Conference rdgeng::railways_uk

    Sorry if this has been asked before, but it's keeping me awake at
    night. 
    
    When steam was used for double heading, how did the driver of the
    second engine know when to stop ?  I assume steam locos didn't have TDM
    so I guess there were two drivers.  What if something happens on the
    line ahead (eg. Jenny Aguiter (sp) waving her petticoat), and the
    second driver just carries on ?  A worse case would be if there was a
    banking engine at the rear of the train.
    
    (Incidentally, the class 76 electrics had an intercom that worked
    through the catenary when they were banking, not an option for steam
    trains I guess :-) 
                                            

You're right that there was no sophisticated communication link in place 
between steam locos. Both engines would have to be crewed and they would 
rely on handsignals and the locomotive whistle if they needed to gain 
attention.

Often when double heading, the leading loco does most of the work. If a 
pilot engine was attached to help out over some gradients, the train loco 
would be 'nursed' so that the fire was still in good shape for the 
continuing journey.

One of the most difficult communications is between a train loco and a 
banking loco attached to the rear of a train. A series of whistles would 
signal when a co-ordinated start was required. This did not prevent the 
embarrasing sight of a departing train being pursued by the banking loco 
that was supposed to be helping it !

John

    Further to the discussions on double heading / banking, the following
    article from March's Railway Magazine amused me...
    
    Runaway train travelled 50 miles !
    --------------------------------
    
    A driverless freight train ran for more than 50 miles across Nebraska,
    USA, in December after the last 55 wagons and a diesel 'helper' loco at
    the rear became uncoupled.
    
    Unaware of the incident, which occured at night, the driver of the
    leading loco continued on his way, unwittingly driving the rear loco by
    remote control at the same time.  Having run without headlights through
    some 50 ungated public crossings without incident, the rear portion
    gradually fell further and further back until at one point it was 12
    miles behind.  It was finally brought to a halt after the driver of a
    train in the opposite direction raised the alarm.
    
    Union Pacific Railroad said the train had probably been uncoupled by
    vandals, although the incident has highlighted the serious lack of a
    fail-safe device.