One complaint about steam in relationship to Diesel is not having enough powered axles for lugging a train up a ruling grade. A late steam-era Northern had the peak horsepower as a multiple unit Diesel consist of its day, but it had the same number of powered axles as a single Diesel unit.
Many Superpower steam locomotives were equiped with a booster engine powering a single axle in the trailing truck, often in evidence by an enlarged back axle on a two-axle trailing truck at which was pointed a sanding pipe. The booster engine engaged/disengaged with some kind of clutch so it could contribute an extra axle of traction at low speeds through a gear-reduction drive, and it disengaged so it would not overspeed at high train speeds. A 6-drivered Hudson could have the pulling power (at low speed) of a Northern, a 4-drivered Northern could pull like a 2-10-4 Texas type, the booster-equiped 2-10-4's on the C&O replaced 2-6-6-2 Mallets, and so on.
Another approach to low-speed lugging power was the Norfolk and Western Y-6 Mallet, a double-engined compound-expansion machine operated long after other roads at given up on Mallets. This locomotive was operated as a compound when moderate tractive effort was required, but for a hard pull, it was operated in simple-expansion mode on both engines or perhaps a "booster" mode where the steam receiver feeding the second engine had its pressure boosted by admission of some extra steam pressure from the superheater header.
If you have a large number of powered axles, you cannot operate at above a brisk walk without running out of steam -- the Erie Triplex had this problem. The booster engine idea is that you shut off the booster at speed. The idea used in many compounds is that your "simple" the engines for starting and high traction at low speed, but you operate in compound mode at speed to not use up all your steam.
Has anyone considered the idea of a double-engined locomotive such as a Garratt or maybe even a single-expansion articulated, where you "drift" the second engine at speed? Any and every type of steam locomotive needs a "drifting" mode where it is coasting without supplying power, and David Wardale has written at length on "mid-gear drifting" as reaching a kind of operating compromise where such idling of the steam engine takes place without either using too much steam or putting too high of stresses on the machinery.
The idea is remotely related to what I was told was done with the French turboliners operated by Amtrak in the late 1970's. Turbines are reasonably efficient at full load but they are terrible with respect to fuel consumption at partial power. The Turboliners would cruise with the turbine in one power car at power and with the turbine in the power car at the opposite end of the consist at idle. Apparently this saved fuel over both turbines at part load.
So could you have a double-engine steam locomotive, a single-expansion articulated, a Garratt, or maybe even a Mallet (implies to many a compound expansion arrangement), and maybe even "underboiler it" to develop full power in both engines at any kind of speed. One of the two engines would act as a "multi-axle booster", to receive steam at start or low speeds when high tractive effort was needed but to be "drifted", put in mid-gear, closed throttle according to David Wardale's recommendations, when operated at higher speeds so you would not run the boiler out of steam?
Maybe this along with a whole host of other proposals would not have "saved the steam locomotive", but maybe it would have achieved something closer to the railroads' desired operating practices they achieved with Diesel -- maybe not Superpower horsepower but closer to the Diesel's large number of powered axles along with the ability to operate a locomotive with a large number of axles at speed and at low horsepower without using a lot of fuel?
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
Interesting idea, to have a steam engines with a wider load and speed range of efficient operation.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
That is a very interesting idea. I would want to use enough steam to make the extra weight of all that is involved with a extra driver set essentially "neutral"-neither adding or subtracting power. It is interesting you mention the triplex. Could this be used to have say, a 2-8-8-8-2, with the tender drivers not working above a certain speed? As I am not very well versed in steam design, I am looking forward to the answers of others.
This is essentially the "GenSet" diesel-electric idea applied to steam. But how popular are gensets?
I would suppose that this could have worked like the modern V-8 engines in automobiles and trucks where they "shut off" certain cylinders and only run at half horsepower at highway speeds. I doubt that it would have saved steam, though. What really killed steam was the high cost of maintenance, particularly labor costs as wages increased rapidly after the Great depression and World War II. Adding more complexity to steam locomotives would have probably just exacerbated the maintenance costs. As with many varieties of technology, things increase in complexity and then they suddenly disappear and are replaced by something different, i.e. steam and diesel power.
I certainly don't want to sound anti-German (I am mostly of German descent), but I would think German engineers, if any, would have tried this. Any readers with detailed knowledge of German steam?
I really doubt this would have been worthwhile though. As another post pointed out, the demise of steam was assisted by high maintenance costs. This would have been one more thing requiring attention.
ChuckAllen, TX
Possible... but would require a number of supporting technologies.
First issue is something most don't think about and that is lubrication. Standard practice was to atomize the cylinder lubricating oil into the steam flow going into the cylinders and let the steam flow carry it. Once in the cylinders at little bit of that oil condenses or plates out on the cylinder walls and keeps things from seizing. Obviously, in a set of cylinders drifting with throttle totally closed there would be no steam flow --> no lubrication -- > bad news within a few miles. David Wardale did some (as far as I know) pioneering work in South Africa during the Red Devil rebuild on spraying the cylinder lubricant directly onto the cylinder walls without depending on steam flow to carry the oil into the cylinders.
Other way is to keep all the cylinders working, but avoid draining the boiler by working at extremely short cut-off. Problem here is that working below roughly 25% cut-off with conventional piston valves (regardless of which valve gear) gives poor exhaust events with far too much compression. Beside the rough ride for the engine men, it takes a lot of positive work to overcome the 'drag' of compression. If you pinch down the throttle you can run longer (more than 25%) cut-off without draining the boiler, but the thermal efficiency goes down the drain. The fix is separate the intake and the exhaust valve gear and valves so that the you can run 10% or less cut-off with acceptable exhaust events. Both styles of Franklin poppet valve gear can be built to provide this feature, and I seem to recall that some special piston valves gears can do the same.
.
cefinkjr Any readers with detailed knowledge of German steam?
Juniatha does! We'll see if she returns soon. Although, I don't believe that any engine set "drifting" was tested anywhere, but I could be wrong. (Boosters excepted).
Piper106a First issue is something most don't think about and that is lubrication. Standard practice was to atomize the cylinder lubricating oil into the steam flow going into the cylinders and let the steam flow carry it. Once in the cylinders at little bit of that oil condenses or plates out on the cylinder walls and keeps things from seizing. Obviously, while drifting with throttle totally closed there would be no steam flow --> no lubrication -- > bad news within a few miles. David Wardale did some (as far as I know) pioneering work in South Africa during the Red Devil rebuild on spraying the cylinder lubricant directly onto the cylinder walls without depending on steam flow to carry the oil into the cylinders.
First issue is something most don't think about and that is lubrication. Standard practice was to atomize the cylinder lubricating oil into the steam flow going into the cylinders and let the steam flow carry it. Once in the cylinders at little bit of that oil condenses or plates out on the cylinder walls and keeps things from seizing. Obviously, while drifting with throttle totally closed there would be no steam flow --> no lubrication -- > bad news within a few miles. David Wardale did some (as far as I know) pioneering work in South Africa during the Red Devil rebuild on spraying the cylinder lubricant directly onto the cylinder walls without depending on steam flow to carry the oil into the cylinders.
This is another advantage to the neutral drivers theory....
What if you were to maintain sufficient steam flow to the "off line" set of cylinders to provide lubrication and to overcome the friction of said unit? You could have that unit set at a long enough valve stroke to overcome back pressure problems and it would be hot and ready to perform when brought on line. The previous sentence is, of course, open for any degenerate comments.
the allies discoverd a german v-8 steam engine after wwll. there is a few photo's i have found on line. maybe emd/gm killed it with the need 2 sell busese?
Interesting discussion but the first premise is misleading -- the number of driving axles on a steam locomotive does not limit or increase power. The driving wheels of a steam locomotive are there to transmit power and to spread weight, they do not create power. The difference in power between an 0-4-0 switcher and a massive 2-10-4 is not due to the difference in the number of axles. The 2-10-4 is more powerful because of the size of the cylinders, the large boiler and high steam pressure. If you took a 2-10-4 and eliminated all the wheels except two coupled drivers making it an 0-4-0, the modified locomotive would have the same tractive force and horsepower. Of course, without all those wheels the weight concentration would bend the rails but it would have a very high factor of adhesion.
If you want to make a steam locomotive more powerful, whether you measure the power in terms of tractive force or horsepower, you only have to increase the size of the cylinders or raise the boiler pressure. You also need a boiler that can fill those cylinders with a steam output commensurate with the piston speed. However, you are faced with weight limits so as you build a bigger locomotive you need to spread the weight over more drivers -- but to repeat, the higher number of driving axles only reflects that your locomotive's weight is increasing. For example, a lot of railroads liked the "Russian" Decapods (2-10-0) even though they produced a lot less power than a sizable 2-8-0. Why ? Because they spread the weight and were easy on light duty track.
A fundamental reason, though not necessarily the main reason why steam is gone is that the locomotives reached the size that most railroads could accomodate. Boilers had effectively grown as large as feasible. Most railroads had clearance or weight restrictions that required their locomotives to become more powerful by producing more steam at higher pressures and consuming less. Many european steam locomotives are good examples of getting more efficiency out of limited space -- they often are much more efficient than amercan locomotives despite their smaller size. The methods for getting more out of less could fill a book.
Regarding boosters, the purpose was to add cylinders to use the excess of steam available at slower speeds. It was not to add driving axles. At slow piston speeds a large locomotive boiler can produce more steam than is required. The high steam production was necessary only at high speeds where consumption was great. Consumption was low at low speeds so an auxiliary engine was added to one or two tender trucks or to the truck under the firebox to use the full amount of steam a large boiler was capable of producing. When the locomotive's piston speed began to increase and steam consumption rose the auxiliary engine had to be cut-out because the boiler output was fully needed to fill the main cylinders. Here again is an example of why a steam locomotive can only become more powerful through its ability to produce steam while consuming as little as possible. Adding more cylinders does produce more power but building a large enough boiler to supply them is the real problem.
rbandr the allies discoverd a german v-8 steam engine after wwll. there is a few photo's i have found on line. maybe emd/gm killed it with the need 2 sell busese?
Railroads in the U.S experimented with similiar reciprocating steam engines prior to WWII but did not find them satisfactory. The best known was the Beler Brothers Steam motor:
http://theoldmotor.com/?tag=besler-brothers-steam-power
It was trialed in a couple of railcar installations and promoted for locomotive use but was very high maintenance compared to conventional steam power..
Interestingly a lightweight Besler motor powered the World's first (and only,IINM) steam powered airplane:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nw6NFmcnW-8PS.
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
NHRAND,Sir,
I believe the purpose of a booster on a steam locomotive WAS to add driving axles for increasing available tractive effort at low speeds. Otherwise deadweight trailing or tender axles become additional "feet" on the rail to get a train rolling and through the hard pulls at low speed. Under such high traction demands, a locomotive's driver adhesion is at it's extreme limit and the likelihood of them breaking loose and slipping to a stall are very high. As you mentioned, a locomotives boiler is producing more steam at extremely low speeds, than can be utilized by the cylinders. As speed increases, this steam demand increases and the tractive effort demands diminish. At such time, the booster's contribution becomes unnecessary, and in fact, the booster steam demand becomes a detraction from the steam available to accelerate the train to line speed. Some engineers I worked with, years ago on the RF&P spoke of firing on booster equipped engines. They said when the engineer cut the booster in, all your carefully laid firing efforts went south, even on northbound trains! The boiler pressure just went down,down,down!
wow that was a long way to say what i am not sure. the john henry turbo proved that more axeles can pull more weight. it was alas too little to stem the tide of internal combustion. or was steam the original internal combustion. i.e. a fire in a boiler?
TO RFP and others,
The RF&P had some truly beautiful steam locomotives -- wish I had seen them. I experienced Canadian Pacific steam in the 1950's which in my opinion was among the best for looks.
My previous comment was aimed at getting away from an emphassis on axles or wheels as a way of producing power. Sure axles or wheels are important but their number neither adds nor subtracts power. My comment was directed at the notion that a steam locomotive is better if it has more wheels -- that may be the case but not always.
Consider boosters again. As a general matter, boosters are cylindered to produce in the neighborhood of 12,000 lbs. of tractive force at starting. Suppose I have a 2-8-2 that I think would benefit from some additional TF at starting. I could add booster cylinders to the trailing axle and the 50,000 or more weight the Mikado carries on that axle would provide enough adhesion. But suppose I have an 0-8-0 that could use some additional power pushing a long cut up a hump. The only place to add the booster would be to one or two of the tender trucks. Let's say my tender weighs about 100,000 lbs. when carrying a quarter load of coal and water, or in other words about 25,000 lbs. on each of its four axles. I can't power only one axle because the weight on only one axle will not provide sufficient adhesion for my 12,000 TF booster. So what do I do -- I add coupling rods to the truck wheels and now have a 0-4-0 with 50,000 lbs of weight on the drivers. That is enough weight for adhesion even when my water and coal are fairly low. This is to say, the power I added with boosters to my two locomotives is the same regardless of how many axles I powered.
Let me give another example. I have a 2-8-0 that produces 45,000 lbs. of tractive force at starting. It has 189,000 lbs. on drivers for a factor of adhesion of 4.2 and an axle load of 47,200 lbs. Let's say I want to make the engine suitable for a light rail branch so I extend the frame and make it a 2-10-0. Another 2-8-0 that is a duplicate costs me two much maintaining all those drivers so I drop an axle and make it a 2-6-0. Each of the engines, the Mogul, Consolidation and Decapod produce the same tractive force, carry the same weight on drivers and have the same factor of adhesion. The only thing that changed is the axle load. The Mogul is suitable for only my heavy duty main line since it now has an axle load of 63,000 lbs but the Decapod is a light 37,800 lbs per axle. Nevertheless, each of the three locomotives will pull the same size train. Here again the point I am making is don't focus only on axles and wheels when judging a steam locomotive.
nhrand ... Here again the point I am making is don't focus only on axles and wheels when judging a steam locomotive.
... Here again the point I am making is don't focus only on axles and wheels when judging a steam locomotive.
You've made your point very nicely. I think the confusion began to arise when a larger locomotive was built so as to produce more power, it generally required more axles to keep the axle loading within limits. The casual and not-so-casual observer is led to believe that more axles means more power. I'm sure designers would gladly have given a 4-4-0 the ability to generate the power of a 4-8-4 if they could have done so without crushing rails, ties, ballast, and bridges..
This is all getting away from the original point of the thread.
Max practical TE developed by any locomotive is a function of the number of axles and the applied axle load (and hence factor of adhesion). The ideal is to have all the carrying axles powered just up to their practical adhesion limit (and the history of the Duplexes and early diesels with limited slip control will give you additional detail on what 'practical adhesion limit' implies...)
Diesels (and the Jawn Henry TE-1) are horsepower-limited in a way a reciprocating locomotive is not: the engine horsepower limits the rail horsepower, and that in turn can limit the top speed regardless of what the starting TE of the locomotive might be raised up to.
What the original post involved was not using boosters on carrying axles to use 'a bit more' of the locomotive's total weight for adhesion, it was to use a group of DRIVING axles less intensively at higher speed after starting, to save fuel and perhaps wear once the train reaches speed, is on a net downgrade, etc. In other words, it is converting some percentage of the driving axles into carrying axles on demand.
Taking the example of a 2-8-8-4 -- we aren't concerned whether there is a Franklin booster on the trailing truck, or a Bethlehem auxiliary locomotive on the tender. We're concerned with reducing the power to four of the eight axles, perhaps all the way down to zero, relying on the other four's power to handle the train plus the engine mass when only four axles can do the required job.
(I don't believe the subject of a counterpressure brake on the four 'idled' axles exclusively during net-downgrade running has been discussed, and its use is somewhat more limited than the diesel-electric alternative (dynamic braking) -- but it is a potential feature of the approach, whereas it is not practical to do this with a production Franklin booster, and very unlikely with an auxiliary locomotive...)
Overmod, what is your opinion of the original idea? Do you think it is practical, useful...?
I've discussed this off-list with Paul.
Personally, I don't think many railroads would buy a large, heavy locomotive with two full sets of reciprocating running gear, just so one set could be left substantially idle at speed. That's based on my assumption that operating profiles with long enough ruling-grade sections justifying articulated power, but long enough 'easier' sections to make meaningful gains in part-load running economy exist, and that the capital and basic maintenance charges on the larger locomotive would be less than the fuel/water and marginal-maintenance savings resulting from operation of the system. (I'm presuming these locomotives are equipped to operate across multiple divisions without engine change, and have adequate support in place to make that achievement seem ordinary, as it was in fact ordinary even for first-generation diesels...)
It's just the opposite of the logic of the booster (and to a different extent the asynchronous compound) where the additional power is provided via the auxiliary engine(s) only at slow speed, when needed.
Having said that, I'll promptly make what looks like a flip-flop and note that a comparatively simple set of control changes would enable a simple articulated to operate in the manner Paul describes -- and having that flexibility easily at hand, backed up by the proper training and support to use the features effectively, might easily demonstrate substantial benefit to operations. I do have to confess I'm not smart or sensitive enough to be able to fire one of these things effectively for maximum efficiency, especially with solid fuel... but I can make a very good start on quasi-artificially-intelligent aids to simplify the job.
Thanks. My opinion is that helpers are hard to beat for ruling grades, particularly short ones. But the idea is very interesting for triplexes.
To Overmod and others:
You wrote that the point of the discussion is "we're concerned with reducing the power to four of the eight axles" (using a 2-8-8-4 as an example).
The way to reduce the cost of operating the 2-8-8-4 when less power is needed is to reduce the cut-off -- that is reduce steam consumption and thereby fuel use. That is the way it was done in the steam era but if you think that reducing the consumption of just one set of cylinders would be better it could easily be done. All you have to do is arrange separate cutoffs.
Many French locomotives had separate cutoffs to the sets of cylinders on four-cylinder compounds. However, French engineers were noted for their ability to operate locomotives efficiently. American engineers were noted for operating less efficiently -- how many failed to operate with a fully opened throttle or kept the reverse lever in the corner ? American engineers would probably not look kindly on separate cutoffs. How many engineers disliked the valve pilot because they thought they knew better and didn't want the company to have a record of how they operated their locomotive.
I'm reminded of one of the Pennsy Altoona test plant reports - for the 2-10-0 I recall. The Pennsy knew that some engineers failed to fully open the throttle since many felt they did better operating with a partly opened throttle. Therefore the Pennsy tested the locomotive with a partly opened throttle as well as testing properly with a fully opened throttle. As I recall, there were differences but I couldn't see that they were dramatic. In any case, I have this in mind because it shows the Pennsy knew engineers had their own ways of doing things even if they weren't the right way. If you did have separate cutoffs on your 2-8-8-4 which would reduce or eliminate the steam flow to just one set of cylinders you probably would have a hard time getting the engineers to adust the separate cutoffs for the power needs. That is why they kept things simple in this country -- can you imagine an average American engineer in the age of steam trying to operate a french compound ? Some would enjoy it but I suspect most would take the easy way out.
Regarding the use of something like dynamic brakes on a steam engine, I think the so-called "water brake" that was applied to some locomotives used on heavy mountain grades was similar to what you were thinking -- that is using the locomotive's cylinders to control speed on a down grade.
I very much enjoy thinking about steam locomotive design but sometimes I think we may attempt to redesign the wheel. There were many brilliant men designing and improving steam locomotives in years past. Somtimes they made mistakes but there isn't much that escaped their thinking. They didn't have the benefit of modern technology but they did wonders with what they had. I remember reading an 1840's treatise on steam locomotives and was amazed at how much the ideas were totally modern. However there are very few people still alive with technical and theoretical knowledge of steam locomotive design -- many of us probably know less than they did in 1840.
nhrand Let me give another example. I have a 2-8-0 that produces 45,000 lbs. of tractive force at starting. It has 189,000 lbs. on drivers for a factor of adhesion of 4.2 and an axle load of 47,200 lbs. Let's say I want to make the engine suitable for a light rail branch so I extend the frame and make it a 2-10-0. Another 2-8-0 that is a duplicate costs me two much maintaining all those drivers so I drop an axle and make it a 2-6-0. Each of the engines, the Mogul, Consolidation and Decapod produce the same tractive force, carry the same weight on drivers and have the same factor of adhesion. The only thing that changed is the axle load. The Mogul is suitable for only my heavy duty main line since it now has an axle load of 63,000 lbs but the Decapod is a light 37,800 lbs per axle. Nevertheless, each of the three locomotives will pull the same size train. Here again the point I am making is don't focus only on axles and wheels when judging a steam locomotive.
A late-era 4-8-4 Northern exceeded the peak HP of a 4-unit EMD FT Diesel locomotive whereas it had about the starting tractive effort of a single FT Diesel locomotive unit.
No, axles and starting tractive effort doesn't equal power. But you have to have enough weight on axles, and since the axle load is limited by the standards to which the track structure has been built, you have to have enough quantity of axles times that weight to get the required starting tractive effort at your working adhesion factor. If you don't start the train, or if you stall on the ruling grade, you ain't going nowhere -- and fast.
Agreed, once you start the train you will need power to run the train at anything beyond a walking pace. I just got through reading Huddleston and Dixon, The Allegheny - Lima's Finest. The C&O replaced the high horsepower Allegheny's with multi-unit DIesels with greater starting or low-speed tractive effort but much less power. They were able to run the same trains or heavier trains through the mountains, but on some divisions it took them more than twice as long.
But maybe that is what the C&O wanted for "rock trains" (bulk coal traffic) -- they wanted to get the train over the hills and didn't care how long it took to get there. Steam is at a disadvantage compared to even first-generation Diesels, where with multiple units, you are only limited by the pulling strength of the couplers.
It's fun to discuss power but as I think we all know the diesel didn't replace steam because steam lacked power. There were so many other better reasons, the multiple unit feature that Paul mentioned being one of the most important. Equally important was that steam was just too expensive to operate compared to diesels. And steam locomotives didn't have the availability of a diesel -- not only was there the lengthy servicing after every run but they needed frequent boiler washouts and other periodic maintenance that a diesel didn't require. I hate to say it but the diesel is so much more efficient and easier to live with. I've been a steam fan since I got dusted with cinders in my baby carriage, or listened to a big mountain type start a heavy freight at the end of the street where I was born, or because of the times my father would drive me down the rutted back road to the roundhouse where dozens of engines were in sight.
Actually what I should be saying is that I enjoy thinking about how steam locomotives could be better vis-a-vis other steam locomotives but I don't think it is really possible to make a steam locomotive competitive with diesels. I'm sorry they are gone but even though I never got excited about diesels they are better. Sorry that I'm off topic.
The problem to me is that if you had a situation where you had the need of all drivers on a Mallet or Articulated at the start of a train trip, then had a stretch where you only needed half of the drivers for a long stretch, a railroad would probably just put a 2-8-2 or 2-10-2 etc. on the train, with a trailing 2-8-2 or similar mid-sized steam engine as a helper, which could be cut off when no longer needed.
Railroads generally bought or built steam engines to meet a particular need. The Missabe had 2-8-8-2s and 2-8-8-4s to handle mainline ore trains because it had difficult up-and-down undulating mainlines to the Mesabi and Vermillion iron ranges, so needed the big engines to do the job. Neighbor Northern Pacific had a relatively flat mainline to the Cuyuna iron range, so used 2-8-2 engines with a helper in the first part of the journey from Superior WI where there was a grade for empty trains to contend with.
And in those days labor costs were not subject to the continual scruteny that they are today, and manned helpers and double heading were much more common.
p.s. I don't think there would really be a savings between having say 8 drivers "idle" and 8 drivers getting steam, as opposed to all 16 drivers getting steam. The engineer could use the throttle and "cut off" to control how much steam went to the cylinders, and good engineers were expert at using steam (and hence fuel and water) very efficiently. At speed on level track, a little steam going into all four cylinders would be all that was needed to keep the train going.
Keep in mind that the idea of 8 powered drivers and 8 idle drivers is what is called a booster or auxilliary engine. Consider a 2-8-0 with two boosters on the four-wheel tender trucks -- the locomotive is essentially a 2-8-8-0 or should I say a 2-8-0+0-4-4-0. Boosters were used to get a heavily loaded train over an adverse grade at places where a helper or larger locomotive was not desired. Boosters were what is suggested in the previous posts -- an engine that was idle when not needed but powered when needed at starting or on a tough grade. Remember an articulated is two engines under one boiler. A tender booster on a non-articulated is a second engine powered by one boiler. Of course there are reasons why boosters were not made as powerful as the rear engine under a 2-8-8-0 for example -- tender boosters generally were built to add about 12,000 to 25,000 lbs. of tractive force -- but if you wanted a very powerful booster it could be done although it wouldn't be the most practical way of doing things.
daveklepper And in those days labor costs were not subject to the continual scruteny that they are today, and manned helpers and double heading were much more common.
"Double heading" more common? Don't we call that "Multiple unit operation" nowadays?
And as far as manned helpers, the only reason they are less and less common in recent years is the widthspread adoption of DPU's..
There were a lot of short helper districts in the steam era that were abolished with the conversion to diesels, long before the development of DPU in the 1960's.
MU operation is possible with diesels or electrics. USA steam locomotives were never built for mu operation, but I understand there was at least one European example. When I posted double-heading I was referring to steam and only steam. And sure, nearly all double heading and many helper districts were ended by dieselization.
Regarding CP's lack of really large power despite the continuous 2% eastbound, before WWII and for a few years after, CP had zero trouble being a profitable concern. Its railway connected the population centers and by comparison, CN ran through a lot of wilderness - at the time. Today with import and export busines being a far greater percentage of the freight carried, CN has the better route with a far lower grade eastbound and about the same westbound. CP's steam locomotive design was more concervative than most North American railroads (Southern of course being even more conservative, and there were others), with the locomotives of medium power being of more universal applicaton, and when more power needed, double and even triple-heading and/or use of helpers. With labor costs less of a factor, in those days.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.