Train porn

Here are some pics from last weekend on the lovely island of Rügen and its 26km long narrow gauge line. The narrow gauge network on Rügen used to be much more extensive nut the majority was closed by the DR in 1969.

There also exists standard gauge DB lines on the island which connect via a causeway to the network on the mainland. Interchange between the two networks is possible at the town of Putbus.

The system is run for profit, which it mostly generates from tourist ticket sales (single tickets are proportionally much more expensive than monthly ones, so local people can use the line to commute but the railway can stay open with the revenue from tourists)

The lok which hauled our train was a 1953 built unit. She was built in the LOWA Lokomotiv Plant Karl Marx in Babelsberg (nr. Berlin) which was previously an Orrenstein & Koppel factory before the GDR came into existence and nationalised all such plants.


Being watered here before the off from Göhren. I didn't want to subject my GF to the entire 52km round trip as it takes 2 hours+ so we just went about halfway and back.


The return journey-loks are not turned and I saw no sign of turntables at the Göhren terminus to I presume they have never been turned on this system.


The sign means (very loosely translated) "if you get hit by soot/sparks etc. it's your problem!" The health and safety mania one sees in the UK and Ireland is not yet very evident in Germany-thank God. You can stick your head out the window all you want-if your head gets chopped off by a pole it's your problem lol.


Lok running around her train at Göhren terminus.

Judgement Day wrote: »

Some very old porn for steamengine and all the other posters here old enough to remember the Clogher Valley Railway in its heyday.

On an RPSI special the other week, I was speaking to a man who recalled travelling on the Clogher Valley line pre war. As lines went, it was well and truly a basket case but ironically enough it's poor state indirectly led to the adoption of diesel in Ireland so it played it's part in progress.

Lucky there wasn't 737s on the train in the second photo, Mr O'Leary wouldn't have been too pleased to learn his latest deliveries had ended up in a ravine due to somebody setting the points wrong.

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

the comparison with the planes really shows how obscenely big US stuff is :eek:

That's what's is called the loading gauge. It's the width of the infrastructure which in turn allows wider carriages, wagons, loco's and, of course, cargo. Impressive as it is, not every route in the US would be able to handle a load like that.

I'd love to know what speed that train would be allowed to run at

CIE wrote: »

The fuselage of the Boeing 737 is only 12' 4" wide. Might be considered wide for most AAR clearances, but it really isn't too wide given that most of their track centres in the midwest and certain eastern railways are that wide (now you know why most of the passenger platforms outside the northeastern USA have stayed low-level). The USA's "double-stack" container trains can reach up to 21 feet above the rail head, and new regulations now require a 23-foot overhead clearance (even for OHLE; just one reason why they don't electrify too much over there, i.e. aside from cost).Probably track speed (most freight railways have a maximum speed of 79 mph, due to federal regulations, although some allow 90 mph if they can afford to install cab signalling out of pocket and go up to the next "track class"). The heaviest empty weight of the "next-gen" Boeing 737 is in the 22-tonne range, and that by itself is way lighter than a single double-stack car (those have loadings of 22 tonnes per axle); and you've only got the empty fuselages there on that train.

They don't appear to be secured down though so on that basis it would be unlikely that they would be allowed do high speeds.

Why in God's name would they allow the track to deteriorate to that state? Hard to believe it would even be legal to allow trains to run over it.

DWCommuter wrote: »

It stayed on the track!

yeah but snails were passing it out at the time...

dowlingm wrote: »

Money. There are freight spurs within an hour's drive of me with 5-25mph limits with sleepers and rail left to go to rack and ruin. The track is privately owned and Transport Canada won't force rail companies to maintain previous levels of rail quality. What happens then is eventually a commuter service is proposed but the full cost ends up being paid by the public rail operator for upgrades and additional trackage which the freight line ends up owning. It's ridiculous.

Do trains in Canada still have imperial speed limits and mileposts or is that all metric too?

dowlingm wrote: »

Commonality with US RRs deemed more important than metrification for the most part. Canadian National is basically a US company (in terms of shareholdings) with significant US operations.

I remember reading a piece about building materials in Canada after the metric changeover. Most materials (lumber, plasterboard etc.) comes from the US and is all made in "even" imperial units. The Canadians tried to specify stuff in mm but it became to awkward and the industry reverted to imperial. Not sure if that's still the case today.

dowlingm wrote: »

Yup. 2 x 4, 2 x 6, 4 x 4 for timber, inches for screws etc.

Cheers for the info. In practice it seems the UK is actually more metric than Canada, despite them (many of them) claiming not to be a metric country at all! I think the only 2 places left in imperial in the UK are road and rail speed limits (and of course air travel, but that's imperial everywhere) and I know that road building (and possibly railway engineering?) is all done in metric in the UK too, and then converted to imperial if needs be (for signage etc.).

I wonder is it also the case in Canada or do Canadian road engineers use imperial for design as well...