogies and one level>Every other coach is a normal bilevel
Houston airport subway, it's the only example of a WEDway people mover built by Disney outside of the parks.
>>1992917The DDZ is still looking good... Quite aesthetic solution hiding the loco under the upper passenger deck.I (mildly autistic) am to this day bothered by the design of Stadler GTWs due to that fucking engine/electrics compartment. It's like putting a small freight wagon into a passenger consist just because.Inb4: they need to put the engine or electrical components somewhereSo does Alstom, Siemens and Bombardier, yet they don't need a fucking freight car for it.
>>1993631But they need to put the engine or electrical components somewhere cheap.But putting it in the middle they can keep the other components mostly the same, no matter if the final product is an EMU or DMU.
>>1993631Seems fine, keeps the mechanical components separated from the passenger cabins and makes them easier to access for maintenance crews>yet they don't need a fucking freight car for itIt's more akin to a locomotive than a freight car
>>1993631It's not just Stadler, Materfer in Argentina also make a DMU like that.Except this one is laid out like a tram and has a bogie directly under the engine compartment
The Nova 3s, simply because of how they came about.> Be TransPennine Express> You want to off-lease half of your existing, uniform fleet> Order some iets but they won't be ready for a while> Order an EMU and some loco-hauled stock based off those planned for the Caledonian Sleeper from CAF, so they arrive before the iets> You ordered your trains from CAF, so they arrive late and are riddled with faults to the point that their introduction is so close to the iets, you may as well have not bothered> The lateness of the CAF trains cause you to extend your lease on the legacy fleet> You can now improve capacity because you have more of the legacy fleet than planned> Covid hits and you now have more trains than you know what to do with> As a result, your loco hauled trains become niche and basically stuck to 1 route> Eventually realise that they don't really fit within your fleet and decided to send them off-lease and keep your legacy fleet alongside the other 2 trainsThey sounded cool though, and that's all that matters (Class 68 my beloved)
Rotary snow plough. When a normal blade won't cut it.>>1993959Didn't the Nova 3 carriage sets also have problems with cracking? I heard that it's happened with the other CAF Mk 5 carriages (Caledonian sleeper).This is along with unreliability and noise complaints from the class 68s, which is all why they're being withdrawn so soon. It's a shame but I wonder if Chiltern will take them. They're looking for new stock and this might be able to fill gaps in their roster.
>>1993893Reminds me of the Lego monorail system, which I guess belongs in this thread as an unusual toy train system. Nobody else used a single-sided horizontal gear and flat road surface, did they?I can't understand the logic behind this on real trains though, and I've seen it too on the Twin Cities light rail (Siemens S70, I think?) you've put the part that's most likely to fail in between two long, half-supported frames so reaching it is a hassle, and in a head-on collision it's a nice solid lump of metal to crush your passengers against.
Metro transfer with dynamometer car A17 serving as a brake van.Dv12 numbers are slowly decreasing :(
Brazilian mining concern Vale operates a handful of railways and ordered locomotives with 8 axles instead of 6. I believe they're also narrow gauge
>>1992917Early bilevel EMUs from the 80s had a hard time fitting all the mechanical components. In Switzerland the first such "EMUs" were pseudo-EMUs consisting of three bilevel cars and a matching locomotive, all coupled together into a fixed set. Then they couple those sets together, up to three per train.
>>1993631>I (mildly autistic) am to this day bothered by the design of Stadler GTWs due to that fucking engine/electrics compartment. It's like putting a small freight wagon into a passenger consist just because.>Inb4: they need to put the engine or electrical components somewhere>So does Alstom, Siemens and Bombardier, yet they don't need a fucking freight car for it.I understand your autism, but it's actually not a bad solution. The advantage is that except the far ends of the cars theyhave completely level floor at platform height, while other EMUs have a much more irregular floor height with ramps and protrusions hidden below the seats and whatnot. From that perspective I actually find them superior, although I think by now this is an obsolete model.
>>1994794>The advantage is that except the far ends of the cars theyhave completely level floor at platform height, while other EMUs have a much more irregular floor height with ramps and protrusions hidden below the seats and whatnot. From that perspective I actually find them superior, although I think by now this is an obsolete model.The new TGV-M have a little "wagon" named greffon just behind the two loco, it have several advantages, first, until now due to design the TGV must have been two types of coachs now all the coach are the same and shorten by 1m and it reduce cost increase fexibility and also shorten the loco by 4 meters so no space lost, second, technical equipments are moved in those greffon and above all they are equiped with big batteries allowing autonomous of the train for few hours in case of powerline shutdown and the ability for the train to move at low speed to a station or a functional power line. This capacity can also be used in case of overloading of the electric network to smooth consumption.
>>1995131U N INIMOGGED
>>1994793Ackchyually it's not a locomotive but a "motor carriage with luggage compartment".I do wonder if the compartments with the yellow (now blue) doors have ever seen any revenue cargo.
>>1995143That is no Unimog.That's a 'Mittelschwerer Frontlenker', built from 1965 to 1975
>>1995152>Ackchyually it's not a locomotive but a "motor carriage with luggage compartment".Wouldn't "motor CARRIAGE" imply that it carries passengers?>I do wonder if the compartments with the yellow (now blue) doors have ever seen any revenue cargo.I highly doubt it. At most I'd think some internal stuff that would have to be moved around.
>>1992940Nowadays, you can't even find a WEDway people mover INSIDE the park.
Torpedo wagon for molten steel.
>>1995426Ouch, it hurts, but it's true...at least Florida has theirs
>>1992917Was on a weekend trip from Germany to Amsterdam last weekend and had the pleasure to ride on a DDZ unit for my first time (and generally using a "classic" Dutch train), even on the upper level of the power unit. Despite being quite simple compared to other train sets, I really liked it. It's not a pretty face, but I kind of fell in love with the design of its characteristic head that just screams "I'm Dutch". Might have to plan another short trip to NL some time since I heard the NS is planning to replace them in the next coming years by new CAF mixed single deck/double deck units.Now I also feel kind of tempted to get one of those rare 4 car sets as a model (as the unmodernized DD-AR version tbf, dunno if the DDZ also exists), although I have put myself on a break from model RRing.
>>1995474is this a tungsten alloy? how does the molten steel not melt the torpedo? it's rusting, so there's ferrous metal in it, I don't get it
>>1995911The inside of torpedos is lined with bricks to avoid melt-through and also keep the temperature even to avoid a solidification of the material during transport.
>>1996053Here in Europe, they tend to use insulation bricks made of Grog, a clay type material with high content of Aluminum and Silica.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grog_(clay)
In Hungary we have a lot of "unusual" trains because the company does not have enough IC coaches so they just throw in whatever into IC trainsBonus point for the fact that even the same type of coaches can have several revisions, different paint job, some of them are more renovated inside, some of them have automatic door, etc. it is really all overhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9KQptMqsk10https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DmKoLoB0N9AThis train has coaches from 4 countries (Hungary, Romania, Austria, Ukraine)https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T33CzxDbZSE
>>1996342>This train has coaches from 4 countries (Hungary, Romania, Austria, Ukraine)That's just SOUL through carriage operation though.
Funicular train that has rotating compartments to compensate for the steep gradient. It's from the Stoosbahn in Switzerland.
>>1995289This seems pretty useless.By the time you know there's a fire, you get this thing out of storage and get it running, you find someone certified to operate it on both road and rail, and you drive it to a point where you can switch to rail operation, and you run it up the track to the point of the blaze, you could have flown a helicopter or crop duster over the fire already.And if the fire is close to road or existing buildings, you can just use a regular big ladder truck to put it out.
>>1996481Did a quick search and there's a two kilometer long rail tunnel pretty close to the town of Zams. If you don't have a dedicated rescue train on standby, I'd imagine that a fire engine that can use the rails is the next best thing in case of a tunnel fire.
Swiss steam shunter converted to electic heating due to coal shortage in WWII.
>>1996486That's probaly why there is a big IR camera on top
>>1995131You're thinking of this.Also a very unusual train.
I love derelict small factory trains.
Love choppers me but it is odd have a pair of locos like this.
>>1996835Also the Class 13 shunter with a master and slave loco. Our old trains really were soulful.
A shortline that is still running with electric locos.
>>1996973this happened too
>yfw you sneeze while cumming
>>1996836I'm not interested in most British stuff but I really like the 13's. Never knew they had any B units.
>>1992917why are dutch trains so dirty.and filthy outside?
Small and comfy, with a bunch of backpackers playing guitar while crawling to the most remote village you've ever heard...
How about this abomination?
>>1998747And before you say anything, this is the renovated version. They were originally from Romania, they gave it round windows, seats from old trolleybuses and then pretended it was a tram so it could actually be allowed to run on the rails.
A 2-6-8-0. Non-matching sets of drivers are pretty unusual right?
>>1998747>>1998749Did they repurpose the base frame of a ferry for this or something?
>>1998822Not really, they used to look relatively normal. Also ranodm fact, the engine was so poorly isolated from the passenger cab that it earned a nickname "hashishbox" because it smelled so bad
>>1998819cursed
>http://www.douglas-self.com/MUSEUM/LOCOLOCO/locoloco.htmFun read.
>>1998819>>1999165Got another one>Narrow gauge (metre)>0-8-6-0T>Rack locomotiveThe cogs for the rack were only on the front engine. The small cylinders under the smokebox powered it.They were used on the Transandine Railway between Chile & Argentina
Japanese freight multiple unit M250
>>1993631I think I was on exactly the same train yesterday lol
>>1992917https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automotore_FS_207
Bombardier OMNEOI'm sure there are good reasons for this arrangement but it looks weird
>>1996634
The CFR class 55/56/57:This piece of shit was supposed to be for some sort of sbahn in Bucharest but after communism fell the whole project fell. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CFR_Class_TEA
Stuttgart rack railway
>>2004589>>2005080Not weird
>>2005092How so?One is a tram that uses a rack system, the other is a heavy-haul loco that uses a rack system. Rack railways are not unusual as a whole but most of the time they're found as light railways for tourists. I'm pretty certain they're not used for commuting or heavy freight traffic very often.Also, the critic becomes the chef. Cook up a post with a train you'd consider unusual.
>>2005093OP seemed to be referring rather to trains that have an unusual design. A relatively standard locomotive with a relatively standard rack system added to it isn't really weird. Neither is a standard tram with a standard rack system added to it. They're just uncommon, not weird as in a wholly unexpected concept or design.More weird is the Great Orme Tramway, which is essentially a funicular but with extensive street running in the vein of a cable car, which used to be controlled by a telephone system through the trolleypole and overhead wire, though now replaced by radio communication.
>>2005094Not weird
>>1998721if only it were just the outside
Pole road engines.
>>2005102don't be butthurt sweetie
>>1992940IIRC Dc Capitol metro system still uses a WEDway peoplemover system
>>2005454I have not heard this to be the case but would love to be proven wrong.
>>2005712https://forums.wdwmagic.com/threads/proof-of-wedway-peoplemover-under-the-u-s-capitol.898063/
>>>/vg/482168296>>>/e/2876358
>>2005167
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8f_aT920IPw
like the old tubes at banks but for people
monorail on actual rail not a concrete beam
>>2007903How the fuck does it not tip over
>>2008092Very carefully
>>2008092I think it uses a gyroscope (like a top) that allows it to balance on the beam
>>2008092>>2008220Yep, there's a rotating disk on that train that keeps it upright on straights and even makes it lean into curves. I've seen a video on this on YT, but can't remember what this thing was called. It's pretty neat.
Kaoham Shuttle in British Columbia
>>2001828>Massa in servizio 5.500 kg >Potenza oraria 59 kW>Velocità massima omologata 30 km/h What a beast :,DCan it, or could it in service, do the same trick as the Breuer rail tractors: lift its load up to borrow some adhesive weight?
Class 139. Top speed 20mph, used for a 0.8mile branch line only
>>2008460Oh and it has a tiny diesel engine, using a flywheel and regenerative braking.
>>2002384I love this type of stuff because I could imagine seeing something like this in a video game or CGI heavy scifi film, thinking it's ridiculous, while real trains like this exist.
>>2008472The whole mixed single/double deck car multiple unit used to be uncommon. However many designers are now using it as a way to increase capacity. More doors than all double-deck stock eases boarding and egress, providing good access to passengers and short station dwell times.
>>2009163Interesting. The only country I knew this was common in was Japan, although there the double deck cars have more expensive business class seating.
>>2008460That's just a Fiat Multipla put on rails.>>2007903>>2008092>>2008220>>2008362It's called the Brennan monorail:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kUYzuAJeg3M>>2007856Remove the propeller in the back and the wheels underneath and you got the Wuppertal suspention rail.
>>1998745I miss those trips to the Kozel brewery straight from the Prague center, comfy as fuck
Before I moved, this is the train that would take me into town lol
>>2009229Yeah, it's becoming a far more common concept.Alstom, Siemens and Stadler are all in the process of making trains combining single and bilevel cars.This on'e been built recently for Egypt.
>>1994681I temember seeing here a railroad maintenance Land Rover (110) with railroad wheels attached to the outside of the regular road wheels
>>2009255>This on'e been built recently for Egypt.And based off a model that is already successfully being used in Germany by various companies and in different configurations, inlcuding one that is suitable for use on highspeed lines.
>>1992917DDZ look retarded and 1980s crapPrefer the 1990s VIRM. The looks somewhat modern and aerodynamic
>>2009255New double deckers from 2026/7 for the Dutch railways
>>1992917>Austriawdym, weird; are you a translinkphobic biggot, or something?
How many axles do you want?Yes.
Pretty much all British locomotives look goofy.
Lead-lined locomotive for hauling experimental nuclear reactors
Monorail.No idea how it stays upright.
I call it theToblerone Express
>>2011543>Toblerone ExpressIt's fake unfortunately, but someone else had that idea back then too
>>2011543>>2011582here's the real thing for referenceIt also got shopped into a british HST, a russian loco, a DB120, some Amtrack unit and a dutch livery
i refuse to believe that the toblerone train is fake>>2011583this is photoshopped
>>2011583This is weird. The image has exactly the same framing of nearby structures, so it's very likely the very same source image, but there's a mysterious extra house between the train and the left edge of the image for no reason.
>>2011609Nevermind, I see whoever photoshopped the image just moved the house from the end of the train to the front. 4chan isn't letting me delete my post despite having waited 2 minutes like usual.
Buran + Energia
>>2011541Huge gyro rotating in the cabin.
I grew up next to this line. I have a lot of nice childhood memories about this train.
>>2011643Feels like riding one of those rural Japanese trains.
Behold the future of rural rail operations!A battery electric railcar from 1907.The prussian AT3 Akkumulatortriebwagen Bauart Wittfeld163 were built, they were retired in 1964 as newer battery cars and diesels replaced them
>>1994777Depends on the line. Vale mostly operates 1,6 meter gauge in their private lines, but Brazil's legacy lines are narrow (1,0)
guys, do any of you have that youtube video of an engineer starting his shift, walking up to his power unit in the early morning, lighting it up, starting the engine etc.? was a newish Acela (or some similar European) locomotive and the interior was sparkling cleanhelp me out guys
>>1996466>to compensate for the variable gradientFTFY
>>1996634check out pneumatic and other fireless locomotives/trains, maybe you'll like them
>>1992917
>>2014287
>>2014286
>>1993631>due to that fucking engine/electrics compartmentCould you elaborate, I can't see it
>>2011645Looks pretty fucking comfy
>>2011540
>>2014286Holy crap I love that thing
>>2014383
>>2014283replying to myself with update>been looking at all youtube videos which may match (not that many) ever since>seems to have been removed from youtube>can only hope somebody saved it
>>2014459God I wish that were me
>>1998745>these single handedly saved Czech railways from the beeching axe Came here to post this. I will never understand why the fuck PKP didn't order hundreds of these when they could have and should have.
Camelbacks or double cabs were found on railroads that served the anthracite coal fields of eastern Pennsylvania. The oversized fireboxes were designed to burn low grade anthracite “culm”.
>>1994777They also have EVO engines with 16 cylinders instead of 12 to make 6000 hp. South America and India surprisingly stuck with 6,000 hp engines after N. American ones bailed on it.
>>2014865I'm not positive but I don't think those 6000HP export locomotives would meet EPA emissions requirements anyway, at least not without additional work
>>2014968I see no reason why they couldn't get them to comply with tier 1-3. The export ones use all the same parts and stuff as tier 3 EVOs. Tier 4 might be more difficult because they have EGR which complicates things.
>>1998747mckeen motor car vibes
>>2014865Because they don't tend to use more than 1 or 2 locomotives per train. If one fails the entire train comes to a halt anyway.In the US, you end up with many locomotives spread through the train. If one unit fails it can limp on fairly well but 6,000hp is a much bigger portion of the overall power available.Plus I think they've all been put off by the reliability issues they had previously.>>2014979>Tier 4 might be more difficult because they have EGR which complicates things.I find it strange that Class I RRs unanimously went for EGR rather than SCR. It just makes each power pack bigger and heavier. SCR allows for upward growth in engine size if needed as the gear takes up far less space.Even Amtrak went for engines with SCR rather than EGR to meet Tier 4 regs.
>>2015250SCR is just another fluid that needs to be filled or leaks. EGR just adds another cooler and a couple of control/metering valves. It was also the manufacturers(GE and EMD) that really decided it for them.
Pic related, Brazilian narrow gauge slug (M1).>>2015280Yet the majority of heavy duty (non-marine) diesel makers and truck manufacturers have decided on SCR as the better solution.Seems like it was the class I RRs encouraging manufacturers to go down that route for the reasons you mentioned. Funny thing is Tier 4 locomotives seem to be pretty slow sellers, having orders in the 100s and no company outside the US is buying them either.
>>2016731>Funny thing is Tier 4 locomotives seem to be pretty slow sellers, having orders in the 100s and no company outside the US is buying them either.I wonder if it's just bad timing. In the 20 years before Tier 4 requirements came into effect, every class 1 was loading up on new power to begin fleet refreshments and phasing out older power like SD40s, SD45s, SD60s, and Dash 8s. It seems like every big RR was making big orders for stuff like ES44DC/ACs and -70ACEs at the time. I think at least some of the reason for very low T4 sales is the plethora of modern power each railroad has now.
>>2016731>no company outside the US is buying them either.Because the rest of the world doesn't have as strict of emission standards and has no need to purchase tier 4s.>orders in the 100sGE has sold over 1,000 tier 4s although EMD has sold practically none.Also, comparing a truck engine to a locomotive engine is silly. What a locomotive engine goes through is a lot more demanding and locomotives are now being stretched to 6 month scheduled service intervals.
>>2016751Dash 9s, AC4400s, and even DC EVOs are now being phased out. Dash 8s are becoming a much rarer sight now. Just think, tier 4s have been out for about 10 years now. The first ones are starting to be overhauled.
>>2016751It's also because of PSR.RRs have been removing a lot of rolling stock from circulation as a result of the efficiency/cost-cutting measures.>>2016752>Because the rest of the world doesn't have as strict of emission standards and has no need to purchase tier 4s.True, the countries that have comparable requirements to tier 4 controls are also more likely to have electrified networks.Could've been possible in the USA but the end of the oil crisis stopped that from happening
>>2017270Countries with comparable emission standards and similar demands for freight service are practically nill. Tier 4s are built for US and Canadian service, and that's it. Wishing for full N. American electrification has always been very silly too.
>>2017279>Wishing for full N. American electrification has always been very silly too.Agreed.The only way US RRs could electrify in any significant capacity is if significant infrastructure investment was performed. Class Is are allergic to this and the Federal Government won't provide any funding for it either.In order to decrease CO2 output, nuclear power will need to be expanded, as they are the only plants that can reliably generate the volume of base-load power needed. Hydro has reached close to maximum possible installed capacity.There were 23,544 locomotives in the Class I fleets in 2020. 340 locomotives @ 4,400hp each would use up the entire generating capacity of Unit 3 or 4 at the Vogtle power plant, the most recently commissioned US reactors. So ~70 brand new reactors generating >1.2MWe each to power just the existing fleet. Without taking into account transmission losses, shutdowns for maintenance or RR fleet expansion.Which if $36.8b is the cost for units 3 & 4 together, that's $1,288b for 70 new reactors to the same design.
>>2017317>Without taking into account transmission lossesWhich are pretty significant. It makes far more sense to just use diesel electrics and supplant them with hybrid electrics to make them more fuel efficient. I'm glad someone on /n/ isn't a complete idiot for once and realizes that electrification of the N. American freight network isn't realistic.
>>2017351>and supplant them with hybrid electricsI don't even see those panning out. Seems like some kind of tax abatement scheme
>>2017377Australians are buying them for mines. It could just be a PR thing. I think that combining them with automated train operations and trip optimizer, you can save a lot of fuel over the size of a fleet.
>>2017351I mean there are definitely places where wires can and probably should be strung up like the long tunnels and grades in the Cascades, Rockies and Sierras. If power sharing from diesels to battery slugs is possible, it should be possible to do it the other way. This would allow them to idle or shut off the diesels and save fuel. The same concept as trolley-assist mining trucks with a different application.Generating infrastructure could be a problem, but a generating plant with a marine diesel would probably work. HVAC or HVDC feeder lines would allow feed from other locations. Flywheels/battery banks would allow for some energy regeneration and reduce generating requirements.>>2017378Western Australian iron ore trains have a special set of circumstances. They're very heavy going downhill but much lighter uphill. So you can be a net energy generator from converting potential energy into kinetic energy. Full electrification is likely uneconomical as it's in the outback, the distance to electrify is long and mines will run out of ore eventually.So yeah, sets combining battery locomotives with normal diesels will likely work pretty well.
>>2017386Various schemes have been done before, the Cascade Tunnel used various electrics whilst run by the Great Northern
>>2014865Now you mention it, they were moved from Erie Pennsylvania by rail
>>1998745I got on one of these from Prague main station, not knowing where it went. I was drawn to this little thing, it's so cute.
>>2017317>base-load power neededretard>wind and solar provide variable power>hurr the solution to this is to build plants that provide power all the time even when we don't need it
>>2017579Try again, anon
>>2017581you try again and realise why baseload power is exactly the wrong solution for intermittency
>>2017582Railroads don't close in the evening and open back up in the morning
>>2017583that's got jack shit to do with baseload power, the railroads aren't going to build their own generating infrastructure
>>2017589>that's got jack shit to do with baseload powerYes it does
>>2017583Many railroads don't operate regularly during night hours.
>>2017593Maybe in your country
>>2017593In North America railroads almost never shutdown. It's a 24/7 operation with very, very, very few exceptions.
>>2017395That one is broad gauge, so it couldn't have left the factory on its own wheels.
This litter fucker certainly countshttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qnWOhbsXz3k
>>2017590no it doesn'tyou don't build dedicated infrastructure just because one industry has fairly steady power demands (assuming the rail industry *does* have steady power demands, which you haven't proven)>>2017317also jesus christ you are a fucking retarddo you think all 23544 class i locomotives are operating at full power all the time? of course they aren't
>>2017697Do you think they will be evenly distributed? Did you notice how he neglected transmission losses which are quite significant? Do you not think you need spare capacity for down time? He was giving a rough back of the envelope calculation to illustrate the enormity of electrification.
>>2017697You are a foreigner who spergs out about electrification in North America, yet you don't know anything about how things work here. Indian, right?
>>2017701>Do you think they will be evenly distributed?Do I think *what* will be evenly distributed?>Did you notice how he neglected transmission losses which are quite significant?[citation needed]>Do you not think you need spare capacity for down time?You don't include that in calculating the electricity demand of a single industry.>He was giving a rough back of the envelope calculation to illustrate the enormity of electrification.It was laughably wrong to the point of hilarity.>>2017703Oh look, it's the faggot who's only argument is to call people Indians!
>>2017704>Oh look, it's the faggot who's only argument is to call people Indians!That's not a denial
>>2017705and that's not a denial of you being a massive faggot, either
>>2017713Keep coping, Rajat
>>2017704You're a moron and being deliberately obtuse and disingenuous. Suck start a shotgun, faggot.
>>2017617I don't think they run the rush hour timetable 24/7 unless that timetable is pitifully sparse.Cargo operations at night have a wholly different power profile than daytime operations.
>>2017766Who gives a shit about passenger trains? They are nothing in comparison to freight. They are so insignificant in comparison to class I's and class II's.
>>2017714i see your argumentative skills have not improved>>2017749and that's the sign of someone who can't respond to any of my points!
>>2017766>I don't think they run the rush hour timetable 24/7 unless that timetable is pitifully sparse.>Cargo operations at night have a wholly different power profile than daytime operations.You're simply ignorant of North American railroad practices because you live in India
>>2017579>>2017582Even if the demand is intermittent, having variable power sources like solar and wind can't cover the demand *consistently*. There are cloudy days and less windy days. Customers awaiting deliveries/passengers won't be happy if you tell them the trains aren't running because of the weather.>>2017704>Did you notice how he neglected transmission losses which are quite significant? >[citation needed]Losses = I2R. Basic physics. "For example, a 100 mi (160 km) span at 765 kV carrying 1000 MW of power can have losses of 0.5% to 1.1%. A 345 kV line carrying the same load across the same distance has losses of 4.2%." From: https://web.archive.org/web/20110604181007/https://www.aep.com/about/transmission/docs/transmission-facts.pdf>You don't include that in calculating the electricity demand of a single industry.You should have some idea of this and build in some spare capacity. Otherwise you have to choose which customers get brownouts and blackouts. Like the situation in South Africa where they have only have electricity available at specified times of the day so that the entire grid doesn't shut down.>He was giving a rough back of the envelope calculation to illustrate the enormity of electrification.>It was laughably wrong to the point of hilarity.Provide an estimate of your own with reasoning rather than being a dickhead. There is no issue with saying something is wrong if you can provide evidence for your claim. Then other people can agree or disagree.
>>2017788>Even if the demand is intermittent, having variable power sources like solar and wind can't cover the demand *consistently*. There are cloudy days and less windy days.you keep ignoring my point"a power supply that is on all the time and you can't switch it off" is not a solution to intermittent power>Losses = I2R. Basic physics. the citation is for your claim that transmission losses are in any way a significant reason not to use electric trains>You should have some idea of this and build in some spare capacity.again, you don't need to do this per industry, you just need to know total power demand across the entire grid>Provide an estimate of your own with reasoning rather than being a dickhead. There is no issue with saying something is wrong if you can provide evidence for your claim. Then other people can agree or disagree.providing any proper estimate would require more research than i'm willing to do for a 4chan argumentyou'd need a lot of figures regarding fuel usage etc. that i'm not sure would be easy to getbut i don't need to present competing figures when the calculations behind the original set are blatantly wrong
>>2017808>"a power supply that is on all the time and you can't switch it off" is not a solution to intermittent powerRailroads don't shut down at night and reopen the next morning
>>2017808>you keep ignoring my point>"a power supply that is on all the time and you can't switch it off" is not a solution to intermittent powerAs much as you are ignoring mine. Relying exclusively on variable power is a recipe for brownouts and blackouts. Same as a purely base-load grid will cause wastage. Energy storage is inefficient, lots of power is wasted each charge/discharge cycle. Stored power might not be able to be replenished when it is needed if variable sources are relied upon.>the citation is for your claim that transmission losses are in any way a significant reason not to use electric trainsIt is a significant consideration in examining the economics and cost:benefit ratio to implement electrification. Which is often what accountants in both private and public sectors will examine closely before any money is spent. Losses and inefficiency increase cost, and need to be controlled as much as reasonably possible. Why do you think that more 50kV AC rail systems have been created and used in North America than any other continent?>again, you don't need to do this per industry, you just need to know total power demand across the entire gridAgreed. But you have to know the cumulative power draw across the grid. Which can only be obtained by examining how much each industry uses.>but i don't need to present competing figures when the calculations behind the original set are blatantly wrongI'm calling bullshit. You can't back your claim with data and instead whine about doing more research. That anon has some data to back his reasoning, you have none. Contribute something meaningful or stop yapping.
>>2017638>take a tour of the Guinness brewery>some poster says that the infrastructure for the brewery grew to be huge, with a grainy picture of some railyard>refuses to elaborate further and goes back to talking about how important quality and taste areI was so mad
>>2017887>Same as a purely base-load grid will cause wastage. BASELOAD IS WASTAGE IF YOU'RE USING VARIABLE POWERTHIS IS THE POINT I HAVE BEEN TRYING TO GET ACROSS>It is a significant consideration in examining the economics and cost:benefit ratio to implement electrification[citation needed]>Losses and inefficiency increase cost, and need to be controlled as much as reasonably possible. and diesel engines are perfectly efficient?>Why do you think that more 50kV AC rail systems have been created and used in North America than any other continent?you have three examples on isolated mine railwaysthat proves very little>Agreed. But you have to know the cumulative power draw across the grid. Which can only be obtained by examining how much each industry uses.Yes, and the amount a specific industry uses isn't relevant - you need to know the total amount>That anon has some data to back his reasoning, you have none.You can't make garbage calculations and say "the person with data is better than the person with none".
>>2018023>BASELOAD IS WASTAGE IF YOU'RE USING VARIABLE POWERRajat, railroads in the US and Canada operate 24/7.
Can we stop with the retard shit flinging and get back on topic posting weird trains? Here's the Mae Klong Railway Market in Thailand. The train itself isn't unusual but what is unusual is that it runs through an active marketplace that has to shut down several times a day very quickly when the train passes through.
>>2018023Ok I'll humour you one last time>It is a significant consideration in examining the economics and cost:benefit ratio to implement electrification>[citation needed]>and diesel engines are perfectly efficient?More losses reduce the power available between substations. This requires either higher voltages to be used to lower the current and the losses (I^2R) or more feeder substations to be built. Both solutions are more costly. The alternative is having trains getting stranded after they lose power.So any electrification on long stretches of railway, particularly in the USA where high power is also needed will be very expensive. Electrification on AC will put stress on the rest of the grid as going from 3 phase to single phase causes unequal load. DC has the problem of voltage conversion being difficult and the equipment to do so being expensive. Also, arcing is an issue. Quenching doesn't happen easily as there's always power. Whereas in AC, 0V is reached and naturally stops arcs if action is taken.With Diesel you have none of these issues. They aren't perfect, sure, but there's no risk of voltage drop and stranding. Failures are often contained to a single locomotive (out of multiple), allowing the train to limp on to a point where the failed locomotive can be changed. As they are very standardised, railroads will often share locomotives (with usage fees added) and run the same ones from start to finish, then send them back with a return train. Try that in the EU and if you don't have on a multi-voltage locomotive (costing $$$) you'll end up frying it at some point.>that proves very littleCorrect, but under US/Canadian conditions, similar solutions will be looked into. Especially in the western states/provinces.>You can't make garbage calculations and say "the person with data is better than the person with none".Data allows you to disprove someone else. You are saying I'm wrong without providing reasons why.
>>2018096>>2018097extra low to fit on a flat car?Same idea for these.
>>2018098Nope, extra low to fit under bridges/tunnels.The ones in question were just high enough to fit a wagon like this underneath but nothing bigger
>>2018100cute
>>2018098Dang, I never really thought about why their design was so low-set before
>>2018030You still don't understand my point.>>2018096>More losses reduce the power available between substations. This requires either higher voltages to be used to lower the current and the losses (I^2R) or more feeder substations to be built. Both solutions are more costly. The alternative is having trains getting stranded after they lose power.So? You seem to think voltage losses = worthless.>Electrification on AC will put stress on the rest of the grid as going from 3 phase to single phase causes unequal load.oh dearyou really don't seem to know what you're talking aboutdo you even know what a neutral section is for?>Try that in the EU and if you don't have on a multi-voltage locomotive (costing $$$) you'll end up frying it at some point.I have no idea what you are even trying to prove here. That different European countries have different electrification standards is irrelevant.>Correct, but under US/Canadian conditions, similar solutions will be looked into. Especially in the western states/provinces.And your evidence for this is?>You are saying I'm wrong without providing reasons why.I *am* providing reasons why.
>>2018138>You still don't understand my point.You don't have one, you're just here to seethe about US railroads because you're a deeply insecure thirdie.
>>2018096I recognize that small square!
>>2018147I think the insecure one here is the person who's obsessed with accusations of the other secretly being Indian.
>>2018096>>2018097>>2018098>>2018100SMASHED and SLAMMED
>>2018035Imagine eating the produce that has the train pass over it.
>>1994777They're used on the old EFVM lines in Minas Gerais, which are meter-gauge. EMD BB40-2's, BB40T-2's and GE BB30-7's, BB44-9W's and some newer ES44ACi-BB's all use span bolsters with two two-axle trucks to accommodate the smaller traction motors required. EMD's DDM45's used four-axle Flexicoil trucks for the same reason, for the same railroad.
>>1998819Great Northern Railway M-2 class. GN received 35 mallet compound M-1 class 2-6-8-0's from Baldwin Locomotive Works in 1910 for use on the mountain grades on the western end of the system. All 35 were rebuilt as simple expansion articulateds in 1925 and 1926 and reclassed M-2. 23 of the M-2's were then used as the basis for an extensive rebuilding program at the road's Hillyard Shops, and emerged as the O-7 class 2-8-2 Mikados. The remaining 13 M-2's remained in service across the system until retirement between 1949 and 1955. The origin of the idea of having a different number of drivers fore and aft is unclear; however, it most likely was based upon the notion of replacing the trailing truck of the early 2-6-6-2 types with a powered driving wheel - early mallets were slow, ponderous machines that lugged drag freights at low speed, with their fireboxes entirely above the rear drivers, and the benefit of a trailing truck in such service, particularly where reverse moves would normally only be done at terminals, was seen as limited.
>>2000783Two of these unique engines are actually preserved today. They quickly lost the drive cylinders for the rack pinions on the front engine unit, which were removed, as the extra cylinders taxed the boiler of steam too severely. A single 0-6-8-0T rack-and-adhesion locomotive was also built by Essingen for the Transandine - it was still kept for snowmelting duties as late as 1974.
Coke oven unit and quench car - I believe this one is European, but they were once common in the US.
>>2014657>drive rods break>engineer gets sliced in half
>>2018097Hello, Lumbago.
>>2014657>>2019982I've heard this as a common reason why they were outlawed but I wonder how often it really happened. Hard for me to believe it was so frequent the feds had to step in, but I don't really know.
>>2018096>>2018097>>2018098>>2018100>>2018102>>2018173
>>2019987Did a half-assed search and according to posts here http://www.rypn.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=45785, they weren't actually outlawed and some were in revenue service until the 50's.>article by Gregg Ames in Railroad History #219 concluded that the ICC never banned the camelback>conversation with Jack White who was the retired curator of transportation at the Smithsonian>Jack had been called by David P. Morgan, editor of Trains Magazine, asking about the ICC ban>Jack asked the ICC if it was true and they spent a month looking through their records and could not find anything to confirm the ban
>>2020080Interesting anon, thanksI'd heard my whole life that they were banned because they were dangerous. Having the engineer right next to the boiler and separated from the fireman and brakeman would certainly make them less desirable to crews. Still think they look cool though
