It is, in fact, something I may have attempted for my own layout - well, the theme anyway. We had 3 of the old AHM V&T locos, and they were the best runners we had when I was a kid. And somewhere my Dad picked up a copy of the V&T book, the smaller paper one, by Beebe & Clegg, and I loved reading that. I could very easily have become a V&T modeler. As a little kid, Gunsmoke was my favorite show (I was in the hospital for a minor procedure when I was 4 - me and an older kid in the room snuck out of bed to go watch it on TV until the nurse found us and shoed us back to bed). When i got older, I discovered the Wild Wild West (the show with Robert Conrad - true fans pretend the Will Smith movie never happened), and while not the exact loco used in the show, I had cars sort of close enough to make their train and run it around my layout. Yes, 1870's-1880's Wild West would almost certainly be what I did if not 1950's Reading. So this is a layout article that is particularly appealing to me.
Seems the more detailed aspects of how it operates are saved for articles in Model Railroad Planning. Though other MR articles have gone into more depth - like a few paragraphs tracing the run of a train.
--Randy
Modeling the Reading Railroad in the 1950's
Visit my web site at www.readingeastpenn.com for construction updates, DCC Info, and more.
Phil, we are not criticising or picking the layout apart. As Rich said, we are only trying to figure out how it's operated, as far as the lumber camps, and coming up with our own ideas on operation and alternate track arrangements.
It is a beautiful lay out, no doubt.
Mike.
My You Tube
Sierra Man Hello everyone. I've followed this thread from the start. What I don't get is why all the criticism about the track plan? Let's remember this is a hobby. What the owner likes is his choice. Why are we nit picking some track? How about some comments on the beauty and craftsmanship that went into his railroad?
Hello everyone. I've followed this thread from the start. What I don't get is why all the criticism about the track plan? Let's remember this is a hobby. What the owner likes is his choice. Why are we nit picking some track? How about some comments on the beauty and craftsmanship that went into his railroad?
Rich
Alton Junction
Phil, CEO, Eastern Sierra Pacific Railroad. We know where you are going, before you do!
gregc got me in touch with Don Tolley the owner of the V&T thru Steve Otte Don said there is a rule that "no engine can pull more than three cars". As well as the main near camp #2 has a grade and is something logging railroads would have to deal with
got me in touch with Don Tolley the owner of the V&T thru Steve Otte
Don said there is a rule that "no engine can pull more than three cars".
As well as the main near camp #2 has a grade and is something logging railroads would have to deal with
got in touch with Don Tolley the owner of the V&T thru Steve Otte
greg - Philadelphia & Reading / Reading
mbinsewi Unless during operating sessions each camp is handled seperately.
Unless during operating sessions each camp is handled seperately.
richhotrainI would love to see a video or an animation of how those three camps are operated.
Same here. The more I look at this, and wonder on it's operation, what we are calling the 4th track, seems to be fairly level, at 50 1/2". Now I'm thinking a double ended siding would work good before ( to the left, as we look at the track plan) of the trestle, just for storing MT log cars.
This whole section of the lay out is dedicated for logging operations.
There also appears to be a loco shed at camp 1, suggesting that the loco might tie up there occasionally.
The operations section of the article only talks about using a "deck of task cards", and nothing about actual moves.
gregc richhotrain The runaround track belongs where it is placed in the track diagram. i don't see why. it force the train to be only long enough to service camp #2
richhotrain The runaround track belongs where it is placed in the track diagram.
i don't see why. it force the train to be only long enough to service camp #2
gregc for camp #3, is the train pushed up the grade and pulled down? is the opposite true fro camp #1, the train is pulled up?
for camp #3, is the train pushed up the grade and pulled down?
is the opposite true fro camp #1, the train is pulled up?
richhotrainThe runaround track belongs where it is placed in the track diagram.
richhotrainWhat puzzle me is Camp 3.
suggests that at least a portion of track 4 is on level grade
Doughless What I can't see is the need for that short runaround at camp 1. And I would want a longer tail track at the camp 2 switchback.
What I can't see is the need for that short runaround at camp 1. And I would want a longer tail track at the camp 2 switchback.
What puzzle me is Camp 3. Without a roundaround track, the loco cannot pull cars into Camp 3. It would need to push empty cars into the campsite and then how would the loco retrieve loaded cars?
mbinsewi That's the way I called it out, Rich, except the caboose stays on the middle track while loaded and MT cars are switched, than the caboose is coupled on to the end.
That's the way I called it out, Rich, except the caboose stays on the middle track while loaded and MT cars are switched, than the caboose is coupled on to the end.
mbinsewiI believe Greg's idea is to put the run around on the 4th track.
I think the trackage works well. Everything is right there, on a some what level grade, and cars don't have to be moved very far.
I believe Greg's idea is to put the run around on the 4th track.
Something to keep in mind about prototypical ops for a logging railroad, track was for the most part, temporary, a lot of it with no ballast, as the camps moved as the logging operation progressed.
I've read an interesting book about the Roddis logging and railroad in northern WI. They didn't have many grades to contend with, but they did have many creeks and ravines to negotiate.
I went out yesterday to buy the April issue but no luck. The March issue is still on newstands. So, let's see if I understand the train movements correctly.
In the following 4-part diagram, a loco, two empties, and a caboose, move east uphill toward the Camp 2 switchback on the first part of the diagram. On the second part of the diagram, the empties and the caboose are shoved onto the middle track. On the third section of the diagram, the loaded cars are moved from the bottom track to the roundaround track (the track above the middle track), and the empties and the caboose are moved from the middle track to the bottom track. On the fourth section of the diagram, the loco uses the middle track to reach the roundaround track in order to push the loaded cars onto the tail end of the fourth track, in preparation to pull the loaded cars downhill on that fourth track. Is this correct?
mbinsewiI'm not a steam expert, but, it seems keeping the boiler pointed up hill had an advantage.
whether a steam locomotive is facing up or downhill is independent of whether it is pulling or pushing the train.
if there's a preference for pushing uphill, then I understand the need for the runaround.
mbinsewiBut why keep disecting something that is all ready built, and operating the way the builder/owner wants. Whats the end result and goal of your post?
when looking at a track diagrams i often wonder why trackage is laid out the way it is. is it an oversite of the designer, for some operational reason I don't understand or for challenging operation.
i think Tony Koester wrote that he's modeled particular prototype trackage without understanding the need for specific turnouts or spurs only to understand after operating
i'm trying to understand the reason(s) for this track arrangement on the V&T and the limitation(s) it imposes
gregc i also wonder if there is a RR preference for pulling or pushing trains up a steeper grade?
i also wonder if there is a RR preference for pulling or pushing trains up a steeper grade?
On a switchback line the engine alternates betwe pushing and pulling. It's impossible to always have the boiler crown sheet "down" as the train alternates legs of the switchback.
The Bradshaw Mountain Railway from Prescott to Crown King Arizona had, I believe, seven or more switchbacks on the final climb to Crown King. You can drive the old roadbed to get to Crown King. It's an amazing drive with spectacular views. I highly recommend it as a side trip for anyone heading north out of Phoenix up to Sedona or Flagstaff.
Ray
gregci also wonder if there is a RR preference for pulling or pushing trains up a steeper grade? Add Quote to your Post
I'm not a steam expert, but, it seems keeping the boiler pointed up hill had an advantage.
The lay out, and switching moves we're dissecting, shows the railroad doing just that.
If your thoughts are that the trackage is not designed for "optimal for operation interest--" but only for entertainment?, than design your own.
Greg, I totally respect your electical expertise, you MUST be an electrical engineer. Some of the things you come up with....
But why keep disecting something that is all ready built, and operating the way the builder/owner wants. Whats the end result and goal of your post?
Show us what you would do, we'll hash it over, and be done.
DoughlessThat would make for interesting operations....
i've always thought that RRs lay track to maximize efficiency.
so this trackage and landforms may not be optimal for operation interest -- entertainment
gregc Doughless And I would want a longer tail track at the camp 2 switchback. why do you need a longer tail?
Doughless And I would want a longer tail track at the camp 2 switchback.
why do you need a longer tail?
Because my train would carry all of the cars I needed to switch all of the camps in one train. I would take the empty cars for camp 1 2 and 3 in one train up the hill, then as I switched camps 1 and 3, I would have a consist of full cars from those camps and empty cars for camp 2. I would need a longer tail to hold all of those cars.
Given the short tail and runaround at camp 2 as it is, I'd probably use a separate train for that camp.
That would make for interesting operations....have a long train to serve the stamp mill, camps 1 and 3, then head back down to mound house, then have a shorter train to go directly to camp 2, being limited by the switchback.
But then I would want another yard track at mound house to hold the cars that I wasn't toting along up the hill.
Overall, there are probably more cars required at stamp mill, and camps 1, 2 and 3 than the siding at mound house can hold....if you don't want to have 4 short trains arriving at mound house for switching each stop one at a time.
I'd have to consider Randy's point about how long of a train a loco of that era could shove up the hill.
- Douglas
gregccouldn't all that be done with the runaround outside the switchback and with cars for other spurs on the track back to mound house?
It would work the same, with the run around off the 4th track, as it does now.
Maybe off the 4th track, you could have a longer run around, which would be usefull depending on how many, if any, cars are in the train for the other spots.
Another thing, the grade from the trestle to the switchback is 2 1/2", so you'd want to make a flat area for the run around.
I think it works where it is, on top of the hill.
I guess if the location of the run around was causing an operating problem, the owner would have made changes.
DoughlessAnd I would want a longer tail track at the camp 2 switchback.
Ok, I guess I got the direction of the locomotive the wrong way. I knew it was important. Having it point to the right at camp 2 is better.
The way I would operate it is to shove the entire train, if it was short enough, from the left side of the mainline and around the curve and up to the tail, switching the facing point switches as I went. This would keep the boiler oriented in the right direction and keep the loco on the heavy side of the train both up and down the hill.
I need the runaround at the top to switch that one trailing point that I can't switch since the loco is on the left side of the train as it enters camp 2. Its the only switch that faces that direction relative to the shoving of the train up the hill, so that's where the runaround is needed. All of the other switches on the branchline/switchback can be switched with the loco in the shoving position, loco facing right. The entire branchline operation is pretty simple actually.
couldn't all that be done with the runaround outside the switchback and with cars for other spurs on the track back to mound house?
stop at the run around, uncouples, pulls loaded cars from camp #2 out thru the switchback onto the empty runaround track, pulls then pushes empties from the runaround thru the switchback and spots them. then returns to the runaround and puts the train back together.
then service the 4 trailng spurs on the way down train back down hill to mound house
is the switchback tail long enough for all the cars on the track between camp #2 and Mound House?
Just died again, this time only for about 6 min.
Anyway! back on topic, I'm thinkin' that the run around is where it belongs, as the train sets out empty log cars, and makes up it's train of loaded log cars, for the trip back down.
Coming up the hill with emptys, loco facing forward, at the tail track, he shoves the emptys onto the middle track (with the caboose), moves the loads from the bottom track to the run around, moves the empty's onto the bottom (stub end with the log loader) track, uses the middle track to run around the loaded train, pulls into the run around track, and then shoves the loads back to the tail track, and then down the hill, as the train is positioned in the picture on page 33.
The caboose probably gets left with the emptys on the middle track, and after the loads are moved, the emptys are spotted, he pulls up, and moves the caboose to end of the loaded train.
Yes and I never know if the message posted or not - it appears most of the time it does. ANy other time if you refresh ot hit submit a second time, you get the warning that a duplicate post already exists.
I agree! It seems to happen about 5 or 6 times a day, or more.It's like it just shuts down.
THey really need to fix the network/web server. Consistent timeouts result in duplicate posts.
In the picture I'm describing, the loco would be running with the front facing up hill, once it left the tail track, and would be on the downhill side of the train.
If you have the issue, or the archives, you can see the picture on page 33.
PS. By the way Rich, my description of the scene would be as if you are looking at the track plan.