Train length depends a lot on

Train length depends a lot on what you like and what looks good to your eye and the length of track on your mainline. You and I might have vastly different ideas of what looks good.

The one above is 105 cars, the one below is 160 cars and the bottom is 103 and will show you some issues that can sometimes happen when you put a long train in short tracks even if everything works as intended.

Clicking on the picture will allow you to zoom in and view a much larger image which makes counting the cars easier.

Train length drives size

Consider how train length will determine length of staging tracks, length of passing sidings, size of yards, etc.  This will help you plan the overall layout design as well as traffic patterns.  My layout is 22ft long by 8.5ft wide and is double deck.  I selected app. 67 inches for my maximum train length - that equals 2 4 axle road diesels, 7 40ft cars, plus a caboose.  This length determined the minimum passing siding length and arrival/departure track length.  Even this relatively short train length requires a yard that is over 11 ft in length.  

Michael

ViewBlocking, visual composition, and altitude...

Dear Mike,

Also consider the visual config of the layout. If you don't have any wide flat exposed peninsulars as shown above, you can get the impression of a long train with significantly less cars, simply because a limited view-point/peripheral range means you can't see either end of the train at the same time...

Must admit, when I think DRGW I think the high passes, many frequent deep-cuts and tunnels, and the inability to see an entire train in one shot, even when viewed from a few miles up in a helicopter...
(Ugh,... "helicopter shot" ... < shudders> ...)

I agree that the "model centric" issues of staging yard size and linear track capacity have to be "worked within",
(echoes of "Scotty" from the engine-room...)

but with appropriate scale speed, and scale viewpoint/altitude/viewblocking,
​you may well be able to get away with less-cars-per-train for the same "impression" than you suppose...

Happy Modelling,
Aim to Improve,
Prof Klyzlr

"As a plan my Multi Deck

As close as prototype length as possible would be the ideal but given that most of us don't have unlimited space or money a compromise must be chosen. Once you decide if 30 cars or 60 cars is enough for your tastes then you have to figure out how to fit a layout suitable for that length into your train space. This might mean going with N scale instead of HO scale or S scale instead of O scale if train length is more important than size of the models. If the space is limited and you want long trains you might end up with a layout depicting one scene with the  long trains entering and leaving from a common double ended staging yard, something like Tehachapi loop with approaches and passing siding modeled and uphill and downhill represented by hidden staging connection for example.  The possibilities are endless which is good but that also makes it easy to choose something less than ideal :> )  I'd start with  an assessment of the space and the density of track and detail you'd like to see when you walk in there then decide what can realistically( physically possible not prototypical) fit without destroying that image.........DaveB

Gents, Thanks for the input.

Gents, Thanks for the input. I get all points made. I have experienced trains of 160 cars in HO on my fathers layout. I like the idea of train length of the 30 to 45 cause it provided more passing sidings. 

I guess it would be fair to state I would like to "loosely" model the Rio Grande from Pueblo to Denver and west to Grand Junction, with the Craig Branch included. Each level would have about 650 to 800 feet of track. 

I guess I was looking for an "average" train length to make me feel what i was doing was realistic for "scale" representation. 

Earlier thread

Mike, you may find the thread at  https://forum.mrhmag.com/post/a-topic-of-length-12200684 to be of interest.  As I said there, I think it's important to just fit your train lengths to your scenes.  On my layout, with relatively short scenes, a 20 car train looks pretty long, as it can be stretching through multiple curves and scenes, but on a layout with long straightaways, 20 cars could look fairly short.  I tend to run 15-18 cars on average, but lengths can go several cars lower or higher depending on traffic.

You Didn't Mention Scale...

Blackandorange,

You didn't mention what scale you plan on modeling, only your experience on your father's HO layout with 160 car trains.  To some degree, train length will be dependent on scale as a 30 car train may look long in HO, but way too short in N.  In my experience running on several home layouts and a couple of club layouts (NEB&W and the Amherst Belt Lines Modular Layout) - all HO scale - a "long" train (Rob's videos not withstanding) has usually topped out at around 30 fifty foot cars.  This is typically because at about that length, depending on viewing angle, your eye typically can't take in both ends of the train at the same time.  View blocks and curves can also play a role in this.  I think Joe Fugate mentions somewhere on this forum that he runs trains of about 25 to 30 cars with at least two locomotives on the head-end and either a single or pair of mid- or end-of-train helpers and it feels "right" to him.  Joe A. makes a very good point about long straight sections, too.  This will tend to "shorten" the appearance of the train if you can get a good view down that section of track.

Really, train length is ultimately going to be up to you.  It might help to "mock up" a typical 30, 45, 60 car train (string or boxes, or maybe even rolling stock if you have enough of it already) and look at it at the typical viewing height you expect on your layout.  This will give you a feel of what may be "long enough" to satisfy your impression of a long train.

For what it is worth, we have on occasion run a 200 car (plus or minus) train on the Amherst Belt Lines layout, and quite frankly, while cool, it gets tedious after awhile looking at the same train.  Of course, that is just my opinion!

Train Length

On my CNY&NE, my maximum train length is 24 cars for general freights and about 30 cars for coal trains. I base this on several factors.  First, you need to be sure that your train can make it up your ruling grade, which on my layout is a 1.75% grade on my helix.  Mid-train or rear end helpers are not a good idea on helixes unless all engines are perfectly speed matched and operated very carefully. Secondly, your sidings and yard tracks need to work for your proposed train lengths. My idea of maximum train length is about 185" including three engines and a caboose. This allows me to let trains pass, do engine run arounds and fit into my two major yards.  it all has to work and should not be solely based on what looks good.

train length decisions

I used (and recommend) Joe F.'s analysis tool to identify a design train length that would allow reasonably fluid operation on the plan I posted in another thread (about 17 cars with the posted design). Since only one staging area and one mainline siding have been constructed so far on my layout I can use the tool iteratively to determine a final design. 

I'm not sure maximum train length will be my objective - it may suit my operational goals well to keep trains (and sidings) relatively short, allowing longer single track runs between stations. Those runs still wouldn't be especially long in any event, but shorter trains would also allow me to relax the arrangement of the junction yard and car float terminal yards, which are extremely tight now. 

On the other hand, my scheme is a short line crossing another line at a junction yard, and I'd like to keep open the possibility of making the "other" line class 1 to allow contrasting equipment to run, and would also drive up the track length requirements, at least on a/d and siding tracks. 

Deciding on, and then designing for train lengths is what can make track planning a truly complex multivariable problem to solve!

I really appreciate Rob's photos - excellent tools for getting a sense of train length experience in wide open spaces!

Jeff Allen

If not bound by space

I agree with everyone's comments.  I myself have put some thought into train length, but I looked at it from the perspective of determining what would be a good size but realistic layout for a train club.  Of course if space was unlimited, and it never is, I would make train lengths the same as the prototype. 

What I kind of discovered was that once a train exceed your peripheral vision, where you can't see the front and back at the same time without turning your eyes, your mind perceives it as a long train.  For a train 'out in the open' I have found this length to be around 15 feet.  Of course, as stated above, your peripheral vision can be reduces with view blocks. 

I also noticed that people tend to stop counting cars or lose track of the count, in the high 20's/low 30's.  I have seen this over and over at train shows with large modular layouts.  Whether HO or N scale, someone will state "that is a big train" and start counting cars.  Sure enough, somewhere around 30 they start losing track and quit counting.  Once again a train of about 30 fifty foot cars is about 17 feet in HO.

Further thought led me to this little mental rule of thumb.  1/3th the size of the prototype is a great scale representation in HO scale. So if you are trying to replicate the feel of 160 car coal train, a reasonable representation is 54 cars.  70 car freight trains would feel reasonable correct at 24 cars.  Short local trains of 30 cars feel reasonable at 10 cars.  As this is a rule of thumb, you can see I generously rounded up in my math.           

This would then, like stated above, drive passing sidings, staging, etc.  These train lengths let me to 18 foot passing sidings and staging tracks, along with 30 foot yard tracks.  To complete the thought process, this led me to think that a great size for a HO scale club layout, that would still be reasonable in size, would be a single deck layout with generous aisles of around 2000 sqft.

Art

Over Rated

I am going to offer a dissenting opinion, I think long trains are over rated. Sure it's neat to see a long train, once, after watching it for a few minutes that's enough for me. Given the impact it has on the layout as a whole, I think you are better with moderate length trains. The long trains demand long passing sidings and huge yards, you end up with a layout that is all track and no scenery, or an engine chasing its caboose a few feet back.

I may be biased since I only have room for a small layout, designed for 5 car trains.  Do occasionally string 10 cars together and that seems like a long train to me!

Train Length Stress

I used to stress out over train length - going so far as trying to count cars in every model train video I saw.

When I switched my focus to a short line switching layout out, I had an epiphany of sorts. I realized that my train length was going to be based on how many cars needed to be moved on and off of the visible layout to satisfy the needs of my "customers". It might be 4, or 40 or more!

Now the question becomes do I have th motive power and space to handle, say, a 40 car train. If not, well then, my crew has its work cut out for it, doesn't it?

The way I see it, traffic available motive power and geography should determine your train length. 

Just my $0.02

George

Another dissenting opinion

Brent & George both have valid points. If your goal is to build a railroad to photograph, video, and generally railfan then design your line to accommodate whatever train lengths you like to see. Most railroads, and those of us who like to simulate their reasons to be, base train length on several factors, not the least of which is the modeled railway. 

1.  What does your railroad do? Is it a bridge line, transfer, division, short line, branch, etc? Each has operating characteristics that stem from the demand to move freight. That, coupled with the restraints of geography (real or imagined) might limit how much tonnage can move over the line. 

2. How do you want to run your railroad? I love the "Name Trains" that used to serve passengers and, nowadays as well, focus on specific types of trains. These may be coal, beets, oil, perishables, or cattle (sure there are many others but bear with me). The problem is that what they are, or did, is just that - over, and over, and over. Operationally this may be interesting to add to a mix so that they can be expected but not my idea of fun to run. I like the peddler (turn, local, industry, whatever). This is the train that woks the line, services the industries, picks up the I change cut and does the railroady part I find fascinating and fun. Do I like to run a long train? Of course. But that doesn't dictate my layout design. 

3. What did your prototype do? While I freelance my inspiration comes from real narrow gage lines from Maine, Pennsylvania, Colorado, California, and Hawaii.  A common carrier is a railroad that was ICC approved (if part of the U.S.) to carry passengers and freight. Cars that interchanged with other lines needed current safety equipment so mine have knuckle couplers, brakes, and roof walks (for my era anyway). Trains seldom were long as even a double headed steam train couldn't pull too many cars over a 3% grade - Shay's in my case as on the real roads were more commonly assigned to this role. Still train lengths were short. 

I love this thread. The series by Joe F. was an awesome update to to books by Armstrong, Mitchell, Chubb, and Koester. Look forward to other's comments. 

Neil Erickson 

I think there is room for the

I think there is room for the whole range of train sizes. If trains moving a truck load of goods at a time is to your liking then by all means do that, if a Christmas tree train does it for you do that. The only thing to be kept in mind like some guys have said is the size of your layout needs to work with the size of your trains.

One other thing to keep in mind is your selective compression as it relates to your railroad model. Are you trying to model 120 miles in thirty feet? If so you will not likely be able to run long trains because everything else will be very compressed as well and a train that covers 20 miles will not seem realistic. However if your railroad is 30 feet long has two decks plus staging and represents 4 miles of mainline and industries a long train of 30 to 45 cars might fit in. It will not need to be a bowl of spaghetti either as you will esentially be modeling one scene on each of your thirty foot sections.

I think the op's original question was a good one as he is in the design stage and looking for ideas and thoughts on one of the most important design items train length.

Now I am not putting down the short train guys. We have had two guys with smaller layouts and short trains that post on here frequently have their railroads in magazines. And I will say they have some beautiful railroads. One in particular if I recall could switch every industry picking up all the cars that were spotted and replacing them with other cars and not need 25 cars. It is one of the most realistic and beautiful layouts I have ever seen photos of. Another is the layout of Jim Six. He calls his a one town layout and could likely run slightly longer trains but they would only do so much in the one town and then would go to staging.

Two concepts different approaches and different train lengths but both are fairly short train wise compared to the 100 car trains. If you like long trains from a standpoint of moving them over the railroad and switching them you just need to design your railroad to accommodate that type of train. You can do that by modeling fewer but larger scenes.

I omitted scale to get all

I omitted scale to get all scales input, I'm building a HO layout. It would appear that my vision for train length is close to most members here. I feel what is viewable in a scene makes up our perception of long trains. I also like the 1/3 train length formula. I can't run short trains of 10 or 15 cars due to most Grande trains had at least 60 to 100 cars for my time period. But 25 to 45 cars would look realistic and plausible for helpers, mid and end train. 

Thanks to you call for good input on this subject!

train length rule of thumb

I remember in the 1960s the rule of thumb for train length was no longer than your layout's longest straight run. Always worked for me.

This rule accounts for layout size, etc., and you still need to factor in longest siding length and all the other good points mentioned.

Dave Hunt

Gilbert (Arizona) Model Railroad Club

Dependaent on type of railroad, era, how much frieght to move

If you have a busy railroad, of modern era, the the longer trains make sense if you have to room. But even in the 80's as much track was abandoned by the big railroads, there were sections that were formed into smaller railroads because there was enough industry to support one. Many of these smaller railroads had no more than te people working outsourcing everything from track work to repairs to other companies. Employees played multiple roles and crews were two man only. Another factor supporting the smaller railroads was leasing out equipment to larger railroads, that were used seasonally. Sometimes this meant the small railroad would have more freight cars of certain types than were needed on their own railroad. One of the older small railroads, the City of Prineville Railroad in Oregon, was said in the 80s to have more cars than would even fit on their railroad. Meanwhile their bright orange box cars might show up all over the west. I even saw one in Deming, New Mexico. I am not sure if it still exists today as the lumber mills were closing down years ago. Needless to say none of these smaller railroads ran long trains. They ran only the handful of cars needed for daily business, or even weekly business. Nevertheless they served a useful purpose for the industry in an area, by helping keep those industry profitable where they were.

As you go back in era, there were more and more railroads that ran small train due to having less business, smaller engines, sometimes because of more primitive engineering with tighter curves, steeper grades, rougher and less maintained track, that never would have allowed them to have long trains. This was especially true of back country railroads, branch lines, and narrow gauge. If a narrow gauge got busy, it might be forced to standard gauge to cut time in transferring freight from one gauge to another. But because of tight curves and steep grades, the former narrow gauge might still have to run short trains, even with more than one engine. Because of those limits, many of them were not likely to become bridge lines because slow speeds and limited train tonnage did not make their routes competitive, nor useful to class one railroads. The Ma and Pa comes to mind, though it would make a great railroad to model for those same reasons and fitting more limited space of our model railroads.

If you are planning a layout that you will mostly operate alone, these smaller railroads, regardless of era, might suit your purpose  better. Another thought, if you build the section by section, you can start running the parts you have ready, and add sections as you go to your schedule. So even if you are building that basement size layout, you can start the fun of operation, even if you run into hold ups in building more sections. Even if you are building a class one railroad you can start with smaller trains justified by your limited completed areas, and then increase the size of the trains as more section are ready to run.

I my case I am using very small Forney locomotives and consider a six car train a long train. It makes perfect sense for the era, and type of railroad that I a planning. Now the problem is to  have time and energy get started on  building. I am almost seventy with health issues, disabilities and no model railroaders near by. This is my first  layout, and it is beginning to see overwhelming as I have to yet learn all the skills.

Train length Rule of Thumb

Everyone's opinion in this thread is correct.  This comment is not driven by political correctness.  It is by the fact that there are so many variables in determining train length.  I could not even begin to list all the variables (e.g., room size, era, layout design, etc).  I am the one who through out the rule of thumb of "1/3 the prototype train length provides a reasonable look and feel for a scale train".  But of course that rule of thumb is for planning a layout.  If you don't have that kind of room then other 'tricks' have to be used like view blocks, etc. 

Once a layout is built, the layout dictates the train size.  Once again many variables come into effect.  As vetadmiral said, "1960s the rule of thumb for train length was no longer than your layout's longest straight run". This is probably from a visual standpoint, but you are also limited by your passing siding, staging, radius of curve, grades, etc. 

However I think the question was asked from a planning perspective, so I think train length is driving layout design. 

r/

Art

One other attribute that

One other attribute that would deal with train length from a design standpoint is what is being modeled. The comments of Christopher above raise a very good point. He mentions Forneys and short trains. Another aspect might be articulated locomotives and long trains, or big electrics.

I began thinking of how I would incorporate long trains into a smaller railroad just as an exercise. The idea is not original as it was used in one of Kalmbach's books sometime ago. The layout could consist of one or two scenes that the long trains run through from and to staging. Continuous running would be a plus here as the big trains go through and a smaller train would work the visible sections between runs. In essence the train length would over whelm the modeled portion just as the real trains do with regard to the sections we routinely see in the real world that are often limited to being able to see only 20 cars or less at a time.

Lots of ways to fit what you want into less than ideal spaces if you are creative.

Curves, loops and budgets

Something to bear in mind - If you have visible horseshoe-shaped curves in the track, and run a long train on them, you're going to see a train bending round itself in a way that might 'break the spell'. I'm sure there are places and situations where very long trains do actually bend back on themselves, of course, but is this something you'll want on your particular set up?  

Again if your layout involves a loop/continuous running, you may want to cover at least a third of that loop with a tunnel or other view block for the same reason.  

The other thing is your budget - if you have $X to spend on train stuff, longer trains means more cars which means less money for everything else. Then if you factor in how detailed and good-looking you want your cars to be, there's the time budget as well - weathering and detailing all those cars is going to take time away from other things. This might not be a problem if it's the cars themselves you're interested in, of course.  

... visible horseshoe-shaped curves ...

Horseshoe curves can be a problem unless you are modeling a section like Horseshoe Curve where long trains can look very impressive. If show space permitted, we tired to setup modules with inside curves to showcase long trains. At times it is difficult see either end of a train on Horseshoe Curve.

As it happens, I also am

As it happens, I also am interested in modeling the D&RGW in the 1980's although I've also been backdating a little more into the 1970's as more nice models for that period are being offered.  I've decided on a cut-off date of 1990 which eliminates speed TTX, Golden West and wide cab diesels - I prefer mostly the "classic" Rio Grande look with some SP tunnel motors and SD45's pooled.  No wide cabs.

Anyway, if you are building a mulit-deck layout I assume you have some substantial space available - room dimensions?  I know some like to advocate for short trains etc. but that obviously doesn't fit your wants, nor mine frankly so it's a cat among the pigeons.  I think your figure of 25 to 40 car trains is about right for longish looking trains which.  On my own, I've settled on similar train length numbers too, after watching HO trains in various settings.

On a modest sized home layout a 30 car coal train looks pretty decent.  I've collected a decent fleet of Athearns Thrall hi-side coal gons as D&RGW hauled a lot of them in the 70's and 80's such as the yellow ended NORX cars (25), red end PSCX cars (25), and of course the joint UP/RG Kaiser coal train on the east end the Thrall Coal Liner cars (40).  Also the 5-bay CSDPU/CSDU Ortner rapid discharge hoppers (40).  Even a few of the blue end D&RGW marked cars although those offered by Athearn were only leased from 1980-1984 so limited in period - there were other blue end and white end Thralls (slightly different paint) used 1990+.

Using the Athearn Thrall gons, a train of 30 would occupy about 18 feet of track; then add in however many loco's and a caboose and that's an example of passing track length - probably 24 feet needed at least.  That's certainly doable on a sizable multi-decked layout I'd guess.

My previous layout built when had a different basement was 14'x26' and had a 10 track staging yard with capacities ranging from 18 to 24 feet long trains, and passing track capacity of 18 feet long.  So I could run the occasional longer train but most trains would need to be kept to 18 feet total length, which still wasn't bad - maybe 25 car coal train with 3 diesels could fit, just.  That layout with the large staging was single track with a decent yard (Pueblo).

I have a PDF scan of the above track plan, but apparently this forum will not allow PDFs.

Utlimately, it's a case of givens and druthers as John Armstrong used to put it - if you get the basic look of a mainline train and the appearance is to your liking, thats what counts.

Cheers, Jim

It also depends on what you are trying to model.

In my 30 plus years of observing trains in the Los Angeles metropolitan area, I've noticed that th only long trains I've seen are through trains, not peddlers or locals.  Long trains are typically going to or coming from Cajon Pass, or up the coast or to or from San Diego.  I don't remember ever seeing a train much longer thn 20 cars or so switching industries.  The only place where I saw trains even 20 cars long was on the U.P. in the City of Industry/La Puente area along Valley Blvd.  In that area there were a bunch of industries where they wold drop or pick up cars.  I don't think I ever saw them drop cars and pick up cars at the same industry.  In every case that I observed, they either dropped off loaded cars to be unloaded/empties to be loaded, or they were picking up empties or loaded cars.  In any case most times, I saw trains of 10 cars or less doing switching.

In any case unlike some model railroader practices, if loads were dropped off to be unloaded or empties dropped to be loaded, the railroad did not come back to pick up cars for 24 hours or so.  When I worked in L.A. harbor there was an oil distributor across the street from the terminal where I worked who would occasionally receive a boxcar loaded with cases of oil or drums of oil, and tnk cars with oil in bulk that would receive a cr in the morning and have it picked up that afternoon.  I don't think I ever saw them receive more than one delivery per week.

I remember reading Tony Koester's "Trains of thought" columns in MR where he mentioned that he designed the Allegheny Midland sidings for trains of 15 cars only to discover, when he ran the railroad, that trains of 20 t0 25 cars looked better.

So common

This sort of thing is s-o-o-o common. Modelers at the drawing board will "guess" at what looks good as a mental exercise without ever "field testing" the assumption first. Then years down the line when the layout is well underway, they will realize a different value would have been better.

This applies to all kinds of layout design parameters: train length, benchwork height, benchwork width, deck separation, just to name a few.

To set these values, use mockups! Cardboard, some boxes, some books, some rolling stock - all can be quickly used to build mockups and see what works. I did this for my Siskiyou Line and I can tell you I am ever so glad I did. I found out deck separation could be as little as 13" and look good, benchwork height could be up to shoulder height and look good, and the deck width could actually be as narrow as 12" for long runs and still look great.

Oh yes, and trains needed to be at least 15 feet long to look "long" - which is 30 forty foot cars, or 24 fifty footers. I added a caboose and some locos (including helpers) and made my longest sidings 18 feet long.

With these insights, I got a very satisfying layout in my space that would not fit, otherwise.