Quote Originally Posted by Drew1966 View Post
They were interesting, thank you Jim. But I still think that a consist that long could be dangerous, mostly due to the time it would take for the pressure to release from the brake lines along the entire length of the consist.
Actually the one shown probably isn't even considered a long train but since we can't see the rear it could still have more than double the amount of wagons we can see that haven't come onto the scene. From the looks of what I could see there may have been around 100 wagons almost all of them were container type many were double stacked. You will often find up to 160 wagons for each 2 locos across the plains, fewer for mountain passes. so more probably 100 to 2 with possibly or probably 1 or more locos in the rear. For the really long trains you see crossing Lower Arizona you might see 2 locos placed near the center as well, a lot depends on what the freight is. Containers are usually much lighter than coal, Iron ore, or crushed rock. So less tractive force is required for the double stack container unit train than one of other comedies or mixed wagons. On our last trip to Seattle we saw several trains over 3 miles long.
A railway worker once told me they are more concerned with tractive force than braking force because it is not as if you are going to be stopping at the next intersection when the light goes red like in a car. They plan their slow downs miles in advance.