Can I run two Rail Diesel Cars coupled together?

Barbo Jun 21, 2019

  1. Barbo

    Barbo New Member

    5
    1
    3
    Hello all,
    I have two self-powered Kato RDCs that I'd like to run coupled together. Is this ok or will it strain the motors? I tried running them uncoupled and they do seem to run at slightly different speeds. So I was wondering if one motor would be pushing the other too much if they are coupled together.

    Thank you in advance for your advice.

    IMG_20190620_170152.jpg
     
  2. JBrown

    JBrown TrainBoard Member

    167
    150
    16
    Yes you can.
     
    Barbo likes this.
  3. wvgca

    wvgca TrainBoard Member

    499
    305
    21
    yup, sure you can ...
    for -slightly- different speeds, it's a good idea to keep the faster one in front, that way the coupler is 'stretched out' ...
     
    BoxcabE50, Barbo, MK and 1 other person like this.
  4. acptulsa

    acptulsa TrainBoard Member

    3,343
    5,868
    75
    Sure. That's the way the real ones were designed to operate, and Kato expects the models to operate that way too.

    If you have trouble with them uncoupling when running, try solid plastic "non-operating" couplers. They're only "non-operating" when you try to uncouple; if you want the couplers to stay coupled those work just fine.
     
    Barbo likes this.
  5. MK

    MK TrainBoard Member

    3,494
    4,790
    82
    And if they're DCC, you can speed match them to get them to run at closer speeds. But slight speed differential is not an issue as others have said.
     
    Barbo likes this.
  6. SecretWeapon

    SecretWeapon Passed away January 23, 2024 In Memoriam

    5,121
    3,788
    103
    Here Jersey, they'd run 3 & 4 together.
     
    Hardcoaler and Barbo like this.
  7. Barbo

    Barbo New Member

    5
    1
    3
    Thank you everyone for the advice!
     
  8. Point353

    Point353 TrainBoard Member

    2,879
    7,585
    71
    Or even more on the PRSL:

    [​IMG]
     
    BarstowRick, Pie39, Bookbear1 and 3 others like this.
  9. Hardcoaler

    Hardcoaler TrainBoard Member

    10,673
    44,835
    142
    Here's three mu'd on the C&NW. That's all they owned (2 Ea RDC-1s and 1 Ea RDC-2) and didn't keep 'em long.

    [​IMG]
     
  10. Lawrence

    Lawrence TrainBoard Member

    47
    31
    13
    I guess you can't or don't want to disconnect the motor on one of them and run it as a dummy? I'm not sure if it is possible but it may also be possible to change the coupling to something like these https://www.1999.co.jp/eng/image/10151356/20/1 I have them on some of my Japanese DMU's and never have decoupling issues.
     
  11. Thomas Davis

    Thomas Davis TrainBoard Member

    97
    40
    17
    Hardcoaler, those CNW units are smoking like they had Alco 244s for power. How long did CNW run those and in what service?

    Barbo,
    I should be careful here, because as soon as I post this, someone will probably find a photo of the prototype set up just like you have them in your photo, but my thought is that in prototype situations with two RDC-2s (RDC with a baggage compartment), the 2 "coach" ends would be butted together, so that passengers could transfer from one car to the other.
    I was about to suggest you look for an RDC-1 shell, but when I looked for photos of WP RDCs, it looks like they had two, and both were indeed RDC-2s 375 and 376, and advertised as "Zephyrettes". (I am sure you already knew that, but I found it interesting) And if you have photos of them running together with both baggage ends forward, by all means forget what I said up above.

    One other thing you might want to look into- I have read in several places that RDCs could not pull non-powered coaches. But I have several pictures of a the C&EI Meadowlark in its later years, when it consisted of an RDC1 and a streamlined coach purchased second hand from the C&O. The coach in fact was given its own heating unit, because the RDC did not have a steam generator to provide heat for other cars, and was used exclusively with the RDC for several years, whenever extra seating capacity was required. Apparently this was more common than "common knowledge" says it was. So you may want to check on whether WP did this as well.
     
    Barbo and acptulsa like this.
  12. Tony Burzio

    Tony Burzio TrainBoard Supporter

    2,467
    144
    41
    Speed matching: Trying to make up for an incorrectly assembled mechanism.
    See: reassembly
     
  13. wvgca

    wvgca TrainBoard Member

    499
    305
    21
    did you actually try and see if they stay coupled ?
     
  14. acptulsa

    acptulsa TrainBoard Member

    3,343
    5,868
    75
    That's interesting. I didn't know about the Meadowlark. The RDCs had 550 horsepower, which was plenty enough to pull a car. As I understand it, the factory frowned on the practice because the torque converters didn't react well to buffering forces. They didn't like yanking a car into motion when the coupler slack was taken up under acceleration. And they probably didn't like the way the momentum of the trailer car smacked into them when decelerating.

    The Boston & Maine ran long strings of them on less fuel by buying RDC-9 models. They had no cab controls, and only one diesel. At 275 hp, they could move their own weight well enough to minimize the shock due to coupler slack. The lead units had extra power to punch through the air.

    I wonder if the C&EI trained a couple of throttle jockeys to be extra smooth and gentle? Somehow I doubt anyone tried that on terrain less flat than Illinois.
     
    Last edited: Jun 23, 2019
  15. Hardcoaler

    Hardcoaler TrainBoard Member

    10,673
    44,835
    142
    The C&NW bought their three RDCs new in 1950 and ran them in Chicago suburban service until 1957 when they were sold to the C&O. The C&NW determined that bi-level push-pull trains were a superior choice, rendering the RDCs surplus. Patrick Dorin's Chicago & North Western Power (c. 1972) reads that the RDCs ability to operate without having to turn or run-around impressed C&NW management and this efficiency was retained with the new bi-level push-pull trains.
     
  16. CarlH

    CarlH TrainBoard Member

    373
    92
    22
    New Jersey Transit ran a shuttle using a 2-car RDC consist to provide off-peak coverage between Suffern NY and Port Jervis NY in the 1980s and I think into the early 1990s (after which the RDCs were on longer used). This usage might have been one of the last non-tourist usages of RDC equipment. Here is a picture of such a consist from 1984:
    http://rrpicturearchives.net/showPicture.aspx?id=3850128

    NJT runs the passenger service on this line within New York State on behalf of Metro North, since it is a continuation of the line from Hoboken to Suffern, which is just over the NJ/NY state border. Some people take this commute every day. NJ Transit's schedule shows that the fastest express time (skipping some stations during the NJ part of the trip) from Port Jervis to Hoboken is 2 hours, 6 minutes. And most of those people are going into New York City, so they still need to take PATH train or ferry ride after that.
     
    Barbo likes this.
  17. brokemoto

    brokemoto TrainBoard Member

    1,685
    748
    45

    Is that an excursion, an equipment shuttle or an actual scheduled train?




    I once saw a diagram that showed a C&NW RDC-3 that had the baggage door blanked. It was supposed to be a passenger/mail. Was that only a proposed design that the Northwestern simply never bought?




    WP purchased those two to replace the Royal Gorge. The judge allowed WP to discontinue the train if it would provide service between Oakland and Salt Lake City three times per week. One car was not sufficient to do this, so, WP bought two. WP finally was permitted to discontinue the train altogether in the 1960s some time. It sold the pair to another road, but I forget which one. WP usually ran them singly, as the pair was the only equipment assigned to the route.


    Pulling anything other than a Budd RDC voided the warranty. M&StL bought two RDC-4s that it had altered slightly in that it had Budd put accommodations for about twelve passengers on the baggage end. There was no air condition on these things. As most of M&StL's passenger trains were really mail and express trains that happened to carry passengers, the railroad was using the RDC-4s to tow baggage cars, as their doodlebugs had done for years. Of course, the things had problems, which, Budd supposedly fixed for free the first couple of times as a courtesy, but, finally refused to do it after the M&StL had ignored its repeated warnings not to tow anything with them. Shortly after that, M&StL sold them to the C&O which operated them in Kentucky.


    MARC was using RDCs on its Washington-Baltimore and Washington-Brunswick, Maryland commuter trains into the early 1990s. MARC acquired a number of used PRSL RDCs in later years to supplement the B&O RDCs that it already was using. They still carried the PRSL name on the letterboards, but, had a MARC sign affixed to them.
     
    Barbo and Hardcoaler like this.
  18. Hardcoaler

    Hardcoaler TrainBoard Member

    10,673
    44,835
    142
    Sometime much later (late 1970s?), the C&NW acquired a former NYNH&H RDC-3 and modified it for electronic rail inspection work. I'll bet that's what you saw in the diagram.
     
    acptulsa likes this.
  19. Barbo

    Barbo New Member

    5
    1
    3
    I confess that I never thought of that. The coach ends are now together! It can't hurt right? :)


    When one is in front they run fine, when the other is in front they often derail. So I just have to keep track of the faster one if I run them together.
     
  20. Point353

    Point353 TrainBoard Member

    2,879
    7,585
    71
    It's a PRSL photo, so maybe on a test run or when the cars were first being delivered from Budd?
    Note that the horns are all turned to the side.
     

Share This Page