zugmann An issue of the steam exhaust and visibility?
An issue of the steam exhaust and visibility?
It's been fun. But it isn't much fun anymore. Signing off for now.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.t fun any
zugmannDidn't some of those engines have steam boilers in the short hood, which would neccesitate that end being coupled to the coaches?
I'd think that the locomotive would likely be equipped with steam connections on both ends.
Wayne
John-NYBWI have numerous photos of NYC commuter trains pulled by RS-3s with long hood forward. I can't recall seeing one with the short hood forward.
Didn't some of those engines have steam boilers in the short hood, which would neccesitate that end being coupled to the coaches?
OldEnginemanRunning a road switcher long hood forward isn't a problem with the standard "AAR control stand". Just leave the seat facing forward, and turn yourself so that your back is against the cab wall. Now it's easy to look down the long hood while still having the controls "in reach". Done that for many a mile in my time.
I'm more of a "use the mirrors" man, myself.
OldEnginemanBut you could just turn around and run the other way, looking out across the short hood. Probably seemed like a good idea to someone who was placing orders to EMD...
I always heard it was a ex-SOU or NW guy was working for PRR at the time who ordered those. (?)
OldEngineman Running a road switcher long hood forward isn't a problem with the standard "AAR control stand". Just leave the seat facing forward, and turn yourself so that your back is against the cab wall. Now it's easy to look down the long hood while still having the controls "in reach". Done that for many a mile in my time.
Running a road switcher long hood forward isn't a problem with the standard "AAR control stand". Just leave the seat facing forward, and turn yourself so that your back is against the cab wall. Now it's easy to look down the long hood while still having the controls "in reach". Done that for many a mile in my time.
So, then, why would CB&Q have bothered to put dual stands in 60 locos?
Ed
As Jeff mentions, "desktop controls" on freight engines is a concept that came... and went.
That kind of setup works great on a passenger engine, like an AEM-7. Ran those for 30 years. But trying to run a freight engine long hood forward "from the desk"? You can do it, but you wouldn't want to do it for very long or very far.
One of the strangest engines I was ever on was a GP38 originally owned by Penn Central. It had a low short hood, but the control stand was on the other side, for long hood forward operation. So when you ran long hood forward, the control stand was "right". But you could just turn around and run the other way, looking out across the short hood. Probably seemed like a good idea to someone who was placing orders to EMD...
Unless there is some reason (cab signal, train control equipment, or in the modern era - ditch lights, etc.) to do so, the railroad won't turn a locomotive. They'll just put the reverser in the opposite direction and go. Diesels work the same in either direction. Having dual controls make it easier for the engineer, but aren't required.
The first road switchers were modified end cab switcher designs. Since the end cab swiitchers had the hood forward, the first road switcher kept that arrangement when they added the short hood. Some railroads adopted that arrangement for later orders, some went to the short hood as forward.
I don't think any railroad is getting new locomotives with desk top controls. There are still many out there, but all the new ones (UP) that I've seen for a few years have the old style control stand from both builders.
Jeff
Doughless Interesting thought. If a railroad that practiced long hood forward running in the early gen 1 diesels, did they use a turntable to turn them like a steam loco?
Interesting thought. If a railroad that practiced long hood forward running in the early gen 1 diesels, did they use a turntable to turn them like a steam loco?
They could also use a loop or a wye. And consider that the railroads using "early gen 1 diesels" had just been using steam engines, which were generally turned at the end of a run. So there would have been opportunity to do the same for a diesel.
I think railroads quickly wanted dual control stands installed to run in either direction, despite what normal practice was.
Not as far as I can see. On the BN, there were about 60 locomotives like that, out of thousands.
It appears BN NEVER installed dual control stands. And lots of their locos ran in either direction.
I am surprised at that. I would have thought having two stands would be great. I am curious what real railroaders would say about the matter.
The early gen 1 diesels were viewed partly like steam loco they replaced, so the mimic of the steam loco of long hood forward was practiced earlier than later. Second gen diesels were designed short hood forward, with SOU and N&W sticking to the long hood forward design, along with a high short hood, since there was no reason for it to be short.
- Douglas
On the subject of "double ended" diesels, here's a couple of pictures of one:
Note that BOTH ends have the diagonal white safety stripes--not the typical BN layout.
Also note the "F" placed on the underframe, right next to the handrail, on the top photo.
If Athearn did one of these in the GP9 format, or Walthers did an SD9, I would be sore tempted to buy one. BN had 8 double-ended GP9's, and 51 SD9's.
Yep, NYC ran both road switchers & geeps long hood forward. Were there ever any exceptions? Perhaps. Like you, John, I've never seen any NYC photos or footage of that showing the contrary.
Tom
https://tstage9.wixsite.com/nyc-modeling
Time...It marches on...without ever turning around to see if anyone is even keeping in step.
Southern did that and NS does it sometimes(referred to as hammerhead). with desktop controls now, it is rather tough. And a fading concet. At one time, it was common.
I had heard years ago that some engineers liked running that way in districts where there were a lot of grade crossing and morons who did not understand the concept of brakes. It put more distance between the cab and impact point.
shane
A pessimist sees a dark tunnel
An optimist sees the light at the end of the tunnel
A realist sees a frieght train
An engineer sees three idiots standing on the tracks stairing blankly in space
Clearly, road switchers can run "the other way 'round". That's called "in reverse".
It's not a popular action for long distances. One way around that is to have a control stand on each side of the cab, something the Burlington did quite a bit. BUT. It cost money. So it didn't happen very often, depending on the railroad and the likely assigned routes, and......
If you want your railroad to go the high-class route, put in the two control stands. Note that there still has to be an "F" on one end--your choice.
Or. You can turn your locos.
Or, if it's a short route, you can give your engineers a twisted back and tell them to suck it up.
I know some railroads chose to run the road switchers long hood forward and others preferred short hood forward. Was that a hard rule or would they bend the rule as circumstances dictate. In my case my commuter trains are pulled by either an RS-1 or RS-3, long hood forward. On the return trip, would a prototype railroad choose to run the loco short hood forward or would they make sure they had a means of turning the loco for the return trip?
I have numerous photos of NYC commuter trains pulled by RS-3s with long hood forward. I can't recall seeing one with the short hood forward.