Trains

I know nothing of trains, but I do know there are people out there for whom they are almost a religion. If I'm asking a stupid question, I apologize and only offer my ignorance as an excuse.

I've always wondered what the reasoning is behind attaching more than one locomotive to a train of railcars. Obviously, it's so they can haul more cars, but why not just have each locomotive haul its load separately. Is it to save on labor? Is only one of the locomotives staffed, leaving the rest to be controlled from that engine?

If this is the case, is there a limit to how long a train can be? Could someone string together 30 miles of train if they had enough locomotives? Could you staff it with the same number of people needed on a single engine train? Is there a world record for this sort of thing? What are the limits set forth by whatever agency regulates such things?

I did a search to see if I could come up with something but the findings were pretty small. My guess is that the limitation on the number of cars has to do with scheduling of stops; as in, who are they delivering to, what other trains of how many cars are running on the same lines, etc. There's probably some physics reasons too: friction, limitations of diesal engines, time to get up to a "running" speed, stopping times, etc but, honestly, those are beyond my ken. I have a friend who is training to be an engineer, a life-long dream of his, and he says a lot of the train "driving" is computerized. I think he said there's typically only about a staff of 2-3 per train. I love to watch a train go by. Their size always amazes me! Hope someone else can help with more than my measly amount!

PB, I think that the dual locomotives are used on cross country hauls. The trains need more power to get the load over the Rockies or other mountains. On the down slope they turn off one of the engines. They also may attach several engines to re-route part of the train during long hauls to different destinations.

I lived about 50 feet from a very busy set of train tracks for five years. Virtually all trains (that passed us) have more than one locomotive -- usually 2 to 4. In this part of the country, they ain't going over the continental divide, either.

I was also surprised to notice that there are still hoboes riding the rails. I noticed men on the backs of RR cars on several occasions.

------------------
"Owls will deafen us with their incessant hooting!" W. Smithers

This is really reaching back into my memory of junior high school, but IIRC the Canadian Pacific and Canadian National Railroads use engines in tandem sets for extra long or extra heavy trains, or for those making the run over the Rockies.

I recall seeing as many as FOUR engines at the front of a big "unit train" going through the Rockies as a kid (about 1968). I think the train was well over 100 cars long, with grain cars the only type of rolling stock.

I have more recently seen a pair of engines at the front of a loooong unit train of coal cars, with a second pair of engines as "relief engines" about half-way back down the train.

When train engines are strung together, they can all be controlled from the lead engine. So a double-header train means one less engineer than two shorter trains. I've never seen relief engines like Rodd described, but then Michigan's landscape isn't exactly difficult to cross. Around here, the really long trains are the ones that have auto racks as the primary rolling stock. You typically see two or three GM-EMD diesels pulling as many as a hundred racks.

------------------
"I had a feeling that in Hell there would be mushrooms." -The Secret of Monkey Island

Two things:

Rhymes, not rythmes. Duh!

BunnyGirl:Their size always amazes me!

So size does matter.

I have a question about an expression, used at the end of the last verse of "City of New Orleans," written by Steve Goodman: "disappearing railroad blues." Of course, Goodman is no longer around to tell us where this expression came from. How did it originate? Except for this song's lyrics, I have seen it nowhere else except in the first Straight Dope book, wherein Cecil used it at the end of his discussion of "Phoebe Snow." Someone please answer this for me. Thanks. :)

"Disappearing railroad blues" is a comment on a vanishing way of life. I think City of New Orleans was probably writen in the 50s when the airliner and automobile were supplanting the train as the principle means of transportation. "Don't you know me? I'm your native son." is a plea to America not to forget a rapidly fading way of life.

In other words, the song is probably the source Cecil took it from.

Sly - It never occured to me that the couplings would have a limit to what they could handle. Putting engines in the middle of the train makes sense now.

The train they call the City of New Orleans makes the trip from Chicago to New Orleans fairly regularly according to the Amtrak web-site <http://reservations.amtrak.com/>.
The schedule says the train "City of New Orleans" leaves Chicago at 8PM for New Orleans and returns at 9:20AM the next day.

:)

A locomotive machinist told me of another reason for the engines in the middle of trains. The brakes on these trains are pneumatic. The air pressure is produced by a compressor in the locomotive. when a train reaches a certain length (150-200 cars), the compressor cannot provide enough volume to adequately apply all the brakes. So another engine is added in the middle.

Or it could be simply to simplify swithing later when the train is split for different destinations. (WAG)

Another 'limitation on the length of a train is the amount of time it takes to pass a grade crossing. At least in Texas there is a time limit on how long a train can block a crossing with out moving or while switching. The limit for a moving train is longer. I don't know what the limit is and the regulation seems to be more honered in the breach.
Now a question. Years ago I read in Popular Machanics, an article about a regularly running produce train that was extremly heavy and extremly fast.If I remember correctly just before it crossed the Sierras extra engines were added for the climb. Then on the down hill side the electric motors were disconnected from the generators but not the drive train, and allowed to run as generators,(where the power went I don't remember)thus acting as brakes.
The train coasted down hill and across Arizona befor the engines were re-engaged.
Or maybe I hallucinated that anybody ever heard of such a thing?

Pulling the mass of a long, heavy train through any terrain places undo strain (hey, that rythmes) on the couplings moreso than the lead locomotive. To balance the load, crewless "slave" locomotives are placed, usually toward the center, and are radio-controlled to the lead locomotive.

As for the record: In 1989 in South Africa's Sishen-Saldanha ore line, a 660-car train
grossing 71,600 tons and 4.47 miles long was run from end to end of the route. Power was furnished by five 5,025-horsepower electric locomotives at the front, four more inserted after the 470th freight car, and at the rear, to avoid overtaxing the traction current
supply system, seven 2,900-horsepower diesel locomotives.

To pmh: I'll have to ask a railroader about that one. I never heard of anyone "swithing" before. :)
On to a more serious question: During the heyday of passenger train travel, you would have to chaged trains--even stations in some cases--on an east-west trip, of any length, in Chicago, St. Louis, or New Orleans. In fact, an ad appeared with this bold statement as a banner, over a picture of a family gawking at a languid pig in a cattle car:
"A Hog Can Cross the Country Without Changing Trains--but YOU can't!"
I asked some people I know about this; one said railroads deliberately did this to make train travelers pay more; another claimed it was because the "Superliners" used in the West were too big for Eastern railroad tunnels. Any answers from the Teeming Millions?

Excuse me: "Have to change trains."

"A Hog Can Cross the Country Without Changing Trains--but YOU can't!"
---dougie_monty
------------------------------------
Actually, a pig (or any freight) would stay in the same car. The car would be switched to the appropiate train along the way to it's destination. That's what's happening when you have to wait hours at a RR crossing as a train plods back and forth.
BTW; Freight always has priorty over passenger service.
Also; US rail passenger service really sucks, due in large part to lobbying by the airline industry.
Peace,
mangeorge

ManGeorge is correct. The truth is, it was/is much more profitable for rail operators to transport livestock and other freight than people. Pigs and cars don't complain when you pack them in like sardines. Railroads are set up in (about) thirty-mile blocks (longer in remote areas) and no two trains can occupy the same block. If a scheduler has to choose between a passenger train and freight, he'd opt for the freight. Money talks. People, er, wait.

The train they call the City of New Orleans makes the trip from Chicago to New Orleans fairly regularly according to the Amtrak web-site.
For the record, it was also the train involved in the nasty 'train hits a truck and derails - lot of people hurt, some killed' incident a few months back south of Kankakee.

------------------
"I guess it is possible for one person to make a difference, although most of the time they probably shouldn't."

Going on memory, the reason people have to change trains in going from east to west, or vice versa: Back when Amtrak was fully subsidized by the U.S.Govt., they were given a certain amount of money to either update the trains or the tracks. Since the tracks were in better shape on the western half, they updated the trains. On the other hand, the tracks needed updating on the eastern half.
That's what I was told by Amtrak personnel when I decided to take a roundtrip trainride from L.A. to Newark, and back again. I had to change in Chicago. It was a fun trip, but, no....I'd *never* do it again.

------------------
"There will always be somebody who's never read a book who'll know twice what you know." - D.Duchovny

Amtrak names routes, not trains (they may name trains also, but I've never seen such a name publicized in any way). "The City of New Orleans" refers to any train running the Chicago-New Orleans route.

Having ridden the City of New Orleans many times, and having been acquainted with the late great Stevie Goodman, (he died of leukemia in 1983), I can tell you the song was written in 1970 during a period of convulsion in the railroad industry.

The government was in the process of bailing out many bankrupt railroads via their
CONRAIL entity, and Amtrack was cutting unprofitable passenger routes by the score, The City of New Orleans included. (Amtrack rescinded that cut, and the train continues to this day though a pale shadow of its former glory).

The City of New Orleans is not about that one train, it's about all trains from all times. Steve was lamenting the apparent death of our romance with railroading in general and passenger trains in particular.

I miss him greatly, to this day.

That's not quire accurate. The ad I saw was published in the 1940s, long before jet air travel. In any case, gasoline was rationed at the time to save rubber (ref. the first Straight Dope book); we needed all the mass-transit media we could muster, and air travel hadn't flourished yet. And the ad also pointed out that Canada, unlike the United States, was NOT 'split down the middle. The point of the ad was that rail travel should be as simple for Americans as it was (and perhaps still is) for Canadians.

Sorry, Torq, I missed your post, but you're exactly wrong. There are many trains that run those tracks between Chicago and New Orleans, but there is only ONE train designated as "The City of New Orleans." (Actually, there are two trains travelling that route in opposite directions at any given time).

Didn't you catch the line
"Passing trains that have no name"?

I rode the Coast Starlight in 1982, my first train trip in 30 years. I was listening to cassettes, with headphones; at one point the conductor, a rather whimsical soul, approached and asked me what I was listening to. I handed him the index card, from the cassette box, I had filled out. He pretended to read from it, "Let me go, I'm broke."

>>On to a more serious question: During the heyday of passenger train travel, you would have to chaged trains--even stations in some cases--on an east-west trip, of any length, in Chicago, St. Louis, or New Orleans. >>dougie_monty

In the "heyday" of passenger train travel, there was no Amtrak. Individual railroads handled their own passenger service on their own tracks (+rail right of ways +stations).

Early railroads in the east largely terminated at Chicago. Their lines (for the purposes of discussing transcontinental travel) simply did not extend beyond Chicago. Beyond Chicago, large western railroads completed the trip to the west.

Some of the railroads from the east to Chicago had premium or limited service which became famous as "20th Century Limited" (NY Central RR/NY to Chicago), "Broadway Limited" (Pennsylvania RR/NY to Chicago) and the "Capitol Limited" (Baltimore & Ohio RR/Washington to Chicago). From Chicago west some of the more famous premium trains were the "Super Chief" (A.T.& Santa Fe RR/ Chicago-LA), the "California Zephyr" (Burlington, Rio Grande and Western Pacific RRs/Chicago to Oakland) and the "Empire Builder" (Great Northern RR/Chicago to Pacific NW)

In Chicago, most railroads had their own terminal. Passengers had to detrain and switch to another terminal for the rest of their journey. Eventually, several railroads shared terminals (PRR, Burlington and others shared Union Station, NY Central and others shared Lasalle Station, B&O, C&O and others shared Grand Central Station, and Santa Fe and others shared Dearborn Station), but you still had to at least switch railroads, if not stations. Not until 1956 was it readily possible to enjoy transcontinental through service (via agreements between certain eastern RRs and certain western RRs.)

The eventual failure of private passenger service led to the takeover of virtually all long distance passenger travel (with a couple notable early exceptions) by Amtrak. Whatever its failings, Amtrak has consolidated passenger service (using the tracks of the private freight railroads except in the Northeast Corridor) and passenger stations, permitting through service. They even adopted (or co-opted) some of the old names, including the Capitol Limited, the California Zephyr, the Super Chief (now the Southwest Chief).

>>I asked some people I know about this; one said railroads deliberately did this to make train travelers pay more; another claimed it was because the "Superliners" used in the West were too big for Eastern railroad tunnels. Any answers from the Teeming Millions?>>

The Superliners are relatively new and of course were not around in the heyday of passenger service. The higher clearances they require make them virtually unusable in northeastern tunnels or under the catenary of the old PRR line (although the Capitol Limited route can handle the Superliners). For this reason and others, you still have to change trains in Chicago, even if you buy a ticket from Amtrak for New York to LA or Oakland

Another bit of info on train lengths and brakes - the brakes use air pressure to release the brakes, so if you have too many cars, you can't generate enough pressure to release the brakes, and you can't get moving. (At least that is what they indicated on a TV show called "Trains Unlimited".)

Train names - the names are usually associated with a specific train that runs at a specific time. Other trains doing the same route at a different time typically have a different name, if any.

The "City of New Orleans" has been around for many, many years. It was first operated by the Illinois Central Railroad and was later given to Amtrak, which is currently operating it. The train can legally travel at speeds up to 79 mph, however due to track conditions 55-60 is about as fast as it travels.
It would appear the City of New Orleans is in fact a single train.

------------------
"I guess it is possible for one person to make a difference, although most of the time they probably shouldn't."

I should mention the above quote came from http://patsweb.com/train-.htm which is a site devoted to the train in question.

Well, I'll defer to those who know (and care) more about this than I do.

I will say in my defense that Amtrak certainly doesn't go out of their way to correct mistaken opinions: their route schedule for Chicago-New Orleans prominently says "City of New Orleans" at the top, and doesn't as far as I can determine mention that the "other" train has a different name.

Likewise, I know I was on two different trains travelling the Chicago-Boston route, but neither of them was ever identified as anything but the "Lakeshore Limited". In fact, that particular route splits somewhere in New York (Albany, maybe?) with part going to New York City and part going to Boston, but the name didn't change that I can recall.

I see where our misunderstanding lies, Torq.
In the days when I rode that train, it only left once a day (late afternoon) for its namesake. (And another train of the same name left New Orleans bound for Chicago at about the same time).

Now Amtrak has a schedule of trains on that route and they all appear to be under the heading "City of New Orleans"? I was not aware of that fact. So they have indeed debased the name and applied it to a mere set of tracks. Thanks for that info.

(Rest in Peace, Steve. You were right).

[bermuda999]

No, there is still only one train per day in each direction. #59 southbound leaves every evening at 8PM and is scheduled to arrive in New Orleans the next afternoon at 3:40PM. #58 northbound leaves every afternoon at 2:04PM and is scheduled to arrive in Chicago the next morning at 9:20AM. There is no other direct passenger train between the two cities. It is possible to construct a route to, for instance) Philadelphia, then to Jacksonville, and then to New Orleans. But that is not direct, you would be changing trains, and you would not have traveled on the City of New Orleans.