News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Four ways to speed up trains on the New Silk Road (2020) by Animats on Monday April 05, 2021 @05:39PM (#26705045)
From what I can tell, Europe tends to prefer far smaller trains than the US does.

The old-style couplers used in Europe are too weak for longer trains. "The buffers and chain coupling system has a maximum load much less than that of the Janney coupler. They allow around 3,000-4,000 (metric) tonnes total train weight depending on the how they are constructed. The Janney coupler sometimes is built for 32,000 tonnes (31,000 long tons; 35,000 short tons)."

The EU attempt to standardize on an automatic freight coupler across the entire EU was a flop. There's a new project under way to test a new generation of freight coupler, one that connects the mechanical, air, and electrical connections.[1] But it's just getting started.

[1] https://uic.org/com/enews/article/germany-rail-freight-trans...

Re:Four ways to speed up trains on the New Silk Road (2020) by iggldiggl on Monday April 05, 2021 @06:28PM (#26705456)
While the couplings certainly are a factor for heavy (bulk) freight (steel, coal, ore, aggregates, etc.), I'd guess that container trains are often rather length-limited by all the rest of the infrastructure (yard/siding/loop length, signalling) before hitting the actual limits of the old-style screw couplings. Whereas e.g. most of Europe currently has evolved towards a maximum length of around 750 m (which doesn't mean that the infrastructure in terms of loop/sidings length actually allows trains that long everywhere, though!), Denmark allows up to 835 m while still using screw couplings.

So for container trains at least, a programme of loops and sidings lengthening would be the more pressing requirement, before actually and absolutely having to upgrade the couplers, but that kind of infrastructure modification doesn't come cheap or necessarily easy, either.

Another difference to consider is that in Europe, passenger traffic is much more widespread and common than on North American railways, and also commonly has priority over freight trains.

While in principle, longer trains are indeed more efficient than an equivalent larger number of shorter trains, past a certain point they'll eventually become too unwieldy to fit inside the schedule demands of passenger traffic. There's certainly scope for moving beyond the current 750 m maximum, but the multi-kilometre range would probably be pushing things a little too far without completely dedicated infrastructure.

Re:Four ways to speed up trains on the New Silk Road (2020) by bluGill on Monday April 05, 2021 @07:57PM (#26706249)
Freight and passengers should never share track. The needs of both are too different. Mail and perishables are a possible exception to that rule.
Re:Four ways to speed up trains on the New Silk Road (2020) by iggldiggl on Tuesday April 06, 2021 @02:16AM (#26708537)
That's easy to say in principle, but when it collides with the financial reality of then having to pay for twice the infrastructure…
Re:Four ways to speed up trains on the New Silk Road (2020) by bluGill on Tuesday April 06, 2021 @07:33AM (#26710613)
If you can't pay for both sets of tracks then you need a road where both trucks and cars can mix.