Prototype question: doodlebugs, trailer cars and push-pull

[brokemoto]

Does anyone here know if any of the railroads that operated doodlebugs that pulled trailer cars ever put control stands in the trailer car so that it could run push-pull?

This question is about doodlebugs and a trailer car, only, not about a whole passenger train.  There has been discussion on that one, and many seem to think that the NYCS first did it with a commuter train and RS-3s on the New Jersey division in the early 1960s.

It would make sense to do this on the more lightly travelled branches, especially one where the freight train came at night and the passenger train by day.  It would save the railroad's having to pay a turntable crew for a whole shift when said crew would perform one hour's worth of work, at the most.  When the diesels came, and RS configured units could operate in either direction, it would have made more sense, as there would be no need to have a  turntable or crew.

Another possibility would have been the butting B end-to- B end of two doodlebugs and operating them MU.  Does anyone know if any doodlebug user ever did that?

I appreciate all replies and give thanks in advance.

[spr1955]

I've seen floor plans that show controls at both ends of the doodlebug itself. So a runaround and good to go without turning it.

David P.

[brokemoto]

I have seen doodlebugs that the builder designed as double ended as well as those to which the owner added a pilot and control stand on the B end after purchase.  I believe that there is one such as the latter on a Pennsylvania museum line  that operates in that fashion still.  When operated from the B end control stand, it simply appears to be running backwards. 

I also remember reading about a collision between a doodlebug and an automobile or a truck that occurred in either Pennsylvania or Ohio in the 1940s or 1950s.  The reported remarked that more passengers were injured because the doodlebug was running 'in reverse', as he put it, but it was really running B end first.  The article remarked that one of the crew and a passenger or two were spared more than a few scrapes or cuts because they were in the baggage compartment at the time of the collision.  For the collision to have occurred as described in the newspaper article, there would have to have been a control stand in the B end. 

Further, I have seen other photographs of doodlebugs equipped with control stands at the B end.

Thanks for the reply.  The possibility of adding windows and a pilot to the B end of the Bachperssonn doodlebug had occurred to me.  It appears that it would be simpler to modify a trailer car to reflect a 'cab car', by adding details such as a headlight, horn, bell and pilot. This is for a non-historic road, so I could probably get away with it, anyhow.  Still, I would like to see if there is/was a prototype practice like that in the era in which doodlebugs were on more than a few roads.

 I am aware that on some roads, where there were places that required long backing movements, they put headlights, whistles/horns and bells on cabooses.

Then there was the SP, which had whistles or horns on many of its cabooses, but that was more so that the brakemen and conductors could communicate with the engine crew.

[nkalanaga]

Did the doodlebugs have any provision for MU control?  If not, adding a second control stand would be much easier than controlling it from another car.

[jmlaboda]

Finding a trailer that was equipped with a cab would be difficult to do... I have yet to find an example of a trailer that was so equipped.

The same was true of most doodlebugs as far as m.u. goes.  The cars were intended to be used independently of other powered cars though some of the more powerful ones could be used to haul several cars.  M.u. was more so an application that was brought about with the EMD FT sets, which led to other applications of this with subsequent locomotives, but most motor cars that were intended for continued service during the same time were being repowered with "oil" (diesel) engines to reduce the dangers that were associated with the gas engines of old, which had a bad habit of catching fire from time to time.

Turning doodlebugs (especially so with trailers) was typically not done on turntables but rather on wyes at specific junctions.  While there were a number of examples of double ended cars with controls at both ends a much larger number only had controls at the front of the car, with it, and any trailing equipment, being turned as an entire train on a wye at the end of their run... double ended cars, while capable of hauling trailers, typically were used more so on runs where the car itself was the only thing that was used.

[brokemoto]

Thanks for the replies.  I f anyone would know, it would be you, Jerry.  In that case, I must either modify the B end of the B-mann or make a provision to turn it.

[PGE_Modeller]

This diagram of PGE 107 (ex-CN 15823) may help by showing how CN arranged the operators cubicle at the rear end of their oil-electrics (doodlebugs).



Cheers,

[MRLX1020]

Budd RDC's were the first mass produced double ended vehicles, with all the lights, "bells and whistles" appropriately included on both ends.

A few roads used RDC's to pull trailers (not sure how successful, as most RDC's did good to motivate themselves) - Rock Island and M&StL come to mind first.

CB&Q started doing push pull commuter service in 1950 with the delivery of the first Budd bi-levels.  They added HEP generators and 27 pin pass through to some
converted heavyweight suburban cars to facilitate this.  Also, CB&Q had no E-7/8/9 B units, they made no sense in the Dinky pool.

[sirenwerks]

Well, it depends on what you mean by mass produced.  Pullman Standard did a bit of mass producing and built for CB&Q at least one doodlebug that had cab control on both ends .  Granted, this is not a cab stand in a trailing car scenario, but made run around possible without a wye or turntable.

[Ed Kapuscinski]

I've actually done this on my doodlebug. I'll have to go find it and snap a picture for you.

Also, the PRR did have a push-pull car that it ran with, of all things, a Baldwin over in NJ.

http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/archiveThumbs.aspx?id=18844

Here's the business end: http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/showPicture.aspx?id=617869

[brokemoto]

Thanks for those photographs, Ed.  You do not see much PRR equipment with safety stripes.  Interesting that on the cab coach, the Pennsylvania did not add windows, they simply put the stand in front of the pass-through door.  Peripheral visibility could not have been the best.

The RDC was the ultimate doodlebug.  M&StL used theirs to tow trailer cars, depite Budd's specific reminder to them that doing so voided the warranty.  I understand that Budd did repair them more than  once, as a good will gesture, but finally told them that if they continued to tow trailer cars with them, there would be no more free repairs.  M&StL  ended up selling the cars to the C&O, which, as far as I know, ran them as a pair and did not tow trailer cars with them.

CRI&P ran them in consist with passenger trains.  This was because a train would split up or the RDC would run the final leg of the train's run alone.  I did see a photograph, taken in Kansas, of a CRI&P RDC with a boat tail obeservation in tow.  The railroad had modified the observation car as a baggage/passenger combine.  While some may laugh at the railroad's choosing to make the observation end the baggage end, keep in mind that the only door for passenger access on these cars was at the other end.  I do not know if the railroad had any trouble with the RDC when it towed a trailer car.  Perhaps not, as much of Kansas is fairly flat.  Still, the M&StL was mostly a grange road, but not all of the country in which it ran was totally flat.  I do not know where M&StL operated its RDCs