first, i really like the Virginia & Truckahee layout design (yes, it's for small trains)
but i don't understand why the passing siding is on the switchback spur in the bottom right corner and not on the track leading up to the switchback. Is the entire train expected to back into the switchback, switch cars, reverse the engine and then back out of it?
greg - Philadelphia & Reading / Reading
I think it's a runaround track, not a passing siding.
Mark P.
Website: http://www.thecbandqinwyoming.comVideos: https://www.youtube.com/user/mabrunton
so wouldn't the "runaround" track be better on the main track, not the switchback?
doesn't this arrangement require the entire train to be in the switchback in order to reverse the engine position?
Is this about the tracks at camp #2?
Mike.
My You Tube
On a prototype, they might do that if there was more flat area up top near the camp than in the valley near the curve along the river and the bridge.
Also, there is a runaround/passign siding all the way down the hill at the mainline. The switchback has a series of facing and triling spurs, so I assume the railroad/modeler only needs the short runarounds to serve camps 2 and 1, since they are opposite in direction from the other spurs.
- Douglas
mbinsewi Is this about the tracks at camp #2? Mike.
Rich
Alton Junction
Doughless On a prototype, they might do that if there was more flat area up top near the camp than in the valley near the river and the bridge. With the plan, I have issues with the length of the tail track which limits the total number of cars that a train could have backing onto the switchback to begin with. With that short of a tail, I'd want to have a long siding parellel to the main to hold a long cut of cars as I break them up to fit onto the tail. A siding near the main, as you suggest. As it stands, the length of the runaround at the top seems too long in proportion to the tail track. It can hold about 6 cars where the tail can hold only about 3. All JMO.
On a prototype, they might do that if there was more flat area up top near the camp than in the valley near the river and the bridge.
With the plan, I have issues with the length of the tail track which limits the total number of cars that a train could have backing onto the switchback to begin with.
With that short of a tail, I'd want to have a long siding parellel to the main to hold a long cut of cars as I break them up to fit onto the tail. A siding near the main, as you suggest.
As it stands, the length of the runaround at the top seems too long in proportion to the tail track. It can hold about 6 cars where the tail can hold only about 3.
All JMO.
richhotrainreferencing the third track from the bottom.
actually the 4th. there's the bottom spur at camp #2, the 2 runaround tracks. the 4th from the bottom is the track going left to the mainline and right to the switchback.
i think the runaround would be better suited on that 4th track because train is limited by the switchback tail.
but Douglas' comment about grade makes sense
Two things. One, the track plans aren't 100% accurate. Two, they would have run very short trains. The motive power is small, light engines. Even if the tails could hold 6 or more cars, it's unlikely a single one of those small light locos could pull that many up the grade loaded, and in pre-air brake days, getting them down would be fun, too. Have to consider the era as well.
Edit: And looking at it again, both the runaround and the tail seem to be about a square and a half long - those are 24" squares, not 12", so that's 36". Which would be about 6 cars if you are thinking 40-50 foot cars. This is a 19th century layout, cars and locomotives were much smaller.
--Randy
Modeling the Reading Railroad in the 1950's
Visit my web site at www.readingeastpenn.com for construction updates, DCC Info, and more.
gregc richhotrain referencing the third track from the bottom. actually the 4th. there's the bottom spur at camp #2, the 2 runaround tracks. the 4th from the bottom is the track going left to the mainline and right to the switchback. i think the runaround would be better suited on that 4th track because train is limited by the switchback tail. but Douglas' comment about grade makes sense
richhotrain referencing the third track from the bottom.
I'm changing my previous comment as I look further at the plan. There is a runaround track at the mainline, which is all the way around to the bottom of the hill.
I think the idea is that with that long of a run to the camps and the mix of facing and trailing spurs, the railroad would always want the loco to be in the correct position (notably facing downhill as to keep the water in the boiler) so it has to take the train up the hill in one direction. The runarounds are to serve the camps that are facing the wrong direction to switch the cars once they arrive. JMO.
Doughlessthe railroad would always want the loco to be in the correct position (notably facing downhill as to keep the water in the boiler)
but the runaround doesn't change which direction the loco faces, just which end of the train it is on.
and i assume it handles trailing spurs on the way up and the facing spurs on the way down after the loco changed ends.
As I try to visualize the operation and direction of the locomotive, all of that track work at the bottom of the diagram originates at the bottom of the loop on the bottom left portion of the track diagram. Assuming that a locomotive enters that bottom track work facing east, without any provision down there to turn around the locomotive, it would have to back up all the way from the bottom right to the bottom left to exit the campsites.
I was just checking out the article. Page 33, picture 5 shows the train with a load, ready to shove down to the tail track, and on to the log dump at Ogden Mill.
It gives us an idea of which way the loco is facing.
mbinsewi I was just checking out the article. Page 33, picture 5 shows the train with a load, ready to shove down to the tail track, and on to the log dump at Ogden Mill. It gives us an idea of which way the loco is facing. Mike.
Where on the layout is the train with a load and which way is the loco facing?
richhotrainWhich article?
current issue
The lay out and story is in the April 2020 issue. Page 33 shows the train ready to leave the run around at camp 2.
The log loader is on the stub end track, at the bottom of the lay out plan, closest to the backdrop.
Well, now, I'm in trouble because I am not a subscriber.
I'll describe the scene to you Rich.
The loco is facing towards the tail track, or, the front of the loco faces to the right, in front of the loco are 2 loaded log cars, and a caboose at the end. The train is on the run around track.
In the scene, and going by the caption under the picture, the loco is ready to shove the train down to the tail track, and then, with the loco in reverse, head down the hill, eventually making it's way to the log dump pond at Ogden Mill.
Actually I think they would have run seam locos with the front facing up hill if possible, to keep the water over the crown sheet, this is th emost crtical part of the boiler. Run nose down on a steep grade, if enough water is kept in to cover the crown sheet, water could eb sucked int he steam dome and locomotive cylinders can't compress water any more than a car's internal combustion engine can.
With poor brakes, it was often the rule that the locomotive had to be on the downhill side, so perhaps push out of the top to the first tail, short run, less steep, then engine goign backwards on the downhills side downt he long main part of the grade
Or simply like most model railroads, compromises had to be made to get it all to fit, and leaving off some runarounds that would make for a more prototypical operation is the price to be paid to have it in there at all.
In the picture I'm describing, the loco would be running with the front facing up hill, once it left the tail track, and would be on the downhill side of the train.
If you have the issue, or the archives, you can see the picture on page 33.
PS. By the way Rich, my description of the scene would be as if you are looking at the track plan.
THey really need to fix the network/web server. Consistent timeouts result in duplicate posts.
I agree! It seems to happen about 5 or 6 times a day, or more.It's like it just shuts down.
Yes and I never know if the message posted or not - it appears most of the time it does. ANy other time if you refresh ot hit submit a second time, you get the warning that a duplicate post already exists.
Just died again, this time only for about 6 min.
Anyway! back on topic, I'm thinkin' that the run around is where it belongs, as the train sets out empty log cars, and makes up it's train of loaded log cars, for the trip back down.
Coming up the hill with emptys, loco facing forward, at the tail track, he shoves the emptys onto the middle track (with the caboose), moves the loads from the bottom track to the run around, moves the empty's onto the bottom (stub end with the log loader) track, uses the middle track to run around the loaded train, pulls into the run around track, and then shoves the loads back to the tail track, and then down the hill, as the train is positioned in the picture on page 33.
The caboose probably gets left with the emptys on the middle track, and after the loads are moved, the emptys are spotted, he pulls up, and moves the caboose to end of the loaded train.
couldn't all that be done with the runaround outside the switchback and with cars for other spurs on the track back to mound house?
stop at the run around, uncouples, pulls loaded cars from camp #2 out thru the switchback onto the empty runaround track, pulls then pushes empties from the runaround thru the switchback and spots them. then returns to the runaround and puts the train back together.
then service the 4 trailng spurs on the way down train back down hill to mound house
is the switchback tail long enough for all the cars on the track between camp #2 and Mound House?
Ok, I guess I got the direction of the locomotive the wrong way. I knew it was important. Having it point to the right at camp 2 is better.
The way I would operate it is to shove the entire train, if it was short enough, from the left side of the mainline and around the curve and up to the tail, switching the facing point switches as I went. This would keep the boiler oriented in the right direction and keep the loco on the heavy side of the train both up and down the hill.
I need the runaround at the top to switch that one trailing point that I can't switch since the loco is on the left side of the train as it enters camp 2. Its the only switch that faces that direction relative to the shoving of the train up the hill, so that's where the runaround is needed. All of the other switches on the branchline/switchback can be switched with the loco in the shoving position, loco facing right. The entire branchline operation is pretty simple actually.
What I can't see is the need for that short runaround at camp 1. And I would want a longer tail track at the camp 2 switchback.
DoughlessAnd I would want a longer tail track at the camp 2 switchback.
why do you need a longer tail?
gregccouldn't all that be done with the runaround outside the switchback and with cars for other spurs on the track back to mound house?
It would work the same, with the run around off the 4th track, as it does now.
Maybe off the 4th track, you could have a longer run around, which would be usefull depending on how many, if any, cars are in the train for the other spots.
Another thing, the grade from the trestle to the switchback is 2 1/2", so you'd want to make a flat area for the run around.
I think it works where it is, on top of the hill.
I guess if the location of the run around was causing an operating problem, the owner would have made changes.
gregc Doughless And I would want a longer tail track at the camp 2 switchback. why do you need a longer tail?
Doughless And I would want a longer tail track at the camp 2 switchback.
Because my train would carry all of the cars I needed to switch all of the camps in one train. I would take the empty cars for camp 1 2 and 3 in one train up the hill, then as I switched camps 1 and 3, I would have a consist of full cars from those camps and empty cars for camp 2. I would need a longer tail to hold all of those cars.
Given the short tail and runaround at camp 2 as it is, I'd probably use a separate train for that camp.
That would make for interesting operations....have a long train to serve the stamp mill, camps 1 and 3, then head back down to mound house, then have a shorter train to go directly to camp 2, being limited by the switchback.
But then I would want another yard track at mound house to hold the cars that I wasn't toting along up the hill.
Overall, there are probably more cars required at stamp mill, and camps 1, 2 and 3 than the siding at mound house can hold....if you don't want to have 4 short trains arriving at mound house for switching each stop one at a time.
I'd have to consider Randy's point about how long of a train a loco of that era could shove up the hill.
DoughlessThat would make for interesting operations....
i've always thought that RRs lay track to maximize efficiency.
so this trackage and landforms may not be optimal for operation interest -- entertainment
i also wonder if there is a RR preference for pulling or pushing trains up a steeper grade?