RMweb Premium jamie92208 Posted June 15, 2011 RMweb Premium Share Posted June 15, 2011 Another junction that I may have a photo of is Dale junction WY where the No 3 track (Built 1953) over Sherman joins the rebuilt double track line that Harriman put in in 1910 when he rebuilt the line over Sherman to reduce grades and double the track. I k now that the traffic over No 3 is usually westbound so that there is very little eastbound traffic through the divergent junction. Looking at Daggett on Google I think that it is a single diverging track from the Transcon that then goes back to double to form a passing loop where Westbound UP trains can wait while traffic comes off the BNSF Eastbound. Jamie Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glorious NSE Posted June 15, 2011 Share Posted June 15, 2011 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. <short version> In 'traditional' UK layout design facing points were avoided, they required a facing point lock which cost money. Due to that rule various UK track arrangements were (in some places still are!) very common which weren't neccesarily optimal in terms of traffic flow. For example using refuge sidings (spurs) which needed trains to back in to clear the main instead of loops where they could head in loco first. Crossovers on a double main line would also virtually always be trailing, so any requirement for a train to run wrong line would involve the train backing across to the wrong line and continuing forward. The only places they would *have* to use a facing point would be at termini or main line junctions. As a comparison - here's a 'middle of nowhere' set of passing tracks, no station, no industry, just a place where you can get a slow freight out of the way of a fast passenger train - the upper one is a common arrangement on bits of the UP for example, the lower one would be a typical British way of doing it. Most of that doesn't apply to the modern railway (either side of the water!) though unless in the context of somewhere that retains traditional signalling and layout. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Talltim Posted June 15, 2011 Share Posted June 15, 2011 For the Americans in this thread it might be worth explaining the UK rules on facing points. If you come at it with no knowledge at all they do seem pretty arcane! The basic premise is that travelling over a facing point is more dangerous than a trailing point. A facing point may be set the wrong way (a trailing point set the wrong way should have no effect on a train travelling over it) or may not be set set properly to either road, due to a fault. Thus track layouts were designed, wherever possible, to eliminate facing points, the Midland railway is renowned for being extra hot on this. Obviously single track lines could not avoid them, but multiple-tracked lines usually only had trailing crossovers and sidings, even to the extent that many refuge sidings (laybys to allow slow moving goods trains to get out the way of passenger trains) had only a trailing connection, requiring the train be reversed in, which seems very hard work to me the first time I saw one (on a layout). The rules on facing points were stricter for passenger lines than goods only. Any facing points on a passenger line needed to have extra interlocking and facing point locks to help prevent derailments. With the advent of power signalling the practise has become more relaxed and there are many facing point on passenger lines. The facing point lock requirements are still in place. However the legacy of the the older practice is still evident in many places, especially where the surrounding infrastructure makes track layout change hard. Edit: shouldn;t have taken so long typing, Martyn beat me to it! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
trisonic Posted June 15, 2011 Author Share Posted June 15, 2011 Thanks for taking the time out to explain the differences between the two systems. Most useful. I've certainly seen "howlers" on both sides of the Atlantic where locals have built layouts using local working knowledge and applied it to the "foreign" layout. It's another good reason to model what you actually see. Best, Pete. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prof Klyzlr Posted June 15, 2011 Share Posted June 15, 2011 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". Dear OzEx, My sense of "correctness" would be offended, IF I didn't know how disturbingly close it is to the Truth... :-) (best laugh I've had all day... ) Happy Modelling, Aim to Improve. Prof Klyzlr Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glorious NSE Posted June 15, 2011 Share Posted June 15, 2011 Definately, there was a layout in Model Railroader a few years back that was basically LMS trains running on what would have been quite a nice track layout for a midwestern secondary route, but to somebody used to UK track layouts I suspect was just not at all believable. I suspect it's much easier for us over here to 'unlearn' the restrictions of older British practise though than vice-versa, it's harder to get it wrong in that direction IMHO. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prof Klyzlr Posted June 15, 2011 Share Posted June 15, 2011 I'll get the beers in - if you get the flights! John E. Dear US fans, Will advise as soon as I'm on my way to the airport... In all seriousness, if you find yourself down here in Sydney Australia, doors open, and the coffee (and/or tea, and/or beer) is on... Happy Modelling, Aim to Improve, Prof Klyzlr Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prof Klyzlr Posted June 15, 2011 Share Posted June 15, 2011 Dear Junction Fans, Can I reccomend picking up a copy of the 1995 Model Railroad Planning annual from Kalmbach, particularly the headline "Joy of Junctions" article by Paul Dolkos. Very instructional, and covers most variations of US junctions. Furthur, also fleshes out the operational potential of RR<>RR interchanges at junctions. It's also worth keeping in mind that junctions that are "long since past being junctions" can still hold ops appeal in "modern eras". Haston Nomad is one model example of where a junction has been "kept alive" long after at least 1 of the original 2 RRs in question has left town, but freight support to the primary industry in town needs to be maintained... Happy Modelling, Aim to Improve, Prof Klyzlr Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prof Klyzlr Posted June 15, 2011 Share Posted June 15, 2011 Dear Junction Fans, Can I suggest searching "junction" on your fave RR photo site, such as RailPhotos? Here's some examples... http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=365918&nseq=7 Coal Junction http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=365913&nseq=8 Abandoned SOU junction http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=365831&nseq=11 CSX Junction http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=365359&nseq=29 Shortline Jct http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=364789&nseq=45 Elevated Mainline Jct http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=364704&nseq=48 Bayview Jct #1 http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=364576&nseq=51 What happens when a Jct switch(turnout) is split http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=364478&nseq=58 Bayview Jct #2 http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=363660&nseq=71 Bayview Jct #3 http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=363611&nseq=76 CN Jct http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=363006&nseq=96 CSX Jct http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=362781&nseq=100 UP Jct, both sides of the river http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=362753&nseq=101 Overview of a Jct http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=362745&nseq=102 More Bayview, with some strategic staging this could make a very busy 8' x 1' show layout! http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=362107&nseq=123 WP Jct, could work in the "depot' thread? http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=361538&nseq=133 Soo Jct http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=360512&nseq=164 Decatur Jct, multiple diamond crossings! http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=360151&nseq=172 More Bayview Jct http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=359788&nseq=177 Blue Island Jct, near Indiana Harbor Belt and this is just a quick selection... Oh, and just a nice scene, although no Jct in sight... http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=360539&nseq=162 Happy Modelling, Aim to Improve, Prof Klyzlr Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prof Klyzlr Posted June 15, 2011 Share Posted June 15, 2011 Dear Jct Fans, More for you... http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=359735&nseq=180 More from Bayview Jct, from the other direction http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=359628&nseq=184 and again http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=359732&nseq=181 Lebanon Jct on CSX http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=358698&nseq=208 Not a Jct, but an object lesson in US trackage http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=356125&nseq=287 Nth Jct, nuf said http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=354298&nseq=339 BNSF CN/Thayer Jct http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=354064&nseq=345 More with "what happens when it all goes wrong" http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=354040&nseq=346 NS Devine Jct http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=353205&nseq=374 Winona WA, looks like a model scene... Blue Island Jct, near IHB More Blue Island Happy Modelling, Aim to Improve, Prof Klyzlr Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adrian Wintle Posted June 15, 2011 Share Posted June 15, 2011 This is a junction that was re-laid about 3 years ago to allow higher line speeds - IIRC the GO trains are allowed to take it at 45+mph with the cab coach leading. The original layout was similar but with a 20mph restriction on the crossover and the junction. http://maps.google.ca/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Lansdowne+Avenue,+Toronto,+Ontario&aq=0&sll=43.644926,-79.43347&sspn=0.011118,0.019248&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Lansdowne+Ave,+Toronto,+Toronto+Division,+Ontario&ll=43.646386,-79.435036&spn=0.005559,0.009624&t=h&z=17 Ignore the southern two lines (CPR/GO). It is the northern two lines (CN/GO) and the branch off them (GO, ex CN Newmarket Sub) that are the interesting bit. The branch junction is a facing crossover followed by a facing point - effectively the simplest way to do it. Adrian Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
trisonic Posted June 15, 2011 Author Share Posted June 15, 2011 Dear Prof., Many thanks for the linked photos. The one of Winona is particularly beautiful, both the scene and the train itself! Best, Pete. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
trisonic Posted June 15, 2011 Author Share Posted June 15, 2011 Thanks, Adrian! Best, Pete. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
signalmaintainer Posted June 15, 2011 Share Posted June 15, 2011 Dear Prof., Many thanks for the linked photos. The one of Winona is particularly beautiful, both the scene and the train itself! Best, Pete. Dittos. Blair Kooistra is an excellent photog; he's also a BNSF dispatcher and model railroader. And while the motto of my home state, Washington, is "The Evergreen State," about 60 percent of it has more in common with Winona's climate than the wetter western half. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allegheny1600 Posted June 15, 2011 Share Posted June 15, 2011 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. Thanks Dave, Thats just exactly the information I was after! First, I'm only going to be modelling a quiet rural backwater and second, I'd call a ratio of about 10,000 to 1 - RARE! Perfect! Yes! Of course, modellers like such trackwork because it saves space, - and looks good & complicated, no doupt the reason why the real thing will avoid it where possible. Thanks again, John E. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prof Klyzlr Posted June 15, 2011 Share Posted June 15, 2011 Dear Jct fans, a slightly over-head shot of Blue Island Jct, on IHB. Useful, and great for both heavy-ops and bridge fans! (C/O http://www.dhke.com/CRJ/blueisland.html ) NB the curved "interchange" traks get their own bridges, and connect with the X'ed mainlines furthur down the track, solidly "on land" Happy Modelling, Aim to Improve, Prof Klyzlr Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
F-UnitMad Posted June 15, 2011 Share Posted June 15, 2011 ...I've certainly seen "howlers" on both sides of the Atlantic where locals have built layouts using local working knowledge and applied it to the "foreign" layout. On this side of the Pond, I think there's definitely been vast improvement in recent years when modelling US outline, and there aren't many layouts shown now that look like "US stock on a UK layout"... Layout cliches, of course, are another matter entirely... My lad's mate, when at the highly acclaimed TVNAM Show last week, asked "why do so many US layouts have those tall, round, white buildings on them?" Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave1905 Posted June 15, 2011 Share Posted June 15, 2011 <short version> In 'traditional' UK layout design facing points were avoided, Hold that thought..... As a comparison - here's a 'middle of nowhere' set of passing tracks, no station, no industry, just a place where you can get a slow freight out of the way of a fast passenger train - the upper one is a common arrangement on bits of the UP for example, the lower one would be a typical British way of doing it. I guess I don't understand In the UP center siding a train on the main track only encounters one facing point switch, while in the UK example a train on the main track encounters one facing point switch when left hand running, two if right hand running. How does the UK example "avoid" facing point switches? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grovenor Posted June 15, 2011 Share Posted June 15, 2011 The UK example is not really very typical of a passing place but fairly common for yard access, UK is left hand running as shown by the arrows on the main tracks, if you look carefully there are no facing points, to enter the sidings trains have to run past and back in. At what appears to be the entry end to the loop there are only single slips so no direct access. If these were just layby sidings rather than yards they would not normally have access via slips from the opposite running line. But this avoidance of facing points is a very old technique and we had very many facing points in the UK, both for junctions and for running loops, fast/slow crossovers etc. Regards Keith Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JWB Posted June 15, 2011 Share Posted June 15, 2011 And F-Unit, it's exactly what they don't need to do! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glorious NSE Posted June 15, 2011 Share Posted June 15, 2011 I guess I don't understand In the UP center siding a train on the main track only encounters one facing point switch, while in the UK example a train on the main track encounters one facing point switch when left hand running, two if right hand running. How does the UK example "avoid" facing point switches? No, the crossovers have single slips, so there are no facing points on left hand running - and we wouldn't be doing right hand running. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Talltim Posted June 15, 2011 Share Posted June 15, 2011 At the most basic level the British equivalent would have been No need for a costly signal box, the points would be worked by the traincrew from a groundframe (as per the UP example I assume) It does have the disadvantage of being slow to clear the line because of the need to back the train in. A (trailing) crossover somewhere would give the full functionality of the UP example Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ozexpatriate Posted June 15, 2011 Share Posted June 15, 2011 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. Dave I think I can make that comparison. (I wasn't extrapolating the NE corridor to the whole US though.) Railways in Australia were very much built according to British principles and are an interesting "in-between" case between the way railroads were built and run in North America and the way railways were built and run in Britain. Distances in Australia are roughly comparable to those in North America so similarly cheap constuction techniques were employed - foundations, bridges, crossings, etc particularly when the lines were first constructed in the Victorian era (which is the timeframe I referred to). Despite this, most of the Australian lines I am familiar with were "fenced" (though usually not much more than a couple of strands of barbed wire and an occasional post and questionably maintained). Also similar to Britain they were authorized by acts of the (Colonial) Parliaments and operated by block or token along very familiar lines to British practice. Locomotive design practice in Australia evolved into something in-between "British" and US notions as well. I think we're in full agreement that North American and British railways are very much apples and oranges - precisely because of the different regulatory, competitive and geographic challenges they had to confront. It's exactly why enshrined British practices (like emphasizing trailing points) don't have the same emphasis in North America. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Talltim Posted June 15, 2011 Share Posted June 15, 2011 I think basically we have found that the most of the British hangups/regulatory lmitations on junction design are irrelevant for US practice! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Ray Posted June 15, 2011 Share Posted June 15, 2011 At the most basic level the British equivalent would have been You know, after straightening out the sidings so they didn't bend parallel to the mains, and then running a line from the lower points to the upper points, the resulting figure reminds me of a logo I once saw in the UK somewhere... Wow, we got to the middle of page two, and nobody had mentioned interlocking towers = UKian signal box, I think. - well, at least these guys agree Oh, OK, we did get one mention of interlocking, which in itself is a topic capable of generating volumes of discussion (and which has) - at its most basic, a method of controlling routing by 'automatically' setting signal aspects and switch positions (and locking those positions in place, hence interlocking). For the past few decades these towers have been 'remoted' (their functions handled by remote computer centers - for example, CSX has it's operations center in Jacksonville, Florida), and the towers are decommissioned (some are saved as 'Museums', most are torn down or repurposed - in any case the railroads request that the towers be moved off of Railroad property) - personally I don't much care about them, because most of the remaining towers no longer have the cool Armstrong Interlocking systems . Ironincally where I live on Long Island, there are a number of operational 'signal' (interlocking) towers on the Long Island RR, including the famous Harold at LIC/Woodside (now used as needed - mostly as a recrewing point I understand), Jay, Dunton, Valley, Divide and so on - eventually these too will be remoted completely, CTC from an operations center at Jamaica, and I have no idea what the MTA (parent of the LIRR) will do with those towers? Hmm, going back to that UK/US terminology listing US Interlocking = UK Controlled Area Comment: As opposed to an area with automatic signals Huh? Hmm, there's no skeptic smilie on this forum, is there? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.