Okay gang. Who is responsible for the article on page 122 of this special edition Magazine??????
The GP7 was not built with a 1750 horsepower prime mover. They had 1500 horsepower. (Just like the F7 which was its product line stable mate.
This stuck out like a sore thumb in an otherwise well done product.
You are correct. The GP9 had 1750 HP. As did the F9 and FL9
"7-line" units had 567B engines, "9-Line" had 567C engines with an upgraded generator. The second batch of FL9's had 567D1 engines and an 1800 HP rating, making them effectively FL18s.
Geeps were diesels. Diesels killed steam. Who cares what the lousy things had under the hoods?
Grrrrrrrr......
I care Helped design the improvements of the GP9 over the GP7. Had the privilege of running a GP7 on the B&M. Enjoyed many wonderful train rides in the diesel era. Glad railroading is still alive and well in the 21st Century. Of course enjoyed steam whenever I could and still try, but I am still a railfan and always will be.
Firelock76 Geeps were diesels. Diesels killed steam. Who cares what the lousy things had under the hoods? Grrrrrrrr......
C'mon, Firelock, which would you rather have -- the railroads or the steam engines that were helping run them into the ground with their high costs?
As to what was under the hood ... that 567 engine was, to me, the most sublime expression of the diesel builder's art. I would give a pretty penny to hear its chromatic growl again as it got underway with a heavy freight or crack passenger train.
Oh, so it was YOUR fault Dave! That's OK, I forgive you.
And Dakotafred, we could go 'round and 'round with this, it's been done before, but what REALLY darn near killed railroading in this country was excessive regulation that had long outlived its usefulness. It took the "Wreck of the Penn Central" to wake everyone up. There's a lot of fallen flags that dieselizing couldn't save, so while I'll admit (sigh) it had to happen it didn't turn out to be the panacea all thought it would be.
Let's remember railroads made it happen for a long, long time before the diesels showed up, and they got it done with steam. Kind of reminds me of a question I saw asked on a military history forum: How could ANYONE fight in a wool uniform? The answer? "By pulling the trigger."
And while I'm on a roll, let me stoke the railfan rage a little more: Not only did the Geeps kill the last of steam, they killed the cab unit diesels as well!
Firelock76 ... what REALLY darn near killed railroading in this country was excessive regulation that had long outlived its usefulness.
... what REALLY darn near killed railroading in this country was excessive regulation that had long outlived its usefulness.
Check on that, Firelock ... along with antiquated work rules.
And, yes, steam not only did everything the rails asked of it for 100 years but built the far-flung country we enjoy today. At the end, though, I think it's fair to say it was a high-maintenance relic in a world that had moved on to internal combustion.
The rails had no choice but to follow.
When all's said and done DF I really have to agree with you.
Thing is, every once in a while I like to throw a "steam bomb" out there and see what reactions I get! BOOM!
All's fair on the forum, Firelock. And heaven knows you have enough company in your advocacy of steam. I've enjoyed some rides behind it, myself, going back to the '40s when it still pulled some New York Central varnish.
Happy New Year!
And Happy New Year to you DF, and to all others reading these words!
Firelock76 When all's said and done DF I really have to agree with you. Thing is, every once in a while I like to throw a "steam bomb" out there and see what reactions I get! BOOM!
Were the carriers 'required' to continue to operate steam - none of the carriers would have financially survived to get to Penn Central, let alone ConRail or the Staggers Act.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Well, I COULD bring up the Norfolk and Western which was profitably using steam right up to the end, but that's a different area with different circumstances totally unrelated to the tribulations of 'roads in the Northeast.
Your point's taken, but no-one would have required any 'road to operate steam. In fact the opposite is probably true. Assuming steam lasted into the 1970's the on-coming environmental regs of the time would probably have killed it, at least on the main lines. Tourist and museum 'roads would probably have been left alone.
Login, or register today to interact in our online community, comment on articles, receive our newsletter, manage your account online and more!
Get the Classic Trains twice-monthly newsletter