train length

[645diesel]

Also, the capacity of the industries being served on the layout. If each industry only has capacity to receive a couple of cars, shorter trains make sense. If you’re interchanging 40-50 grain hoppers at a time, that would require longer consists. So, for industries that produce unit train type consists, cut down on the number of tracks at the industry and you’ll reduce the train length to a manageable length.

real railroads have hot shot thru freights and leave the switching to the local

(•_•)

    ( •_•)>⌐■-■

        (⌐■_■)

haha, but absolutely a valid point, a short line or branch will have the local, the peddler, the digger that does the work without ceremony or unnecessary theatrics.

[greenwizard88]

My ideal train length is 1-2 modern engines and 8-12 cars. I could probably get away with a 24 car train, but it would look a bit off. I tend to run my PRR stuff shorter, and modern passenger seems to have a cap of around 5 passenger cars before it looks weird. Most Kato passenger sets I only run about 1/2 to 2/3 of.

My layout is a 12x8 "L" that runs along 2 walls.

I also have the Kato Broadway Limited set, with extra cars, and a T1 to pull it. That's a long train for my layout, but really the best looking one

[Point353]

more the point, does a 12 car train say Class 1 high priority freight vs 16, 18 or even 20 cars.

Highest priority freight train on this Class 1 railroad:

[davefoxx]

Highest priority freight train on this Class 1 railroad:

If that isn't an example of Ed's Law, I don't know what is.

Seriously, the Seaboard Coast Line had a similar situation.  The SCL would send a hot intermodal train out of Jacksonville, Florida to points north, and, when the time came for the train to leave, it went with whatever was ready to go.  A train consisting of only seven 85' or 89' TOFCs was not uncommon.

DFF

[randgust]

Thanks for the Super C shot.   In 1972, it had grown a bit, but not by all that much.  I've got several shots of the train in that era with around 20 flatcars (pigs and containers, often Flexilvans of mail off of NYC) but behind THREE mixed FP45's and F45's.   

My ATSF layout is actually on the small side, and really on the small side if you're going after main line action.  The entire lower level is staging track, and each of four staging tracks can hold a 35 car train of 50' cars plus power and caboose.   Four more shorter tracks handle four more trains, and the reversing loop second level allows any train to become an 'eastbound' or 'westbound' on the schedule, so I can schedule up to 16 main line movements plus two locals from my Winslow yard.    Grades out of the staging yard and reverse loops are limited to 2.5%; flat curves at 11" and main line curves at 13" minimum radius with most visible curves at 15".    That design means that I can reliably run a 30 car train, more or less, behind 3 3600hp six-axle units - which was pretty much the standard power block for trains in the era.  ATSF had a horsepower to ton ratio on some trains like the Super C that was off the charts.   But even trains like the York Canyon unit coal train had 10 Alco RSD15's on 90 cars, I've got four on 30.   Main line speeds of 60 for standard freights are on the employee timetable.

But those standards are still 'pushing it'.   The main line is designed that backdrops split the layout into two main sections, the Winslow desert and the Arizona divide forested area, any given long train is not visible in both scenes.  At those lengths, the locomotive or caboose has 'usually' exited the scene before the other end clears, which makes a train appear much longer than it is without looking toylike wrapping around in the same visible scene.   Main line blocks are dropped off in the yard and locals serve the industries with what is usually a 10-car local.

The problem with that has been that while it worked well when designed in the 80's, the advent of DCC and sound and the resulting lightweight locomotives means that much current power on the market literally can't make the grade with my standard 30 car train.    While 3 six-axle Katos from the 90's easily handle a train, 3 six-axle Atlas current production anything are wimps.   I got rather scientific on measuring this stuff as newer purchases failed miserably to handle what the original Trix U28C chassis (I had 10 of them under various locomotive shells) handled easily.    Prototypically, adding more power just didn't happen, every photographed standard freight seemed assigned three units; exceptions being the bag of F leased F units on the Amtrak trains, and the YK unit coal train.   So the 'just buy more engines' argument rings hollow with me.

So there's some tips here, split up the visible parts of the layout with dividers so that you can run long without looking like a caboose chase; move staging out of sight so the layout doesn't turn into a parking lot,  watch your grades and curves as those may be the limiting factors, get to know your prototype practices so you aren't looking too absurd on what you end up with.

[jereising]

Jim, do you "de-rate" your helper locos or are they stock? I've had terrible luck when attempting any type of helpers and have pondered some sort of de-rating, such as removing tuck gears so only X number of axles are powered.

Nope.  All four are stock FVM ES44s.  The FVMs typically run very well together.  The rear loco typically pushes 20 or so cars, you can tell by the slack although that's hard to do as this particular train is mostly equipped with M-T's True Scale Coupler.  And IIRC I didn't even need to speed match them.   But your trackwork had better be pretty decent.

[CRL]

Highest priority freight train on this Class 1 railroad:

Good luck trying to unload those trailers.

[645diesel]

Highest priority freight train on this Class 1 railroad:

file this under "there is a prototype for everything" or a Rule 34 if you will.

the Super C was a commerical failure - the added $1400 (in the 1960's!) was just too much to be a viable long term offering.  sure they ran trains with as few as one car, but on average, it was 15-20 cars.  it's a hot shot service with exactly a single daily train, the rest of the traffic was "normal" sized.  modeling a drag freight on a bridge line with 4 cars... that's not gonna look "right" to many.

also, the ATSF is not a real railroad, they lived a fantasy for 2 decades and BN management snapped them out of it. 

[R L Smith]

My layout is 2 level modelled on the D&H. I run 18 x 40ft box cars and a caboose. Then I count 2 cars per traction motor on the diesel locomotive. So a 18 car train has 3 x 4 axle loco's or 2 x 6 axle loco on the point. This seems to work well.

Following up on this notion for a moment.  I have been using a rather odd formula to determine the number of cars in a train. Rather than "2 cars per traction motor" - which is a really great idea - I use 3/4 of the rated horsepower divided by 100 to get the number of cars a single unit will pull. For my 1952 era layout, a 1600 hp GP7 is rated for 12 40 foot cars. Two Geeps = 24 cars and a caboose and is a fairly long train. Swap those two Geeps for two 1500 hp F units, and I'm rounding up to 23 cars. An FT set, 2700hp, is rounded down to 20 cars. Subtle nuance , but I try to follow it.

The trouble comes when I era-swap to 1972. A pair of SD45's using the same math results in a 54 car train of more modern (read: longer) cars... 

In actual practice on my last layout, the 1972-ish trains were about the same length as the 1952-ish trains due to the normal constraints of siding and staging track length.  YMMV

[NtheBasement]

The problem with that has been that while it worked well when designed in the 80's, the advent of DCC and sound and the resulting lightweight locomotives means that much current power on the market literally can't make the grade with my standard 30 car train.   

Same issue here.  Back in DC land I could pull 24 cars upgrade with a GP.  After milling out frames for DZ126 decoders (these are tiny) I need two SDs to make it up grade even after extensive weighing down of the locos.  My newish sound-equipped GP can only pull 15 cars.

For some reason I can't find any depleted uranium on eBay.

[mark dance]

A common train length over Farron Summit on the C&W is 22x50' cars + 4x4 axle engines for about 8 1/2 foot of train whiich will fit in the two largest sidings.  We often run slightly longer trains to catch operators napping with humerus results. (Hey, the train length in cars of each siding *is* clearly listed on the TT!)

Grades are a stiff 2.5%.  Orders are to call for pushers or double the hill if more than 5 cars per loco which both increase the fun factor while backing things up.  This train size isn't far off the prototype in my era as the trains were mostly out-and-back and the FM power was getting old so they had to plan for losing one loco outbound and another returning.

Minimum distance between sidings over the hill is 2 train lengths.  Pusher grade eastbound is 1.5 scale miles and 2.5 westbound which makes for a satisfying length pusher run.

On the busier but flat lower deck train lengths are in the mid 30s again with 16+ axles of power.

Hope that is helpful

md

[wazzou]

Following up on this notion for a moment.  I have been using a rather odd formula to determine the number of cars in a train. Rather than "2 cars per traction motor" - which is a really great idea - I use 3/4 of the rated horsepower divided by 100 to get the number of cars a single unit will pull. For my 1952 era layout, a 1600 hp GP7 is rated for 12 40 foot cars. Two Geeps = 24 cars and a caboose and is a fairly long train. Swap those two Geeps for two 1500 hp F units, and I'm rounding up to 23 cars. An FT set, 2700hp, is rounded down to 20 cars. Subtle nuance , but I try to follow it.

The trouble comes when I era-swap to 1972. A pair of SD45's using the same math results in a 54 car train of more modern (read: longer) cars... 

In actual practice on my last layout, the 1972-ish trains were about the same length as the 1952-ish trains due to the normal constraints of siding and staging track length.  YMMV

A GP7 is rated at 1500 HP, just like the F7.

[DavidMcC]

I once went through the calculations of horsepower per car using a railroad engineering text.

It came out to about 100 hp per car.  This also gives a nicely proportioned train as the locomotive(s) look like there is enough power without the locos looking stressed pulling too many cars.

[randgust]

Unfortunately there's very little relationship between rated locomotive horsepower and tractive effort.   Where horsepower really comes into it is tractive effort at speed, so the rating for getting across a division at any speed is often HP/ton of train.    Remember a dinky little 600hp SW1 weighs in at 98 tons, a GP7 comes in with 1500hp at 123 tons, but once you get to maximum axle loading limits you're kind of stuck - horsepower buys you tonnage at speed when geared for it.   ATSF piled on power to run a train at speed, most evident on the Super C.

The ability of the locomotive manufacturers to really oversell tractive effort and start mumbling about speed during the transition era was pretty epic.   If you look at the sales brochures and tractive effort charts for a GE 44-tonner you'd think they could empty the yard, truth was they pooped out after about 5mph and without traction motor blowers, well... so much for that.   Steam was just the opposite, it you could get the darn train moving without a helper push you could produce more horsepower the faster you ran, if you had the TE to get the train started.

Tractive effort will get you started, horsepower give you speed (with the right gearing) on diesels, and steam still wins at speed.   Most dramatic demonstration I ever saw myself was riding behind N&W 611 romping with an 18-car excursion train from Erie to Bellvue, OH at 70mph and not even working hard and rapidly accelerating at speed, and the return trip with two 3000hp C30-7's factory fresh from GE couldn't hold 50mph with the exact same train - I was right behind the power and you could hear the transition relays and motor RPM's fighting the entire trip back.

[OldEastRR]

I have two long stretches of track on my 11' long layout -- one is a 10' long curve with the middle 2/3s at a very wide (15-16 REAL FEET dia) curve, the other a long straight 6' section that arrows through the centerline (more or less) of the layout. Plus a 3x around design that allows trains to run in opposite directions on parallel tracks and travel over every inch of the main w/o any reversing loops. 12-14 car passenger trains with two locos look very good through the wide curve and since that side is all town it doesn't look too big for the scene. Freights of about the same length also don't overpower any part of the layout scenery.  The key is to have viewblocks and backdrops in appropriate places and of adequate size to block an operator from seeing the whole layout at once. My idea was to build around-the-wall type track plan and scenery as a free-standing layout. It was quite a challenge. From a camera in the lead unit perspective my layout would seem to have a much bigger footprint.