Trains.com

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!

CNW GP30 Dynamic Brake and consisting with non-dynamic brake units

3466 views
14 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    July 2010
  • From: St. Paul, MN
  • 82 posts
CNW GP30 Dynamic Brake and consisting with non-dynamic brake units
Posted by oarb00 on Tuesday, May 13, 2014 1:52 PM

I have an Atlas GP30 in PC colors #2193 that I would like to repaint into my Northwestern fleet. Did CNW roster gp30's with or without dynamic brakes? I cannot seem to find any photo's from above.

Also, when dynamic brake equipped units are consisted with units non-dynamic units is dynamic braking available on the units so equipped? I would imagine the lead unit must have them. I would like to run my Atlas GP30 and GP35 and GP40-2 as a permanent consist and I know CNW GP40's were dynamic brake equipped.

Thanx

Modeling BN and CNW in the late 70's midwest

 

  • Member since
    July 2010
  • From: St. Paul, MN
  • 82 posts
Posted by oarb00 on Tuesday, May 13, 2014 2:04 PM

Just read the post concerning my GP30 question, apparently CNW had both. Still would like a reply to the second question though.

Oops - Sign

  • Member since
    July 2003
  • From: Sierra Vista, Arizona
  • 13,757 posts
Posted by cacole on Tuesday, May 13, 2014 3:37 PM

If a unit with dynamic brakes is consisted with one without dynamics, the dynamics on the unit so equipped will still function as usual with no effect on the other locomotive. The one with dynamics must be the lead unit; otherwise there will be no control over the dynamics.

  • Member since
    May 2004
  • 7,500 posts
Posted by 7j43k on Tuesday, May 13, 2014 11:01 PM

I think it possible to put DB controls in a non-DB loco, and operate the DB's in trailing units.  But I don't know of that actually being done.

 

 

Ed

  • Member since
    July 2003
  • From: Sierra Vista, Arizona
  • 13,757 posts
Posted by cacole on Wednesday, May 14, 2014 9:39 AM

7j43k

I think it possible to put DB controls in a non-DB loco, and operate the DB's in trailing units.  But I don't know of that actually being done.

No, it's not possible without a major renovation of the non-dynamic locomotive's electrical system.  Dynamic brakes are controlled by a separate lever similar to the throttle lever on most locomotives.

 

  • Member since
    May 2004
  • 7,500 posts
Posted by 7j43k on Wednesday, May 14, 2014 2:15 PM

cacole

 

 
7j43k

I think it possible to put DB controls in a non-DB loco, and operate the DB's in trailing units.  But I don't know of that actually being done.

 

 

No, it's not possible without a major renovation of the non-dynamic locomotive's electrical system.  Dynamic brakes are controlled by a separate lever similar to the throttle lever on most locomotives.

 

 

 

I don't see how such a renovation would be "major".  The dynamics are controlled by signals sent through the MU connector.  Install that separate lever in the leading (non-DB unit) and add the wiring from it out to the MU receptacles.

 

 

Ed

  • Member since
    May 2013
  • 3,231 posts
Posted by NorthWest on Wednesday, May 14, 2014 5:27 PM
IIRC, Western Maryland performed alterations to some of their non-dynamic brake equipped units to allow them to control those with dynamic brakes in the rest of the locomotive consist.
  • Member since
    December 2001
  • 400 posts
Posted by rrboomer on Wednesday, May 14, 2014 10:11 PM

A non equipped unit can be made to control a trailing DB equipped unit if the railroad wants to throw enough time and money at the project.  I don't know of any case where that happened,  but it certainly could have.  On the other hand the fact that there aren't many (or any) known examples would lead us to believe the railroads did not want to spend the time/money.

There are (as mentioned) roads that did equip  some of their non db units with "DB pass through" capability so as to operate between DB equipped units.

Dick Haave 

  • Member since
    February 2002
  • From: Reading, PA
  • 30,002 posts
Posted by rrinker on Thursday, May 15, 2014 8:05 AM

 What I wonder is how often DB and non-DB units were actually mixed in practice. If a railroad had the same model locomotive boith with and without DB, there was usually a reason - different service, or different territory. Like the Reading, having DBs on the freight GP7's, but no DB on the passenger GP7's. Or say a railroad with different divisions, one with hilly terrain using locos with DBs, and a flatland division where they saved money and didn;t get DBs. There may be occasional reason to mix locos across the divisions, but I'd think in normal every day operation this wouldn't happen a whole lot.

              --Randy


Modeling the Reading Railroad in the 1950's

 

Visit my web site at www.readingeastpenn.com for construction updates, DCC Info, and more.

  • Member since
    September 2003
  • From: Omaha, NE
  • 10,621 posts
Posted by dehusman on Thursday, May 15, 2014 8:26 AM

It happened all the time on the MoPac, the cvast majority of engines did not have DB.  The only blue engines bought with DB were the 6000 series SD40-2's that were bought to be used with BN coal trains  serving utilities on MP terrritories.  So pretty much any foreign line engine had DB or any time a MP engine was off line, the engines were mixed DB & non-DB.

Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com

  • Member since
    May 2004
  • 7,500 posts
Posted by 7j43k on Thursday, May 15, 2014 9:20 AM

There was a discussion on the SP&S Yahoo list on the subject.  It did happen.  

There was presented a list of locomotive consists for June and July of 1957 between Wishram and Klamath Falls (a 1.5% ruling grade).  On scanning the list, I noted that this sort of thing happened.  I don't have a comprehensive list of DB/non-DB for the locos on the list, so I can't work up the proportion now.

 

I'm going to put some effort into the matter, and hope to get some numbers later.

 

 

Ed

  • Member since
    July 2003
  • From: Sierra Vista, Arizona
  • 13,757 posts
Posted by cacole on Thursday, May 15, 2014 10:23 AM

To the OP:  Try posting your question on the "Trains Magazine" forum where real railroaders hang out and see what they have to say about modifying a non-dynamic locomotive to control one with dynamics.

 

  • Member since
    April 2011
  • From: About 20 minutes from IRM
  • 430 posts
Posted by CGW121 on Thursday, May 15, 2014 11:43 AM

The CNW got the gp30's from the CGW when they bought them out. 8 gp30's and 9 sd40's from the CGW had dynamics. The CNW ran them with all sorts of locomotives, most did not have dynamics. The engineers were instructed not to use dynamics, but the engineers would anyway. As they got more and more cozy with the UP they started buying locos with dynamics. As to connections I have no idea about that.

  • Member since
    May 2004
  • 7,500 posts
Posted by 7j43k on Thursday, May 15, 2014 12:18 PM

7j43k

There was a discussion on the SP&S Yahoo list on the subject.  It did happen.  

There was presented a list of locomotive consists for June and July of 1957 between Wishram and Klamath Falls (a 1.5% ruling grade).  On scanning the list, I noted that this sort of thing happened.  I don't have a comprehensive list of DB/non-DB for the locos on the list, so I can't work up the proportion now.

 

I'm going to put some effort into the matter, and hope to get some numbers later.

 

 

Ed

 

 

 

OK.  I got interested in the data.  And I could put off working a little while.  Win-win.

 

For the two months, there were 123 SP&S trains.  They were typically 4 unit consists--more later.  Of those, 49 had one or more non-DB units in the consist.

 

In June:

Of 62 consists, all were four unit except one three unit.

In the downhillhill direction, ALL non-DB units were trailing--11 out of 29 consists.

In the uphill direction, there were 8 non-DB leading and 4 trailing out of 33 trains.

All non-DB units were end (A) units.  None of the middle units were non-DB

 

 

In July:

Of 61 consists, all were four unit except 28 were three unit and two were 2 unit.

In the downhill direction, five of the 30 trains had leading units w/o DB's (quite a difference from June)--total of 14 out of 30 had one or more non-DB.

In the uphill direction, 10 out of 31 trains had non-DB leading.

 

 

Train weights were given.  I didn't notice that the non-DB trains were any lighter than full DB trains.  There were also GN trains on the line.  They were ALWAYS assigned DB equipped GP9's.

The SP&S locos tended to be Alco F's, generally laid out in neat ABBA sets.  But sometimes the B's were A's, instead.  And GP9's and Alco RS's showed up occasionally, too.

Note that in June, the consists for the downhill direction were laid out perfectly for optimum DB useage.  And for uphill, it doesn't matter; since DB's won't be used.  The July downhill consists WERE NOT set up nicely, on occasion.  It seems like different people were doing the consisting month to month.

 

 

 

Ed 

  • Member since
    July 2010
  • From: St. Paul, MN
  • 82 posts
Posted by oarb00 on Thursday, May 15, 2014 2:19 PM

Thanx for all the input.

 

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!

Users Online

Search the Community

ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
Model Railroader Newsletter See all
Sign up for our FREE e-newsletter and get model railroad news in your inbox!