wjstix Creating a free-lanced model railroad is kinda like writing a historical novel. Some of the events are real, some are made up, but overall the story has to be plausible - it can't seem outside the realm of possibility. I'd say your overall concept is certainly plausible...in effect, what if the O&W and Lackawanna had merged a long time ago to create a single railroad. P.S. In the OP you said the NYC had trackage rights over your railroad, for what you want to do it probably would work better (as you stated in later posts) to have your railroad having trackage rights over the NYC to the New York City area (New Jersey). As noted, your railroad would probably only have rights to run trains to a yard near the city, it wouldn't be able to serve any industries on the NYC line. If you did decide your railroad was taken over by the New York Central, you could use NYC System-decorated equipment and just add or change the initials to your railroad's reporting marks.
Creating a free-lanced model railroad is kinda like writing a historical novel. Some of the events are real, some are made up, but overall the story has to be plausible - it can't seem outside the realm of possibility. I'd say your overall concept is certainly plausible...in effect, what if the O&W and Lackawanna had merged a long time ago to create a single railroad.
P.S. In the OP you said the NYC had trackage rights over your railroad, for what you want to do it probably would work better (as you stated in later posts) to have your railroad having trackage rights over the NYC to the New York City area (New Jersey). As noted, your railroad would probably only have rights to run trains to a yard near the city, it wouldn't be able to serve any industries on the NYC line.
If you did decide your railroad was taken over by the New York Central, you could use NYC System-decorated equipment and just add or change the initials to your railroad's reporting marks.
I’ve often said that while prototype modelers try to model something that actually existed, freelancers try to model something that seems like it could have existed. That’s my approach anyway.
If I were to make my railroad a subsidiary of the NYC, it might be more plausible to run their trains over my line. If both their mainline and West Shore line were busy enough, they might think some of their priority freight could make better time to Buffalo on my lighter traveled route. That’s one story I’m toying with anyway.
PS. The West Shore's terminus was in Weehawken, NJ and that's where the NYO&W and my railroad had trackage rights to. Both freight and passengers were ferried to New York.
dehusmanGet a copy of "A Railroad, What it is and what it does" by John Armstong, John Armstrong's "Track planning for realistc operations" or any of the Kalmbach operations books.
Some of those books miss the mark by a good old country mile as well but,there far better then Wikopedia..
I maintain the best way to learn about railroading is from those that did or currently doing the work.
There are forums that specializes in railroading and prototypical modeling,operation and layout design.
Be warn..These are not too friendly to "Its my layout types"..
Larry
Conductor.
Summerset Ry.
"Stay Alert, Don't get hurt Safety First!"
I stand corrected. I took the time to read the full Wikopedia reference and stating that it was "not particularly accurate" was not correct. It is almost entirely not correct for N American practice.
If you are basing your operations on this info, you are not getting accurate information. Get a copy of "A Railroad, What it is and what it does" by John Armstong, John Armstrong's "Track planning for realistc operations" or any of the Kalmbach operations books.
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
[/quote]
jecorbettIn developing my concept, one source I have found very useful is the following from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrangements_between_railroads
I wouldn't necessarily use this as gospel. Its pretty vague and not particularly accurate for N American operation, especially pre-1980's.
wjstix I'd add that if your railroad had NYC as a major shareholder, the NYC would probably have tried to get control of it to make it part of the New York Central System, as it did P&LE, Big Four, etc. You could have something like the Boston & Albany, which was part of the NYCS but lettered it's equipment for it's own road (unlike the other NYCS companies, who's name was just a small set of initials on an otherwise NYC engine). It might be more realistic for a NYC predescesor to have granted trackage rights to a competing railroad in exchange for something else, and NYC having to continue to honor it - as you note, that's what happened with the NYO&W. In a "what if" (or in Science Fiction terms, in an "alternate universe") layout, you could have a railroad that was a competitor but similar to NYO&W, or you could have your freelance road take the place of the Old & Weary - just pretend it never existed, and your railroad filled the void. Or you could "model" the NYO&W, but do it your way - say instead of a failing railroad, it continued to prosper, ran top-of-the-line passenger trains, etc.
I'd add that if your railroad had NYC as a major shareholder, the NYC would probably have tried to get control of it to make it part of the New York Central System, as it did P&LE, Big Four, etc. You could have something like the Boston & Albany, which was part of the NYCS but lettered it's equipment for it's own road (unlike the other NYCS companies, who's name was just a small set of initials on an otherwise NYC engine).
It might be more realistic for a NYC predescesor to have granted trackage rights to a competing railroad in exchange for something else, and NYC having to continue to honor it - as you note, that's what happened with the NYO&W.
In a "what if" (or in Science Fiction terms, in an "alternate universe") layout, you could have a railroad that was a competitor but similar to NYO&W, or you could have your freelance road take the place of the Old & Weary - just pretend it never existed, and your railroad filled the void. Or you could "model" the NYO&W, but do it your way - say instead of a failing railroad, it continued to prosper, ran top-of-the-line passenger trains, etc.
As I noted in the OP, my concept has evolved to where it is now and continues to evolve. I have looked at the arrangements the NYC had with the roads it incorporated into its system and there wasn't one set way of doing it. In some cases the acquired roads became subsidaries of the NYC or as was the case with the B&A, it took a long term lease (99 years). I haven't yet decided yet whether I want the NYC to have a controlling interest in my railroad or not. For now, it is maintainng its independence, as the NYC is contemplating whether it wants to take control of what is (like the NYO&W) a struggling operation.
As a composite of several railroads, it fills the void of not only the NYO&W but also the DL&W. There is no rolling stock from either of those railroads on the layout because if my railroad had existed, those two wouldn't have. I do have some Erie rolling stock on my roster. The Erie & DL&W more or less paralleled each other from the Hudson to Buffalo so I look upon my road as an Erie competitor. One reason the NYC would have an incentive to allow my road access to NY markets would be that if it didn't, the Erie would get all that business and the NYC wouldn't get any revenue from the southern tier of New York state.
In developing my concept, one source I have found very useful is the following from Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrangements_between_railroads
mlehman dehusman The NYC is a major shareholder in my railroad. Like the NYO&W, my road doesn't have its own rails to the Hudson so it relies on trackage rights from its parent, the NYC to access New York markets and interchange with other railroads on the west side of the Hudson. Caveat : You can do whatever you want, its your railroad. I am not telling you what to do, this is purely a discussion of how a real railroad might approach this scenario. You always reserve the right to vary from things as circumstances require. There would be no incentive for the NYC to give you access to New York. There would actually be a large disincentive. Your railroad would drain off the NYC market share. Could be, especially if the line in question was a competitor. But the fact that for whatever reason the NYC is a major shareholder in the line in question tends to undermine that argument. If NYC has a financial interest in seeing the line thrive, then it very well could do exactly as jecorbett outlined. As for what trains the NYC might put on it, it really depends on what advantage this offers the NYC. If its existing line is at capacity, it might choose either drags or priority freight, depending on how much difference moving a few trains makes. It's often the case that mixing trains of different speeds has more impact on line capacity that simply adding one or two more trains. If the NYC took on new business that would impact existing ops, it could very well be cheaper to use an alternative route versus adding the needed capacity on its own line. Sometimes with a river side line, there isn't room to do that economically and, in some cases, even physically.
dehusman The NYC is a major shareholder in my railroad. Like the NYO&W, my road doesn't have its own rails to the Hudson so it relies on trackage rights from its parent, the NYC to access New York markets and interchange with other railroads on the west side of the Hudson. Caveat : You can do whatever you want, its your railroad. I am not telling you what to do, this is purely a discussion of how a real railroad might approach this scenario. You always reserve the right to vary from things as circumstances require. There would be no incentive for the NYC to give you access to New York. There would actually be a large disincentive. Your railroad would drain off the NYC market share.
Could be, especially if the line in question was a competitor.
But the fact that for whatever reason the NYC is a major shareholder in the line in question tends to undermine that argument. If NYC has a financial interest in seeing the line thrive, then it very well could do exactly as jecorbett outlined.
As for what trains the NYC might put on it, it really depends on what advantage this offers the NYC. If its existing line is at capacity, it might choose either drags or priority freight, depending on how much difference moving a few trains makes.
It's often the case that mixing trains of different speeds has more impact on line capacity that simply adding one or two more trains. If the NYC took on new business that would impact existing ops, it could very well be cheaper to use an alternative route versus adding the needed capacity on its own line. Sometimes with a river side line, there isn't room to do that economically and, in some cases, even physically.
My concept of my railroad using NYC rails to reach the New York ports on the west side of the Hudson is based on the actual arrangement the NYC had with the NYO&W. The NYO&W had trackage rights on NYC's West Shore line from Cornwall, NY to Weehawken, NJ. That arrangement was made when the West Shore was still independent from the NYC but was continued after the NYC took over the West Shore. As stated, my road is a composite of several railroads that operated in that region, including the NYO&W, so I don't think it is much of a stretch to think my road would have come by trackage rights into the NY area similar to the way the NYO&W did.
My reason for modeling a freelanced railroad was because none of the prototypes in the area had all the features I wanted, so I took some of the things I liked from each of them. I might have modeled the NYO&W had it not been for two things. It dieselized early on and I wanted a transition era railroad with both steam and diesels. I also wanted lots of passenger trains and by the mid 1950s, which is the era I am modeling, the NYO&W had become a freight only operation.
Mike Lehman
Urbana, IL
The NYC is a major shareholder in my railroad. Like the NYO&W, my road doesn't have its own rails to the Hudson so it relies on trackage rights from its parent, the NYC to access New York markets and interchange with other railroads on the west side of the Hudson.
Caveat : You can do whatever you want, its your railroad. I am not telling you what to do, this is purely a discussion of how a real railroad might approach this scenario. You always reserve the right to vary from things as circumstances require.
There would be no incentive for the NYC to give you access to New York. There would actually be a large disincentive. Your railroad would drain off the NYC market share. If the NYC hauls the business to the junction with your railroad they get 100% of their portion of the haul and then their share of your haul to destination. If they give you trackage rights then all they get is their share of the entire line haul. They would lose money on every car they let you haul out of New York City. They would have to share their revenue on the portion from New York City to the junction with the other shareholders of your railroad. When it comes to money, railroads want the whole enchilada.
In return, the NYC gets trackage rights through the southern tier of upstate New York for a more direct route to Buffalo for its priority freight.
Once again, there is no financial incentive to do that. If they operate on trackage rights they have to provide crews and engines and yard facilities and fueling stations etc. or else lease them from you. Since traffic in those days was tariff rates, the rate to go from New York to Buffalo was the same regardless of who carried it or how much it cost. If they operated on trackage rights they had to pay their operating costs plus a fee for the trackage rights plus the infrastructure to support a few trains a day. If they haul the car the NYC has to absorb 100% of the operating costs. If the your railroad hauls the car then they have to absorb only their share of the operating costs, the other shareholders pick up part of the tab. Its cheaper to have you haul the car than for them to support a long trackage rights operation.
Fast forward to the post Staggers era when railroads can contract the rates and use that to leverage the market share, and the mergers have reduced the number of options. Then trackage rights has a different economic balance and begins to make more market sense.
You also have to figure that the NYC could still beat you from NYC to Buffalo even on a longer route, because their route was almost all water level and very fast. Any more direct route across New York State would go over mountains and be a slower route, though shorter. While you are going 35-45 mph up and down the mountains, the NYC is zipping along at 80-90 mph.
If I was the NYC I wouldn't put priority freight on your road, I would keep the priority fast freight on the high speed NYC and operate the drag freights on your route. That gets the drag freights out of the way of the passenger fleet. Since your route will be slow anyway since it has to go over the mountains, putting a slow train on a slow railroad isn't as big a deal. For a model railroad that isn't a bad thing. A mountainous road needs more engines per train (yay!) is generally shorter (yay!) and operates slower so it takes longer to get across the layout (yay!).
I operate two trains in each direction daily and they are run throughs with limited stops, one of which is in my main yard.
Typically a trackage rights trains wouldn't make set outs and pick ups on the trackage rights route. That would definitely be shorthauling your railroad and draining business away from your railroad's balance books.
In addition, there are a number of joint passenger trains which operate on the main trunk as well the branches.
This is a different operation. Run through passenger trains were quite common, but they weren't trackage rights trains, they were pooled equipment. Think California Zephyr (WP-DRGW-CB&Q)), the Royal Blue (B&O-RDG-CNJ), the various "City" trains (UP-CNW, UP-MILW). The NYC would provide most of the equipment and you would pot your crews on their train and run it through to Buffalo. In this case the shared equipment is a selling point to the customers (no changing trains, the NYC can provide a more upscale car than the smaller road).
Trackage rights and run-through agreements are similar in that in both cases you might see engines of railroad A running on railroad B, but they do work differently. One involves railroads running their own trains on another railroad's tracks, the other has one train being run by two different railraods.
Trackage rights normally means railroad A has negotiated a contract allowing it's trains to run over railroad B for a certain distance. Often this is to reach a specific destination, like say a railroad gains trackage rights to run over another railroad from the suburbs to a downtown union passenger station, or to a yard the railroad has there. For example, since 1900 the Milwaukee Road (now CP) has had trackage rights over the Northern Pacific (now BNSF) between the Twin Cities and Duluth-Superior. The Milwaukee could only run freights over the lines, and couldn't serve any on-line NP customers. So their trains just ran freight from their yards in the Twin Cities to their yards in Duluth-Superior, where the cars would then be sent to the industries or interchanges they had to go to.
Two railroads that parallel each other might find it works better for railroad A to close it's own line and pay for trackage rights over railroad B, rather than A paying to maintain it's own line. Between Hastings MN and downtown St.Paul MN, BNSF and CP's mainlines parallel each other, close enough to be a double track mainline - so the railroads years ago (in CB&Q - Milwaukee days) got together and decided to operate the tracks together like a double track main.
A run-through agreement means two or more railroads agree to run a train together, so railroad A runs the trains to a junction with railroad B, and railroad B runs it the rest of the way. For example, the New York Central ran freights from the east to Chicago, then handed the train over to the Burlington to take west to the Twin Cities. Normally the NYC engines would be left on the train, and a Burlington diesel put in the lead (I think because of the Burlington's in-cab signalling system?). The NYC crew got off the train in Chicago, and the Burlington crews took it west.
dehusman The question that is out there is why does the NYC even have trackage rights on your RR? Railroads just don't grant trackage rights because they feel sorry for the other railroad. If the NYC has trackage rights between A and M, your railroad loses revenue for the line haul between A and M. The trackage rights fees will NOT be anything close to the revenue. Modern trackage rights are typically imposed due to governemnt requiremets to maintain competition as a result of a merger. That's not typical of trackage rights back in the day. They were mostly because one railroad had some sort of control or interest in the other railroad, there was some sort of physical barrier that required the railroads to share the route, the NYC had some sort of catastrophic failure on its route so negoiated operations on your route or the NYC had its own route, but small enough traffic or your road had a better route so they negoiated the use of your route and abandoned theirs as a cost cutting or efficiency move. Pre-merger mania trackage rights in the vast majority of cases did not grant rights into "new" territory. They were almost always line substitutions. The NYC already went to M. It had facilities at M. It already interchanged with your road at M. By giving them trackage rights you won't lose revenue (the NYC already goes to M) and you would gain the lease money for letting them use your track.
The question that is out there is why does the NYC even have trackage rights on your RR? Railroads just don't grant trackage rights because they feel sorry for the other railroad. If the NYC has trackage rights between A and M, your railroad loses revenue for the line haul between A and M. The trackage rights fees will NOT be anything close to the revenue. Modern trackage rights are typically imposed due to governemnt requiremets to maintain competition as a result of a merger. That's not typical of trackage rights back in the day. They were mostly because one railroad had some sort of control or interest in the other railroad, there was some sort of physical barrier that required the railroads to share the route, the NYC had some sort of catastrophic failure on its route so negoiated operations on your route or the NYC had its own route, but small enough traffic or your road had a better route so they negoiated the use of your route and abandoned theirs as a cost cutting or efficiency move.
Pre-merger mania trackage rights in the vast majority of cases did not grant rights into "new" territory. They were almost always line substitutions. The NYC already went to M. It had facilities at M. It already interchanged with your road at M. By giving them trackage rights you won't lose revenue (the NYC already goes to M) and you would gain the lease money for letting them use your track.
Originally, I had conceived my railroad being a composite of several railroads that operated in northern New Jersey and upstate New York, primarily the DL&W and the NYO&W but following more closely the Erie's route from the Hudson to Binghamton. The NYC is a major shareholder in my railroad. Like the NYO&W, my road doesn't have its own rails to the Hudson so it relies on trackage rights from its parent, the NYC to access New York markets and interchange with other railroads on the west side of the Hudson. In return, the NYC gets trackage rights through the southern tier of upstate New York for a more direct route to Buffalo for its priority freight. I operate two trains in each direction daily and they are run throughs with limited stops, one of which is in my main yard. Meanwhile, my road handles freight along the line as well as several major brainches (Rochester, Syracuse, Utica, Scranton). In addition, there are a number of joint passenger trains which operate on the main trunk as well the branches.
I've rewritten the story a number of times and it continues to evolve as I learn more about the practices of the railroads that did operate in that area.
jrbernier I suspect what you are talking about is 'Trackage Rights'. ]
I suspect what you are talking about is 'Trackage Rights'. ]
Yes, I did mean trackage rights. I don't know why traffic rights went from my fingers to the keyboard. Obviously my brain wasn't involved in the process.
jrbernier This is an arrangement where railroad B uses the trackage of railroad A between two points. Payment for the trackage rights can be a fixed amount or pro-rated on the volume of traffic. Usually railroad B's crews are qualified over the route, and the dispatching is done by the owning railroad(A). Another example is 'Haulage Rights' - Railroad A(owner of the route) will move railroad B's trains over the route for a fee agreed upon. In you NYC scenerio, you are the owner. I have seen examples of trains just run thru - Rock Island trains operated over Milwaukee Road tracks with the RI crews, engines & cabooses. No crew change or even stopping unless the signals were red. Jim
This is an arrangement where railroad B uses the trackage of railroad A between two points. Payment for the trackage rights can be a fixed amount or pro-rated on the volume of traffic. Usually railroad B's crews are qualified over the route, and the dispatching is done by the owning railroad(A).
Another example is 'Haulage Rights' - Railroad A(owner of the route) will move railroad B's trains over the route for a fee agreed upon.
In you NYC scenerio, you are the owner. I have seen examples of trains just run thru - Rock Island trains operated over Milwaukee Road tracks with the RI crews, engines & cabooses. No crew change or even stopping unless the signals were red.
Jim
There are also haulage rights where railroad B's trains run on railroad A, and presumably but not necessarily with railroad B's power but railroad A's crews would run the trains. This is something of a simplification of course -- most such discussions are.
Before the two roads merged I used to see Union Pacific power on the Chicago & North Western in Milwaukee WI and as a rule a UP caboose would be at the end of the train. I assumed therefore that a qualified UP crew was running and crewing the train.
For the model railroader trackage rights, haulage rights, and simply borrowed or run through power might all look alike, but I can recall a coal train headed by Soo Line power coming up the C&NW line to Sheboygan WI's power plant, and that train was presumably intact all the way from the coal fields that had been located near old former Milwaukee Road lines in Indiana and such. That ended when the power plant switched to Powder River Basin coal. But that would be an example of it being pretty clear that the train was an integral foreign road originated train. I believe CNW crews were running the trains because the voices on the scanner sounded familiar.
Dave Nelson
As far as trackage rights back in the day train crews for these trackage right trains would need to be worked out with the operation unions-you just don't agree to trackage rights without the operating unions understanding your plan and if that cost jobs you had a whale of a fight on your hands.
So,to save headaches several railroads used their own crews on these trackage right trains unless the operating brotherhoods agreed to foreign crews running these trackage right trains since there was no lost in jobs.
Job in this case is a old school term for being called to crew a train-it was a payroll thing..
Trackage rights allow one railroad to operate its trains over the tracks of another. The tenant railroad provides the crews, power, caboose/EOT and does the marketing and sales for whatever service belongs to the tenant. The host railroad provides the track and dispatching for the trains. Cars on trackage rights trains are tyically not interchanged. They reamin in the account of the tenant road. the tenant road is responsible for the car hire and condition of the loads and gets the revenue. The host road gets some charge (by train, by car, by ton, by train mile, by car mile, etc). The tenant may be restricted to a certain number of trains a certain type of train, certain operating times or slots. the tenant may have the right to solicit local business and serve local customers, but this would have been rare in the NYC era.
Trackage rights are much more common now than in the past.
To the question of swapping cabooses in the interchange yard, the answer is yes, the railroads would be likely that the cabooses and engines would come off the train train when the cars are interchanged. Run through agreements were fairly rare in the NYC era. The question is where is the interchange done. It the train is operating on trackage rights its NOT interchanged.
Your railroad runs from A to Z. You were going to interchange trains with the NYC at A, but have now decided to they will operate on trackage rights to M or Z. Interchange doesn't occur until M or Z. All the station at A is is a station in the route of the NYC. The NYC most likely will not be able to set out, pick up or anything on your railroad between A and M (or Z). If there is a car in a NYC train for A, the NYC train will haul it to M, interchange it to you, you will haul it back to A. When its released, you will haul it back to M, it will be interchanged back to the NYC who wille haul it back to the NYC through A.
I suspect what you are talking about is 'Trackage Rights'. This is an arrangement where railroad B uses the trackage of railroad A between two points. Payment for the trackage rights can be a fixed amount or pro-rated on the volume of traffic. Usually railroad B's crews are qualified over the route, and the dispatching is done by the owning railroad(A).
Modeling BNSF and Milwaukee Road in SW Wisconsin
There were a variety of arrangements for this sort of thing. generally, when one RR operated regualrly over the lines of another, the foreign road crews would be qualified to run on the line and would typically be handled by the dispatcher like any other crew making their way over the line. There might be some agreement on priorities of different trains, etc, that would also affect this.
Temporrary arrangements often had a home road crew member on board in order to "qualify" the foreign road crew. This gets expensive after awhile, thus the foreign road would generally hope to make arrangements for its crews to handle the trains on their own.
If one railroad is exercising traffic rights over tracks of another, whose crew would operate that train.
My layout is a freelanced railroad. My original concept was to have my fictional railroad interchanging with several real railroads, including the NYC. That changed when so much great looking NYC equipment cam on the market and I wanted to operate it over my road rather than just interchanging, so I created the excuse that the NYC has trackage rights over my road. Would the normal procedure be for there to be a crew change where the two railroads meet or would a NYC crew operate the train over the entire trip. I'm trying to decide whether I should swap cabooses in the interchange yard or have the NYC crew and its caboose remain on the train for the entire run.