In the 70s and 80s both Milwaukee and Soo ran consists of mixed EMD, Alco, and GE units.Things like F7-GP35-U30C-GP9-GP30 or GP9-E8-SD9-U25B. Yes, the E was in the middle. It was a Milwaukee E regeared for freight in orange and black.
Disclaimer: This post may contain humor, sarcasm, and/or flatulence.
Michael Mornard
Bringing the North Woods to South Dakota!
The Bangor & Arootook also regularly mixed units, using whatever was at hand. It was a daily occourance (before the GP 38s arrived) to see GP7s, F7s, and BL2s lashed up in 4,5, and 6 unit consists.
Both the B&M and MEC ran odd consists. Ive seen video of a F7/RS3 on B&M and photos of F3AB, GP7, GP7, F3A consists on the MEC. The B&M orginally bought ABBA sets of FTs during WW2, with the intention of buying additional A units later to split them up. After the war EMD came out with the F2 so B&Ms order was changed to F2A units. They made the consists as planned F2A-FTB-FTA.
Another consist that comes to mind was the ATSF CF7s (converted F7s?). They were home built from F7A units. There are photos of CF7s running with F7B units.
ACY Larry, is the third unit an F-M? Tom
Larry, is the third unit an F-M?
Tom
Tom,It is indeed a F-M cab unit.
Larry
Conductor.
Summerset Ry.
"Stay Alert, Don't get hurt Safety First!"
Guys, I forgot to mention..Look closely at those 3 A units. See anything unusual?
Although it often ran consists made up of a single model of locomotive, the Rio Grande made a practice of sandwiching a geep between cab units in the 60s when using them in pusher service.
Mike Lehman
Urbana, IL
NYC was notorious about running wacky locomotive consist. I've seen GP7,GP7,RS11,RS3,F7B in consist. Seen all F cab units consisted: A,A,A,A,A or my favorite GP7 or GP9 consisted with a RS3 or RS11.
Witness this reverse move of 3 cab unit on NYC's CCC&St.L ( Big 4) in Columbus,Ohio.The units is approaching CUS.
I was around 13 or 14 when I took that photo with a Kodak Instamatic.
Right. The two back-to-back AA RF16 sets I mentioned were coupled together so that the two A units in the middle were coupled nose to nose. But there were no MU connections on the noses, so two crews were needed to operate the four units. I think (might be wrong) the nose-to-nose units in the published photos were in an engine terminal, where just about any two units might be positioned together. I have also seen published photos showing EMD units and Baldwin units coupled together at the head of a train. I suspect these required separate crews, or perhaps some units were dead-in-tow.
Another factor was gearing. B&O and PRR had some low-geared F units that were specifically assigned to helper service. B&O also had F3's that had high gearing for passenger service. I don't know whether it was possible to operate these units with other units that had dissimilar gearing, but I'm certain that it was discouraged.
ndbprrThat is a false statement about sharks not coupling nose to nose. The nose does not protrude over the coupler and a picture of two PRR units coupled that way is in Pennsy Power 2 or 3.
I believe Tom was refering to the MU receptacle that was lacking on the nose, therefore could not be electrically connected.
ACY
Since the units could not MU nose-to-nose, the two pairs required separate crews.
I've seen many other instances where there was only MU capability on one end of a locomotive.
Regards, Ed
http://www.trainweb.org/oldtimetrains/photos/cpr_diesel/8635_8904a.jpg
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-2PqfIq-lRXE/UyqUDgXMCJI/AAAAAAAA8gk/AH1LTW_zhZU/s1600/CP+Rail+FP9A.JPG
"One difference between pessimists and optimists is that while pessimists are more often right, optimists have far more fun."
It seems that most "extra" units tended to match their mates in the early years represented by my own modeling, so it's not much of an issue for me. But by the 1960's, it was very commmon to see mixed consists of cab and hood units from a variety of builders on prototype railroads. As mentioned, Baldwin (and I think SOME Fairbanks Morse) units generally could not be MU'd with others because the systems were different. However, there were exceptions to this, and it was possible to have diesel double headers with separate crews in the separate, isolated units. I remember seeing four PRR Baldwin RF16 "Shark" A units pulling a train, set up as two back to back AA sets. Since the units could not MU nose-to-nose, the two pairs required separate crews. B&O's first RF16 Sharks were A units, but newer orders brought enough B units to the B&O that they could operate ABBA Shark sets, but this was still sometimes insufficient. If an extra B unit wasn't available, B&O sometimes added a Baldwin Road Switcher among the cab units because the Baldwin Road switchers had compatible MU connections on both ends. In most cases, EMD and Alco units could be mixed and matched with little or no difficulty as far as I know. Many of the cab units that lacked nose MU were retrofitted with it in later years, but this was difficult and rare on a Baldwin Shark.
dknelson It was common in the 1960s and 70s, but be mindful of era -- when MU capable diesels were new, some very conservative motive power superintendents preferred to mate diesels with like kinds, going so far as to not want to mate an F3 with an F7. I think the Pennsy was an example of that, at least for a few years. It took a while before the true versatility of diesels became understood and accepted. Even then there are some "mixes" where only certain locomotives, often the older one, were to be on the head end due to some compatability issues. Dave Nelson
It was common in the 1960s and 70s, but be mindful of era -- when MU capable diesels were new, some very conservative motive power superintendents preferred to mate diesels with like kinds, going so far as to not want to mate an F3 with an F7. I think the Pennsy was an example of that, at least for a few years. It took a while before the true versatility of diesels became understood and accepted. Even then there are some "mixes" where only certain locomotives, often the older one, were to be on the head end due to some compatability issues.
Dave Nelson
I think Baldwins in particular had a completely different MU system?
CP had a small group of Baldwins, and they were all assigned somewhere out west - I think they used them on Vancouver Island. CP's CLC (Fairbanks-Morse Canadian subsidiary) fleet was assigned out of Calgary, and they kinda tended to run together, but I think it was at least possible for them to run with EMD and Alco/MLW power. EMD and Alco/MLW mixed freely.
Chris van der Heide
My Algoma Central Railway Modeling Blog
DavidH663.) Did any other railroads perform this practice of combining hood and cab units on a regular basis?
In the late 1960s and well into the Penn Central era, both the Pennsy and the New York Central would mix up power— not only cabs and hoods but EMD, Alcos and later, GEs. It almost became a trademark of the NYC to see long strings of Fs, FAs, RS types, early geeps, even an occasional Erie built or C Liner all pulling together.
A Dog's breakfast, as it were...
It seems to me that as the second generation locomotives started to come on to the property they were assigned to the "hot-shots" of course, but I saw many instances where the newer GP-20s, 30s and 35s were used in the lead and the older Fs, GP-7s & 9s and the Alcos that were still running were used trailing or sandwiched between the newer power.
I frequently saw E-7 and E-8s paired up with an Alco PA or PB since the failure rate was becoming more frequent on the old Alcos, at least the train could still limp to the nearest division point or a place where a replacement engine was available.
I think modelers tend to lean toward the purist ideal and match units in a more esthetic arrangement where the reality was very different (on many roads).
Ed
Absolutely this was common.
The only restriction is that CP's "A" cab units were not delivered with M.U. connections on the nose, so they could only be the first or last unit in the consist. (Not all railways had this problem, and many units were later modified.)
And certain passenger-assigned units had higher-speed gearing, and wouldn't really mix with freight power. (On CP, passenger FP7 and FP9 units were numbered in the 1400s; freight geared units were in the 4400s. I believe some units were converted back and forth and renumbered at times.)
Otherwise, anything goes. I've seen A units, B units and hood units freely mixed.
One of my favourite (prototype) CP 1970s photos I've seen so far is a consist with a rented first-generation high-nose Algoma Central GP7 leading, followed by two modern safety cab GP40-2(W) units rented from GO Transit and a CP SD40-2 trailing.
For question number 3, I think it was certainly not uncommon - you can readily find images of F Unit/GP unit lashups (among other combinations) from around that era for, say, Penn Central.Power is power...
After reading the GMR 2016 article on Mark Dance's Columbia and Western, I noticed several pictutre of EMD Cab units (both A&B units), combined with hood units.
I have some quations about this.
1.) Was this prototypical of the CP in the late 60s early 70s?
2.) if it was, was this practice just for the Southern BC area or was it prototypical of all the CP?
3.) Did any other railroads perform this practice of combining hood and cab units on a regular basis?