grizlump9 Remember steam engines didn't have toilets either; no but they had a scoop shovel and a firebox. you figure it out. grizlump
Remember steam engines didn't have toilets either;
no but they had a scoop shovel and a firebox. you figure it out.
grizlump
Actually I ask my grandfather that question.
First he just looked at me and finally said and I never will for get it"Boy,we use to coal pile for #1 and the nearest brushes for #2".."Now get along outside and stop asking foolish questions."
Larry
Conductor.
Summerset Ry.
"Stay Alert, Don't get hurt Safety First!"
Hi Dave;
The New Haven ordered EMD SW 1200's with flexicoil trucks that could be used in mainline freights, branchline or yard work. My understanding is there weight was actually about the same as a GEEP. I've seen them MUed on the mainline, but I've never seen them in the lead (maybe the ole toilet issue)?
Den.
Hello "upjake,"
Sometimes it wasn't a case of choosing road swichers over end-cab switchers for local freights, but of using the diesels that were available. For one example, in the late 1940s the Union Pacific dieselized some of its local freights in Southern California with EMD NW2 1000-hp switch engines. This preceeded the UP's first GP7s, which didn't arrive until 1953, and the railroad had very few road switchers at the time.
So long,
Andy
Andy Sperandeo MODEL RAILROADER Magazine
BRAKIEYou see unlike model railroaders railroads has a tenancy to use locomotives as they see fit with apologies to no one
Never said they couldn't use switchers, the OP wanted reasons why a railroad would choose a road switcher over a switch engine. I gave him reasons. He can choose whatever power he likes, just as the real railroads chose the power they used.
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
On smaller railroads or branchlines, speed wouldn't be that big a factor. On the MNS line I mentioned, I doubt trains were normally going more than 10-15 MPH. There were a lot of grade crossing to whistle for, plus the track wasn't all that great, lots of ups and downs and side to side rolling.
Remember steam engines didn't have toilets either; for many roads in the forties I think the savings of maintenance costs for diesel vs. steam was the key factor, not crew comfort. If the crews never had an onboard facility, they weren't going to miss it. Plus at the time they started buying diesels like their VO series engines in 1940-41, the only road switcher was the RS-1. By the time GP7's came along in 1949, the MNS had enough diesels that they dropped their last steam engine soon after.
Besides for the MNS these were relatively short trips, plus if need be the track went by several spots they could stop (gas stations, bowling alleys etc.). The crew regularly stopped at the end of the line at a couple of businesses (Model Stone Co., lumber yards, LeJeune Steel) and walked over to Diamond Lake Lanes to eat lunch. I can remember c.1962 the crew coming in to eat just as I was leaving with my Mom from her Thursday morning ladies bowling league. Even though they ran diesels, they still dressed like steam crews with hickory stripe bib overalls and gauntlet gloves etc.
route_rock Dave beat me too it on the toilet facilities, ...!
Dave beat me too it on the toilet facilities, ...!
For the same reason I prefer a bunch of trees 100 yards away from a campground served by an outhouse at a National Forest campground, I'd prefer a wide-mouthed jar over a toilet in a locomotive.
Mark
A lot of railroads used switchers on branch lines..Even today there are short lines that use switch engines as there only road power...The NYC would use a GP7/SW7 unit consist on some locals.
The SW1000,SW1500,MP15DC,MP15AC are capable of being used on the road just like a road unit.
Then how about the Pittsburg & Shawmut?
How about the Union RR?
You see unlike model railroaders railroads has a tenancy to use locomotives as they see fit with apologies to no one.
Dave beat me too it on the toilet facilities, Not to mention as an engineer in the day I would rather have the RS. Not for all that was mentioned but for the old weight on drivers. More pay for more weight!
The DS also would prefer you make track speed.Not to mention the guy running behind you lol.
Yes we are on time but this is yesterdays train
upjakeYou know I never even thought about the obvious speed issue. I would guess a freight railroad and its local customers wouldn't exactly want to operate a leisurely, sightseeing transportation system. Anyway thanks for the info.
Really the customer wouldn't really care how fast the train goes.
On the other hand the dispatcher would be HIGHLY interested if you had a speed restricted engine tooling along 80 miles of main track (40 out, 40 back). Haveing a local out there messing around is bad enough, having a SLOW local is worse.
Switchers also do not have toilet. Switchers may not have cab signals. Switchers may not have MU so they may have to operate singly. Switchers weigh less and have less hp so less tractive effort. Also a switcher going one way or the other offers the crew no grade crossing protection (running cab end first) and may not have a speed recorder.
On the MP only the major switching yards used switchers, all the secondary yards and locals used GP's of some ilk (GP7, 9, 18, 15, 28, 38).
You know I never even thought about the obvious speed issue. I would guess a freight railroad and its local customers wouldn't exactly want to operate a leisurely, sightseeing transportation system. Anyway thanks for the info.
I grew up watching the Minneapolis Northfield and Southern run 1 or 2 freights a day past my house using VO-660/1000's and FM H-10-44/H-12-44 switchers, occassionally throwing in a road switcher - Baldwin DRS 6-6-1500 No. 15. Later when they were all retired or sold off, they went to back to back EMD SW-1200 / SW-1500 switchers. I've seen pics of "mainline" trains with four of the EMD switchers all together.
I imagine the trip from Northfield thru Richfield to south Minneapolis would be about 40 miles.
As I recall the FM's were pretty heavy and could haul a pretty hefty train, going backwards or forwards (as the "high line" branch only had a run-around track, no turntable or wye at the end).
http://www.northeast.railfan.net/diesel53.html
There would be a number of reasons. Switchers usually had low speed trucks with solid bearings in the early days. They were generally geared for 20-25 mph. Pulling power and ruling grades would also dictate power. Economies of fuel usage would also dictate a road switcher. A low geared engine would use more fuel for a long run at speed. Comfort of the crew would be another consideration.
Then there are whole short line rail roads that only used switchers for the whole road.
I am sure there are more.
Pete
I pray every day I break even, Cause I can really use the money!
I started with nothing and still have most of it left!
Why would a railroad choose to use a diesel road-switcher instead of a regular switcher on a local run? In other words, besides road-switchers having more horsepower, can a diesel switcher do the same job? Let's say using a Baldwin VO-1000 on a 40 mile run for a local train as opposed to using a GP7.