Looking at the trackplan for the new V&O in the Jan '04 MR, I noticed an immediate similarity to the Utah Belt in the previous issue. Is this a new trend?
Both were large, full basement layouts. Both had basically a trackplan of coming out of staging and/or a yard and then going across a mainline with only two sidings to get to another staging yard.
Is this a rejection of the "norm"of emphasizing mainline operation? With only two meeting points, if you get more than three trains out on the main at any given time, somebody’s going to spend a get deal of time waiting.
Is this intentionally downplaying the role of dispatcher? After all there are only three options for meeting trains. They meet at Lindale/KJ, they meet at new Garver or they meet at Undercliff.
Is the whole key to emphasize long trains at the expense of operating flexibility?The V&O has really cool opportunities for local operations and a sizeable branch. The Utah Belt had every on-line spur track save one breaking off in one direction. The local one way has all the work, the return trip is a hiball.
In both cases I was a little disappointed with the trackplans. Having admired the operations and previous layouts for so long I guess I was expecting more. I have basically the same trackplan schematic in 12x23 that they have in 4 or 5 times the square footage. I am not real satisfied with my trackplan because it has virtually no challenge for a dispatcher, as a matter of fact I don’t even roster the position.
What say ye?
Dave H.