How much does a Canadian weigh?

[bellinghman]

Well, if it's the train, it appears to be

19 cars, at 50 tonnes per car (I assume the 'customary' weight.)
2 engines, at 118 tonnes per engine (EMD F40PH)

Total 1186 tonnes

OK, that's one heavy train.

Comments

[damerell.livejournal.com]

OTOH the absurdly high crash resistance standard for rail tend to push the weight up.

I've written to the Winnipeg Railway Museum and Via Rail about the absurdly high quoted fuel consumption. So far the Director of Public Relations of the Museum has written back to me to tell me that the figures are accurate (ie The Canadian arrives at each of six refuelling stops with its tanks _completely empty_, which I don't believe) and that ordinarily one locomotive provides tractive effort while the other is just used to provide electricity to the train (which is obviously at odds with both locomotives arriving with empty tanks). Hopefully I will manage to get an answer that is at least internally consistent at some point.

Also, I wonder if our figure of 250 pax is incorrect? Of course sleeper trains are not tightly packed, but assuming the coaches are the same size as UK ones, that is 1/4 the pax density typical here.

[bellinghman.livejournal.com]

Yes - trains are extremely crash resistant, which is one of the many nice features. Short of an ICE train managing to hit a bridge support head on as happened a few years back in Germany, they're so safe that they and ships are about the only transport that don't worry about seat belts.

(Which leads to another nice thing - being able to get up and walk about.)

The 250 pax may well be wrong - I'm definitely guessing there. However, having walked a fair way down that train, I can affirm that the passenger density is extraordinarily low. This isn't so much a train for getting people from one place to another, it's a mobile hotel, a cruise ship on rails. A Japanese Hikari Shinkansen would be running 1000 pax in a shorter consist.

The Rocky Mountaineer that aardvark179 transferred to stops at night, thereby saving all the cabin weight and bulk, and the requirement for evening meals too. I'd expect that to be at least twice as efficient.

[damerell.livejournal.com]

We might not be comparing like with like here, indeed; an aircraft comprised entirely of luxury accomodation would be significantly less efficient. But I think I'm going to keep plugging away for an answer that actually makes sense.

[bellinghman.livejournal.com]

Oh, too right. In plane terms, this is somewhere in the private jet area of silliness.

It's a lovely train, and the experience of travelling on it is really rather special, but I was rather gobsmacked to realise how much fuel it apparently drinks. I'm certainly not holding it up as typical of trains, because it is not. It's like driving a stretch Hummer when everyone around you is in a Smart Car.