Pennsy E8 Crunched at C.U.S.? Details anyone?

[SSW9389]

This is a theory, based on some known facts and a little supposition on my part. The Illinois Central had two E9As on order in the Spring of 1954. This was part of EMD order #2062A for serials #19371-19372. This order was cancelled, likely that Spring. What Illinois Central did was a trade in of E6A #4004, that unit was removed from the roster in May 1954. A single E9A was built for Illinois Central on trade in order #7517. Illinois Central E9A #4036 was EMD serial #19608 built in June 1954. I don't know the details of what caused the demise of IC #4004, was another unit involved in a wreck? What if the Illinois Central was already committed to the two E9s, but changed it to one. The cancelling of order #2062 and the trade in of E6A #4004 suggests that is what happened. The other unit would then be available for another railroad. Trade in order #7518 is blank. It's only a theory . . . Ed in Kentucky

[Overmod]

Seems reasonable to me.  

We might note some other details.  4001 and 4003 happily worked as late as 1970, so it seems reasonable that something 'catastrophic' led to this particular unit being traded in -- but I'd bet it's mechanical rather than 'collision' related.  I'm not a big IC guy, but there's a story here somewhere.

Meanwhile, I have to wonder if there is a connection between the E7Bs 'traded in' in 1957 and the construction of those late-builder-number E9s (cf. 4041-3 and 4108/9) -- an indication that IC still wanted streamlined passenger power at that 'later' date.

And of course much later we have the "E10" construction between 1967 and 1969, out of more recent power than the still-surviving E6s.

To my knowledge there was no recession or other economic reason (national or local) that would have led IC to cancel an order for 'trade-in-new' power in 1954 but then engage in a larger one only shortly later (just before a bona fide recession in 1958).  So the situation is likely to reside somewhere between tax considerations and some recognition of the difference between E6s and E7s as 'rebuildable stock'... perhaps a recognition that there was a 'where's my big savings?' from EMD when reworking a locomotive that old...

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

IC 4001 and 4003 lasted in service shortly past May 1, 1971.  They may have worked some trains in the first couple of days of Amtrak operation.

[SSW9389]

Overmod

Seems reasonable to me.  

We might note some other details.  4001 and 4003 happily worked as late as 1970, so it seems reasonable that something 'catastrophic' led to this particular unit being traded in -- but I'd bet it's mechanical rather than 'collision' related.  I'm not a big IC guy, but there's a story here somewhere.

Meanwhile, I have to wonder if there is a connection between the E7Bs 'traded in' in 1957 and the construction of those late-builder-number E9s (cf. 4041-3 and 4108/9) -- an indication that IC still wanted streamlined passenger power at that 'later' date.

And of course much later we have the "E10" construction between 1967 and 1969, out of more recent power than the still-surviving E6s.

To my knowledge there was no recession or other economic reason (national or local) that would have led IC to cancel an order for 'trade-in-new' power in 1954 but then engage in a larger one only shortly later (just before a bona fide recession in 1958).  So the situation is likely to reside somewhere between tax considerations and some recognition of the difference between E6s and E7s as 'rebuildable stock'... perhaps a recognition that there was a 'where's my big savings?' from EMD when reworking a locomotive that old...

 

Illinois Central E9s starting with #4036 were all built with trade ins to EMD of older IC E units. IC E9As #4036-4043 and E9Bs #4106-4109 were all built in the EMD 7500-7600 order numbers that were used for trade in transactions. There is a direct corelation between the trade ins of one older E unit for a brand new E9. The IC roster in issue #35 of Extra 2200 South has the one-for-one disposition information. What's interesting in this is that the IC E7s traded in were not fully depreciated.

[NDG]

FWIW.

 

Interlocking Whistle.

 

At time 4:35. 

 

https://www.liveleak.com/view?t=Hq8t_1563630958

 

Thank You.

 

 

[gmpullman]

NDG

FWIW.   Interlocking Whistle.

Additionally:

PRR_Interlocking by Edmund, on Flickr

PRR Interlocking Rules C.T. 400 Effective September 28, 1941, Edition of August 16, 1943.

Thank You, Ed

[SD70Dude]

Another example of the crumple zone working as intended:

[Flintlock76]

Looks like GM's locomotives worked as advertised in more ways than one!

No wonder they ended up dominating the market.

[SSW9389]

Here is a linked 1959 photo of the 5805 at Louisville. Note the difference in grills between the two E8s. http://rrpicturearchives.net/showPictur ... id=5314349

Ed in Kentucky 

[BaltACD]

One thing I find amazing - the final accident report was publishled One Month and 10 days after the event.  Not a year or more as has become customary in today's world.

[seppburgh2]

With links further in this post, the Emergency Signal Whistle purpose was to "The functioned as an emergency signals, the most important of which was a prolonged blast which meant " All trains, engines, and track cars within interlocking limits stop immediately." 

 

[MMLDelete]

It's unbelievable how unscated the obs car looks! I'd like to see a view of the end, but still ...

The way the Es and Fs humped up like that after crashing is so bizarre looking. Other-worldly.

I see that PRR called an E8A an EP22, and had its own designations for all models, steam, diesel and electric, all along. Why did they choose to do this? Did many other railroads do this? Do any do so now?

 

[SD70Dude]

Lithonia Operator

I see that PRR called an E8A an EP22, and had its own designations for all models, steam, diesel and electric, all along. Why did they choose to do this? Did many other railroads do this? Do any do so now?

CN still does, new locomotives have their class written below the cab numbers:

http://cnrha.ca/node/285

The internal scheme is mostly used by the mechanical department these days, operating employees identify locomotive types by their road number series. 

The CN scheme does not differentiate between AC and DC traction units, or different locomotive models of the same horsepower rating from the same builder.  Class EF-644 includes Dash-9's, ES44DC's, ES44AC's, and ET44AC's. 

The axle number is absent on older units, it only came into use around 1970 when CN started acquiring 4 and 6 axle units of the same horsepower rating from EMD (GP40 and SD40).

[MMLDelete]

Thanks, Dude.

[Overmod]

SD70Dude

CN still does, new locomotives have their class written below the cab numbers:

http://cnrha.ca/node/285

Thanks for this.  I'd been assuming that the 'subletters' referred to engine subtype directly, not order batch...

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

More than a few railroads had a class system of some sort for their diesels.  EL, RDG, NYC, SP and MILW had fairly involved systems that described builder, HP, service, etc.

[BaltACD]

CSSHEGEWISCH

More than a few railroads had a class system of some sort for their diesels.  EL, RDG, NYC, SP and MILW had fairly involved systems that described builder, HP, service, etc.

All Class 1 carriers have classing systems for their locomotive and car fleets.  The systems are ingrained within the computer systems that the carriers use to run their operations.  Each carrier uses some form of system that makes sense to them and them alone in concert with their computer systems.

When company officials want data on any aspect of their fleets they seek the data from their computer systems.

[BEAUSABRE]

Lithonia Operator

I see that PRR called an E8A an EP22, and had its own designations for all models, steam, diesel and electric, all along.

The PRR went through several iterations before settling on its final system for diesels, so I'll just give the last and longest lived

"EP22" means "EMD Passenger 2200 Horsepower" (Actually 2250)

For roads that wanted to use the model number as the class, EMD sold model plates. Here's a Burlington steam generator equipped SD7 proudly wearing its badge on its frame

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/cc/df/d0/ccdfd0984f08e098f929caaa5091c8ff.jpg

 

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

MILW went through the expense of obtaining "GP20" plates for the GP9's that were rebuilt and upgraded to 2000 HP (MILW 946-999)