no mention of steam engines here…does the term “consists” not apply to steam engines?
Consist (pronounced CON-sist)
Cars which make up a train; also a list of those cars. A locomotive consist is a group of diesel units put together to pull a train. Also known as “m.u.-ing” (from multiple units). In DCC, with basic consisting, the command station sends the same commands to each loco in the consist. With advanced consisting, each decoder-equipped locomotive responds to the address of the consist, enabling the command station to control the consist with a single command.
No it doesn’t. Steam engines had to each be run by an engineer and fireman, unlike diesels or electrics where multiple engines could be hooked together electrically to be run by just one crew. That’s why articulated engines were built, essentially two steam engines made into one, run by one crew.
Steam engines running together are “double headers” or even “triple headers” - although if 3 or more engines were needed, you might be more likely to find two at the front and one “helper” shoving in the rear, or even one or two at the front, one in the middle and one pushing at the rear.
AS far as the 1:1, yes this is correct. On your HO layout there is no reason why you cannot consist your DCC steam engines. But even 1:1 you can have steam engines in a consist, they just cannot be mu’d but only run with an independent crew, following cues and whistles from the lead locomotive.
A double header is two engines on the front. A helper is an extra engine anywhere (head end, rear end, mid train). In the mountainous coal regions on the east coast it was not uncommon to see one large 2-8-0 on the point, 3 large 2-8-0’s cut in mid train and 3-4 large 2-8-0’s on the rear. All of them would be operated by independent crews.
Technically not quite. An articulated is an engine with an articulated (hinged) frame . A Pennsy T1 4-4-4-4 has two engines, two sets of rods and cylinders under one boiler, but is has a rigid frame so is not articulated. A Baldwin Centipede or a GG1 are also articulated engines having hinged sets of drivers. The Centipede is the diesel equivalent of a Big Boy and the GG1 is the electric equivalent of a Challenger.
Before and into the transition era railroads with specific long, steep grade situations would sometimes use LOTS of tractive effort/horsepower on their trains. SP routinely powered freights over Tehachapi Pass with six (count 'em) cab-forwards (backwards yellowstones) - two on the point, two forward of mid-train and two 20 or so cars ahead of the caboose.
Post-WWII, the L&N wanted to speed up Nashville-Louisville traffic. They went with super-power 2-8-4s, and supplemented them on the worst grade with ABBA covered wagon helpers.
The Clinchfield, which had some truly hairy grades, ran long-train steam excursions powered by a puny little 4-6-0. Immediately behind the ten-wheeler (and controlled from its cab) were two ersatz baggage cars - B units painted Pullman green.
I have a photo of doubleheaded 4-6-2s on a four car local on the almost level Kyushu East Coast route. It dodn’t take two Pacifics to power that train, but there was no room in a saturated schedule for a light engine movement.
More recently, I saw a half-dozen six-axle behemoths pulling seven empty ballast cars (BNSF westbound from Barstow to Mojave and beyond.) No way did those cars need 24,000+ horsepower to move them. I think it was a move of light helpers back to Bakersfield, and the ballast cars happened to be going the same way.
On my Japan National Railways prototype, many trains had doubleheaded D51 class 2-8-2s. Upgrade trains that didn’t got a helper, usually a C12 class 2-6-2T. I have the same, but the helper may be a DD13 class B-B diesel-hydraulic. On the 4% grades of my private short line I routinely assign doubleheaded 0-6-0Ts, and tack on another 0-6-0T or 0-8-0T pusher when necessary.
I’ve always thought that many DCC operators are not using the technology to its fullest when they consist double- or tripleheaded steam locos rather than run each loco with its own operator - a great opportunity for realism missed. [sigh]
The short video below is even further from realism, as it’s DC operation, with all locos controlled by the same throttle. There’s also not much in the way of sound and there’s none of the smoke and steam seen in Richard’s link. [swg]
Generally, yes. Iron ore is very heavy, so railroads that hauled iron ore on the Mesabi Iron Range in Minnesota (DM&IR, GN) used very large articulated engines to haul the ore trains - sometimes 140 cars or more. The N&W had some steep grades, so that they used more than one articulated engine on a coal train.
Each railroad had it’s own way of doing things. For example, the New York Central usually used one engine per train, and developed progressively larger passenger steam engines, from Pacifics to Hudsons to the 4-8-4 Niagaras as passenger trains got longer and heavier. However the Pennsylvania stuck with their fine K-class Pacifics, choosing to regularly run two of them double-headed on passenger trains.
p.s. Technically “consist” - I believe - refers to two or more engines connected together to run as one, controlled by one crew. A steam double-header isn’t a “consist” because each engine has it’s own crew controlling it independent of the other engine.
Well, you could always double the hill. That’s when the crew leaves half of the train, for example, at the bottom of the grade and hauls the other half to the next siding above the grade. The engine then returns to the bottom of the grade and brings the other half up, reassembling the train. This was very common on prototype operations when the volume of traffic didn’t justity running more trains or buying heavier or more numerous engines, or when most trains were light enough to make the grade behind the road engine or if the grade was short. This operation tied up the railroad for a while, but that’s part of the fun if you’re trying to extend the time it takes to run a train on an all too short main line.
I guess it depends on your individual layout whether you like bigger power/shorter/longer trains,etc.
Regards,
Benny
One Illinois coal road routinely tripled their worst hill! Some model rail who only runs one train might try that some time. (It was noted that there wasn’t much traffic on that route.)
The model B&O train that I have always dreamed of would have a ‘Little Joe’ Dockside 0-4-0T on the point of a LONG freight - and a pair of EM1 2-8-8-4s just forward of the caboose.
During the transition era, the B&O and the Western Maryland in particular, used steam and diesel together for double/tripple headers and/or helper service.
While most trains were still steam powered, the B&O quickly put its new ABBA F3’s to work in helper service. They could be seen pushing on the back of train that had two EM-1’s at the head end.
On the Western Maryland it was not uncommon to see their large 2-8-0’s intermixed with ALCO RS units or EMD GP units - six or seven locos total - slugging coal trains out of their mountain coal branchlines. Tight curves prevented the use of larger power, and steep grades required lots of power, a couple locos in front, a few in the middle, a few more on the rear.
The B&O used Mikados as passenger helpers through the mountains, so a passenger train, pulled buy a Pacific, would get a Mikado coupled in front for help up the steepest grades - pushing passenger trains is rough on the paying customers.
