This is a hobby where often ignorance is bliss and too much knowledge is a bad thing. I just received my December issue of MR and the first thing I read was Tony Koester's article on interchanges. The last form of interchange he wrote of was transfer runs which he suggested could be simulated by having the classification yard near the staging yard. This is exactly how I designed my layout with transfer runs in mind. My eastern staging yard consists of a 3 track loop and each loop can hold too long trains or three short ones. All trains enter the staging loop and return as a westbound train. Then I read further and discovered that work rules dictate that transfer runs are only made by the originating railroad and that the crews would return empty. This throws a monkey wrench into my operating scheme. It is impractical with the set up of my staging yard to fiddle the transfer train and put on locos and a caboose for the railroad I am interchanging with. I was perfectly happy with the scheme I had and now I know it is not prototypical.
This looks like a perfect time to invoke the "It's my railroad" rule.
It seems to me that the only problem is you need more locos. Some being duplicates of others - so that you can have a transfer run from your modeled railroad into stanging, and then have the same locos return deadhead without uncoupling the train in staging. Or add a couple of straight tracks (not loops) in staging to handle the transfer runs off the layout so that the transfer engines don't get stuck behind 2 other trains on the loops.
--Randy
Modeling the Reading Railroad in the 1950's
Visit my web site at www.readingeastpenn.com for construction updates, DCC Info, and more.
Let the staging represent a yard that is jointly owned with the RR that is the target of the transfer. Then you can continue to run as you have without breaking the rules.
I have the right to remain silent. By posting here I have given up that right and accept that anything I say can and will be used as evidence to critique me.
carl425 Let the staging represent a yard that is jointly owned with the RR that is the target of the transfer. Then you can continue to run as you have without breaking the rules.
Sounds like a plan. Do you know how common a practice this was? Even though my layout is freelanced, I like to run my railroad as prototypically as possible.
Reconfiguring the yard at this point would be a major project. To save space I stacked the east and west staging loops and the east staging loop where the transfer runs are made is on the lower level. I'd have to pretty much take it apart and completely rebuild both loops.
jecorbett Then I read further and discovered that work rules dictate that transfer runs are only made by the originating railroad and that the crews would return empty. This throws a monkey wrench into my operating scheme.
Then I read further and discovered that work rules dictate that transfer runs are only made by the originating railroad and that the crews would return empty. This throws a monkey wrench into my operating scheme.
I am relying on my memory here (VERY dangerous) but my recollection is that in Peoria the BN and the Peoria & Pekin Union used to follow the transfer run rule as Koester sets it forth but eventually agreed (which undoubtedly also needed the brotherhoods [unions] to agree as well) to an alternating scheme where one railroad's crew could both drop off and pick up at the interchange. Whether they alternated on a montly basis, or six month basis, or yearly basis, I do not know.
It might be that this arrangement was brought about due to dwindling amounts of interchange. Again, I do not know.
Somewhat similarly, in Rochelle IL the C&NW and the BN had an arrangement where they would trade off which one would service a nearby Del Monte plant. I have photos of both railroads' switchers on the lead track southwest of the diamond, but never both railroads on the same day. Since that work was somewhat seasonal given that it was a food processing business, they may have found some way to make the trade offs fair in terms of volume and revenue. But the actual lead itself came off the BN so perhaps they claimed priority.
Dave Nelson
While I fully understand what Tony is saying because I worked a interchange job several times while braking on the PRR. I need not worry about that because that doesn't cover every transfer and Tony should have went one step further.
A short line can deliver and pick up their cars at the connecting road yard,a terminal switching road simply picks up or drops their cars up at the interchange track.
A example would be my SCR or SSRy makes a trip to the interchange track to pick up the inbounds and after switching the industries the crew takes the empties to the interchange.This is done to keep from paying a detention fee.
Fast forward to today and under joint trackage rights railroads interchange complete trains.
CSX/NS interchanges cars in Marion on a common interchange track-both crews pick up and setsout the interchange cars.No interchange train needed.
PRR/N&W did their Interchanging at PenNor yard-a jointly operated yard where complete coal trains was handed off to the PRR for forwarding to heavy industries or lake ports.
PenNor yard would be the way to model a major interchange.
There is always a exception or as I like to say all things railroad may bite you..
As a edited addition.
N&W/NYC interchanged loaded and empty N&W hopper trains by simply leaving the loads,run around the inbound cars and pick up the empties.
Larry
Conductor.
Summerset Ry.
"Stay Alert, Don't get hurt Safety First!"
jecorbettSounds like a plan. Do you know how common a practice this was? Even though my layout is freelanced, I like to run my railroad as prototypically as possible.
The only reason I know about this at all is because the N&W and L&N shared a yard at Norton, VA which is on the line that I am modeling. Norton was the end of the line for both roads. The L&N came to Norton from the west ans N&W from the east.
I can't speak for how common it was elsewhere because I haven't done the research, but I believe you can find many spots in the country where one railroad's line starts where another ends.
carl425 jecorbett Sounds like a plan. Do you know how common a practice this was? Even though my layout is freelanced, I like to run my railroad as prototypically as possible. The only reason I know about this at all is because the N&W and L&N shared a yard at Norton, VA which is on the line that I am modeling. Norton was the end of the line for both roads. The L&N came to Norton from the west ans N&W from the east. I can't speak for how common it was elsewhere because I haven't done the research, but I believe you can find many spots in the country where one railroad's line starts where another ends.
jecorbett Sounds like a plan. Do you know how common a practice this was? Even though my layout is freelanced, I like to run my railroad as prototypically as possible.
In my scheme, my freelanced railroad theoretically ends where the east end hidden staging begins. It has traffic rights over the NYC to their yards in Weekhawken similar to the arrangement the NYC had with the NYOW. My operating scheme also calls for transfer runs to be made to the Pennsy and CNJ yards in the New Jersey area. With the loop staging, these trains would then return to my main classification yard either later in the operating session or during the next session with the same cars it departed with. The second part is where it seems to conflict with what Tony said normal procedures would be. It seems like an easier task to come up with a plausible reason for these transfers to return with cars received from those yards than to redesign the yard according to Tony's suggestion.
One of these days I may decide to reconfigure the staging yards so rather than have them stacked, the east staging would move under a branch line penisula now under construction and then I could probably incorporate Tony's scheme but that would require some major surgery to the layout and is way out on the horizon.
It appears your railroad is set at some time in the past. Work rules could be greatly modified by local agreements and could be very different in areas a few miles apart on the same railroad. Most of the interchange work I am familiar with on a couple large eastern roads involved placing and pulling the interchange on the same trip. Sometimes a "arbitrary" payment ( maybe 45 minutes or an hour) was made to the crew, sometimes not. It all depended on what the Brotherhoods could work out with the carrier.
Don't worry about it. Your railroad is freelanced. Run it the way you want and let the Union officials and Labor Relations sort out the details.
There are many different types of interchange and many different agreements.
The arrangement where each road delivers (but doesn't pull) is typically used for "yard to yard" interchange where cars come into a yard, are classified and then delivered to the other road.
This does not cover the situation where there is a run through train that terminates (and originates) in another railroad's yard or a through freight sets out (and picks up) directly from another railroad and doesn't terminate.
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
My understanding is the one about railroad A being able to drop off cars at railroad B, but not pick up cars and bring them back, is pretty universal...perhaps part of some national agreement.
As Larry mentioned, that's why there have for over a 100 years been transfer railroads. They can be a completely separate railroad, or can be a road jointly owned by other railroads in the city / area. For example, in Duluth MN / Superior WI, the Lake Superior Terminal and Transfer Ry was jointly owned (c.1968) by Great Northern, Northern Pacific, Soo Line, and CNW. It could move cars back and forth from one railroad to the other with no problems.
Check out the Belt Ry of Chicago, Minnesota Transfer (now Minnesota Commercial in Mpls/St.Paul, Terminal RR Association in St. Louis, and others.
DSO17 It appears your railroad is set at some time in the past. Work rules could be greatly modified by local agreements and could be very different in areas a few miles apart on the same railroad. Most of the interchange work I am familiar with on a couple large eastern roads involved placing and pulling the interchange on the same trip. Sometimes a "arbitrary" payment ( maybe 45 minutes or an hour) was made to the crew, sometimes not. It all depended on what the Brotherhoods could work out with the carrier. Don't worry about it. Your railroad is freelanced. Run it the way you want and let the Union officials and Labor Relations sort out the details.
This seems to be the best option. What are they going to do? Go on strike?
In an ideal world we'd all have a big basement with room for multiple trains of prototypical length, run by full crews, with full signaling, or TT&TO and operators writing orders, and interchange ops like the prototype.
Tony has some very strong prototype beliefs. Sure, would be great. The rest of us however have to deal with a real world of limitations, small spaces, small staging (if any), and one man or just a few operators. But rather than stress over not being perfect, let ourselves slide back into an earlier generation of model railroading that used a "good enough" philosophy and realize that some compromises are good enough to still be fun.
jim
jmbjmb In an ideal world we'd all have a big basement with room for multiple trains of prototypical length, run by full crews, with full signaling, or TT&TO and operators writing orders, and interchange ops like the prototype. Tony has some very strong prototype beliefs. Sure, would be great. The rest of us however have to deal with a real world of limitations, small spaces, small staging (if any), and one man or just a few operators. But rather than stress over not being perfect, let ourselves slide back into an earlier generation of model railroading that used a "good enough" philosophy and realize that some compromises are good enough to still be fun. jim
I pretty much agree with most of this. We pick and choose the things we compromise on and how much we compromise. Being a freelancer gives me the freedom to do what I want with my railroad but one of the things I want is to operate my railroad as prototypically as possible. I don't want to adopt an anything goes attitude. I want it to look and operate as if it could have existed in the real world.
This gets back to my comment in the OP that ignorance is bliss. I was perfectly happy operating my transfer runs the way I was because I didn't know it wasn't prototypical. Now I do know so I am forced to compromise and do something that was not a common practice. That seems to be a better choice than ripping up my staging yards and reconfiguring them to allow for a more prototypical practice.
jecorbett This is a hobby where often ignorance is bliss and too much knowledge is a bad thing. I just received my December issue of MR and the first thing I read was Tony Koester's article on interchanges. <snip> This looks like a perfect time to invoke the "It's my railroad" rule.
This is a hobby where often ignorance is bliss and too much knowledge is a bad thing. I just received my December issue of MR and the first thing I read was Tony Koester's article on interchanges. <snip>
The only way to keep ignorant is to stop learning about real railroads and bury your head in the sand.
So why didn't the "It's my railroad" rule work? If it did, you wouldn't have needed to comment as you did in the title of this topic. <now where is my staples button?> " That was easy.
Rio Grande. The Action Road - Focus 1977-1983
Possible solution:
Transfers between your railroad's yard and the "other" railroad's yard (staging) are handled by a separate fictional "terminal & transfer" railroad that is co-owned by both railroads. The terminal & transfer railroad's motive power include some diesels leased from your railroad. So the transfer runs are done using your railroad's engines, but it's really the terminal & transfer railroad and their employees that are moving the cars, not yours.
If I understand the original post, you're having a train run 'off layout' as a transfer to another railroad; then later, the exact same train (same engines, same cars) comes back having gone through a reverse loop, but now is a different train? Having the same train both ways doesn't seem all that realistic to me.
You have a three-track loop, right? So your railroad assembles a transfer drag in the yard that will go to staging - the 'other railroad'. It runs into loop track 1, uncouples the cars, and the engine(s) come back light. (Let's for the moment say that we don't need to use cabooses to make it simpler.)
On track 2 you have a different set of cars, with an engine or engines of the other railroad. At some point after the first train runs, the second train comes out of staging, brings a new set of cars to your yard, and then the other road's engines return light to staging.
Later still, if you want, your railroad's engines could run into staging, grab the cars it earlier put there (the first transfer train) and bring that back to your yard, treating it as a new transfer. Or you could use an empty track in staging set up a new train of cars for it to pick up.
Seems to me that adds more interesting operations than just having a train run 'off layout' heading one direction, then come back heading the other direction pretending to be a new train.
wjstix Seems to me that adds more interesting operations than just having a train run 'off layout' heading one direction, then come back heading the other direction pretending to be a new train.
Pretending is what this hobby is all about.
Being a lone wolf operator, loop staging yard are the best option because I don't have to stage trains. I'm hardly the first to us loop staging yards and not the first one to stack the loops to save space. That limits what can be done with trains in staging, particularly on the lower loop. The covenience of the loop staging yard to me outweighs the limits of what can be done with the consists when they are in staging. When the same consist returns westbound that entered the staging yard eastbound, it isn't very obvious since it happens either much later in the session or in the next operating session. By that time at least a dozen or more trains will have passed over the layout.
What era are you modeling? I found in a 1975 RI switchmen's schedule reference to a 1972 agreement (I think a national agreement) that allows transfer jobs to handle cars both ways. Delivering and receiving cars. It also talks about this being dependent on contracts and practices with the interchanging railroad. In a nutshell, just because the work rules allow the practice, the other railroad also has to agree to it. They may have reasons on why they only want you to deliver and not take cars back. On a model railroad this probably isn't much of an obstacle.
Jeff
wjstix Possible solution: Transfers between your railroad's yard and the "other" railroad's yard (staging) are handled by a separate fictional "terminal & transfer" railroad that is co-owned by both railroads. The terminal & transfer railroad's motive power include some diesels leased from your railroad. So the transfer runs are done using your railroad's engines, but it's really the terminal & transfer railroad and their employees that are moving the cars, not yours.
jecorbett In my scheme, my freelanced railroad theoretically ends where the east end hidden staging begins. It has traffic rights over the NYC to their yards in Weekhawken similar to the arrangement the NYC had with the NYOW.
In my scheme, my freelanced railroad theoretically ends where the east end hidden staging begins. It has traffic rights over the NYC to their yards in Weekhawken similar to the arrangement the NYC had with the NYOW.
The simplest solution is to have an imaginary terminal line that all the interchanges are made through (think IHB or BRC in Chicago). Your railroad makes runs to and from the terminal line yard, represented by staging. The PRR makes interchange runs to and from the terminal line. The CNJ makes interchanges runs to and from the terminal line. All the cuts are exchanged at the terminal yard. Since you don't model that part, all you see is your transfer job going to the "terminal line" and then your transfer job coming back from the "terminal line".
This all assumes the transfer jobs are cuts switched up out of the yard. If they are run through trains (through freight comes into yard, maybe set out a block, maybe picks up cars for another road, then runs as a run through train with a road crew and road power to the other road) then you don't have a problem at all, that is a completely different type of interchange than Tony was describing.
jeffhergertOn a model railroad this probably isn't much of an obstacle.
Depending how much a modeler wants to emulate the prototype. My railroads Huron River,Summerset Ry and Slate Creek Rail returns all empties to the interchange track in order to keep from paying detention fees to the owning railroads.Once a car hits the interchange its off property and becomes the connecting road responsibility.
dehusman jecorbett In my scheme, my freelanced railroad theoretically ends where the east end hidden staging begins. It has traffic rights over the NYC to their yards in Weekhawken similar to the arrangement the NYC had with the NYOW. The simplest solution is to have an imaginary terminal line that all the interchanges are made through (think IHB or BRC in Chicago). Your railroad makes runs to and from the terminal line yard, represented by staging. The PRR makes interchange runs to and from the terminal line. The CNJ makes interchanges runs to and from the terminal line. All the cuts are exchanged at the terminal yard. Since you don't model that part, all you see is your transfer job going to the "terminal line" and then your transfer job coming back from the "terminal line". This all assumes the transfer jobs are cuts switched up out of the yard. If they are run through trains (through freight comes into yard, maybe set out a block, maybe picks up cars for another road, then runs as a run through train with a road crew and road power to the other road) then you don't have a problem at all, that is a completely different type of interchange than Tony was describing.
Seems like a plausible solution. The only downside I see is it could mean one less train to run. Right now the operating scheme calls for a seperate transfer run to CNJ and Pennsy. If they are going to the same yard, it would mean one long train instead of two shorter ones. I suppose I could do two transfers to the same yard in a single operating session.
My transfer runs all originate in the main classificaltion yard. Trains come in from various points west and are broken up for either local setouts or transfers to points east. I do have two through freights a day going to the NYC yards at Weekhawken, one of which is a priority freight. They will each set out and pick up a cut in my main yard and then continue through with no change of power.
jeffhergert What era are you modeling? I found in a 1975 RI switchmen's schedule reference to a 1972 agreement (I think a national agreement) that allows transfer jobs to handle cars both ways. Delivering and receiving cars. It also talks about this being dependent on contracts and practices with the interchanging railroad. In a nutshell, just because the work rules allow the practice, the other railroad also has to agree to it. They may have reasons on why they only want you to deliver and not take cars back. On a model railroad this probably isn't much of an obstacle. Jeff
My railroad is set in 1956, which I believe is about the same period as Tony Koester's NKP layout. His too is a transition era railroad with Berkshires sharing the duties with first generation diesels.
dehusmanThis all assumes the transfer jobs are cuts switched up out of the yard. If they are run through trains (through freight comes into yard, maybe set out a block, maybe picks up cars for another road, then runs as a run through train with a road crew and road power to the other road) then you don't have a problem at all, that is a completely different type of interchange than Tony was describing.
Another one not mention is the interchange that takes place in the middle of no where on the division.If the L&N crosses the CD&B's Holston River Sub then cars can be interchanged at that point.
jecorbettSeems like a plausible solution. The only downside I see is it could mean one less train to run. Right now the operating scheme calls for a seperate transfer run to CNJ and Pennsy. If they are going to the same yard, it would mean one long train instead of two shorter ones. I suppose I could do two transfers to the same yard in a single operating session.
Nothing says the terminal road switches the trains, they might just do the interchange and nothing says they do it all in the same yard, they might do interchange in different places in different yards with different railroads. Plus the different railroads may have different connections so they may need their interchange connections by specific times to make the connections.
The New York and New Jersey Terminal Co. has 4 yards : Empire, City, Newark Bay and Durham. NYNJ does interchange with the NYC at Empire, the CNJ and RDG at Newark Bay, the PRR at City and DLW at Durham.
Your yard builds an Empire and City train, but since the RDG has a 3am cut off and the CNJ has a 2 pm cutoff, you have to run 2 different trains to Newark Bay.
Since you only model the connection to the NYNJ, you have to model the different yards but you can make the different connecting trains/transfers.
dehusman jecorbett Seems like a plausible solution. The only downside I see is it could mean one less train to run. Right now the operating scheme calls for a seperate transfer run to CNJ and Pennsy. If they are going to the same yard, it would mean one long train instead of two shorter ones. I suppose I could do two transfers to the same yard in a single operating session. Nothing says the terminal road switches the trains, they might just do the interchange and nothing says they do it all in the same yard, they might do interchange in different places in different yards with different railroads. Plus the different railroads may have different connections so they may need their interchange connections by specific times to make the connections. The New York and New Jersey Terminal Co. has 4 yards : Empire, City, Newark Bay and Durham. NYNJ does interchange with the NYC at Empire, the CNJ and RDG at Newark Bay, the PRR at City and DLW at Durham. Your yard builds an Empire and City train, but since the RDG has a 3am cut off and the CNJ has a 2 pm cutoff, you have to run 2 different trains to Newark Bay. Since you only model the connection to the NYNJ, you have to model the different yards but you can make the different connecting trains/transfers.
jecorbett Seems like a plausible solution. The only downside I see is it could mean one less train to run. Right now the operating scheme calls for a seperate transfer run to CNJ and Pennsy. If they are going to the same yard, it would mean one long train instead of two shorter ones. I suppose I could do two transfers to the same yard in a single operating session.
I'm not sure if you are speaking of a hypothetical transfer company or an actual one. I'm guessing it is the former but if this was an actual company so much the better.
I really don't have to model seperate yards since they are all represented by a single hidden staging loop. I'm just looking to find a plausible reason to be able to continue to make my transfer runs as I have been before I learned from Tony Koester's article that what I was doing might not be a prototypical practice.
jecorbettI'm not sure if you are speaking of a hypothetical transfer company or an actual one. I'm guessing it is the former but if this was an actual company so much the better.
There was and still is some transfer railroads left like the IHB,BRC,TRRA(St.Louis) and at one time the EJ&E.
Allow to mention another type of transfer railroad..A paper transfer railroad could be used without restrictions to preform transfer services..
This is how some railroads got around the various work agreements concerning transfer work.
Working a transfer was gravy work-you made one trip with cars and returned to the yard with a engine and caboose-5 men crew for around three hours actual work. The remainer of the time you sit around drinking coffee and swapping fishing and hunting stories.Some times there was even railroad stories of the old days and current railroad affairs.
Another simple approach is to have 3 foreign road engines pull the transfer cuts from the 3 loop tracks and have the 'home' road shove their cuts into the spaces that have been vacated (that way the locos can escape). It is a great opportunity to own 3 foreign road engines.
Grinnell
Ah, the Railway Labor Act........all temptations to joke aside, the reality is that work rules provisions do get renegotiated from time to time- and when management and labor find something that's mutually beneficial, surprising things can happen. Sometimes both want to do something in one particular spot, and the result is a "side letter" that stipulates where and when and why that very particular something can get done differently. It isn't necessarily common - but there's an exception to every rule, somewhere, somehow.
It's up to you to imagine what combinaction of management imperatives and labor incentives led your model railroad to operate the way it does: and don't be afraid that the resulting story will be improbable, because it can't be: someplace, sometime, it probably happened.
http://mprailway.blogspot.com
"The first transition era - wood to steel!"