So true-to-prototype MU'ing is not logical but it was possible if the concept was developed further? Of course designs would have had to been changed to create the provisions for MU'ing.
Steve
If everything seems under control, you're not going fast enough!
cascadenorthernrr So true-to-prototype MU'ing is not logical but it was possible if the concept was developed further? Of course designs would have had to been changed to create the provisions for MU'ing.
Yes,
Understand that in the early 50's when both steam and diesel worked together, both union work rules, and railroad attitudes that to some extent extra people meant extra safety, there was no reason to develope such technology. By the time railroads were seriously concerned about labor costs, steam was gone and two men could run the head end of as much HP as the train needed, as many diesels MU'd together as needed.
By the 50's, railroads had no interest in pulling top passenger trains with steam, and no concern for the appearance of locos pulling freight. Most early diesels that worked with steam as helpers were ABBA sets and needed their own crew anyway as they were only used for limited distances on heavy grades.
So the whole idea you propose simply did not exist in the reality of day to day railroading - until modern steam fan trip railroading, and fears that the steam loco would "fail" or need a helper.
It should also be noted, that what looks like a diesel B unit on some excursion trains is actually a Head End Power car, a generator car providing electical power to the passenger cars. It is not a locomotive at all. Many such cars have been built from old B units, old baggage cars, etc.
Remember, steam locos have no means of generating large amounts of electrical power, and modern passenger cars (or historic ones that have been modernized for current operation) use head end power for lights, heat, A/C, etc.
Sheldon
Ok thank you very much! This has been most educational!
It's my understanding that today helpers that are spliced into the train are radio controlled from the head end.
We've come a long way.
SouthPenn It's my understanding that today helpers that are spliced into the train are radio controlled from the head end. We've come a long way.
Not always. The ATSF 3751 does not have (or did not have at the time Pentrex made the video) dual controls. They did a helicoper chase over Cajon Pass, with radio comms from the crew, and you can clearly hear the steam engineer asking the diesel (BNSF ES44AC I think, but cant remember) to adjust his throttle/dynamic brake setttings.
I have not been in the cab of the N&W 611 recently, but I know they have been working on adding PTC gear that is now required (a new turbo is being crammed in under the shroud, fortunately it doesnt show). I do not think she has a diesel throttle (no real need) the video I linked had a diesel helper, but on her Manassas excursions there haven't been any diesel helpers (and really doesnt need one unless the tracks are wet, slight issue this past year). 611 generates 77,899lbs of tractive effort, I believe the most of any extant 4-8-4.
I would suggest a visit to either Viginia Museum of Transportation (during excursion off season), or to Oregon Rail Heritage Center in Portland, OR, to see full sized 4-8-4s. There is an operating GS-4 (SP 4449) in Portland, as well as SP&S 700.
Ok thank you!
Clinchfield No. 1, a small 4-6-0 had a hostler control from a B unit installed to control the diesels that were required to pull it's excursion trains. It is now at the Baltimore Railroad Museum, and still has the control in the cab.
Dave
Just be glad you don't have to press "2" for English.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zQ_ALEdDUB8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hqFS1GZL4s
http://s73.photobucket.com/user/steemtrayn/media/MovingcoalontheDCM.mp4.html?sort=3&o=27
I see, very interesting!
steemtrayn Clinchfield No. 1, a small 4-6-0 had a hostler control from a B unit installed to control the diesels that were required to pull it's excursion trains. It is now at the Baltimore Railroad Museum, and still has the control in the cab.
Here is a link to the B&O RR museum's page on the subject:
http://www.borail.org/clinchfield.aspx
The article is poorly edited and jumps around alot, but the last paragraph contains the information that you want. The control box was added sometime between November 1968 - June 1979. The locomotive ended up with a cracked frame (June 1979). Do not know if that was related, or just a coincidence. Given the age of the locomotive (built 1882), it was probably just cyclic fatigue.
If you click through the museums flickr page (at the bottom of the link I posted) you will find a photo of the cab with the control box. I would be interested to see whats in that box, to see if it could have been made with technology available in the 1940s-50s.
cascadenorthernrr Hi I have an interesting question for you all. Is it possible (hypothetically speaking) for a diesel b-unit to be placed behind the tender of a steam locomotive and be operated without an a-unit? Just picture if you will the Southern Pacific Daylight rounding a curve in the mountains led by a GS-4 and followed by an Alco PB unit what a sight that would be!
Hi I have an interesting question for you all. Is it possible (hypothetically speaking) for a diesel b-unit to be placed behind the tender of a steam locomotive and be operated without an a-unit? Just picture if you will the Southern Pacific Daylight rounding a curve in the mountains led by a GS-4 and followed by an Alco PB unit what a sight that would be!
B units had hostler controls so they could be moved independantly around a yard, but in Rio Grandes case, I have never seen a photo of a PB or FTB or F3/7/9B unit working behind a steam engine without an A unit. I am not aware that any of Rio Grandes steam engines had MU controls for a diesel behind it and it doesn't seem practical to operate a B unit on the road.
I have viewed lots of D&RGW photo's including those from the steam era and no such photo exists of what the OP is dreaming of on that RR; I haven't seen any photo's like that for SP either, which is my other favorite RR having grown up in California.
But then again, it's cascadenorthernrr's RR and he can run whatever he likes if it looks cool. Folks come here looking for justification when none is needed.
Rio Grande. The Action Road - Focus 1977-1983
riogrande5761, is correct I am just looking for a prototype to justify a GS-4-B-B-B lashup but anyway it doesn't really matter after all we all fall a bit short of the prototype in model railroading! But thanks for all your replies, it has been most educational!