Lance's latest Blog entry (Mar18)... food for thought?

[F-UnitMad]

Lance's latest Blog entry (March 18th), as it's information from a Railroad source, is very interesting I think:-

http://www.lancemindheim.com/blog.htm

 

The use of lashed-up, high-horsepower, six-axle locos to switch local switch jobs would surely raise eyebrows -at least on the UK exhibition circuit.... but there's the proof it happens!!

The only restriction I can think of comes down to space requirements for such beasties, or - in my case, the fact that I deliberately lay my spurs so "badly" that six-axle r-t-r locos can't cope with it, whereas four-axle types can...

(An early "under construction" shot of my new O Scale layout for TVNAM )

[JWB]

I don't mean to dis Individuals Whose Views Are Not To Be Questioned On This Forum, but it isn't especially unusual to have a local with several 6-axle units. Here is the UP Kaiser Hauler, which UP calls a local:

 

 

It is actually breaking several rules, passing through the same scene twice and going around a visible loop as well as having three 6-axle units. There are actually a number of trains like this in Southern California, and others in Central California at the very least.

 

On the other hand, a train that normally just switches a few customers isn't normally going to have this many units, considering the need for such units elsewhere and the fuel costs. The train described in the blog post is a local that carries a lot of overhead cars from one yard to another. In effect it's a "transfer" as much as a local. A "hauler" on the SP/UP is also essentially a "transfer" although it may be classified as a "local". It seems to me that "local" is a less than precise term that can cover several types of train, and it's not being used with precision in the post.

 

A better question might be to ask how best to represent a transfer job on a small layout. This gets into questions like yard operation, or operation on a scope above the level of a local just distributing cars at retail. I'm not sure if this is the strong point of the blogger involved.

[CVSNE]

This morning, and just about every morning NS runs a local job from the Robinson Terminal area to the Vulcan Quarry out in Gainesville (just on the western edge of the 2nd Manassas Battlefield).

Power is always two units - typically six-axle jobs. It's not entirely unheard of for one of them to be a UP engine.

Heading towards Gainesville the train is usually no more than 3-6 cars long.

[Steve Williams]

Having just read the said blog entry, I couldn't see a single view expressed, never mind one with which I could or couldn't disagree. 

[JWB]

I think the implication on nearly every post there is along the line of what he himself admires as "minimalism", or "think as small as possible". That's fine as an individual preference, but not necessarily as advice to everyone. I think what he's suggesting in his post is that you can have a very small layout while running consists of 3 6-axle high horsepower locos. Well, OK, although on a 6-foot layout, you've used up maybe 27-30 inches just with the locos, so you can only switch one or two cars. Now if you want to proclaim "hey, I've got it all!!" that way, again, OK. If you want to take a position that everyone should do things that way -- which you see over and over on that blog -- I disagree. In addition, I certainly agree with CVSNE that you can see locals with two high-horsepower locos doing retail switching. There are also trains with three high-horsepower locos on the UP Coast and Valley lines that do some local switching while also running transfers. But three high-horsepower locos on 6 or 8 cars are much harder to find, I would suggest, and I wouldn't try to say they're typical.

 

For that matter, why doesn't he try to talk his big-ticket customers -- which must certainly be his bread and butter -- into the 1 x 8 layouts he wants the rest of the world to build? If everyone thought small, he'd need to find another line of work!

[F-UnitMad]

I might have known.... thankyou JWB for turning this into another "For/against Mindheim" Thread.

 

The actual info in the post was from someone else, not Lance himself, & said exactly what you said at the start of your first post - that such workings are not uncommon in reality.!!

I didn't see anything in that blog to suggest this should be done on a 'small' layout - size isn't even mentioned.

Talk about reading one's own opinon into things.

 

Don't know why I bothered with this thread.

[w124bob]

Plenty of short freights appear on the WNY&P  with big Alco power good enough for me. Just remember it's your railroad your rules.!

[Andy Y]

I might have known.... thankyou JWB for turning this into another "For/against Mindheim" Thread.

I agree.

 

Can we please stop this antagonism JWB?

[Chris Gilbert]

JWB

Instead of always basing those who are fans of small layouts and their builders why don't you,

as you know so much,

just start your own blog and show us all how it should be done?

[trisonic]

Can we now go back to the questions raised by the OP?

Thanks, Pete.

[Prof Klyzlr]

Dear F-unit,

 

Have to admit I'm intrigued by the Blog comments.
(NB that the "railroad source" is an Eastern-Road employee, covering the specific ops on a specific subdivision.
As with any proto info, context is the key to determining if it "applies as writ" to any given model RR,
is "interesting and could possibly be adapted",
or is obviously "not directly relevant in this modelling instance").

 

Your "rough trackage" would definitely challenge any 3-axled array, let alone 2 of them under a common long-frame diesel ;-)
Maybe it could be a call-to-action for diesel manufacturers to look at equalised drives, or even "scale springing" at the axleboxes?

 

Seem to recall a P87 modeller in a GMR waaaaaay back, who only ran brass diesels with individually-sprung axle boxes ex-factory.
he then replaced the typically waaaaay-too-stiff ex-factory springs with Kadee knuckle or NWSL "wimpy" springs to get yee genuine "floating axlebox" appearance over his delicately end-bent code 55(?) handlaid rail... (emulating soft/weak 39' jointed rail, etc). 

 

Anywho, a long time ago I used to feel very strongly about running single SW1500s, GE70 tonners and similar, and felt "MU lashups" were a waste of layout track capacity for a switching local (IE literally a train which left a yard to do "first mile/last mile" switching work, no "interchange", "transfer", or "hauler" work or cars).

 

However, as I've been studying more "contemporary" ops, esp from the "Big name" RRs, I've been getting more comfy with the idea of MU switching consists
EG
- paired SP SW1500s almost anywhere West Coast circa 1990s,
- paired CCT SW1500s getting around Stockton and Lodi,
- UP SW1500s/GP38-2s/GP40-2s/CCRCL "Sleds" working the LA basin and along the River,
- paired UP SW1500s switching Coalca/Clackamas/Oregon City,
- paired CSX GP40-2s blitzing between the electrics on the NEC to switch "the Chocolate", etc

 

and with some deep-thought, I've even managed to squzz some validated consists (paired SW1500s) onto a 4x0.5 (1250mmx150mm) Inglenook ;-)

 

I know the modelgenic interchanges between BNSF, UP, and the LAJ (CF7s ahoy!) are a prime stage for "high horsepower 6-axles in what-is-broadly-termed "local" service,

and there are the ex-SP/UP "haulers" yard<>yard transfer runs in and around LA,

 

but when it comes to emulating such operations on smaller layouts, strategic staging and subterfuge (IE the sometimes-feared "modellers compromise") are necessarily going to come into play ;-)

 

I guess one has to ask, what does one actually want to model?
If it's the loco consists themselves, then either we need to find a suitable scenario where said consists are running in "small layout suitable" configs,
(anyone remember Carl's method for modelling Big Boys on a micro?)
 

OR

If it's the operations which said consists are used for, then there is the very real possibility that we can emulate the appearance of the related ops, without having to actually host the physics-busting loco consists at all...
(Carl A had a number of "London passenger terminus" micros which unashamedly used "powered coaches" to emulate the last-3-cars of steam-hauled dbl-digit carriage expresses and similar. No matter how long it is, the train still looks the same from the back-end... ;-) ).

 

As a related brain teaser, I'll pose a question which is slowly forming the basis for one of my near-term pending projects.
How does one present the impression of a 2+ mile-long unit (possibly DPU equipped?) train rumbling along the transcon mainline of Nebraska/Kansas/similar,
while simultaneously providing engaging first-person switching ops,
on a 4x1 micro?

 

Happy Modelling,
Aim to Improve,
Prof Klyzlr

 

PS It's not "multi MU", but I also have a MRL SD40-2 #250 + remote-caboose switching consist project salted away, 
can't believe I'm contemplating "switching" with an SD40-2, but then again I used to never look twice at anything larger than a SW1500 either... ;-)

[Andy Reichert]

 

I don't know if this has been posted here before, but it kinda leans towards wild ideas for running long trains across shorter layouts.

 

I've often thought of building an LT tube station display with only just over half train length hidden sidings at both ends that somehow miraculously broke up the arriving train in real time and fed it back simultaneously as the next  train returning into the station.  A bit like checking out of the "Hotel California".

 

Andy

[F-UnitMad]

Chris Gilbert posted that clip up, in a thread quite recently

 

For myself, I'm intrigued by the OP info because it's something I can do up my loft in HO.

In the clip below, a 3-unit lash-up takes a train around the main line. On the other side of the loft is a simple Interchange - a 2-track yard, where in- & out-bound cars can be swapped to serve the Industrial spurs back on this side of the layout; a couple are visible here.

Usually I'll just "drop&swap" cars to a single loco - like the CSX Geep seen in this clip (no apologies for the unlikely mix of Roads - Rule no1 applies!!).

It just never occured to me before to switch the spurs - or at least collect 'empties' - with the 3-loco lash-up from the mainline train. I certainly have the space to do it.

 

[media=youtube]

[/media]

 

The layout is a long-term project, so very much unfinished, & I'm still learning my DCC, so while the locos are consisted okay, I haven't yet worked out how to sort the headlights out. Those issues are not the point of the video.

[long island jack]

oh dear here we go again,just after the last slating of MR Mindheim has died down ,another one starts up,don't have a opinion on the guy never meet him,i also don't agree with everything he preaches, but this dosen't mean i have the right to slag guy of because i don't agree with his ideas.

 

Like Chris said "lets have a look at your railroad JWB" i'm sure we could all find faults and comment on them,but at the end of the day it's your railroad, your ideas and who are we to criticize!!

 

Jordan's right, why do we bother!!

 

that will be me of the Christmas card list!!

 

Ray

[Alcanman]

I agree.

 

Can we please stop this antagonism JWB?

As someone who has also been on the receiving end of JWB's caustic comments on another forum, I wholeheartledly agree with all!

 

Mal

[trisonic]

If I remember correctly that's about a half hour run between Winston-Salem and Greensboro ( I used to live in Greensboro). So I'm not surprised to see a consist like that.

 

Interestingly I once waited by the temporary Amtrak Station at Greensboro for my then girlfriend who was coming down on the "Crescent" from New York. It was running about fours late. At 1:30am it was rather unpleasant to be waiting there alone. I saw this house down the tracks with all their lights on when suddenly headlights came on and it started approaching me! It was a NS SW something or other with about 6 guys in the cab. They stopped by me and asked if I was OK (wondering what I was doing there). In the end they got on the blower to tell me that the Crescent was about ten minutes away - then got out the way rather sharply.

 

Best, Pete.

[The Bigbee Line]

I read the LM and it seemed to me a gentle reminder that you can actually run what you like.  If you have some 6 axle power it can make an occasional foray onto a small layout.  He also mentions that he makes some spurs not suitable for 6 axle power, forcing 4 axle units to be used.

 

Talking of big locos on little jobs, there is a nice clip somewhere on youtube of an N&W articulated switching cars at a small coal loader in the West Virginia hills.

 

We need to be broadminded and appreciate other peoples points of view.  Off my soap box now....

[Talltim]

If you model 1990s GRS, then 6 axle power is a bit of a no-no, even on the mainline! ;-)

[long island jack]

Chris Gilbert posted that clip up, in a thread quite recently

 

For myself, I'm intrigued by the OP info because it's something I can do up my loft in HO.

In the clip below, a 3-unit lash-up takes a train around the main line. On the other side of the loft is a simple Interchange - a 2-track yard, where in- & out-bound cars can be swapped to serve the Industrial spurs back on this side of the layout; a couple are visible here.

Usually I'll just "drop&swap" cars to a single loco - like the CSX Geep seen in this clip (no apologies for the unlikely mix of Roads - Rule no1 applies!!).

It just never occured to me before to switch the spurs - or at least collect 'empties' - with the 3-loco lash-up from the mainline train. I certainly have the space to do it.

 

[media=youtube]

[/media]

 

The layout is a long-term project, so very much unfinished, & I'm still learning my DCC, so while the locos are consisted okay, I haven't yet worked out how to sort the headlights out. Those issues are not the point of the video.

Nice video,"i'm surprised how well they run,compairing it to the track in your opening post"

 

i'll get my coat

[Glorious NSE]

Back on my 2000 trip I ran into two examples of big engines on little trains, both on NS...

 

At Erie PA I ran into a local with a C40-9W, when I shot it first the consist was one gondola and one bulkhead flat - it ran through town (on the street trackage no less!) and I saw it returning later (but unfortunately I was driving so I didn't get a photo) running long hood forward returning with a cut of corn syrup tanks.

 

The second was at Fostoria, a switch job out to the big plant on NS at the West End, that one was 3 covered hoppers powered by a very random BN(SF) SD70MAC!   Not what I expected to run into powering a switch job in Ohio!

 

Big engines on little trains? No problem. 

 

Personal opinion is they are a good opportunity to model some interesting smaller/older 4 axle loco's though. I don't think there's any such thing as "too many GP38s"   

[Alcanman]

If you model 1990s GRS, then 6 axle power is a bit of a no-no, even on the mainline! ;-)

Maybe, but there is always an exception. SD26's were around in the 1990s!

 

http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/showPicture.aspx?id=2672342

 

cheers, Mal

[dave1905]

Back in the day, the reason 4  axle engines were put on locals was much of the industry track was not capable of handling 6 axle power.  As the amount of carload local traffic has declined a lot of the places with tender track were abandoned.  Any new track was built to higher standards that could accept 6 axle engines more readily.

 

You have to look at the function of the trains.  Trains who do longer distance, tonnage hauling will have 6 axle power.  And oh by the way they might do some local business to save having a separate local that just does local work.  On the old MoPac, on lines that had just a few on line customers they would designate one through freight as the "local", use a local crew on it, add the couple of industry cars and run it. 

 

There haven't been any new "GP" type locomotives offered by or bought from EMD or GE for decades.  Railroads are cascading the older SD40-2's and SD60's into local and secondary services.  6 axle units have been used in yards for decades, particularly as hump engines.  Even in the  steam era, articulated engines were often used as hump engines.  The only articulated steamers the PRR built, the HC-1's were used as hump engines.

 

One way to model this is to use an older engine, SD40-2, and assign it as the local engine.  The other option is to say the power is off a through freight and is on a layover, the railroad uses the big power as a switcher while the crew and train lays over at the terminal.  The PRR did this with a BP20, the Baldwin 6 axle passenger sharknose.  So you could have 2 big engines bring in the train, then the switch crew uses the power to do the local work and assemble the outbound train.  The road crew gets rested and then takes the through freight back out again with the big power.

[Talltim]

Yeah, they had a few 6 packs earlier on, but they could only run on the mains, and not all of them. As the 90s went on and into the early 2000 SDs (all the GEs went first) became fewer and it was only really with the advent of the PAR/NS Patriot corridor improvements that 6 axle power came back with a veangance. Of course there were quite a lot of Conrail/NS runthroughs with 6 axle locos, but only on certain lines (the Bow coal job springs to mind first)

[Supaned]

I think the point Lance is trying to make is that a small switching layout doesn't necessarily need to have smaller motive power per se - conversely , it doesn't mean that you have to use an SD70MAC to switch either , but that there are prototypical examples where that does happen. 

 

Regarding six axle power on such duties , I imagine one of the reasons for their use would be in terms of axle loading , another being if the route in question has some grades which need the extra haulage capacity of a six axle locomotive. 

 

As an example of this, NS's C-line local (G66 if you wish to search for it) which runs from Carrolton GA to Senoia GA seems to regularly use SD40-2s - there are photos and video clips of some trains being as little as one locomotive and one covered hopper , however , on some occasions a C40-9W has been used as well as an SD70ACe. By contrast , four axle power such as GP50s and GP40-2s are also seen. 

[298]

I read the LM and it seemed to me a gentle reminder that you can actually run what you like. 

 

 

You can....but if someone takes your researched and authenticated rare occurrence as verbatim and tries to build a layout around such a scenario (especially when their only inspiration comes from layouts on the UK circuit), they're doing themselves an injustice. It reminds me of my 8' long GWR branchline I built as a teenager, and tried to run a King on. It's a big step to realise that some locos in a collection had better stay in the display cabinet.

 

Personal opinion is they are a good opportunity to model some interesting smaller/older 4 axle loco's though. I don't think there's any such thing as "too many GP38s"   

Agree...! But I still think Lance's concept should be operated by 4 axle power, something that is seen as the darling of the fleet.