Talk:Double heading

Double-heading vs Triple Heading?

Just for clarification purposes, if double-heading is stricly defined as two separate crews driving two (or more) locomotives, and if multiple unit operation is defined in Wikipedia as multiple carriages (as distinct from locomotives) with separate motors in each carriage, what would be the correct definition of a lash-up of two or more diesel-electric or electric locomotives driven by the one crew?

Would the use of three steam locomotives (with separate crews) constitute double heading, or "triple heading"?

As a further curly question - would this train (in which two diesel electrics in multiple unit operation lead a steam locomotive) be described as double heading? Zzrbiker 07:46, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Most of your queries are now covered in the article. Regarding the final one (and your picture), the answer is "yes"! This is an example of double-heading. The two diesel-electrics are working in multiple and are therefore effectively a single (articulated) locomotive until such time as they are disconnected again. Coupled in front of the steam locomotive, which must have its own crew, constitutes double-heading. If the two diesel-electrics were NOT working in multiple, but each had their own crew, then this would be an example of triple-heading. Timothy Titus ^{Talk To TT} 04:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Recent edit "Quadruple heading"

Unless someone can tell me that Swiss locomotive designers for some reason designed electric locomotives incapable of multiple unit working, I think the picture of the "quadruple heading" electric locomotives is pretty much contradicting the text of the article, which states that "double-heading or double heading indicates the use of two locomotives at the front of a train, each operated individually by its own crew" and "it is not strictly the same practice as two or more diesel or electric locomotives working 'in multiple' (or 'multiple-working'), where both (or all) locomotives are controlled by a single driver in the cab of the leading locomotive".

If no-one has any objections, shall we simply revert to the previous edit? - Zzrbiker (talk) 12:39, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

(I added that picture) I'm not sure which artile should be used for the topic of "multiple-working". The article in multiple linked in the section cited above is mainly about multiple units and not really about multiple-working; Multiple working looks like it only describes practice in Britain. The quote above also just says that it is not strictly the same practice; it does not say that this article should not be about both (nor does it say that it should be)... I'm not a native English speaker so I can't really judge which is the best lemma to use. Feel free to remove the picture if you think it's inappropriate. --Kabelleger (talk) 23:06, 25 August 2008 (UTC)