Quote Originally Posted by basil3w View Post
Except for the very front, it appears that there's two traction engines (nose to nose), for every three passenger carriages. Except to set a record, it seems it would be prudent to assemble four or five smaller (and more manageable trains), than this amazing behemoth!
Th several traction engines just may be the key here. Look closely and note the lead engine would appear to be 3rd rail design then the engine at the end of the first string has the overhead power skis. follow each string and this combination is repeated throughout the length of the train.
It looks to me the reason for it having so many separate coupled trains coupled together is all of the trains service several routes in 2 different cities then couple to transfer between those cities, this way as it enters the next city each train splits off on it's respective route. The main reason for the extended coupling length would be twofold #1 conservation of energy as it would probably not require very many traction engines to be pulling at the same time #2 having all of the individual trains coupled they don't have to maintain the few minutes time separation between trains while at speed There could be another reason particularly if the travel while coupled is quite long. 1 long train only requires a single crew where as several short commuter trains would require a crew or at the very least the engineer for each train so the crews for either city would most likely be local to their city. Here in the USA it is common practice to couple more than a single freight train for long journeys to save on having to send a crew on each train.