That patent is highly likely to refer to the 'revived' V1 turbine -- note that it refers to 'double engine locomotives' which would likely be duplexes or double-turbine-mechanicals in the context of the description (locomotives like the S2 or the contemporary Westinghouse patent follow-ons with transmissions and inline reversing gear that I've mentioned only having one turbine to throttle, and the 'upgraded' Ljungstrom on Turbomotive 2 requiring only one throttle for both turbines).
Note the reference to 'forward engine slipping' which was a chronic problem on duplexes. This is much less a critical issue with simple articulateds of this general time period. The filing date of this patent is right around the time PRR was conducting "advanced research" into fixing the issues with the T1s, but there was no room to 'siamese' two front-end throttles of usual kind, whether retrofitted with air assistance or not, in the available layout of that locomotive. It is possible that this arrangement might have allowed proportional control of two independent throttles packaged in available space other than 'usual' for a front-end multiple.
The other thing I haven't checked is the 'patents cited' and the 'patents referencing' lists -- the problem is that while this was filed in 1948, close to when Westinghouse inventors were still making 'steam' patents, it wasn't issued until 1954, by which time any action was out of mechanical drive and settled on STE for anything involving a boiler. For some reason I have not been able to comprehend, entering seven-digit patent numbers into Google can be like pulling teeth; even when prefaced by 'US' and using the keyword 'patent'. You would think it would be straightforward to see US2406264A come up in the first Google page of results, in Google Patents, with the link to a downloadable PDF. Or some reason why Google does not list it.
I found a patent for a Wabco multiple locomotive throttle control, US2692156A. It appears to use 3 hydraulic lines to control 2 separate throttle actuators from a single master control. Don't know if this is the one to which you refer.
Overmod Former Car Maintainer I am interested in examples, or wiring diagrams or a description of any steam locomotive either providing electrical MU control or receiving electrical MU control For the former: There was a contemporary account in Trains about the arrangement on relatively-small Clinchfield #1, which ran using an EMD F B-unit as a booster. That locomotive suffered a cracked frame in the late '70s and was donated to the B&O museum in Baltimore; I do not know if the MU arrangement is still installed but someone there would either know or could find out. My recollection is that the installation was like a remoted control stand using the standard MU connection on the EMD unit and was not coordinated with the steam operating controls. The installation on UP 844 is well-known, and I think has been updated and improved from time to time. Contact Ed Dickens or Union Pacific for details of the history and what's currently installed on UP steam. I do not know what is on 4014 but I suspect somewhere in all the Kalmbach material produced to capitalize on 'Big Boy Fever' there is at least a description of what features it has, and perhaps more technical discussion of why it was designed as it is. Generally overlooked in the history of the automatic-train-control mandate in the Esch Act of 1920 and its subsequent enforcement up to 1928 is that most of the passenger trains subject to ATS were steam-powered, but subject to emergency penalty braking. Some of the systems proposed included various ways of safely arranging this, including valves in the main-steam circuit and power-reverse centering. The system developed by Frank Sprague's company can be studied in full detail as the company records are preserved at the New York Public Library, where they could be studied on request; they contain extensive material on equipment that could easily be adapted to full 'multiple-unit' control of steam locomotives. (This should really not be particularly surprising considering the history of the founder...) There were several manufacturers of proportional air throttles in the late '40s; one of the first drawings provided for the T1 Trust was the Franklin Precision actuator for the system provided for T1 use (it was included in the feasibility plan to show how safe operation with PTC could be assured). Any such system could easily be arranged for proportional remote control, and of course a Valve Pilot system with trivial modification could be used for sufficient control over reverse and cutoff. I renember discussion that one reason for Baldwin to adopt strapless air throttle control for their diesel locomotives was to allow coordination with such kinds of steam system, but I have no firsthand knowledge so only mention the possibility. Many of the proposals for 'new steam' over the years have included discussions of MU, either specially between steam units or compatible with 'standard' 8-notch diesel-electric MU. Some of these tend to underestimate the complexity involved with "automatic firing" on trailing units and a few other prospective concerns. My own opinion, presented without further comment, is that it would not be cost-effective to use reciprocating locomotives as unattended trailing power except in special circumstances; in my experience most of the proposals call only for a steam lead unit to control a trailing diesel consist. The advent of practical DPU of course makes equipping a steam locomotive to control trailing diesels effectively very simple.
Former Car Maintainer I am interested in examples, or wiring diagrams or a description of any steam locomotive either providing electrical MU control or receiving electrical MU control
For the former:
There was a contemporary account in Trains about the arrangement on relatively-small Clinchfield #1, which ran using an EMD F B-unit as a booster. That locomotive suffered a cracked frame in the late '70s and was donated to the B&O museum in Baltimore; I do not know if the MU arrangement is still installed but someone there would either know or could find out. My recollection is that the installation was like a remoted control stand using the standard MU connection on the EMD unit and was not coordinated with the steam operating controls.
The installation on UP 844 is well-known, and I think has been updated and improved from time to time. Contact Ed Dickens or Union Pacific for details of the history and what's currently installed on UP steam. I do not know what is on 4014 but I suspect somewhere in all the Kalmbach material produced to capitalize on 'Big Boy Fever' there is at least a description of what features it has, and perhaps more technical discussion of why it was designed as it is.
Generally overlooked in the history of the automatic-train-control mandate in the Esch Act of 1920 and its subsequent enforcement up to 1928 is that most of the passenger trains subject to ATS were steam-powered, but subject to emergency penalty braking. Some of the systems proposed included various ways of safely arranging this, including valves in the main-steam circuit and power-reverse centering. The system developed by Frank Sprague's company can be studied in full detail as the company records are preserved at the New York Public Library, where they could be studied on request; they contain extensive material on equipment that could easily be adapted to full 'multiple-unit' control of steam locomotives. (This should really not be particularly surprising considering the history of the founder...)
There were several manufacturers of proportional air throttles in the late '40s; one of the first drawings provided for the T1 Trust was the Franklin Precision actuator for the system provided for T1 use (it was included in the feasibility plan to show how safe operation with PTC could be assured). Any such system could easily be arranged for proportional remote control, and of course a Valve Pilot system with trivial modification could be used for sufficient control over reverse and cutoff. I renember discussion that one reason for Baldwin to adopt strapless air throttle control for their diesel locomotives was to allow coordination with such kinds of steam system, but I have no firsthand knowledge so only mention the possibility.
Many of the proposals for 'new steam' over the years have included discussions of MU, either specially between steam units or compatible with 'standard' 8-notch diesel-electric MU. Some of these tend to underestimate the complexity involved with "automatic firing" on trailing units and a few other prospective concerns. My own opinion, presented without further comment, is that it would not be cost-effective to use reciprocating locomotives as unattended trailing power except in special circumstances; in my experience most of the proposals call only for a steam lead unit to control a trailing diesel consist.
The advent of practical DPU of course makes equipping a steam locomotive to control trailing diesels effectively very simple.
BigJim ATLANTIC CENTRAL The diesels also had the advantage of not needing to be turned for use in both directions. And that stretch of mainline had some stiff grades in both directions, made easier only by the fact that empty hoppers going west were easier than the loaded ones going east. Note that the N&W pushed east over the Blue Ridge and without turning the pushers, they also pushed west tender first.
ATLANTIC CENTRAL The diesels also had the advantage of not needing to be turned for use in both directions. And that stretch of mainline had some stiff grades in both directions, made easier only by the fact that empty hoppers going west were easier than the loaded ones going east.
Note that the N&W pushed east over the Blue Ridge and without turning the pushers, they also pushed west tender first.
True enough, but a B&O EL has no trailing truck to guide it in reverse.......
Sheldon
It would be interesting to consider what, if indeed anything, would be needed to get a Y6 to run backward at the speed that true balanced IP injection would permit.
ATLANTIC CENTRALThe diesels also had the advantage of not needing to be turned for use in both directions. And that stretch of mainline had some stiff grades in both directions, made easier only by the fact that empty hoppers going west were easier than the loaded ones going east.
.
ATLANTIC CENTRALIn this picture, from the B&O Museum, above the Engineers seat. https://www.flickr.com/photos/127696208@N08/16979749422/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/127696208@N08/16979749422/
https://ogrforum.ogaugerr.com/topic/steam-mu-box
Other installations, including UP, choose to make use of the dynamic brake assistance operationally; it would not take long to make a listing of the control methods on many various locomotives that have trailing-unit control equipment.
https://www.trainorders.com/discussion/read.php?10,1051498
Anusingly, all this time I've been taking it on faith that Mr. Wardale had actually read material on the Westinghouse steam MU system and had communicated that material via the 5AT 'consultancy' process to Martyn Bane. Upon review I find no real evidence this is so, and the location of any patent(s) actually relevant to the arrangement will involve the same tooth-pulling research as for the Langer balancer and multispeed transmissions for S2-type steam turbine locomotives (both also contemporary Westinghouse developments) or the explanation of Franklin type D poppet valves (only slightly later).
Despite what you read on the Net, this has nothing to do with the Steins patent for duplex locomotive slip control (or its practical implementation on PRR Q2 locomotives) nor does it appear to involve the strangely vanished RMU (remote multiple unit) system Wabco peddled for a while, which explicitly used RF transmission and not hard-wiring in ways unlikely to duplicate a technical approach from the late '40s. (Weirdly there is a partial description of it in patent 6619138 B2 from 2002, which calls RMU 'well known in the industry' and describes the brake-pipe arrangement that acts in 'Comm Loss/Idle Down' LOS to detect a brakepipe signal outside of normal pressure-maintaining; this would force an 'enabled' trailing cut-in steam engine to start adopting best drift, etc. for conditions. Incidentally this patent likely contains enough information to design the features of a compatible brake system, which I believe was a question that was brought up earlier in one of these MUEd-steam threads.)
If there is evidence for a '40s-era wired or 'fluid-power' steam MU system other than in patent applications, it may be in the 'historic Pittsburgh' George Westinghouse Museum collection at the Heinz History Center (search probably starting with Section 4, boxes 710 to 724) but that won't be possible until the pandemic restrictions are relaxed.
Overmod There was a contemporary account in Trains about the arrangement on relatively-small Clinchfield #1, which ran using an EMD F B-unit as a booster. That locomotive suffered a cracked frame in the late '70s and was donated to the B&O museum in Baltimore; I do not know if the MU arrangement is still installed but someone there would either know or could find out. My recollection is that the installation was like a remoted control stand using the standard MU connection on the EMD unit and was not coordinated with the steam operating controls.
In this picture, from the B&O Museum, above the Engineers seat.
As for diesels as helpers on steam powered trains, the B&O and the Western Maryland both mixed steam and diesel as the regular course of business in the early 50's.
The B&O quickly learned that ABBA sets of EMD or ALCO F units were perfect for rear end pushers on the lines west grades over the Allegheny Summit.
After coupling on the rear their better starting effort pushed much of the load as the big steam on the front, typically two EL3's or EM1's, pulled the rest.
The diesels also had the advantage of not needing to be turned for use in both directions. And that stretch of mainline had some stiff grades in both directions, made easier only by the fact that empty hoppers going west were easier than the loaded ones going east.
So the brand new diesels worked as helpers while the steam remained the primary power until all the steam was replaced.
Some where still packed from our move two years ago, I have a series of photos showing a Western Maryland mine branch where they are moving about 75 loaded 50 ton hoppers.
On the head end, a pair of 2-8-0's, in the middle, two ALCO RS units and another 2-8-0, and on the rear two more 2-8-0's. Seven locos, six crews, 3700 tons, 2% grades and 20 degree curves - all working together - that's what it took get the coal out of those mine valleys. These were often the biggest locos that the track conditions would allow.
"seat of your pants" - that was the main factor.
[quote user="Overmod"
There were several manufacturers of proportional air throttles in the late '40s; one of the first drawings provided for the T1 Trust was the Franklin Precision actuator for the system provided for T1 use
[/quote]
I seem to have heard a mention of a pneumatic throttle control concept for MUing steam. It is supposedly mentioned in the book "The Red Devil, and other tales from the steam ages". It was supposedly patented by Wabco in the 1940s.
As far as the U844 MU scheme was concerned, the 844 would lead and the diesel electrics help. The MU box was operated by the engineer in the 844. The controls on the box was 1. Gen fld 2. Notch selector 3. Direction switch 4. Emergency kill
The 844 engineer would play with the MU box until he felt the DE helpers were keeping up.
Former Car MaintainerI am interested in examples, or wiring diagrams or a description of any steam locomotive either providing electrical MU control or receiving electrical MU control
Overmod Not much different except that the diesel would probably assume more of the starting load due to its much higher available short-term rating. At higher speed the steam engine might assume a greater proportion of the work. Now, there are steam locomotives with MU control boxes, which could run 'helpers' with a fair degree of very good cooperation between steam and diesel control. How that is actually done probably varies from team to team; I will say that if you want a master-class explanation you'll likely get at least one 'firsthand' by posting over on RyPN... Caution! Zombie thread alert! I answered because the present poster has a present request about the subject... but I believe the actual thread started in 2008, and many of the posts specifically mention operation with mixed steamers and diesels.
Not much different except that the diesel would probably assume more of the starting load due to its much higher available short-term rating. At higher speed the steam engine might assume a greater proportion of the work.
Now, there are steam locomotives with MU control boxes, which could run 'helpers' with a fair degree of very good cooperation between steam and diesel control. How that is actually done probably varies from team to team; I will say that if you want a master-class explanation you'll likely get at least one 'firsthand' by posting over on RyPN...
Caution! Zombie thread alert! I answered because the present poster has a present request about the subject... but I believe the actual thread started in 2008, and many of the posts specifically mention operation with mixed steamers and diesels.
I am interested in examples, or wiring diagrams or a description of any steam locomotive either providing electrical MU control or receiving electrical MU control
Other than the pusher engine whistling to the head end that it was ready to go, no other whistling was needed. Engineers were experienced enough to know what to do when and where. Engineers not on the lead engine watched their air gauges to see when the brakes had been applied and released.
I'll emphasize this one more time, experience got the train over the road! Even with radios, there were times when we could take a train with pushers over the road with only "Let's go" and not a single other word said!
I get the idea of co-ordinating steam locomotives operating in tandem through whistle tweets from the designated lead unit, and the lead unit controlling the brakes. How was it done when a diesel unit was assigned to get a steam unit "over the pass" ?
A key phrase in the above posts is "by the seat of the pants". And it is more than just a phrase and probably has its origin in steam railroading. Even diesel engineers know this. You actually "feel' your train from one end to the other through your seat: vibrations, pulls, jumps, learches, run ins and run outs, etc. etc. It's not book learned by any means, nor by lecture, nor by anyone just telling it is so, and by no means from a computer simulated program. An engineer gets to know his locomotive(s), his train(s), his railroad, learns how to act and react, literally, by the seat of his pants sitting in the seat on the right hand side.
RIDEWITHMEHENRY is the name for our almost monthly day of riding trains and transit in either the NYCity or Philadelphia areas including all commuter lines, Amtrak, subways, light rail and trolleys, bus and ferries when warranted. No fees, just let us know you want to join the ride and pay your fares. Ask to be on our email list or find us on FB as RIDEWITHMEHENRY (all caps) to get descriptions of each outing.
In all fairness, heave trains were not limited to the diesel era. The Pennsy, Missabe and Norfolk and Western handled some hefty trains with steam,Missabe doing it the longest until about 1960 I think.
Take nothing away from the men in the age of steam; however, today's trains are longer and heavier than anything the men of steam could even concieve of handling. In the days of steam the 4000 foot 5000 ton train was a big one....today the 9000 foot 10000 ton train is the norm. The longer the train the more humps and swales the train occupies and the more opportunity for slack action to tear it apart.
Taking a train uphill, is realitvely the easiest part of mountain railroading. Bringing the train downhill is where the braking skills come to the fore. In the days of steam, with no such thing as dynamic braking, with the driver tires being sweated onto the wheels, engine breaking was unheard of. Too much heat generated by braking on the drivers would cause the tires to expand and leave the wheel, something no engineer wanted to be responsible for. Brakemen at the top of the hill would set the prescribed number of retainers, used to maintain the brake application on the cars as they decended the hill. Once the bottom of the hill as reached, the train was stopped and the retainers were turned down, so that normal braking operations could continue.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
One thing the other respondants haven't mentioned is the process of controlling slack action. If the helper or helpers were on the front of the train the lead engineer initiated start up by butting back against the train. After slack had run out all the way back to the caboose he then started to roll the train forward. The road engine joined in as the train gathered a little momentum. If the helper or helpers were on the rear, the rear helpers butted the train forward so that slack ran to the front. When the lead engines felt the slack action reach them and the train start to roll, they joined in and the train was under way. On heavy mineral trains in sawtooth profile territory the Pennsy often used two engines in front and two in the rear. When going upgrade all of them worked. On the downgrades one engine at each end shut off and drifted letting the two remaining engines handle the train. Trains bunched up going uphill and stretched out going downhill and controlling the slack action could mean the difference between a smooth run and one with broken coupler knuckles or jacknifed cars.
spikejones52002 Did the first diesels have radio commucation?
No. Most radio came along in the mid to late 50's.
It had to be a lot harder sitting in a diesel. You are in a enclosed cab with a big pounding engine banging behind you.
Plus the horns are mainly pointing forward.
Plus being so far beind the lead.
Did the first diesels have radio commucation?
Bagehot You watched/felt the drawbar. -- Bagehot
You watched/felt the drawbar.
-- Bagehot
You watched the ground, felt the train (even the last car) through the seat of your pants, listened to your locomotive, listened to the other(s), too, then you listened for whistle instructions, then you reacted then you went back to #1 and continued through the cycle everytime something changed. You were the computer that assimilated all the information and made the right determinations and moves to make the whole thing happen. Even early diesel pusher/helper engineers had to (and do) go through most of the same procecdures. I'm not saying the guys today don't have it, it is just a lot different.
This is a question asked so many times before including me.
After reading so many responses. The lead engine took command of the train.
The following engineers after getting instructions on what to do. He did it by the seat of his pants.
The engineers knew the track like the back of their hand. Then they felt how his engine was preforming.
I heard about several cases when the engineers getting into fights because an engineer was not preforming correctly and making another engine do more work.
Diesel engines had the same problems when set as middle and end helpers. They had to feel how their engine was preforming and where in the grade he was.
You could have one engine or set of engines going down hill and others still going up hill.
In steam era, going down hills was worse than going up hill. A good steam engineer could apply some back pressure to keep from burning up his brake shoes. He could blow out a cylinder or rod.
Also if the pusher engines did not handle the slack properly the front engine could rip out a coupler.
bwanabobI have always wondered how, back in the days of steam, and before radios or m.u., how multiple engine trains stayed coordinated in terms of acceleration and braking. I'm sure there is lots of knowledge about that out there.
daveklepperIn addition, both engineers were familiar with the territory. Where maximum power was required because of the grade, where there were slow orders, where the grade leveled off and the throttle needed to be reset to reduce power, etc.
Sorry I am late to this thread. Engineers in those days would have fired on those trips long before they got to handle the throttle. On the CP the lead helper ran the air brakes and it was considered quite a skill since as is mentioned elsewhere on the thread the following units still had to work their own brakes. Also, CP always ran the end pusher ahead of the caboose to prevent crushing in a wreck, and behind diesel units in the transition era to prevent cinders being sucked into the engine air intakes while in tunnels. The rear engines worked their brakes to the sounds of the train air
In tunnels and other mountainous terrain whistles were not always easy to hear so I always had heard that the only signals used were those in the Uniform Code of Operating Rules. Two shorts to start, if you are moving two shorts to stop. Three shorts to reverse, if you are backing up three shorts to stop.
The thing I always remember from my Dad's stories from back then is this. When I was very young I asked them how they did that, and he almost exactly said that the following engineers were one with their train, forty years before everyone else in the west had heard of Zen! It truly was going by the seat of your pants in 200 ton pieces of machinery. One of the things not often mentioned here is that he also said steam engines never worked well together, and would always use more fuel and water together than the sum of their consumption would be had they covered the same run separately. One of the more important reasons why when it came to dieselizing CP wanted to do the mountainous areas first.
AgentKid
So shovel the coal, let this rattler roll.
"A Train is a Place Going Somewhere" CP Rail Public Timetable
"O. S. Irricana"
. . . __ . ______
The engineer of the engine in the lead, be it "Helper" or not, is in charge. The brake valves of all the other engines are cut out and function the same as any other car in the train with the exception the engineer can release the engine brakes on his engine only (a must in steam days) and can make an emergency brake application if required.
In steam days it was usually (but not always) the assigned passenger engineer in the lead. With steam and diesel mixed steam usually lead. A multiple unit diesel could rip the wood pilot beam off the front steam engine without too much effort.
All crew members, road crew and helper(s) are jointly responsible for rules compliance.
From my understanding, I would agree with what has been written. It was even more fun (and noiser) with 3 or 4 helpers because each helper had to reply to the command whistle with a reply whistle.
But let's get some definitions straight. Y'all are saying lead engine, but do you mean the head end helper, or the road engine? From what I have seen in photos and captions the head end helper coupled on in front of the road engine, making it the 'lead' engine. I think it was the road engineer who was in charge.
Phil
Timber Head Eastern Railroad "THE Railroad Through the Sierras"
That is most of the answer. In addition, both engineers were familiar with the territory. Where maximum power was required because of the grade, where there were slow orders, where the grade leveled off and the throttle needed to be reset to reduce power, etc. The lead engineer always controlled braking. Independent of any whistle coordination, if the sound of initial brake application was heard by the second engineer, he would immediately yank the throttle to cut power. All steam locomotive engineers, double headed or what or helper or what, used their ears as well as their eyes.
The way I understand it was that the lead engine controlled the air brakes and the use of whistle signals comtrolled every thing else. My Grandpa told me that if he were in helper service the lead engineer and he would decide on the length and the number of whistles were to be used for accelerations and and braking of the train. the lead engineer would also decide where they would take on water and fuel Hope this helps Larry
Login, or register today to interact in our online community, comment on articles, receive our newsletter, manage your account online and more!
Get the Classic Trains twice-monthly newsletter