The Lead Engine

[FJ and G]

Going home 2 days ago, saw a triple header CSX train stopped directly in front of me at the Alexandria Station. It was a stinkin garbage train from NY. The lead engine was a GP-40 and the back two engines were Dash-8 or 9 AC. I cannot usually identify diesels that well, but CSX actually writes down the model numbers just below the engineer's window. Why, I wondered, was this old geep taking point? Isn't the strongest engine usually in front?

Two theories:
1. That's the way the consist came together and they didn't want the hassles and time spend reshuffling

2. The engineer had a fit of nostalgia

Back to toy trains. Have you ever run double or triple headers with the smaller, less powerful diesel in front?

I usually run my GP-9 behind my SD-45 or U-Boat but now, after seeing this, I might reconsider.

I've also run a steam engine ahead of an F-unit as I've seen steam engines helping diesels over steep hills.

I still have to replace the dummy on my steam engines with couplers so I can doublehead those as well.

Dave Vergun

[cnw1995]

I know here on the UP - the ex-C&N main line on the Harvard (IL) sub - they run still ATS-equipped in front, so you'll see some weird consists - with older engines leading the larger AC units. Other than that, I've recently seen a sand train which was led by an MP15AC - kind of like seeing a long train led by a Beep.

[lionelsoni]

Some engineers prefer traditional control stands to the fancy setups on newer locomotives; and it doesn't matter to the train which one is in front.

[FJ and G]

Doug,

Now that would be a shocker; to see a Beep leading a CSX train thru Alexandria. :-)

Bob,

Good explanation; trainmen are traditionalists.

Doesn't matter to the train, you say? But sometimes it does (or it used to) matter to the management.

For example, most historical pictures I see of Santa Fe's Spirit of 76 scheme, show the lead engine in red white & blue and the trailing units in traditional blue & yellow.

Also, I've never seen a B unit leading a train. Someone will prove me wrong. Watch!

So instead of A-B-B-B-A, you might have B-A-B-B-A, with the B leading. Might hurt visibility somewhat! Come to think of it, the A unit always would face forward and not backwards. Those F units only seemed to have variety in that some A units were run elephant style and others run front/back.

dav

[lionelsoni]

At most, a B-unit would have had hostling controls; and the early ones lacked even those.

[Anonymous]

Coming back from Boston on the Acela the other day, I saw a work train near New Haven that looked like the only diesel A unit was pushing the cars. Either that, or it was pulling them in reverse. Or maybe the other A unit that faced the other direction had been disconnected to do something else.

On the way to Boston on Sunday, we passed the Ringling Bros train in Providence, RI. Its cars were spread over a wide area, so I guess the train was being loaded. We didn't see it anywhere on the way home on Wednesday.

Tony

[Anonymous]

Isnt there is is a "tether" between real locos, telling all the throttle settings and things that were in the lead loco?[?]

[Anonymous]

I saw a UP engine leading some NS engines on the main line heading into Spencer NC last week.Did not understand this lash-up?

[ben10ben]

Yep, David, a B unit as a lead unit can be prototypical, and here's the picture to prove it[:)][:)][:)]

http://atsf.railfan.net/oddities/5513east.html

This is the only time I've ever seen this particular arrangement, though.

Jerry,
Yes, there is a 27-pin connector between diesels that carries throttle position and other important controls. Braking is carried through the main air line, as well as those 4 other hoses that you see hanging off the pilot of most diesels.

[cnw1995]

It's work-train season on the Harvard sub. Lots of ex-C&NW and MoPac MOW equipment, though my favorite is the CGW MoW caboose - right now it's parked by Clybourn.

Speaking of doubleheading- is it possible to run two engines together using conventional power - assuming you were putting out enough power - and I could tie two of 'em together. I'm looking tieing my old pre-war 2-4-2 (which I had rehauled but still doesn't work - guess I have to take it back in) to my MPC-era 2-4-2 that actually still runs.

[lionelsoni]

You certainly can run two locomotives together, especially those with series motors. You can even wire all their motors to one locomotive's e-unit to avoid the nuisance of keeping the e-units synchronized. Lionel specifically approved of running as many as 4 motors from one e-unit.

Running two locomotives with can motors together could be a problem if there is much difference in their gearing, since these permanent-magnet-field motors want to run at a speed proportional to the applied voltage. So the slower locomotive could actually act as a brake on the faster one.

There was an article in CTT a while back that gave tips on adding front couplers to steam locomotives; but I don't know the issue.

[cnw1995]

Thanks, Bob. I'll experiment with this. I'm currently musing whether it's worth it to try to get the older engine to work vs. perhaps gutting it to run it as sort of a 'dummy' - goes against my grain to do so, and it's a heavy 'un, so I'm unsure the newer 2-4-2 could pull it and a short train - especially if the cars are these pre-war lithographed ones - which are heavy themselves. Boy, are they something in comparision with some of the MPC cars which fall over if I blow on them...

[daan]

Something aside the toytrains, in reality the brakepressure is provided by only one engine, no matter how many engines are up front. This is done because of a big railway accident where a part of the train broke away and the heading engines provided so much airpressure that no one noticed and the rest of the train remained running without making an emergency stop.. Some other train smashed into the left carriages..
(So I've heard)..