Subs and Divisions

A division is the portion of the railroad under the supervision of a superintendent.  A subdivision is a smaller portion of a division.  A subdivision is typically a crew district or a branch line.  A division point is just a big yard at one end of the division or another.  A regional railroad is basically a cast off portion of a former class one.  Division points were important back in the steam era days.  Trains would run from division point to division point and completely reswitch and change engines at each division point.  In the regional railroad era, division point yards are essentially irrelevant.  Computers can figure out where cars go hundreds of miles away, there is no need to switch the train every 100 miles.  Modern engines can run a 1000 miles on a tank of fuel, there is no need to change engines every 100 miles.

Subdivision Lengths

Just to expand a bit on that, most mainline subdivisions were around 100 miles, as that's about the distance a crew would cover in a day during the steam era, and about how far the engines could go before servicing. A train would get a fresh engine and crew at each division point.

Today's diesels can operate much longer distances without requiring servicing or refueling, so even if a train operates over a 1000 mile route, the same engines stay on the train, with just a recrew happening at specific crew change points (often old division points).

Regionals

Also a regional railroad is normally only as big as one, maybe two divisions on a class one railroad.  So a regional might only have one superintendent for the entire railroad.  A modern crew district is in the 125-200 mile range so if the regional covers an entire state it probably not more than 2 crew districts wide.

That would depend on the state.

"A modern crew district is in the 125-200 mile range so if the regional covers an entire state it probably not more than 2 crew districts wide."

Many of the western states are much bigger than 200 miles wide, long, or both.

Divisions

Sorry for the multiple posts, having to run some errands this morning.

Divisions and subdivisions are "political" units, that is there is no absolute definition of their size (other than the rule book definition of a division being the portion of the railroad under the direction of a superintendent).  The same railroad with the same route miles, same territory, same terminals, same yards, more or less same operation can have 16, 36, or 24 divisions over the course of a decade or two.  What was one subdivision in 1980 might be 3 subdivisions in 1990.  One division might be just one major terminal and the first 10-20 miles of the routes radiating out of it.  Or one division could be a couple thousand miles of branchlines.

Bottom line is there is a lot of flexibility.  My suggestion would be to pick a regional railroad that is like the one you want to model in general size and operation, then research how that one is set up, talk to a historical group or buy a timetable on E-Bay.  Then you can set yours up as similar or different as you wish.  As you can see there is lots of flexibility.

Just what I needed...

Makes much more sense now!  Thank you, everyone, for your responses, I have a better understanding and I can see how flexible my choices can be from here on out.  So far, my railroad begins in northern NH and runs south through central MA, terminating at an intermodal yard on the southeastern shoreline of CT with somewhere between 80 and 125 mile runs within each state.  By what I gather from what has been written, it would be most practical to call each run within a state a separate "division" and further divide the branches and mainline runs into subdivisions.  I'm glad to see that I was on the right track as this is how I have essentially planned the railroad - although I now see a few areas which need updating.

I'll be sure to post on my blog with the developments to date.

Thanks again!

John

So far, my railroad begins in

Them's fighting words, mister.  That's *my* territory.... 

(Mine is freelanced with a fictional intermodal service up and down the I-95 corridor. Two very large modules (for modules - they're actually stand alone switching layouts at the moment) designed, one of which is well under construction, the other stalled.  The stalled one is "Port Stamford" to place it on the map, although Stamford has nothing close to a port, except a couple of marinas for private boats.  The one well under way is somewhere closer to NYC - probably The Bronx.  Both have intermodal facilities.  The port is, primarily, a ship-to-rail, containerized transfer point, the other road to rail - both trailers and containers).

On divisions and subdivisions.... Even when (if?) I move to an empty nester-sized home where I can build the completed layout, it'll have only one division and I'm not really worrying about subdivisions.  Part of the reason is that the overall idea was to place the various modules in the Boston/NYC/Connecticut valley area and the distances really are only within one division's worth of space.  With a central point of what I'm modeling in the in the New Haven area, it's (very roughly) a 100 mile radius from there.  The second consideration is the length of the actual runs on the completed layout (in operator time).  They just won't long enough to justify crew changes.  Third consideration is that, as others have pointed out, with modern railroads and emphasis on long distance unit train traffic, divisions and, especially  subdivisions don't carry the "power" they once  did.  And the final reason is that the entire layout will have only one superintendent - ME! 

Power

I wouldn't necessarily say that the "power" of divisions and subdivisions has lessened.  The Division (or its equivalent name) is still the area under the supervision of a superintendent and in most railroad management structures he is still a very, very powerful position.  There are many rules and contracts that specifically address his power and authority.  On many roads he is the designated official to issue discipline, all general orders are issued over his signature, in the past all train orders were often issued over his signature, extras could only be authorized by him, etc., etc.

Special instructions in the timetable are still issued by subdivision.  Measurements are still made on a subdivision basis.  The classic way that locations are identified, even today, is by subdivision and milepost.

The division point concept has lessened.  

Having different subdivisions comes in if you model a major yard or a location that  is a boundary between subdivisions or you model junctions or branches, there will be other subdivisions.   Some roads call major lines subdivisions and secondary lines branches or secondaries.  Since Divisions are a fairly high level differentiation, they are to Mike's point, not really modelable.  From a model perspective, the change in divisions means for example, things are charged to a different budget code.  That can be really important on the prototype, not so much on a model.

I should have used "effect", rather than "power"....

What I meant was that divisions and their boundaries have less of an effect on how we operate a layout modeling modern operations (except possibly in the largest layouts out there).  For those who use dispatchers, the dispatcher (and layout owner) generally fulfill the superintendant's role when it comes to issuing train orders (and scheduling.)

Modeling a divison can be done by a club

We call our club layout the Sudbury Division because we are modeling four different subdivisions which are all part of the Canadian Pacific's Sudbury Division of the 1970's.  The real Sudbury Division included the North Bay sub, Cartier sub, Parry Sound sub, Webbwood sub, Little Current sub and Nickel sub plus a couple others, I believe.  We are modelling the Cartier, Webbwood, Little Current and Nickel subs, which all radiate out from Sudbury, which was the location of the Division Headquarters.  It's a little unusual to try to model so many different subdivisions on one layout, but it's logical from our operating plan which sums up as "modeling all operations out of or through Sudbury during the 1970s."

Subdivision, for the most

Subdivision, for the most part, were based on the ‘old’ crew pay agreement of 100 miles equaled a basic day. If you divide 100 miles by 8 hours you get 12.5 miles per hour which at the time was considered the speed a train averaged per hour. Most crew change points where based on the 100 mile principal. Overtime was paid at the rate of 18.75 miles per hour. If the distance was more than 100 miles, between crew change points, crews were paid at the straight rate until the miles where worked off and then overtime. The subdivision I worked on was 114 miles, so our overtime did not start until 9’ 16” (if I remember correctly) on duty. On subdivision’s (crew districts) less than 100 miles crews were general paid 100 miles if held on duty for 8 hours or paid actual miles if turned back with pay, but no less than a basic day’s pay.

This worked great until the advent of faster trains, better track, etc. In the early 70’s railroads started what was call ‘interdivisional runs’. The crews ran through the ‘old’ crew change point to a ‘new’ crew change point. These were special agreements negotiated between the organizations and carriers. However, it did not change the subdivisions. In the 80’s organizations and carriers agreed that the 100 mile day pay scale was antiquate dated and negotiated new pay scale agreements raising the basic day to 150 miles (may be higher now) and changing crew consist and work agreements, but, again the subdivision stayed the same.  

Subdivisions were and are used to identify particular parts of a railroad. They were/are used in timetables, trains orders, slow orders, seniority districts, etc. Also, most railroads had a letter in front of the mile marker (G540) which also identified the line. Obviously railroads could and did have duplicate mile post so the need for the letter. G line was Frisco’s line from St.Louis to Quanah, Texas.  G540 was Oklahoma City.

A division was an accumulation of subdivisions. Divisions aren’t as important today as they were 50 years ago. At one time each division had its own dispatcher offices, engineering office, Master Mechanic, etc. The superintendent ruled the roost!!. Timetables’ were division timetables, not system. However, with modern communications the dispatcher’s office could be consolidated in one location. Along with that came the control center. And before long the superintendent lost a lot of his authority. It should also be noted as divisions disappeared, subdivisions did not. Subdivision names might have changed but the subdivision boundary’s general stayed the same.

For us modelers it really means nothing other than identifying points and locations on our creations. The same as in the real world except we do it for fun! As a mater of fact I have modeled off and on for 40 years and I have never called my model railroad by subdivision or division.  Although I have tried to model a particular area.

I hope  this helps.

Jerome

OKC

Interesting. . .

Mike, I live just outside of Hartford, CT and see a LOT of container traffic up and down I-91.  To my knowledge, there isn't a container port (truck or ship-to-rail) on the CT shore - glad to see I'm not the only one with that idea in mind!!!  My ship-to-rail Eastern Point Terminal will be based in Groton, Ct and will run containers to-and-from CSX's Beacon Park Yard in Allston, MA.  A run to CSX Selkirk, NY will be implied by a staging yard (if I can fit it).

The only reason I'd like to create divisions/subdivisions is to define my entire railroad on paper, first.  From there, I was planning to chose the most feasible route to model based on space I have available.  So far, I have half of a basement in a cape - not a ton of room, especially for 3 "divisions". The idea is to essentially create a prototype in which to have a solid reference point. But, alas, I see your point, Jerome.  I could imagine that some modern roads, especially shortlines and regioinals, could do away with the idea of a division.

So here's a question:  Would it then be "OK" to just name subdivisions only as identifiers (especially across state lines) and do away with divisions all together?  Is this something a modern prototype would follow?

-John

Mike, I live just outside of

Thee and me, both.  I'm up in the hills just southeast of Hartford - south of East Hartford and east of South Hartford (more commonly known as Wethersfield). I'm sure that no one with access to Google maps can figure out where that is....

As for defining the railroad on paper, I understand.  I tried to define mine so as to place it in a nearly real world (I used to describe it as proto-freelanced, but it's more freelance than "proto").  But at least it's plausible in my mind.  Imagine what the world would be like if freights didn't have to run up the west bank of the Hudson and into Selkirk, but could run directly up the coast, ignoring the fumes in the subterranean caverns in NYC - without centenaries, even....)

More immediately to the subject at hand, the preceding should serve as hint of my basis for my basis of model railroading - when reality is convenient is use it, when it's not, bend (but don't break) it.  We all do it to some some extent, whether we call it "selective compression" or "proto-free-lancing" or something else.

The best (only?) advice I can give is that we should understand the prototype, but only we can decide how much of it is best for us to follow on our own layouts, given our druthers and our limitations.  Never fear to ask what the prototype would do, but never be a slave to what they would do, either.  If you want to define your layout in terms of divisions or subdivisions or districts or even just "egads"  (don't look that one up - I just made it up in this context), if it works for you, do it.  If you know why you did it, you're covered....

That, of course, is not "religious railroading" but it *is* hobby railroading - and I'm a model railroad hobbyist (what a clever term, wonder where I got it... , not a model railroad religionist, so take it for what it's worth.

"Good Enough" philosophy differences ≠ "Religionists"

You're a prototype modeller of some form Mike, as in you probably take a few instructions from the real thing to impart some form of reality to your layout. I'm guessing from your layout descriptions, and because we're all discussing the difference between modelling individual subdivisions versus overall divisions in this thread.

So not sure why you would use a loaded term like "religionist"? I think there are just some difficult, self-righteous people in the hobby (as there are everywhere in life) regardless of where they fall in the prototype--freelance spectrum. If someone's being a jerk, just remind them we're all playing with model trains here.

What I think you are trying to describe is the "good enough" philosophy that W. Allen McClelland popularized over 50 years ago. Now some people's definition of "good enough" may be a little closer to the prototype than you prefer, some less so; but that does not make anyone a fanatical zealot.

Maybe next time just say you're more on the "freelance" side of "prototype freelancer"?

OK, end of my rant.

Good Advice...

If I've ever heard some.  I'm sticking to my original plan, which I will post in a blog this afternoon.

Mike, since you live so close by, I'm sure you're heading to Amherst this weekend.  If you do, stop by Tom's Trains (I'm sure you've been in that store a million times, too) as I'll be working the booth here and there both days.

John

Might have been a better term, but.....

I'm sorry, I definitely didn't intend for it be "loaded".  I used it in the same sense others use "rivet counter" to describe someone who pays attention to the most minute of details.

And, yes, I do try to emulate prototype practices *where they make the hobby more enjoyable for me*.  As I noted in another thread, I prefer doing run-arounds to handle facing point spurs, rather than waiting for the return trip.  The prototype process is far more efficient, but also less challenging in a given situation.  The prototypes are, very reasonably, interested in efficiency, not fun.

Similarly, while I operate at some point in the 1990's, my freights that operate on the main will use crummies.  First, because EOT's either require a dedicated dummy car or adding and removing them when trains are made up - not entirely practical in N scale; second, because only the caboose needs to be wired to allow rear end block occupancy detection, rather than all cars and, third, because it puts a bit more operation in operating.  Prototypical?  Not in the 90's, but it's a compromise I make because it affords me greater benefit.

There's nothing wrong with maximum fidelity to the prototype practices (as there's nothing wrong with being a "religionist") for those who get enjoyment out of being as accurate as possible in the number of rivets or in their operations.  Just that the motivation should be the enjoyment one gets from achieving that level of accuracy, not the accuracy itself.

Caution

The relentless quest for prototype operations fidelity may lead to repetition and boredom. There is a conductor for BNSF that communicates regularly about his day on the job. He laments about how exciting it was when he was new but now his days have evolved into repetitious train movements, extra boards, and crew changes. Be careful how far down the prototype operating path you dare go. There is a risk of turning an interesting hobby into a boring non-paying part time job. Rules and hobbies are often diametrically opposed concepts.

Except we don't run 8-12 hours a day, 5 days a week

On one model railroad where we attempt to replicate TT&TO and operate as close to the prototype as possible circa 1954, in 12 operating sessions, one session per month, we cover only SIX DAYS!  So I would argue the chance of boredom because of repetition is to me non-existent.  Now getting too bogged down into the weeds when it pertains to rules, might be a legitimate concern, but I doubt I would stay in the hobby were it not for the desire to replicate the prototype as close and practical as possible.  But as many have said, that is what makes this hobby great, that we all have our own way to enjoy the hobby and there is no "right" or "wrong" way to do it.

Ken L

Prototype vs. Modeled

I've said this before, but it bears repeating. 

A question about what the prototype does and a question about how to do something on a model railroad are two different questions and may have two very different answers. 

Many people ask questions about prototype things and get a technical, very cut and dried answer, when what they meant to ask was, "How should I do this on my model railroad?", which would be a completely different answer.  So if somebody asks "what would the prototype do" question and they get a very restrictive or technical answer, don't beat up the people providing the information for being "zealots' or "rivet counters", they are just answering the question being asked. 

There's no one here "beating

There's no one here "beating up on the rivet counters".  Certainly not me.  My point is rivet counting is fine for the rivet counters - but it shouldn't be a straight jacket for everyone.

And, when someone asks how the prototype does it (especially someone just re-entering the hobby), I think a wise person responds by by going beyond the strict bounds of the question - making clear the additional information is intended to take it beyond the immediate question and into the possible implications of the answer.