I believe I read somewhere that doodlebugs could be used to move a few freight cars in mixed train service but I've never seen pictures of this. The pictures I've seen either show the doodlebug as a single railcar or pulling a trailing coach or combine. Would they ever be used to move a few freight cars?
I have a doodlebug for the branchline that is currently under construction. At the terminus of the branchline will be a creamery that needs to have two milk tank cars moved each morning to the mainline interchange where they will be picked up by the mainline milk train. The doodlebug provides passenger service on the branchline and I would like to know if it would be prototypical for it to move those two milk tank cars as part of a mixed train. If so, how common would such a practice be?
I know the rule is it is my railroad and I can do whatever I want but what I want is to follow prototypical practices.
Santa Fe and Rock Island used doodlebugs in branchline service to haul freight, during WWII the all electric Vasalia Electric, which had ceased passenger operations many years before, leased a SP doodlebug to move freight this was perferable to leasing steam power as there were no servicing facalities available.
Dave
I seen photos in a Trains Magazine(?) where a 'bug was toting two boxcars once or twice a week for the only active shipper on the line..The 'bug was hauling more mail and REA shipments then passengers.
IIRC this branch line was abandon and ripped out by 1959 or 1960..
Larry
Conductor.
Summerset Ry.
"Stay Alert, Don't get hurt Safety First!"
Thanks Dave, Larry. That's what I wanted to hear.
Santa Fe had one 'super-doodlebug' (M190) that was serious branchline power. 900hp prime mover, articulated, trailer half was meant for express, not passengers. It could handle a coach and several freight cars at track speed.
Chuck (Modeling Central Japan in September, 1964 - rail-minibus, no doodlebugs)
According to stories I have heard, from time to time the CB&Q found itself short of power to run its daily turn from Galesburg down to Peoria and back, and in the 1960s found itself powering up the old doodlebug that was sitting in the roundhouse after the passenger run it had been assigned to was discontinued. It was good for only a few cars but that is likely all the traffic on the line anyway.
This might have been written up in Railroad & Railfan years ago. I know I read about it and it was written by Jim Boyd.
I was once lucky enough to get a cab ride on a BN switcher at Yates City which is between Galesburg and Peoria, and the engineer told us of the time in the early 1960s that they were again so power short for the Galesburg to Peoria turn that they actually steamed up the 2-8-2 4960 that was also housed in the old Galesburg roundhouse - a little remarked use of steam in common carrier freight service in the 1960s. The Q also steamed up 4960 to haul freight through Savannah IL during the huge 1965 flood when the water was high enough to short out diesel traction motors but not high enough to stop a steam locomotive.
Dave Nelson
http://cs.trains.com/mrr/f/13/t/239981.aspx?page=5#2746210
"One difference between pessimists and optimists is that while pessimists are more often right, optimists have far more fun."
Shortline Huntingdon & Broad Top Mountain RR & Coal Co. handled a daily milk car for the Supplee-Wills-Jones dairy from the PRR mainline connection at Huntingdon to Bedford, PA (the last few miles into Bedford being on PRR branch trackage rights). Brill gas electric railcar M-39 was purchased in 1929 to handle the passenger run, with the Supplee milk car trailing. All went well until M-39 was wrecked. She emerged from the H&BTM shop around October, 1941 as unpowered combine no. 27, painted blue. H&BTM's last 4-4-0, number 30, was reconditioned and returned to service to pull the unpowered gas electric and milk car until about 1947, when no. 30 was retired (scrapped 10/1949) and replaced by one of the road's freight 2-8-0's. I think the milk car continued to operate on that train until discontinuance in the early 1950's.
Tom
This is from America's Shortest Interstate Railroad by Richard L. Schmeling (South Platt Press, 2011).
The Nebraska-Kansas Railroad served a cement plant at Superior, Nebraska, and as rail service declined in the area, the problem developed of getting the cement to connections over the Burlington (CB&Q).
"Movements began in February, 1955 with one or two boxcars of sacked cement or loaded cement hoppers per trip on No. 15, which then otherwise consisted of diesel-powered motor 9767 pulling a combination car. Such moves were then occasionally taken to the extreme as the 9767 (with 400 hp) was seen battling the westbound trip with fove or six loaded cement hoppers - which did not help the aging motor's mechanical condition! This arrangement continued through July, 1956, when motor 9841 was permanetly assigned to Nos. 15-16. The 9841, with a 275 hp engine, was incapable of handling more than two loads of cement. This unique option for moving cement out of Superior finally ended wehn Nos. 15-16 were discontinued effective March 2, 1958."
Bill
jecorbett but what I want is to follow prototypical practices.
The main thing to keep in mind is that most gas-electric cars simply did not have much weight in the car body, so their the tractive effort they could deliver was simply not there to move anything but the car itself and maybe a single trailer car of similar weight.
Hauling even a 40' box car loaded to it max rating, or a full tank carm would be a struggle for most gas electrics, but a freight car with somewhat less than it maximum loaded weight would probably be manageable.
The Chicago & Great Western had at least one demoted to working a local on a very light rail branch line, IIRC.
Victor A. Baird
Fort Wayne, Indiana
Between Beach Bill and Software Tools, they covered what I was going to point out. Often all they had to work with was 300 hp or so and all that power went to only one two-axle truck in most cases. Under the best of cases, no grade, cars loaded to less than capacity, 3 cars was probably pushing the limit. It's a little hard to imagine them moving 5 cars loaded with cement, but maybe it was all downhill to get there? In some cases, you were lucky to move a single car. Just don't expect it to move a lot.
Mike Lehman
Urbana, IL
100,000 pounds on the power truck is not unusual for a gas-electric. And 250,000 pounds is typical for NW2's and SW7's. So the gas-electric should pull 40% of the switcher. And a switcher can pull maybe 35 cars (I've seen one pull 47). 40% of 35 cars is 14 cars. Of course, adding a grade has a huge effect on both.
I have to wonder if it wasn't so much that a gas-electric couldn't pull a string of cars as it was that it wasn't needed and/or appropriate.
And then we can get into union labor rules. A normal freight had a crew of 5. A gas electric does not. Do you think the union would have any problem with using a gas electric as a locomotive? You should.
Ed
Ed,
Gotta remember it's not a very well distributed weight compared to a switcher. Essentially a passenger car with a motor. There were other factors, too, that limited train length as surely as tractive effort, brakes and draft gear. Unless your doodlebug was spec-ed with it or installed later, again it's not switcher-class accomodations, so to speak. How much capacity to pump air and the type of master brake valve could be very limiting in terms of handling additional cars. Draft gear could be improved, but with motor cars, you usually try to go light, so factors beyond the draft gear like frame strength and attachment points could limit the options.
As for labor agreements, certainly there would be something to cover such work if of a recurring nature. Fundamentally, there is the difference between freight and passenger service. But passenger trains handled picking up and dropping express cars, for instance. I'm sure the final outcome, why and how successful varied from road to road just as companies today vary greatly in their treatment of employees, it just that when you have a union, as most line did after the mid 1930s, redress was available. It would not surprise me that handling freight would earn extra pay, given you were handling two jobs at once, but I don't know that for certain. However other situations I'm familiar with would suggest that was the case. If so, men might bid for the job based on what was essentially premium pay. Not such a bad day of extra work if the pay was right.
I'm not sure it it's been mentioned yet, but one of the Green Frog Santa Fee Videos by Emry Gulash has some footage of a gas electric swticthing a freight car. IIRC, it does a flying switch manuever to boot.
mlehmanAs for labor agreements, certainly there would be something to cover such work if of a recurring nature.
Right you are but,let's call that bug a mixed freight since it handles some freight cars The Brotherhood would aprove such a train classifaction since mixed trains was already in the agreement..Would the Fireman's Union split hairs since the bug is doing the work of a regular locomotive by setting out cars? I dunno.
From page 179 of Edmund Keilty's "Interurbans without Wires":
"The Spokane, Portland & Seattle Railroad was persuaded to let Ewbank run tests [of his gas-electric], and the husky 333 managed to pull a 905-ton train of 12 heavyweight passenger coaches along the north bank of the Columbia River."
There's a photo.
That's equivalent to 6.5 fully loaded 5161 cu ft grain hoppers. Without roller bearings. Or perhaps more accurately, 9 "olden day" loaded cement hoppers.
While I suppose it could have been called "husky", there's nothing in the photo that indicated it was any different than a typical large gas-electric. It is noted that the engine was 350 HP. And, in the photo, the train is actually a baggage-RPO, a baggage, a baggage, and what looks like coaches.
And as far as labor rules, let's not forget how long the unions kept firemen on diesels. Long after they had allowed them to not even be on gas-electrics. And two brakemen on a gas-electric? Really? Nope. Gas-electrics were a very real threat to jobs back in the day. But that day was the Depression, and labor was not in a position to make dramatic demands. Well, they were. But they could often be ignored. And were.
7j43kFrom page 179 of Edmund Keilty's "Interurbans without Wires": "The Spokane, Portland & Seattle Railroad was persuaded to let Ewbank run tests [of his gas-electric], and the husky 333 managed to pull a 905-ton train of 12 heavyweight passenger coaches along the north bank of the Columbia River." There's a photo. That's equivalent to 6.5 fully loaded 5161 cu ft grain hoppers. Without roller bearings. Or perhaps more accurately, 9 "olden day" loaded cement hoppers. While I suppose it could have been called "husky", there's nothing in the photo that indicated it was any different than a typical large gas-electric. It is noted that the engine was 350 HP.
It would be useful to know the grade of the test route. I did some poking around to see what the max grades might be. Found that between Pasco and Spokane it was 0.4% and others described it as "water-level route" compared to a parallel NP line, which usually means "not much."
And this brings up one of those problems with history, the prototype and the way model railroaders think of both. I tend to answer questions that are of a general nature with a general reply, i.e. what was common or expected. Often, model railroaders are seeking to justify the unusual or extreme for any or all of several reasons: the desire to run a favorite loco (or in this case, motor car perhaps); to justify a min radius; or to explain an extreme grade. That's all well and good, but it tells you about as much about what most people can run a mile in by citing the time of the last Olympic gold medal miler. It would be rather over optimistic about what my time in the mile might be
So it is an interesting data point, but I suspect rather unusual for whatever reason besides someone thinking like a model RRer and loading her up to see what she could do. All the pics I've seen of motorcars in such service tend towards the onesies, maybe two cars. Trains were rather uncommon and, when they occurred like the test run you mention, were notable probably because they were so unusual. It's not a subject I've studied in depth, but one where I've seen enough to form a general impression of what was typical.
Larry brings up an interesting point about such use being essentially a mixed train. I suspect that's correct as far as labor agreements went, as they tended to rely on precedent and that's a pretty fair one. Then there's the question of "Where's the caboose?" in a time where cabooses almost always carried the markers. I supect they simply hung a flag or lamp on the rear coupler. And that was good enough on the sorts of branch and minor lines that motor cars typically operated on. That said, such lines were often not water-level routes and a caboose could be a restrictive dead weight for motive power that probably worked pretty hard to get more than one or two loaded cars over the line. Again, a typical answer, rather than an outlier. I'm sure there's a pic somewhere of a caboose hooked up behind a dooblebug-powered train
To come back full circle to the OP's question about the two tank cars. Presuming the loads traveled downgrade and the MTs up, I suspect it would work. On the other hand, if the loads went uphill, then how reliable and successful it would likely be depends on the grade. Tanks cars usually travel full and that's almost never a light load.
If it helps, and there are two doodlebug runs a day, cows are often milked twice a day. That way the morning train could bring one car and the afternoon run a second one. But that's just the old pig farmer in me talking. I don't know much more than that about dairy ops, other than where the "control stand" is
Finally, one last problem with longer trains and doodlebugs. They were passenger trains and while maybe out in the sticks, they often needed to make time for a connecting trains at one end of the route. Too much freight and the train is late. Once again, on rare occassions that's probably acceptable, but between PUs and drops and the tonnage slowing an already relatively slow sort of ride, the dispatcher knows a doodlebug is a doodlebug. If you really need a loco, that's what the trainmaster probably expects to have happen. Using a doodlebug for freight is also not going to do it any favors in the maintenance department. None of these factors preclude doodlebug-powered trains with multiple freight cars, but they do suggest reasons they were atypical.
Mike,
I'm pretty sure the grade was "slim to none".
I don't think your "Olympic" comment applies. The gas electric in the photo looks absolutely typical of a "heavy" gas electric. And it was, of course, a publicity stunt. But it did happen.
Certainly, gas electrics pulling freight was unusual. Most (but NOT all) of the photos in my two gas electric books show no more than one trailer. That was kind of really the point of a gas electric.
On a sort of slightly sidish note, EMC/EMD got its start selling gas electrics. Not locomotives. But they apparently learned a lot while doing so.
7j43kI don't think your "Olympic" comment applies. The gas electric in the photo looks absolutely typical of a "heavy" gas electric. And it was, of course, a publicity stunt. But it did happen.
Of course it happened. People run 4 minute miles. Most people don't run 4 minute miles. There's a difference between a publicity stunt and regular operations. I suspect the OP was asking more about regular operations. You suspect he was asking about a publicity stunt. These are somewhat different but related questions. The answers don't preclude the other happening. Which was my point in noting that PR is one thing, railroading somewhat different.
Mike,Here's another way to look at a 'Bug pulling 2 or maybe 3 freight cars.
If a 'Bug had 330 HP that 30 more horses the GEs 44 Tonner at 300 HP.
Consider the railroad's view. Pay a 5 man crew,plus locomotive operation costs to deliver 3 or 4 cars a week or have the daily passenger train to deliver those cars with a 2 or 3 man crew? To the railroad that's a no brainer.
Another thing to remember a lot of these 'Bug runs was force by the Feds and State governments because of the mail and REA contracts and the (cough! cough!) need for passenger service even though passengers were far and few between-that was more/less a State political thing.
Oh, I see that Larry. There's lots of evidence out there of a car or two tacked onto motor cars. If that's the traffic level, it makes total sense. No need to run a freight.
Pics of motor car trains, i.e. pulling more than a couple of freight cars? Rare, very rare for the reasons I explained and more. They certainly did happen and probably when they did they usually weren't PR stunts. But it was the force of circumstances when it did hapen and simply not a regular practice. Something so unusual would tend to draw it's fair share of attention back when film was relatively expensive, yet the number of pics of such practices suggest just how rarely it did happen.
Another angle to consider. A few motor cars handled passenger trailers. Any pics of those with a freight car or two behind them? Probably out there, but you'd have to dig for them. I can't recal any. But a line with a motor that rated enough passemnger for a trailer would likely face more pressure to stick to the timetbale -- and thus limitations on the amount of freight work it could do between terminals.
That anything could happen is different from what things usually happened. It may even be more boring than setting records, but it's likely to tell us more about the history of something than just the highlights.
I KNOW he was asking about regular operations. I DO NOT suspect he was asking about a publicity stunt.
My objection with the Olympic-4-minute comment is that it is an example of something only a few people can do--very unusual people. I was showing an example of something being done by what appears to be a very typical (heavy) gas-electric. I was thus saying that I felt it likely that "most" other heavy gas-electrics COULD do the same. The parallel in Olympic-speak would be that most healthy sturdy humans could run a 4 minute mile. And that is not so.
Now, it was of course a stunt. I do not believe that the manufacturer was advocating that the car could do the same thing day in and out. But it DOES show essentially the maximum load of such a car. Prudence would obviously say to back down from that number.
In Keilty's "Doodlebug Country", there are several photos showing gas-electric trains with more than one car trailing. Of especial interest might be the splendid photo on the rear endpaper showing a Lehigh Valley EMC gas-electric pulling an LV Osgood-Bradley coach and a single-sheathed Milwaukee box car.
Discussing the OP's question further:
If you're using the Walthers gas-electric, it is definitely NOT a "heavy" gas-electric. I would suggest that the prudent maximum for this car might be only one loaded freight car. Two MIGHT, in the real world, be, uh, unwise. But, maybe..........
Also, if the gas-electric is the only motive power, then there's no choice but to use it for such. BUT, if there were also a real locomotive, I do question whether a branch line would have spent the money for a gas-electric. After all, they already have a paid-for loco. Now all they need is a passenger car. Which will be much cheaper to purchase. And much cheaper to maintain.
While smallish railroads did buy gas-electrics, most appeared to be sold to "real" railroads. And they were using them to replace an up to 5 man crew, and a "real" (read 4-6-2, or so) locomotive. But with a branch line, such enormous savings are not realized. The crews are smaller anyway. And the loco is cheaper. And already available. And quite possibly idle, anyway. And if it ain't idle, you have what Beebe and Clegg wrote about: "Mixed Train Daily".
Still--quite plausible.
Don't take my analogies too seriously. They're brief and usually to the point, not the basis for some reorgnization of an entire arguement. My only real point was that such operations were unusual. Otherwise, next thing you know someone will be pulling trains with one regularly and saying they heard it was so on the internet someplace. Not that I'm against doing what anyone feel works on theuir layout . Do plenty of that myself. But it does pay to be clear about what is and is not a prototype practice vs what's unusual. You gotta know the rules first if you expect to survive by breaking them
I'm not sure what classifies a motor car as heavy, but wonder how many of them were out there vs more typical ones? Most were bought as cheaply as possible in the first place simply because the intent in purchasing them was cost reduction, not service improvement. They also tended to be assigned to a few specific services for much the same reason, often as was noted as part of an agreement to take a train off. Going around and turning them into locos seems rather shortsighted management-wise, a poor use of a limited resource.
I'm not sure what gave me this impression exactly, but I do recall lots of complaints about engine cooling on many motor cars. Not sure if this was associated with a specific engine so much as the basic design did not lend itself well to good cooling, as witnessed by the many variations in radiator placement, etc. But just like towing with a car, you don't want to lose air flow -- and the more cars you add to the consist the slower you go even as the added weight adds to the heat generated by the engine. This does suggest that short distances mde it more possible to deal with with a heavy load.
mlehmanand the more cars you add to the consist the slower you go even as the added weight adds to the heat generated by the engine.
Very true,but,why worry about speed when you're not hauling passengers? Again its a cost versus revenue--along with the desire to abandon that branch...A 5 man crew to deliver 1 or 2 cars doesn't make sense since the daily "passenger" train could do the work.If the bug does overheat then stop and let it cool down..The main goal being give the poorest service you can to discourage the remaining customer(s).
A lot of these branch lines was weed covered and the only thing running was that 'Bug.
BRAKIEVery true,but,why worry about speed when you're not hauling passengers?
Larry,
I was keeping passengers in mind throughout this. Even if poorly patronized, the use of motor cars was because there was a need to transport them at somewhere close to what was on the schedule. This was more a factor prior to mid-century when the need to make connections with other trains was more of a need. With fewer passengers (and sometimes a cancelled mail contract -- when there was mail onboard, you had to make the schedule, because you'd hear about it if not from the PO) and no need to get to the end point in a hurry, then that in itself was another factor here we've yet to really consider directly. Take that away and it opens up more opportunity to move freight.
I'm sure there was a small subset of moves with motor cars heading up short freights -- and nothing to do with passengers or mail.I vaguely recall a shortline or two in the South, where necessity was the mother of invention and down on their luck shortlines using whatevr was capable of moving as motive power. Again, one of those rare outlier cases that is interresting as much for its departure from the norm as anything else about it.
mlehman I'm not sure what classifies a motor car as heavy, but wonder how many of them were out there vs more typical ones?
I'm not sure what classifies a motor car as heavy, but wonder how many of them were out there vs more typical ones?
Well, since I invented (?) the term, I'll tell ya. Looking at EMC, they produced gas-electrics that weighed from 35 tons to up into 80'ish tons with the Big Guy (ATSF M-190) maxing out at 126 tons. Other manufacturers were equally spread around, though the low end looks like it coulda gone down near zero. Anyway, I'd arbitrarily call a 70 ton and up car "heavy". The Walthers model is of the earliest EMC production, and was a 35 ton car. And that lead to my estimations on pulling power for it. Should the OP reveal that his gas electric is an old brass model of the M-190, stand back, folks!
I'm kinda sorta interested in gas-electrics--enough so that I got two GREAT books on the subject: Keilty's "Doodlebug Country" and "Interurbans without Wires". The former is organized by railroad, the latter by manufacturer. I say again: GREAT books.
The February 1991 "Trains Illustrated" magazine has a short photo article of a CB&Q doodlebug switching freight cars. (I had to look this up, i mistakenly thought it was in the "Heartland" hardcover rail book)
Chris M