Who has made a doubleheaded steam tinplate set up?

We did it with 400E's but had to run them on wide radius curves to prevent derailing.  In Std gauge, we ran 072 and 084 curves.  You may need 042, 054 or 072 in O-Gauge.

flyer did it in 1939...

the dummy trailing locomotive was a Type XX with a pilot mounted curly-Q  coupler.  unfortunately this era in flyer production was very susceptible to wheel rot so i've never had the pleasure of seeing this set run (...yet).

cheers...gary

Flyer's Double Header is one of my favorite engine sets.

 And if you run across a spare dummy engine and tender you can have an amazing triple header.

Here is a photo of the entire Double Header set from 1939 just as a point of reference.

OverlandFlyer,

I was fortunate, both of my dummy units have intact wheels.  Its fun to run the tripleheader and see all of that frenetic action with three sets of drivewheels and side rods.

Greg        Northwoods Flyer

Thanks all, I guess what I need to do is somehow get the drivers on my second loco free wheeling as one o the main issues I'm seeing is the trains don't run at the same speed.

i wouldn't give up on two powered units.  as long as the locomotives run at close to the same speed, i would put the marginally faster engine up front.  the load will regulate the speed and the slightly larger load on the front locomotive should help keep the coupled pair on the track.

Jon G posted:

We did it with 400E's but had to run them on wide radius curves to prevent derailing.  In Std gauge, we ran 072 and 084 curves.  You may need 042, 054 or 072 in O-Gauge.

Hi Jon,

Where was the coupler on the rear engine mounted? Any pictures of that you could share?

Thanks you,

Sam

I put a coupler on the front of a Lionel O gauge prewar 225 and run two of them double headed.

On the S gauge side, I have a 302 Atlantic and a 290 Pacific with front couplers and they are triple headed with another 302 Atlantic on the point.

ALL OF THE LOCOS THAT GOT FRONT COUPLERS CAME FROM TRAIN SHOWS WITH BROKEN OR MISSING PILOTS, so no collectable locos were sacrificed. (sorry about the caps lock. My typing is amateurish at best).

Open frame - universal - series wound - pull more motors are very forgiving of slight speed differences from loco to loco. Can motors are very UNforgiving in that respect.

Shorten the coupler length as much as you can for less side forces in curves on the nose or pilot truck of the trailing loco.

Hopefully that knuckle articulates on the rivet or bolt. You have to pay close attention to the overhang present up front as it will not track on center in curves. The Mounting points and articulated knuckles, need to be considered for good angles of pull with the arcs available to you there to.

I like the more powerful engine at lower volts on the load and the weaker up front digging it out of the hole.

Not exactly tin plate but I run 2- 4-4-0 Generals double headed. Coupler on the pilot truck because on the pilot beam was putting too much side force on the nose and it was pulling, twisting the #2"s drivers off the rails.

Having the more powerful engine up front also increased the side loads at the pilot truck on #2. As light as is is, that caused occasional stringline forces to allow the pilot truck to raise right off the rails ...light plastic tenders behind the loco #1 too.

Hi all,

Just a quick update. I made a new coupler mount from an old gondola I wasn't using and attached the coupler directly to the leading truck. I was able to get around the layout several times with no issues whatsoever.

Thanks for all the suggestions and advice. Next will be the speed issue. Both of my 260's are PS2 equipped but the second one is older and doesn't have the rubber tires on the drive wheels where as the first one does. I also think my battery is going in the second engine which is causing speed control issues. I'm going to charge up the battery tonight and see how it runs tomorrow morning. If all goes well I think I got this nut cracked!

I ran double headed PS/2 400e's using wide radius curves.  You also need to avoid abrupt changes in elevation. For me, the 300 Hellgate bridge created an elevation of 1/2 inch.  This was problematic until I slid some 1/4 inch cardboard under the approach track to ease the elevation change.  This was not needed except for when I ran the double headed engine setup.  I also think my engines run at slightly different speeds. I ran the DCS lashup with the engines disconnected to see how big of a difference it was. It wasn't a big enough issue to cause a problem though.

George 

George S posted:

I ran double headed PS/2 400e's using wide radius curves.  You also need to avoid abrupt changes in elevation. For me, the 300 Hellgate bridge created an elevation of 1/2 inch.  This was problematic until I slid some 1/4 inch cardboard under the approach track to ease the elevation change.  This was not needed except for when I ran the double headed engine setup.  I also think my engines run at slightly different speeds. I ran the DCS lashup with the engines disconnected to see how big of a difference it was. It wasn't a big enough issue to cause a problem though.

George 

Thanks George, for the most part my layout is flat. The only grade change is very slight and less than a 1/4" if that. I think the bigger problem I have are the curves. Either way I'm looking better right now. I just need to get the two locos to play nice and than I'm set. One nice thing last night, I had both engines running smoothly, chugging and puffing in sync, it was AWESOME!

samdjr74 posted

Hi Jon,

Where was the coupler on the rear engine mounted? Any pictures of that you could share?

Thanks you,

Sam

To the cowcatcher.