cascadenorthernrrThose points are true put anything is possible if you have the will! Also how pray tell did the CP manage it on the 1979/80 Royal Hudson tour?
They rebuilt the Hudson cab and added a diesel control stand.The engineer would need to be qualified for steam and diesel operation..
Again this would not be possible in the transition era due to the various crew,work and safety agreements between the railroads and BLE..Then the FRA would have concerns.
However,in your HO world you may do as you please.
Larry
Conductor.
Summerset Ry.
"Stay Alert, Don't get hurt Safety First!"
Ok I see now. But it is still a novel idea! Thank you!
Steve
If everything seems under control, you're not going fast enough!
I once worked with a fellow that was working for Southern Railway on the Knoxville Divison during the steam to diesel transition. Occasionally there would be a heavy passenger train and they did not have enough B-units to handle the weight. In that case they doubled headed with a steam locomotive. He said that they always put the steam locomotive behind the diesel for two reasons. One was they were concerned about the diesel air filiters sucking in all of the soot and cinders. Second was that the diesels had speedometers and the steam did not.
1019xSecond was that the diesels had speedometers and the steam did not.
I find that hard to believe because a steam locomotive engineer would need to know his speed for the legal track speed,restricting signal speed and sections of track under speed restrictions plus the FRA would red flag (tag) any locomotive without speedometers due to safety.
1019x I once worked with a fellow that was working for Southern Railway on the Knoxville Divison during the steam to diesel transition. Occasionally there would be a heavy passenger train and they did not have enough B-units to handle the weight. In that case they doubled headed with a steam locomotive. He said that they always put the steam locomotive behind the diesel for two reasons. One was they were concerned about the diesel air filiters sucking in all of the soot and cinders. Second was that the diesels had speedometers and the steam did not.
BRAKIEI find that hard to believe because a steam locomotive engineer would need to know his speed for the legal track speed,restricting signal speed and sections of track under speed restrictions plus the FRA would red flag (tag) any locomotive without speedometers due to safety.
The FRA didn't come into existence until 1966. 1019x was referring to the transition era.
Many (most? nearly all?) steam engines back in the day did not have speedometers. Engineers determined their speed by experience and feel, or more precisely using mile markers and a railroad watch. Employee timetables included conversion tables from minutes and seconds per mile to MPH. This carried on long past the transition era -- here's an example from a 1976 WP ETT. There are many other examples.
Layout Design GalleryLayout Design Special Interest Group
Is it possible for b units to be reconfigured like tunnel motors?
No
There is not adequate space inside the locomotive to move the necessary equipment. Even if you did manage to squeeze it in, there would not be adquate space inside to do the required monthly inspections and maintenance. Google photos of interior of EMD B unit. There is just enough space to walk through both sides, and open up the engine for maintenance. Having been inside of an FL9, there is barely room in there as it is and thats a longer locomotive.
EMD F_ B unit Length 50ft. SD40T-2 : 70ft 8in. EMD E7/8/9 B units : 70ft, but they have twin 567 12 cylinder engines, probably not going to fit in there either, even though it is longer.
cuyamaMany (most? nearly all?) steam engines back in the day did not have speedometers. Engineers determined their speed by experience and feel, or more precisely using mile markers and a railroad watch. Employee timetables included conversion tables from minutes and seconds per mile to MPH. This carried on long past the transition era -- here's an example from a 1976 WP ETT. There are many other examples.
Not buying it for one reason.. There are restricting signals,restricted speed zones including stations,crossevers and yard limits a engineer would need to know his exact speed..Maybe in the early 1900s they got by with guessing but,those were humans running those engines and the chance of error would be to high...
There was a railroad regulations in place long before the FRA.
BMMECNYC No There is not adequate space inside the locomotive to move the necessary equipment. Even if you did manage to squeeze it in, there would not be adquate space inside to do the required monthly inspections and maintenance. Google photos of interior of EMD B unit. There is just enough space to walk through both sides, and open up the engine for maintenance. Having been inside of an FL9, there is barely room in there as it is and thats a longer locomotive. EMD F_ B unit Length 50ft. SD40T-2 : 70ft 8in. EMD E7/8/9 B units : 70ft, but they have twin 567 12 cylinder engines, probably not going to fit in there either, even though it is longer.
Not even in a Alco PB unit? (they seem wider than EMD units to me)
BRAKIE 1019x Second was that the diesels had speedometers and the steam did not. I find that hard to believe because a steam locomotive engineer would need to know his speed for the legal track speed,restricting signal speed and sections of track under speed restrictions plus the FRA would red flag (tag) any locomotive without speedometers due to safety.
1019x Second was that the diesels had speedometers and the steam did not.
In in the late 40's and early 50's, very few steam locos had speedometers.
Go to a few museums, or even current steam tourist operations, I don't think you find too many speedometers......
But every story I have ever heard from/about a steam engineer, they knew pretty close how fast they were going by using a watch, mile markers and a chart - or just the "feel".
All the east coast Appalachian roads double headed steam and diesel together all through the late forties and 50's - speedometers did not really seem to be an issue.
As for regulations today, or even in the last 30-40 years, OK. But except for Strasbug, and the other steam tourist lines, steam ended pretty much by 1962 with the last locos on the N&W, that was 65 years ago - regulations were different.....
Not really into steam that much, are you Larry?
Sheldon
Lot of gauges - no speedometer:
http://trainweb.org/oldtimetrains/photos/cpr_steam/cab_details.jpg
cascadenorthernrr BMMECNYC No There is not adequate space inside the locomotive to move the necessary equipment. Even if you did manage to squeeze it in, there would not be adquate space inside to do the required monthly inspections and maintenance. Google photos of interior of EMD B unit. There is just enough space to walk through both sides, and open up the engine for maintenance. Having been inside of an FL9, there is barely room in there as it is and thats a longer locomotive. EMD F_ B unit Length 50ft. SD40T-2 : 70ft 8in. EMD E7/8/9 B units : 70ft, but they have twin 567 12 cylinder engines, probably not going to fit in there either, even though it is longer. Not even in a Alco PB unit? (they seem wider than EMD units to me)
Wider? they are roughly the same 10' wide as all North American Standard Gauge trains.
PA : 10' 6", EMD F7 10' 8".
The PA looks wider because it is slighly shorter (14' 8") vs 15ft. Plus the long "nose".
That having been said, you would likely find a GS4 rescuing a Alco PA-PB set due to engine failure. The ALCO 244 was unreliable engine, and contributed to the company's demise.
Here's a useful website about your locomotive: http://www.steamlocomotive.com/northern/?page=sp
Just out of curiosity, why would you need to make it into a tunnel motor? The GS class was/are oil burners, so there arent really cinder concerns, even if there were then there's this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hfBK301BVhA
ATLANTIC CENTRALLot of gauges - no speedometer:
Actually, Sheldon, there is a speedometer in the photo you posted. The Loco-Valve-Pilot includes a speed indicator, shown next to the throttle.
Here's another Valve-Pilot equipped backhead.
and a close-up of the Valve-Pilot control gauge:
I am of the opinion that the majority of steam locomotives did NOT have a speed indicating device, Barco speed recorder, Westinghouse made them, too. They were expensive to install and maintain and the heat and pounding of a steam locomotive over the road probably took their toll, too.
However, many of the "modern power" main line locomotives were Valve Pilot equipped or had a speed a recorder with a paper recording tape. I believe all the NYC Hudsons, Mohawks and Niagaras had them.
Regards, Ed
And I knew that, guess I should have looked closer.....
Yes, many "modern" steam locos had speed indicating equipment of one type or another, but as several of has have commented, most did not. In all the museum locos I have been in the cabs of (likely a hundred or so), I can only recall one or two with speedometers or speed recorders.
It should also be noted that while the Valve Pilot did indicate loco speed, its primary function was to indicate to the engineer the correct cutoff setting for a specific speed. Design, installation and setup of the Valve pilot was rather complex, requiring a custom ground cam to provide the speed and valve cutoff information to the engineer, and reserved mainly for the biggest and best at the end of steam.
Posted below is from the FRA 2012 Compliance Manual for Motive Power and Equipment Inspectors. You will note that speed indicators did not become mandatory per the FRA until December 31, 1980 and they are still not mandatory for a locomotive that will be operated at 20 MPR or less. And I remember when that rule went into effect.
Assuming that union work agreements and regulations were allowing and other problems were solved could: (theroetically speaking)
A: Diesels be MU'ed with a steam loco with a separate throttle in the steam loco's cab?
B: Diesels be MU'ed with a steam loco with a single consolidated throttle in the steam locos cab?
(This of course applies to a GS-4/PB lashup)
It has the be a separate throttle. You are talking apples and oranges with steam and diesel. A steam locomotive throttle is strictly mechanical. The engineer moves the throttle lever and it opens up a valve that allows steam to flow to the cylinders. Diesel engine controls are electric. The steam locomotives used today in excursions have been modified with a controller that has a electrical connection through an MU cable to the diesel helper.
cascadenorthernrr Assuming that union work agreements and regulations were allowing and other problems were solved could: (theroetically speaking) A: Diesels be MU'ed with a steam loco with a separate throttle in the steam loco's cab? B: Diesels be MU'ed with a steam loco with a single consolidated throttle in the steam locos cab? (This of course applies to a GS-4/PB lashup)
Yes of course but could a throttle have been developed that operated the mechanical system and a electric system simultaneously so the engineer only has to operate one?
cascadenorthernrr Yes of course but could a throttle have been developed that operated the mechanical system and a electric system simultaneously so the engineer only has to operate one?
Not likely, even today. A steam locomotive requires a great deal of "feel" to operate, much like driving an old tractor/trailer with a stick shift.
The engineer must operate/balance a number of different "inputs" at the same time, there is no fixed relationship between the throttle, johnson bar, and steam cocks, and those are just the major items to control to make it move.....
In the "old days" when steam was double headed, the engineer in the second loco just controled his loco by "feel". When diesels came along and were double headed with steam, same rules applied, it was done by feel.
Today, modern diesels are controlled by fancy engine/traction computers, making the engineers job "different". But even early diesels required a "feel" for the machine and a good understanding of how it worked, and what it could and could not tollerate.
In the old days, double heading relied on experiance, being able to understand what the other engineer was doing by feel and by observing the brake pressure gauge.
Building some sort of system to translate the mechanial actions of a steam engineer into the correct information for a diesel loco would present untold challenges. Not the least of which would be accurately turning the mechanical movements of the steam throttle and Johnson bar into electrical information that could then be processed for the diesel control.
These factors are not constant on a steam loco. Move the throttle this much right now, with 300 psi, and get one result, move it the same amount 10 minutes later with 280 psi, get a different result - all of those results affected by the "cutoff" or position of the Johnson bar.
And these are just the raw basics.......I think you need a couple cab rides to understand how this stuff works.....
So two throttles are absolutely necessary then.
cascadenorthernrr So two throttles are absolutely necessary then.
Yes, again, understand that to operate a steam loco, you must do more than "move the throttle", you must move several "levers" and valves at the same time, much like letting out a clutch while applying the gas........
Then you make small adjustments to those settings based on how it feels and sounds.......we have not built that computer yet, only God has that formula....the human brain.
Yes that is understood, what I meant is that the diesel would need a independent and dedicated throttle.
cascadenorthernrr Yes that is understood, what I meant is that the diesel would need a independent and dedicated throttle.
yes
Ok then, from an experts point of view what would need to be added to the steamers cab to accomodate diesel MU'ing?
cascadenorthernrr Ok then, from an experts point of view what would need to be added to the steamers cab to accomodate diesel MU'ing?
All the controls found in the diesel, and this is a BIG space/location problem for the already crowded steam loco cab. Not that it can't be done or has not been done, but it's not easy.
And from a safety standpoint, it is likely better that this second set of controls come with its own engineer, as a steam engineer already has his hands full a lot of the time. You saw the steam locos controls above, now add this to the mix:
http://www.cl.ais.net/~dbehr/463%20Control%20Stand1.JPG
No railroad locomotive is a 63 Dodge with a pushbutton automatic......
I see, could another engineer fit in the cab?
cascadenorthernrr I see, could another engineer fit in the cab?
That is the point. Have you ever been in the cab of a steam locomotive? The short answer is in most cases no, there is no room. There is barely room for the engineer, fireman and maybe a cramped little seat for a headend brakemen - before you try to add all this extra control equipment and a second engineer.
I strongly suggest you find a museum or two to visit where you can actually sit in a steam loco cab. There are lots of such opportunities around, and historic diesel cabs you can climb in as well.
Ok thanks! Could a B-Unit be modified to have a control station installed?
cascadenorthernrr Ok thanks! Could a B-Unit be modified to have a control station installed?
Most B units did have basic controls that allowed the unit to be moved around the engine terminal seperately. But they are operated by a person standing in a small cramped space, often leaning out the door or looking out a porthole window.
Some of these controls had limited speeds, and most only had brake controls for the engine brake, not the train brake. They cannot control additonal units or operate a "train" in most cases.
So here is the next lession, railroad locos have two sets of brake controls, one controls just the air brakes of the loco, the other controls the air brakes on the whole train, another in the long list of complications in trying to MU steam with diesel.