Twice within the last couple weeks on NS’ Fort Wanye Line I seen trains running with two standard engines up front followed by a piece of rolling stock and then a switcher. Maybe it would be easy to understand like this;
Engine - Engine - Boxcar - Switcher - Boxcar - Boxcar, etc…
The trains were 10A and 11V (both general freights), once it was a boxcar between them, once it was gon full of steel. I cant tell you if they the switcher was on or off.
Any ideas what this is?
Weight distribution (for bridges) - I don’t see that - or the switcher didn’t have coupler alignment “barn doors” so if placed within an operating locomotive consist, when shoved, would jack-nife and derail the train. Usually, however, these moves were usually made ahead of the caboose - or as the last car if no caboose.
Possibly the switcher is just being hauled to a location before or after overhaul or maintenance?
I do remember in the steam days sometimes double-headed trains had spacer cars between locomotives to eliminate uncoupling and coupling over bridges with weight restrictions. Occasionally Chama - Durango ran like this.
The two previous posts are probably right in this situation, basically a switcher being moved to a maintenance point. The only situation of which I’m aware that involves a routine separation of motive power is the rather well-known former CofG branch in Georgia with several light bridges.
I’v never seen this but I once saw a Burlington Northern with a tank car in the middle of four locomotives. Thought that was kinda wierd.
That would probably have been a fuel tender, supplementing the fuel tanks on the locomotives. BN experimented with this at some length to take advantage of lower fuel costs at one end of a locomotive’s territory - the tender gave a consist enough range to get to the other end of its run and back without needing refuelling in the location where it cost more.
BN also experimented with RLM (refrigerated liquid methane) fuel, which also involved fuel tenders.
Perhaps the trains are way-freights. The crew might have to do some work at a location that has only facing-point switches (referencing the trains direction of travel), so by having the “extra” loco behind the car that was to be switched, they could access the facility.
Of course, on the return trip this arangement would not be needed.
We used to do that proedure quite a bit. A real pain-in-the-tush for the engineer. First you pull the head end to clear past the facing-point switch; then secure the units; then hike back to he ‘extra’ loco; prepare it for operation; then reverse the procedure when done. Not too bad if there’s only one or two cars to switch.
Randy’s explanation is the other possibility.
Next time you see this, make sure to check if there is a crew in the switch engine Kickin’ and Screamin’. … If there is, then I might have another theroy…
[:D]
How does RLM (liquid methane) work in a locomotive? Do you inject it as a liquid? If so, how do you not ice up the feed lines? Do you feed it in as a gas? If so, do you run the Diesel as gas carbureted a spark-ignition engine?
This is how you move locomotives that don’t have self aligning couplers/ draftgear
Glad you chipped in. “Without Barndoors”.
If you go to http://www.energyconversions.com/loco2.htm, you will see from the company that performed those conversions the details behind them. Interestingly, with the RLM the locomotives produced more emissions than with straight diesel.
In the case of the Central of Ga., mentioned above, where the engines are separated to allow for light bridges – does the spacer car have provisions for MU cables to pass through? or does it require two crews? (or remote control?)
If the engines were being used (as power) then yes they would have to have an MU connection at both ends of the spacer car or have DPU cabability. The spacer car itself would have to have a long MU cable also running the length of the spacer car.
I would also think it would have the other 3 hoses and not just the mainline hose. I have never seen one in actual use but it would be reasonable to need the other 3 hoses. Without the 3 additional hoses you could not do the required FRA brake check on the trailing locos behind the spacer car. (Which could save one heck of a lot of walking for the ground man. [;)] )
I know the dual fuel locomotive conversions were problematic in a number of areas, Supposedly neither the EMD 710 or GE FDL engines which were tested (by UP, BN only converted 645’s in older locomotives) offered adequate performance due to difficulty in adopting the dual fuel system to the existing cylinder head designs. The MK/MP/Wabtec MK1200G avoids this by using a CAT 3516 engine custom built with a spark ignition system, eliminating the need for the diesel fuel “pilot light”. According to their website,Energy Conversions is working on similiar systems for EMD 645 and 710 engines. Intrestingly such a converted engine is no longer technically a diesel as it is spark rather than compression ignited. I would imagine the main appeal now would be Clean Air requirements, as the huge spike in Natural Gas prices doesn’t make it as favorable to diesel as it once was. I wonder if coal to gas conversion might help the economics…
From that configuration, the answer seems easy to me… its a mid-train helper on a REALLY short train.
One of the things about spark ignition engines is that you are limited in compression ratio and in cylinder size that you don’t get preignition or knocking. I suppose natural gas must be pretty high octane rating to work in the application, either as true spark ignition (ouch! Now you have to maintain spark plugs and spark plug wires and an ignition system.) or that Diesel injection pilot ignition system.
Since coal gasification was mentioned, I can imagine the ultimate coal locomotive – a coal gasifier “tender” feeding coal gas (mixture of CO and H2) into that funny kind of “Diesel” engine.
The spacer cars used on the CofG branch are equipped with MU cables and receptacles for this service. A “Would You Believe It” entry in TRAINS in the 1960’s shows an old combine numbered DMCU-1 used in this service. DMCU stood for Diesel Multiple Control Unit.
There have been a couple of designs for coal gasification tenders over the years. The problem is that you wind up hauling around a bulky load of fuel which, after gasification, only gives up a fraction of its energy value. It seems to me it would make more sense to gasify the coal in bulk and have compressed or liquified tank tenders feeding the locomotives.
With astronomical fuel prices nowadays there is a strong possibility that we will see a return of “coal fired” railroad traction…The coal will be converted into high grade diesel fuel via the SASOL process (this is how South Africa produces most of its diesel, even in the post trade embargo era). There are test plants being built in the US now…
Southern did this for over 20 years on the line that runs from Blacksburg, SC to Shelby, NC and on through Forest City and Rutherfordton, NC. It was due to the weight limit on some of the bridges on that line. They have used the same boxcar for as a spacer for as long as I can remember. Sadly, traffic on the line has decreased to the point that they dropped down to a single engine a few months ago. I’m not sure what has happened to the box car.