I think that the "alternating power" plan at Sheepscot was the major ingredient that allowed us to handle more people with less difficulty than previous years. For those who were not there, let me explain: When a train had arrived, set its brakes, and discharged its passengers, its engine (the "arriving engine") uncoupled, leaving a foot or two of space. The "departing engine," which had been waiting on a siding for the arriving train to clear the main line switch, then proceeded onto the main line and came down the main to couple onto the standing string of cars. When coupling was complete and tested, the passengers boarded and the train departed. The "arriving engine" was thus left alone to be serviced if needed and to progress to the siding where it would become the "departing engine" on the next cycle. This process removed all delays associated with runarounds and engine servicing at Sheepscot, cutting the amount of time passengers waited to board at Sheepscot and the amount of time passengers waited at Alna Center for the train to return. I have not seen a comparison of the records, but I expect that this also permitted us to run at least one more trip.
Other important ingredients were a generous quantity of brakemen (one per car), a generous quantity of step boxes at Alna Center (four?), and an excellent "ground crew" at Alna Center who worked with the brakemen to quickly and safely get arriving passengers off, and departing passengers on, all the while avoiding the run-around engine. The engine, train, and ground crews also did a good job at stopping at the pre-positioned step boxes and having the departing passengers ready but clear of the arriving passengers. All of these elements made the Alna Center operation very quick but very safe.
-John
