On a point to point layout, how does a train drop off a car on a facing siding? By facing siding, I mean one which diverts from the main at an angle pointing in the same direction as the train is traveling. I don't know the correct term.
As you can tell, I'm new at this.
- Harry
Here is an article about that.
http://www.chipengelmann.com/trains/Beginner/Runaround.html
Chip
Building the Rock Ridge Railroad with the slowest construction crew west of the Pecos.
If they don't have a handy runaround close by they often serviced such sidings from only one direction. Car might have to go by to the next yard, then return to be spotted by the returning local. Have also seen posts saying that some prototypes pushed some cars to such sidings if it wasn't too far.
Good luck,
SpaceMouse wrote:Here is an article about that.http://www.chipengelmann.com/trains/Beginner/Runaround.html
Good job an the article as usual Chip!
And then there's switching "on the fly": Place one brakeman on the ground at the switch, and one on the car to be dropped off. The train backs up a ways, and then accelerates towards the switch. Once the train gets close to the switch, the brakeman on the car disengages the coupler and the car, still rolling, is now free from the train. Next, the brakeman on the ground throws the switch RIGHT AFTER the engine runs over it. The momentum of the car allows it to roll into the siding, and the brakeman on the car can use the handbrake to stop the car.
There are lots of things that can go wrong with this operation. If the brakeman throws the switch too soon, the locomotive will go flying into the siding at speed, or the switch will be thrown under the locomotive, which means putting the loco on the ground. Throw the switch too late, and the car continues coasting after the locomotive on the mainline, or it's thrown under the car and again you get a derailment--most upsetting to the brakeman riding the car. And even if you do time it right, it's tough to gauge how much speed to build up to spot the car right where you want it: not enough momentum and you have to go back and push it in place, too much and it will bash into whatever is at the end of the track.
For all these reasons, switching on the fly is not a recommended practice. About the only way to do it on the model scale is if you have one of those fancy-shmancy DCC uncoupling jobs that don't uncouple the way the prototype does, allowing you to uncouple on the fly.
Of course, you can always use the "0-5-0 industrial switcher" to hand-off the car...
Switching on the fly indeed is frowned upon, but still happens. Even if it may be against FRA regulations or even local regulations.
In actuality, with good maintained trackwork and a competent crew, it's really not that difficult. There are harder moves to coordinate like kicking two single cars to seperate tracks at the same time...
This space reserved for SpaceMouse's future presidential candidacy advertisements
I use the out and back method. All trailing point sidings are serviced on the way out. At the end of the run out, the engine is turned and placed at the head of the train which returns to the origin point servicing the trailing point sidings along the way.
An alternative, is to design your track plan with all trailing point sidings.
BigRusty wrote: I use the out and back method. All trailing point sidings are serviced on the way out. At the end of the run out, the engine is turned and placed at the head of the train which returns to the origin point servicing the trailing point sidings along the way. An alternative, is to design your track plan with all trailing point sidings.
This works well and adds another train to the ops.
Modeling B&O- Chessie Bob K. www.ssmrc.org
I grew up along the Minneapolis Northfield and Southern "high line" now operated by Progressive Rail, it's a dead-end spur line. It has a runaround track at the end of the line near several businesses (Model Stone, LeJeune Steel, used to be a couple of lumber yards but not sure if they are still receiving shipments by rail). Generally the train would have one or two diesels up front, several cars, and a caboose in the rear. The train would run north to the end of the branch, serving the trailing point spurs, then reversing the train with the engine(s) on the south end and the caboose in the rear, and hit the now trailing point spurs on the way back. Occassionally they would even put a couple of freight cars behind the caboose.
I think they had one or two other run around places, could be they left some of the cars there on the sidetrack and worked them on the way back.
According to the current issue of "Model Railroad Planning" (I think?) some railroads now run wayfreights with an engine on each end. The front one pulls the train and the other one idles. Then they can use either engine to move cars in and out of the spur tracks, when they're done on a branch line they just use the other end engine to pull the train back.
Then you have the same problem the other way ;). I think I'd just haul them past and bring a switcher or another train out to put them in their spots.
I think there are a lot of factors that go into whether a facing point is switched with a runaround or on the return trip.
--A coal mine may produce enough coal to ship in both directions. In that case, unit trains with empties would make "turns" from yards in each direction and both would need a runaround if a caboose was involved.
--If the local route was a loop instead of an out and back, a runaround would be used in facing points.
--If the industry needs regular timely deliveries and the local went one direction per day, then taking the load to a distant yard, and bringing it back the next day, might not work out.
What it boils down to is how do you want your layout to work. Some people don't like to do runaround moves. They'd rather have all trailing points and will design their layout accordingly. Other people will follow the prototype and switch it the way the prototype did. Other still have very little space and need the runaround to make any kind of switching maneuver.