Of course it happened. People run 4 minute miles. Most people don’t run 4 minute miles. There’s a difference between a publicity stunt and regular operations. I suspect the OP was asking more about regular operations. You suspect he was asking about a publicity stunt. These are somewhat different but related questions. The answers don’t preclude the other happening. Which was my point in noting that PR is one thing, railroading somewhat different.
Mike,Here’s another way to look at a 'Bug pulling 2 or maybe 3 freight cars.
If a 'Bug had 330 HP that 30 more horses the GEs 44 Tonner at 300 HP.
Consider the railroad’s view. Pay a 5 man crew,plus locomotive operation costs to deliver 3 or 4 cars a week or have the daily passenger train to deliver those cars with a 2 or 3 man crew? To the railroad that’s a no brainer.
Another thing to remember a lot of these 'Bug runs was force by the Feds and State governments because of the mail and REA contracts and the (cough! cough!) need for passenger service even though passengers were far and few between-that was more/less a State political thing.
Oh, I see that Larry. There’s lots of evidence out there of a car or two tacked onto motor cars. If that’s the traffic level, it makes total sense. No need to run a freight.
Pics of motor car trains, i.e. pulling more than a couple of freight cars? Rare, very rare for the reasons I explained and more. They certainly did happen and probably when they did they usually weren’t PR stunts. But it was the force of circumstances when it did hapen and simply not a regular practice. Something so unusual would tend to draw it’s fair share of attention back when film was relatively expensive, yet the number of pics of such practices suggest just how rarely it did happen.
Another angle to consider. A few motor cars handled passenger trailers. Any pics of those with a freight car or two behind them? Probably out there, but you’d have to dig for them. I can’t recal any. But a line with a motor that rated enough passemnger for a trailer would likely face more pressure to stick to the timetbale – and thus limitations on the amount of freight work it could do between terminals.
That anything could happen is different from what things usually happened. It may even be more boring than setting records, but it’s likely to tell us more about the history of something than just the highlights.
Mike,
I KNOW he was asking about regular operations. I DO NOT suspect he was asking about a publicity stunt.
My objection with the Olympic-4-minute comment is that it is an example of something only a few people can do–very unusual people. I was showing an example of something being done by what appears to be a very typical (heavy) gas-electric. I was thus saying that I felt it likely that “most” other heavy gas-electrics COULD do the same. The parallel in Olympic-speak would be that most healthy sturdy humans could run a 4 minute mile. And that is not so.
Now, it was of course a stunt. I do not believe that the manufacturer was advocating that the car could do the same thing day in and out. But it DOES show essentially the maximum load of such a car. Prudence would obviously say to back down from that number.
In Keilty’s “Doodlebug Country”, there are several photos showing gas-electric trains with more than one car trailing. Of especial interest might be the splendid photo on the rear endpaper showing a Lehigh Valley EMC gas-electric pulling an LV Osgood-Bradley coach and a single-sheathed Milwaukee box car.
Discussing the OP’s question further:
If you’re using the Walthers gas-electric, it is definitely NOT a “heavy” gas-electric. I would suggest that the prudent maximum for this car might be only one loaded freight car. Two MIGHT, in the real world, be, uh, unwise. But, maybe…
Also, if the gas-electric is the only motive power, then there’s no choice but to use it for such. BUT, if there were also a real locomotive, I do question whether a branch line would have spent the money for a gas-electric. After all, they already have a paid-for loco. Now all they need is a passenger car. Which will be much cheaper to purchase. And much cheaper to maintain.
Ed,
Don’t take my analogies too seriously. They’re brief and usually to the point, not the basis for some reorgnization of an entire arguement. My only real point was that such operations were unusual. Otherwise, next thing you know someone will be pulling trains with one regularly and saying they heard it was so on the internet someplace. Not that I’m against doing what anyone feel works on theuir layout . Do plenty of that myself. But it does pay to be clear about what is and is not a prototype practice vs what’s unusual. You gotta know the rules first if you expect to survive by breaking them[;)]
I’m not sure what classifies a motor car as heavy, but wonder how many of them were out there vs more typical ones? Most were bought as cheaply as possible in the first place simply because the intent in purchasing them was cost reduction, not service improvement. They also tended to be assigned to a few specific services for much the same reason, often as was noted as part of an agreement to take a train off. Going around and turning them into locos seems rather shortsighted management-wise, a poor use of a limited resource.
I’m not sure what gave me this impression exactly, but I do recall lots of complaints about engine cooling on many motor cars. Not sure if this was associated with a specific engine so much as the basic design did not lend itself well to good cooling, as witnessed by the many variations in radiator placement, etc. But just like towing with a car, you don’t want to lose air flow – and the more cars you add to the consist the slower you go even as the added weight adds to the heat generated by the engine. This does suggest that short distances mde it more possible to deal with with a heavy load.
Very true,but,why worry about speed when you’re not hauling passengers? Again its a cost versus revenue–along with the desire to abandon that branch…A 5 man crew to deliver 1 or 2 cars doesn’t make sense since the daily “passenger” train could do the work.If the bug does overheat then stop and let it cool down…The main goal being give the poorest service you can to discourage the remaining customer(s).
A lot of these branch lines was weed covered and the only thing running was that 'Bug.
Larry,
I was keeping passengers in mind throughout this. Even if poorly patronized, the use of motor cars was because there was a need to transport them at somewhere close to what was on the schedule. This was more a factor prior to mid-century when the need to make connections with other trains was more of a need. With fewer passengers (and sometimes a cancelled mail contract – when there was mail onboard, you had to make the schedule, because you’d hear about it if not from the PO) and no need to get to the end point in a hurry, then that in itself was another factor here we’ve yet to really consider directly. Take that away and it opens up more opportunity to move freight.
I’m sure there was a small subset of moves with motor cars heading up short freights – and nothing to do with passengers or mail.I vaguely recall a shortline or two in the South, where necessity was the mother of invention and down on their luck shortlines using whatevr was capable of moving as motive power. Again, one of those rare outlier cases that is interresting as much for its departure from the norm as anything else about it.
Well, since I invented (?) the term, I’ll tell ya. Looking at EMC, they produced gas-electrics that weighed from 35 tons to up into 80’ish tons with the Big Guy (ATSF M-190) maxing out at 126 tons. Other manufacturers were equally spread around, though the low end looks like it coulda gone down near zero. Anyway, I’d arbitrarily call a 70 ton and up car “heavy”. The Walthers model is of the earliest EMC production, and was a 35 ton car. And that lead to my estimations on pulling power for it. Should the OP reveal that his gas electric is an old brass model of the M-190, stand back, folks!
I’m kinda sorta interested in gas-electrics–enough so that I got two GREAT books on the subject: Keilty’s “Doodlebug Country” and “Interurbans without Wires”. The former is organized by railroad, the latter by manufacturer. I say again: GREAT books.
Ed
Santa Fe assigned motorcar M-122 as the local switcher at Paris, TX in the 50’s; pictures of it switching the joint Santa Fe / Frisco yard are in one of my Santa Fe books. One of the captions states that the switching crew enjoyed the doodlebug as a switcher.
The February 1991 "Trains Illustrated" magazine has a short photo article of a CB&Q doodlebug switching freight cars. (I had to look this up, i mistakenly thought it was in the “Heartland” hardcover rail book)
Chris M
Found it. In Steve Goen’s book, “Santa Fe in the Lone Star State,” Vol. One, on page 39 are three pictures of ATSF M122 at Paris, TX. M122 served as the yard switcher from 1956 to 1962. M122 also had been re-engined with a 400 hp Cat diesel in 1951.