Longest Train Ever Probably Was In America and Not Australia????????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!
- Thread starter kmothersil
- Start date
Yes it does. We could be totally energy independent if we switched to 100% coal. I wouldn't worry too much about global warming....if a few volcanoes go off it will cool the world down.....ice age happened before and can happen again.:hehe:
For those who are interested in coal power here is an interesting site:http://www.industcards.com/st-coal-usa-pa.htm
Three of those huge generating stations are thirty miles or less from my house. They are Conemaugh, Seward and Homer City plants which together generate 5,097MW of electricity. Additionally there are a number of good coal generating station assets on the DLS.
Seward Power Station in Trainz.
Last edited:
Gandalf0444
FVRR member
Honestly if you think that the US is the root of all the problems in this world,you have got to pick up a book and read it. Or even click on the TV and watch it and you will find that the US isn't even the biggest consumer of fossil fuels overall some areas yes we use a lot but that is because we have a LARGE amount of people in the U.S. so it shouldn't take a rocket scinetist to figure out that more people=more usage. And infact we have some of the largest reserves of Coal,Natural Gas and Oil.And we have the most coal. But you can't blame us for the Natural Gas and Oil production Blame Russia and the Saudi Arabians for that. So I would suggest that you stop bringing this non sense to the TRAINZ forum,and leave it be.
Last edited:
Because there isn't one. China is the worst polluter.
i'm glad somebody noticed the drawbar problem. the s.p. tried with 200 car trains and found it pretty much insoluble even then.
power isn't the limit, strength of drawbars is.
if anybody ever assembled a seven mile train and actually got the whole thing moving, that would have to be a myrical that only happend once. and sorry, but i really seriously have my doubts.
=^^=
.../\...
power isn't the limit, strength of drawbars is.
if anybody ever assembled a seven mile train and actually got the whole thing moving, that would have to be a myrical that only happend once. and sorry, but i really seriously have my doubts.
=^^=
.../\...
hogger1961
New member
Big Boy record?
For any reason other than a publicity stunt, I would be surprised if two big boys were used to pull 7 miles of cars for a few reasons. Irregardless of car size, 7 miles of train is way above the breaking strength of the couplers used then. Modern couplers are rated in the 300,000 lb. breaking strength range, and the stronger type E ( 500,000 lb.) are common in unit service. I cant give you exact numbers but 7 miles of 50 foot cars would be about 739 cars. If we go conservative and use 50 tons as our car weight then we would have 36,960 tons ( 73.9 million lb ) of force transmitted through the forward coupler of the car attached to the locomotives. Around 280 times the normal full rating. Additionally, steam locomotives were not known for the smooth pull of electric traction, which would be more coupler stress. Slack action would make riding in the caboose a suicide ride, as well as cause a constant derailment concern. And the slow transit speeds would cause traffic problems. There would be no point running a 7 mile train. All that being said, the Big Boys did regularly haul 100+ car trains at 60-70 mph in regular service. At 135,000 lbs of starting tractive effort, the Big-Boys were not the most powerful American locomotives. The N&W Y-6b was equal, if not slighter better at getting the train rolling, and the Missabe Yellowstones were stronger. What the Big Boys are known for is the tonnage they could run with at passenger speeds. Comparison of locomotive records has to be looked at with respect to the variables of design and situation. As far as an "official record", the Australians have plenty of muscle and the space to set one, so I assume they have it. (a long winded way of saying " I dont know".)
For any reason other than a publicity stunt, I would be surprised if two big boys were used to pull 7 miles of cars for a few reasons. Irregardless of car size, 7 miles of train is way above the breaking strength of the couplers used then. Modern couplers are rated in the 300,000 lb. breaking strength range, and the stronger type E ( 500,000 lb.) are common in unit service. I cant give you exact numbers but 7 miles of 50 foot cars would be about 739 cars. If we go conservative and use 50 tons as our car weight then we would have 36,960 tons ( 73.9 million lb ) of force transmitted through the forward coupler of the car attached to the locomotives. Around 280 times the normal full rating. Additionally, steam locomotives were not known for the smooth pull of electric traction, which would be more coupler stress. Slack action would make riding in the caboose a suicide ride, as well as cause a constant derailment concern. And the slow transit speeds would cause traffic problems. There would be no point running a 7 mile train. All that being said, the Big Boys did regularly haul 100+ car trains at 60-70 mph in regular service. At 135,000 lbs of starting tractive effort, the Big-Boys were not the most powerful American locomotives. The N&W Y-6b was equal, if not slighter better at getting the train rolling, and the Missabe Yellowstones were stronger. What the Big Boys are known for is the tonnage they could run with at passenger speeds. Comparison of locomotive records has to be looked at with respect to the variables of design and situation. As far as an "official record", the Australians have plenty of muscle and the space to set one, so I assume they have it. (a long winded way of saying " I dont know".)