Elephant Style Running

I always wondered this with Amtrak...

Why are the P40 and 42's always run elephant style (engines all running cab first in a consist)? Is there an advantage to doing this? I would think back to back would be a better option so at the end of a run instead of turning the units to go the other way you would just move them around to the other end.......

Just one of those things one thinks of at 3am when they can't sleep!

If you loose the lead engine account a minor grade x-ing incident, the "trailing unit' is set to take over.

A point to consider; "E" and "F" A-units did not always have "nose" MU-cables.

In the interest of aesthetics, railroads once upon a time, ignored this first germane point, but for the "last hurrah" of a railroad "spit and polish" operation, namely a UP Director's Special" move from LA to Sun Valley during 1968, E-Units were coupled "elephant".

.

I kind of figured it had something to do with a "worst case" scenerio fear....

Thanks for the info!

early80sNECguy wrote:I always wondered this with Amtrak...

Good question. I've always wondered this myself. The P40's (when still in ph3) ran back to back from what I've seen, but I noticed that with P42s that wasn't always the case. I noticed this back in '97/'98.

The direction of the locomotives sometimes depends on operational requirements. At the end of the run, it's usually possible to turn them when they're being serviced, so running "elephant style" provides extra protection in case the lead unit can no longer operate in the lead for whatever reason.

However, sometimes a train will have them run back-to-back. One example is the Empire Builder. While the Builder's engine rotation varies from time to time, one recent example (actually about a year ago) had the train leaving SEA with the engines back to back. At Spokane, the single unit from the Portland section was added to the lead, and the trailing unit of the Seattle section came off, and became the lead unit for the westbound Portland section.

Recently (though, granted, I haven't seen the Builder come through in at least a month, so it may have changed), they were running back-to-back through Milwaukee, which means the rotation would have changed.

I also seem to recall that whenever three or more engines were in a consist, at least one of them was run backwards. The Coast Starlight sometimes runs with the engines back-to-back. I have photos of such from February, though when I took the train in May, they were running both forward.

Robert Madison

It makes sense in regards to having a unit facing the "right" direction in case something happens, but just seems like a waste of time (and fuel) to turn engines at the end of a run. You want to be prepared for the worst, but the 99.9% of the time nothing goes wrong it seems like a waste. Most wye's are a distance from the station I would think and I am sure it takes longer time-wise to wye than to run around and couple on the other end.

Seems logical enough, but is it cost effective overall?

I don't think so. First off, as noted, when there is a failure, it is often further away from a wye than the station at the end of the route. Even *if* things went well 99% of the time, that extra 1% could cause several hours in extra delays.

(Case in point, Saturday the Hiawatha had a failure of the cabbage car, and the train had to be operated from the locomotive at restricted speed to Sturtevant, where the closest wye was located, those 24 miles caused an hour's delay to the train. If you're farther from a wye than that, it's going to delay the train a ton.)

Also, for LD trains, they often have to be turned at the end of the run anyway (some of the cars, anyway), so that means they'll be sent to the wye if only for the cars on the train.

I don't think it's a big deal that the engines run elephant style (in the situations where they do).

RMadisonWI wrote:The direction of the locomotives sometimes depends on operational requirements. At the end of the run, it's usually possible to turn them when they're being serviced, so running "elephant style" provides extra protection in case the lead unit can no longer operate in the lead for whatever reason.

However, sometimes a train will have them run back-to-back. One example is the Empire Builder. While the Builder's engine rotation varies from time to time, one recent example (actually about a year ago) had the train leaving SEA with the engines back to back. At Spokane, the single unit from the Portland section was added to the lead, and the trailing unit of the Seattle section came off, and became the lead unit for the westbound Portland section.

Recently (though, granted, I haven't seen the Builder come through in at least a month, so it may have changed), they were running back-to-back through Milwaukee, which means the rotation would have changed.

I also seem to recall that whenever three or more engines were in a consist, at least one of them was run backwards. The Coast Starlight sometimes runs with the engines back-to-back. I have photos of such from February, though when I took the train in May, they were running both forward.

Robert Madison

On the Starlight they were back to back but on the Chief and the CZ they rarly run elephant Style I've noticed.

AmtrakFan

Of course, the answer to all the pros/cons presented in this thread regarding elephant vs. back-to-back would be to build locomotives that are double-ended, like the electrics in the northeast.

Baldwin was building double-cab locomotives. Didn't catch on, what with EMD and Alco building single-cab diesels and charging less.

Europe invariably goes for double-cab diesels; single-cab ones are in the minority.

http://forums.railfan.net/Images/RRArt/ ... 6-4-20.gif

I recall when Seaboard Coast Line was still in the passenger business
that engines were often run "elephant style". Unfortunately Florida has a
large number of grade crossing throughout the state on all of the lines.
If the unfortunate happens and a passenger train hits a vehicle on a grade
crossing, if the train happens to have two units, it is simple enough to set
the lead unit off and continue on.
The biggest two reasons to run engines back to back were so that it was
safe for the fireman to go to the trailing unit(s) if necessary and secondly
to avoid the need to turn the units at the end of the line. There are no
longer firemen on most Amtrak trains and the engines today have head
end computer screens which generally indicate what the trouble is and in
some cases can also provide for resetting certain conditions.
Today, many Amtrak trains are turned at the other end of their route and
even when they are not, many cases there is a wye or turntable to turn
the engine(s) anyway.
At Miami, there is a loop for turning the entire train. Good thing too as
most of the time the two trains are running with a single unit.
The days of balky steam generators and transferring water are gone for
good and most of the time, engines run just fine with no attention enroute.
Noel Weaver

I have always thought this to be a ridiculous practice on the part of Amtrak. GE locomotives are designed such that, when in a multiple unit consist, if the lead unit suffers a road failure and becomes disabled, it can simply be isolated and the engineer can control the trailing units remotely from the disabled lead unit. No need to set out the disabled lead unit. From a mechanical standpoint, the biggest drawback to running all locomotives in consist facing forward is the problem of wheel wear. Running elephant style means that your locomotives are ALWAYS running forward! This means that you're going to have unusually high wheel wear on the unit's 1 & 3 axles. In contrast, Metro North (and most commuter operations) don't have wheel wear issues because their locomotives are only running forward 50% of the time.

The only benefit to running elephant style is like what has already been said here, if the lead unit becomes completely disabled in a grade crossing accident. But how often does that happen???

There are a number of reasons why the lead unit might have to be set
out on the road. Axle or wheel bearing failure. total engine shutdown in a
case where the engine could not be restarted, broken windshield, failure
of the horn, damage from a grade crossing mishap or a fire to name a
few.
Good railroading dictates today that in a two unit consist, if possible the
second unit should also face forward. Operation with one of the GE's or
even an F-40 backwards would be slow and risky at best.
The railroads in general and in this case Amtrak in particular have to do
what is best for their operation and not necessarily what my please a
railfan or photographer.
Noel Weaver

Our lead engine's headlight went on the blink--pardon the pun--at Albany. Couldn't find a replacement there, believe it or not. Engines were back to back. Took an hour and a half to get the second engine in the lead. Elephant style running would have definitely reduced the delay.

Even in the case of total engine shutdown, the lead unit can still control trailing units in the consist provided that the electrical control system is up and running. 74 VDC can be fed to the dead unit by way of the MU jumper cable or from the locomotive's own redundant battery charger (passenger locos only) via the 480 VAC trainline with the HEP being supplied by a trailing unit. Air pressure of course is supplied from the main res MU connection. Pretty much no different than operating the dead locomotive like a cab car.