doctorwayne For mixed train service, this one always goes to the front of the train (and often is the entire train), with freight cars trailing, with or without a caboose. I never thought too much about heat - I don't know if a small diesel engine would create sufficient heat in its cooling water to heat the car - maybe I should install a stove or Baker heater.
For mixed train service, this one always goes to the front of the train (and often is the entire train), with freight cars trailing, with or without a caboose. I never thought too much about heat - I don't know if a small diesel engine would create sufficient heat in its cooling water to heat the car - maybe I should install a stove or Baker heater.
I doubt the small diesel would create enough heat. Wouldn't it have to stay running long enough to create heat before worrying about heating the passenger compartment?
Just get a 55 gallon drum with waste in it, and throw a fusee or two in there. If that doesn't reduce patronage enough to allow discontinuance of the run, nothing would.
Mike WSOR engineer | HO scale since 1988 | Visit our club www.WCGandyDancers.com
cx500 The passenger cars or combines would normally have their own source of heat, either pot belly stove(s) or Baker heaters. I think the latter heated water to circulate through the car, but possibly they may have produced steam. I believe the water would somehow circulate through the same same radiators that were used if the car was connected to a steam line on a regular train or terminal but that implies some sort of return line. Does anybody know more about their operation?
The passenger cars or combines would normally have their own source of heat, either pot belly stove(s) or Baker heaters. I think the latter heated water to circulate through the car, but possibly they may have produced steam. I believe the water would somehow circulate through the same same radiators that were used if the car was connected to a steam line on a regular train or terminal but that implies some sort of return line. Does anybody know more about their operation?
Baker heaters were usually coal-fired, and heated a water/anti-freeze mixture. There were circulating coils where the water was heated, which then rose to expansion drums at the highest point of the system, continuously moving through radiating coils at each side of the car as more water was heated.
On some cars so-equipped, locomotive steam could be connected to the system: in this case it was in a pipe within the water pipe, and was used, instead of the coal fire, to heat the water, which in-turn heated the car.
I have several combines in mixed train service, including one with steam heat:
One heated by coal stoves:
One heated by a Baker heater:
And a baggage car with a Baker heater - this one is often used in lcl service:
Wayne
It was a good idea to post this question here. The information and discussion has provided the information I needed. If I were to sum up what I heard, mixed trains were used on branch lines or short lines with limited freight and passenger traffic, primarily as a means to keep costs low by using a single train and crew to do everything. The mixed trains had nominal schedules, but these were not very rigid as they tended to depend on the switching work load along the way. Presumably, the schedule was based on some assumptions about how much work had to be done along the way, so most of the time the trains would be more or less "on time" unless there was an unusual level of activity such as a grain season or such.
Most mixed trains kept the passenger equipment at the rear and presumably had coal or wood stove heat. Some mixed trains might have the passenger equipment behind the locomotive if they had steam heat. A caboose might or might not be part of the train depending upon the railroad. The passenger cars would be left outside of town while switch, then the whole train would be brought into the station for passenger and express related activities.
Does this sound about right to everyone?
I am living in a rented townhouse, so this layout is an experiment in On30. Its basically going to be a loop with a couple of staging sidings on one side and a town on the other. The town will have a passing siding and a couple of spurs (freight house, team track, stock yard). The mixed train is appealing as it would seem to be consistent with what would be expected on a narrow gauge line into ranch country. It will allow me to do some basic leisurely switching and such when I want to and to just run trains when its been one of those kind of days at work. I think I will stick the passengers at the end and assume coal or wood heat, which would probably be in character for such a railroad anyway.
One of the MR/Kalmbach how-to books (and no, I can't recall which one right now) had pictures of two mixed trains, one with the passenger car at the rear of the train and the other with the engine, then the passenger car, then the freight cars, then the caboose. The caption explained that the reason for the difference was that the one train had steam heat connections between the steam engine and the passenger car, so it had to be right behind the engine. For the other train - I believe a GN train - it pointed out the stack on the passenger car at the rear, indicating the car had independent heat so could travel at the rear.
BRAKIE Stix,All the pictures I've see so far in books of mixed trains had a combine on the rear... As far as passengers surely you jest? Most mixed trains carried far mor express,mail and shipments from Sears then passengers. I notice the majory of the pictures I seen of combines had stoves-I suspect they was oil stoves since the majority was steel cars-72 footers?
Stix,All the pictures I've see so far in books of mixed trains had a combine on the rear...
As far as passengers surely you jest? Most mixed trains carried far mor express,mail and shipments from Sears then passengers.
I notice the majory of the pictures I seen of combines had stoves-I suspect they was oil stoves since the majority was steel cars-72 footers?
Even if there was a steam engine in front, not all freight locomotives were set up with steam lines for passenger service. As Brakie suggests, a mixed train was often a means of accommodating the few passengers desperate enough to use it when the regulators refused a request to abandon passenger service completely.
John
An employee timetable was more a document assigning rights than it was a schedule. The public train schedule for passenger trains, however, was usually something railroads wanted to follow as close as practical to keep passengers happy.
I've seen just a couple or so photos with the passenger cars between locomotive and freight cars, but it was a tiny minority of mixed-train photos. Of course, a particular railroad might have all its mixed trains with that configuration.
Andy,I once read where a mixed train conductor said "The time schedule was for public knowledge but,"we'll get there when we do and not a second sooner" was a better schedule since we had lots of work to do most days and couldn't keep the schedule anyway and most passergers wasn't in any real hurry and those who was found other means of transportation..
Larry
Conductor.
Summerset Ry.
"Stay Alert, Don't get hurt Safety First!"
"John" wrote "Yes the mixed trains were scheduled, but the schedule could be wildly optimistic."
What we need to understand is that especially for second and lower class trains, a schedule wasn't so much an announcement of when trains would be leaving each station as it was a moving 12-hour window of running authority. A second class train scheduled to leave station X at 1:32 pm had authority to depart any time after that through 1:31 am, assuming it could make it to station Y before becoming more than 12 hours late on its schedule there, and that there were no opposing superior trains to consider.
The usual case on Santa Fe branch lines was that the second class mixed train was the only scheduled train out and back. Where the timetable direction would have made the return trip superior to the outbound run, timetable instructions made the the outbounds superior instead. This saved the embarassment of a train having to wait for itself to come back from the end of the line.
The timetable schedules gave the mixed trains authority to operate without too much attention from dispatchers, but getting the necessary work done was generally more important than running on time.
So long,
Andy
Andy Sperandeo MODEL RAILROADER Magazine
markpierce wjstix: One thing to factor in is where is the combine or coach located in the train?? .... The vast majority of mixed trains had the passenger cars at the rear. I've found no evidence that the Southern Pacific Railroad operated mixed trains in the 20th century with the passenger cars between locomotive and freight cars. By having the passenger cars at the rear of the train, the expense of hauling around a caboose was avoided, and it made switching the freight cars easier for the crew and more comfortable/safer for any passengers. Mark
wjstix: One thing to factor in is where is the combine or coach located in the train?? ....
One thing to factor in is where is the combine or coach located in the train?? ....
The vast majority of mixed trains had the passenger cars at the rear. I've found no evidence that the Southern Pacific Railroad operated mixed trains in the 20th century with the passenger cars between locomotive and freight cars. By having the passenger cars at the rear of the train, the expense of hauling around a caboose was avoided, and it made switching the freight cars easier for the crew and more comfortable/safer for any passengers.
Mark
That's probably correct if you're only talking about the SP and only when operating in a mild climate like southern California. However if you're operating a mixed train on the Great Northern in North Dakota in January, you have to have some way to heat the car the people are riding in. General service (i.e., non-express) freight cars don't have steam lines, so a passenger car equipped with steam heat capability would have to be connected directly behind the locomotive in that situation. The freight cars would then follow, normally with a caboose at the end.
Of course, railroads probably had an incentive to keep older cars with their own heat (like a coal burning stove) on the roster to be used on mixed trains, so they could haul the car on the rear year-round.
Lots of good ideas. Thanks. For my small On30 test layout, I am probably looking at a mixed train with a couple of freight cars, a combine, and maybe a coach (as an excuse to have these things because we all know I will want to buy them). I will probably run them at the end of the train, as my old west theme would be an era of wood or coal stoves in the cars.
My rational is that any railroad on the high plains (I am opting for simpler construction than the mountains, and I do live in Texas) in this era would probably not have enough traffic to warrant freight and passenger trains, so I will use mixed trains as seems common enough in that era. Maybe I just like the train chase scene in "How the West Was Won".
wjstix One thing to factor in is where is the combine or coach located in the train?? ....
One thing to factor in is where is the combine or coach located in the train??
If the passenger car used steam heat, it would be right behind the engine so it could get steam from the engine. After that would come the freight cars and the caboose. If the passenger car had it's own wood or coal burning stove (which would probably be the case with your narrow gauge mixed) it could run at the end, often in place of a caboose.
Of course during warmer weather the car wouldn't need the steam heat so could be at the end of the train....
Quite frequently, mixed trains were run because there wasn't enough freight traffic to justify a separate freight train, nor was enough passenger traffic expected to require a dedicated passenger train.
I actually rode a mixed train about half a century ago. The usual train in that schedule slot was a pair of DMU. On the day I rode it, the mine at the end-of-branch station needed an empty drop-side gon and somebody in town was receiving a loaded box car. Imagine my surprise when, instead of nice, clean, reasonably new cars (with a front window I could see out of,) a C11 class 2-6-4 appeared, followed by the box car, the gon and two ancient coaches that had obviously been stored near the Yoshizuka engine service tracks with the windows open. I left footprints in the soot on the floor!
The classic American mixed was, indeed, a scheduled train, but it could run as much as 12 hours late before the schedule would be annulled. The passengers on a mixed were rather like the few passengers that could be carried aboard a cargo steamer back when - they got to their destination when the train (or ship) did, and that was all they could expect.
Chuck (Modeling Central Japan in September, 1964 - with mixed trains on the TTT)
markpierce cx500: ... Passengers on mixed trains had to expect lengthy delays at each station - they were very much secondary to the freight business. Mixed freight/passenger trains were scheduled, and were typically 2nd or 3rd class trains. This would outclass most freight trains, which were typically extras or of lower class. Besides, mixed trains operated mostly on low-volume lines where the occasional freight train could well keep out of the way of the "lowly" mixed. Mark (whose favorite passenger train is the SP's Mina Mixed)
cx500: ... Passengers on mixed trains had to expect lengthy delays at each station - they were very much secondary to the freight business.
... Passengers on mixed trains had to expect lengthy delays at each station - they were very much secondary to the freight business.
Mixed freight/passenger trains were scheduled, and were typically 2nd or 3rd class trains. This would outclass most freight trains, which were typically extras or of lower class. Besides, mixed trains operated mostly on low-volume lines where the occasional freight train could well keep out of the way of the "lowly" mixed.
Mark (whose favorite passenger train is the SP's Mina Mixed)
Yes the mixed trains were scheduled, but the schedule could be wildly optimistic. The train could never run ahead of schedule but if it needed an additional hour to switch freight at a town, that is what would happen. An on-time arrival at the terminus might occur, but only when the train had very little work to do en route.
If there were other trains on the line, the dispatcher could and would issue train orders to adjust the meeting or passing locations according to how the mixed train was actually progressing. This might be by specifying the meeting point, or modifying the schedule by issuing a "run-late" (ie Train M523 run 1 hour 25 minutes late Chester to Fergus). "Wait" orders were another option for the dispatcher.
Thanks to everyone for your comments. This is really helpful.
Hi "Tex,"
A Santa Fe conductor who worked mixed trains in Kansas explained that the usual procedure at an intermediate station was to leave the combine (which he referred to as the "combo") and whatever cars weren't needed at that station sitting on the main line outside of town. The engine took the cars that were to be worked into town, did the switching, then came back and got the rest of the train including the combine. Only then did the complete train pull up to the station for the passenger, express, and LCL work.
On the branches where they operated, second class mixed trains were usually superior to any other trains, which generally were limited to freight trains running as extras. The second class trains could occupy the main line at will as long as they weren't more than 12 hours late on their schedules. The few passengers who rode mixed trains soon learned that the trains weren't run primarily for their convenience.
cx500 The simple answer is that the passenger car, and where used, caboose, would be left where they will be clear of the switching. This could be at the station so any express could be transferred while the crew was doing their other set-offs or lifts, but only if it was out of their way. Or if the layout required it, they could be shoved against as you noted. Passengers on mixed trains had to expect lengthy delays at each station - they were very much secondary to the freight business. John
The simple answer is that the passenger car, and where used, caboose, would be left where they will be clear of the switching. This could be at the station so any express could be transferred while the crew was doing their other set-offs or lifts, but only if it was out of their way. Or if the layout required it, they could be shoved against as you noted. Passengers on mixed trains had to expect lengthy delays at each station - they were very much secondary to the freight business.
John,Not always..When making a run around move for a facing point industrial siding we would shove against the caboose since it gain nothing to spot the caboose out of the way other then unneeded work..
cx500 ... Passengers on mixed trains had to expect lengthy delays at each station - they were very much secondary to the freight business.
I have seen pictures in books where the combine of a mixed freight was left siting at the station as the crew went about their work..
However,in other books I seen the combine being shoved against during a run around move and during the switching of a pulpwood yard..
As a note of interest there was only the branch line track and the run around track shown which suggested this was normal at this station..
I am planning to run mixed trains on the On30 layout I will build over the winter. Can anyone provide some ideas about how such trains worked when they reached a station where freight cars needed to be switched as well as the usual pick up and drop off of passengers? I assume that the passenger cars were left in some convenient place rather than move them around with the freight cars during switch operations. Is this correct? If so, where would the passenger cars be left during switching? Any help will be appreciated.