Was there ever a time when one crew could simultaneously operate two or more steam locomotives as is the case with diesel locomotives?
Also, a somewhat related question, what happens to loco control - hopefully I am using the correct term - if the lead locomotive has cleared a tunnel, lets say, and the locomotives at the rear of the train have yet to enter the tunnel?
Rio Grande Valley, CFI,CFII
For question one, none that I'm aware of. Two steam locomotives required two crews, it was one of the reasons diesels looked so attractive to railroad management, among others. You can string as many diesel units together as you want and only need one crew.
And question two, if it relates to the steam era, the crew at the rear just kept on pushin'!
Firelock76 For question one, none that I'm aware of. Two steam locomotives required two crews, it was one of the reasons diesels looked so attractive to railroad management, among others. You can string as many diesel units together as you want and only need one crew. And question two, if it relates to the steam era, the crew at the rear just kept on pushin'!
The loco control that I had in mind is the ability for the engineer in the lead diesel locomotive(s) to control the diesel locomotives at the rear of the train.
I admit that including the question under re: multiple steam locomotives may be confusing, for which I apologize.
If remote consists in Distributed Power mode lose contact with the controlling lead engine, they remain in the last throttle setting for up to 90 minutes. After 90 minutes if communication isn't restored, they will go to idle and cut out their brake valve. Those in dynamic braking will stay in dynamics until communication is restored. There are ways to use the automatic brake to signal the remotes to go to idle for either mode (power or braking) when communication is lost.
Jeff
Oh, no problem. As far as question two now someone familiar with modern distributed power operations could give you a better answer, but I'd imagine it makes no difference at all.
I vaguely seem to recall reading that some limited research at the very least was done about this, although it almost certainly related to double heading and didn't involve a remote helper placed mid-train or pushing at the rear. Not sure if it was even in this country though.
And any efforts to implement this would've needed automated firebox controls like the N&W implemented on an experimental basis, which didn't require a fireman to operate the stoker and maintain the water level.
Oil fired steamers seem like they'd of been ideal for such experimentation. But when one locomotive typically was responsible for a single train in this era, I just don't think that the incentive was there to pursue this idea to any degree. Diesels needed to MU to match something like the Big Boy, but not so much in the other direction.
Doubleheading usually meant that you were being assisted by a helper, which meant that the 2nd locomotive was likely only there for a partial run. So you'd of needed a crew to bring her back anyways for the next helper assignment.
The actual amount of assignments that could've taken routine advantage of this seems fairly minimal. And the real benefit by extension of such technology, which was the elimination of the fireman for everyday assignments, likely would've been successfully fought by unions and the government.
So little labor savings at the expense of a more complicated and expensive machine, albeit one that was hopefully more efficient if it could handle the natural variables of the job better than a human could (Which I doubt it could; Even in the marine environment, I don't think we saw widespread boiler automation until the 1970's and only with oil firing).
And with pictures of the consequences of inattention posted at stations around the country to remind fireman of the importance of their job, it's hard to imagine engineers being eager to work steam locomotives with the water level managed automatically.
Leo_Ames,
You have prompted another question regarding steam locomotive operation.
I have read that the PRR had to double head many of its passengers trains prior to diesalization because a single K-4 could not handle them.
If I remember correctly, the Red Arrow, when it wrecked near Altoona in the late 1940s, was being pulled by two K-4s.
In the case of two locomotives pulling a train, how did the engineer in the first locomotive, who presumably was in charge, signal commands to the engineer in the trailing locomotive?
The Red Arrow wrecked because of excessive speed I believe. If there were two locomotives, and if the engineer in the second locomotive realized that the train was running above the speed limit, under what conditions could he have made a brake application? Or did he loose control of the train brakes?
While I am likely not the most knowledgeable on this subject, I do have a good understanding of how multiple steam locos worked together to pull a train.
And, in fact, during the transition era, many roads mixed steam and diesel, using the same basic principals.
Largely, it was done by feel, but the seat of your paints, and by whistle signals.
It required both crews to be familiar with the route.
Brakes, that I do know about. The train brake would be accessable/operable by either loco, but the lead engineer would control it except in some extreme emergency.
The brake pressure gauge would be a quick and clear indicator to the second loco as to what the first loco was doing. That combined with whistle signals, and simply the feel of the slack, allowed them to work together.
It was a skill learned in the field, not taught in a class room.........
The brakes release, the first loco opens his throttle, as he moves forward the second loco feels the slack come out as the first loco tries to "pull" him. He opens his throttle, enough to reverse the slack, he starts pushing.
Now they are both in motion and the train weight will be on them both soon. The second loco simply does his best to push, and the first tries to stay ahead, keeping the slack out.
You may or may not understand how a steam loco is controlled, but steam locos have a throttle - amount of steam, and the cutoff, or valve timing. That allows the loco to go into a "coasting" like idle, and once a train is moving on level ground at speed, or going down hill, one or both engineers would cut back on the steam in that way.
There are photos of Western Maryland branch line coal trains, 70-100 loaded hoppers, being pulled by as many as seven locos, some diesels, some steam. Imagine three large 2-8-0's and four ALCO RS2's, in some mixed up order, four locos on front, three locos mid train or on the rear, all working just on the "feel" of the train. It was done all the time in the 50's. They could not use fewer but bigger locos, the curves and rail size would not allow it.
The B&O used diesel helpers over the Appalachian summit when most of the trains were still steam powered. A train pulled by a 2-8-8-4 would pick up a pusher of four EMD FT's or F3's - no radios, they did not work in the mountains.
The Red Arrow crash likely had little to do with the fact that it was double headed. Too fast is too fast, one loco or three.......
Sheldon
A few more general thoughts:
The step by step example I used would be two locos double headed at the front, a rear helper would work somewhat differently.
Double, and even tripple heading was rather common, and in the early days the railroads saw all the added personel as a safety benifit.
Example, typical late 40's or early 50's west bound B&O freight trains leaving Baltimore were pulled by two Mikado's (50-70 cars). At Brunswick MD those locos would be replaced by two 2-8-8-0's or 2-8-8-4's for the attack on the steep grades of the Appalachians, the steepest of which would require a rear pusher of two additional 2-8-8-0's, four EMD F units, or four ALCO FA's. Once over that grade, the two big articulateds would handle the train into Ohio.
Secondary B&O passenger trains, commonly pulled by one Pacific, would often get a Mikado added to the front of the train for the worst of the grades.
Such is mountain railroading in the days of steam.
UP's Steeve Lee has written about being used to assist a freight train by giving it a push from the rear. Of course he had radio. But what he stated was that after removing the "FRED" and coupling on to the rear, he just opened the throttle and stalled 844 (no problem in overheating traction motors) until the leading diesels started the front of the train. Then off they went. In the old (pre-radio) days, they did use whistle signals to tell the pusher to apply power (two toots) and the lead loco controlled the brakes. The pusher would monitor the brake pipe and reduce power upon seeing a brake application as stated earlier. There have been articles in Trains and R & R about pushers and double headers.
Electroliner 1935 UP's Steeve Lee has written about being used to assist a freight train by giving it a push from the rear. Of course he had radio. But what he stated was that after removing the "FRED" and coupling on to the rear, he just opened the throttle and stalled 844 (no problem in overheating traction motors) until the leading diesels started the front of the train. Then off they went. In the old (pre-radio) days, they did use whistle signals to tell the pusher to apply power (two toots) and the lead loco controlled the brakes. The pusher would monitor the brake pipe and reduce power upon seeing a brake application as stated earlier. There have been articles in Trains and R & R about pushers and double headers.
Yes, rear end helpers would simply push until stalled, steam or diesel, effectively pushing the rear half of the train while the lead loco pulled the front half.
The following 2 locomotives operated by one crew. Fireboxes and Boilers separate. Both on head end, tho.'http://www.enuii.org/vulcan_foundry/photographs/locomotives/no%202200-2201%20burma%20railway%201907.jpgYears ago I read an article regarding a Push/Pull Commuter service in England which, APPARENTLY, had a tank engine on one end and a remote Cab Car on opposite end.Engine leading, two men in cab, Driver/Stoker.Engine pushing, Driver in Cab Car operating throttle/Vacuum brake remotely.Stoker on engine watching water, operating cut off and stoking.C. 1960 there was a photo in 'Trains' with a steam switcher w/antenna on it's cab roof which allowed remote functions in cab by Radio signals..Thank You.
Been Wrong, Many Times.
NDGYears ago I read an article regarding a Push/Pull Commuter service in England which, APPARENTLY, had a tank engine on one end and a remote Cab Car on opposite end. Engine leading, two men in cab, Driver/Stoker. Engine pushing, Driver in Cab Car operating throttle/Vacuum brake remotely. Stoker on engine watching water, operating cut off and stoking.
Engine leading, two men in cab, Driver/Stoker.
Engine pushing, Driver in Cab Car operating throttle/Vacuum brake remotely.
Stoker on engine watching water, operating cut off and stoking.
That's the GWR Autocoach system. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GWR_Autocoach
While it did ease operations it still needed two crewmembers.
JPS1 Leo_Ames, Y In the case of two locomotives pulling a train, how did the engineer in the first locomotive, who presumably was in charge, signal commands to the engineer in the trailing locomotive?
Y
Generally speaking the engineer in the lead locomotive would use whistle signals to issue commands to other locomotives be they double/triple headers or pusher/helper engines.
I wonder in the case of PRR if there was communications between engines via the trainphone system (induction based voice communications which used an overhead wire to send signals)? Many of the lines that required multiple locomotives on passenger trains had that system installed.
I suppose it's also possible that there may have been some radio co-ordination of multiple locomotive operations late in the steam era although there were relatively few steam engines with radios installed..
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
Thank You for the Information on the GWR Autocoach!
Another question that had been in the back of my mind for fifty years or so, answered by someone who knows
Had a book from c. 1938 named 'The Cheltenham Flyer' from just before the War, and it dealt with 'dropping' Slip Coaches from main portion of a passenger train and bringing them to a stop at station on line without slowing rest of train ahead.
Thank You Again.
NDGYears ago I read an article regarding a Push/Pull Commuter service in England which, APPARENTLY, had a tank engine on one end and a remote Cab Car on opposite end.
While you're in Autocoach territory, remember the German push-pull trains with steam -- streamlined steam, at that! Here's a page in German:
http://www.bundesbahnzeit.de/page.php?id=2009-09-21_Wendezug-23er&sw=wendezug
This is different from the Autocoach setup in that it represented 'indirect' control, where the engineer controlled the brake but could only arrange to close, not open, the throttle (there was a safety device, Regler-Schliess-Vorrichtung, that would cut off steam when actuated, but there was no remote linkage or connection to open the mechanical regulator). Apparently as with the British system, the person on the engine controlled the valve gear.
If you go to England, I recommend seeing the
They run some interesting 0-4-4-0-T double Fairlie locomotives that are reproductions of historical loco's. Two boilers, center cab, narrow gauge. In scheduled service and when we were there they took Britrail passes. This one was built in 1992. Driver stands on one side and Fireman on the other and they go through tunnels with little clearance. This railway was originally built to haul slate from the Mines to the coast.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:DavidLloydGeorge-P6031714.JPG
Photo By PetrS. at Czech Wikipedia, CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=4168740
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.