I know double and triple heading is common nowadays with diesel but wasit ever done with steam
I have seen many photos of consists of steam engines. I think I saw a photo in the latest issue of Classic Trains.
Joe,
Most of the double/triple headers diesels you see are not that - there is a single engine crew operating the entire ‘consist’ of engines via multiple unit cables between the engines.
Now, as far as steam engines - they do not have multiple unit capability and there is a separate engine crew on each of the steamers. I have seen a picture of a Milwaukee Road train with 3 L class steamers on the point . They are true double/triple headers!
Jim
Joe,
In the mountains many times a steamer would be put on the end to be a helper while there were two locos on the front. The helper would cut off at the top of the mountain grade. This is a fun operation to model!
Richard
Yes, but only in specified areas where they needed extra head-end power or pushers on the rear, typically in districts called ‘helper districts’. These would have grades steeper than the ‘ruling grade’ for the entire division.
For a ruling grade, the railroad would specify a consist headed by a single typical locomotive trailing the maximum tonnage that the single locomotive could take up the ruling grade by itself. All other grades might require helpers, but they would not be the ruling grades as a result. Ruling grade = the steepest grade in the division that a singe typical freight locomotive could handle hauling a given maximum tonnage by itself. If the grade is steeper, it will need helpers, and that means it is not the ruling grade.
The helpers would be added at the bottoms of grades and cut off at a designated spot at the top where the single locomotive could once again handle the tonnage trailing it.
“MU Steam” is a mis-application of terms. “MU” (Multiple Unit) refers to multiple engines under coordinated control from a single set of controls. So neither the double-headed steam discussed in this thread nor anything in the referenced thread is truly “MU’ed” steam.
I think that railroads distinguished between trains which used helpers on the front end only for specific grades and trains which normally ran with two locomotives, and there were examples of both not too far from where I live.
The CNR used helpers at Bayview Junction (near Hamilton, Ontario) to assist heavy trains up the Niagara Escarpment - there was a pocket track where the helpers waited, and they would be coupled on to the front of the train’s loco for the trip up the grade, then return light to wait for the next train. I’ve also seen photos of Bayview with doubleheaded steam (not helpers) on the Toronto/Hamilton and Hamilton/Toronto trains, probably strictly to handle excess tonnage for that short trip.
Heading south out of Hamilton, trains also encountered the Escarpment, and while trains were often shorter and normally wouldn’t have required a helper, they ran with two locos on the headend. One Consolidation or Mikado could have handled the tonnage up the Escarpment, but until 1952, the bridge over the Grand River at Caledonia couldn’t handle the weight of a loco of that size. The solution was to use two Moguls, running them to the water stop at Caledonia. Before departing, the air hoses between the two locos were disconnected, placing the train brakes under control of the second loco. Both locos were required to start the train, as it was against the grade, but once underway, and well before the bridge, a brakeman on the lead loco’s tender would pull the pin , allowing the lead loco to run ahead and cross the bridge alone. All the while, the second loco continued to move the train (at a lower speed, of course) until it, too, had crossed the span. The train was then stopped, the locos were reconnected and the train went on its way. The return trip was handled in the same manner.
The bridge was strengthened in 1952, allowing the use of larger locos.
I was vaguely aware of this operation, but gleane
True doubleheading (separate crews operating two or more engines at the front of a train) is most UNcommon with diesels. All those units are under the control of a single individual.
Depending on the locomotives available and the tonnage of a given train, a steam era Road Foreman of Engines might assign one, two, three or a half-dozen locos as head-end power, and as many more units farther back or pushing. SP would routinely run heavy trains up Tehachapi with three PAIRS of cab-forwards - six separate crews. Not to be outdone, the Pennsy in the days before big steam would put five or six light 2-8-0s on the point of a freight, then have four or so more pushing up and around the Horseshoe.
At the opposite extreme, I have a photo of two of my prototype’s light Pacifics doubleheading a four car local passenger train. It didn’t need the extra power. There just wasn’t room in the JNR’s hyperdense traffic schedule for a light locomotive move!
Chuck (Modeling Central Japan in September, 1964)
The question, in that thread, is did anyone ever develop a way to truly MU stream locos together and/or in combination with electric and/or diesel locomotives? The answer in that thread was : No, It might be possible, but would be complicated, not practial, and safety would be a major issue. This is one of the reasons diesels replaced steam.
IIRC, Baldwin was experimenting with a steam MU system at the end of their steam production era. The loose link, from my vantage point here in 2012, is that each separate boiler would still have needed a fireman even if all of the machinery on the steam output side could have been placed under MU control. Back in 1950, nobody had the kind of electronic sensors and control devices we take for granted today. In the 1950s, running a boiler (even on a ship or in a fixed power plant) was very much a hands-on proposition.
Chuck (Former Engineer Cadet modeling Central Japan in September, 1964)
Gidday Joe, Yes.
New Zealand Government Rail Ja class # 1267 and 1253 on the South Island Limited Express, 28 November 1970.
Some railroads regularly ran two locomotives together. For example the Pennsylvania often used two K-class Pacifics together on passenger trains on virtually a daily basis. Of course each engine had to have an engineer and fireman, whereas two or more diesels could be run by one crew.
BTW many railroads had their early F units in A-B-B-A sets (often with drawbars between the A and B units) all with the same number (like “1000A” “1000B” "1000C’ “1000D”) was that they then had a better argument that it was one big engine rather than four separate ones. Contracts at the time required each engine to have an engineer and a fireman, so the railroads didn’t want to have to pay 8 men to do the job of 2.
Brent[C):-)]
IIRC Clinchfield rr had a 4-4-2 they used for excursions that had an F7 b unit that did most of the work. It was controlled from the steam engine cab.
Yes and no.
Yes. Many of the modern steam programs have built the capability in steam engine cabs to control trailing diesels. The UP steam programs “MU” with trailing diesels.
No. While they do control trailing diesels, its through a set of separate throttle controls, the engineer operates one set of controls for the steamer and another set for the diesels, so they are not truly MU’d which implies one set of controls controlling all the units at the same time.
Wanna’ see a cool video of a triple header in steam taken only a few years ago?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XTuypSVgMW8&feature=related
This kinda stuff is still runnin’. All with three crews and all “doing their own thing”. Headed by a K-27 Mudhen #463. The middle engine is seen to slip in the crossing. The whole page is filled with triple header videos. This is just one of them.
Richard