I have a combined passenger train that will split into two seperate trains and the station in my largest city. My question is how would this consist arrive. Would the head end cars for the combined train all be at the front end ahead of the passenger cars or would the head end and passenger cars for the first train be ahead of head end and passenger cars for the second train. The latter arrangment would make switching easier as it would only require the second train to be uncoupled from the first train and then have it's loco added after the first train had pulled away from the station. My head end cars are a combination of express box cars and baggage cars with an RPO on one of the trains.
By law the RPO has to be in the head end portion of the train.
There are dozens of ways to do it.
If I was coing to do it and one or both of the outbound trains had RPO's, I would do the following:
A engines- B engines - B head end-A head end-A psgr cars-B psgr cars.
Train arrives, uncouples between A and B psgr cars.
Sets train A to another track, uncouples between B head end and A head end.
Put the A eng on track 2
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
As I recall Rock Island had a train that I think went to Denver and part then went on to Colorado Springs but the cities and state could be different. The relative point was the B unit e7 or e8 had an end window and controls. I suspect that the col. Sprgs. Train would be ahead of the Denver cars and disconnect and go on its way barring an rpo.
If the there were no head end cars in one portion, then the train comes in A eng - B eng-B cars-A cars. It sets the B portion to another track and then puts the A eng back on the A cars.
We did that all the time in Salt Lake City with a Z train. The A pick up was in trk 1, the B pick up in track 2. The inbound train cam in A eng-B eng-B cars - A cars.
The train would set out the B eng and B cars on the B pick up in Track 2. Then the A eng would reach into trk 1 and double the A pickup back to the A cars from the inbound train. By the time it was done the air test was done on the B train and by the time it cleared the lead the air test was done on the A train.
John-NYBW I have a combined passenger train that will split into two seperate trains and the station in my largest city. My question is how would this consist arrive. Would the head end cars for the combined train all be at the front end ahead of the passenger cars or would the head end and passenger cars for the first train be ahead of head end and passenger cars for the second train. The latter arrangment would make switching easier as it would only require the second train to be uncoupled from the first train and then have it's loco added after the first train had pulled away from the station. My head end cars are a combination of express box cars and baggage cars with an RPO on one of the trains.
The consist would arrive where the passenger terminal switch crew could get to with minimum amount of switching..The cars would be on the rear. The switch crew would pull these cars clear and switch them onto a empty track. While they do this the passenger units has uncopled and pulled clear..The switch crew will now switch out the endhead cars for train #2 and place them on the headend of the second passenger train..Then the switch crew would return to the end of the now completed second train. In the mean time motive power for the first time recouples to their train. Motive power for train #2 arrives and couples onto their train..
Swtch crew goes for coffee. Job done.
Larry
Conductor.
Summerset Ry.
"Stay Alert, Don't get hurt Safety First!"
Having been told by some that the train crew would separate the trains and having been told by other that a switch crew would separate to two, one might ask, which is "right"?
The answer is both. Depends on where and when it is, whether there is a switch crew assigned to the point where the separation is and what the agreements are with the crews.
Since there is an RPO involved that makes it pretty much pre-1970's. There would have been a higher chance that a switch crew would have been used, but the the same moves could have been made its just that the inbound crew would arrive, get off, a switch crew would get on and then do the switching.
As I said, lots of different ways to do things.
I think the head end cars would go at the head end always, but otherwise the cars go however is quickest to switch!
I’ve ridden the Empire Builder, and in Spokane the Portland section joins the Seattle section, with the Portland cars all going behind the Seatle cars. I don’t know if the baggage car went to the head end as I was asleep at the time! I think there is no Portland baggage car (only a baggage-coach combine) so that simplifies it.
Regards, Isaac
I model my railroad and you model yours! I model my way and you model yours!
dehusman Having been told by some that the train crew would separate the trains and having been told by other that a switch crew would separate to two, one might ask, which is "right"? The answer is both. Depends on where and when it is, whether there is a switch crew assigned to the point where the separation is and what the agreements are with the crews. Since there is an RPO involved that makes it pretty much pre-1970's. There would have been a higher chance that a switch crew would have been used, but the the same moves could have been made its just that the inbound crew would arrive, get off, a switch crew would get on and then do the switching. As I said, lots of different ways to do things.
Dave, Some fun facts. At the Columbus Union Station PRR switched out several passenger trains a day back in CUSs heyday.. PRR assigned a switcher to do the work since the motive power was changed... In the 60s there was still a passenger switch crew and they still had a assigned engine (the last being a PC SW1) even though there was very little work left to do. NYC used the crew that switched their nearby freight house to switch out and add some head cars for the USPS by the 60s there was one NYC passenger train a day (two E8s and 3-4 cars) and by the mid 60s this train was cut to a RDC. N&W paid PRR to do the work because N&W had one train a day to/from Portsmouth. C&O's Sportsman didn't require any work.. This train either pulled in and back out or back in and pulled out of the station depending if it was going South to Ashland,Ky or going North to Detroit. B&O's two passenger trains(one each way) just made a station stop and was gone by '55..
I was born to late to see CUS in its heyday but,recall watching the switch crew switch out passenger cars and add a sleeper around 6 pm. After the three passenger trains(2 PRR and C&O) cleared there was a parade of east and west bound freight trains.
I apologize for pratterling on. I alway did find passenger terminal work fascinating.
I should have been a bit more specific about the consists. I'll call the two trains A and B. When it leaves the station, Train A will have the same loco the combined train arrived with followed by, in order, an express box car, RPO, baggage, two coaches. Train B will get a new loco followed by the express box car and two coaches. The express boxcars have end doors to allow passage to the adjacent cars while the train is moving. From a switching standpoint, it seems to me the simplest thing to do would be to have the combined train arrive with the consist for train A followed by the three cars for train B. The three cars for train B would be uncoupled and then train A could pull away as is. After it leaves, a loco would be backed onto the front end of train B and it would be ready to go. If I do this, the express boxcar for train B would arrive in between the coaches for train A and the coaches for train B. Does this violate any rules to have a head end car between two passenger sections?
RPO used to stand for Railway Post Office. Now days, it stands for Run/Pass Option.
You can have a head end car in the middle of the train, but it will prevent the passengers from moving through the train. The railroad would not allow passengers to have access to an express car, it would be a danger to the passengers and a security risk to the shipments.
It will also separate the crew, with some of the crew in the head portion and some in the rear. When they pass through the mid train express cars they will have to unlock and lock the doors.
dehusman You can have a head end car in the middle of the train, but it will prevent the passengers from moving through the train. The railroad would not allow passengers to have access to an express car, it would be a danger to the passengers and a security risk to the shipments. It will also separate the crew, with some of the crew in the head portion and some in the rear. When they pass through the mid train express cars they will have to unlock and lock the doors.
I don't see that as a major problem given that it will greatly reduce the amount of switching when the train is split. At most a minor inconvenience to the crew.
This wasn't quite the same thing but when I rode the Amtrak from Portland to Chicago a few years ago, there were several cars at the tail end that were blocked off from the rest of the train. If I remember, there was a gate which prevented entry to those cars. I'm guessing they just needed to move some extra cars east.
John-NYBWI don't see that as a major problem given that it will greatly reduce the amount of switching when the train is split. At most a minor inconvenience to the crew.
In real life there would be company/union work rules.. As a road brakeman on the Chessie(C&O) we was allow three enroute switching of course like every agreement that could vary between divisions and the three Chessie railroads since they was not merge under the Chessie System.
A terminal switch crew could be used instead of the road crew to do the work since the head end cars for train 2 would be behind the engines on train 1 and the coaches for train 2 would be on the rear of train 1. That's no big job to do.. A heads up crew could be done in less the 30 minutes.
ndbprr As I recall Rock Island had a train that I think went to Denver and part then went on to Colorado Springs but the cities and state could be different. The relative point was the B unit e7 or e8 had an end window and controls. I suspect that the col. Sprgs. Train would be ahead of the Denver cars and disconnect and go on its way barring an rpo.
Limon CO was were the two sections split/combined. A 1953 Trains photo article (Where the Rockets Wed.) had photos of the sequence for the train combining. (The pictures were also in Bruce Chubb's edition of "How to Operate your Model Railroad" from the late 1970s.)
I was just looking at them in A RI book and there was some switching to get the cars in the right order. It wasn't a case of just having one section ahead of the other.
The current Milwaukee Road Historical Society magazine has an article about the MILW's Arrow splitting/combining Omaha and Sioux City sections at Manila IA. Again some switching, not just one section in front of the other.
Jeff
jeffhergert ndbprr As I recall Rock Island had a train that I think went to Denver and part then went on to Colorado Springs but the cities and state could be different. The relative point was the B unit e7 or e8 had an end window and controls. I suspect that the col. Sprgs. Train would be ahead of the Denver cars and disconnect and go on its way barring an rpo. Limon CO was were the two sections split/combined. A 1953 Trains photo article (Where the Rockets Wed.) had photos of the sequence for the train combining. (The pictures were also in Bruce Chubb's edition of "How to Operate your Model Railroad" from the late 1970s.) I was just looking at them in A RI book and there was some switching to get the cars in the right order. It wasn't a case of just having one section ahead of the other. The current Milwaukee Road Historical Society magazine has an article about the MILW's Arrow splitting/combining Omaha and Sioux City sections at Manila IA. Again some switching, not just one section in front of the other. Jeff
I'm curious as to why it would be done that way which is why I started this thread. It seems to me it would greatly simplify things to just have one section ahead of the other. Then you simply disconnect the second section from the first, send the first train on its way and then back the motive power onto the second section and it is ready to go. Are there reason it wouldn't be done this way. I'm not against doing the extra switching if that is how the prototype would do it. It makes for a more interesting operation which isn't a bad thing. I'm just trying to understand why it wouldn't be done the simplest way possible.
Depending on the train, you have more than head end cars. One section might have a diner, the other doesn't. You would want it where it could efficiently serve the passengers. The same for sleepers. If both sections carry sleepers, you would want them together to facilitate the loading of passengers at intermediate stops. Coach passengers in one area, sleeping car passengers in another. Have a couple loading areas instead of 4 or 5. Especially if platform length is limited.
I should've also said in the RI example, the train crew did the switching. The connecting of air brake and steam lines, etc was done by Car Men. If the train crew did the connecting with Car Men on duty, they would've been able to receive an arbitrary payment. Any Car Men on duty would also be able to claim an arbitrary or penalty payment. Work rules spelled out in the working agreements. As I said once before, many of these work rules are invisible to the casual observer.
The order of the train is based on the cars. On a real train where might be a diner or sleepers, those would be placed to facilitate ease to the customer. You don't want the passengers paying premium fare on a sleeper having to walk through a baggage car to get to the diner. They really don't want to have to walk them through the coaches either. If you put baggage cars in the middle of a train, then how do you get a passenger who boards on section A but is going to destination B on the right part of the train without walking them through the baggage compartment or stopping the train to let them walk around the baggage cars outside the train?
If the RPO is sorting mail for two destinations A and B, how do they get the B mail back to the B car in the middle of the train?
Allow me to add this.. Back in the day brakemen was not allowed to connect steam lines or signal lines one took a steam pipe fitter and the other a electrican..
Thanks for the interesting info.
When I was a kid, I rode the City of Portland to Tacoma, WA.
Out in Wyoming somewhere, I believe the Portland Rose cars coming from somewhere south joined the train. On the way back, the train divided, one going to Omaha, the other headed south.
York1 John
jeffhergert Depending on the train, you have more than head end cars. One section might have a diner, the other doesn't. You would want it where it could efficiently serve the passengers. The same for sleepers. If both sections carry sleepers, you would want them together to facilitate the loading of passengers at intermediate stops. Coach passengers in one area, sleeping car passengers in another. Have a couple loading areas instead of 4 or 5. Especially if platform length is limited. I should've also said in the RI example, the train crew did the switching. The connecting of air brake and steam lines, etc was done by Car Men. If the train crew did the connecting with Car Men on duty, they would've been able to receive an arbitrary payment. Any Car Men on duty would also be able to claim an arbitrary or penalty payment. Work rules spelled out in the working agreements. As I said once before, many of these work rules are invisible to the casual observer. Jeff
The consist indicates these are secondary trains. Train A has the RPO and that one will continue on to a division point while Train B will divert to a branchline that diverges a short distance beyond the town where the trains will be split. Neither will have either diners or sleepers so there is no need for the occupants of Train A to move on to Train B or vice versa.
I will ask this again. Are there any rules that prohibit placing a head end car between two passenger sections. If not, I see no reason why the simpler arrangement is not the best.
John-NYBWI will ask this again. Are there any rules that prohibit placing a head end car between two passenger sections. If not, I see no reason why the simpler arrangement is not the best.
To answer that question you would need to look through every railroads operation,safety and company/union work rules.
Now you would need two conductors and two passenger brakeman per train that amount to 6 employees.. Why pay 6 when 3 can get the job done? Then you would need to pay 3 more that is quailified to work the branch.
Its cheaper to pay a switch crew to switch out the B train cars since they will need to switch out the B train anyway.
John-NYBWAre there any rules that prohibit placing a head end car between two passenger sections.
Rules, no. Policy or general orders or special instructions, maybe. I know the railroad I worked for had a policy that at train meets a passenger train should hold the main when possible. Was it in any "rule" book. No. Was it an instruction, yes. Was it absolutely required, no.
The only hard rule I know of was that the occupied RPO had to be in the head end of the train, and that was a Federal requirement..
Obviously you really, really, really want to put head end cars in the middle of the train. Just do it. Will people question it or think it looks outside the norm, sure. Because it is outside the norm. But I'm sure if you look enough you can find at least one railroad that did that.
dehusman John-NYBW Are there any rules that prohibit placing a head end car between two passenger sections. Rules, no. Policy or general orders or special instructions, maybe. I know the railroad I worked for had a policy that at train meets a passenger train should hold the main when possible. Was it in any "rule" book. No. Was it an instruction, yes. Was it absolutely required, no. The only hard rule I know of was that the occupied RPO had to be in the head end of the train, and that was a Federal requirement.. Obviously you really, really, really want to put head end cars in the middle of the train. Just do it. Will people question it or think it looks outside the norm, sure. Because it is outside the norm. But I'm sure if you look enough you can find at least one railroad that did that.
John-NYBW Are there any rules that prohibit placing a head end car between two passenger sections.
What I really, really, really want to do is follow prototypical practices. I'm not getting any clear answers as to whether what I am proposing is a prototypical practice. IOW would a real railroad do this? I'm not asking if it would be the normal practice. I am asking if it would be done by any real railroad and if not, why not.
BRAKIE John-NYBW I will ask this again. Are there any rules that prohibit placing a head end car between two passenger sections. If not, I see no reason why the simpler arrangement is not the best. To answer that question you would need to look through every railroads operation,safety and company/union work rules. Now you would need two conductors and two passenger brakeman per train that amount to 6 employees.. Why pay 6 when 3 can get the job done? Then you would need to pay 3 more that is quailified to work the branch. Its cheaper to pay a switch crew to switch out the B train cars since they will need to switch out the B train anyway.
John-NYBW I will ask this again. Are there any rules that prohibit placing a head end car between two passenger sections. If not, I see no reason why the simpler arrangement is not the best.
Since the train is going to be split, it's going to need two full crews anyway. The difference would be whether the crew boarded the second train before the split or afterward. This is a secondary train running from one division point to another with a second section that will split off and divert down a branchline. The crews would either board at the point of origination or the point where the trains splits.
My first ride on Amtrak in 1976 was on the Desert Wind which ran from Chicago to LA by way of Ogden. I boarded in Omaha. From Chicago to Ogden it was combined with the section going to Oakland which I think was the California Zephyr. At Ogden the two sections seperated. I wasn't paying much attention to head end cars or if there even were head end cars. I am doing the same thing but over a much shorter route and as such will not have the need for sleepers or even a diner.
John-NYBWSince the train is going to be split, it's going to need two full crews anyway. The difference would be whether the crew boarded the second train before the split or afterward. This is a secondary train running from one division point to another with a second section that will split off and divert down a branchline. The crews would either board at the point of origination or the point where the trains splits.
The crew would need to be quilified for the branch,then the crew would be short on work hours before they reach the branch.
The branch crew would board train B where it splits..Not several miles away in another city.
It would be to the railroads adventage to have the switch crew to build train B where the train splits. Pulling some passenger cars off the end and some headend cars from the from the headend of train A. The branch line crew can now board their train.
Amtrak does some odd stuff that could not been done back in the day.
dehusmanRules, no. Policy or general orders or special instructions, maybe. I know the railroad I worked for had a policy that at train meets a passenger train should hold the main when possible. Was it in any "rule" book. No. Was it an instruction, yes. Was it absolutely required, no.
As you know back in the day there was operating rules, company/union work rules,TT rules and general operating rules plus your DB.
BRAKIE John-NYBW Since the train is going to be split, it's going to need two full crews anyway. The difference would be whether the crew boarded the second train before the split or afterward. This is a secondary train running from one division point to another with a second section that will split off and divert down a branchline. The crews would either board at the point of origination or the point where the trains splits. The crew would need to be quilified for the branch,then the crew would be short on work hours before they reach the branch. The branch crew would board train B where it splits..Not several miles away in another city. It would be to the railroads adventage to have the switch crew to build train B where the train splits. Pulling some passenger cars off the end and some headend cars from the from the headend of train A. The branch line crew can now board their train. Amtrak does some odd stuff that could not been done back in the day.
John-NYBW Since the train is going to be split, it's going to need two full crews anyway. The difference would be whether the crew boarded the second train before the split or afterward. This is a secondary train running from one division point to another with a second section that will split off and divert down a branchline. The crews would either board at the point of origination or the point where the trains splits.
So are you saying that if the combined train had a head end car between the two sections, it would need two seperate crews for the portion of the run in which the trains was combined, and then a third crew to take over the branchline portion of the trip after the train split?
The alternative is to keep the head end cars together on the combined trains and only have one crew onboard from the point of origination to the point where the train will split. The cars for the branchline train would then be switched out of the combined train and a new crew added at that point for the branchline run.
John-NYBWSo are you saying that if the combined train had a head end car between the two sections, it would need two seperate crews for the portion of the run in which the trains was combined, and then a third crew to take over the branchline portion of the trip after the train split?
Correct.. The passengers would need to be attended to and tickets punched.
If there wasn't a crew on board train B anybody could ride for free and get off at the station undetected while train A's conductor is attending to his passengers getting off at that station.
Another thought.. Why not have train B originate at the station? All the branch line passengers would need to do is transfer from train A to train B. If there is any head end cars on train A for train B then the passenger terminal switch crew would need to pull them and couple them to train B.
BRAKIE John-NYBW So are you saying that if the combined train had a head end car between the two sections, it would need two seperate crews for the portion of the run in which the trains was combined, and then a third crew to take over the branchline portion of the trip after the train split? Correct.. The passengers would need to be attended to and tickets punched. If there wasn't a crew on board train B anybody could ride for free and get off at the station undetected while train A's conductor is attending to his passengers getting off at that station. Another thought.. Why not have train B originate at the station? All the branch line passengers would need to do is transfer from train A to train B. If there is any head end cars on train A for train B then the passenger terminal switch crew would need to pull them and couple them to train B.
John-NYBW So are you saying that if the combined train had a head end car between the two sections, it would need two seperate crews for the portion of the run in which the trains was combined, and then a third crew to take over the branchline portion of the trip after the train split?
I'd thought about doing that but this seems more interesting from an operational standpoint. My research indicates it was done both ways in the prototype world. I like the idea of switching passenger cars. I want to do it as prototypically as possible which is why a started this thread.
The branchline for Train B is actually in staging and not modeled. I do have a branchline that is modeled and is seperate railroad that interchanges with my main railroad. That one does have passengers transerring between railroads.
One of the more interesting versions of this was described in the original Railroads You Can Model. I forget the name of the railroad but it served the wineries in upstate New York. They had an advanced "section" of the branchline train which was nothing more than a single coach being pushed over the crest of a hill where it would coast downgrade to the terminus of the branch. The train crew would use the brake wheel on platform of the car to control the speed. The rest of the train would follow later with a loco doing the chores in a traditional manner.