Double, Triple, Multiple..heading

It all comes down to EXTREMELY knowledgable crews, that REALLY know their territory.

And the use of whistle signals to help communicate between engineers.

Skill and knowledge.  There was almost no process and there were few rules.

Anything I've read on multiple-unit steam operations says it was a dangerous practice. With that, I'm sure derailments and broken couplers were common.

If it could be done reliably without issues, the large articulates would never have been built. They simply would have ran as many locomotives and crews as necessary to get the train up over the hill.

Sigh...once again you should not believe everything you read.

Steam double and triple headers (not "multiple-unit steam operations") were done literally EVERY DAY in the steam era. Derailments and broken couplers were NOT common.

Large articulated locomotives were built because it was CHEAPER to run a SINGLE crew on ONE locomotive than it was to use two or three crews in smaller locomotives on that same train.

Your comment "...They simply would have ran as many locomotives and crews as necessary to get the train up over the hill..." almost made me laugh. Sure...locomotives don't cost anything and neither do the crews. We'll just have 1,000 men and 500 locomotives standing by to use when needed. 

So many of you folks forget that railroading is a BUSINESS! The vast majority of decisions made regarding locomotives were made due to BUSINESS decisions. If a new locomotive could move the same amount of freight at less cost than the current locomotives, then the new locomotive was purchased. And if the new locomotive meant that a SINGLE locomotive could do the work formerly done by TWO (locomotives AND crews), that was a no-brainer.

The PRR did them when handling heavy consists.  I have quite a few pictures hanging in the living room with the K4s coming up from Harrisburg through Millersburg on way northward and west.  Here is an article

http://www.rrmuseumpa.org/about/roster/k4.shtml

What about when articulateds were doubleheaded? And a pusher at the end? ,175 cars back  This is certainly a disaster waiting to happen

Nice video - thanks for sharing.

Paul

This was an excellent example of one of our "younger generation" folks entering a discussion about steam operations from more than 60 or 70+ years ago, without any knowledge of "how things really were".

Thank you, gentlemen!  I am gonna believe the guys, several, with experience, who

say this is no big deal...it just looks like one.  Certainly, I am aware it was done often,

I even saw a few pass my childhood Southern station, and down in the valley from

my grandfather's farm.  And the railroad books are full of photos of assorted combinations of locos in a train.  It LOOKS hard to avoid broken couplers, or having

the pusher(s) jackknife the train, etc.

It is ironic that the real railroads did this all the time without problems.

In my experience, it is very difficult to do on a model railroad even with command control.  You can create a lash-up to accomplish this.  I have seen this done in several videos but not in personally.  You need a big layout to accommodate a long train and two or three steam engines.  

The real trick is to get two or three different people with command control remotes to simulate separate crews.  I have never seen this successfully done.

Has anyone else seen this done on a model railroad?

Joe  

as Wyhog mentioned, you need to have a train heavy enough that one engine can't pull the train by itself.

a couple of other things are generally required (or at least highly advised)...

1) Have weighted cars.    If you have cars that are not properly weighted, things can go south in a hurry, especially if you are pushing on a very lightweight car with a heavy one in front of it.

2) Have the coupler attached to the frame, not the trucks.  Otherwise, it can be very easy to start stringlining cars.

It can be done, although it may take some trial and error.  It's MUCH easier in DCC also!

Kevin

I do it all the time 

Me too.  All engines are powered.

I stand corrected.

In my defense, every historical article on a big locomotive is ALWAYS qualified with, "to pull larger trains through mountain grades UNASSISTED" or some such boilerplate.

To say that there were never any mishaps... I just don't buy it. Somebody misses a signal, or has a sneezing fit, or gets stung by a bee with his hand on the throttle, or is just an inexperienced engineer thrust into a "Git-R-Done" situation making an honest mistake... There had to have been more than a fair share of broken couplers and derailed cabooses.

About cabooses....I have read (as noted above, what is read is not a sure thing, however this sounds credible to me, for sure), but the rule often was to cut the pushers in ahead of the caboose(s), to keep it from being rendered an accordian...there was mention of wooden frames vs. steel frames..but I don't think I'd like to be the guy in a caboose looking back at a couple of big articulateds pushing hard, and not able to stop quickly in case something went wrong...seems nicer to have three sides from which to join the birds  (taking trestles and cliffs into consideration in mountain railroading)...

Many railroads had steel cabooses, back in the steam era, and the rear pusher locomotive would then have been coupled on behind the caboose. The Rear Brakeman could then uncouple the rear pusher "on the fly", such as N&W. The PRR also had cabooses with re-enforced frames and vertical "crash posts".

Those railroads with wood cabooses, or extremely steep grades (generally over 1.75%) tended to couple the rear pusher in ahead of the caboose, like SP and UP.

I don't think anyone here is denying that there weren't accidents.  But I don't think it was a daily occurrence, either. 

The same things could also happen in a yard during switching or even on a short way freight with a small locomotive.

I once saw a BN waycar lying on its side in BN's Clyde Yard, but that doesn't mean the BN was knocking them off the track willy-nilly...

Rusty

I'm sure there was the occasional incident just like nowadays, but you had people doing this many times a day, every day with years of experience.  The pusher crews pretty much had it down to a fine science.

As Rich pointed out, railroads are a business and upper management wouldn't tolerate it very long if you are fouling a mainline on a regular basis.  The fact that it was done for years on end means that they found a way to do it safely and without incident.

It might sound crazy now several generations removed, but it's rather amazing what was done on a regular basis without incident with the technology available at the time.

Kevin

As recently as about 2005, we pushed an 11,000+ ton stalled freight train all the way up Archer Hill, westbound, with UP 844. Didn't have a lick of problem, and even got to almost 20MPH!

You'll have to explain to me how a bee sting or a sneezing fit ultimately results in a broken coupler or a derailment. That just makes no sense whatsoever. 

No one ever said there were NEVER any problems. However, if broken couplers and derailed cabooses were a routine problem, it would have been VERY expensive cleaning up derailments and delaying trains due to the cleanup work. No railroad operating department would put up with that, and no railroad CEO would allow it either. You may not want to believe it, but this kind of railroading was done at hundreds of locations every day, without any significant problems.

Good grief!  There is sure a lot of assuming, supposing, and guessing going on in this thread.

In steam days, and into the 1960's and early '70's, to be promoted to Engineer required three years of service.  There were sometimes separate Yard Engineers and Road Engineers and each had its own seniority roster where this was the practice.  Helper -- pusher, if you prefer -- Engineers were either assigned to the freight pool, called extra (off the Engineers' Extra Board) or on assigned helper engines, depending on the practice at that locality.

After being in road service for three years and earning promotion to Engineer, a Fireman would have been exposed to many different operating scenarios, including helpers, if his territory used them.  He would understand how to know when to shove and when to shut off, how to spot for water half way to the top of the grade, and many other things germane to helper service.  That's knowledge.  

If there were enough Engineers who felt disposed to educate the Fireman, he would have had at least some chance to run an engine under the supervision of the Engineer, especially after having passed the Engineer Examinations.  There was usually some time (sometimes several years) that elapsed between a Fireman passing promotion and actually being assigned as an Engineer.  Steam Engineers were more likely to be willing to trust a Promoted Fireman.  Also, during traffic and vacation surges, the youngest Engineers would be cut back to Firemen and called back to the Engineers' board off and on until they gained enough seniority to be Engineers year-round.  Thus, after running their own engine, they would be cut back firing and work with senior Engineers, and I can tell you, that you see things differently after you have done it yourself.  I really improved my train handling skills when I got cut back firing and noticed the finer points of the different Engineers I worked with.  So, inexperience was not a real factor in helper operation.  That's skill.

On the railroad, your skill and your knowledge were your signature.  You did not want to be the laughing stock of your peers and broken knuckles nearly always resulted in discipline for at least one Engineer.  If you caused the train to separate - or, in the rare instance, derail - you would have the Chief Dispatcher, the trick Dispatcher, all the other Engineers and Firemen on your train, the Conductor, your own Fireman, two Brakeman, and possibly a couple of swing Brakemen mad at you, and it would not be over at the end of the trip.  Oh, and also you would ruin the day for the crews behind and ahead of you when everything came to a halt, trains got bunched up, meeting and passing points had to be rearranged, etc.  And, if a passenger train was affected, it was worse and there were more people mad at you.  And they would tell everybody.

Helper operations were done with knowledge, skill, and common sense.  Failure was rare.

Thanks for your post, Tom. Your railroad career was much more extensive than mine, thus your words carry more credibility than mine do.

Your description of how an engineer gets qualified and the what happens when he screws up hit the mark very well.

I wonder why some folks feel that pushing against a caboose was any different than pushing against a box car?

Very good question...

A loaded box car would be heavier than a caboose, but other than that...

But aren't the forces being transferred through the frames, along their axis, just like would be done on a box car? One poster above suggested a caboose would be crushed like an "accordian."

Wyhog - Thanks for posting your experience with helpers on the HO layout.  I will have to find a place to try it sometime.

For the NJ Hi-Rail Guys - Thanks for the videos.  I really want to visit your display someday.  Everything I have seen in photos and videos is spectacular.  Here are a couple of questions:

1.  About how many cars were in the triple headed coal train?

2.  How do you couple the three steam engines together?  Do you have standard claw couplers on the front of the steam engines or did you replace all the couplers on the engines with Kadee or similar couplers?  If so, are the coal cars equipped with body mounted Kadees also?

The next TCA Convention is billed as being in NY City but I understand that the convention hotel is in northern NJ.  I think I will try to attend if the NJ Hi-Rail is open for tours.  

This has been a very informative thread.  As an Easterner, I found the Western Maryland's Elkins, WVa,  line most interesting  for use of multiple engines.  In steam days as many as SIX 2-8-0's bullied coal trains up through Blackwater Canyon.  I believe they were evenly distributed with three each front, middle and rear, but that was too far back for even this old guy to have observed.  I did catch it in the Diesel era, when the 2-8-0's were replaced by F's and GP-9's.  

Which brings to mind a wreck I happened upon several decades ago on a B&O line (B&P?) in western Pennsylvania.  I was told that the front of the train had derailed, but the pusher units were unaware of it and continued pushing while cars continued to pile up!  I can't understand how this could happen.  Wouldn't the first derailment have "dumped" the air?  Anyone care to comment?

Maybe the rear end pusher didn't have his air cut in.

Even so, if the brakes had dumped on the entire train, how could the pusher crew not notice it?

Without the train line air cut in, the pusher Engineer would never notice that the brake pipe dropped to zero. Thus, the pusher apparently kept pushing until the train started to actually stop.

Kent:

Six H-9's were the normal power out of Elkins up to Brainard, although eight were used frequently (2-3-3 configuration).  If the power was H-8's, however, up to ten might be seen on the coal drags.  FWIW, four DPU'd RS-3's (and one crew) replaced the Consolidations initially.

Also can't overlook westbound pushers from Cumberland to Deal -- usually a Challenger or Potomac on the front and a Potomac or Decapod on the back.

Poppyl

Through distraction and/or involuntary reflexive movement.

Try to sneeze and keep your eyes open. Try to get stung by a bee and not immediately start flailing at the spot where the bee got you.

Now you'll tell me that it all worked perfectly even if the engineers weren't paying attention, or made a slip-up and jammed the throttle wide open at the wrong time.

You have beat on me and said I was dead wrong on everything right along here. I give. It worked perfectly and there were never any issues.

I'm beginning to feel sorry for that bee, getting blamed for all those mishaps...

A steam locomotive throttle doesn't move easily like a lever on a Lionel transformer. 

It requires some deliberate effort to move from the engineer.  Plus, along with all the mechanical action required to control the actual throttle valve within the boiler, the throttle lever is not without restraint.  There are teeth on the throttle quadrant and here is a pawl that holds the throttle in position whenever the engineer releases his grip.

Nobody here has ever denied that coupler knuckles weren't broken, draft gears pulled out or derailments due to inattention or mechanical failures, it's just that it wasn't a daily occurrence.

Rusty

Well now, we're all glad you finally came around to reality.

I wish I could accurately illustrate how much effort it takes to actually MOVE the throttle of a steam locomotive. The throttle has to be unlatched before it will move. Unlatching it requires a very specific movement of the hand, wrist and arm. Sneezing or reacting to a bee sting won't change anything.

When running wide open in the 765, I could move the throttle from wide open down to 3/4 open with no discernible change In the sound or the power of the locomotive. The power level WILL change, of course, but not enough to do anything nasty.

When you do unlatch the throttle doesn't it "want" to close?