Steam Locomotives designed for 1-man MU operation?

Simple question, but apparently almost impossible to Google for correctly (well, at least for me). Were there any pre-1960 steam locomotives in regular service (as opposed to just concept scribblings or funky one-off (two-off?) test beds) which could handle 1-man MU operations operation much like (most) road diesels do (as opposed to double-heading with a crew in each steam locomotive). Steam-Steam is the baseline; MU means multiple units of locomotives, not Steam RDCs or EMUs (SMUs?); pre-1960 to exclude concepts like the ACE 3000, which was designed to MU w/ other ACE3000s & diesels too; non-north American steam-MU operations are welcome for discussion...

I don't know of any but, what a concept!

As fussy as a steam locomotive is to both run and to fire, I don't see how it could be done. Even with stokers, you can't take your eyes off your fire for long, injectors and feed water pumps have to be monitored, and sometimes you have to play the Johnson Bar to get the best out of the engine, shifting more than the guy driving a truck across I-80 in NW NJ.

Unlike a modern diesel in Run-8 and the deadman alarm that has to be answered, a steam crew kept busy all the time. Just like a woman, a steamer had to be paid attention to constantly.

"Let's see. Water's good, pressure 10 under the safeties, time to get a soda. Made it maybe halfway to the soda machine, all of 50 feet away, and the safety lifted."

GSC, upon reflection I guess you're correct. For some reason I figured by the 1920s/1930s 'Superpower' period, locomotive design & engineering had advanced enough to standarize operations, and certainly by that time sensor technology & feed-back response systems had advanced enough to make remote control possible...for linear systems.
However, if Modern-era steam control was still that fussy & fidgity, then yeah, because compact computers capable of control-system logic (scan inputs signals from various systems, compare these values to ones in 'state tables', and consequently send the required control signals back to the corresponding systems, performing this scanning & polling dozens of times a second or so) were still decades into the future. (Maybe analog computers of the day...nah, too slow).
I guess in-cab signalling on 1930s PRR steam locomotives got me thinking too far advanced...

The only steam MU system I've ever heard of, was the joint ALCo/GE/UP steam-electric turbines from the early 30's.

Using fuel oil, the boilers held just 50gal of water. Steam was used to turn two 12,000rpm turbines on each engine.

Of course, there were some ideas.
In Germany some type 38, a prussion P8 locomotive, and type 78, the prussion T18 locomotive were converted for turn-over-trains.
Like modern suburban trains there was a control cab in the front car and the locomotive at the other end of the train.
As long as the locomotive pulled the train, the engineer was driving, and the fireman was making water and coal to the best.
At the end station, the engineer left the footplate, got to the control cab at the other end of the train, and now the locomotive wan't pulling anymore, it had to push the train along.

So the fireman had to do coal and water on his best, but had regulary also adjust throttle and gears to make the best out of the engine. The enginer in the cab had something like a machinery telegraph, for which he could have called for more or less engine power, and pneumatic cylinder was used to close the throttle by the engineer in braking actions during station arrival.

So, the technology was easy electic, but it was designed also to attach maybe a second locomotive... And: Rotary snow plows of the Henschel type had to option to include this technology, so the pushing engine behind the plow did not need an engineer for driving, so, only two fireman and one driver was need to operate the plow....

and that's pre-1960 technology, but it was quickly abandoned, with the appearing diesel rail buses...

i believe C&O 614 was fitted with an MU stand, although that might have been for Diesel HEP helpers.

614 was infact equipped with MU equipment for additional diesel helpers to be tied in behind the tender. However the original question stated pre-1960 so I left this out.

Also, a small engine from the midwest was also so equipped. This engine, I beleive, but could be wrong, was equipped in the mid to late 50's. This engine currently resides in the B&O museum in Baltimore.

By literal definition, Multiple unit (MU) operations weren't even invented until after the diesels came around. In fact at first, diesels could only be MUed to other engines of the same manufacturer. It wasn't until the AAR standardized things, including the 8-notch throttle that universal MU became possible.

Also, a small engine from the midwest was also so equipped. This engine, I beleive, but could be wrong, was equipped in the mid to late 50's. This engine currently resides in the B&O museum in Baltimore.

By literal definition, Multiple unit (MU) operations weren't even invented until after the diesels came around.

The steam locomotive at the B&O Railroad Museum in Baltimore equipped with diesel helper controls in the cab is Clinchfield #1, which needed diesel help in excursion and publicity service. The control "box" is still in the cab, which is open for public inspection.

MU controls were around for many years before diesels. The concept was invented in the late 1890's for rapid transit service Soon thereafter, when mainline railroads began electrifying, they naturally adopted MU controls.

Not just "pre-1960", I don't know of anyone having done it yet, even experimentally. Advanced steam designers seem to regard it as having been feasible, but I guess not for retrofitting to conventional locomotives without, for example, computer-controlled firing.

As noted above, several railways were able to eliminate the need for an engineer in each locomotive. The governing factor is thus the ability to eliminate the fireman.

Triplex wrote: As noted above, several railways were able to eliminate the need for an engineer in each locomotive. The governing factor is thus the ability to eliminate the fireman.

Yes. Someone who still drives the train is allways need, even if you can control even that with electronics, it won't make sense, as to many difficulties make the presence of a train leader in personal very recommendable. Some subways can do without any driver or train personel, but on common tracks... no way to erase the driver...
So the fireman in the past was difficult to eliminate on he footplate, because the whole boiler was controlled manually. For a single person the continous adjustments of feedwater pump, feeding the fire, adjusting the blowers, controlling exhaust performance and air inlets make this impossible for one man doing this together with driving. Sometimes you have to adjust something and then your eyes are not on the tracks.. fatal in emergency.
So to erase someone of this team makes it, in reason for safe running, realy strikt need, to do his job by electronic controls, instead of letting one man do all the work, which is impossible...