Hello All
How common was it to double head Berkshire Loco’s?
Also, did the railroads ever double head Berkshire’s with Mikado’s?
Thanks
For Nickel Plate and Erie doubleheading was very common. Berkshires worked with other types as well as together. I have seen, for example, a NKP Berkshire - Hudson combo and certainly Mikados were used with 2-8-4s. Erie joined their Berks with 2-10-2s, 2-8-2s and even 4-6-2s. I would bet that most other roads did the same - mix and match whatever was available at the moment.
Thanks. I have a MTH Berk and was contemplating picking up a loco. Trying to get a better understanding before making the decision. [:-^]
Double and even triple heading was very common on many roads.
Some specific prototype examples where double heading was used literally every day:
Before diesels on the orginal B&O mainline, manifest freight trains leaving Baltimore, 50-70 cars, 2500 to 3500 tons, would be pulled by two Mikados. The B&O had lots of Mikes in a number of classes, so these two locos may or may not be similar even though their wheel arrangement was the same.
These two mikes would take that train to Brunswick MD. Grades between Baltimore and Brunswick are generally less than 1% but some are 1% and some curves relatively sharp - two Mikes were needed.
At Brunswick, this train would have its two Mikes replaced with two EL class(2-8-8-0) or EM class(2-8-8-4) locos! Why? Because of the grades on the next division! nearly 3% and lots of curves as well. And even with that doubling of tractive effort, it would require one or two more of those articulated locos as helpers over the worst grade.
That same scene played out several times a day for decades before diesels. When the first diesels showed up, they replaced the helpers on the grade - not the primary power on the train! ABBA FA2 sets were used as helpers since they did not have to be turned.
Nearby on the coal branches of the Western Maryland, strings of 70 to 100 loaded hoppers would require as many as 5 to 7 heavy 2-8-0’s to pull/push them over the grades. Do the math, thats only about 12 cars per loco! The WM could not use bigger power on these branchlines do to tight curves, but their trackage was heavy enough for very large 2-8-0’s that in many cases were as heavy and powerful as any Berk or Mike, just not as fast.
They would often have 2-3 on the head end, 2 mid train, 1-2 pushing. When diesels came along there too steam and diesel worked together. Not uncommon in
some railroads double headed steam locos even though one could easily handle the train in an effort to balance power. this occured right up into the diesel age. it seems that there were always power, cabs and crews surplus at one end of a division or the other since traffic was not always the same in both directions.
the second locomotive did not always work but was live in tow with a watchman or “baby sitter” on board to keep an eye on boiler water level and such. sometimes a full engine crew was aboard since if you had extra engines at a terminal then you likely had extra crews there too and the second engine was helping to pull the train.
this scenario give you an excuse to double head power on just about any train, even if it is a short one.
some roads frowned on double heading passenger trains for safety reasons (and according to a few accident reports i have read, the DOT didn’t like it at all) while others like the PRR had no choice since their aging fleet of K-4 pacifics could no longer cut the mustard on heavy passenger trains even in the flatlands.
steam was gone when i starting playing choo choo for a living but i remember on the NYC when we would run an extra back east to Avon (Indianapolis) out of E St Louis consisting of a dozen engines and a caboose. One crew and only 3 of the units working. westbound traffic got so lopsided the power and crews just kept piling up. everybody else deadheaded back on a passenger train or (God forbid) the greyhound bus.
grizlump
I’ve got a bunch of old 8x10’s that I picked up at a train show in my den of several coal hauling railroads all with double headed Y3’s and Y6’s pulling what must have been very long coal trains. You can’t really tell by the photographs but on the back of one there is a hand written notation N&W coal drag 110 cars. Can’t vouch for it’s authenticity or accuracy but it seems believable enough
Yes that would have been the case. One Y6b could easily pull 110 loaded hoppers - ON LEVEL TRACK, as soon as you introduce grades of more than 1.5 - 2%, you now need two of them to do the same job. The more modern Allegheny on the other hand would likely not need any help.
A few more facts:
As a rough comparison, two F7’s equal an average Mikado or large 2-8-0 in tractive effort - so any train that would require a ABBA set of F7’s or a 6000 HP diesel today would have needed two of those average steam locos.
Now, to compare that to more modern steam like a NKP Berk, you need to understand that the advancements from Mikes to Berks and Northerns was not about pulling more - it was about pulling the same size train much faster.
The most modern Berks and Northerns did have a little more power than typical 2-8-0’s and 2-8-2’s, but not enough more to dramaticly increase train weight/length. So on lines with moderate grades, Berks and Northerns greatly increased speed, but on lines with steep grades and/or sharp curves, speed was restricted anyway and the advantages of such power lost. The B&O for example never owned a Berk or a Northern. Instead they found “Mountain” class locos to be the best balance of speed and power for their needs, and ran their heavy Mikes to the end of steam. They did successfully experiment with larger(69-70") drivers on their mikes for more speed, as did several other roads, most notably the GN O-8 class Mikes - heavier and more powerful than NKP Berk!
A few more thoughts:
Yes, railroads avoided double heading passenger trains, for both safety and comfort. And when helpers were needed, they were virtually aways added to the front as a double header, not a pusher, again, safety and comfort.
The need to pull longer heavier trains over the mountains is what lead the C&O to first develop the “Mountain” class 4-8-2 and was a driving force in the development of 4-8-4’s as well. Again the goal of these designs was a good balance of speed and power.
These concerns also caused many roads to dieselize passenger trains way before steam, the B&O being a prime example - they bought the VERY first EMD E units in the 30’s.
Sheldon
The difference between your average Mikado and the average Berkshire was about 8-10K pounds in tractive effort in favour of the Berk. I would guess this amounts to lengthening a typical ruling grade train for either engine from something like 30 cars for the heavy Mikado on slightly rolling mains to nearer 40 cars, and not just due to tractive effort…it would have been due to the higher sustained horsepower at speed in the Berk.
-Crandell
It was common for double-headers, particularly on mountain grades, to pull passenger trains. What was avoided was having a pusher helper since that would create uncomfortable/dangerous slack action somwhere in the train.
Mark
Sorry to jump on you, but but from what I can determine it appears that an F-7 and a Mikado are about equal in tractive effort and the Mike beats the diesel in horsepower. For example, a PRR L1 was rated at 61,465 lbs TE and 2712 horsepower. According to Alvin Staufer a stoker added “at least one thousand” horsepower more.
I can’t find a figure on F-7 TE, but it is a matter of record that the F-7s delivered to Pennsy for pusher service weighed 238,000 pounds, a bit heavier than the road versions. Using a 1 to 4 factor of adhesion that would yield a TE of 59,500 lbs.These early diesels did not have sophisticated anti-slip systems, so I believe the 1/4 factor of adhesion applies.
Regarding 4-8-2s, you are exactly right. PRR agreed with B&O and found the Mountains very suitable for their operations. It is interesting that NYC went to the four wheel lead truck,too, even on their relatively flat and straight lines. Their only 2-8-4s were the unsuccessful P&LE models.
My suspicion is that steaming capacity (ability to make steam) rather than 4 versus 2 leading wheels was more important on curvy-hilly routes. A train moving along hilly, curvy track wouldn’t be traveling at a very high speed in any case. So, my bet is that a 2-8-4 would do better sustaining speed than a 4-8-2, given everything else was equal.
Again, than explain why the B&O never owned a Berk, only briefly even considered them? Yet they had a large fleet of Moutains that pulled both freight and passenger? And the NYC also had great success with that wheel arrangement for fast freight, and yes, their route was considerably flatter than the B&O.
Everyone assumes the 4 wheel trailing truck automaticly means more steam. Fact - many locos with two wheel trailing trucks had grate areas and steaming ablity similar to the Berks. Look up the specs on the GN O-8 Mikados - larger grate area, same size drivers, higher axle loading, similar total weight, much higher TE (77,000 vs 64,000) - two wheel trailing truck.
Some other numbers:
NKP 2-8-4 - 69" drivers, 90 sq ft grate, 64,000 lb/TE
B&O T-2 4-8-2 - 74" drivers, 92 sq ft grate, 65,000 lb/TE
B&O T-3 4-8-2 - 70" drivers, 70 sq ft grate, 65,000 lb/TE
Fact is a lot of these locos are similar in performance despite folk lore and reputation of some that have been given “God” like status in ste
OK I should not have finished that statement with TE, but rather with simply “power”
Single F7 - 1500 HP
PRR L1 - 2700 HP
Two F7’s - 3000 HP
My statement - two F7’s roughly equal one average Mike or large 2-8-0
Both TE and HP needed to move same tonnage at same speed.
Steam can run with any load it can start, Diesel may have TE to start train but not run at speed.
And since Mikes and Connies varied quite a bit in size and power, it is just a “rough” comparison.
Main point of statement still stands - Two F7’s roughly equal one average Mike.
The two diesels would have the advantage of slugging a hill that the Mike would stall on, but in day to day operations it took two F units to “replace” a Mike at the front of a train. It took at least ABA sets, and usually ABBA sets, to replace those two Mikes on B&O in my first post.
Sheldon
Prototype doubleheaders:
-
Most preposterous. Two 4-6-2s on a four-coach local, running on a virtually flat subdivision. (Balancing power on a line where there was no track space for deadhead moves.)
-
Most unlikely. D51 class 2-8-2, C12 class 2-6-2T. (Every train UP out of Agematsu. The tank loco doubleheaded as the front loco on passenger trains, but pushed freights.)
-
Most common. (Japan) Pair of D51 class 2-8-2s. (PRR) Pair of almost anything.
-
Most. 1900s PRR photo, six 2-8-0s pulling one freight up the Horseshoe Curve. Caption said there were pushers, too!
-
Passenger pusher? Tall-drivered 4-6-4 on the point, BIG 2-8-2 on the marker end. (Japan, 1960)
On my model railroad, doubleheaders and pushers will be, “Business as usual.” The prototypes I model used them all the time on the sustained 2.5% (and up) grades. It IS one way to justify a large locomotive roster…
Chuck (Modeling Central Japan in September, 1964)
It was common for steam to be moved back to other locations because to much power was at one terminal or the other. Unlike the disels today that just go along for the ride without being powered up, a steam locomotive needed a crew on board. The practice of moving extra power to another location is still used today except we do not notice the the five and sixth diesel is powered down and just being moved.
In the era of steam, we got to see almost every combination of double headers, which required two crews. The NKP would get extra power out of St. Louis on many trains and the Berkshires usually were the lead locomotive.
The picture below shows a 700 series in front of a 600 2-8-2, but the extra engine was just going along for the ride since more motive power was needed east of our location at Neoga Illinois. I got to pace one 700 going east on #98 which was their hotest train on the line and the poor 2-8-2 seemed to be almost ready to fly apart above 65mph and the 700 just kept on pulling.
CZ
steam locomotive development was probably the highest form of mechanical engineering in it’s day. not unlike what is going on in the electronics world today.
a bit off the original topic, but, having read the related posts i have a few cents worth to add. some things i learned through research and some are just conclusions i have drawn myself.
the ICRR had a large fleet of very powerful and fast 2-10-2’s and 4-8-2’s. even so 2-8-2’s were the most plentiful wheel arangement on that road. only 4 wheel trailing truck engines were about 50 2-8-4’s (they called them limas) that wouldn’t run much over 40 or 50 mph as built. (pretty fast actually for the drag freight era) and one experimental 4-6-4 that was never duplicated.
as for the addition of stokers, looks like the PRR only used them after the unions and federales raised enough hell. bunch of hardheads would rather call out an extra fireman. at least that kept a bunch of guys working. as for hand firing into a large firebox, think of trying to distribute coal evenly on a grate the size of your kid’s bedroom floor through an opening about the size of the door on your kitchen stove’s oven.
many appliances that improved locomotive performance came with higher maintenance costs and if fuel was cheap enough, some roads played the KISS game.
one often overlooked factor in determining whether a design was succesful was fuel consumption. the amount of water needed was directly related to the amount of work (steam) needed to do the job but coal consumption was a big deal to management. some roads counted each scoop full.
a locomotive design that was a roaring success on one road might have been a dismal failure on another.
almost everybody thinks that getting trains over the road at the highest speed consistent with safety is necessary for good customer service. and that requires fast, powerful road engines. in re
I was talking in generalities. … I would hesitate to say you believe a four-wheel trailing truck capable of carrying a larger fire box was a waste? You could be right because the only modern (20th century) steam locomotives the SP purchased new with a four-wheel trailing truck under a firebox was its 4-8-4 locomotives and some 2-8-8-4 cab-behind articulateds. But I doubt it.
Mark:
Got a question for you–I know that during WWII SP acquired some second-hand 2-8-4’s from (I believe) the Boston and Maine for use on their Golden State route between El Paso and Tucumcari. I know that they were later converted to oil-burners, but what was the SP ‘concensus’ about the locos? I know that 2-8-4’s out here on the West Coast were pretty darned rare–I think Santa Fe was the only other western rr to use them.
Just curious as to what SP thought of the Berks.
Tom [:)]
The SP purchased 10 B&M Berkshires in May 1945, not counting on the war with Japan to end so soon. After running on the Rio Grande Division, they were converted to oil fuel and sported whaleback tenders in 1950 to work on the Western Division in central California, the last bastion of SP steam locomotives save the Owens Valley narrow gauge. They were all vacated in 1950/1951, demonstrating SP’s disdain (locos were mechanical oddballs for the SP shops?, railroads seldom sold/leased their better locomotives) since other SP steam ran for another five years.
Mark