North American Junctions and other things....

[trisonic]

Does anyone have links to photos of junction trackwork in the US or Canada from double mainline down to one (on the secondary/branch route)?

 

 

Do the same rules apply regarding Facing and Trailing turnouts as the UK?

 

This could be a useful discussion, I hope.

 

Best, Pete.

[The Stationmaster]

Do you mean in terms of the way the pointwork is supposed to be arranged Pete (e.g. in Britain a junction between two single lines had to be double track to double track at one time)? That oddity certainly doesn't seem to have happened anywhere off our island (except possibly in foreign bits which we happened to be in charge of at some time) and all the pics I've seen of 'simple' US junctions are just a turnout (or three) with signlling or whatever to suit.

[Glorious NSE]

I'd agree, forget what you've learned about the normal way of arranging track over here and start with a blank canvas, then for the most part think of the moves you need and put in the simplest and least amount of track to let those moves happen. Job done.

 

Very liberating after years of having to think in terms of minimising facing points.

[trisonic]

Couple of things, Mike.

 

 

Personally, I'm looking at modern up to date working practices for pointwork - I'm happy if anyone comes in with historic stuff too.

 

I'm also playing Devil's Advocate to get a ball rolling on the subject - vive le difference kind of thing (oops, I'm mixing up my wotsits). I'm happy if someone comes in to point out the obvious in great detail!

 

Wait until I start a thread on different early gauges (and why) in the 'States................

 

Best, Pete.

 

PS The biggest pain in the butt is when I flick/flack between trans - atlantic terminology.

[jamie92208]

One that I would suggest would be Daggett CA where the UP line to Yermo and Salt lake City leave the BNSF Transwcon after coming up Cahon. The diverging track is mainly single Google earth should show you the track layout.

 

Cheers

 

Jamie

[trisonic]

Jamie,

The Google "map" of Daggett is as clear as mud! It "looks" like a single line approaches from the west then splits into a double line - but, infact, that is the start (and end) of the Junction. The northenmost line splits again into two, which does look like a double line then curves around to the North whilst the other single heads off to the East.

I think I've got that right?

 

Best, Pete.

[F-UnitMad]

All I 'know' (i.e. have read or heard) is that US Railroads are far less scared of facing points than UK Railways... same goes for diamond ('flat'?) crossings, especially out on the main line.

[Allegheny1600]

Wait until I start a thread on different early gauges (and why) in the 'States................

Best, Pete.

Oooh - all about the broad gauges, eh? Careful - that may well get political!!!!!!

But,.....very interesting!

PS The biggest pain in the butt is when I flick/flack between trans - atlantic terminology.

Yep, been there, done that! Temporarily gave up on US outline once and a couple years later, had to re-learn everything again!

 

Anyway - can anyone tell me?

How common are three way switches over there, please? Can't be too rare as Walthers/Shinohara make them but I just can't recall seeing any for ages?

John E.

[trisonic]

Dunno how common they are now - most railroads go by whatever is cheapest.....

 

Here's a link to a photo of a Santa Fe one, built in 1928 at San Diego then later moved to a museum:http://www.sdrm.org/gallery/campo/3way-sw-mid.jpg

 

Best, Pete.

[Ozexpatriate]

All I 'know' (i.e. have read or heard) is that US Railroads are far less scared of facing points than UK Railways... same goes for diamond ('flat'?) crossings, especially out on the main line.

I think this is derivative of the way railways developed in the Victorian era. The priorities for the railway to be competitive were just different.

 

In Britain:

• Railways enacted by Parliament (and Parliamentary interests)
  
• Enormous legal oversight - there would be questions in Parliament after an accident and the members 'with an interest' in the railway might be embarrassed!
  
• Fenced right of way - to satisfy landowners
  
• Construction to maximize high-speed running
  
• Block signalling
  
• Brake vans
  
• Shunting only in yards
  
• Trailing points/cross overs, trap points
  

 

In North America:

• Railroads built by the "robber barons" - little legal oversight
  
• No fences
  
• Brakemen walking on (and falling from) catwalks
  
• Construction to maximize miles of track per $ spent
  
• Cheap bridges, trackage, etc
  
• Comparatively low speed running
  
• Switching isolated industries on the main line
  
• Operation by train orders / timetable
  

 

My favourite example is trap points. I don't remember any discussion of a trap point in US model railroading. I don't even know if they are ever employed - it's such a non-issue. But submit a track plan without them for a British prototype and you'll hear about it (and rightly so).

[Sir Ray]

All I 'know' (i.e. have read or heard) is that US Railroads are far less scared of facing points than UK Railways...

Facing points vs trailing points? As I'm familiar with them, trailing point sidings means the train proceeds past the siding switch, and then backs into the siding - easier to switch; facing point sidings, the train crew needs somehow push the cut of cars ahead of them into the siding - the locomotive is at the base of a 'Y', facing the fork. 3 ways I can remember to serve this - 1) find a run-around siding, run the locomotive to the rear of the cut of cars, and then push them into the siding - 2) Becoming more common nowadays - two locomotives at each end of the train - move the head locomotive out of the way, and push the cut with the tail locomotive - 3) Since a large percentage of industrial/branch/freight mains in North America are single tracked - simply haul the cut of cars (and the rest of the train) to the next terminal, and then as the local makes its way back treat the siding as a trailing siding (which it now is). This is probably not what anyone wanted to know, but maybe it will help, I dunno.

 

same goes for diamond ('flat'?) crossings, especially out on the main line.

From time to time, you read about trackwork in places like Railpace Magazine or Railroad.net, and it seems nowadays railroads like to replace diamonds when they can with switches - I'm not sure exactly why.

OTOH, the NYCH once had diamond crossings across the main for it's sidings to get enough swing radius - example Bing View here which is actually kind of cool, but would require some decent track-laying skills to duplicate.

[Sir Ray]

My favourite example is trap points. I don't remember any discussion of a trap point in US model railroading. I don't even know if they are ever employed - it's such a non-issue. But submit a track plan without them for a British prototype and you'll hear about it (and rightly so).

Reading the Wiki article on them, I think the closest analog would be derails in North American railroading (which are fairly common) - especially this type.

[trisonic]

Ozexpatriate, <div>I'd agree except high speed running on mainlines. I was reading somewhere about US Streamlined steam locos regularly attaining speeds of 120mph. <br>Shortlines are still slow but any of the big Class 1 lines have double tracked mainlines somewhere quite capable of handling 10,000 feet freight trains at 60 - to - 70 mph - that's a lot of goods travelling pretty fast!<br><br>Near me is a section of NS mainline beautifully maintained, concrete ties, the lot as good as any European non high speed line. When I get my camera sorted I'll take some pics of it.<br><br>Best, Pete.

 

</div>

[Ozexpatriate]

Wait until I start a thread on different early gauges (and why) in the 'States................

At least it ended well - unlike Australia where the story goes something along the lines of, "there was an Englishman, and Irishman and a Scotsman".

[Ozexpatriate]

Ozexpatriate, I'd agree except high speed running on mainlines. I was reading somewhere about US Streamlined steam locos regularly attaining speeds of 120mph. Shortlines are still slow but any of the big Class 1 lines have double tracked mainlines somewhere quite capable of handling 10,000 feet freight trains at 60 - to - 70 mph - that's a lot of goods travelling pretty fast! Near me is a section of NS mainline beautifully maintained, concrete ties, the lot as good as any European non high speed line. When I get my camera sorted I'll take some pics of it.

Best, Pete.

Yes, but ...

 

I suspect the high-speed lines out of the major east coast and mid-west cities were re-engineered for speed long after they were originally constructed and once this became a competitive differentiator between railroads.

 

The Milwaukee Road's streamlined class A Atlantic was authenticated at 112.5 mph on May 15, 1935 in the wilds of Wisconsin and this was the world record for steam power at the time. They were easily capable of 120mph.

 

To underscore what I meant, contrast the construction of Brunel's billiard table from Paddington to Bristol (c1841) with the way the UP built their section of the transcontinental railroad (c1869).

 

The UP actually included serpentine meanders in their trackage because it increased the mileage of track. Why? Congress (and many congressmen were of course shareholders in the UPRR) was paying the UP by the mile. For profitability purposes they increased the mileage and decreased the investment in infrastructure per mile. While the UP might be an extreme case, I suspect all US railroads suffered from the effects of distance and construction costs, particularly in the Victorian era when the kind of policies we are talking about (like trailing points) became enshrined.

[trisonic]

Yes.

Mind you Brunel didn't get it all right. I guess you've read about the first Reading Station?

 

You know I wish we could all meet for a beer.

 

Best, Pete.

[Ozexpatriate]

My favourite example is trap points. I don't remember any discussion of a trap point in US model railroading. I don't even know if they are ever employed - it's such a non-issue. But submit a track plan without them for a British prototype and you'll hear about it (and rightly so).

Reading the Wiki article on them, I think the closest analog would be derails in North American railroading (which are fairly common) - especially this type.

Yes, derails are commonly used and discussed in US modelling - with particular attention to the 'blue flag'. Being a cheaper alternative to trap/catch points they fit into this theme, though I haven't noticed any like the Stoke Gifford catch-point picture you referenced. That looks like an essentially British trap point to me.

[Ozexpatriate]

You know I wish we could all meet for a beer.

Yes, that would be nice.

[Allegheny1600]

You know I wish we could all meet for a beer.

I'll get the beers in - if you get the flights!

John E.

[dave1905]

Does anyone have links to photos of junction trackwork in the US or Canada from double mainline down to one (on the secondary/branch route)?

 

What are you asking about?

 

The end of double track where it goes from double to single track?

 

A single track branch joining a double track main?

 

The first is just a switch.

 

The second is a switch with maybe a crossover beyond it.

 

Do the same rules apply regarding Facing and Trailing turnouts as the UK?

 

Since I know of no rules in the US regarding facing and trailing point turnouts and have no idea what the rules are in the uk, I would say no.

 

Pretty much how the branch joins is how the branch joins. There are hundreds of variations in the details depending on the traffic, and the physical arrangement.

[dave1905]

I think this is derivative of the way railways developed in the Victorian era. The priorities for the railway to be competitive were just different.

 

In Britain:

• Railways enacted by Parliament (and Parliamentary interests)
  
• Enormous legal oversight - there would be questions in Parliament after an accident and the members 'with an interest' in the railway might be embarrassed!
  
• Fenced right of way - to satisfy landowners
  
• Construction to maximize high-speed running
  
• Block signalling
  
• Brake vans
  
• Shunting only in yards
  
• Trailing points/cross overs, trap points
  

 

In North America:

• Railroads built by the "robber barons" - little legal oversight
  
• No fences
  
• Brakemen walking on (and falling from) catwalks
  
• Construction to maximize miles of track per $ spent
  
• Cheap bridges, trackage, etc
  
• Comparatively low speed running
  
• Switching isolated industries on the main line
  
• Operation by train orders / timetable
  

 

My favourite example is trap points. I don't remember any discussion of a trap point in US model railroading. I don't even know if they are ever employed - it's such a non-issue. But submit a track plan without them for a British prototype and you'll hear about it (and rightly so).

 

First off the "robber barons" only operated for a couple decades and in a limited area. Not all railroads were built by "robber barons".

 

Not all railroads were built on land grant right of ways and they were not free, the railroads had to grant the US government reduced rates over those routes. Back in the 1980's the US government lifted the land grant rates after a study showed that the benefit from the reduced rates charged over 100 years (The Spanish American War, WW1, WW2, the Korean War the Vietnam war and all the government shipments in between) more than recouped the cost of the land.

 

Also remember that after the 1920's there was several times more mileage with automatic block signal systems in use in the US (that also use timetable and train order) than manual block mileage in the UK. Just because a territory is controlled by TT&TO, doesn't mean it doesn't have automatic or manual block systems in effect at the same time.

 

Brakemen walking on the roofwalks was primarily until the invention of the Westinghouse air brakes (invented in the US by the way) when it made brakemen on the roofwalks mostly obsolete. The US required standard air brakes on ALL interchanged equipment, required standard couplers, required standard grab iron and safety appliance placement all before the UK. Having sanders to improve stopping capability on engines has been standard in the US since the 1800's.

 

Comparing US railroads to the UK's system is an apples to oranges comparison. Its like assuming that the NE Corridor of the US is typical of the the entire US railway system. I would like somebody just once to compare the US operation to some operation controlled by the British that is comparable in size and geography to the US, something like the Indian railroads. The railroads in India where designed by the British, financed by the British, built by the British, operated by the British to rules the British wrote and operated through terrain and over distances much more comparable to the US. I would think that that would be a much fairer comparison.

 

Were the railroads in India built by capitalists?

How much legal oversight did they have?

Were all the right of ways in India fenced?

Was the construction of track in India done to maximize the miles of track to the dollars spent?

How fast did the Indian railroads typically operate?

Did the Indian railroads use the same control systems at the same density that the railroads in the UK used?

[dave1905]

Yes, derails are commonly used and discussed in US modelling - with particular attention to the 'blue flag'. Being a cheaper alternative to trap/catch points they fit into this theme, though I haven't noticed any like the Stoke Gifford catch-point picture you referenced. That looks like an essentially British trap point to me.

 

Actually blue flags really have nothing to do with this discussion. Blue flags are exclusively used to indicate that there are persons work on or about a train. They are exclusively used by the mechanical department to protect their workers while inspecting, repairing or maintaining rolling stock. Derails are used in conjunction with blue flags to protect the workers but have nothing to do with junctions or "point work" per se.

[dave1905]

 

How common are three way switches over there, please? Can't be too rare as Walthers/Shinohara make them but I just can't recall seeing any for ages?

 

 

Depends on how you define "common". They exist and can be found in hump yards and some major terminals, but I would say that there are maybe a 10,000 or more regular switches to every "3 way switch". Walthers and Shinohara sell MODEL trackwork. Just because modelers like to use them doesn't mean they are commonly used by real railroads. Modelers like to use "scissors crossovers" (aka double crossovers) in main tracks, but the only place I have ever seen them is a few major passenger terminals and some hump yards.

[dave1905]

To underscore what I meant, contrast the construction of Brunel's billiard table from Paddington to Bristol (c1841) with the way the UP built their section of the transcontinental railroad (c1869).

 

While you are contrasting it, also contrast where they were being built. The UP was built across a vast prairie and over a continental divide. How many 8000 ft elevations did Brunel cross? There were no trees for the first several hundred miles of the UP's construction. All of the ties had to be brought in from hundreds of miles away.

 

After the lines were built it took years to build up the traffic base to support the railroad. Remember that the original UP went bankrupt and was bought by EH Harriman. You don't need 100 mile an hour trains to serve an area that only has a couple thousand residents (not riders or customers, but residents).

[BR60103]

I remember that Canadian Pacific's line across Ontario split into 2 at Glen Tay (just west of Perth). The line from the east was double and the two going west were single.

I've forgotten the actual arrangement, but it was either: two lines form to one then split, or a right-hand then left-hand crossover and the two lines run in separate directions.

 

For flat crossings, in Brampton the ex-CPR line crosses the CNR line with two flat crossings -- nearly 90 degrees.

At West Toronto, the junction I remember involved the remains of probably 4 railways (3 became CPR, the other CNR).

double track CPR east-west, double track CNR north-south. A single CPR line parallels the CNR, on the east side north of the junction, then it crosses the two CN tracks (shallow crossings) and then the two CP tracks. CPR had curves in the northeast and southwest quadrants. The CP line was rebuilt to remove the CP-CP diamonds and the whole thing is being changed to an underpass.