PruittLarry, I'm guessing you mean "per driver" and not "per axle."
Yup,It's hard for a long time diesel fan to talk steam instead of drivers I'm accustom to axle..Oddly when I was a teenager I knew every part of a steam engine and every class of steam engine PRR had.
My Santa Fe 2-8-0 keeps tempting me to model 53/54.
Larry
Conductor.
Summerset Ry.
"Stay Alert, Don't get hurt Safety First!"
BRAKIEMark,If I built standard large layouts instead of ISLs and if my yard lead permitted I would go with 3 cars per axle for 0-6-0s so,a 0-6-0 could pull 18 cars which would look about right. A 0-8-0 at 4 cars per axle could pull 32 cars or double the amount a 0-6-0 could pull.
The limits I set are somewhat arbitrary, and may be adjusted a bit as time goes on. For now, they seem to fit well with my 22-24 car max train lengths. If my train length were greater, I'd probably go with larger cuts of cars for the switcher maximums.
Mark P.
Website: http://www.thecbandqinwyoming.comVideos: https://www.youtube.com/user/mabrunton
ATLANTIC CENTRALAnd there you have it, a few posts back I explained how I sized my yard.
Sheldon,I don't "Wabash" my industries on my ISLs either nor did every industries get switch every operation.. Some days my crew would need to pickup empties and spot off spot cars(if any) and take them to the interchange with no inbound cars to pickup while other days there may be 1-8 inbound cars. Some days there was no work to be done so,the crew put on their maintenace caps and service the engine or cut grass and weeds and do other maintenace work. Some days they get 4 hours show up pay and sent home.
BRAKIE OldEngineman Fill out the form below to create a new reply. OldEngineman wrote the following post 11 minutes ago: Indeed..We modelers have a tenancy to stuff cars on every track thus "Wabashing" our yard to the point where building a train requires a lot of movess and many of those moves may be unnecessary.. IMHO we should hold the cars to 60-70% of the yard capacity so we can have a workable yard.
OldEngineman Fill out the form below to create a new reply. OldEngineman wrote the following post 11 minutes ago:
Indeed..We modelers have a tenancy to stuff cars on every track thus "Wabashing" our yard to the point where building a train requires a lot of movess and many of those moves may be unnecessary..
IMHO we should hold the cars to 60-70% of the yard capacity so we can have a workable yard.
And there you have it, a few posts back I explained how I sized my yard.
I sized it based on train length and desired capacity using 75%.
This is not my first rodeo...........
Sheldon
PruittAll this discussion points up how over-simplified my one-car-per-driver rule is for switchers,
Mark,If I built standard large layouts instead of ISLs and if my yard lead permitted I would go with 3 cars per axle for 0-6-0s so,a 0-6-0 could pull 18 cars which would look about right. A 0-8-0 at 4 cars per axle could pull 32 cars or double the amount a 0-6-0 could pull.
This was the method used at the Columbus(Oh) HO club back in the 60s.
OldE's theorem:
No matter how many yard tracks you have, the number of cars and engines you have will increase proportionately until those tracks are filled to capacity.
ATLANTIC CENTRALLarry, much earlier is this thread Greg seemed to think that the train Chicago was always made up on the same track....... Sheldon
Nope,a train bound for Chicago out of Russell would be blocked for Queensgate,St.Louis( blocked with the Queensgate cars ) and then the Chicago block. The train would pickup cars bound for Chicago and any cars bound for intermediate yards between Queensgate and Chicago.
Back then the yard crew would remove the Queensgate block and add freight cars bound for intermediate yards between Queensgate and Chicago since the crew changed at Queensgate.
It was not unusual for the yard crew to use the road engines since they was already coupled to the train to do this switching since all that needs done is remove the Queensgate block and add the intermediate yard blocks and Chicago bound block.
All this discussion points up how over-simplified my one-car-per-driver rule is for switchers, as it ignores all aspects of the switcher beyond the number of drivers (like driver size, loco weight, piston size, etc., which all feed into tractive effort), but it serves it's purpose - it limits the cut of cars the switcher can handle to less than what a road engine can handle (I also simplify my road engines' assigned capacity in the same way, generally speaking). I choose to consider my switchers as relatively small examples of their classes. Yeah, in reality a small-drivered 0-8-0 could haul around a sizable number of cars at yard speeds, but in our model world, with rare exception, we wouldn't need anything BUT small switchers to accomplish everything. So I made up simple rules about how many cars yard switchers and road engines can handle.
In the closing days of steam, displaced road engines often wound up in yard service. High-drivered Pacifics, Ten Wheelers and even a few Northerns, from what I've read, spent time at the end of their days switching yards, even though they were horrible performers at low speeds.
gmpullman A couple documents you can read concerning the opening of the new Conway yard on the Pennsylvania Railroad: http://prr.railfan.net/documents/ConwayYard/ConwayPA_NewEastwardFreightCarClassificationYard.pdf http://prr.railfan.net/documents/ConwayYard/ConwayYardOnThePennsylvaniaRailroad.pdf May provide some insight. ATLANTIC CENTRAL The most modern 0-6-0's that I could find any hard numbers on have TE's in 17,000 to 20,000 lb range, I have some NYC RR diagram books showing a few classes of 0-6-0s in the 38,000 lb. tractive force range. An 0-8-0 at 57,210 lbs. and an 0-8-0 with booster at 74,460. Regards, Ed
A couple documents you can read concerning the opening of the new Conway yard on the Pennsylvania Railroad:
http://prr.railfan.net/documents/ConwayYard/ConwayPA_NewEastwardFreightCarClassificationYard.pdf
http://prr.railfan.net/documents/ConwayYard/ConwayYardOnThePennsylvaniaRailroad.pdf
May provide some insight.
ATLANTIC CENTRAL The most modern 0-6-0's that I could find any hard numbers on have TE's in 17,000 to 20,000 lb range,
I have some NYC RR diagram books showing a few classes of 0-6-0s in the 38,000 lb. tractive force range. An 0-8-0 at 57,210 lbs. and an 0-8-0 with booster at 74,460.
Regards, Ed
Yes, I know there were some that big. And as I noted above, many 0-8-0's were easily as heavy and powerful as many Mikes or Consolidations.
But many switchers were carryovers from the turn of the century, and were not "modern" in terms of size, weight or design.
Again, the problem with discussing steam is that wheel arrangement alone does not define them.
gregc ATLANTIC CENTRAL I sure wish I understood your question or your thinking on this? i'm curious if modelers are interested in building a layout as a RR would if it were building a new yard with more than enough tracks as Jeff confirmed, or an older yard with too few tracks that may require more challengine operation.
ATLANTIC CENTRAL I sure wish I understood your question or your thinking on this?
i'm curious if modelers are interested in building a layout as a RR would if it were building a new yard with more than enough tracks as Jeff confirmed, or an older yard with too few tracks that may require more challengine operation.
I don't think you are going to find any kind of concensus even among modelers interested in detailed prototype operation.
There are too many other variables that will effect each persons choices, prototype, era, available space just to name the obvious ones.
I have described in detail my freelanced version, and the operational math behind my choices.
In my case ALL of my destinations, other than the industries on the belt line, are off stage because I only model the one yard/city.
I will have thru trains the drop off/pick up blocks of cars. I will have trains that terminate and originate in the yard.
As discussed earlier, they will use whatever track is available at the yardmasters discretion.
Others have already commented with a wide variety of yard sizes and operational schemes, some fairly prototypical, some only intented to meet their operational needs and wants.
What do you want?
What kind of railroad are you modeling?
How much space do you have?
I want something that gives the impression of a Class I line running thru a small city in the Mid Atlantic in 1954. And conveys the feel of big time railroading in that era.
I have 1600 sq ft for the whole layout, the yard/terminal area and city background will cover a section of benchwork 4' deep and 40' long.
The rest of the layout will simply represent several miles of trackage leading to and from that city, and include several small towns and junctions. The double track mainline will have visable trackage about 250' in length, and about 150' in a hidden twice around track plan with staging yards all along the hidden area.
One of the visable junctions will be a wye, and the branch leg will lead to a hidden stub end staging yard of 10 to 12 tracks.
The layout will stage about 30 trains total, 6 to 8 will be passenger. So there will be about 24 freight trains in staging, or about three times what the yard can hold.
I think the size of the yard, and the volume of traffic, will convey that sense of big time railroading I am looking for.
The above may provide some insight.
ATLANTIC CENTRALThe most modern 0-6-0's that I could find any hard numbers on have TE's in 17,000 to 20,000 lb range,
BRAKIE ATLANTIC CENTRAL Everyone has explained above how yards are used as needed, yet you seem to be still locked into this idea of a track for each destination? Because that is how trains are built. Cars bound for point A&B will go into point As train with cars going beyond to point B will be blocked for point B since the terminal is beyond point A and will go on the same yard track whereas cars bound for points C&D would go on another track. Cars are not "cherry picked" but, the all the cars will be pulled from one track and classified onto tracks A,B,C,D,E according to the car's distination. Jeff is correct a lot of intermediate yards was built when 40 and 50 foot cars was the normal and are relics of the steam age.
ATLANTIC CENTRAL Everyone has explained above how yards are used as needed, yet you seem to be still locked into this idea of a track for each destination?
Because that is how trains are built. Cars bound for point A&B will go into point As train with cars going beyond to point B will be blocked for point B since the terminal is beyond point A and will go on the same yard track whereas cars bound for points C&D would go on another track.
Cars are not "cherry picked" but, the all the cars will be pulled from one track and classified onto tracks A,B,C,D,E according to the car's distination.
Jeff is correct a lot of intermediate yards was built when 40 and 50 foot cars was the normal and are relics of the steam age.
Larry, much earlier is this thread Greg seemed to think that the train Chicago was always made up on the same track.......
ATLANTIC CENTRALI sure wish I understood your question or your thinking on this?
greg - Philadelphia & Reading / Reading
ATLANTIC CENTRALEveryone has explained above how yards are used as needed, yet you seem to be still locked into this idea of a track for each destination?
PruittNo way should an 0-6-0 yard goat be able to move most of a train that will be hauled over the road by a Decapod, for example.
Actually that 0-6-0 could possibly pull that train seeing switch engines was built for low speed switching with high tractive force.
A SW1200 could pull 45-50s on the level.
gregc jeffhergert It would be designed for typical trains of today, with maybe some thought to the future. When that future arrives, it may or may not have been built big enough. so if you're laying out a yard on a model layout, do you have the appropriate number of tracks for all the destinations on your layout as if a railroad were designing a new layout? build the yard as it exists on the prototype you're modeling with various amounts of compression because it's a model and work with a limited number of tracks? intentionally build it with fewer tracks on your freelanced layout, typical of today's yards designed in the days of steam (19th century) and having a limited number of track because you want the feel of operation today (or in the 70s, 50s, 30s) with too few tracks?
jeffhergert It would be designed for typical trains of today, with maybe some thought to the future. When that future arrives, it may or may not have been built big enough.
so if you're laying out a yard on a model layout, do you
I sure wish I understood your question or your thinking on this?
It is clear you don't like my responses, but here goes. It seems to me you over think a lot of stuff.
Since when did steam only include the 19th century? Nothing on the prototype today, or even in 1930, was much of a carryover from the 19th century.
Railroading changed dramaticly from 1895 to 1920, and by 1930 the infrastructure of the class I lines was largely rebuilt from anything they did in the 19th century.
Everyone has explained above how yards are used as needed, yet you seem to be still locked into this idea of a track for each destination?
The size, scope, length, shape and functional design of prototype yards varies greatly by need, era, available space, etc.
And they all evolve or devolve based on changing needs.
My yard, on my new layout, will have 8 double ended tracks, each about 20' long, not because I have 8 destinations, but because I want it to hande 250 steam era freight cars and I want it to handle 35-40 car trains without doubling in or out, and 50-60 car trains with doubling.
Simple formula - 8 tracks x 40 cars each (6" each or 20') x .75 (75% capacity) = 240 cars.
The yard leads will handle 20-30 car cuts, and combined with the yard track will provide an arrival location for trains as long as 60 cars without fouling the main.
In addition there will be another siding for reefer icing that will handle 18-20 reefers.
And a sub end piggyback terminal with 6 tracks, aprox 4' long which will handle another 35 or more 50' piggyback flats from my 1954 era.
Adjacent there will also be an engine terminal that includes engine facilities, roundhouse, 135' turntable, caboose tracks, MOW storage tracks, etc.
Also, directly connected to the yard, two belt lines will serve two industrial areas, so local trains will not even need to go on the main, just like most major industrial areas.
By ANY prototype standard, it will still be selectively compressed for a class I line in 1954.
jeffhergertIt would be designed for typical trains of today, with maybe some thought to the future. When that future arrives, it may or may not have been built big enough.
gregc chris thanks for all the examples. appreciate the time to explain. if a RR yard were being built today, do you think it would be designed with not enough tracks?
chris
thanks for all the examples. appreciate the time to explain.
if a RR yard were being built today, do you think it would be designed with not enough tracks?
It would be designed for typical trains of today, with maybe some thought to the future. When that future arrives, it may or may not have been built big enough.
Many yards, especially intermediate yards - even at division points, are relics from the steam era. Built when 40 foot cars were the norm, and a 50 foot car was considered large. In my home terminal yard, most of the classification tracks are about 3600 feet, give or take. There are a few longer ones, with two being just over 5000 feet. Those two were probably considered arrival/departure tracks, but now they are just bowl tracks. Arriving trains, either that terminate or through trains setting out cars, use what ever track is clear and set out to what ever track is available. Trains that originate are built on which ever track(s) are available. Blocks to be picked up by through trains likewise are built on what ever track is available. Doubling, tripling, even quadroupling trains in and out of some yards is almost a daily occurance on the real thing.
When taking a train into Council Bluffs' original UP yard, I always say no matter how short the train is, the yardmaster will find a shorter track to yard you on. Requiring at least a double.
Jeff
Another example, the B&O took some good sized 2-8-0's and turned them into 0-8-0's. People ask why did they spend money to change them, why not just use them as switchers as is? By removing the lead truck, they increased the TE.........
The lead trucks are on there for steering at speed, something a switcher does not need.
gregc i think diesels replaced steam locomotives for similar reasons that jet engines replaced reciprocating engines ... easier to maintain. ATLANTIC CENTRAL The most modern 0-6-0's that I could find any hard numbers on have TE's in 17,000 to 20,000 lb range, the Weights in Working Order for Reading locomotives indicates that a B-9 0-6-0 has an adhesive weight of ~164 lbs, 25 % of is ~41000 lbs
i think diesels replaced steam locomotives for similar reasons that jet engines replaced reciprocating engines ... easier to maintain.
the Weights in Working Order for Reading locomotives indicates that a B-9 0-6-0 has an adhesive weight of ~164 lbs, 25 % of is ~41000 lbs
Well agreed, that is a big 0-6-0 and could likely go toe to toe with many 0-8-0's.
And there lies the other problem when discussing steam. Wheel arrangement alone does not begin to describe them.
Example, a GREAT NORTHERN O-8 Mikado is bigger, heavier, more powerful, and just as fast as most every 2-8-4 ever built.
Many of the most modern 2-8-0's were also easily as powerful as most Mikados, just not as fast.
Many 4-8-2's performed so well, railroads like the B&O never saw any need for 4-8-4's.
Unlike diesels, the endless number of designs in north american steam, and their application to specific operating conditions, really does require specific discussion, not broad generalizations.
Diesels vs steam, it was way more than the simpler maintenance. The superior starting ability of diesels, especially on grades, made it no contest.
Diesels also loose less adhesion in curves and grades, handle sharper curves with less track wear, and the list goes on......
All of this science is why diesels replaced steam.
First as switchers, second as helpers, then as passenger locos, and finally everywhere.
I know.
The most modern 0-6-0's that I could find any hard numbers on have TE's in 17,000 to 20,000 lb range, only about 40% of the 54,000 lbs of a USRA light Mikado or a typical large 2-8-0, let alone a decopod or larger.
Like Mark said, the 0-6-0 could only handle half the train, even at yard speeds.
ATLANTIC CENTRALIn short, a diesel can start more train than it can move at speed, and a steam loco can move at its design speed any train it can start.
that's because horsepower for a diesel can be constant, the same horsepower at starting as at speed.
horsepower is lbF * distance/time. since distance / time is speed, one way to look at it is lbF * speed and for costant horsepower, lbF decreases as speed increases.
steam locomotive horsepower is not constant, it increases with speed up to some point.
gregc Pruitt Drivers would start slipping before it ever got the thing moving. the chart below from Armstrong indicates that it takes ~5 lbF/ton to move an empty car, less for a loaded car. That's 250 lbF for a 50 ton car, 25000 lbF for a 100 car train. the MAX tractive effort (TE) of a locomotive is typically 25% of the weight on the drivers (adhesive weight). A 50 ton locomotive should have a TE of 12.5 T or 25,000 lbF horsepower is lb*ft/min, work / time. As Randy has pointed out, a low horsepower locomotive can pull a train slowly in the yard, but not at speed on the mainline.
Pruitt Drivers would start slipping before it ever got the thing moving.
the chart below from Armstrong indicates that it takes ~5 lbF/ton to move an empty car, less for a loaded car. That's 250 lbF for a 50 ton car, 25000 lbF for a 100 car train.
the MAX tractive effort (TE) of a locomotive is typically 25% of the weight on the drivers (adhesive weight). A 50 ton locomotive should have a TE of 12.5 T or 25,000 lbF
horsepower is lb*ft/min, work / time.
As Randy has pointed out, a low horsepower locomotive can pull a train slowly in the yard, but not at speed on the mainline.
There is some info in the link below about Tractive Effort regarding the differences between the starting ability of steam vs diesel you might want to read.
In short, a diesel can start more train than it can move at speed, and a steam loco can move at its design speed any train it can start.
http://webspace.webring.com/people/ib/budb3/
PruittDrivers would start slipping before it ever got the thing moving.
SeeYou190 Pruitt No way should an 0-6-0 yard goat be able to move most of a train that will be hauled over the road by a Decapod, for example. . Sure it could. The little 0-6-0 would just never be able to get that train up a grade or moving at road speed. . A typical 18 wheeler has a 425 horsepower engine to get 80,000 pounds up to 70 MPH quickly and effectively. It also needs to be able to pull 80,000 pounds up hill. . That same loaded trailer is hustled around a yard by a smaller truck with a 165 horsepower engine, and it handles it up to 30 MPH just fine. . That 0-6-0 in a level yard could probably assemble nearly any train needed. . -Kevin .
Pruitt No way should an 0-6-0 yard goat be able to move most of a train that will be hauled over the road by a Decapod, for example.
.
Sure it could. The little 0-6-0 would just never be able to get that train up a grade or moving at road speed.
A typical 18 wheeler has a 425 horsepower engine to get 80,000 pounds up to 70 MPH quickly and effectively. It also needs to be able to pull 80,000 pounds up hill.
That same loaded trailer is hustled around a yard by a smaller truck with a 165 horsepower engine, and it handles it up to 30 MPH just fine.
That 0-6-0 in a level yard could probably assemble nearly any train needed.
-Kevin
A big 0-8-0 can handle in a yard as much train as a big Consolidation or average Mikado can handle on the mainline. But as Mark says, an 0-6-0 lacks the necessary adhesion.
The B&O converted a number of 2-8-0's into 0-8-0's for this very reason.
SeeYou190.That 0-6-0 in a level yard could probably assemble nearly any train needed.
Assemble it, yes. Move it around whole? No. Drivers would start slipping before it ever got the thing moving.
The situation is not at all comparable to rubber tires on asphalt.
The issue is one of adhesion not horespower.