First, let me repeat the set up of my freelance railroad:
Suppose my towns are from west to east, A, B, C, D, and E. Towns A and E are division points. A is represented by the western staging yard will E is a modeled division point with a staging yard to the east of that to represent the next division. Further, town B is an unmodeled subdivision point yard. Theoretically, there are rural industries between A and B that the eastbound local from division point A would service. Town C is the western most modeled town on the layout, with two simulated interchanges, a small yard, and several industries with spurs facing in both directions. The eastbound and westbound locals meet in town B. The crews trade trains and return to their respective home bases. If the westbound local enters town C with cars for both the trailing point and facing point spurs, would it be prototypical for them to spot the cars on the trailing point spurs only but leave the cars for the facing point spurs in the yard at town C and then on the return trip through town C spot those cars at their destinations when they will now be destined for trailing point spurs. Town C does contain a runaround track so it is possible to do it either way. Which would be more prototypical?
First I would do as superintendent would be to either negoiate a new agreement where the trains operate A to E one day and E to A the next or make straight turns where the crew from A took his train to B and then returned (with his original engine and caboose) back to A and the other local ran from E to B and then returned with his engine and caboose back to E. Cut out the added expense of having one train wait for the other at B.
As to your question, it could be done either way. at the crews discretion.
The concept of having the crews swap locals at point B which is theoretically the midpoint of the division was one I got from Tony Koester’s book on operations. He stated that some railroads operated this way. He stated that it was cheaper to do it this way. I’m assuming because it allows both crews to return home each night, presumably saving the railroad the cost of overnight stays for the crews. I’ve toyed with the idea of having this meet done on at the modeled town C which would provide additional operating interest.
It’s possible, for the crews to swap in the middle. It would be much more common for one local to run A to B and then B to A; while the other runs C to B and then B back to C on the same day.
The locals I’ve operated normally spot the trailing points going out, and then the facing points coming back. Although, one operated push - pull (with an engine on both ends), so we serviced each industry as we came to it, useing the appropriate engine.
That would work. I rana local here that swapped cars at a station with another crew and went back home. Most through trains do just that go on through. Short lines however you dont have such stringent work agreements so their " through tain" could wind up hitting every stop on the line.
This is a case of adjusting model operations to fit model limitations. On the prototype facing and trailing point switches are only a minor nusiance…if you have a car for a facing point spur, you drop it in.
Division points during the steam era would be roughly 100-150 miles apart, which would only really require a single local switch job along the division per day. Unless the industry density was REALLY high, there would be no reason for a daily east AND westbound. Only if the division was relatively short (less than 100 miles) would there normally be a bi-directional local, and that would be the same train heading home.
One thing to keep in mind: there is no reason why a manifest freight shouldn’t do some online switching, or at least setouts of cars in town for a local to spot later. That action would replace at least one of the locals daily.
Sounds like there’s enough density in town to justify an assigned switcher and a small “yard” (1 to 2 tracks). The switcher would take cars dropped off at the yard by manifest trains, spot them, and make the required pickups and drop offs at the interchanges. Wityh a locally assigned switch crew, there would be no reason to clog up the area with mainline freights shuffling cars around all day (and killing their own schedule)
I suppose this was done in some places, but it wouldn’t be common. During the steam era, engineers and conductors “owned” certain runs, engines, crews, and cabooses. It wouldn’t be until the diesel era and pool service that crews didn’t care which engine/caboose they ran, and would exchange entire trains. I even tink that there were union rules precluding this sort of practice.
jecorbett
in your profile tou dont mention where you live. where i am bnsf has a local crew that spots tank cars at folgers and boxcars at an aluminum plant plus rail flats and gondolas for panel switches(turnouts) the industry lead is facing point switch, the next town south has a siding of i guess the local goes there and runs around ttrain to faciltatae switching, then returns to the yard. road crews also come into the yard and set out or pick up cars for their respective trains.
it would be best if you can get out during the week to watch the local switch in your town or another town that they serve.
Why not have all your locals based at town C? It is very prototypical to have train’s starting point at outlying yards if the business justifies it, and it your case it would make for more operational challenges and fun. First, designate one eastbound and one westbound road train as trains that would set off and pick up at yard C. The cars that you are setting off should be positioned at front of the train. In fact, the two road train should terminate or orginate in the yard at point E and not the staging yard. Even better, use the same power for the train. This would be protypical and does occur on many lines, at least on CSX.