Could an 844-4014-3985 triple header ever happen?

J

jonwray

Active member
Theoretically, could an 844-4014-3985 triple header ever happen?

As I was experimenting with various consists on TrainzItalia's Sherman Hill route, I had an interesting question which I will now ask:

With the lineup of 1472 day inspection cycles, would it ever be possibly for there to be a triple header of UP 844, 4014, and 3985? Basically, it seems like by the time 3985 is ready for service again (probably 2021-2022?), 844 might be down for its 1472 again. What do you think?
 
Last edited:
You can do whatever you want in Trainz ... I would think that only 2 double headed front end steam locos would be able to be synchronized together, by 2 very talented engineers ... and possibly one more shoving on the rear
 
jonwray said:
As I was experimenting with various consists on TrainzItalia's Sherman Hill route, I had an interesting question which I will now ask:

With the lineup of 1472 day inspection cycles, would it ever be possibly for there to be a triple header of UP 844, 4014, and 3985? Basically, it seems like by the time 3985 is ready for service again (probably 2021-2022?), 844 might be down for its 1472 again. What do you think?
Click to expand...
No. However, I will share from reliable sources that 3985 will be ready by 2018 and 4014 by 2019. But a triple header is unlikely. A double of 844 and 3985 seem possible, but not all 3 together on one train. Considering your in the Idaho area, UP 844 is coming the weekend after this one.
 
The problem with a real life triple header with 3 very powerful steam engines, is that it is like putting all the Erie and the 1 Virginian Triplex on one consist. They wouldn't just struggle starting up, they would completely DESTROY the cars that they would hall. Not just the couplers, but the entire frame. I had this idea before too but when someone told me what the damage would be, I dropped the idea. But a doubleheader with 844 and 3985 can happen (And I think has happened), but putting 4014 and 3985 on the same consist would be next to hell (excuse the language), like I said about the triplexes, 4014 is a powerful engine ment for long heavy freight, while 3985 was build for speed. Combining the 2 would be like opening the gates of hell.
 
While triple-headers can happen, they are most common on tourist railways. However, mainline triple-headers are uber-rare. Here's the most recent triple-headers, I prefer the Norfolk Southern triple-header, as they put on one awesome show.
Date: November 3rd, 1991
Location: Chattanooga, Tennessee
This triple-header features, from front-to-rear:
Hometown girl Southern 2-8-2 #4501
Norfolk and Western 4-8-4 #611, The Queen of Steam
Norfolk and Western 2-6-6-4 #1218, at the time the most powerful steam locomotive in the world


Date: September 15th, 2016
Location: Iowa
This triple-header features, from front to rear:
Iowa Interstate (Ex-Chinese) 2-10-2 #6988
Iowa Interstate (Ex-Chinese) 2-10-2 #7081
Milwaukee Road 4-8-4 #611

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9ZuUHmd6xI

I wanted to post a second video, but the Forums won't allow me to post two videos in one post.
 
Last edited:
josephlaban said:
Haven't Nickel Plate Road 587, N&W 1218, and N&W 611 have triple headers?
Click to expand...

To my surprise, yes they did. I didn't know about that one. I knew that Nickel Plate 587 did double-headers with 1218 and 611 separately, but I didn't know about this triple-header.
 
I would assume railcars from era couldn't handle the force applied upon them by the effort of all 3 locomotives? All 3 steamers make less tractive effort than today's modern diesels. The closest being Big Boy, and that makes 135,000lbs, still less than the effort of the GE ES44DC which can do 142,000lbs at starting. I would assume that applied to modern freight today, that they could do a triple header without causing any issue at all.
 
jordon412 said:
While triple-headers can happen, they are most common on tourist railways. However, mainline triple-headers are uber-rare. Here's the most recent triple-headers, I prefer the Norfolk Southern triple-header, as they put on one awesome show.
Date: November 3rd, 1991
Location: Chattanooga, Tennessee
This triple-header features, from front-to-rear:
Hometown girl Southern 2-8-2 #4501
Norfolk and Western 4-8-4 #611, The Queen of Steam
Norfolk and Western 2-6-6-4 #1218, at the time the most powerful steam locomotive in the world


Date: September 15th, 2016
Location: Iowa
This triple-header features, from front to rear:
Iowa Interstate (Ex-Chinese) 2-10-2 #6988
Iowa Interstate (Ex-Chinese) 2-10-2 #7081
Milwaukee Road 4-8-4 #611

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9ZuUHmd6xI

I wanted to post a second video, but the Forums won't allow me to post two videos in one post.
Click to expand...
That is Milwaukee Road 261 not 611.

Enzo1 said:
I would assume railcars from era couldn't handle the force applied upon them by the effort of all 3 locomotives? All 3 steamers make less tractive effort than today's modern diesels. The closest being Big Boy, and that makes 135,000lbs, still less than the effort of the GE ES44DC which can do 142,000lbs at starting. I would assume that applied to modern freight today, that they could do a triple header without causing any issue at all.
Click to expand...
Yea, with MODERN freight cars.
 
Trainz_12_fan_100 said:
snip: 4014 is a powerful engine ment for long heavy freight, while 3985 was build for speed. Combining the 2 would be like opening the gates of hell.
Click to expand...
Challengers and Big Boys have double-headed in the past, and so have multiple Big Boys. Breaking railcars wouldn't as much of an issue as you think.

big-boy-4013-and-4004-doubleheading.jpg


Someone on this forum posted a better pic earlier but I did find an old-style Challenger w/ BB

up3828-hechtkoff.jpg


Adding an FEF to it does raise some questions. Probably possible but a logistical nightmare, if I had to guess. Who knows but I guess UP at this point?

Cheers,
SM
 
But TRIPLEHEADING??? Maybe at the time they were able to do doubleheaders but now, using a doubleheader with 2 articulated steam engines on a passenger run back then was not necessary, but even today there is no point in doubleheading them since they could easily destroy the cars. But when the UP would doublehead on a passenger run, it would more likely be a 4-8-4 or below.
I do not know why we are arguing over this. I have talked to a friend of mine over skype who said that if they used all 3 on one train, those cars could be destroyed if they struggled at all anywhere. But, for the 587, 611, 1218 tripleheader, that is different. Same with the 4501, 611, 1218 tripleheader.
 
Trainz_12_fan_100 said:
But TRIPLEHEADING??? Maybe at the time they were able to do doubleheaders but now, using a doubleheader with 2 articulated steam engines on a passenger run back then was not necessary, but even today there is no point in doubleheading them since they could easily destroy the cars. But when the UP would doublehead on a passenger run, it would more likely be a 4-8-4 or below.
I do not know why we are arguing over this. I have talked to a friend of mine over skype who said that if they used all 3 on one train, those cars could be destroyed if they struggled at all anywhere. But, for the 587, 611, 1218 tripleheader, that is different. Same with the 4501, 611, 1218 tripleheader.
Click to expand...
I actually want to speak with this friend to see where he gets his information from, as it is really quite fascinating. There is no evidence to suggests your statement is true other than drawbars would from the appropriate era would not handle the force of 3 SD40-2 equivalent units going full throttle. But I don't believe this as being entirely true either considering both F7's and E3's of the era handling said trains as well without busting drawbars. I would actually really be quite intrigued to see what his sources are and how reliable they are.
 
ThumbBuckeye-coupler-parts.gif


That pin is the weakest part by design. The only car you could pull apart would be an all wood car from before 1880.
 
Ok, I'm gonna weigh in on this.


First off:

@Enzo1: The advantage SD40-2s would have hauling a similar era freight train is multiple unit controls, all three can accelerate and deaccelerate at the same time from one cab. It becomes a lot more difficult with 3 steam engines and 3 seperate crews.

@Trainz_12_Fan_100: I don't know who your friend is, but I don't think he knows what he is talking about. Unless one of the engines is pushing from behind, the worse thing that could happen to a car is you break the coupler, or damage the mounting bracket for the coupler.

Also UP did doublehead Challengers on passenger trains, as well as FEFs. This was not for horsepower, but rather speed, tractive effort, and reliability reasons. Two engines will climb grades faster than one, and if one engine fails the second one can still finish the job.

To address the main topic:

It's not so much the rollingstock you need to look out for, it's the engines themselves.

1: Big Boys put out immense tractive effort and horsepower, as well as the Challenger and 844, one of the most powerful 4-8-4 designs ever built. In the steam era UP rarely if never doubleheaded FEFs with Challengers and certainly not Big Boys, as there was no reason too. Each engine had a specific role, mix-matching them didn't work out so well. UP liked to run their engines at their maximum efficiency speeds, in which there as a perfect balance between speed, horsepower, fuel consumption and tractive effort. For the Big Boys this was roughly in the 30-40 mph range, Challengers where about the same. The FEF however was around 50-60 mph, much higher.

I have read stories and books about UP triple heading Big Boys, but not the way you think. Two Big Boys would be pulling up front, with a 3rd in the middle or at the rear pushing.

2: Rolling stock back then is much lighter than today, and metals used in construction of locomotives where not as refined and treated as they are today. The frames of these engines are a lot weaker now by current manufacturing standards.

3: When doubleheading it is common practice for the most powerful engine to be at the last one in line, and the weakest at the front. This means the most likely arrangement would be UP 844, followed by 3985 and 4014. The only thing holding back 844, 3985 and 4014 doubleheader is drawbar strength. UP 4014 could easily push 844 and 3985 along, however UP 4014 would be under a lot of stress if 844 or 3985 started tugging too hard at the front, and then you run the risk of breaking the coupler, or worse breaking the drawbar between the tender of the engine. It's basically the same situation UP ran into with the Big Blow turbines and DDA40X locomotives. They where too powerful to operate with additional units. In the turbines case, too much power output and too weak of couplers. With the DDA40X, the higher gear ratio and 6600 HP output meant that any engines behind got their couplers pulled out and any engines in front got their walkways smashed in.


These locomotives where designed in the 1940s, and are nearly 60 years old. I don't think the UP would risk damaging one of their prized steam locomotives for such a publicity stunt.
 
Whether it be one small locomotive, or 10 larger locomotives ... the head railcar coupler stress is the same, no matter what horsepower the lead loco's add up to ... the purpose of the rear end pusher loco's is to take up the slack, and shove some of the rear railcars uphill, reducing the weight of the train, and reduce the stress on the head end railcar couplers. Surely 4 engineers synchronizing 2 head end locos, and 2 more rear end helper loco's would require great skills
 
Daylight, thank you for your informative posts about this topic

Unless one of the engines is pushing from behind, the worse thing that could happen to a car is you break the coupler, or damage the mounting bracket for the coupler.
Click to expand...
I have been told by an engineer in helper service from the current era that the objective is to not let the head end get away, because if it does, you're going to have a bad day, since almost always a coupler is going to break due to uneven distribution of forces. He explained that this is a highly coordinated activity between the crew up front and the one at the back to ensure all movements of the handles are on key and somebody is not pushing when the head end is braking. He said that communication is critical in this process to ensure everything goes as smooth as it can be.
I assume that the objective is no different in the steam days when applying a unit to the rear?
Also, how exactly would the crew up front communicate to the crew in the back throttle reductions, applications of brakes and etc? I could see that for 2 crews up front, the conductor or engineer could display a hand signal that the crew behind could see, and things go smooth, but is there some kind of radio communications to the back during this era on how to make things so smooth?

Big Boys put out immense tractive effort and horsepower, as well as the Challenger and 844, one of the most powerful
Click to expand...
It is true that all of these are amongst the most powerful steam locomotives ever built. The diesels of the same time frame put out nowhere near the tractive effort that these locomotives put forth. Handling these beasts must've been a task for even the most talented of engineers. I read that that adhesion factor on these units was roughly 4%, which is a really low number compared to today's EMD SD70ACe's and GE ES44DC's which have factors of 22% meaning the wheels don't slip as easy. I assume to get one of these started with a heavy train took small minute applications of the throttle in order not to start the wheels slipping?

With the DDA40X, the higher gear ratio and 6600 HP output meant that any engines behind got their couplers pulled out and any engines in front got their walkways smashed in.
Click to expand...
With this issue, UP addressed it by getting a special set of SD40-2's which we known today as fast 40's. The were retraction motored and regeared for the same ratios as DDA40X's so that they too could keep up with the power. These units lasted well into the 80's before the DD's were retired. When this occured, these SD40-2's were sent back, re geared to original speed and now only a handful of them actually remain.

Sorry for all the questions, steam operations is not my forte since I spend most of my time in the diesel days. I could tell you a lot about diesel ops, but hardly anything when it comes to handling a steam locomotive. That's a whole new beast, and I can't even operate one in Trainz lol.
 
Enzo1 said:
I assume that the objective is no different in the steam days when applying a unit to the rear?
Also, how exactly would the crew up front communicate to the crew in the back throttle reductions, applications of brakes and etc? I could see that for 2 crews up front, the conductor or engineer could display a hand signal that the crew behind could see, and things go smooth, but is there some kind of radio communications to the back during this era on how to make things so smooth?
Click to expand...

My best guess is the skill of engineers back in the day. Many engineers can get a "feel" for the engine they are operating, and are able to judge whether or not the locomotive ahead was accelerating or deaccelerating, simply be feeling how the locomotive moves and watching for telltale signs, like more or less smoke exausted from the stack. I know that some railroads used flags or signal lamps before radios became standard.

Enzo1 said:
With this issue, UP addressed it by getting a special set of SD40-2's which we known today as fast 40's. The were retraction motored and regeared for the same ratios as DDA40X's so that they too could keep up with the power. These units lasted well into the 80's before the DD's were retired. When this occured, these SD40-2's were sent back, re geared to original speed and now only a handful of them actually remain.
Click to expand...

Didn't know about that. Thanks!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top