Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 28 of 28

Thread: 3rd District CNO&TP

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Nov 1999
    Location
    Jacksonville,, FL, USA.
    Posts
    4,007

    Cool Cno&tp 3rd district ---- and

    Colleagues,

    Detailing continues on the CNO&TP 3rd and has been completed to Chattanooga, so now it is progressing
    west toward Crab Orchard on the former Tennessee Central, former Southern/NS, and current Le Hoist
    America. I was able to trace the old line as far as the depot at Crossville but tracks were removed
    west of Crab Orchard around 1990. There is a very good article about this line in the current issue of
    TRAINS.
    But detailing can get tedious, so I also work on something else to provide variety, so I have also laid
    most of the planned track for the 2nd version of the Knoxville to Corbin line. This includes the rest of
    the Southern to Jellico, TN/KY and the Clear Fork branch & ARCO branch. The latter takes off the
    Clear Fork about 3 miles beyond the start of SR ownership and continues 12 miles to the loadout for
    the ARCO "Mine". As far as I know there was a small shaft mine at ARCO but most of the coal that
    shipped from there was trucked in "raw" from various strip mines nearby and processed at ARCO
    before being stored in a silo for the next unit train. These trains came up the line to Jellico and then
    continued to Lot, KY where they turned south on the L&N Corbin line for a few miles to Holton where
    they turned east through a tunnel and then the followed the Clear Fork R. about 3 miles before
    getting back on Southern owned track. All this came about around 1910 when the L&N sold their
    work on the Clear Fork Br. to the Southern but retained trackage rights.

    At ARCO, trains proceed counter clockwise around a large loop that will hold around 100 cars. As
    I recall it, the turnout (only one) leading to the loop was a spring switch so that empties went the
    correct direction and loads could exit without stopping to line a turnout. Loops do not work well
    (if at all) in MSTS so the image shows the loop with a single locomotive on it. Just ahead is seen
    a small gap. That is where I laid & then deleted a 10M piece. Empty activities will proceed up to
    this point while loads will start with the rear of the train beyond this point. The batch loader was
    left of the locomotive on the other side of the loop.

    There is nothing left at ARCO now. The branch opened in Nov. 1967 and was abandoned after
    the mine closed in the early 1990s. The branch followed Tackett Creek from it's confluence with
    the Clear Fork R. almost all the way to the mine. Maximum grade was 1.5% with a short 2.5%
    heading into the loop, both opposed to empty trains. The "hump" leading into the loop was so
    that trains would load going down a slight grade.

    J. H. Sullivan
    aka landnrailroader
    Attached Images Attached Images

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Nov 1999
    Location
    Jacksonville,, FL, USA.
    Posts
    4,007

    Cool CNOTP3 version 2

    As of January 3, I have detailed all of the route except for speed zones on the main line and vehicle spawners.
    I did use the default signal rules with search light style signals, which were the correct hardware for the
    period of the route, (1960-1980). After release, Travis Ebner has done a wonderful job of creating the
    correct rules with both searchlight & modern signal types and should any one wish to use TSRE to change
    the signals I have no problem as long as Dudley Evans (original creator with my help) and I are foot
    noted. Doing so, however, will make the route TSRE/ORTS only. Vehicle Spawners are fairly easy to
    insert but tedious, so my hope is to release the route later this month. I will also have to footnote the
    creator of the Charlotte-Raleigh line which has been in the library for a while for the use of his signal
    bridges & correct style mileposts & speed zone signs. Need to create the loading map etc. too.

    J. H. Sullivan
    Last edited by landnrailroader; 01-03-2022 at 08:06 PM. Reason: Add Title

  3. #23

    Default

    Thank you, Jerry.

    If I could wave a wand there would be a couple of intercity passenger trains on that route. I can do that in the simulator.

    Christopher

  4. #24

    Default

    In fact . . . while I have your attention Jerry . . .

    I've been learning about cant deficiency ("unbalance") around curves. Too much unbalance causes overturning, but going faster requires more of it, within safe ranges. Thus tilt equipment, but actually regular equipment can run with much more cant deficiency than the usual US maximum of 3 inches. In Europe, their maximum is 6 inches. Talgo cars (and Amfleet) can go up to 8 inches, but 5 inches is the max for any regular north American diesel. Pretty much all single level equipment is also good for 5 inches cant deficiency. So are the lower height (14.5 feet) bombadier multi-level cars I think. Superliners good for 4 inches.

    Anyway, the point of all that is it is possible to run passenger trains much faster than we do, by not going so slow. There is a cost of course, in more track upkeep. And it all has to be tested and FRA exemptions procured.

    In the context of the rathole . . . if our hypothetical fictional passenger railroad free of the maddening limitations of Amtrak were to plan to speed things up, is it sensible to use superliners at 4 inch cant deficiency or is it so curvy that a much better timetable would be had with single level equipment at a 5 inch cant deficiency? (In reality, such a thing would be decided after hiring someone like you to do calculations for months, but this question is theoretical and for fun.)

    Thank you for indulging me.

    Christopher

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Nov 1999
    Location
    Jacksonville,, FL, USA.
    Posts
    4,007

    Cool

    Quote Originally Posted by conductorchris View Post
    In fact . . . while I have your attention Jerry . . .

    I've been learning about cant deficiency ("unbalance") around curves. Too much unbalance causes overturning, but going faster requires more of it, within safe ranges. Thus tilt equipment, but actually regular equipment can run with much more cant deficiency than the usual US maximum of 3 inches. In Europe, their maximum is 6 inches. Talgo cars (and Amfleet) can go up to 8 inches, but 5 inches is the max for any regular north American diesel. Pretty much all single level equipment is also good for 5 inches cant deficiency. So are the lower height (14.5 feet) bombadier multi-level cars I think. Superliners good for 4 inches.

    Anyway, the point of all that is it is possible to run passenger trains much faster than we do, by not going so slow. There is a cost of course, in more track upkeep. And it all has to be tested and FRA exemptions procured.

    In the context of the rathole . . . if our hypothetical fictional passenger railroad free of the maddening limitations of Amtrak were to plan to speed things up, is it sensible to use superliners at 4 inch cant deficiency or is it so curvy that a much better timetable would be had with single level equipment at a 5 inch cant deficiency? (In reality, such a thing would be decided after hiring someone like you to do calculations for months, but this question is theoretical and for fun.)

    Thank you for indulging me.

    Christopher
    It is theoretical at best. Southern had a maximum of 4" regardless if passenger trains ran or not. There was less on the CNO&TP though because it was 95% freight and all the passenger trains ran at night during most of it's existence. Toward the end, the
    "not so" Royal Palm did not have sleepers and was basically a daytime local. On the Eastern lines, it was SOP for us company officers to get a 3rd pillow on the sleeper. One under, and one on each side of, the head. The reduced elevation was very noticable at Crammerton, NC, a long right hand curve going south, and also at Gaffney, SC, also a long right hand curve. SuperLiners, I am not that familair with as far as the Center of Gravity etc., so I would be concerned beyond 4". Freight trains did not go so fast, and so the elevation was adjusted so that the slower freights would not unduly load the inner rail of the curve which could even turn over if
    there was a slack action for example. The L/V ration of rail is very critical. You must have much less L=lateral, than V=vertical,
    else the rail can turn over & mayhem results. I have forgot a lot, now being retired 21 years, and my full scale railroad interest is now
    in 3 ft. narrow gauge which generally runs at 12mph or less.

    Jerry

  6. #26

    Default

    [QUOTE=landnrailroader;1997124]It is theoretical at best. Southern had a maximum of 4" regardless if passenger trains ran or not.

    I assume you are talking about super-elevation built into the bank of the curve?

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Nov 1999
    Location
    Jacksonville,, FL, USA.
    Posts
    4,007

    Default

    What we refer to as super-elevation is the bank built into the curve. It is also called "cross level". The highest
    elevation I know of was on some higher speed lines of BNSF and a few others. It was 7". Southern used a
    maximum 4".

    Jerry

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Nov 1999
    Location
    Jacksonville,, FL, USA.
    Posts
    4,007

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by landnrailroader View Post
    Colleagues,

    Detailing continues on the CNO&TP 3rd and has been completed to Chattanooga, so now it is progressing
    west toward Crab Orchard on the former Tennessee Central, former Southern/NS, and current Le Hoist
    America. I was able to trace the old line as far as the depot at Crossville but tracks were removed
    west of Crab Orchard around 1990. There is a very good article about this line in the current issue of
    TRAINS.
    But detailing can get tedious, so I also work on something else to provide variety, so I have also laid
    most of the planned track for the 2nd version of the Knoxville to Corbin line. This includes the rest of
    the Southern to Jellico, TN/KY and the Clear Fork branch & ARCO branch. The latter takes off the
    Clear Fork about 3 miles beyond the start of SR ownership and continues 12 miles to the loadout for
    the ARCO "Mine". As far as I know there was a small shaft mine at ARCO but most of the coal that
    shipped from there was trucked in "raw" from various strip mines nearby and processed at ARCO
    before being stored in a silo for the next unit train. These trains came up the line to Jellico and then
    continued to Lot, KY where they turned south on the L&N Corbin line for a few miles to Holton where
    they turned east through a tunnel and then the followed the Clear Fork R. about 3 miles before
    getting back on Southern owned track. All this came about around 1910 when the L&N sold their
    work on the Clear Fork Br. to the Southern but retained trackage rights.

    At ARCO, trains proceed counter clockwise around a large loop that will hold around 100 cars. As
    I recall it, the turnout (only one) leading to the loop was a spring switch so that empties went the
    correct direction and loads could exit without stopping to line a turnout. Loops do not work well
    (if at all) in MSTS so the image shows the loop with a single locomotive on it. Just ahead is seen
    a small gap. That is where I laid & then deleted a 10M piece. Empty activities will proceed up to
    this point while loads will start with the rear of the train beyond this point. The batch loader was
    left of the locomotive on the other side of the loop.

    There is nothing left at ARCO now. The branch opened in Nov. 1967 and was abandoned after
    the mine closed in the early 1990s. The branch followed Tackett Creek from it's confluence with
    the Clear Fork R. almost all the way to the mine. Maximum grade was 1.5% with a short 2.5%
    heading into the loop, both opposed to empty trains. The "hump" leading into the loop was so
    that trains would load going down a slight grade.

    J. H. Sullivan
    aka landnrailroader
    The route was completed as of noon today and I have sent it to the original requestor for checking,
    so I should upload it to the library in a week or so. Here is another image, this of the bridge over
    the Tennessee R. just downstream from Chickamauga Dam.

    J. H. Sullivan
    Attached Images Attached Images

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •