FORUM CLINIC: Designing for satisfying operations

[jfugate]

Resurrecting this FORUM CLINIC in case you haven't seen it yet ...

[jacon12]

Being new to the hobby, I was a little baffled by the operations side of running trains. Then I found a local club and attended one of their sessions. I was paired off with an experienced person and I couldn't have gotten a better one. He explained to me in simple terms what was going on and what my job was to be. I was the Head Uncoupler :) for the train. When I made a mistake, he said no problem we all did the same when we started. I'll be glad when I graduate to Engineer, but I think I'll stay with Head Uncoupler for a while til I really know what is happening and when it is supposed to happen. The attitude of my teacher that night probably made a confirmed rr modeler for life out of me.
Jacon

[jfugate]

Jacon:

Excellent post!

For the reason you give in your post, we do two-person crews on the Siskiyou Line when we have an op session. Not only is it more fun that way when you both are old hands because you can discuss switching moves and so on it's also an ideal format for including newbies in an op session.

Full-blown prototypical operation can be really intimidating if you've never done it before. But with two-person crews, I hand the newbie a throttle and say, "here, you run the locomotive and follow my instructions". Almost anyone can do that and have a great time learning the ropes in the process.

[Anonymous]

In response to SpaceMouse.

Ditto, but now Im confused...

In respsonse to jfugate...

If you have a double mainline...then one line is only used as a passing siding?!
And the other is the one that trains travel on? (-_- )? Now that doesnt seem right....

[jfugate]

JC:

These statistics are only that: statistics. They only tell you about the capacity needs and capabilities of your design.

Double track mains are a problem. Treating the distance between crossovers as the length of passing sidings solves the passing sidings issue.

The real point of multiple mains is how many more trains you can move. One approach would be to consider the other main to be a mix between connecting track and passing sidings.

Pick a starting point at a cross over, and consider the other main between there and the next crossover to be passing siding. Then the next stretch of main from that second crossover to the third crossover would become connecting track.

At the fourth crossover, the second main becomes passing siding again, and so on. Just leapfrog your way down the main between crossovers alternating between passing siding and connecting track.

This should have the intended effect on the formulas we want. You get lots of connecting track, which means you will be able to move a lot more trains on a multi-track main layout design than a single track main layout design -- which is what you expect.

As you add more mains, use a similar approach between crossovers alternating between passing siding and connecting track.

Or you can consider all those mains to just all be main lines, but that will skew the formulas because they are biased toward single track designs. If you make everything all mainline, they will give you results that treat your design as if it's all one long single-track mainline, not giving you any increase in cars moved capacity for those extra parallel mains -- and that's not correct at all.

Make sense?

[SpaceMouse]

Okay Joe, I think I know what you are going to say.

In my proposed layout, the staging yard is connected to the classification yard by dedicated track. Would not then the true relationship, in this case, be the size of the classification yard to the size of the passing sidings, since any train coming from the staging yard first has to pass through the classification yard--assuming the train will be broken down and not passed straight through.

[Don Gibson]

SP. Mousse
I'll take one of these for Joe:
RE Dual mains
Presumably these are bi directional - E & W bound for example. With a pair of Crossover's these can become a passing siding - over and back.

Joe described UP's using a third ' center' track for bi-directional passing. Santa Fe recently istalled a series of cross-over's on their Needle - Barstow run, to do the same thing.

A third track for passing or a cross-over requires reversing block wiring. DCC doesn't get you off the hook here.


As for you question of track routing through the yard's, I'll chicken out. I don't really understand what you want.

[jjbmish]

Just had to bring this back to the top. I've spent an hour reading and re-reading it and don't want to have to search for it again. Still in the planning stage so the timing was perfect.

Thanks Joe!

John

[ukguy]

jjbmish, if you mark this topic (or any other) as one of your watched topics (to do this... between the last post on the page and the quick reply box are two buttons in blue type), one states "Watch this topic" the other "Watched topic list". If you click watch this topic anytime you want to come back and find the topic all you need to do is click on "Watched topic List", this list will display the topics you have essentially 'bookmarked', select the one you want and this will bring you right back into the thread.

Hope this helps,
Karl.

[Anonymous]

Joe
I'm refining my yard plan. It has a two track receiving yard, four track classification yard, one runaround, one drill lead, one caboose track and one (hopefully two) storage tracks (or rip track). Did I forget anything?
How do you feel about double slip switches for saving space? Do they cause operational headaches? On my track plan a #6 Dbl Slp connects one arival track to the connector to the engine facility. It will only connect to the main line at the receiving yard and not out on the main anywhere.

[jfugate]

Double slip switches are rare on the prototype, most commonly used in passenger yards. One somewhere on the layout to help a tight spot get more track in is okay, but I'd go easy on their use. They can be tricky to use if you throw them manually instead of using some sort of route control.

Otherwise, you shouldn't have any probem. I don't have any on my layout, but my friend Charlie Comstock had one on his previous layout and it worked fine. No more headache than the 2 turnouts it replaces.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by jfugate

Double slip switches are rare on the prototype, most commonly used in passenger yards. One somewhere on the layout to help a tight spot get more track in is okay, but I'd go easy on their use. They can be tricky to use if you throw them manually instead of using some sort of route control.Otherwise, you shouldn't have any probem. I don't have any on my layout, but my friend Charlie Comstock had one on his previous layout and it worked fine. No more headache than the 2 turnouts it replaces.

Thank you sir!
The lead to the engine terminal is a reverse curve and adding a double slip switch will allow me to use a larger radius (without resorting to the dreaded "S" curve), and makes the track plan look cleaner. It will also allow a space for a runaround track in the receiving / departure yard.

[electrolove]

BUMP [:D]

[Anonymous]

"The lead to the engine terminal is a reverse curve and adding a double slip switch will allow me to use a larger radius (without resorting to the dreaded "S" curve), and makes the track plan look cleaner".

Good/logical place to use it... the real thing would have done if unavoidable. The only railway i know of in US and UK that actually liked SINGLE slips was the North Eastern railway... it's Grouping successor the LNER spent it's entire existence taking them out and replacing them with toe to toe conventional switches whenever it could (1923-1948). Double slips are EXPENSIVE... four ends where you only need two. Potential for problems with any heavy use... passenger terminals "justify" them because of limited space/real eastate values and weight (they hope) of traffic. Maintainers hate them. If it's your only way in and out of your depot try to fit in facing switches...can you use toe to toe Ys? ANYTHING BUT a puzzle switch.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by JCtrain

In response to SpaceMouse.

Ditto, but now Im confused...

In respsonse to jfugate...

If you have a double mainline...then one line is only used as a passing siding?!
And the other is the one that trains travel on? (-_- )? Now that doesnt seem right....

Haven't read all the pages yet... BUT... the one thing I never seem to see on models is trains running westbound on the eastbound main etc. this even shows in Trains Mag and other places... no-way I'd know about it otherwise.

Come on! You did it when running on Train Orders! WHY don't modellers do it/know about it.

I LOVE winding people up when I can run on modular layouts... all my CNW consists get set up to run left hand road... that's right way round...then "all the rest" are running "Wrong Road".

In the UK up to the 1980s pretty much all twin/multiple track except Paddington to the South West was one-line-one-direction. Anything else was "Reversible" if short/local. I don't know if it was the Western Main that introduced "Bi directional"... I'd heard about it but it still had an interesting effect on the intestines the first time a train came whizzing round the one I was in, in the same direction on the right hand track of two... only two!

Here most "Wrong Direction Movements" were similar to OOGs... "Out of Gauge Loads"... a pain... you hardly ever saw them... so you had to go and read up your Rule Book. To save himself time and writing later the Inspector might well phone you up when he knew a planned wrong-line or OOG was in the offing.

Running "Wrong Road" was unofficially known as running "Bang Road"... 'cos that was what you got if you did it wrong...

Running... or tieing up... wrong line was similar to a "Take Siding" order for a slower train... it got the train out of the way for a faster train to get ahead of it. The thing that the Dispatcher has to consider is the time that the slower train will take to get out of the way. This will depend in oart on whether it can run facing to the other line or siding or will have to stop and set back... added to which... setting back involves a propelling move = more risk of a car jumping the tracks and tieing up everything. It might be quicker to set the fast (passenger/ short/ expedite train back onto the opposite road and round a slow train than to risk messing about with a hundred or more very mixed cars and loads.

[Anonymous]

It occurs to me... "Why run Wrong-Line"?... apart from to utilise track time/space which was a bigger issue there than here... 200 miles of eastbound track standing idle while westbounds backed up did not make sense...
reasons...

to get round a failed train (to assist)
to work back onto a failed train
to move an OOG that would foul (usually a structure) on the inside of the normal road
... and others...

[Anonymous]

wpsteve page 1 what programmes do you use please?

REALLY GOOD THREAD!

Haven't read it all yet but some thoughts... I think a previous post got lost...

passing loops... I think someone's covered "saw-bys".

In the 70s I knew the Station Master at Wadebridge (Cornwall)... he told a tale of someone from the US getting him out of a bind during the 2nd World War. They had a long potato train and a long empty meeting in the wrong place... the "Yank" suggested a saw-by.

Facing and Trailing connections...
ALL connections are BOTH facing and trailing... it depends on the direction of travel.
What is facing one way is trailing the other.
FACING = where the route ahead diverges / gives a choice without stopping
TRAILING = where both of the routes converge into one / there is no choice of route without stopping and backing up.

Facing connections are the more dangerous... a train can split either / both sides on them. Until modern self locking switches facing connections in running lines were kept to a minimum in the UK. Like diamonds you seem a lot happier with them.

Planning connections to be all facing or trailing for convenience has been suggested. Possibly nice but probably boring. Okay, you pick some up you drop some off... you pick some up, you drop some off. When you're on a "Till finished shift and/or likely to be dead on the clock" these may be a good idea... you never get them then!

Out and Back on a "Turn"... yes a Branch train will set out going and pick up coming back... but not according to facing or trailing connections... it probably won't even work the connections one way round on each leg, The thing is that cars need to be switched to time constraints... new loads or empties need to be spotted as soon as the receiver wants them... he ain't going to wait while you go to the end of the line and back... he'll get a truck... they did... railroads folded.

Also... there's no point in taking cars beyond where they need to go just to get them a "convenient" side of the loco... this applies on mains as well as branches... moving an empty costs fuel... wears the car... risks incident... adds to train length and weight...

So, branch or main, if I have a car from a yard at A it might go into a train going to P at E... if it's wanted at J I will cut it out at J as far as possible.
If necessary I may cut it out at G and have another train move it to J.
I may even cut it out at L and bring it back myself on my return leg or have another train do it. There will have to be a GOOD reason to do this... the previous car may not have finished being un/loaded... in which case the customer may be charged for the extra work caused... good reason... but could the new car have been kept back and run direct? (Don't encourage him to use a truck).
What I won't do is take it on to P unless I absolutely have to.
If I can't lose it at J I will dispose of it in the most efficient way possible.
Similarly, if it is exchanging with a car at J, I will handle the other car as little as possible. If I can Iwill leave car 2 at J to be run back to A for the next load...THIS IS IF... it is something like a tank car in specific service... if it is a run-of-the-mill 50' Railbox Boxcar the empty in or out will do as little movement from/to it's last/next load.

Um... I've lost myself.

Okay. take a cement car... it will do the shortest route (subject to the road that got the contract getting the most revenue out of it) between the kilns and the user. It will go there and back. It will not go beyond, by the scenic route or take a holiday... unless there is a good reason for it.

Coal gons/hoppers can be ore gons/hoppers... so they may do one leg with coal, a leg empty, a leg with ore... if you can you will work in a leg with stone or whatever to shorten the empty leg back to the coalmine... what you are trying to achieve is as little empty running as possible.

EMPTY RUNNING COSTS MONEY

So a boxcar runs load to load... preferably loaded. The more time it MOVES loaded the better it pays for itself. If it ain't loaded it don't go...except to a load (or to get it the minimum distance out of the way)... as near as possible.
If it's loaded and not moving you want to be able to charge for it as a warehouse... if it's empty and not moving you want it on home turf where you won't be charged for the siding space it's using.

Um

So... how to get a car into a spur as simply as possible.

This starts with marshalling.
Big subject.
I have a 1903 "Special Traffic Notice" (STN) for the SECR which gives specific instruction that certain trains must be hauled clear of London "Rough Marshalled"... in other words... "Get the things out of here... clear the decks"... THEN they are to be shuffled at named locations both so that they will end up in the right trains AND so that they will end up in the best part of the train for what they want to do with it.

Some places it's easy to drop the caboose (if you have one), draw forward and shove a couple of cars back into a spur.
Other places the configuration of connections may make it easier to cut the train behind the cars to be left, draw forward and then set them back into a spur with as little between them and the loco as possible/
THE REASON for this is that cars derail far more easily/often when being propelled than when being hauled..., seen this on your layout?
SO YOU DON'T PUSH A HUNDRED CARS IF YOU CAN PU***WO...USUALLY.
Have you noticed... both these moves deal with trailing connections... stop, cut, draw ahead, set back.
NOW THEN. If you are swapping loads for empties... you will consider... do I get empties out first and put light cars between heavy when pushing the loads in... if the track is poor, curved, upgrade going in... you might be asking for trouble... those light cars squashed between the loads and the loco might decide to jump out sideways.
Then again... if the spur falls steeply going in you don't want to pu***onnage into it, attach the empties, pull the whole lot back out, detach the empties and then put the loads back in where you just pulled them out.
the overall answer to marshalling is local knowledge.
Just look at the knowing smiles when an "out of town" manager starts telling the locals "how to do it".

OKAY
So you're hauling a bunch of cars up to a facing spur...
For now you're going to have to get behind them and pu***hem in... so do you put them at the front of the train or at the back?
It will depend on the layout where you're cutting them out (to keep it simple). If you can get out of the way with the whole train, run round, pick them off the back and shove them in where they are going... you stick them on the back.
Elsewhare it may be easier to have them at the front... even in the middle. What you don't want to be doing is pushing a hundred cars to set out two... apart from cars jumping the track you can't see what you're doing.

SO YOU CAN'T run round at the facing spur... so run round where you can and (SLOWLY) pu***he cars ahead to the spur... whether you keep the train with you or go back forn it will depend on local conditions... such as are you out on the prairie on a single line or in the heart of Kansas City on multiple lines with fast moving traffic?
There are other answers... which include push poles, ropes and "fly shunting"... pushing and pulling...

[Anonymous]

Oops I got a few things wrong yesterday... must have been the sunshine

Here's a few replacement ideas to the duplicate...

Four ways round facing and trailing connections switching problems... that at least WERE used in the USA...
1. propel the cars to be set into a facing connection from the last suitable location to make the run round before the spur .
2. To get cars out of a facing spur use a push pole... i.e. cut the loco off from the train,
run past the facing switch... locate pole between loco and cars...[remember to
re- align switch] push cars out of siding/spur onto train [stop loco sort of
switch /reset switch]... attach cars to train and loco to train...off you go.
3. Use a rope... posiibly round a capstan
4. Fly shunt... tihs is FUN! and illegal... hump shunting without the hump but with the
loco pulling from the front not pushing from behind... don't get your switch changing
wrong!

[jfugate]

Wow, David ... nice post!

Keep 'em coming!

[Anonymous]

About double track main lines:

Most US and Canadian lines were and are single tracked. Some very important and well-known lines were double tracked (or even triple or quadruple tracked) to increase capacity. Operating rules were developed to address multiple tracks long ago.

While still using timetable-and-train-order rules, it's pretty easy to apply that regimen to double tracks. Just specify that the two tracks are to be operated with a particular "current of traffic" on each track, and designate which rules are to pertain to double track territory, and you're pretty well set.

Capacity can further be enhanced by adopting block signal rules (e.g., Rule 251) to supercede other rules of train superiority on double tracked lines for trains operating in the same direction; or better yet, by adopting Centralized Traffic Control Rules (e.g., Rule 261) for trains operating in both directions on both of the double tracked lines. Sophistication of the signalling systems will dictate whether block signalling or CTC wil be utilized.

Even on double tracked lines that do not have CTC, it's possible to operate trains on the "wrong main" (or against the current of traffic) by issuing appropriate train orders. A Form "D-R" train order might be issued in this format:

"No 1 has right over opposing trains on eastward track C to F."

Trains can also use the "wrong main" within yard limits to pass other trains in the same direction (i.e., by appropriately clearing the times of opposing First Class trains).

[Anonymous]

GREAT STUFF fiverings !!!

PLEASE TELL US MORE!!!

Like where to get copies of the Rules you quote...

Don't quite understand the last two paras. ...I may be being thick... please elaborate?

[Anonymous]

Prototype operating rules were published by individual railroads, although a number of roads adopted sets of standard rules. The "Consolidated Code of Operating Rules" is one such set. Rule books can be found on eBay and at train shows. They usually sell for $3 to $10, depending on condition.

[chateauricher]

bump

[Anonymous]

Well gang, after spending a few days reading this and the scenery post I am finally ready to ask some questions.

The layout I have now is an around the wall layout measuring 10x8x10, but soon will be expanding to another room for a mountian around the wall with a nolex.

The line that I model is the Maine Central Mountain Division in the fall of 1976. This line is a very unusual line with one end starting in a major city (Portland, Maine) and the end in a small remote city in Vermont (St. Johnsbury) The line starts around the docks and the major rail yard called Rigby in South Portland. The travels northwest for 65-70 miles before climbing into the steep grades in the White Mountains of New Hampshire, then levels off and continues west to St. Johnsbury.

There are several reasons I chose this line.
1. It has 2 daily manifest mixed freight trains (RY-1 and YR-2)
2. Several locals operating at either end
3. Requires 3-6 locomotives at the head end and 1-2 pushers at the rear to get over the mountains.
4. I get to model the port, 2 large paper mills, many small industries such as a cement plant.
5. Breath taking scenery.

Now, for my questions

1. How far between levels ???
2. I am using 2'x4' modules made from 1x3's and 2x4 sheets of 3/8 ply with 3/8 foam on top. How do I support the upper level ??? I am thinking of brackets.
3. Can the upper level be 24" deep ???

I am considering moving the existing layout to the top level and building the new part where the existing one is. I checked the height, the existing layout is about waist high (3'6" or so)

Thanks for the help,
and I love the clinics.

Josh in New Hampshire

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by jfugate

Wow, David ... nice post!

Keep 'em coming!

His ballast post was a great information overload [:)]

BTW Dave, maybe you have said before, but what line of work are you in to have so much at the finger tip knowledge??

[Isambard]

QUOTE: Originally posted by David Foster

Oops I got a few things wrong yesterday... must have been the sunshine

Here's a few replacement ideas to the duplicate...

Four ways round facing and trailing connections switching problems... that at least WERE used in the USA...
1. propel the cars to be set into a facing connection from the last suitable location to make the run round before the spur .
2. To get cars out of a facing spur use a push pole... i.e. cut the loco off from the train,
run past the facing switch... locate pole between loco and cars...[remember to
re- align switch] push cars out of siding/spur onto train [stop loco sort of
switch /reset switch]... attach cars to train and loco to train...off you go.
3. Use a rope... posiibly round a capstan
4. Fly shunt... tihs is FUN! and illegal... hump shunting without the hump but with the
loco pulling from the front not pushing from behind... don't get your switch changing
wrong!

[Isambard]

QUOTE: Originally posted by David Foster

Oops I got a few things wrong yesterday... must have been the sunshine

Here's a few replacement ideas to the duplicate...

Four ways round facing and trailing connections switching problems... that at least WERE used in the USA...
1. propel the cars to be set into a facing connection from the last suitable location to make the run round before the spur .
2. To get cars out of a facing spur use a push pole... i.e. cut the loco off from the train,
run past the facing switch... locate pole between loco and cars...[remember to
re- align switch] push cars out of siding/spur onto train [stop loco sort of
switch /reset switch]... attach cars to train and loco to train...off you go.
3. Use a rope... posiibly round a capstan
4. Fly shunt... tihs is FUN! and illegal... hump shunting without the hump but with the
loco pulling from the front not pushing from behind... don't get your switch changing
wrong!

Interesting to see reference to push poles. Were they not outlawed back in the 50's or earlier?
[:)][?]

[Anonymous]

Satisfying design operations.......I don't know. Pam Anderson on the layout table?????

[chateauricher]

QUOTE: Originally posted by nhguy21
The layout I have now is an around the wall layout measuring 10x8x10, but soon will be expanding to another room for a mountian around the wall with a nolex.

The line that I model is the Maine Central Mountain Division in the fall of 1976. This line is a very unusual line with one end starting in a major city (Portland, Maine) and the end in a small remote city in Vermont (St. Johnsbury) The line starts around the docks and the major rail yard called Rigby in South Portland. The travels northwest for 65-70 miles before climbing into the steep grades in the White Mountains of New Hampshire, then levels off and continues west to St. Johnsbury.

1. How far between levels ???

That depends partly on what scale you're working with; and personal preferences. I will soon be starting construction of a 2-level N-scale layout and I have designed for 15" from top-of-deck to top-of-deck. In some areas, that distance is reduced due to the terrain. I would suggest you keep a minimum of 12" (top-of-deck to top-of-deck) regardless of the scale you're using.

QUOTE: 2. I am using 2'x4' modules made from 1x3's and 2x4 sheets of 3/8 ply with 3/8 foam on top. How do I support the upper level ??? I am thinking of brackets.

In my case, for my upper deck, I am planning to use heavy-duty metal shelf brackets to support a plywood under-deck with 1" minimum of foam on top. Generally speaking, my upper deck will be 12 to 18" deep; with the exception of the area for a reversing loop, which will have slightly different support structure.

QUOTE: 3. Can the upper level be 24" deep ???

Yes, there should be no reason it cannot be 24" deep if properly supported. Also keep in mind the headroom required for the lower deck; and that the farther out from the wall, the less stable the cantilever support system will be. However, considering you probably won't be standing on the upper deck, you need only worry about the weight of the deck, terrain and trains.

QUOTE: I am considering moving the existing layout to the top level and building the new part where the existing one is. I checked the height, the existing layout is about waist high (3'6" or so)

That sounds like a big job. I hope you have some help holding up your existing layout while you add in the new supports.

Best of luck in your expansion project.

[Anonymous]

Forgot to mention that it was HO scale. Here are few pictures of the current layout, much has change in the last few months since they were taken.







Josh