/rail/ - 1chan

1=Mono Chan= Chan
Name
Email
Subject
Comment
File
Password (post and file deletion)

File: 1549689950276.jpg (1.24 MB, 1920x2560, Russian_SA-3_railway_coupl….jpg)

 No.6789

The longest and heaviest train with SA3 couplings ran on 20 February 1986 from Ekibastuz to the Urals, Soviet Union. Is there any documentation about it?

 No.6791

File: 1549691861184.jpg (992.69 KB, 1385x850, 235972.jpg)

About the train or about the coupler? I think there is little known about the train even in the Russian sources other than it was 439 cars, weighed 43 400 (metric) tons and had a length of 6.5 kilometers. Also it used distributed traction and was clearly here for showoff, there was little practical need in a train like this and joined trains are usually kinda pain in the butt to operate.

Heres the video though of the more or less regular service double train of roughly 13 700 tons (153 cars with two locomotives - total of 5 units). Pretty much nothing special for the North America yet very impressive for Russia and pretty much unseen for the rest of Eurasia. https://youtu.be/CAe_UaSO7bM

 No.6793

>>6791
>two locomotives
You mean the first two were in multiple unit operation while the third (in my count) locomotive was manned and not remotely operated?

Also, all those flat wheels.

 No.6796

File: 1549756068732.jpg (356.23 KB, 1300x800, 20170228_585064.jpg)

>>6791
Also speaking of distributed traction, this is not the fault of SA-3. Theoretically SA-3 is the world's strongest autocoupler in mass operation but on practice it's load is often artificially limited at 135 (metric) ton-forces (out of 200) to increase durability, but even this is usually not the case.

I shall stress this again (for example K-POW tends to forget this every time LOL) that most of the time Russian (ex-USSR in general) trains are limited by length, not by weight.

Most of the yards are within 1.5 km length so operators tend to work within that restriction rather than rebuild all yards and sidings along the route. Joined trains are a way around that as they can be quickly coupled and uncoupled in the neck of the station but this is still not the simplest solution. Obviously in the OP case the train should have had at least four sections which is way beyond reasonable in normal operation.

On a sidenote, there are regularly operated single headed trains which exceed 100 cars in Russia too. For example 10000-ton trains in the Astrakhan region led, amazingly, just by a single 7200 HP 2TE116U locomotive.

 No.6797

File: 1549756932500.jpg (126.85 KB, 1280x720, maxresdefault.jpg)

>>6793
Technically all those what you see are multiple units. First is a triple unit (made from units/sections from two double-unit VL80S) and the second is a double unit as it is.

I believe they are not remotely operated, there is a Russian ISAVP-RT "smart remote-control" system (which is pretty neat by the way, as it applies commands in accordance to the calculated via GPS/GLONASS position of the loco layed onto the track profile, to eliminate the risk of the dangerous reactions in the train, so essentially this is an autodrive feature) but I suspect it is used only where there is a frequent operation of the joined trains.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ydTXaP-Hadg


>flat wheels


Totally a normal thing. Like, US trains do that DADADADADA every time too.

I guess if we didn't "optimize" our freight car maintenance procedures there would have been much less of them with deformed wheels. …or maybe not, seems like during USSR and 90s is all was even worse. Now at least some of the car types run consistently smoothly.

 No.6834

>>6796
>I shall stress this again (for example K-POW tends to forget this every time LOL) that most of the time Russian (ex-USSR in general) trains are limited by length, not by weight.
I kind of wonder what was the motivation for going with the shorter trains considering the whole network had been pounded into dust by 1922 and it would have seemed like a golden opportunity to rebuild the network to accommodate the super long consists. Did the engineers just favour smaller but faster trains or something?

 No.6837

File: 1550381970297.jpg (392.09 KB, 1280x714, 214570.jpg)

>>6834
Well it's rather simple, really. Most of the yards were built or rebuilt in the times where no one even dreamed of locomotives capable of hauling consists longer than around a kilometer on the given profile.

Especially given that many areas on USSR/Russia's rail network are notorious for the harsh profile which totally didn't help, considering most of the Soviet steam engines were rather humble (compared to US counterparts), you could say in those times the railway operation model in USSR was more aligned with the European model with their small versatile locos and shorter trains, and the gigantomania didn't came until, like, third generation of diesel locomotives, where it became clear that it is really easy to create an enormous extra-powerful loco just by linking a few "modules", usually based on a single-unit loco, together. But by then the general shape of the rail network was already set and it was too much of a hustle to change something.

Of course some areas do feature trains of around a hundred cars, and there are newer or more recently rebuilt stations but with all that the harsh profile also didn't disappear, and the abilities in terms of reasonable to operate super-powerful locos are still limited, at least in diesel traction. There are a few other specifics and caveats on our railways which don't help either but I have no intention for this comment to grow into a scientific article.

However with all that said we still happen to be the country producing (by utilising that modular concept) the most powerful both diesel and electric locos in history. But, again, mostly with the intent of overcoming the difficult grades and not chasing the 100+ cars per train number.
For example these 4-unit 13120 kW monstrosities.

 No.6840

>>6796
>Bragging about .72 horsepower/ton
My friend, we routinely run 21,000 ton coal trains with 8800 horsepower. It will be two engines with AC traction motors, but it is a regular thing. I don't think you understand how heavy, long, and stingy our trains are run.

 No.6843

File: 1550574156284.jpg (683.1 KB, 1280x878, 239729.jpg)

>>6840
>that passive aggressiveness and causticity
U WHAT M8

How could anyone possibly brag about purely, absolutely, ultimately, 100% PRACTICAL thing? Do you even know that trains are shaped by things which have nothing to do with your nationalism?

The train weight and the use of the given loco are determined purely by the profile and various features of the GIVEN route, and of course no one gonna haul a 10000 metric ton train with 18 or 24 powered axles when you can do this, effectively enough, with 12 axles. But probably you already know that, so it's kinda stange I have to mention this.

The only reason this train exists and is led by a single 2TE116U is because the route has the profile as flat as a table, but still it, obviously, suffers in terms of dynamics, because 116U is notoriously not very capable in terms of pure traction, by far less so that your typical loco (per axle).
Also, to your acknowledgement, RZD cares much more about its freight train dynamics (because they run in the pretty tight schedule, usually along with passenger ones) (BTW a clear benefit of lighter trains), hence I was genuinely amazed by the fact they considered a 2TE116U enough to lead a 10000 train.

Same for the mention of the world's most powerful locos above, I brought that as a matter of fact, you are free to decide whether to be amazed or not over a purely practical thing.
…but not being triggered like a <insert your own politically incorrect analogy> by a single word. No, dude, I personally think this is an unsportsmanlike behaviour here.

 No.6845

>>6843
I didn't mean to be insulting, I was just illustrating that trains are run much differently in N. America and in Russia despite them both having very high freight usage.

 No.6847

File: 1550602829750.jpg (972.88 KB, 1200x775, 219081.jpg)

>>6845
Oh well, guess wrong signal was sent then… TBH it sounded extremely condescending, both personally and on topic, but maybe it was just me, who knows.

> I was just illustrating that trains are run much differently in N. America and in Russia despite them both having very high freight usage.


Well really it was already obvious enough for anyone who followed this thread. You could say Russian trains are somewhere inbetween the EU and NA ones, unbelievably enormous by the European standards but (not tiny, yet) nothing impressive by American standards.
Same for the dynamics, not quite like passenger trains (like in EU), but compared to the NA, we often "invest" more kilowatts into each ton, and the electric traction is super helpful here, so the train is usually more agile and responsive, to sometimes counter the harsh profile but usually to better fit into tight schedules, often involving passenger and even commuter trains, and mind you, in Russia they have to be always on time. Not like they don't get late at all but it's more like an exception - like, many visitors from the West especially admit this - usually if the train is late more than a few mins it means that something went wrong, maybe at times because of more "realistic" schedules, but still freights have to kinda cope.

But still,
>21,000 ton coal trains with 8800 horsepower
is not just impressive, looks like on the limit of what is reasonable, probably this behemoth has to run on the profile so flat it would make for a flat-earther Mekka, and still it would probably take it hours to gain full speed, LOL. Quite some time ago I noticed your locos have much smaller continuous speeds than ours, so the gearboxes are clearly more "traction-oriented".

 No.6909

>>6837
Two four axle european locos easily put 12.8 mw on the rail for 176 tons.

 No.6911

File: 1551278660224.jpg (491.36 KB, 1249x800, 238435.jpg)

>>6909
>12.8 mw
>176 tons
What, you don't think you can just stuff more kilowatts into the loco and then expect it to pull larger trains? Do you see a catch here?

If we're talking about actually heavy trains you gonna need some weight to back this power up. At such levels of power per axle this would mean only that the tractive effort would peak up to higher speeds, in the case of 1.6 MW an axle you won't notice any difference in dynamics up to, like, 60-70 km/h. So effectively you really need such numbers mostly in passenger work or lighter freights which have to go really fast. This is still applicable to freights but the effect is not dramatic and definitely won't let you haul larger trains or (arguably) do it at much harsher profile.

For 4ES5K it is 0.82 MW an axle but at 384 tons, which is beefy enough to grant some actual traction. I don't say that 0.82 MW/axle is perfect, after all it is based on rather old design and adding the 4th section just meant the easiest way to add power and fewer problems in operation than with similar multiple loco sets.

I think it's safe to say that up to 1.2MW you would get some noticeable benefits with freights, that's why I'm more thrilled about 3ES10 Granit which at 12 axles and 300 tons packs 13200 kW, however it is a single loco only unofficially, the booster section has different number.

Also I'm even more thrilled about the expected 3ES5S Russian loco which will have unreal 16200 kW at the same 12 axles and 300 tons. Bit more than 1.2 MW/axle, I know:)

 No.6923

File: 1551408666896.jpg (676.2 KB, 1200x800, 241317.jpg)

>>6845

But you know, I enjoy watching some YouTube live feeds of the American trains recently and noticed that despite what you said most of the trains here actually have decent power to weight ratio and quite adequate dynamics. So looks like at least on most routes you still do invest adequately in traction. The closest train to which you mentioned I've seen was about 14500 tons with two 4400 HP locomotives coal train in Ohio.

Also speaking that your locos have "slower" gearboxes I didn't mean that ours are faster or something but in the sense that yours are clearly designed for bigger continuous tractive effort, which is understandable given the difference in axle load. For example our freight diesel locos have continuous speeds of 25-28 km/h while electric locomotives have more than TWICE that, mostly above 50 km/h. Which again corresponds well with the difference in power output per axle. Our freight trains usually have more agile dynamics, which I explained earlier, but the common top speeds seem very comparable, if not slightly in your favor.



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