rail technology

In Europe, Latin America Asia,Australia and Africa how is the railway technology differ from that used in north America in terms of signals,tracks,carriage and etc in general?

Europe:
- usually mainlines are electrified
- there aren't automatic couplers, but chains
- gauge clearances are smaller, double stack containers are impossible
- in Eastern Europe track gauge is 1520 mm (5 ft), instead of 1435 mm (4 ft 8 in 1/2)
- trains are never longer than 750 m (0.5 miles) instead of 2-3 km/1.5-2 miles in America

- there are a lot of passenger trains
- other than Estern Europe, main networks of Spain and Portugal use 1668 mm/5'6'' gauge, and Irish network 1600 mm/5'3'', tehre are a lot of narroe gauge lines, mainly 1000 mm (less than 3'6'')

Gotthardbahn wrote:Europe:
- usually mainlines are electrified
- there aren't automatic couplers, but chains
- gauge clearances are smaller, double stack containers are impossible
- in Eastern Europe track gauge is 1520 mm (5 ft), instead of 1435 mm (4 ft 8 in 1/2)
- trains are never longer than 750 m (0.5 miles) instead of 2-3 km/1.5-2 miles in America

I think "Eastern Europe" needs to be defined here. It's Russia and Ukraine and all points east in the former Soviet Union where the Broad Gauge is. There are two broad gauge lines: into Poland and Slovakia. That gauge is ideal for Tanks.

one difference is the trains travel on the left in double track terrioty in most countries except the usa and Canada .

Countries like Australia and New Zealand probably have more in common with American railways than European , despite our ex colony status . Nz on a much smaller scale , but Australia has some long trains .

David Benton wrote:...one difference is the trains travel on the left in double track terrioty in most countries except the usa and Canada . . .

In Germany, the Netherlands and Austria they drive on the right, in Belgium on the left, not sure about France and Swiss.

Also in Europe there is a more frequent and strict operating schedule when it comes to passenger trains. Long distance and local. Amtrak doesn't even come close, except the NEC.

my mistake , i never noticed that in Germany , i wonder if there will be any attempt to standardise this within the eu ???? .

Reminds me of my holiday in Vanuatu , apparently The joint french and english administrations could not decide if everyone should drive on the left or the right in the beginning , so everyone just drove on whatever side they wished . After a couple of accidents the two heads of police (english and french ) , decided they must choose a rule , and make everyone stick to it . They choose to go down to the wharf , and whoever drove off the next boat , whichever side they drove on , would become the law . the first vechicle off was driven by a french priest , who of course drove on the right , and so that became the law .

David Benton wrote:one difference is the trains travel on the left in double track terrioty in most countries except the usa and Canada .

Countries like Australia and New Zealand probably have more in common with American railways than European , despite our ex colony status . Nz on a much smaller scale , but Australia has some long trains .

Some countries are on the left: e.g. France, but others are on the right: e.g. Germany. It varies, just as the voltage does.

Erwin wrote:

David Benton wrote:...one difference is the trains travel on the left in double track terrioty in most countries except the usa and Canada . . .

In Germany, the Netherlands and Austria they drive on the right, in Belgium on the left, not sure about France and Swiss.

Also in Europe there is a more frequent and strict operating schedule when it comes to passenger trains. Long distance and local. Amtrak doesn't even come close, except the NEC.

I find the lack of timetables in the US quite astounding. Even Canada seems to have a timetable - at least their trains run to time. Third world countries tend not to have a timetable, though I assume India must have one because of its extremely high rate of use.

Mr mathews, I suspect the confusion over timetables revolves in part around the difference in dispatching practices between North American railroads and their European cousins, Schedules for Amtrak are readily available to the public, as is also the case with most commuter lines (although the practice of regular hourly, or half-hourly departures probably renders the information moot for a large portion of the ridership).

The term "timetable", however, particularly when used in reference to an internally-circulated document intended solely for employees, carries quite a bit more weight.

Historically, In Birtain, lineside operators had a greater degree of autonomy in governing the movement of trains. Under normal conditions, the man in a "signal box" could accept an approaching train fron adjacent territory without seeking formal permission from his superiors.

In America, up until the major revision of operating rules in the 1980's, dispatching practices revolved around a published Employees' Timetable which fixed times for all scheduled movements. In single-track territory, meeting points between conflicting moves were fixed and emphasized, usually by the use of bold print, as was the case for overtaking moves on both single and multiple track. Any deviation from this scenario due to scheduled trains falling behind time had to be reconciled by means of written orders, for which a specific format was used.

It's arppropriate that Britain's worst rail disaster (Gretna Green, Scotland-1915) arose because a signalman accepted a train he should not have, and America's (Nashville, Tenn.-1917) because of a case of misinterpreted train orders.

Also in pre-1980 America, a good deal of diversity existed among the individual roads as to the conferral of time-table authority (rights to the track) for freight movements,. Most southern and western lines "carded" manifest freights as second- or third-class movements, but on the eastern trunk lines, or even on commuter-dominated portions of lines like the Burlington, freight times at yards or entrance/exit points might be listed in the Employee's Timetable, but they operated as "extras", requiring formal written orders to move in conflict with the scheduled rights of a superior train.

With the complete revision of operating rules during the 1980's, main lines were usually operated almost exclusively by Centralized Traffic Control (CTC), and secondary routes by Track Warrant Control(TWC), which gave the dispatcher overseeing the territory greater freedom, Under these rules, timetable authority became redundant in most cases.

Amtrak still issues a combination Employees' Timetable and Book of Rules for the NEC. The entire system is either multiple-track or CTC-controlled, so in actual practice, trains operate almost exclusively by signal indication. But passing of commuter trains by high-speed moves on its four-track main is a common event, and the responsibility of senior dispatchers.

There's one more issue I'll have to do a little research on. New Jersey Transit is now the operator of the former Erie-Lackawanna Gladstone Branch, an electrified, commuter-oriented single-track line, but operated under timetable authority with fixed meeting points until the advent of the NORAC system, which revolves around track warrants rather than train orders. I'm not sure how the disparity was resolved, but will attempt to find out.

Regarding practices in Britain vis-a-vis the continent, I've had little exposure, and would love to hear from someone to fill in the gaps.

Excellent post , 2nd op , highlightingkey differences and changes in operating practices .
i think george is more refferring to the apparent lack of schedules for frieght trains in the USA . Though i believe they do have them , but not scheduled to the minute like in Europe .
one difference or practice that surprises me , the US practice of running a crew till they outlaw , accomadating them for a nite , then returning the next day . on lines that have 100 or so trains a day , surely its possible to turn them 1/2 way and return them to their home depot , at least most days . ?

In Switzerland, the trains were mostly on the right (they drive right on the road) but there are a lot of cases where you travel a long distance on the left with trains passing on the right. Not sure how they orchestrate it all but it was smooth, we never had to stop other than at the stations.

I remember coming out of the station at Bern (did it several times) there were about 4 or 5 tracks for quite a distance, and some points there were trains on both sides of you going the same direction, some way faster/slower.

With regard to your recent questions, gentlemen, I'll try to elaborate by example.

As previously outlined, British signalmen had much greater authority to accept or decline a train approachiing from an adjacent station, in a manner similar to what was called the "manual block system". In contrast, the Americxan system was built around assigning rights to a strectch of track between two stations to each movement for a specified period of time, as published in the Employees' Timetable.

Under the American system, no train could depart a station until all trains deemed "superior" to it by claas or direction had either departed, or been accounted for by means of written orders. At many locations staffed by operators, the conductor might also be required ro obtain a "clearance card" confirming this status. Naturally, the more trains involved, the more convoluted this scenario became. In addition, delays to a high-priority movement would have more implications than those to a low-priority train.

Now consider, as an example, the crew of a low-rated local freight, holding the siding at a station and seeking to enter the main to service an industrial spur; it could not do so unless all superior trans had departed. The dispatcher might have the time to issue an order holding superior moves, but this would not be a high-priority item. The situation becomes even more complicated if the industry is on the opposite side of a double- or multiple-track main, but the presence of an automatic signal system may mitigate things. This explains why locals and extra moves (which had no authority and for whom all opposing moves of extras had to be covered by written orders) were most likely to be outlawed while still on the road.

The introduction of Centralized Traffic Control allowed dispatchers more leeway in delaying a superior move for a short time in order to avoid a much longer delay, and possible outlawing of a crew for an inferior move.

A link to a thread containing a hypothetical example is provided below:

http://www.railroad.net/forums/viewtopi ... ht=#495421

With regard to the greater likeliehood of a crew being outlawed while on the road, I suspect that the approximate doubling in size of crew districts as a feature of the major changes in train crew work rules during the earlly 1980's was the biggest factor, though it was fairly common in the 1970's in the Northeast when large amounts of deferred maintenance led to the imposition of very slow speeds on some lines.

Despite the availability of two main tracks signalled inboth directions on our principal main lines, one freight train rarely overtakes another while both are in motion. The procedure is usually to grant the higher priority moves (intermodal and automotive usually top the list) rights to the track while the crews of the lower are allowed to run out of time while relinquishing the trick to superior trains. In the spring and summer of 2000, I held a job as a courier in Nebraska, and a portion of my daily run paralelled the UP main. I'd often encouter outlawed freights awaiting Renzenburger crew vans.

The practice of two vehicles dispatched in opposite directions exchanging crews near mid-point is common in the trucking industry, and is referrred to as"slip-seating". I'm certain it has been used in the rail indusrty at times, but I'm not aware of any specific line where it's been practiced, either currently or in the past.

Hello,

I will try to explain how german railway system works. It differs partly much from the american one, but there are some parallels.

The legislator had bound the railway companys to operate the rail business safety by law (I think the same like in the United States).

The basic rule of operating is a directive, called 'Ril 408 - Züge fahren und Rangieren' (Moving trains and Shunting), which contains the fundamental rules of operating.

There are three more directives for special operating systems :
Ril 436 Zugleitbetrieb (process like Timetable and Train Order)
Ril 437 Signalisierter Zugleitbetrieb (Timetable and Train Order with support by track warrant and/or simplified electronic interlockings)
Ril 432 Sonderbestimmungen für den Betrieb der Berliner S-Bahn (special rules of operations of the Berlin S-Bahn system)
To all things, to which these regulations do not express themselves, the directive 408 applies.

Signals which are used on federal railways are listed in the signal book ('Signalbuch') DS/DV 301.
There are five main signal systems in Germany :
- Hp-System (Hp stands for Hauptsignal = home signal), semaphore and light signals
- Sv-System (Sv stands for Signalverbindung = signal connection, connection of distance and home signal), developed in the 1920s for the Berlin S-Bahn system and the first light signal system in Germany, today only used at the Hamburg S-Bahn system
- Hl-System (Hl stands for ... I don't know, maybe Hauptlichtsignal = home light signal), developed by the East German Deutsche Reichsbahn in the 1950s (it can show differentiated speeds for this and the next home signal, f.e. drive 40 km/h and expect 60 km/h at the next signal)
- Sk-System (Sk stands for Signalkombination = signal kombination), developed by the West German Deutsche Bundesbahn in the 1970s, this was a test limited to one line
- Ks-System (Ks stands for Kombinationssignal = kombination signal), developed in reunited Germany as a new standard, only used for electronic interlockings
Basically, a german engineer has to know three of five systems (Hp, Hl and Ks).

Mr mathews, I suspect the confusion over timetables revolves in part around the difference in dispatching practices between North American railroads and their European cousins, Schedules for Amtrak are readily available to the public, as is also the case with most commuter lines (although the practice of regular hourly, or half-hourly departures probably renders the information moot for a large portion of the ridership).

The term "timetable", however, particularly when used in reference to an internally-circulated document intended solely for employees, carries quite a bit more weight.

Historically, In Birtain, lineside operators had a greater degree of autonomy in governing the movement of trains. Under normal conditions, the man in a "signal box" could accept an approaching train fron adjacent territory without seeking formal permission from his superiors.

These form of operation was also used in Germany till the 1940s. The signal box worker is in Germany the 'Fahrdienstleiter' (movement inspector). He controls train service on his own authority and is responsible for the safety of a train movement.

Every station and every free track - this is a track between two stations - is assigned to one 'Fahrdienstleiter'. A station is not only a passenger or freight station, but also a junction, 'lead over station' ('Überleitstelle', this is a normal crossover outside a station at a two-track-line) or a block station (Blockstelle, this is a main signal on a free track where one block section ends).

These stations are differentiated in 'Zugfolgestellen' and 'Zugmeldestellen'.

Zugfolgestellen, lit. succession of trains stations, that means they can only change the temporal clearance of the trains (f.e. a block station).
Zugmeldestellen, lit. trains message stations, are stations which could change the order of train movements (f.e. a passenger or freight station.

The trains are passed from station to station (from Zugmeldestelle to Zugmeldestelle) with the help of "train messages" (Zugmeldungen), these are telephonically (or technical) messages, for which prescribed wordings exist (ironically, they are from the first days of the railway). The train message includes the number of the train and the departure time of a station.

The control, safety and signalling technology is a basic supporting element because it protects trains from human errors (if it works trouble-free).

In the 1940s, the Deutsche Reichsbahn Gesellschaft (DRG) implement a new function in rail operating : the dispatchers (in East Germany they were called dispatchers, in West Germany Disponent). In the case of deviations from the timetable they give instructions to the 'Fahrdienstleiter' concerning the order of train movements. They supervise a big area of train movements. Since the introduction of the seven rail control centers ('Betriebszentrale'), the dispatchers are located there and supervise the movement with electronical help (enormous data sets result).
Today, the 'Fahrdienstleiter' is responsible for the operating and the dispatcher for disposing.

In America, up until the major revision of operating rules in the 1980's, dispatching practices revolved around a published Employees' Timetable which fixed times for all scheduled movements. In single-track territory, meeting points between conflicting moves were fixed and emphasized, usually by the use of bold print, as was the case for overtaking moves on both single and multiple track. Any deviation from this scenario due to scheduled trains falligng behind time had to be reconciled by means of written orders, for which a specific format was used.

These procedure is still in use in Germany and called 'Zugleitbetrieb'. Usually this procedure is limited to lines with low traffic and/or limited speed (f.e. a regional line with every hour or every two hour service). You should not forget, that these procedure 'Zugleitbetrieb' is the unsafest way of rail operating.

It's arppropriate that Britain's worst rail disaster (Gretna Green, Scotland-1915) arose because a signalman accepted a train he should not have, and America's (Nashville, Tenn.-1917) because of a case of misinterpreted train orders.

The worst german rail disaster (not Eschede) was caused by missing of train protecting system (PZB, Genthin, 1939, 190 dead). The train protecting system PZB was developed in the 1920s, and introduced in the middle of the 1930s. Even today, there a a lot of lines without PZB (a lot of branch lines).

In Germany, the modernization of control, safety and signalling technology (which is needfully) is very expensive due to very high requirements for raily technology.

You can read also this thread :
http://www.railroad.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=43651

I hope that I could help

Regards,
Martin

Gotthardbahn wrote:trains are never longer than 750 m (0.5 miles) instead of 2-3 km/1.5-2 miles in America

Freight trains are shorter, but more frequent, sometimes up to 6 per direction, plus passenger trains. Usually main railways in Europe have up to 250 trains per day (both direction), and one 18 miles long line in Switzerland, and probably others in Europe, has 400 trains per day on two tracks, and the traffic will rise up to 500 in the future.

David Benton wrote:my mistake , i never noticed that in Germany , i wonder if there will be any attempt to standardise this within the eu ???? .

No, each country will continue on its side. On some lines the signalling sistem forbid to run on the wrong track.

Some statistics about european railways: http://www.bueker.net/trainspotting/vol ... europe.php

And: http://www.bueker.net/trainspotting/index.php