There are lots of photos and small video clips showing short local freight (less than 10 cars) and two engines coupled back to back. The engines are most time older engines in the 2000hp range (e.g. GP38-2).
My guess is that there is nothing to turn a single engine at the trains destination and has therefor an engine for each direction is added.
Is that a valid guess?
Is the second engine idle (or even shut) off to save fuel?
Is the second engine treated like a car during switching under way (the engineer will not change engines during switching backward)?
Did CSX practice that system?
Background of my questions is my small layout. I could run MU (2*CSX GP 38-2) on my short locals with that explanation. However it should be a common used praxis and not a curiosity.
It is common to run a local job with two engines back-to-back, so there is a cab on each end. Many lines do not have a turning facility at the end. Union agreements may also require this. Not a fun time to run backwards for 3-6 hours.
Usually the engineer stays in the forward-facing cab, until the end of the line is reached. Then he switches ends and runs forward back to the terminal.
One of the engines may be isolated to save a bit of fuel, and keep the cab quieter (isolating the rear unit). Or both may be on to pull the load, or get between stations quicker. When out on a big mainline, you need to keep up with the traffic flow. Switching is a bit easier with both engines running as well.
What is done with modern multi purpose switchers (e.g. MP15). Sight should be ok in both directions but running backwards is without a protecting hood. Would they use a second engine too?
Ability to have the hood end forward for visibilty or they will operate long hood first if no second unit is employed, this assumes a run around exist.
Railroad imposed minium speed guidelines, for example: UP imposed a minium speed for SP locals on certain areas of joint trackage, with the exception of the MP15 no end cab switcher could comply with this requirement. We often would often grab a U25BE out of Taylor to get sufficient horsepower for these locals! God help the motive power desk if they had a freshly shopped SDP45 lurking on the ready track that was otherwise unemployed and awaiting return to the San Francisco commute pool !
Line conditions and grades, many times the additional power was not required on the uphill, but the added dynamic brake capability greatly improved overall train handling on the downgrade.
Often the trailing unit(s) would be attached to rear, this was common were extensive reverse moves were anticipated, note this unit was useually re-arraigned after arrving at the location to be switched, many times it would be employed as as a second switcher if conditions warranted.
I do take exception to a GP38-2 being an “old time” engine, they were new engines when I hired on.
Generally yes. A lot of railroads just had a single engine and had it run “backwards”. Depends on how stingy they were with power. If the RR can afford to allocate $2 million dollars of engines to a train that just needs $1 million dollars worth, great.
Probably not.
No its treated as part of the engine, not a car. The engineer doesn’t change ends.
Don’t know for sure but I think it is a very safe bet to assume they ran 2 unit locals…
My question is why do you want to run 2 units on 10 cars? Just to run more units or do you have a another reason why.
Keep in mind many railroad’s early diesel road switchers were bought to work on branch lines specifically because, unlike steam engines, diesels could run equally well in either direction without needing to be turned at the end of the line. So if a short train has two diesels back-to-back, it’s more likely that the two engines are needed for powering the train, rather than just for the convenience of the crew. Of course when two or more engines are used together, railroads try to set them up so the two engines (or the outside engines if there are more than two) face away from each other…but if it would be a hassle to set that up they just put them together “as is”.
For example, the branch line I used to live on generally used back to back EMD switchers when the MN&S owned it. Later the Soo took over and generally used back to back high hood GP-9s or a GP-9 and a MILW MP-15 back to back. The trains were normally only 6-8 cars, I suppose the fact that it was a dead-end branch had some factor, but there were some grades on the line that I think had a bigger impact on the decision to use two engines. (Back in the sixties it was common for the MN&S to run two short trains a day on the line, so I’m guessing they would have run one longer train if not for the grade?)
However, MR mentioned recently that there are some railroads now who put an engine on either end of a freight train, with one engine in idle. This is so the rear engine can be used to switch any facing-point spur tracks, and allowing an engine to always be at the “front” regardless which direction you’re going.
in the late '50’s early '60’s we did a lot of that with paired switchers teamed out of Oakland on locals if the tonnage warranted the added Horsepower. Back then even the locals carried a lot of cars as many were dropped off in blocks at various satellite yards for distribution to the industries they served. For example, going south there were usually blocks for: 5th Ave (Brooklyn), Fruitvale/High Street/ Alameda, Mulford, Stonehurst, Hayward-Union City, Alvarado-Niles and Centerville. There were another whole bunch going Eastbound, too! John
My guess is that there is nothing to turn a single engine at the trains destination and has therefor an engine for each direction is added.
Actually it has nothing to do with turning a engine since a engine can run equally well in either direction and a caboose can be used for extended reverse moves…
The engine on the end can be used for facing point moves…This saves time from having to make a run around move.
Is the second engine idle (or even shut) off to save fuel?
Every one I seen to date has been idling.
Is the second engine treated like a car during switching under way (the engineer will not change engines during switching backward)?
No its like a caboose it just stay on the end of the train.All switching moves will be made normally.
Did CSX practice that system?
Yes,I have seen GP38-2/MP15DCs used in that method…The oddest was a SD50/SD40-2 combo on a 17 car local.
However it should be a common used praxis and not a curiosity.
I have seen more locals with 2 engines on point with a caboose for the reverse move.
I also watch a CR crew switch out the trailing unit and set it on a industrial siding then pull the train ahead of the switch and back the other unit out of the industrial siding and couple on to the train.This was done in order from having to go 9 more miles to the nearest runaround.
Since this local usually carried a caboose I asked and that was what the conductor told me.
In this country we’ve run a lot of engineer’s train and unit trains (especially coal) “Topped and Tailed” - a loco at each end. I assumed that we’d taken the practice from the US when (was it Krebbs?) Wisconsin Central “bought” our freight services for 5p.
It has meant that a lot of run-round moves have been cut out and, more recently, a lot of the side loops that were provided for them have been disconnected if not fully ripped out.
Freight Top and Tails seem to have both locos running (back one idling not DPU) at all times. Engineer’s trains vary. I think it depends on the job.
My impression is that in the USA in winter you keep a second engine ticking over when not actually working so that it doesn’t freeze up…?
Reading the above posts, there is also another possible reasoning for assigning two units. My information comes from discussions with my father, who was a conductor on the Illinois Central.
The railroad may assign two units to a “light” assignment as insurance against locomotive failure. (System Redundancy) Should one unit have a mechanical problem, the other engine insures that the train can complete its assignment without someone having to run an extra operation to get more power to an inoperable train. This would especially be a consideration on a branch line (for the IC, the branch from Freeport, IL to Madison, Wisconsin was an example). The caveat for branch lines is that the bridges have to be capable of handling two locomotives.
From that same source, when two engines were used, the engineer would almost always remain in the one cab for switching and may even remain in the “original” cab for the return trip without turning.
I would agree with the observations that using two on CSX was not uncommon.
That’s pretty sad comentary on the mechanical or fiscal standing of a railroad. But I know it happened in some places on some roads on some trains. Most likely engine to fail: one that has just come out of a major shopping.
If the railroad has reliable maintenance it will assign the power the train needs (“…don’t plan for failure…”) which is why on many roads you will see a premium piggyback train with one unit.
I’m sure no expert of the central question here about the ‘why’ of more than one engine on a ‘short’ or local train, but just yesterday I was looking through a book on the Fort Worth and Denver and saw a photo of a three unit train-- an E5, an E or F7 (can’t remember which) and an executive/business car. Now one must assume that either of the locomotives was sufficiently powerful to pull one converted heavyweight passenger car, so why the second locomotive? How about serving as a back-up (System Redundancy) for the VIPs? I’d bet they wouldn’t take kindly to being stuck on a long stretch of lonesome prairie in a Texas Panhandle norther if their single power unit split a gasket.
Unless motive power supply was critically short, seem to me it makes sense to double up. Besides, wouldn’t be easier on the equipment to have a couple of units running just a little bit
I don’t recall which roads it was (possibly more than a couple) but I ave definitely seen examples of a flat car and a box car belonging to the locos’ road being fitted with MU gear and working as a spacer car between two locos to solve the axle weight / bridge load problem. It makes aninteresting variation.
A couple of years ago i lived in a small town Fort Atkinson, WI and a small Union Pacific line came through the town but stopped 1/2 mile in. Most of the time they ran two always running geeps usually GP38-2s. then sometimes there would only be one loco facing forwards coming into town, and with no turn around place they had an old caboose at the end so they would just run backwards. I think on Youtube someone has some videos of these local freights, just type Jefferson Junction and they should pop up. hope that helped
Union Freight in Boston use to mu two 44 tonners as one could not handle the 15 to 20 car transfers. The 44 tonners came equipped with a MU connector on the end of each hood and two mu air hoses on each end near the couplers.
As the originator of this thread I would like to thank you all for the amount and quality of information you provided. It is a pleasure to learn from you!