Re: Triple headers versus double headers or breaking trains up

kcsivils Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Why did the Grande run triple and double headers?
>
> I seems like it would have been easier, and
> perhaps safer, to have broken the trains up and
> run them in sections. Since two or three crews
> were going to be called anyhow and the fuel costs
> would be the same, why not give the tired, aging
> wooden freight cars a break?
>
> The only reason I can think of is braking power.
>
> I can also see using a helper to get a train up
> the hill out of Chama then cutting off.

They did run double headers but I don't recall seeing many pics of triple headers. Now, they did run trains with 3-4 loco's but with 2 on the head end 1or 2 mid-train or 1 in the middle and 1 one on the rear. A multiple engine train from my knowledge would be called for a example a 3 engine train if the loco's were distributed within the train. If all the power was up front then it would be called a double, triple, or even quadruple header. Hope this makes sense, but I can't recall too many freight trains out of Chama in D&RGW days with 3 engines on the point. They liked to distribute the power to make the trip across Labato as quick as possible so there were a lot of mid-train helpers or rear pushers.

William
aka drgwk37