After reading a thread in the General Discussion section (Mixing railroads?), a question came to my mind. Today, you frequently see diesels from different railroads on the same train; e.g., here in Lubbock we sometimes even see Mexican (NdeM) units mixed with the BNSF diesels). Now my question: In the steam or transition eras, would you ever see two steam engines of different railroad companies on the same train? I am aware that in the mid-1950s, the Santa Fe leased some 2-10-4s to the Pennsy; were they ever used in a train together?
I don't recollect (from photos) ever seeing steam locomotives or early diesels of different RRs consisted together. Moving other RR's rolling stock from a variety of locations - yes; locomotives - no.
I'm guessing that, if those 2-10-4s were leased to the Pennsy from the Santa Fe, Pennsy probably didn't bother to repaint the units but they did take the time to re-stencil the locomotive & tender with PRR-specific numbering & fonts.
Tom
https://tstage9.wixsite.com/nyc-modeling
Time...It marches on...without ever turning around to see if anyone is even keeping in step.
The clip here actually shows Santa Fe 2-10-4s mixed with Pennsy units (starting at 00:15).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5zOCNNw6t0
Beyond that example, I wonder if there are other instances.
There are many instances of mixed motive power in the steam era. The Santa Fe locomotives leased to the PRR was run with J and I class together and was never relettered. The PRR also had some Reading and N&W locomotives for awhile. The N&W J class was tried out and run K4s Pacific's for help. There is a photo in one of my books that shows the N&W J on the curve with a K4 leading.
As for other roads besides the PRR you will have to research yourself.
Pete.
Wow, how about that! I don't recollect seeing anything similar on the NYC, which I model. Perhaps the PRR was unique in that respect.
There seems to be anomalies to the normal no matter what.
Here in the U.K. it is often said Class 52 locomotives did not go further north than Birmingham, yet they ran daily from Swansea to Leeds Central. The same for Class 50 locomotives. Often the Plymouth to Leeds Central Class 50s did the whole journey instead of changing locomotives to a Class 47 at Birmingham.
David
To the world you are someone. To someone you are the world
I cannot afford the luxury of a negative thought
It was extremely rare to see steam loco mixed. This extended into the early diesel Era as well. There were a few exceptions during the operations in WWII. A lot of power was leased such a DM&IR 2-8-8-4 were leased one winter by the Rio Grande during the winter when the ore mines were shut down. Some pensy power was leased to other railroads at a couple of points. There were a few areas where a pooling was used on the Colorado joint line as there are pics with some mixed steam of t he Burlington, Santa Fe and Rio Grande. That area was the exception rather than the rule.. Such things were not common though and photos rarer because of war restrictions.
The Santa Fe's 2-10-4s were just leased to the pensy I believe one year. That was right when Santa Fe was almost dieselized if I remember reading right.
The PRR crews loved the big oil burners. Better riding, no hand firing, free steaming, and fantastic pulling power. By the time the lease ran out, they were so worn out that they were not economical to rebuild. Even though the PRR had lots of power on the dead tracks they couldn't repair and rebuild enough to take up the need. Even the mighty deisels could not be gathered in the numbers needed.
As odd as this sounds, ironically, about a month ago while 'fishing on the bay', i came across a picture of a PM loco pulling a freight past a small depot or some such as that.
What stood out was the caption.... "PM loco passing Cascade PA.". Had to be a mistake because if anyone knows anything about the PM, it never came near PA. (PA came to MI rather, in the form of the PRR.)
However, the picture showed she was still in PM livery and not on home tracks. How could this be? So I wrote the seller asking about the photo.
They wrote back enclosing the info that was on the back of photo. Apparently, the famed NKP was a tad short on power, being both PM and NKP are in the Van Sweringen fold, a loco-lend was worked out. Well.... thats totally doable.
Not relettered or numbered, just 'borrowed'. This happened more than you can imagine in railroad history. Steam and diesel era's alike.
As said above, PRR used N&W stuff, C&O and N&W got chummy too. Heck, where ya think the design for PRR's 2-10-4 came from? If Im not mistaken, from after borrowing a C&O T1, thats where.
But now, railroads didnt get to obvious, or clumsy about this. There was never an Allegheny tried over the Wasatch, nor did a Big-Boy ever tackle Saluda. And after 40 plus years of sponging up every morsel of PM data I can, NEVER have i heard of them lending locos for the reasons of testing, OR power exchanging.
I knew this has happened in the history, but i learned also it happend right under my nose with my own railroad of choice cuz now ive seen proof. Learn something everyday!
No, i didnt buy the photo - and im kicking myself for it too!
PMR
http://jbritton.pennsyrr.com/index.php/tpm/blogs/latest-articles-blog/140-foreign-locomotives-on-the-prr
The Pennsy had a lot of "tenticles" into other railroads. Somewhere I recall seeing a picture (think it was in Ball's "Pennsy 40s/50s) of mixed Reading/PRR/PRSL equipment including a camelback on the seashore line. Dispite the extreme "standardization" of the PRR, it was also a place where you could find many exceptions to the rulz.
yes but the ops original question was about multiple steam engines from different railroads on the same train not the same railroad.
ndbprr yes but the ops original question was about multiple steam engines from different railroads on the same train not the same railroad.
As the OP, I thank you for pointing that out. In the meantime, I found video evidence (at the time it was 8 mm or 16 mm film) in Otto Perry's "Santa Fe" of a freight train doubleheaded by a Santa Fe 4-8-2 and a Colorado & Southern 2-10-2 on the "common line" south of Denver. Youtube shows a very condensed version of Perry's video (not including the scene I mentioned).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AC3Q-L_HgM4
As an aside, what I found interesting in the video was how virtually all passenger trains consisted of some mix of heavyweight and leightweight cars, not the "pure" appearance of the famous "named trains".
The joint line was an interesting and somewhat unique line. The USRA made the Santa Fe and Rio Grande use their two parallel lines as a double track main during WWI and at about the same time the nearby Colorado and Southern line was abandoned and the C&S given trackage rights. Of course the CB&Q bought the c&S later. These rights continue to this day with the successor roads. During WWII it was run with a lot of mixing of power. I would have to grab my Otto Perry book but I think those photos were mainly WWII. Interestingly enough the Santa Fe and C&S also had a joint switching agreement in Denver both during the steam and first generation diesel Era. The switchers would be lettered with the initials of both railroads. The diesels would be painted in the owners scheme with lettering for both railroads.
DrWToday, you frequently see diesels from different railroads on the same train; e.g., here in Lubbock we sometimes even see Mexican (NdeM) units mixed with the BNSF diesels). Now my question: In the steam or transition eras, would you ever see two steam engines of different railroad companies on the same train?
One thing to clarify - when you see diesels from two or more railroads running together, it's because of various run-thru and power repayment agreements. It's generally not because railroad A has leased engines from railroad B - except for engines owned by leasing companies of course.
Steam engines had a limited mileage range, and required servicing by crews with the correct spare parts and know-how for those specific engines, so run-thru agreements weren't really a thing until the diesel era.
So seeing a Santa Fe steam engine on the Pennsy in the 1950s isn't the same as seeing a BNSF engine running on Norfolk Southern today. The first is because the railroad leased or bought the other road's engine, the other is because of a run-thru/power repayment agreement.
The New York, Ontario & Western leased some 2-10-2's from the New Haven in the 1940's. There's a couple of pics of them in the book "O&W -- The Final Years".
Whether they were double-headed with O&W power, can't say.
To maybe turn the original question around a little, if railroad A leased steam engines from railroad B, there would be no reason for railroad A not to use the leased engines from B like any other of railroad A's engines. If railroad A often ran double-headers, there's nothing to prevent them using one of their own engines and one of the engines leased from railroad B together.
So if the Pennsylvania - which seemed to double-head more than many railroads - had a train that needed two engines, there's no reason not to put a Pennsy engine and a leased ATSF engine together.
Although I can't answer this directly: during WWII when many railroads were required to lease 'helper' or other power, would they go to the trouble of relettering/renumbering the borrowed engines?
your premise is correct but the Santa fe engines ran from Colimbus Ohio to lake Erie on coal trains. Dead flat and yard limited so trains went north as empties came south and yard space was available. double heading was not needed for the assignments. Had they been Horseshoe curve assigned we would be talking 3 and 4 helpers on some trains
There is photos of the SF oil burners teamed with either a PRR I1 or J1. Weather they were snappers or went the whole way, I don't have that information. 1950s was a tough time for the nations railroads. Some trains ran coal north and ore south so they were loaded both ways.
And there would be no need to renumber or letter the leased power. Why spend the money on paint and labor.
Overmod Although I can't answer this directly: during WWII when many railroads were required to lease 'helper' or other power, would they go to the trouble of relettering/renumbering the borrowed engines?