Your favorite aspects of railways

[Triplex]

I guess it was here that I started thinking about this...

http://www.jnsforum.com/index.php/topic,2847.msg28790.html#msg28790

and I finally decided it was an interesting topic for discussion.

 

(I am making this post to multiple sites to compare responses from different demographics, particularly fans and modellers from different countries. If you have already responded elsewhere, please do not here.)

 

When you look at railfan photos from other countries, what do you find most interesting? What do you most want to railfan that you don't get to? And what are the most important things that a railway feels wrong without? Perhaps I could say, "What makes the ideal railway system, at least from your railfan perspective?"

 

My own answers, to serve as an example (and this is the short version!)

 

Despite all the other things I may specify, it's the specific locomotives and rolling stock that I most miss outside of North America.

Few other countries have attractive diesels. Or if they have individual locomotives I like, the whole fleet I don't. Context matters. The main exceptions I've found are DB and http://www.mccrow.org.uk/EastAfrica/EastAfricanRailways/NairobiMPD.htm pre-1970 East African Railways, and they only work by being so completely different that I'm not looking for the specific configurations I want. (The same applies to their steam.) And liveries - those help a lot.

Also, a country which doesn't have many trains long enough to need multiple engines is lacking. Of course, such trains destroy the viability of those ugly/cute 3-axle switchers...

Any steam fleet that doesn't have a significant number of locomotives larger than 4-6-2/2-8-2/2-10-0 is missing something. I'm not sure which I want more: superpower steam (uncommon globally) or large Mallets (far rarer). Probably the latter, as it's something I notice Canada was lacking.

North American excess-height freight equipment (double-stack, 80'+ piggyback flats, autoracks, high-cube boxcars) is another thing I don't want to do without. That said, one really interesting consequence of tighter clearances are the "Rollende Landstraße" trains.

And, likewise, high-clearance passenger equipment. For some reason, many countries have double-deckers, but dome cars are rare.

The only thing Canada has the US is missing are cylindrical grain hoppers.

 

Some of my favorite foreign features:

Anywhere outside of the Americas: Passenger rail is still important.

Specifically, a country without long-distance overnight trains is incomplete. Thus, any country too small is missing something. High-speed rail has also replaced most sleeper trains in Japan and much of Europe.

Australia: Long-distance freights done right, with spare crews so trains don't outlaw, as with long-distance trucking. And the crew cars and diesel fuel tenders that come with them.

Though I've got used to railways without them, it would be interesting to visit a country where RPOs, milk trains and livestock trains still exist.

South America: Mainlines climbing at 4% or worse grades to elevations measured in miles, and running on plateaus for hundreds of miles. North America doesn't have the geography for this. Central Asia has the high plateaus, but the grades aren't as severe.

Multiple major gauges, as in India, Australia and several South American countries. Australia's probably ideal, with standard gauge most common, almost as much 3'6" and some 5'3". It's almost exactly what I'd have come up with from scratch. Except that India's more like the ideal I'd create in terms of where and how gauges were used. Metre gauge was spread across the country, and despite the different gauges, there was a unification of design. Australia is, as has often been noted, functionally several countries on one continent. (In both cases, I'm referring more to the countries before modern gauge-standardization efforts.)

19th century Britain and US: Gauges significantly wider than standard. Almost all narrow gauge lines are more than 12" smaller than standard. However, all remaining broad gauge lines are within 12" of standard. The only railways I consider truly broad gauge are the 6' Erie, 7' Great Western and the like. Note that I find gauges this large unattractive.

Various countries: Rack railways. The rack railways I'm interested in are the ones that aren't steep enough to necessitate tilting the equipment. I'm interested in the ones where rack engines can haul regular rolling stock. Particularly those rack lines that see freight, like the Serra do Mar section in Brazil.

 

North American steam has a rigid locomotive-tender division. That uniformity creates the fleets I like. Conversely, its absence leads to interesting and attractive light power in Europe and countries emulating Europe. If I'd known of http://www.penmorfa.com/JZ/index.htm Yugoslavian narrow gauge earlier, it would be more nostalgia-inducing than Colorado. Or, more relevantly, Javan sugar steam is much more appealing to me than its Cuban counterpart.

 

A problem with countries that dieselized late: They missed out on interesting early diesels.

North America was rather short on unconventional early diesels. Well, actually, we had a lot of early diesels, but few of any one design, and few that lasted late enough to be widely photographed. Some countries have an advantage. British 40s and 44s, for example: series-production diesels that don't fit the standard wheel arrangements.

 

Electrification is good, though an all-electric country (Switzerland) is less interesting than an all-diesel one. For electrification to be interesting, it must include significant amounts of freight, locomotive-hauled passenger trains, and old electric locomotives. So modern Japan, for example, isn't interesting.

Specifically, I favor the configurations of electric that existed before WW2, that I can most easily summarize as "electric steam locomotives" rather than "electric diesel locomotives".

Speaking of electrification, Britain is unique in its extent of third rail - the only true third rail mainlines in the world.

 

I like when a railroad has different paint schemes for different purposes (passenger vs. freight vs. switcher). I don't like when a railroad has different schemes for specific classes of locomotive. For me, it's always about context.

 

Europe and Britain: Computer numbering, easily understandable classification systems. I even have affection for the check digit.

 

And I can supply more specifics...

[KenS]

There are many things I like about railways, but I'd single out "design" as the aspect that most catches my eye today.  While a string of 4000hp diesels pulling a mile-long coal drag is impressive as anything, it's the power and scale that make it so, and after seeing a few, they just don't seem to register as much.

 

Japan makes use of color and style in its locomotives and passenger trains (something that can also be said for many European railways) to differentiate them, and I find that appealing.  Style isn't completely absent from the U.S., the GG1 had it to spare, and the first widecab freight locos had a certain style (now they all look the same, unfortunately), and some U.S. railroads often make good use of paint to make their locos unique, although others (Conrail, NS) could put you to sleep with their lack of anything visually interesting.

 

Mainline steam never did anything for me, though I'll admit I did find the Big Boy interesting. However there's more to be said for the older backwoods locos, like the Maine two-foot Forney's and the Shays, or for the iconic 4-4-0 American (preferably with a wood-burning balloon stack).

 

I'd love to railfan Japan, as you can see dozens of completely different trains in an afternoon around a major city.  I used to spend an afternoon trackside, just to end up with a photo of one Conrail B23, if I was lucky, and nothing but sunburn if I wasn't.  So I guess you can add quantity to the list, but quantity without variation wouldn't do anything for me.