when running in multiple unit, can electric and desil locomotives be put together? i doubt they can, because ive never seen this happen. if they cant, why not?
Thanks
just curious.
GEARHEAD426
I’ve never seen it, and although it might be able to be done on certain types, I doubt they have ever considered. But most electric trains have different track types then deisel locos, so who knows.
Actually Yes they can.
The Milwaukee Road used both Diesel and Electric Locomotives in MU operations on their electrfied lines. The way I understand how it was set up though, that if the Electrics and the Diesels were MUed, the electrics had to be the lead locos because of the way they were wired up to run with the diesles.
Now for other electrfied roads I can not say. But at least the Milwuakee did things that way.
James
Weird. Oh well, if it works, it works. -beegle55
I’m fairly sure the OTHER big electric railroad in the US, the Pennsylvania, did NOT MU electric and diesel. If they were matched together for any reason they typically had seperate crews. Oft times steam was used in helper service under PRR wires between Parkesburg and Thorndale in eastern PA, but by the diesel era there were plenty of freight-geared GG1s and P5as to go around such that all-electric head-end power was the norm. For a brief period, PRR used 7 ex-Milwaukee Road 2-C-C-2 electrics as helpers after the L1s 2-8-2s were scrapped, but their 35-mph gearing was unacceptable for the high-speed Philadelphia Division. They were classed FF2, and were scrapped in 1960. By the early 1960s, Pennsy began taking delivery of E44s for freight service. Diesel trains under the wires were not all that uncommon (especially on local freights), but I can’t say I’ve ever come across evidence of diesel and electrics actually MU’ed on PRR.
Why not? PRR developed its own MU system for use with its early electrics in the very early 1930s, before there was a standard MU setup for diesels. Remember too that many first-generation diesels wouldn’t MU across manufacturers (i.e., Baldwin used a pneumatic system versus electric for EMD, etc.).
Not only could PRR motors not mu with diesels they could only mu with their own kind. So you would never see a G with a P5a as an example with the exception of the EL2a and EL3a experimentals which could also mate with P5’s. It should also be noted that in teh eqarly years there was no standard and engines from different manufacturers could not mu. Baldwin used a pneumatic control method. EMD and Alco couldn;t either until things settled out.
They can’t MU in the sense that one engineer can control all the locos, but they certainly can doublehead like steam locos with each loco having its own crew.
–Randy
YES I have seen it done. I rode the Pennsy from Phily to Chicago in 1966. Electrics were attached to the front of our train and cut off once we were over the mountains. The dissels took us the rest of the way to Chicago.
JIM
Really? Pennsy electric service never extended past Harrisburg, which is east of the mountains. The change from electric to diesel was done there at Harrisburg station. It was always a one-for-one swap (no cut-offs, but a full locomotive exchange). Since the passenger diesel service facility was in Harrisburg and all of its westbound passenger crews were based there, I’m very surprised you’d have had a diesel on the head end of your train from Philadelphia. There is plenty of literature and documentation (as well as a series of articles in Railmodel Journal and the Keystone, the publication of the PRRT&HS about Harrisburg operations and te electric to steam/diesel exchange) on this locomotive exchange. The catenary ends just north of the Harrisburg yard, and in PRR/PC days also at the Enola electric motor pit, still technically part of the Philadelphia Division. The mountains begin in the Middle Division and the major mountain grades on the Pittsburgh Division.
The MILW’s Chief Electrical guy rigged up a rack and offset gear that was connected to the existing throttle in the electrics. A pin connected the diesel control box and the electric throttle, but could be disconnected, so the diesels could be operated separately. This system came about in 1957. At first, it was 1 GP9 behind 2 Little Joes, to help through where the overhead was far between substations. Later, the Joes were the helpers on 2-3 SD40-2s. Helped keep the diesels wound up so they would pull more, rather than making transition and putting along.
Thanks for filling me in with the details.
James
I dunno if it was possible to MU New Haven electrics to diesels, but they did, on occasion, run them together with most likely two crews. In fact, the calendar this month for the NHRHTA shows a pair of EF-4’s (ex-Virginians) behind, IIRC, a GP9, RS-11, and H16-44 (gotta love the NH’s loco roster, eh?).
The reason? At certain spots along the Shore Line in the 1960’s, the voltage drop got so bad that they had to send out helpers for the electric freights to get them through the low voltage area (hey, the NH last made a profit in 1957…by the late 60’s it was a miracle they were running at all).
It still wasn’t a “normal” thing to do on the NH.
Paul A. Cutler III
Weather Or No Go New Haven
Yes, it was Harrisburg. (Hey I lived in Kansas prior to my family moving to PA and your hills looked like mountains to me.) The electrics were in front of the dissels and cut out at Harrisburg. They also cut in a dinning car for our dinner. I remember that our train was delayed quite a bit in Harrisburg because of equipment problems. We were looking forward to horseshoe curve, but because of the equipment delay in Harrisburg we did not get to horseshoe curve until after sun down. The dissels may have been deadheading in the passenger consist and not used for power, but they were there. It was a boy scout contignet of 25 troo
I have also seen photos of BC Rail mixed lashups, also with the electric in the lead.
[quote user=“jamnest”]
Yes, it was Harrisburg. (Hey I lived in Kansas prior to my family moving to PA and your hills looked like mountains to me.) The electrics were in front of the dissels and cut out at Harrisburg. They also cut in a dinning car for our dinner. I remember that our train was delayed quite a bit in Harrisburg because of equipment problems. We were looking forward to horseshoe curve, but because of the equipment delay in Harrisburg we did not get to horseshoe curve until after sun down. The dissels may have been deadheading in the passenger consist and not used for power, but they were there. It was a boy scou
I think the only way locomotives couldn’t be MU’d would be dependant on the type of control system.
Most diesel loco’s were electrical controlled, where a Baldwin “Shark” was hydraulic.
I was reading about the D&H and the Sharks they had couldn’t be MU’d with other locomotives for this reason.
Gordon
Baldwin’s throttles were pneumatic, not hydraulic. As for MUing diesels and electrics, it was common practice on the railway I work for - 85 and 86 class electric locos were designed from the outset to be MU compatible with our diesels. http://www.railpage.org.au/pix/diesel/8021-8011-8609-8612-8614_CA16_Waterfall_8-7-99.jpg The three trailing units are 86 class locos, on line and in MU without a separate crew. Mark.
im alwayse blown away by the amount of knowledge here. antwayse, what about amtrak locomotives?
thanks
GEARHEAD426