Movies & TV Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for movie and tv enthusiasts. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

Just watched Snowpiercer (2013), and it made me wonder how many people are there onboard of the train, or at least the order of magnitude - is it like 1,000 or more like 1,000,000? This would give me an idea of the size of their world.

It's not mentioned during the movie, and I couldn't find it on the Internet. Only the number of carriages is mentioned - 1001.

share|improve this question
Voted to close as unimportant trivia. – JohnP Mar 26 '14 at 14:55
@JohnP Why is it unimportant trivia? It changes the perception of the movie if it had 50000 men vs 1000 men in total. – sashoalm Mar 26 '14 at 16:03
It changes the size of the world. Are we talking about a 1000 people onboard or about 1,000,000? – sashoalm Mar 26 '14 at 16:30
I get that it changes the size of the world. What I am getting at, is add why it changes the perception of the film to your question. As it stands, it's a borderline unimportant trivia question (IMO), and at least one other person agrees. Tell my why I care in the question, and it changes my perception. :p – JohnP Mar 26 '14 at 16:49
I'd recommend watching the film, JohnP, before weighing in on the relevance of this question. The fate of a hypothetical future is balanced against the lives on-board the train, which directly informs the actions of the third act. I imagine the 4 people supporting the OP have seen the film, and thus understand this questions purpose; even if the film itself chooses not to answer it directly, its an important point, plot-wise. – John Smith Optional Mar 26 '14 at 22:46
up vote 10 down vote accepted

The extent of the trains population is left deliberately ambiguous, to avoid comprehension of the colossal size of the engine.

We know from the journey of 'The Great Curtis Revolution' that the density of each section is entirely sporadic in its composition. There are supposedly 1001 carriages, and yet we see no more than 20 of them, many in montage.

Whilst we know the rear section consisted of what Curtis calls "1000 of us crammed into a tin can", we can reasonably speculate that this wasn't supposed to be taken literally as a single carriage, due to the proportionate sizes of the sections when viewed externally throughout the movie. So sections refer not to units, but to classified areas. Some of these are revealed to be industrial, with minimal occupancy whereas others are dedicated to leisure and luxury.

enter image description here

In the Compartments closer to the front of the train, entire sections are dedicated to pursuits which, given the circumstances of the train can only be perceived as the most decadent and opulent use of resources.

enter image description here

When Curtis explains the conditions of the early days on the train, the lack of space and the widespread acceptance of cannibalism, we receive his distress in the context of his journey through 'the class system'. As a parable for distribution of wealth, this is where Curtis' motivation emerges from.

We can take from his reaction, and the earlier shots showing lower compartments concentration camp style bunk beds, we can at perhaps deduce that the population gets proportionately smaller the closer towards the nose, so that would need to be factored into any estimation, which is immediately problematic.

enter image description here

We also have no idea how many industrial compartments the revolution has traveled through non-diegetically but those eggs had to have come from somewhere, so does the steak that Wilford enjoys.

For every Nightclub cart full of 70+ people, there could be another with 7 cows and a chicken farm: it's impossible to deduce, and its constructed in that way deliberately. I don't think we're supposed to be able to comprehend the size of the train, which is part of its oppressive, omnipresent malice.

I know this film is based on Le Transperceneige by Jacques Lob, Benjamin Legrand and Jean-Marc Rochette, so it is an adapted title. I don't have access to that title, and can't seem to find anything in the way of clarification to what would otherwise be a numerical answer. It could be assumed this is because the book harnesses the same ambiguity to illicit a similar sense of disorientation. Perhaps someone who is familiar with the source material could prove the assumption wrong.

share|improve this answer
You are right, but I think we can make some very good educated guesses. Considering that the entire film is based on class systems, I have to assume that it is a pyramidal class system. That the vast majority of the population is in the bottom class. Which would imply that the total is likely somewhere in the 1000-1500 range, maybe a few hundred more at absolute most. – Jonathon Wisnoski Dec 31 '15 at 16:33

At different points in the movie, Mason and Wilford said they had to kill 74 percent of the tail section passengers. While the purge is going, Wilford tells his agent to "spare 18," one for every year they've been on board. So, doing the math, if 18 = 26%, then the pre-revolution population of the tail section would have been 69. Furthermore, at the beginning, Mason said that there were three types of passengers "first class, economy, and you freeloaders" (the tail sectioners). So, if we are to presume that all three types were equally represented, then the total population of the Snowpiercer train would have been 207. Sound good?

share|improve this answer
It's as a good of guess as any, but purely a guess. No reason to suppose all classes were equally represented. It should be noted that the train in the film is much smaller than that in the original graphic novels...mainly to make it a story that would be viable to be told in a 2 hour timespan. – DA. Dec 31 '15 at 7:49
how is 18 people supposed to be 26%? We are not told how much this sparing of 18 affected the % killed, but it is implied to be inconsequential. So therefore, those 18 people are likely less than 1%. – Jonathon Wisnoski Dec 31 '15 at 16:35
@JonathonWisnoski He assumes that 18 people are the 26%. I personally don't think it's likely, but upvoted it for bringing up those facts. – sashoalm Jan 4 at 10:45

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.