two question: Operation and turnout?

[KentBy]

Operation question:
I just got through reading an aritcal in MR March 2007 which the auther states on page 51:
"Once the crew has finished switching the line, they must turn the train at Puget Mills (the loop track back to the yard is off limits) for its return trip to Tacoma."
Without a turn table or a wye, how do you turn a train on this layout?
   
Second question is about installing a Walther #6 double crossover turnout.
I can see no reason that I would not want all turnouts to either line up for stright through (dual track operation) or all turnouts lined up for crossover operation. Therefore I think that I would like one machine to use some linkage to align all four turnouts at the same time.
Anyone done this before? If so pictures and direction about the linkage would be nice to see. Or is there a problem with doing this?

Kent

[Squidbait]

Kent,

You turn a train by simply running the engine around it and tacking it on the other end.

As for the crossover, there have been several linkages designed to throw all four points with one switch machine - most of them involve a series of bell-cranks that operate the throw bars. A little simpler, and less mechanically complicated mechanism can be done with two machines, one for each opposed pair.

I think Tetters tackled this with his handlaid crossover/double-slip switch... I'm not sure if he cross-posted that thread from Zealot or not.

[nkp_174]

Also, railroads typically didn't like having double crossovers. They typically preferred two single cross overs in a row. Fewer potential problems. Double crossovers and double slips were used when space was of a premium (stations, yards, etc). So only add this if a) you really want one or b) there isn't enough space for two singles.

[KentBy]

Kent,

You turn a train by simply running the engine around it and tacking it on the other end.

As for the crossover, there have been several linkages designed to throw all four points with one switch machine - most of them involve a series of bell-cranks that operate the throw bars. A little simpler, and less mechanically complicated mechanism can be done with two machines, one for each opposed pair.

I think Tetters tackled this with his handlaid crossover/double-slip switch... I'm not sure if he cross-posted that thread from Zealot or not.

The pictures with the artical show the use of steam engine. Assuming that the engine pulled the train in frontwards, then the return trip would be with the tender going first? Is this prototypical?

Thanks for the info, Kent

[Squidbait]

The pictures with the artical show the use of steam engine. Assuming that the engine pulled the train in frontwards, then the return trip would be with the tender going first? Is this prototypical?

Thanks for the info, Kent

Kent,

Looking at the plan, that's the only way I can see to do it... there isn't any obvious reverse loop or anything, so you'd pretty much have to do a runaround and back it home.

I'm pretty sure it was done in prototype practice, especially on small branchlines without wyes or turntables at the end of the line. I don't know a lot about operating rules for steam locos, so it may be that they would have had to proceed at a reduced speed running tender first. It wouldn't be the most comfortable way to run for the crew, either.

[nkp_174]

Steam locomotives were regularly used in both directions in many places. Visibility is still pretty good when backing up with steam engines due to the way the engineer sits. One of the reasons the NKP never bought any F-units was that the most F-unit friendly route required road switching...and the poor visibility of F-units put them at a huge disadvantage against the steam engines (plus the 2-8-4s beat them outright in performance & economy on the main).

Interestingly, the forney design was intended for running in reverse. A proper forney had a blind #2 driver to negotiate tighter curves. The idea was that an 0-4-4t run in reverse would have the tracking qualities of a 4-4-0...but the rigid frame with a blind driver would allow tighter curves to be negotiated. Many forney operators, such as the Maine 2 footers, added a flange to the #2 drivers, a lead truck, and ran them forward...negating the advantages of the design.

A good example of this was the Colorado & Southern. Originally, the Clear Creek line had a turntable in Blackhawk and a wye at Silver Plume. Trains always had to back up for half of their trip in between Blackhawk and Central City. In the later years, the turntable at Blackhawk was removed (IIRC) and the other line was shortened to Idaho Springs. The locomotives would pull the trains out to the wye at Forks Creek. They'd then take have the train to Blackhawk and back up in returning to Forks Creek. They'd then take the other half of the train and head on to Idaho Springs. They'd then back up to Forks Creek, turn the engines, and return to Denver.

Here's a stuffed & mounted engine in Central City:
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://steamlocomotive.info/vlocomotive.cfm?Display=237">http://steamlocomotive.info/vlocomotive.cfm?Display=237</a><!-- m -->

and another in Idaho Springs:
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://steamlocomotive.info/vlocomotive.cfm?Display=276">http://steamlocomotive.info/vlocomotive.cfm?Display=276</a><!-- m -->

Michael