Doubleheading question

Trains Magazine Steam & Preservation
1

Readibg the articlle Santa Fe goes to War in winter 2017 Ckassic Trains. Have read the issue many times. One paragraph confuses me.In the early 1940s there were certain union influenced rules the railroad had to follow. Trains were limited to 70 cars, trains with only two brakemen were limited to 39 cars, and so on. Come world war 2 and they needed to move a lot more stuff. So they wanted to change the rules.

Locomotives could be doubleheaded, but only “if the resulting combined power did not exceed the tonnage rating of the more powerful of the two locomotives.” SO if the 2-10-2 was rated for 2900 tons… and there they lose me. It reads to me like they could double the thing but only if the two add up to 2900 tons or less. Well in that case, who needs the extra loco?

I am sure the rules were not just random ideas, so I must be misreading this or I am missing the point. Perhaps someone can straighten me out. It reads to me like they can use two as long as they don’t add up to more than one.

2

I believe it to be a construction error. A misprint. I agree with you that it makes no sense, as the syntax you quoted is written, that a railroad would want to doublehead, but not if the added power combined with the original engine exceeds the total tonnage rating of the original engine. Who needs another engine in that case?

I’m sure we’ll get a more educated response before long, but it sounds as if the intent is that the agreement permitted doubling up if the tonnage was also not increased to account for a portion of the added tractive effort/rating of the new locomotive. So, you would be okay adding a Mike with a rating of 1200 tons, say, but you can’t add tonnage if the total is at, or less than, the rating of the first engine.

3

Perhaps with Santa Fe’s long grades in the desert to the west coast, where a fully “loaded out” locomotive could be grinding up a long desert grade for a long, long time, they needed to speed up freights of war material, troops, etc.

So a second locomotive added to a train that was maximum tonnage for the road locomotive could certainly get over the road faster.

With everything going on in the Pacific Theater, and San Diego and Oakland being huge embarkation points for naval activity, it was probably imperative to move many trains at speed and expedite them over the road.

So maxing out the tonnage of the road locomotive and then adding a second one to maintain track speed could result in such an operating rule as mentioned.

4

Sure – a 2-10-2 that’s pulling its full tonnage rating is going to be doing maybe 10 miles/hour on the upgrades. If you need the train to get to Barstow in 6-7 hours instead of 10-12, doubleheading can help.

5

One thing ‘I think’ in the 21st Century we tend to overlook is just how SLOW steam engines moved the max loads over the ruling grades.

Anecdotally, I heard that in the tonnage tests with the FT’s when they were barnstorming around the country they were hauling ‘their’ max tonnage about twice as fast over the same territory as steam engines were hauling theirs. I believe the FT’s had a minimum continuous speed of approximately 10 MPH (+ or -), which would tend to indicate that steam engines were in the 5 MPH range when hauling max tonnage.

6

If we want to be fair to the 2-10-2 –

F3 minimum continuous was around 13 miles/hr, with 65-mph gearing. The demo FT was likely geared a bit higher? So its tonnage rating was low, for an engine with its weight on drivers.

7

I think this works out as a union-enforced version of snapping rather than helping, the idea being to increase effective line capacity with faster trains but use more crews with more hundred-mile days or whatever in the process.

“Normal” doubleheading practice would logically be like adoption of articulated locomotives: you calculate train resistance relative to TE so the power ‘just’ gets the train over the ruling grade.

Here the union explicitly disallows that; the maximum train resistance can’t be more than the TE of the road engine will pull. That implies faster speed on grades and curves.

Snapping was usually a passenger and M&E thing as the costs were (perhaps substantially) higher. IIRC in those days much of the ATSF main was sort of like an interrupted four-track line with many sidings for overtaking; having increased TE to accelerate the ‘overtaken’ trains out of those sidings more quickly had to be of value in wartime…

8

If my memory serves me right, the 70-car rule was due to an Arizona state statute limiting train lengths. The statute was later struck down by the United States Supreme Court as state regulation of interstate commerce.

9

They say Arizona’s law was somehow overruled early in WWII – don’t think it ever reappeared.

Don’t think California limited train length, but it required more brakemen on longer trains. That ended in 1948; dunno if the rules had been modified during the war.

10

It was the War Department basically said we’re going to declare all trains through Arizona as vital to the war efforts and any attempt to slow down the production of war goods was not going to fly in that time. The state saw the writing on the wall and basically got out of the way.

11

The article covers all that history. Yes, the war took over and they bypassed state rules.

12

I don’t have a Santa Fe - Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen or Order of Railway Conductors. I do have a Rock Island - BRT agreement book, a 1943 reprint of the 1929 work rule schedule. Updated pay rates for 1943. Until relatively recently, the railroads bargained as a unit on all contract items. So, barring a side or local agreement, most work rules will be similar. Article 25 in the RI book governs double heading.

"Article 25. DOUBLEHEADING AND HELPER SERVICE.

(a) With trains of over 40 cars, exclusive of cabooses, doubleheading is prohibited, except as hereinafter stated.

(b) Doubleheaders may be run on any district provided the rating of largest engine handling the train is not exceeded.

(c) In case of accident to an engine, consolidation may be effected with another train and consolidated train brought into terminal as a doubleheader, if practicable.

(d) Omitted, it deals with the process to establish additional helper service where needed due to increases in business.

(e) Main line local freight trains will not be doubleheaded except in such cases as are covered by Sections a, b and c.

(f) Nothing in the above rules in regard to limiting tonnage or length of trains to be handled by doubleheaders or otherwise, shall be construed so as in any way to limit or establish a precedent as to the proper or save length of trains to be handled by one engine."

Of course the intent was to prevent combining two trains into one train. This was when unions had more influence* and certainly before PSR. The Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers’ agreements didn’t have a prohibition of doubleheading. But that shouldn’t be surprising. Doubleheading didn’t affect the number of engine crews needed.

With the building block principle that diesels allowed, these specific rules were eventually removed.

13

As it was during my 51 years. Do what management wants - even if it is a blatant violation. Decline the claim at the first level - if the individual or the union pursue the claim through channels it will ultimately be paid six months to a year or more after the violation.