I often see photos of power at the time diesel was replacing steam where diesel power is lashed to steam to move heavy tonnage or added to assist at steep grades. Though I was around at the time I never saw an actual arrangement. I always wonder what this action was really like, how it was cordinated( I guess there was voice contact between the crews), which moved first, was it kinda sloppy at times, etc. With two markedly different modes of power it would seem that it would be hard to get the best out of both; and at times they would work against each other never exerting the total sum of power available. Would like to know how it was with this arrangement. Pardon if this has been on recently.
Each steam engine would be manned by it’s own engine crew. Diesel consists would be manned by their own engine crew. The steam and diesel engine crews would communicate through horn and whistle signals…the same as if there were multiple steam engines on the train. This form of communication and hand (lantern) signals were the only forms of (reliable) communication that existed during the period of time that both power mode roamed the mainlines of the US.
One thing to bear in mind in operating the motive power of a train…either steam or diesel…the engine crew know the territory they are operating intimately…where power is needed (and how much), where braking is needed, where to stretch brake the train to control slack. Operating the locomotive on a train is not the same as driving one’s car…the terrain the trains has to be operated over does not change from trip to trip (with the exception of weather condition)…the grades and curves are the same today as they were yesterday so the power and braking decisions are made at the same points time after time after time. Enginemen will adjust their decisions about increasing throttle or applying brakes by several hundred yard depending upon the seat of the pant feel they have for how the train is handling…but those decisions will be made in the same area time after time after time.
There were (and still are) established procedures for double-heading, as well as mid-train and rear-end helpers, all of which I don’t profess to know. I recall reading about them, probably in Trains.
I do recall that a rear-end pusher would “lean” into the train at the outset and then make necessary adjustments to the throttle based on knowledge of the territory, the brake pipe (controlled by the lead locomotive), and, of course, other signals.
I think, I remember hearing that the 844/3985 had cab controls (a control stand to enable the engineer of 844/3985 to control the usually accompanying diesel from the cab of 3985/844(?)
Q.) Is operation of a diesel possible with the above controls shown in the linked photo?
I know that is an unusual situation, and I am sure when they are put into double-heading with another steamer that there would be the use of the crew communications with hand signals, radio or whistle and that coupled with the crew’s (or a ‘pilot’ who is certified to run in that [particular area of operation and that knowledgable individuals. familiarity of the area they are running would enable their safe operation
This may be so Sam, for modern day UP but not back in the changeover period. There were no mu controls from a steam cab to a diesel in normal operations. Clincifiedl figured one out for their Santa Clause train with a B unit controlled from the steamer; others may have experimented. But normal operations was an engine crew in each the steam and diesel locomtoive. There were rules and guidlines and whistle codes and professional understanding between and amongst the crews of who was to do what when and where. I know it is hard to understand in this day and age of electronics, computers, cell phones, and microchips how things were done by rules, regulations, hand and whistle signals, skill, job knowledge and common sense. Workd well, too.
As part of an upgrade, L&N purchased 2-8-4s for road power, and a four unit diesel set for pusher service o one particular grade. When the steamer whistled for a start, the diesel would reply (horn) and go to run-8. Speed around a couple of restricted curves was controlled by the road engineer reducing power, thereby putting more load on the pusher.
I have some old operators’ manuals of early diesels (F-3, RS-3, etc) and some of these manuals actually contain instructions for operating the locomotives with steam helpers. Apparently the diesel manufacturers (EMD and Alco) expected this to happen with some frequency at the beginning of the diesel era. The instructions basically say what has been stated before. Run the diesels flat out and let the steam locomotive add it’s extra muscle. Most likely as the power curves of the two different types crossed the diesel might eventually end up just going along for the ride.
I’ll leave it to someone in the know to explain it better, but as I understand it, when it is desired to prevent bunching up such as in hilly country, you keep the slack taken up in the couplers by keeping some pressure on the brakes while also applying throttle.
Stretch breaking would mean you would either apply the train brakes but not the locomoitive brake or while keeping the throttle open slightly so that when stopped the train would be stretched out on the drawbars. Bunching a train would be to apply the engine brake first then the train brake so that the drawbars bunched the cars (this was good when cars were going to be taken off or put on a train at a stop). Passenger trains started with a stretched train will only get the movement of the locomotive pulling the entire train at once rather than one car at a time with each drawbar length moved thus it feels like a very smooth start, probably unnoticable… Rode Amtrak last week from NYP to Poughkeepsie and MNRR to GCT…virtually the same track, same station stops, same speeds. Amtrak had a smoother stop and start because there was a stretch stop thus stretch or whole train start (and I am sure car buffering, etc. had something to do with it, too) and is allowed the extra time it takes to start more slowly. MNRR on the otherhand, in addition to having a pushing locomtive, had excellent stops, they were quick stops and starts and more slack action was felt than on Amtrak. Two different kinds of trains, two different operations. And I must add that push is different than pull with such commuter equipment, and that MNRR on the Hudson River LIne has different geography than on the Harlem, New Haven, Danbury and Waterbury branches and than NJT with hilly starts and stops in additon to locomotive locations… But if you understand what I am saying, then ride the different kinds of trains and terrains, you will get to understand slack action beyond hearing it as the sound of rolling thunder on a 100 car train of coal starting from standing still on a grade!
Thanks to all for the comments; I can now see that route famillarity and crew cordination made this work pretty well in the transition days. Just more evidence of the talent of railroad men of that era. I never saw this arrg’t as I grew up on the Katy mainline in the flat country.
On my inbound ride on the Metra Southwest, I would assume that the engineer probably keeps the slack bunched at all stops because I’ve rarely felt a jolt when leaving the station. I’m not sure how he does it since I’ve heard that the independent brake can’t be released when the locomotive is pushing.
In push mode I would imagine the train brakes would be applied and the train kept bunched so that the pushing power would be starting the whole train at once most likely if on flat and downhill grades. But lets face it, the skill of the engineer has got to account for most of the operating of a train followed by the train make up and the geography. I’ve been told that on NJT when different model cars are combined in a train there are quirks and inconsistancies which will cause uneven braking and starting along with diesel or electric power and in push or pull mode all combined with the grades and direction. I don’t really envy an engineer with 8 cars stopping and starting on grades whether going up or down!
I don’t recall the issue date but there was an item in “TRAINS” a few years back which described the M.U system installed on the 2 U.P Steam program engines and it can and does allow the engineer in the steam locomotive to control trailing diesel locomotives.
It is common for practice for a Union Pacific Steam excursion train to have one or more diesels behind the steamer and the M.U setup makes the mixed lashup easy to operate…