/rail/ - 1chan

1=Mono Chan= Chan
Password (post and file deletion)

File: 1546658525687.jpg (205.99 KB, 1200x800, DwD_dimXQAAr28Y.jpg)


in the Philippines they use de-powered JR 203's as diesel push-pull coaches and I thought that's pretty horrible/neat

(src: https://twitter.com/Pierre2427/status/1081144919740174336)


File: 1551932087698.jpg (75.17 KB, 720x627, MaTo 51 P2.jpg)

Same train with better condition in Indonesia


russians used horses when they runned out of coal and nearby wood to pull train cars.. because no russian in history had any brains


Come on man, we actually have Ruskies visiting sometimes.

Speaking of push-pull, I think they were quite early in that game, or were those all multiple units rather than control car trains?


File: 1552037233481.jpg (570.2 KB, 1200x800, 213170.jpg)

I think I probably should be triggered at this but this is so bait that even reacting to it is already dangerous for the one's IQ.

To somewhat contribute to the topic though, we use those sexy bois sometimes in push-pull config (one in the head, one in the tail in this case) for a total of 26240 kW to quite nicely propel 7100-ton trains at a very harsh track profile of Russian Far East.

So this is likely the most hardcore push-pull EVER. (even though it isn't the EXACT definition of push-pull that OP has in mind. Duh, details…)

Surely, it's no problem for a nation with no brains to engineer the world's most powerful locomotive in active operation, right? …right?
You could even say that's… A NO-BRAINER! badum-tssss


>putin is the best girl

yeah, didn't read



Too much 4chan for today bruh


File: 1552309591791.jpg (820.79 KB, 3476x2368, DB_103_228-3_in_Flensburg.jpg)

>world's most powerful locomotive in active operation
putting 4 units together is cheating ;^)


File: 1552332598957.jpg (464.22 KB, 1280x885, 20180312_614854.jpg)

>putting 4 units together is cheating

Uhm… no. Nobody said you CAN'T do that. It's not cheating if it's a loophole.

It's not just 4 units put together, they are manufactured and operate as a single unit, and if their overall power output is the highest in the world, then it's the world's most powerful loco (by now beaten by this already >>6938 , although from the same Russian manufacturer).

You see, otherwise you could say it is "cheating" to put more axles together as well, and then this becomes the comparison of who has the most power output per axle, which is not only uninteresting but does not tell a thing about the loco itself.

Also, more importantly, before 4ES5K, the Bombardier's IORE was universally recognized as the world's most powerful loco, yet nobody was concerned by the fact that it is also a twin-unit loco. And moreover, its units had different fleet numbers, so formally you could argue that it isn't a formally single loco at all. Anti-Russian bias? :)))


>Anti-Russian bias?
Nah, just calling bullshit when we see it. Four locomotives permanently MU'd is still four locomotives.


And I who thought that if you had to take the power to the shop to rearrange it, it counted as one unit.


File: 1552397410317.jpg (572.5 KB, 1280x960, DSC051921.jpg)

Words of a person who likely never closely encountered a multi-unit locomotive. Pro-tip: it's not "bullshit" if you see a different technical approach to the same problem, mkay? I thought a tech-savvy board would see this as obvious.

There are key differences between MUd locos and units/sections of a single loco. In most cases they share crucial systems between the units, like the microprocessor control and diagnostics core, on older models might be some pneumatic equipment or even electrical equipment - it is arranged between different sections as it would be in a single locomotive. Why? Because nobody EVER intended those units to be a separate loco! In case of 4ES5K the D and C units share non-crucial features between them, and obviously lacking crucial features A and B have (like, oh I dunno, a pantograph maybe?). So for 3ES5K, 2ES5K it's not only the number which differentiates them.

Fun fact, some of those "individual locos" can not be even physically separated without using heavy equipment, like VL8, sharing a flippin' frame! Surely, just as good as two separate locos.

The sections are meant to be operated as modules of a single thing. Even if you rearrange them, they still would be operating in a set. You could as well take a single-unit loco to the depot and swap one of its bogies with another one, now we're counting the bogie as an individual loco?..



File: 1552398741874.jpg (507.38 KB, 1280x790, 27940.jpg)


And then, again, no one here had a single problem with IORE being a mutli-unit locomotive when it was the record. About the bias it was obviously a joke, in case anyone didn't notice, but about the IORE this was a very valid argument.

I'm not even speaking about the technical benefits which arranging a loco as set of small versatile modules would give instead of going with a single-frame many-axled monstrosity. And yes, multiplying the power without it being an engineering challenge is one of them.
If you think that lack of a challenge upon applying the solution to the real-world problems is a bad thing in engineering OR that making the solution more versatile is "cheating" than you are very mistaken.

P. S. There are some instances where a single section operates on its own, but only with diesel locomotives, and again - only with some of them it is even possible. In electric locos this is usually not the case on hardware level. You should design effectively a slightly different locomotive for one unit to be able to operate independently.

P. P. S. Now, am I the only one having problems with the long texts? Like, they're not THAT long yet the board doesn't accept them. Maybe worth stretching the symbol limit just a bit? Or adding symbol counter? That's really annoying TBH.


The EMD FT was named that because each locomotive was 1400hp (rounded) and came in a twin set. Fourteen hundred Twin. The A and B units were permanently coupled via drawbar.

Despite the drawbar, the A and B units were considered seperate locomotives for determining total horsepower.

Shared frame? That's different, like a Mallet or an E-Unit, but just a drawbar and you have seperate locomotives.


File: 1552409244967.jpg (792.66 KB, 1200x800, 223886.jpg)

You missed my point, which I already expressed above. Diesels - yes, they are usually more independent. But electrics usually share features and/or equipment between sections so even though they can be shuffled or even at times number of sections can be changed, they DO NOT operate independently.
Although some diesels in Russia also share some equipment between sections, so they can't operate on their own.

>considered seperate locomotives for determining total horsepower

I think the problem here that you guys are projecting your (clearly different) approach on multi-unit locos. Again, for the third time already, for the same IORE the kilowatt count is also officially determined for both sections as a whole. So this is not just weird quirk or Russki locomotives, this is an alternative approach to building and determining what is a locomotive.

You could object the record for a multi-unit loco as an engineering feat, yes. But nobody said it is. In fact, as said above, the whole point of the modular design is to make varying the axle count and power easier. By itself 4ES5K is not also amazingly impressive having just 820 kW per axle, but it doesn't eliminate the fact that it is, nominally, the world's most powerful loco in regular operation.
It's just a fact. If it wasn't formally considered a single loco, then it wouldn't be the record. After all the record itself is just a pure formality. But ultimately, this is down to the fact how is it considered in the context of its operation.

Also, if the problem is that on my side it looked too cocky, then, well, of course I hold dear the work of my compatriots, BUT to be honest, when the IORE was the record holder I was also fine with it. I even liked that beast - in fact, I still do.


Looking at that particular trainset I see two locomotive sets of A and B units. In this case, like you stated, the A and B units would count as a single locomotive as it is like a Mallet. Single panto powers both units.

But the entire ABBA lashup is technically two locomotives. It's the equivalent of two Mallet steam locomotives doubleheading. It's four total driver sets, but two locomotion sources.

The record thing is odd though. How come noone has coupled two sets together into an ABBAABBA since that would technically count for the same reason ABBA seems to count?


China Railways HXD1B HXD2B HXD3B all put 9.6 MW for 6 axles and 150 tons they're built in partnership with siemens alstom and bombardier since 2009.
A 12 axle freak would put close to 20 megawatts.


File: 1552424730979.jpg (36.24 KB, 582x375, mile33b.jpg)

Just as a proper comparison, what you got there is the Milwaukee Road EF-1. Two half units permanently coupled to form a single locomotive and usually run in an ABBA lashup.

Also, in looking up the Iore, it seems that the majority of publications list its stats by section as opposed to the double unit.

As for the 4E5K or whatever it's name is, I'm having trouble finding ANY information on it that isn't in Russian. Even it's listing on wiki is Russian only and nested in a site for some base locomotive that was used.


File: 1552426311169.jpg (238.35 KB, 1200x736, _45-003_1200.jpg)

>>7011 >>7013
I think you're not quite following. That's all nonsense because you are STILL applying to it the logic of the North American practice, which doesn't work in this context. First, de jure the A and B units here are both cab units, second, the booster units are C and D (А, Б and В, Г accordingly if you wanna mess with our cyrillics), that's how they're assigned, and they have some differences between them. For example, least I know, the C has a toliet and the D has some kind of quarters for crew - those aren't impacting the locomotive performance but still are technical differences.
So those are not identical sets, those are complimentary sets after all. And as I said already, in this practice, no one looks at them this way anyway, as in, the pair of booster+cab unit, they are viewed as a single loco because they are designed and certified this way. You probably could rearrange the sections some particular way, but this would be a deviation from how this loco was intended, and won't be a single loco in the way it was intended. And especially, since the electric loco is obligated to have at least two pantographs, you can't operate the set with less than two cab units, so all this AB+BA concept totally does not make any sense here.

>ABBAABBA since that would technically count for the same reason ABBA seems to count?

"ABBAABBA" is not only not complimentary, it won't meet the local criteria of a whole locomotive. At the very least it would lack the passage through the whole loco, which is already enough, then, I think, it would lack the HV bus connection throughout the entire locomotive. Atop of that, this series is designed to handle only 4 sections in multiple unit. Whether this is software or hardware, I dunno though.


File: 1552427585739.jpg (699.91 KB, 1200x800, 233885.jpg)

I might also add, that if they weren't intended and certified as a single loco, then they wouldn't be. For example, this "3ES10" (unofficial name) is just a twin-unit 2ES10 with added later 2ES10.S booster, because it wasn't certified a whole loco. However unofficially many perceive it as one, as in theory it could have been.

True, and they are an amazing feat of engineering. But since there wasn't a two-unit loco (intended and assigned as a whole loco) based on them, it would be more correct to count them as world's most powerful single-unit locomotive. FF, I believe before that it was the other Russian beast, EP200 @8000 kW. It was a weird locomotive, a shame it didn't take off.

>it seems that the majority of publications list its stats by section

I also noticed that but I can swear I came across sources which consider it as single loco. At the very least, it WAS after all regarded (at least by some) as world's most powerful loco. In fact, I think it still is by some, just because as you pointed out, it's both that people aren't bothered finding out about some russki locomotives nor many of comrades bothered to translate any info to English, so 4ES5K, even minus the confusion of its modular design, came almost unnoticed.

After all, I must admit, the modular loco concept is VERY confusing, but it is nonetheless an established practice, it's not like you may or may not believe it is a thing.

And again, even not understanding it fully, calling it cheating is kinda ignorant, there isn't such thing as cheating in engineering. You could say, that's as much cheating as calling the NA's trains with DPUs a single train, since there are more than one sets of locomotives.


So I found some more information on it. It's a modified E5k, a single engine class of electric locomotive.

It's also not the most powerful locomotive, or the most powerful articulated electric locomotive. That goes to the Chinese HXD1.

HXD1 Is rated at 19,310HP continuous rating VS the 17,594 of the Rusky Four-banger. The Russian 2ES10S is even more powerful than the Loco you keep posting.

Perhaps you are getting confused with the Russian GT1S, which is the most powerful non electric locomotive built.



For KW, the Chinese Loco is rated at 14,399 KW VS the Russian locos 13,120KW


File: 1552431743908.jpg (796.92 KB, 1282x834, 199533.jpg)

>It's also not the most powerful locomotive, or the most powerful articulated electric locomotive. That goes to the Chinese HXD1.

Not anymore, it doesn't:) If you've been up-to-date on this board, there's now a clear winner on Russia's side, 3ES5S at 16200 kW peak. Here: >>6938
The #001 was built just days ago, so it's quite far from being in operation yet. It has 3 sections as opposed to 4, so multi-unit/articulated concept haters still gonna hate, but 25% less:)

But in regard to 4ES5K vs HXD1 you're right. It is very weird that I never heard of it in this context prior to this, perhaps because on Wiki only its continuous output is listed, which is usually way more modest, and to find more info you need to do proper armchair research (so kudos to you for one).

>Russian GT1S, which is the most powerful non electric locomotive built.

First, it's GT1h (ГТ1h originally, where h means hybrid - latin letter in the cyrillic acronym, awful, I know), and second, it is also now beaten by this guy, 3-unit 3TE25K2M diesel locomotive at 12600 HP or 9260 kW on the diesels. Also Russian but it was able to achieve this power by using GEVO-12 diesels (this family usually uses domestic D49 diesels which are bit less powerful but here they wanted to experiment a bit), so maybe 'murican folks out there will have less incentive to berate it for also being a multi-unit monstrosity:)

P. S. If anything, I kept posting 4ES5K only to keep it related (to the discussion). Also, I feel like I accidentally totally derailed this poor thread which was about a different thing… Sorry. So maybe to not worsen things, might be as well a decent idea to keep the multi-unit/the most powerful loco argument in this thread: >>6938 Just a suggestion.



Neat, how does it ride compared to the chs200?

[Return][Go to top] [Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]