MILW went through the expense of obtaining "GP20" plates for the GP9's that were rebuilt and upgraded to 2000 HP (MILW 946-999)
Lithonia OperatorI 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
CSSHEGEWISCHMore 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.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
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.
SD70DudeCN still does, new locomotives have their class written below the cab numbers: http://cnrha.ca/node/285
http://cnrha.ca/node/285
Thanks for this. I'd been assuming that the 'subletters' referred to engine subtype directly, not order batch...
Thanks, Dude.
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?
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:
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
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.
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."
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.
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
Looks like GM's locomotives worked as advertised in more ways than one!
No wonder they ended up dominating the market.
Another example of the crumple zone working as intended:
NDGFWIW. 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
FWIW.
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...
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...
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.
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.
Great Photo.
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:
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
FYI.
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...
Nice! Well done NDG. Great research.
Thank You.
BaltACDWhat 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
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.
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