Steam & Excursion > The Shuttling Of Power Resulted In Some Short Overpowered Trains!

The need to shuttle power from where is was to where it was needed was an everyday part of steam railroading. This was particularly true in districts where helper power was needed to overcome the grades in that district.

In June 1954 outside Missoula, Montana Northern Pacific needed to re-position 4-6-6-4s #5142 and #5147. The result was the very short bu also very over powered train we see here.

Both of the huge engines were part of NP's Z-8 Class of motive power and they were only 10 years old at the time of this photo.

It is hard to believe that sights like this were an everyday occurrence once.

Martin



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 11/17/17 03:18 by LoggerHogger.

---

Would there be a crew in the second engine?

millerdc Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Would there be a crew in the second engine?


Yes.

HotWater Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> millerdc Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Would there be a crew in the second engine?
>
>
> Yes.

Just one of the many things that made steam so expensive to operate as labor costs increased, a crew for each engine. The are two waycars also, but probably only one is crewed. What a very cool photo!

Cheers, Dave

Hillcrest Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> HotWater Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > millerdc Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Would there be a crew in the second engine?
> >
> >
> > Yes.
>
> Just one of the many things that made steam so
> expensive to operate as labor costs increased, a
> crew for each engine. The are two waycars also,
> but probably only one is crewed. What a very cool
> photo!
>
> Cheers, Dave

OK, now lets stop and think about this scenario for a few minutes:

1) The NP needed to transfer motive power to another terminal, probably due to "shortage of motive mower".

2) Considering that there was a "shortage of motive power" at another terminal, there would also have been a "shortage crew members" also.

3) Thus, two FULL CREWS, for main line service, would also have been transferred to the other terminal, i.e. the two cabooses would have both had their appointed crew members.

That may very well be the case. So how many guys, if everything is fully crewed? Two of everything (Engineer, Fireman, Conductor) of course but how many Brakemen? Two or four...or more?

Cheers, Dave

Hillcrest Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> That may very well be the case. So how many guys,
> if everything is fully crewed? Two of everything
> (Engineer, Fireman, Conductor) of course but how
> many Brakemen? Two or four...or more?
>
> Cheers, Dave


Sounds expensive.

Hillcrest Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> That may very well be the case. So how many guys,
> if everything is fully crewed? Two of everything
> (Engineer, Fireman, Conductor) of course but how
> many Brakemen? Two or four...or more?
>
> Cheers, Dave

In some cases it depended on state law, such as some states required a "full crew" have an extra Brakeman, sometimes referred to as the "Swing Man". But at any rate a "normal" full crew would have been:

Engineer
Fireman
Head Brakeman
Conductor
Rear Brakeman

Diesel units are shuttled these days without all that expensive crewing...

Bill Deaver
Tehachapi, CA

HotWater Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 3) Thus, two FULL CREWS, for main line service,
> would also have been transferred to the other
> terminal, i.e. the two cabooses would have both
> had their appointed crew members.

I guess they didn't deadhead back then?

glendale Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> HotWater Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > 3) Thus, two FULL CREWS, for main line service,
> > would also have been transferred to the other
> > terminal, i.e. the two cabooses would have both
> > had their appointed crew members.
>
> I guess they didn't deadhead back then?

They sure could have, but then what about the transfer of motive power? A relocated crew, without motive power or caboose?

HotWater Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> glendale Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > HotWater Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > 3) Thus, two FULL CREWS, for main line
> service,
> > > would also have been transferred to the other
> > > terminal, i.e. the two cabooses would have
> both
> > > had their appointed crew members.
> >
> > I guess they didn't deadhead back then?
>
> They sure could have, but then what about the
> transfer of motive power? A relocated crew,
> without motive power or caboose?

Your earlier comment suggested that this must be a deadhead move for both crew and locomotive, because if one terminal is short on locomotives they must be short on crews?

Or....dead in tow.

Frisco1522 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Or....dead in tow.

Well, "dead in tow" is fine for a diesel, but pretty darned damaging to a steam locomotive with the rods still in place, and no steam to lubricate the valves & cylinders.

There are a number of assumptions which have been made that can't be determined from the pic: the second locomotive could be DIT if the piston rods had been removed. The main rods don't appear to have been taken down, and doing so would adversely affect the allowable speed of the move. If the second engine is "hot", then all it would need is a E and F, no different than helper service. An imbalance of power between terminals doesn't automatically mean there is a similar imbalance in manpower. The cars (freight cars and cabooses) are there for braking.

Dumb question - could (in theory) the second locomotive be towed with just a fireman to maintain steam? So the lead engine would just pull the other along if it had steam to lubricate. Is there what would be "neutral" in an automobile on a steam engine or does the steam have to actually power the thing?

As someone who came along after the steam era, I apologize in advance to you steam experts who are shaking your head at these questions!

Cole42 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Dumb question - could (in theory) the second
> locomotive be towed with just a fireman to
> maintain steam? So the lead engine would just
> pull the other along if it had steam to lubricate.
> Is there what would be "neutral" in an automobile
> on a steam engine or does the steam have to
> actually power the thing?

That is entirely possible, and was done often. All the Fireman, or Hosteler, would need to do, besides maintaining steam pressure and safe water level, would move the power reverse gear into the direction of movement, and crack the throttle. The throttle MUST be open some amount in order to provide steam flow, with corresponding lubrication, through the valves and cylinders.


> As someone who came along after the steam era, I
> apologize in advance to you steam experts who are
> shaking your head at these questions!

Damned good question, in my opinion!

Union agreements, at the time, required that each engine have an engine crew. Because of this, the Northern Pacific's first order of F-units were permanently draw-bared together so they could call the A-B-B-A set one locomotive. They were afraid that the union would require a crew on each MUed unit!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/17/17 15:14 by crackerjackhoghead.

Cole42...
It’s not a dumb question....

Because the pistons are moved by the rotating wheels, dry-rubbing the piston rings and cylinder walls.
While ‘working steam’, the mechanical lubricators are pumping oil onto ‘spoons’ located in the steam flow of the steam delivery pipes at the valve chambers mounted on top of the cylinders.

While working steam, it is typically very hot after it’s journey through superheaters...so hot that it vaporizes the the tallow based superheat Valve oil ( drooling onto the delivery spoon)
...thus a ‘blue smoke’ of of very greasy stuff is carried, in the steam (gas) to the oscillating valves an pistons ( think of the ‘grease hoods’ in fast food restaurants and diners ...).

For short distances and varied grades, sometimes the steam flow is low, but it “averages out” to keep the reciprocating parts lubricated.

The engineers on both locos have to ‘work’ enough steam, at lower temperatures, to bring oil to the flashing pistons.
Engineers typically control lower cylinder pressures by using longer valve (admission periods ) trying to use the steam cloud to coat the cylinder walls.
Lower steam pressures also mean wetter steam, and high consumption of water...also, means that more cold water is being added to the boiler, and must be heated.

A similar challenge occurs during extremely long, down-grades, with the locos being pushed along by loaded cars....
So, driving locos successifully requires a lot of skill and judgement.

The fireman’s job is also demanding, because he must maintain high boiler pressure, for snappy air compressors, lively fires , and cylinder lubrication.
The two crew members work as a team, both being experienced at firing locos.

So, the lesson is that at track speeds, under heavy loads, the engines ‘run themselves’....at low demands and decent speeds, it takes real skill and caring to replicate, somewhat , the same oil flow getting to the flashing pistons. A good portion of the pumped oil, eventually does drool down the steam passages and into the cylinders, but it’s a very haphazard way to provide needed & well distributed, over-all lubrication to the surfaces of these vital parts...


So your question refers to a very knotty problem that mechanical engineers wrestled with for years...and never really solved...
They never conceived of their challenges as being ‘dumb’.

Your curiosity had its roots pointing to very real design problems, and all the factors at work..in trying to keep things well oiled...
Thanks for your inquiry..

W.

HotWater Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Frisco1522 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Or....dead in tow.
>
> Well, "dead in tow" is fine for a diesel, but
> pretty darned damaging to a steam locomotive with
> the rods still in place, and no steam to lubricate
> the valves & cylinders.


Jack is well straight in all of his comments on this: dead in tow (or train) is a diesel setting to make the unit act as a boxcar or the like on a train and has little or nothing to do with steam engines as they do not have this feature. We went thru this in some detail on the NWP board recently concerning their gas electric Brill cars.