CONNIE AND ANNIE
x_y_of_z_posts
Joined
·
x_posts
John,
Torby is correct on the Annie. The Colorado Railroad Museum has a RGS #20 that is very close to the Annie. There is also a loco at the Huckleberry RR in Michigan that is similar to the Annie.
The Connie was a small 2-8-0 and ran alot south of the border and on a few islands, but some in other locations. A couple VERY similar locos are in tourist operations today.
Most likely, these would not have run in real life together, BUT REMEMBER, IT IS YOUR RAILROAD, so my theory is do what YOU like!
Torby is correct on the Annie. The Colorado Railroad Museum has a RGS #20 that is very close to the Annie. There is also a loco at the Huckleberry RR in Michigan that is similar to the Annie.
The Connie was a small 2-8-0 and ran alot south of the border and on a few islands, but some in other locations. A couple VERY similar locos are in tourist operations today.
Most likely, these would not have run in real life together, BUT REMEMBER, IT IS YOUR RAILROAD, so my theory is do what YOU like!
Joined
·
x_posts
JJ, for your consideration:
![]()
![]()
![]()
The prototypes were actually 30" gauge for the Connie and 3ft. gauge for the Annie but the models look pretty good together. You do need wide radii for your curves and the Annie has to be the helper engine but it does work!
The prototypes were actually 30" gauge for the Connie and 3ft. gauge for the Annie but the models look pretty good together. You do need wide radii for your curves and the Annie has to be the helper engine but it does work!
Joined
·
x_posts
the Annie has to be the helper engine
Not to be a nitpicker or anything but...
Shouldn't the helper be cut in behind the lead locomotive? I was under the impression that train orders were always given by locomotive number, and I know they referenced the lead locomotive number on other trains, which meant that the lead locomotive should never change (unless given new orders).
Not to be a nitpicker or anything but...
Shouldn't the helper be cut in behind the lead locomotive? I was under the impression that train orders were always given by locomotive number, and I know they referenced the lead locomotive number on other trains, which meant that the lead locomotive should never change (unless given new orders).
Joined
·
x_posts
Steve,
Love your locos! Right road name for me.
Love your locos! Right road name for me.
Joined
·
x_posts
Kenneth, I don't know anything about train orders but when I rode the Cumbres and Toltec behind a double header, the lead loco took off and headed back to Chama after we topped Cumbres pass.
Joined
·
x_posts
In the case of the D&RGW, I believe that orders were either given by train number in the case of a regularly scheduled train or by road engine number. For example the San Juan ran as train 115 eastbound and train 116 westbound regardless of the locomotive in charge of the train. What I have seen on a narrow gauge forum with regard to D&RGW train registers is that all concerned locomotives were noted with the road engine (second loco) listed as the loco of record with a helper also listed. In cases where helpers ran light engine before or after the regular train, they were ordered as extras. The case mentioned with two locos on the point was normal in the case of many two engine trains on most passes. There were trains that had two locos on the front, but freights often had helpers located mid train or just in front of the caboose. The split helpers allowed trains to cross bridges without stopping to uncouple helpers to avoid overloading the bridges. Pushing on the caboose was not done because of the risk of pushing right through the caboose if the lead loco should slow down suddenly. I hope this helps.
Paul
Paul
Joined
·
x_posts
Seeing doubleheaded locomotives on a narrow gauge line would have been very much the exception. So, in terms of the original question, the answer would most likely be not in normal, everyday service. The D&RGW was probably the most common exception to that, but they had the steep grades and long trains that--really--no other narrow gauge operation had. Having said that, if your railroad has the resources to burn twice the coal, pay twice the crew salary, and use twice the water to move a handful of cars from point A to point B, then have at it. It does look cool to have two locos on the point.
Later,
K
Later,
K
Joined
·
x_posts
Caution, if running two locos on the point.
Please check your bridge and trestle load limits.
These were often the limiting factors on where the helper loco could be put into the train.
Pics, please, if you fail to check!
After all, a similar pic won in the MLS photo contest.
http://www.mylargescale.com/Features/PhotoContest/tabid/78/ViewEntry/131/Default.aspx
Please check your bridge and trestle load limits.
These were often the limiting factors on where the helper loco could be put into the train.
Pics, please, if you fail to check!
After all, a similar pic won in the MLS photo contest.
http://www.mylargescale.com/Features/PhotoContest/tabid/78/ViewEntry/131/Default.aspx
Joined
·
x_posts
The Waynesburg and Washington R.R. double headed all freights out of Washington PA bound for Waynesburg PA, the helper would cut off at the top of the Summit (Summit Siding) and BACK all the way back down to Washington. Of course the W&W R.R. never used anything bigger than a 2-6-0.
Joined
·
x_posts
Posted By East Broad Top on 11/25/2008 1:04 PM
Seeing doubleheaded locomotives on a narrow gauge line would have been very much the exception. So, in terms of the original question, the answer would most likely be not in normal, everyday service. The D&RGW was probably the most common exception to that, but they had the steep grades and long trains that--really--no other narrow gauge operation had. Having said that, if your railroad has the resources to burn twice the coal, pay twice the crew salary, and use twice the water to move a handful of cars from point A to point B, then have at it. It does look cool to have two locos on the point.
Later,
K
Of course, if they NEEDED two locomotives, and did NOT want to "burn twice the coal, pay twice the crew salary, and use twice the water to move a handful of cars from point A to point B", then, by gum, the crew could DOUBLE the grade, even if it was 25 miles of curving uphill, burn MORE than twice the coal, twice the crew salary, and twice the water to move a handful of cars from point A to point B, in addition to taking the shipment time more than double for the move of a handful of cars from point A to point B, and tying up the single track grade AND the passing sidings at the top AND the bottom for an extended length of time, why naught?
Seeing doubleheaded locomotives on a narrow gauge line would have been very much the exception. So, in terms of the original question, the answer would most likely be not in normal, everyday service. The D&RGW was probably the most common exception to that, but they had the steep grades and long trains that--really--no other narrow gauge operation had. Having said that, if your railroad has the resources to burn twice the coal, pay twice the crew salary, and use twice the water to move a handful of cars from point A to point B, then have at it. It does look cool to have two locos on the point.
Later,
K
Of course, if they NEEDED two locomotives, and did NOT want to "burn twice the coal, pay twice the crew salary, and use twice the water to move a handful of cars from point A to point B", then, by gum, the crew could DOUBLE the grade, even if it was 25 miles of curving uphill, burn MORE than twice the coal, twice the crew salary, and twice the water to move a handful of cars from point A to point B, in addition to taking the shipment time more than double for the move of a handful of cars from point A to point B, and tying up the single track grade AND the passing sidings at the top AND the bottom for an extended length of time, why naught?
Joined
·
x_posts
Before the K27 arived, the D&RGW would typically tripple head 2-8-0s on its freights going east out of Chama.
The C&TS will stil oftenl double head K36 locomotives for its passenger trains on the same grade.
They have to uncouple one locomotive to cross Lobato trestle and then recouple because of the load restrictions on that bridge.
Many Narrow Gauge railroads are mostly downhill when carring loads but it they had a large uphill grade (like the 4% one east of Chama) they would use whatever it took to get the loads over the hill.
Also common was one on the front, a mid train helper and one on the rear. This was done to avoid over loading the bridges.
For snow removal a tripple headed consist behind the snow plow was also not uncommon.
Stan Ames
www.tttrains.com/largescale
The C&TS will stil oftenl double head K36 locomotives for its passenger trains on the same grade.
They have to uncouple one locomotive to cross Lobato trestle and then recouple because of the load restrictions on that bridge.
Many Narrow Gauge railroads are mostly downhill when carring loads but it they had a large uphill grade (like the 4% one east of Chama) they would use whatever it took to get the loads over the hill.
Also common was one on the front, a mid train helper and one on the rear. This was done to avoid over loading the bridges.
For snow removal a tripple headed consist behind the snow plow was also not uncommon.
Stan Ames
www.tttrains.com/largescale
Joined
·
x_posts
Joined
·
x_posts
I went up to the Alder Gulch RR last year. They weren't running the Connie because of extreme fire conditons...but I talked my way into be allowed to go into the locked engine house to see the engine. Go here to see the photos I took of it in it's engine house. It's clearly a dead ringer for Bachmann's model...and fully restored.
http://1stclass.mylargescale.com/manage.asp?path=Connie
http://1stclass.mylargescale.com/manage.asp?path=Connie
x_y_of_z_posts
Join the discussion
Join now to ask and comment!