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

8026 views
48 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    March 2016
  • From: Burbank IL (near Clearing)
  • 12,142 posts
Posted by CSSHEGEWISCH on Sunday, September 20, 2020 10:13 AM

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

The daily commute is part of everyday life but I get two rides a day out of it. Paul
  • Member since
    May 2019
  • 112 posts
Posted by BEAUSABRE on Sunday, September 20, 2020 1:23 AM

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

 

  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: US
  • 19,540 posts
Posted by BaltACD on Wednesday, June 24, 2020 5:04 PM

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.

  • Member since
    March 2016
  • From: Burbank IL (near Clearing)
  • 12,142 posts
Posted by CSSHEGEWISCH on Saturday, June 20, 2020 10:30 AM

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.

The daily commute is part of everyday life but I get two rides a day out of it. Paul
  • Member since
    September 2003
  • 13,837 posts
Posted by Overmod on Friday, June 19, 2020 8:08 PM

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...

  • Member since
    May 2019
  • 1,348 posts
Posted by Lithonia Operator on Friday, June 19, 2020 3:04 PM

Thanks, Dude.

  • Member since
    December 2017
  • From: I've been everywhere, man
  • 2,867 posts
Posted by SD70Dude on Friday, June 19, 2020 2:25 PM

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).

Greetings from Alberta

-an Articulate Malcontent

  • Member since
    May 2019
  • 1,348 posts
Posted by Lithonia Operator on Friday, June 19, 2020 12:37 PM

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?

 

  • Member since
    January 2010
  • 365 posts
Posted by seppburgh2 on Wednesday, June 17, 2020 8:24 PM

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." 

 

  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: US
  • 19,540 posts
Posted by BaltACD on Wednesday, June 17, 2020 5:59 PM

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.

  • Member since
    July 2001
  • From: Shelbyville, Kentucky
  • 1,845 posts
Posted by SSW9389 on Wednesday, June 17, 2020 11:26 AM

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 

COTTON BELT: Runs like a Blue Streak!
  • Member since
    January 2019
  • From: Henrico, VA
  • 5,522 posts
Posted by Flintlock76 on Friday, October 25, 2019 9:49 PM

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

No wonder they ended up dominating the market.

  • Member since
    December 2017
  • From: I've been everywhere, man
  • 2,867 posts
Posted by SD70Dude on Friday, October 25, 2019 11:20 AM

Another example of the crumple zone working as intended:

Image may contain: outdoor

Greetings from Alberta

-an Articulate Malcontent

  • Member since
    August 2003
  • From: Collinwood, Ohio, USA
  • 11,054 posts
Posted by gmpullman on Monday, July 22, 2019 12:50 PM

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

NDG
  • Member since
    December 2013
  • 1,400 posts
Posted by NDG on Sunday, July 21, 2019 10:26 PM

FWIW.

 
Interlocking Whistle.
 
At time 4:35. 
 
 
Thank You.

 

 

  • Member since
    July 2001
  • From: Shelbyville, Kentucky
  • 1,845 posts
Posted by SSW9389 on Saturday, July 20, 2019 6:30 AM

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.
COTTON BELT: Runs like a Blue Streak!
  • Member since
    March 2016
  • From: Burbank IL (near Clearing)
  • 12,142 posts
Posted by CSSHEGEWISCH on Friday, July 19, 2019 10:10 AM

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.

The daily commute is part of everyday life but I get two rides a day out of it. Paul
  • Member since
    September 2003
  • 13,837 posts
Posted by Overmod on Friday, July 19, 2019 8:12 AM

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...

  • Member since
    July 2001
  • From: Shelbyville, Kentucky
  • 1,845 posts
Posted by SSW9389 on Friday, July 19, 2019 7:39 AM
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
COTTON BELT: Runs like a Blue Streak!
  • Member since
    July 2001
  • From: Shelbyville, Kentucky
  • 1,845 posts
Posted by SSW9389 on Thursday, July 11, 2019 9:23 AM

Contemporary E9As built in 1954 when PRR 5805 was rebuilt are IC 4036, UP 943-947, and CB&Q 9990-9995. There were also cancelled orders for NYC E9As and additional IC E9As. 

 

COTTON BELT: Runs like a Blue Streak!
NDG
  • Member since
    December 2013
  • 1,400 posts
Posted by NDG on Saturday, July 6, 2019 4:29 PM

Great Photo.

 Thank You.
  • Member since
    September 2013
  • 6,199 posts
Posted by Miningman on Saturday, July 6, 2019 3:11 PM
Posted by SD70Dude on Saturday, July 06, 2019 12:26 PM

Great shots of the crumple zone on a EMD cab unit.  

This F-unit bore the brunt of a much harder head-on crash, but its cab remained intact.  I can't find any reference as to whether or not the crew survived:

 

Photo of the Day caption doesn't mention any deaths. http://ctr.trains.com/photo-of-the-day/2019/05/crumple-zone
  • Member since
    December 2017
  • From: I've been everywhere, man
  • 2,867 posts
Posted by SD70Dude on Saturday, July 6, 2019 12:26 PM

Great shots of the crumple zone on a EMD cab unit.  

This F-unit bore the brunt of a much harder head-on crash, but its cab remained intact.  I can't find any reference as to whether or not the crew survived:

https://i.pinimg.com/564x/ff/39/58/ff3958a9a17f2f97094d18843f4d9e62.jpg

Another link if the photo doesn't show up right:

http://www.drgw.net/gallery/v/DRGWDieselContainer/F7s/DRGW5661/drgw_5661_millfork_ut_dec_1963_000.jpg.html

Greetings from Alberta

-an Articulate Malcontent

NDG
  • Member since
    December 2013
  • 1,400 posts
Posted by NDG on Friday, July 5, 2019 5:12 PM
  • Member since
    May 2012
  • 4,262 posts
Posted by rcdrye on Saturday, April 20, 2019 6:17 AM

The Burlington pilot would have seen the near points on the double-slip lined for his movement.  If the tight space of the CUS throat, both point sets on each end of the double slips were operated by the same switch machine.  In this case the points on the north end of the switch should have told the pilot that the double slip was lined for a movement crossing the track he was on.

It's hard to tell from contemporary photos how the crossing frogs on the double slips were constructed, but today's frogs in the same locations don't appear to be movable, so the pilot would not have had their position as a clue.

I'm sure the pilot made the same movement nearly every day.  A lot of ICC and NTSB reports note that about accidents...

  • Member since
    September 2013
  • 6,199 posts
Posted by Miningman on Friday, April 19, 2019 9:28 PM

Nice! Well done NDG. Great research.

  • Member since
    August 2003
  • From: Collinwood, Ohio, USA
  • 11,054 posts
Posted by gmpullman on Thursday, April 18, 2019 11:15 PM

BaltACD
What I don't understand is how the Harrison St. Interlocking could have allowed a route to be lined that would bring the two trains into contact - even when one ran a red.

From what I understand, CB&Q was backing in to same track PRR was coming out of once he cleared, and was going to occupy same platform. Here is a crop of the diagram:

 ICC_4-crop by Edmund, on Flickr

By running signal L58 they met right in the middle of the same slip switch, 57-59 that would have allowed #23 to back in to track 18.

And the full page (after so many copies and iterations much of the contrast has been lost) I tried to correct for some of the poor contrast.

 ICC_4 by Edmund, on Flickr


 

Several wrecks I've seen photos of showing EMD E and F type cab units where the frame buckled just behind the cab. I understand, and what I refered to in my earlier replies as the "crumple zone or crash zone" was an EMD design to mitigate some of the shock of impact and attempt to protect the crew. EMD was concerned enough with PRR's specification to mount of lifting lugs on the noses of their locomotives that they "signed-off" on the liability of keeping the frame intact by lifting at the nose instead of the jacking pads. Presumably aware of the inherant weakness at this point in the frame.

 Regards, Ed

  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: US
  • 19,540 posts
Posted by BaltACD on Thursday, April 18, 2019 8:54 PM

I understand that the CB&Q Pilot was judged to have run a Red Signal. 

What I don't understand is how the Harrison St. Interlocking could have allowed a route to be lined that would bring the two trains into contact - even when one ran a red.  The switches within the interlocking had to have been aligned in some manner, that even when the signals were against the CB&Q move it was still lined into the face of the PRR move.

SUBSCRIBER & MEMBER LOGIN

Login, or register today to interact in our online community, comment on articles, receive our newsletter, manage your account online and more!

FREE NEWSLETTER SIGNUP

Get the Classic Trains twice-monthly newsletter