Railroaders' Nostalgia > Remember the LAOAF, SP Bay Area rails?

You Never Know What You'll Find in the Bottom of a Box Department

I took my conductor's promotion in the summer of 1980. The week-long preparatory class was not particularly stimulating, and was taught by a new-hire rules instructor, who I think was a former engineer (Mike? Nichols?) that I previously worked with in Pool 2 a few times. During that summer, the LAOAF was a dog of a train (at lest after it left San Jose on the Milpitas Line: set-outs at Milpitas and/or Warm Springs; through the hand-operated wye switches to the Centerville Line at Niles Tower (the lowlight of the trip!); up the Mulford Line beginning at Newark Tower; a setout on the East Storage at Mulford. A long, early-morning nap at the East Oakland "Wait" signal. A real 12-hour coffee-drainer.

At least, that's what the doodle that I drew during a low moment in rules class causes me to recall, or what I THINK that I recall. Do any of you guys remember this choo choo?

EO

---

Compared to the Tracy triangle in pool one this was a piece of cake.

wharfrat Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Compared to the Tracy triangle in pool one this
> was a piece of cake.

I can't argue with that. Nothing like being stuck in Tracy on steel turns.

EO

All the while being Nick the Greek's guest.

Not quite the Dog you think, Ed. That set out at Warm Springs was important as it handled X auto racks and auto parts for GM. Still the hottest westbound on the Coast. Insofar as its route, that's the DS's planning to keep it moving instead of sitting at Newark for several hours against eastbounds



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/27/15 19:00 by WAF.

WAF Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Not quite the Dog you think, Ed. That set out at
> Warm Springs was important as it handled X auto
> racks and auto parts for GM. Still the hottest
> westbound on the Coast. Insofar as its route,
> that's the DS's planning to keep it moving instead
> of sitting at Newark for several hours against
> eastbounds

Nope, its routing was determined by the fact that the train carried both Milpita/Warm Springs traffic AND Mulford traffic, not an efficient arrangement given the territory, given that it was forced to "Go Around the World" in the local parlance of the times. Sure, south of SJ it was a hot train, but north, it was a dog. That's why I addressed the thread to Bay Area guys, who might recall the deal. When I discovered this old doodle I was kind of amused by the whiny sentiment, because I recall that as a brakeman I actually liked the train for of all of the switching and its out-of-the-humdrum routing. At any rate, as wharfrat commented, it was a "piece of cake" compared to Pool 1.

So, I ask, what was the deal, anyway? Was there no other reasonable alternative to expedite traffic to both locations by 1980?

My memory is faulty, here: West thru traffic out of WJ: LAOAF, Perishable, one or two LAOAY/K's?

Did WJOAY's continue to run after WJ yard lost its classification work?

EO

EO



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/28/15 11:48 by hogheaded.

If they stuck a LAOAY onto it, yes, Mulford work. To make the Warm Springs setout, they had to bypass San Jose, which was rare, as San Jose had a major setout for south peninsula and SF. 1980 was gthe LAOAF and later the LAOAC which was hotter.

Mid 1980: LAOAF (LAOAC starting in July, replacing the LAOAF), LAOAY, WCOAY WJRVP, WJRVY, San Carlos Rock out of WJ. Things would change weekly on the whims of OP&C

hogheaded Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> WAF Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Not quite the Dog you think, Ed. That set out
> at
> > Warm Springs was important as it handled X auto
> > racks and auto parts for GM. Still the hottest
> > westbound on the Coast. Insofar as its route,
> > that's the DS's planning to keep it moving
> instead
> > of sitting at Newark for several hours against
> > eastbounds
>
> Nope, its routing was determined by the fact that
> the train carried both Milpita/Warm Springs
> traffic AND Mulford traffic, not an efficient
> arrangement given the territory, given that it was
> forced to "Go Around the World" in the local
> parlance of the times. Sure, south of SJ it was a
> hot train, but north, it was a dog. That's why I
> addressed the thread to Bay Area guys, who might
> recall the deal. When I discovered this old doodle
> I was kind of amused by the whiny sentiment,
> because I recall that as a brakeman I actually
> liked the train for of all of the switching and
> its out-of-the-humdrum routing. At any rate, as
> wharfrat commented, it was a "piece of cake"
> compared to Pool 1.
>
> So, I ask, what was the deal, anyway? Was there no
> other reasonable alternative to expedite traffic
> to both locations by 1980?
>
> My memory is faulty, here: West thru traffic out
> of WJ: LAOAF, Perishable, one or two LAOAY/K's?
>
> Did WJOAY's continue to run after WJ yard lost its
> classification work?
>
> EO
>
> EO

Vern Ward always talked about the stalag at Roseville and Zel's (the plate of plenty) as the worst destination. I'm from the Santa Fe and don't know...

Mike Nichols, BTW, retired from the Durango & Silverton last October.

WP-M2051 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> hogheaded Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > WAF Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Not quite the Dog you think, Ed. That set out
> > at
> > > Warm Springs was important as it handled X
> auto
> > > racks and auto parts for GM. Still the
> hottest
> > > westbound on the Coast. Insofar as its route,
> > > that's the DS's planning to keep it moving
> > instead
> > > of sitting at Newark for several hours
> against
> > > eastbounds
> >
> > Nope, its routing was determined by the fact
> that
> > the train carried both Milpita/Warm Springs
> > traffic AND Mulford traffic, not an efficient
> > arrangement given the territory, given that it
> was
> > forced to "Go Around the World" in the local
> > parlance of the times. Sure, south of SJ it was
> a
> > hot train, but north, it was a dog. That's why
> I
> > addressed the thread to Bay Area guys, who
> might
> > recall the deal. When I discovered this old
> doodle
> > I was kind of amused by the whiny sentiment,
> > because I recall that as a brakeman I actually
> > liked the train for of all of the switching and
> > its out-of-the-humdrum routing. At any rate, as
> > wharfrat commented, it was a "piece of cake"
> > compared to Pool 1.
> >
> > So, I ask, what was the deal, anyway? Was there
> no
> > other reasonable alternative to expedite
> traffic
> > to both locations by 1980?
> >
> > My memory is faulty, here: West thru traffic
> out
> > of WJ: LAOAF, Perishable, one or two LAOAY/K's?
> >
> > Did WJOAY's continue to run after WJ yard lost
> its
> > classification work?
> >
> > EO
> >
> > EO
>
> Vern Ward always talked about the stalag at
> Roseville and Zel's (the plate of plenty) as the
> worst destination. I'm from the Santa Fe and
> don't know...


Psycho Ward there was an interesting character!

WAF Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If they stuck a LAOAY onto it, yes, Mulford work.
> To make the Warm Springs setout, they had to
> bypass San Jose, which was rare, as San Jose had a
> major setout for south peninsula and SF. 1980 was
> gthe LAOAF and later the LAOAC which was hotter.

Well, that seems to explain it - combining trains. Perhaps it was the case of somebody in LA looking at a map and figuring that the train could knock off two birds with one stone, so to speak, without understanding how much delay was involved creeping through the wyes & etc. Unless the Mulford traffic was something akin to shut-down cars, the delay to Oakland traffic doesn't seem justified. Setting-out the Mulford cars at WJ would have been a good alternative if they were not particularly time sensitive. The more I think about it, the more I understand that the doodle was a result of crew bemusement over the pooch (Oakland traffic) being so thoroughly screwed by the arrangement. Since this sporadically lasted but a month or two, I think, somebody must have finally scrutinized the delay reports.

Incidentally, we all passed the conductor's exam because Big Daddy, I figure, sneaked rule books into a desk drawer in the exam room. Nichols was a nice guy, but...

EO

SanJoaquinEngr Wrote:

> Psycho Ward there was an interesting character!

That's an understatement!

Gad, I could tell stories...but out of respect for his son, an E for Amtrak and a nice kid, I won't.

EO

hogheaded Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> WAF Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > If they stuck a LAOAY onto it, yes, Mulford
> work.
> > To make the Warm Springs setout, they had to
> > bypass San Jose, which was rare, as San Jose had
> a
> > major setout for south peninsula and SF. 1980
> was
> > gthe LAOAF and later the LAOAC which was
> hotter.
>
> Well, that seems to explain it - combining trains.
> Perhaps it was the case of somebody in LA looking
> at a map and figuring that the train could knock
> off two birds with one stone, so to speak, without
> understanding how much delay was involved creeping
> through the wyes & etc. Unless the Mulford traffic
> was something akin to shut-down cars, the delay to
> Oakland traffic doesn't seem justified.
> Setting-out the Mulford cars at WJ would have been
> a good alternative if they were not particularly
> time sensitive. The more I think about it, the
> more I understand that the doodle was a result of
> crew bemusement over the pooch (Oakland traffic)
> being so thoroughly screwed by the arrangement.
> Since this sporadically lasted but a month or two,
> I think, somebody must have finally scrutinized
> the delay reports.
>
> Incidentally, we all passed the conductor's exam
> because Big Daddy, I figure, sneaked rule books
> into a desk drawer in the exam room. Nichols was a
> nice guy, but...
>
> EO

Ed, its a case of get it out of my yard and let someone else worry about what is in the train. As RL King once said when told 3 50 cars trains went out an hour apart, "why not combined them into one big train"?

WAF Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Ed, its a case of get it out of my yard and let
> someone else worry about what is in the train. As
> RL King once said when told 3 50 cars trains went
> out an hour apart, "why not combined them into one
> big train"?

Yeah, it always seemed to come down to that sort of mentality, didn't it? Even now, how to get everyone to pull in the same direction on the large scale continues to be one of the near-imponderables of the business, at least if one tries to be the least bit even-handed about the issues involved. Perhaps if rails engaged in a little more therapeutic doodling...

EO

WAF Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ed, its a case of get it out of my yard and let
> someone else worry about what is in the train. As
> RL King once said when told 3 50 cars trains went
> out an hour apart, "why not combined them into one
> big train"?

Because it would be nice if the trains would fit into the sidings?

PHall Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> WAF Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Ed, its a case of get it out of my yard and let
> > someone else worry about what is in the train.
> As
> > RL King once said when told 3 50 cars trains
> went
> > out an hour apart, "why not combined them into
> one
> > big train"?
>
> Because it would be nice if the trains would fit
> into the sidings?

Its a matter of keeping train starts to a low number and SP's brain trust said its cheaper and more efficent to run long trains

WAF Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> PHall Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > WAF Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Ed, its a case of get it out of my yard and
> let
> > > someone else worry about what is in the
> train.
> > As
> > > RL King once said when told 3 50 cars trains
> > went
> > > out an hour apart, "why not combined them
> into
> > one
> > > big train"?
> >
> > Because it would be nice if the trains would
> fit
> > into the sidings?
>
> Its a matter of keeping train starts to a low
> number and SP's brain trust said its cheaper and
> more efficent to run long trains


But non-clearing trains??? I bet the Chief DS had a different opinion.

PHall Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> WAF Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > PHall Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > WAF Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > > Ed, its a case of get it out of my yard and
> > let
> > > > someone else worry about what is in the
> > train.
> > > As
> > > > RL King once said when told 3 50 cars
> trains
> > > went
> > > > out an hour apart, "why not combined them
> > into
> > > one
> > > > big train"?
> > >
> > > Because it would be nice if the trains would
> > fit
> > > into the sidings?
> >
> > Its a matter of keeping train starts to a low
> > number and SP's brain trust said its cheaper
> and
> > more efficent to run long trains
>
>
> But non-clearing trains??? I bet the Chief DS had
> a different opinion.

How about non-clearing trains with broken-down locos manned by rummy crews that weren't allowed to lay-off for their own funerals?

Wait. I'm ranting, aren't I?

EO

This WAS the situation on the Coast between 1980-82. Below SLO, trains could onlky meet at Burbank Jct, DT at Santa Barb, doubling over at Surf or on the DT at SLO. Same thing above SLO, Santa Margarita, the overlap at McKay and Soledad, Salinas or WJ

Ahh yes, reminds me of the old SP saying that we all knew so well --- "Up hill slow, down hill fast, tonnage first, safety last!"



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 04/15/15 17:21 by donsrich.