Like just about everyone, I discovered that in order to pick up cars on left hand stub siding, I need to put the car on the front of the engine, and in order to pick up from right hand stub siding, I need to put the car on the back of the engine. Is this prototypical? Would 1930s steam do it this way? Would they put the cars on front in the back at the first “through” siding? For me its only 2 or 3 cars on the front. (Just 5-6 cars total). I have a mostly small steam Colorado Western layout.
Do you have a run-around siding? For the left hand, leave the train, except for the cars(s) to be set out, on the main before the siding. Pull forward on the main and drop the set out cars opposite the run-around and use the run around to get behind the cars. Push to their sidings and drop. Back to the main to get the rest of the train.
The usual termonology is facing point and trailing point sidings.
Well, if you have a runaround siding, then you can put the car on the back yes. I am talking about where I have no runaround (none anywhere close by that is).
George is right on if you have the run-around siding. If not, you can do as the prototype often did/does: set out the “right-hand” (trailing-point) cars on the trip out, then set out the remaining ones on the way back. And, if that doesn’t work, you can stick the facing-point cars in front of the engine where you can, and shove them into their sidings that way. I’ve seen locals do that when they have to. Not a good practice, but anything’s possible.
With pushing some cars you have to run the train much more slowly, yard speed. If the next runaraound is far away. what about working this stub track on the return trip. Then it’s a trailing point and the cars are this time behind the engine.
Wolfgang
Yes, you can pick them up on the return trip, but really, that wouldnt be very prototypcal at all. In my case, they are all ore cars, headed for the ore processing facility, and need to go there, not the opposite direction!! This is the trouble with having loops. Loops arent protypical at all (though they are fun and make it so your train runs without any operator input). I do have a loop. I considered not having a loop. When you get into prototypical ops, the loop should be ignored, IMO.
On the prototype they would:
A: Have a runaround to get the cars in front of the engine.
B: Work the trailing point switches while traveling in one direction, then work the facing point switches when coming back the other direction later that day or the next day.
c: Drop the cars by. The engine speeds up, slacks off, the cars are uncoupled from the engine, the engine heads into the spur, the switchman lines the switch for the main. The cars roll by the switch, the engine comes back out on the main and gets the cars.
D: As an absolute last resort, shove the cars ahead. When shoving cars you have to run at a reduced speed, you have to have a person riding on the leading end of the leading car, and you have to stop short of road crossings until the person on the point has protected the crossing or the warning devices have activated and traffic has stopped.
Dave H.
Generally running a ‘train’ with cars on both sides of the engine would only be done in a crowded industrial area or little used rural branch line well off the mainline, and even then probably only for short distances. I suspect it would be frowned upon or not allowed at all (either by law or by railroad rules) in situations where the train had to cross roads at grade.
In a situation like you describe, a real railroad would probably build a run-around siding (which I assume is what you mean by a “through siding”) near the spur track long enough to allow the engine to set out the 2-3 cars and then back up the train and couple the cars up to the front of the engine so it could push them into the facing point spur track.
If your layout is a continous loop, and is too small for a short (say 2’ in HO scale) runaround siding, or a way for the train to turn itself (reverse loop, or at least a turntable for the engine) I guess you could just run some trains clockwise and some counter-clockwise, and switch only the trailing point spurs in each direction.
How about keeping a switcher on the stub siding that can push the car in and out for the mainline train? I think that could work. Would it be prototypical? (In my case, i have lots of engines, but no runaround in this area). Which would be cheaper? Keeping a switcher on a stub siding all the time, or building a runaround?
It is certainly an option, but in real life only major industries would have a dedicated switcher or their own switcher. A few companies like grain elevators have rail “tractors” that can shove around a couple cars at a time. For a model you could always pretend it was a big industry… As far as cost goes, once again in real life it would depend on the geography but generally building a siding would be much cheaper. Not only in inital costs but in maintenance. A swicher would require a crew, who would want to be paid. Cost for modeling it would obviously be cheaper to us the switcher since you already have the loco and don’t have to pay model size crews to run it. [:)]
Right now my options seem to be either to put the ore cars on the front, OR keep a switcher on the siding. Putting in a runaround in this area would be very difficult for me. It’s all mountainous, but I’ll do a feasability study. It’s kind of an interesting problem to have really, I have other places with trailing and leading point and they have a runaround, so having this handicap makes for interesting ops, IMO.
I would think that any appreciable movement on a main, ie outside yard limits, would require a caboose leading the freight cars being pushed.
I don’t know if there’s any correlation with present-day railroading, but it’s not uncommon to see local freight today using this arrangement. I see a train like this all the time on a BNSF double-track main near my house, where there aren’t many run-around sidings, and blocking the opposing main for switching is rather impractical.
A common train would be: caboose, freight car(s), diesel, freight car(s), caboose. It looked odd the first time I saw it, but I like the operational possibilities with modeling such an arrangment!
Most of the cabooses currently being used are often really “shoving platforms” being used for a crewman to stand with a radio telling the engineer what to do. This is usually on a line where there isn’t an easy way to turn around. I see this very often going to-from work on the CP. The train starts at Pig’s Eye yard and runs a couple miles south along the Mississippi to the Marathon Oil refinery. A typical train would going south would be engines (two SOO GP’s), tank cars, and SOO caboose. On the way back, the SOO caboose would be in the lead with one or two crewmen on the back platform, then the tank cars, and the engines pushing in the rear.
CHOICES:
IF YOU DON’T have a run-around, build or RUN the trains the OTHER direction!
If that’s what I think it is, your Flying the Point. Which I believe was illegal in EVERY US railroad. Something about cars moving ith no control or braking method, except the one that involves shattering sounds…
Here’s a thought. Hire 3 large guys, pull the engine up pas=t the siding, and have these people push the cars onto the track. heir small. [:D]
I realize that this is slightly off the topic, (and may not be prototypical), but I use two double slip switches and two crossovers within my seven track stub end yard, besides the usual ladder, which enables the switcher to get to any track “within” the yard. So as not to interfere with mainline traffic, there is a long run-around with a spur from the ladder, which is used by the yard switcher to drag and drop cars from any yard track, in proper order, to the center of one of the long “run-around tracks”. The other track of the run-around is used by the mainline passenger trains, or by freight locos to drop or back up to pick up fairly long strngs of cars, while travelling in either direction.
Can you post a diagram of the track plan, HHPath56?
Quite prototypical, in fact. In the late '60s I actually saw a 4-wheeled box car being repositioned by a team of women!
Getting back to the idea of a dedicated switcher, what would it do beside switch one cut of cars a day? Are there other sidings for other types of cars? Do the ore cars have to be spotted individually for loading? Do they have to be sorted into a different sequence for some metallurgical reason? Each ‘yes’ increases the probability that the prototype would use a dedicated switcher.
Chuck (modeling Central Japan in September, 1964)
What you’re describing is called “switching on the fly” I believe. Except normally the engine sticks to the main and the car is switched onto the siding. I actually saw this done in a yard years ago. I was standing there taking pictures and watching this SW moving cars around. All of a suddent I heard it really rev up and accelerate. The carman riding the car uncoupled, the engine pulled ahead, the switchamn threw the switch to the siding and the car rolled onto the siding. I’ll never forget this because the when they were done they switchman turned around and look at me andsaid “Have you ever seen anyone do that before?” I didn’t have much of an answer.
Oh yea, this kindo of move would be difficult to pull off with a model.
jktrains
Saw that done about two weeks ago (flying switch move) [:-^] Not telling where, because it’s fun to watch. [(-D]
Although I bet it could be replicated using the magnematic couplers…Run the train over the magnet to uncouple the rear cars that aren’t needed, back it up so that you have enough space to get momentum, pull forward over the magnet with enough speed/momentum and speed up as the loco. seperates and then quickly press the button for the switch. Might have to slow the locomotive slightly to put a little slack in the coupler so that the magnet can trip it while moving.