One of the interesting photos from the late steam era, were where a steam locomotive and a diesel locomotive were shown on the front end; sometimes with the diesels at the front and other times with the steamer. This from a time when steam facilities were still in place and railroad shops carried inventories for both steam and diesel locomotives. I find it hard to understand that apparently not one manager type didn't have a lightbulb go on over his head and say that, "hey, we don't need two crews for each of these locomotives; the steam engine crew can run both locomotives from the cab of the steamer." But none apparently ever did. Years later, we preservationists realized it could be done. Are we that much smarter than all of the railroad managers at that time? And remember, in most instances, we weren't talking about old, at the end of their service life locomotives, but modern machines in which the railroads already had a huge investment. Is there not one railroad that didn't at least look into this idea? Apparently not.

Les

Les, boy I bet the brotherhoods would have had a bit to say about that.....

My understanding is that the unions tried (unsuccessfully) to have a crew in each cab of the very first multiple unit diesels (the FT's), just like two steam engines needed two full crews. That was the labor agreement.

The first multiple unit FT's came attached together with a fixed drawbar just like the locomotive to tender drawbar. I understand this was done intentionally so the unions could not argue that it was a double headed consist that required two crews.

I think it took a few rounds of negotiating the "labor agreements" before multiple unit diesels could be run with one crew.

Back in the blizzard of 1977 (Buffalo NY) Conrail brought in an old NYC Rotary snowplow from the Adirondacks (NYC had 1 rotary snowplow, Cooke 1890’s I believe, but I could be wrong). The engineers complained that a MOW crew operated the plow and by “rights” that was an engineer’s job. They complained so much about it Conrail got it out of Buffalo ASAP just to shut them up.

I think the managers had lots of ideas, but getting everybody to go along meant some of the ideas could not happen.

Cheers, Kevin.

It's a pity they didn't work that out back then. Double-heading diesel-electric and steam works out to the advantage of both types of power. The diesel's got the massive starting tractive effort and slightly falling horsepower/speed curve while the steamer's got the steeply rising horsepower/speed curve that comes into its own at high speed.

Back during the 1980's when coal-fired locomotives were seriously being considered by quite a few people, a Canadian rail transportation expert named Peter Lewty proposed that this would be one way that new, modern coal-fired steamers could be best utilized. Rather than trying to develop diesel-equivalent steamers, the railways could operate diesels in concert with steam. This would have avoided all the headaches of trying to develop automatically fired, MU'able steamers and greatly reduced the number of new steam locomotives to be purchased. Diesels could be used to get trains started and the steamers could provide most of the power for moving freight at speed, greatly reducing the consumption of imported oil.

I believe Mr. Lewty wrote a technical paper on the subject but I've not been able to find a copy.

When steam and diesel doubleheaded, diesel manufacturer's recommendations were for the diesel to lead. This was to prevent the diesel from ingesting lots of cinders, which was bad for the oil engine. Early intake air and carbody air filtration was rather crude by current standards. EMD and Alco both had this recommendation in their literature at that time.

Howard P.

I really don't think there was a sincere attempt to develop a a method to control a steam locomotive via an MU capability with a diesel locomotive.
Once the railroads realized the the enormous savings which could be derived from the elimination of the steam locomotive (shops, round houses, fuel/water facilities, less track maintenence costs, and vast labor savings) most were only too happy to make the change to diesels. As I understand it, it wasn't that steam was so in-effecient but that compared to diesel it was much more expensive. With the demise of steam it became easier, less expensive and safer to handle bigger cars and longer trains with fewer people which is one reason the railroads are so successful today. As a side note, not all engineers were disappointed that steam went away since many were thrilled to be able to run a locomotive in a much cleaner, quieter and safer environment.
I think a steam locomotive is one of the most facinating machines on this earth and it is a thrill to be in the cab when they moving. But for daily, high-tonnage, demanding service I will take a high horsepower, dynamic brake equipped, DPU, air-conditioned diesel locomotive any day. It may not be historically correct but for true, crew, comfort the cab of a diesel is much better.

Barry

Les,

How long was the transition era on most railroads? 5-7 years at most? Probably a shorter period for 99% of railroads. I doubt it would have been worth the investment for at best, a stop gap measure.

That is a good question- which U.S. railroad retained a significant amount of both steam and diesel power for mainline usage for the longest period, and for how long?

I'd guess maybe the UP, and their steam-diesel transition must have lasted close to 20 years (?).

How much double heading for length of runs was there? Wasn't it mostly one or the other in helper service to the other? Steam helping a diesel train up a grade or maybe a diesel switcher helping a steam train get out of town. In that case you'd need the 2nd crew to take the helper back home.

Steve

Steve, I think Les's question was "why weren't the managers smart enough to MU the steam and diesels together".

Sure, for helper service you need two crews.

But the Unions were quite against any crew reductions. It had to be forced on them.

And yes, the crews did prefer the diesels, but also wanted more work (who can blame them ?).

My father was qualified for steam on the NYC, but never held a steady job running them. The other firemen would call in to see what power was assigned to their regular run, and them mark off if it was a steamer. So my father got a lot of experience firing them, but very little running them.

Cheers, Kevin.

Double-heading steam and diesel? It can be done. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KySu8wd5yTo.

-John

John, that's cool.

Barry

its another thought when articulated steam started showing up, 2 engines in one.

The B&O bought diesels early on but ran steam very late in the game. Pennsy had quite a long transition period, as did Santa Fe.

I suspect one of the reasons for the long transition from steam to diesel, especially on the larger railroads, was due to two factors. First, the company board was constrained by the sheer cost of buying hundreds of new locomotives at once since that action was only partially offset by the cost savings. Railroad managers, generally a conservative lot, were not about to withhold dividends to shareholders to buy shiny new diesels by the hundreds.

Secondly, there were limits to the ability of the diesel locomotive manufacturers to produce new locomotives, and everybody wanted them at the same time. That's probably the reason roads like the Pennsylvania, B&O and Union Pacific had dog's breakfast of units by EMD, Alco, Fairbanks-Morse, Lima and Baldwin, built over a period of 10-15 years. A railroad that could totally dieselize with 25 or 50 units was in a much better position than one that needed hundreds.

"Railroad managers, generally a conservative lot, were not about to withhold dividends to shareholders to buy shiny new diesels by the hundreds."

And the ICC was busy attempting to bankrupt the industry with rate strangulation, betterment accounting, and prohibitions on piggy-back so it wasn't like they were swimming in cash.

Economically, running a combo-pack presented more problems than it would solve-you'd have the capex demands of fleet replacement, along with the the inability to discard water and coaling towers, roundhouses, backshops. It might be great to run a train with a steamer and a diesel up front, but it presented no advantages to the railroad.