UK frieght lengths.

One thing I've been wondering while using some of the sims on here, is why the freight trains are so short on the sims. From what I've seen, most freights seem to be about 350-450m in length on most of the sims. Is that accurate to real life, or was that a design decision to make the sims more playable? The reason I'm curious is that over here in Canada, freights are never usually less then about 1800m in length(other then local switchers), with the average closer to 3000-4000m.

If the SimSig lengths are accurate, why are the trains so much shorter in the UK then in North America? Are there restriction preventing longer trains, would it jam up the system too much, is there just not enough freight to justify the longer lengths? I'm quite curious what accounts for the differences...

One thing I've been wondering while using some of the sims on here, is why the freight trains are so short on the sims. From what I've seen, most freights seem to be about 350-450m in length on most of the sims. Is that accurate to real life, or was that a design decision to make the sims more playable? The reason I'm curious is that over here in Canada, freights are never usually less then about 1800m in length(other then local switchers), with the average closer to 3000-4000m.

If the SimSig lengths are accurate, why are the trains so much shorter in the UK then in North America? Are there restriction preventing longer trains, would it jam up the system too much, is there just not enough freight to justify the longer lengths? I'm quite curious what accounts for the differences...

Do freight trains in the USA and Canada have separate tracks for a lots of their routes from passenger traffic?

1d19h would, almost, allow you to travel from Penzance to Wick and return. Those will be the two stations furthest apart form each other.

Do freight trains in the USA and Canada have separate tracks for a lots of their routes from passenger traffic?

Another factor worth mentioning is traffic density. I don't know how many trains per day you'd see on a line carrying heavy freight traffic in Canada or the US.

" said:

Do freight trains in the USA and Canada have separate tracks for a lots of their routes from passenger traffic?

You're right, this could be one of the big differences as well. With only 1 or 2 exceptions, there is very little intercity passenger rail traffic in Canada. All of the major rail mainlines around the country are owned by the freight rail companies, and the passenger trains get no special priority over the freight. In fact, when issues happen and delays are everywhere, the freight actually gets priority over the passenger trains, since the passenger trains are running on the freight railways' infrastructure. With the freight railways not having to give any sort of priority or planning to passenger moves, they are free to make the trains as long as they want.

Come to think of it, even the passenger trains over here are longer then the UK ones, which I'm sure is due to the longer distances. I've just booked a train journey for this summer, and the train I'm taking takes 1d19h to reach it's destination from the station I board at, and is usually around 26-28 cars long in the summer time (although it only runs 4 times per week in each direction...).

When BNSF built their third main track through Cajon Pass they quoted a throughput of 150 trains per day instead of 100, so we can assume 50 trains per day per track - that's a half hour headway roughly!

" said:

When BNSF built their third main track through Cajon Pass they quoted a throughput of 150 trains per day instead of 100, so we can assume 50 trains per day per track - that's a half hour headway roughly!

In 1920 the Great Eastern Railway, with steam traction, mechanical signalling and Sykes Lock & Block working, was able to achieve a throughput of 24 trains each way per hour on one of the three pairs of tracks leaving Liverpool Street; the other two pairs continued to carry something like 15 trains each way an hour each.

Freight trains could one day rumble through the heart of Brunswick and Coburg (Melbourne suburbs) as part of a future expansion of Victoria's freight rail network.

The Linking Melbourne Authority has revealed plans to build two extra railway tracks through Melbourne's north, directly alongside the Upfield railway line, which has in recent years experienced an apartment boom.

The new tracks are planned to run directly to the west of the existing Upfield line, which runs to Campbellfield and passes through North Melbourne, Royal Park, Brunswick, Coburg and Fawkner. Several apartment buildings have gone up in recent years on land next to the railway line, and more housing is planned near stations including Jewell and Batman.

It's not known how many railway properties along the railway line would have to be bought, as reserve exists on many stretches along the line.
...
"In consultation with Public Transport Victoria the [east-west link] design is to make allowance for the following future infrastructure: two additional standard gauge tracks on the Upfield rail line, to the west of the existing tracks, allowing for freight trains (although not double stacked container)," the authority said.

Currently the Upfield line is only used by suburban operator Metro, although it has been used by freight trains in the past.

City of Moreland chief executive Peter Brown said the council was aware of a Transport Department proposal to eventually expand the Upfield line from two tracks to four, but that there were no plans to use it for freight trains.

"All the information that council has had to date was that it wasn't to be used as a freight train route and really we would have quite a lot of concern if it was going to be used for freight trains," Mr Brown said. "You're talking about trains that sometimes are up to 500 metres to a kilometre long, and you can imagine them rattling through our suburbs."

" said:

" said:

When BNSF built their third main track through Cajon Pass they quoted a throughput of 150 trains per day instead of 100, so we can assume 50 trains per day per track - that's a half hour headway roughly!

In 1920 the Great Eastern Railway, with steam traction, mechanical signalling and Sykes Lock & Block working, was able to achieve a throughput of 24 trains each way per hour on one of the three pairs of tracks leaving Liverpool Street; the other two pairs continued to carry something like 15 trains each way an hour each.

And if you merge twenty-four 600 foot trains (engine+9) to form two 7200 foot trains, you actually get the same throughput in terms of amount of train as Cajon Pass would!

" said:

" said:

" said:

When BNSF built their third main track through Cajon Pass they quoted a throughput of 150 trains per day instead of 100, so we can assume 50 trains per day per track - that's a half hour headway roughly!

In 1920 the Great Eastern Railway, with steam traction, mechanical signalling and Sykes Lock & Block working, was able to achieve a throughput of 24 trains each way per hour on one of the three pairs of tracks leaving Liverpool Street; the other two pairs continued to carry something like 15 trains each way an hour each.

And if you merge twenty-four 600 foot trains (engine+9) to form two 7200 foot trains, you actually get the same throughput in terms of amount of train as Cajon Pass would!

Good thinking Danny. But 24 an hour is much more fun for the bobby ;)

The UK loading gauge is VERY small by comparison to those used in the US & Canada, and in many parts of Australia.
This means that the UK locos can't house the large engines and generators used in locos for the US, Canada & Australia.
Throw in the lower axle-loading limits, you can't make the locos weigh too much, therefore you limit the tractive effort available as well as the horsepower.
This now means that you the locos can't haul 1000m drags of wagons because the locos simply can't do it!

In Australia this is compounded by the track gauge difference between various states.

This didn't particularly bother Brunel.