The Cotton Belt owned two PA-1s. During the last 20 months of passenger service on the Cotton Belt from April 1958 to November 1959 there was southbound #7 from East St. Louis, Illinois to Pine Bluff, Arkansas. And northbound #8 going the opposite way. The two PA-1s and the lone FP7 were more than enough power for the schedule. The back up unit was based in Pine Bluff. If it was a PA-1 it would often get cut in to a Pine Bluff-Memphis turn. And that's why you could see a Daylight painted unit in freight service.
Ed in Kentucky
Google "Rock Island Christine".
From Christine Jorgensen.
Overmod(and 'Christine'-like comments from railroaders...)
I don't know this comment, and Google didn't help.
You certainly don't mean the PAs were possesed by the demonic soul of their previous owner and went on a killing spree... or is that what you mean???
-Kevin
Living the dream.
Flintlock76 SeeYou190 It sounds like using a PA in freight service in 1954 would be too much of a stretch against plausibility. We can't say it never happened, "never say never" as the saying goes, but in 1954 it was probably unlikely.
SeeYou190 It sounds like using a PA in freight service in 1954 would be too much of a stretch against plausibility.
It sounds like using a PA in freight service in 1954 would be too much of a stretch against plausibility.
We can't say it never happened, "never say never" as the saying goes, but in 1954 it was probably unlikely.
What was the year ATSF tried sticking a 567 into a PA... something, as I recall, one of the 51 set had done to it. And what was the year that NYC did the same thing to a PA booster, with similarly predictable neutering results (and 'Christine'-like comments from railroaders...)
If your railroad stopped making money with passenger trains, or (as with PRR) had a developing glut of E-units with increasing train-offs, and you didn't want to use PAs on developing TOFC intermodal service, you might rapidly find a way to justify making a 1750-hp four-regeared-motor unit out of a PA, especially if you had a competent shop force but not-so-competent people dealing with bankers... or had been flush with cash shortly after WWII, read Kiefer's report on motive power and liked the idea of 2000hp in a short single unit, believed the Alco hooey (after all they were the mightly American Locomotive Company!) but then found the locomotives weren't suited to your passenger operation cost-effectively. You might not be in a position to scrap them, and you might not have luck finding someone willing to buy them from you at a reasonable price...
SeeYou190 It sounds like using a PA in freight service in 1954 would be too much of a stretch against plausibility. -Kevin
BEAUSABRE In addition most rolling stock was bought via equipment trusts. This was like financing a car purchase - you got the bank to agree to buy the equipment for a monthly payment from the railroad for a fixed period of years (15 seems to have been standard) - there was usually a metal plate riveted to the frame saying something like "Equipment Trust #12345, First National Bank of XYZ, owner" - at the completion of which you became the owner and the trust plate was chiseled off. Fifteen years turned out to be the point at which first generation diesels needed expensive major servicing, an even more expensive rebuild or scrapping and replacement by a modern unit.
In addition most rolling stock was bought via equipment trusts. This was like financing a car purchase - you got the bank to agree to buy the equipment for a monthly payment from the railroad for a fixed period of years (15 seems to have been standard) - there was usually a metal plate riveted to the frame saying something like "Equipment Trust #12345, First National Bank of XYZ, owner" - at the completion of which you became the owner and the trust plate was chiseled off.
Fifteen years turned out to be the point at which first generation diesels needed expensive major servicing, an even more expensive rebuild or scrapping and replacement by a modern unit.
The other reason 15 years was the life of a diesel locomotive was the deal made to change locomotive depreciation rules from a 40 year life of a steam locomotive to a 15 year life for a diesel locomotive.
NKP PA's went into freight service at the end of their service lives before being traded in on RS-36's.
Rick Jesionowski
Rule 1: This is my railroad.
Rule 2: I make the rules.
Rule 3: Illuminating discussion of prototype history, equipment and operating practices is always welcome, but in the event of visitor-perceived anacronisms, detail descrepancies or operating errors, consult RULE 1!
Kevin:
The ATSF retired most of their their PA's at the end of 1969 and at least one was rebuilt in 1974 as a PA4 by Morrison Knutson.
I believe the Lehigh Valley also re-assigned their PA's to freight service after passenger trains were dropped, and for the aforementioned reasons.
The parallel example of the PRR Baldwin BP-20s might be instructive. Some A units were derated (to 1600hp) and given higher numerical ratio 'freight' gearing (to BF16) and at least one of these ran with the BP20s on NY&LB to the end in the 1960s.
Many of the B units, meanwhile, were used to splice freight Sharks in traffic out of the Columbus, Ohio area.
Fifteen years turned out to be the point at which first generation diesels needed expensive major servicing, an even more expensive rebuild or scrapping and replacement by a modern unit. The railroads soon found that rebuilding most old locomotives wasn't worth it. Santa Fe did create the CF7's, SSB1200's and SD26's and IC the GP8's and GP10's - but they were EMD's, not minority units. ATSF did try rebuilding a BLW switcher with EMD components to create the "Beep", but the expeiment ended there. In addition, EMD pioneered the concept of a trade in allowance on old units when buying new to discourage rebuilding or a used locomotive market and Alco and GE were forced to follow (Imagine the wailing and gnashing of teeth at GE which had only entered the market in 1959).
Anyway, in order to scrap or sell an old unit before the trust was complete, the railroad would have to make a lump sum payment of the remaining balance to the bank so that they then had ownership. Nobody in the Sixties was in a position to do that, and rather than send the old iron to the deadline to sit idle until scrapping, why not try and get a few useful last miles out of it?
Wasnt a good part of the reason too. The fact that passenger had mostly vanished. Leaving an over abundance of passenger equipment. On the roster. But not trains to pull. Since that equipment is expensive. Why not try to use it else where before just scrapping it. There is a financial aspect to that.
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
SeeYou190or was this a late-in-life thing they did before the scrap line?
Scenario 3 is what I believe was the reason. In my area it was Erie-Lackawanna that used both E8 and PA-1 engines in freight or on some of the 'hot-shot' trailer-train services.
With the A-1-A truck design on both the Es and PAs they didn't lend themselves well to the tractive effort (51,000 lb.) needed for freight. Even after some were re-geared they were still known to be 'slippery'.
The Alco FA, four axle locomotive, produced 60,875 and later (FPA-4) 63,750 lbs. of tractive effort.
Regards, Ed
I have seen a couple of pictures of Alco PAs pulling freight trains.
Is this something they did as a back-up or off-season thing, were some Alco PAs built for freight service, or was this a late-in-life thing they did before the scrap line?