Regarding the consist I'm not an operator but I know the coach behind the tender was empty and locked Memorial Day when I was there. Also note no extra water car (milk tank box) behind the tender.
The rest of the consist was the coach train that had been in use over the past few weeks, the only cars having been inspected so far.
As the steam blog documented the guys worked right down to the wire to get her out on the rail this last weekend.

http://www2.irm.org/blogs/archives/1702 ... -2014.html

There was also an empty run for some FRA test last Friday before regular operations.
So, availability of switching crews, car hosts, inspected cars available... and given the fact that there was no guarantee that 1630 would indeed run, probably caused the mixed consist.

The normal consist for weekend operation is CNW combine 7700, and Lackawanna 561 & 567. The added cars were the CB&Q RPO and CRIP 2602.

There were several reasons to put them in the train, first and foremost: they were in the way. We needed to clear them out of where they were (Yard 3 for those that know IRM) in order to do inspections and such on other cars. Second, someone (either the FRA or the Steam Dept.) told operations that the 3 car train did not have enough braking power to run with 1630. They wanted two more cars and the RPO and 2602 were the only other cars with a 2014 inspection.

We could not put passengers in 2602 because the car has issues with the interior paint. (other IRM members may elaborate if they wish; I'm not privy to specifics) So, the car was put on ahead of the RPO since no one could ride it.

It was not a matter of not having crews to switch it around. If given the go ahead, we would have pulled 2602 out or switched it to the rear and made the train look more authentic. There was more than one opportunity to do this. More than one volunteer thought it didn't look right.

Big enough that the streetcars looping the grounds provide real transportation!

Steve

So.....1630 has no independent brake and must be dragged to a halt by the brakes on the cars she pulls?

I'm scratching my head over this one......

dave

You never use the independent to stop a live passenger train unless you want a bunch of people in the floor, or the lap of the person sitting across from them. Fifty lashes with a wet noodle for you sir! :)

Don't look at me. She has fully functioning brakes, and ran a light engine move on the mainline before even coupling to the train.

I don't understand it either, we ran a 3 car train with a switch engine (Commonwealth Edison #15, an EMD SW1) more than once, and I would think CE 15 has less contributory braking.

I'm well aware of that...and never suggested using only the independent brake to stop a train (flats on drivers are no fun), but still don't see why a longer train would be a necessity. I've handled short trains with 6ET and plain and K triplevalves and some with ABD variants on some fairly difficult pieces of track and on some pretty gentle ones too with no problem once I learned how. Using the train brake while bailing the independent a bit as needed can keep the slack stretched while still allowing the engine brakes to assist the head end in slowing down until the train finally brings it to a halt, or to let the slack bunch in a controlled way if you need to start on a grade. Skilled effective braking makes use of both brake systems. Is there a technical difference in 1630, such as a more modern brake system retrofit that would work differently? Or, maybe a policy of only using the train brake to halt the train for maintenance considerations? It's just curious to me.....but I've never worked there so I'm in the dark about it.

dave

I'm pretty sure that the purported reason isn't the actual reason. I'm checking with people actually in the know to confirm and/or deny.

David

Thank you. If this makes sense in some not obvious way, it would be nice to understand why.

dave

Don't know if this is the reason here... but a lot of railroads were reluctant to allow a newly shopped locomotive to run light. I seem to recall (but of course can't find any reference) the story of a newly shopped Santa Fe 4-6-4 that ran away on one of their long grades during a ferry move. It seems the newly applied brake shoes didn't quite match the radius of the newly turned drivers, giving only a line of contact at each end of the shoe. The small contact area made the shoes run exceedingly hot, and the engineer was afraid that he'd lose the driver tires, so had a hairy ride down, using only as much brake as absolutely necessary. After that, standard practice was to include cars in newly out-shopped engine ferry moves, so the cars could do the braking.

I cannot speak to the specific questions about this weekend's Illinois Railway Museum (abbreviated IRM in my posting) steam operations because I was out-of-country.

I do know that SLSF 1630 has a pretty-much standard 6LT (New York Air Brake Co.) implementation, including a standard independent brake. I recall adjusting the feed valve to 45 psi a couple of years ago for appropriate independent brake operation.

According to IRM blog posts, during the 23May steam test, 1630's independent brakes worked but the train brake controls had some sort of undisclosed issue which was resolved on the 24th, thus enabling the revenue runs that day.

On a potentially-related subject: I wonder what effect the number of cars in the train would have on stopping-distance when the tailhose is in use for back-up moves. I have no operational experience, either in the cab or with the tailhose, so I start from a position of almost total ignorance here.

At IRM, half the main-line run is in reverse, on pretty-much level track. The conductor may assert control over the back-up moves using the tailhose for train brake applications. To stop the train at a given point, I've been told that the tailhose application must begin much earlier when SLSF 1630 powers the train versus any of the diesel locos. Would a few extra cars result in shorter train braking distances in response to train brake application via the tailhose?

Is there some inherent feature in more modern brake equipment (in the diesels) that makes tailhose applicaitons more effective than with 6LT? Or is it as has been suggested, that the difference is related primarily to the different amount of rotating/reciprocating mass between steam and diesel?

Regards,
Bob Milhaupt
Occasional Steam Department Volunteer
Illinois Railway Museum

I've made many backup moves with steam, but the tail hose was never used for a brake application, unless it was dumped to set the brakes in emergency. The tailhose also has a whistle attached, but all the conductor should be doing is giving car counts to the engineer. Not having been to IRM, not sure what their procedures are, but from my experience, that is my tailhose experience.

IRM uses the tail hose to control all back up moves. All coach train conductors must be qualified in use of the tail hose to bring the train to a halt. Occasionally, a radio is used, but standard practice is to use the tail hose.

It is becoming a lost art, and IRM's operating department is justly proud of the abilities of our conductors to bring the train to a precise stop with the tail hose.

Bulby -

I can recall the tail hose being used to back Rock Island commuter trains into La Salle Street Station in Chicago. It was really a work of art! To keep the heavy evening train schedule going, those trains really MOVED backing in, and the guys on the rear platform had the knack of stopping trains just-in-time! I envied their efforts. I'm not sure just what was their official job title; switchman, brakeman, or.....? And although they were really skilled at their job, every once in a while I'd come into La Salle and see a bumper pretty much destroyed! Of course, it could have been an arriving train that had done the damage too I guess, and not one of those Rock Isand magicians with the tail hose.

Les

One of the reasons I like RYPN so much is that I get to learn something new from the varied people who do so many things to keep not only machines alive, but also operational practices which were once commonplace in certain areas. Thank you, IRM, for keeping that practice alive and exposing me to it.