The hobby of model railroading allows us to do things in scale form that real railroads would not able to due, because of regulations, logistics, logical buisness decisions etc, you understand what I mean.
A good example is running locomotives on a modern themed layout, that otherwise would have been long worn out on the real world railroads. An example is the Alco RSD-15 and RSD-17 locomotives. Both of these are my favourite examples in HO scale, with the first example being the Santa Fe in B&W zebra stripes livery, that I saw as a kid when I was ten years old in 2004 in my first issues of MRR magazine. I am facinated by the design and look, espcally how uneven the three axle motorized trucks look.I would like to paint one in the current New Brunswick Southern Railway livery, or some freelance leasing/rent railway equipment company livery I plan to come up with. I had the idea of designating it with a new name, as it would be a rebuild unit that still would contain its front high hood, but with modern features like rear and front snowplows, ditch lights, radiater wings for improved engine cooling etc.However I am not sure as to what rename the engines class, or if there is a guide on doing this in this case should someone want to create their own class name of rebuilded locomotive. An real world example, is turning a SD40-2 diesel locomotive, into a SD40-2W, which is a wider cabed SD40-2, hence the "W."So, how to go about this?
As I have stated before... I have enjoyed my freelanced STRATTON AND GILLETTE when I stopped worrying about stuff like this.
If you get a lot of enjoyment from the history and details of actual railroads, you might find it overwhelmingly frustrating when trying to apply it to a freelanced line.
Sorry, I know this is not the answer you were looking for.
-Kevin
Living the dream.
Well the EASIEST is just add an "m" after the model, for "modified." The earliest I can think of were the GN's GP9m series, built with FT components and rated 1350 hp. And the Katy had AS-16m and AS-616m Baldwins re-engined by EMD. If you're talking modern day, your RSD units may have been remotored.On the other hand, the Union Pacific called their heavily modified switcher an "SW10." Paducah rebuilt GP7s into GP8s, and GP9s into GP10s.So just decide if you like RSD-15m or RSD-16 better.
Santa Fe, being different, converted their F7s into "CF-7s" -- "Converted F-7s".
No need to thank me, just throw money.
Disclaimer: This post may contain humor, sarcasm, and/or flatulence.
Michael Mornard
Bringing the North Woods to South Dakota!
You really wouldn't have to do anything although some railroads might add a letter such as R for rebuilt, or E for enhanced, or U for updated. If the electronics had been updated maybe a -3 as some have done with EMD rebuilds. Some even change the model number like the IC did with it's GP7 and GP9 rebuilds calling them GP8 and GP10s. So it's really up to you but if you are doing a lot of upgrades any of the above ideas would work. Hope this helps. Ralph
There are a lot of ways railroad classified their locos, so basically pick one you like and have that be what your fictional railroad used. If it was a numbered scheme based on something other than horsepower, change up the number unless you are exactly following the roster of a prototype. For example, Reading class RS3 was the EMD GP-7. It was RS3 because it was the third type of road switcher purchased. But on your fictional railroad, maybe the first road switchers they bought were the Geeps, so on your railroad they might be RS1.
Reading later changed it up and includes the builder with second generation diesels. RSE was an EMD road switcher, RSA was an Alco road switcher, RSG was a GE road switcher.
That's just oen example.On a freelance road, you cna do whatever you want - the key is to make it consistent and meaningful. Maybe your road incorporated the horsepower in the class - so a 3000HP EMD loco might be class ERS-30 for EMD Road Switch - 3000 HP. Just be consistent, at least among locos purchases around the same time. It would be odd to have an EMD 3000HP loco classed an ERS-30 while a contemporary GE 3000HP loco would be classed RSG-3000. Those are the little things that stick out when people look at your layout. If you are consistent - it can be anything. But if it's a mish-mosh of designations, it sticks out like a sore thumb.
An m or r added to the old class is a typical way to indiocate a rebuilt unitBut that's as much to what model you call is as much as the class name. Locos rebuilt with different prime movers were often given a new class designation, not the old one with an m or r.
--Randy
Modeling the Reading Railroad in the 1950's
Visit my web site at www.readingeastpenn.com for construction updates, DCC Info, and more.
Engi1487 it would be a rebuild unit that still would contain its front high hood, but with modern features like rear and front snowplows, ditch lights,
it would be a rebuild unit that still would contain its front high hood, but with modern features like rear and front snowplows, ditch lights,
Those are just add-ons, absolutely none of those options would constitute a "rebuild".
Engi1487radiater wings for improved engine cooling etc.
That's likely unrealistic unless there's a major change to the entire power plant as well requiring different cooling capacity.
Engi1487However I am not sure as to what rename the engines class, or if there is a guide on doing this in this case should someone want to create their own class name of rebuilded locomotive.
There's not exactly a "guide" and there's no standard for what you're describing exactly. Any railroad undertaking such a unique project will come up with their own thing.
However there are some considerations...
A rebuild model often has a "M" (modified) or "U" (upgraded) or sometimes "R" (rebuilt) added at the end of the model. (See CP's remanufactured GP7u, GP9u, RS-18u units, CN's remanufactured GP9Rm, GTW rebuilt GP9R, AT&SF rebuilt GP7u with the unique cab modifications, etc.)
Most manufacturers models are based on horsepower... an engine conversion that changes the horsepower output/engine configuration will result in a changed model number. A straight rebuild/remanufacturing of the original engine will not.
Most later ALCO and GE models have the HP right in the model number. (An Alco C424 is a 4 axle, 2400HP; the "44" in ES44AC is 4400HP)
EMD models are also directly related to horsepower, but more obliquely. (38 series is 2000HP, 40 series is 3000HP, 70 series is 4300HP, etc. do some google/wikipedia to figure out the rest.)
The "-2" or "-3" in GM/EMD model numbers represents a certain standard in internal electrical wiring and electronics and computer controls. A full rebuild of an older EMD unit will almost certainly involve upgraded electronics.
Examples: I've seen lots of examples of older GP35s de-turbo'ed and converted to GP38M or GP38-2s, and also GP40s with turbos removed and downrated to 2000HP GP38-2s. (This latter conversion does also include a downsized radiator.) More recently CN also rebuilt a couple of GP38-2s into 3000HP GP40-3s, with added turbochargers and enlarged radiators.
CP had rebuilt a 3600 HP M636 into an experimental and unique prototype 4000 HP M640 in the late 1970s. This unit also had a visually distinctive enlarged radiator.
There were some Morrison-Knudson rebuilt SD40Ms which were SD45s with their original 20-cylinder 3600HP engines removed and replaced with 16-cylinder 3000HP engines. CP acquired some of these in the nineties.
Also all those SD90MACs that NS and CP rebuilt into SD70ACUs.
But you really gotta know a fair bit about engine blocks before you start making up new HP ratings and model numbers... although models like the GP8 or SW10 were pretty much made up because that was a number higher than the original unit they rebuilt (GP7 and SW9) that wasn't previously used as an official model number from the manfacturer, of course these also didn't majorly change out engine configurations as far as I know, just remanufactures of older units. Most RRs would have likely just labeled those as a GP7u.
Engi1487An real world example, is turning a SD40-2 diesel locomotive, into a SD40-2W, which is a wider cabed SD40-2, hence the "W."
That's actually not a great example, since those were from the factory, not major rebuilds. And some of them actually did not officially have the "W" actually on the builder's plate. I'm not sure about CN's SD40-2(W)s, but I do know that the GP40-2L(W) models did NOT have the W in the actual model designation (which is why it's sometimes written like that with the W in brackets) the proper model is just GP40-2L (the L representing a modified lightweight frame to balance a larger fuel tank). These were all variant models from the manufacturer, not RR shop rebuilds. However, I believe that the MLW units with wide-nose cabs like M420W did have that designator in the model.
Chris van der Heide
My Algoma Central Railway Modeling Blog
Then as someone else mentioned, there's always the possibility of your RR having their own entirely internal classification system - and they might just apply a whole new model number based on their system, not the manfacturer if it's a really wild rebuilt.
e.g. on Canadian Pacific an SD40 or SD40-2 was a DRF-30 (iesel, [R]oad [F]reight, [30]00 HP)
Why not just give them a "nickname" like the Crandall Cabs on the C&NW or the Paducah GP11s on the I-C, Cleburne Geeps on the Santa Fe?
What's the name of the major backshop on your railroad where the work would have been done? Name them after that or the Master Mechanic, Superintendant of Motive Power or Chief engineer's name.
Good Luck, Ed
I have a simple formula for my steam locomotives. For each type of locomotive I give them a letter and then named the locomotives with names beginning with that letter.
David
To the world you are someone. To someone you are the world
I cannot afford the luxury of a negative thought
One of the changes that resulted in some oddball creations unique to some railroads was the re-engining locomotives of minority manufacturers such as Baldwin, Fairbanks-Morse, Lima-Hamilton and, even Alco with another, usually EMD, prime mover. Some of these re-enginings resulted in very radical changes in the locomotive's appearance.
Re-enginings that come to mind include the New York Central's attempts at improving the reliability and ease of maintenance of their Fairbanks-Morse Erie-Built cab units and C-Liners, and Lima-Hamilton LH-12RS road switchers in the late 1950s. EMD's Roots blown 567 was the powerplant of choice in these repowering, modification, upgradings. Other than the EMD sound, the give away was the twin exhaust stacks.
The Katy was another advocate of the EMD 567 in their application of the prime mover to Alco RS-3s, Baldwin AS-16s and some Baldwin yard switchers. Katy's repowerings resulted in some real homely creations when EMD GP style long hoods were used to house the 567 power plant, on the original frame. The Rock Island was another road that could never leave well enough alone. They repowered an Alco DL-103 passenger cab unit with a 1750 HP 567C diesel engine replacing the two McIntosh & Seymour 539Ts Alco constructed it with. To accommodate the EMD cooling system, a raised area on the roof not unlike that on the roof of a Budd RDC (which Rock Island rostered and removed the engines from), to house the cooling fans and exhaust stacks. Their re-engining of some of their Alco FA/FB-1s was not as bizarre as "Christine" the DL. The giveaway was the twin EMD exhaust stacks-if you overlooked the fact that some also now rode on EMD Blomberg trucks, instead of their original equipment AAR drop equalizer type Bs.
This re-engining craze was centered around the early 1960s, when those railroads whose finances were not in the best shape attempted to ring a little more use out of their minority and, often orphan power.
Repowering/remanufacturing again blossomed in the 1970/1980s. The creation of Amtrak made hoards of EMD passenger cab units, each housing two 567 V-12s which were ideal for re-engining applications, surplus. Penn Central put theirs into Alco RS-3s, creating the "DeWitt Geep", rebuilt in their DeWitt NY shops. Boston and Maine had NW-2s repowered with the engines from scrapped E-7s, identifiable by the retention of the E-7s four stack exhaust manifold.
Repowering was not solely a case of plunking an EMD into a tired old unit. Delaware and Hudson acquired four ex-Santa Fe Alco PA cab units and had rebuilder Morrison-Knudsen replace their 244 series V-16s with Alco's later 251. General Electric was building up a sizeable number of U series trade-ins on their then current Dash 7 line of locomotives. As an answer to EMD's rebuilding old geeps into GP-15s, GE began a Super 7 rebuild program using retired U-boats. Both B-B and C-Cs were offered as 2300 HP B-23 Super 7s and 3000 HP C-30 Super 7s. The line never gained the popularity expected, with the Monongahela being the largest operator of the B-23S-7 and, Mexico even building C-30S-7s in Mexico. Santa Fe also rebuilt GEs, by rebuilding its 3600 HP U36Cs into 3000 HP SF-30Cs. All of these rebuilds resulted in drastic changes in appearance, with the Super 7 having a totally new cab and carbody that incorprated a distinct downward slope behind the cab.
The short answer to your question is pretty much, do anything you want, which is what the prototypes did within the constraints of economics and technical capability. The decision is yours, sharpen up your razor saw and enjoy.
Here is a good example, I model BNSF in N scale and have 2 GP39m locomotives. These started out as GP30's and infact still look like GP30's but BNSF had a rebuilding program to rebuild and update older locomotives. GP30 and GP35's were sent to three different companies for the rebuilding and all had their power assemblies upgraded from 567 to 645s and received AR10 alternators and new electronics. The letter at the end tells which company rebuilt that locomotive. GP39m was done at MK (Morrison Knudsen), GP39e was done at EMD, and GP39v was rebuilt at VMV in Paducah, KY.
Now BNSF has GP39-3's that were upgraded from ex-Santa Fe GP35u locomotives that had already been rebuilt before. Just think, these locomotives were originally built in the 1960's and after major rebuilding, some twice, are still being used by a class one railroad today!
Ralph
NHTXThe short answer to your question is pretty much, do anything you want, which is what the prototypes did within the constraints of economics and technical capability.
Many of the 'designation systems' leave something to be desired in that respect, some of the Canadian systems becoming so bizarre and at the same time encompassing so many different formal variants of subsystems as to be functionally almost useless. Likewise, putting 'too much information' on the cab, as with Union Pacific steam practice, makes for a bunch of work that seldom, if ever, a good shop crew would really need.
Some of the 'imagineering' may concern the era in question. At the beginning of the transition era, some railroads (perhaps particularly those that designated steam locomotive classes relative to road number) wouldn't care what upstart builders used as type designation -- the silly EMD 'E' and 'F' designations that originally related to horsepower but quickly didn't being one example. So something like EP22 on PRR for an E8 may have made 'better' sense on a standardizing railroad (certainly more than the immediate preceding system on PRR, which I think was abolished just in time for E8s, which classed by builder but numbered in nominal acquisition, or maybe order, number -- a functional disaster on a number of levels) but by the end of the transition era it was simplest just to use the EMD term (as your parts would be tied to EMD systems then anyway
Meanwhile old Baldwins didn't need this newfangled system as every single one of them had its own parts book and maintenance manual, perhaps incorporating a range of line changes made expediently in, say, 1948 and then changed in later production. So much of the necessary work was tied to specific engine or builder number, not 'type' information, and the railroad's code would then be used for purposes other than maintenance -- for example, to indicate type of power available for folks who didn't or couldn't recognize it from road number or number range.
In the modern era, this is essentially still present, in a way: each unit keeping and reporting its own PM and running information consistently, so the cab codes can be completely unlinked from maintenance. Perhaps the most amusing example of this is on NS, where there are a large number of dash-9 40Cs that at one time were rebuilt to full 4400-horsepower spec, probably functionally indistinguishable from dash-9-44s, but keep their cab codes because that ties into how they were built. (Or so I was told.)
In my opinion you'll want to avoid using "railfan" codes on an actual road locomotive. But (even aside from the my-railroad-my-rules catchall) there is no objective reason 'not to' -- there are some historical places where non-railroad sources, including (as I recently noted in a different context) an actual fake roadname scheme, became used in real practice.
TL;DR: pick a system that would make sense on your railroad if it were being run to make best money at full scale; be prepared to defend its details if asked; don't care too much if you're disinclined to do so.
Overmod Many of the 'designation systems' leave something to be desired in that respect, some of the Canadian systems becoming so bizarre and at the same time encompassing so many different formal variants of subsystems as to be functionally almost useless. ... So something like EP22 on PRR for an E8 may have made 'better' sense on a standardizing railroad ... but by the end of the transition era it was simplest just to use the EMD term (as your parts would be tied to EMD systems then anyway
Many of the 'designation systems' leave something to be desired in that respect, some of the Canadian systems becoming so bizarre and at the same time encompassing so many different formal variants of subsystems as to be functionally almost useless.
...
So something like EP22 on PRR for an E8 may have made 'better' sense on a standardizing railroad ... but by the end of the transition era it was simplest just to use the EMD term (as your parts would be tied to EMD systems then anyway
I understand the point about just using the manufacturer model instead of a classification system, but I'm not sure how you can knock the "bizarre" Canadian systems and then say that the PRR system "makes sense" when they're functionally using the exact same logic.
CP's system was just DRF (road freight), DRS (road switcher) or DS (switcher) and a number indicating 00s HP, then a small letter indicating separate batches or orders.
CN's system was a letter indicating builder, a letter indicating service ((F)reight, (P)assenger or (Y)ard), an A or B (for cab units only), optional 6 or 4 for # axles, 2 digits for 00s HP, and a letter indicating batch/order.
So if CN ever had an E8, their class would be GPA-22a or GPA-622a (G = GM/EMD)
cv_acrI understand the point about just using the manufacturer model instead of a classification system, but I'm not sure how you can knock the "bizarre" Canadian systems and then say that the PRR system "makes sense" when they're functionally using the exact same logic.
The Canadian system -- and the particular one in question I was referencing is the current CN system -- is weird in part because it puts proprietary code on the cab at some length, but the subletters don't relate to specific construction details (if I recall correctly, they are date ranges of some kind). Meanwhile there is no way (for example) to distinguish a D9-44 from an ES44 from an ET44, which American systems can do easily with fewer characters.
Note in context that the "better" referring to the PRR coding system refers explicitly to the previous (e.g. E-1,2,3 etc.) system PRR was using on diesels, perhaps a step up from prefacing all diesels with D, but not a real good step up. That method made very little functional sense at all.
And I also noted in context that it wasn't any better than just using E8 for the same mass-produced locomotive in an era when parts supply was firmly locked to the manufacturer (this would later be the real GM anticompetitive lawsuit slapdown, not NCL).
Did builders ever encode original buy data in the serial numbers? Similar to VINs or how Boeing had customer codes (a United Airlines 737-400 is actually a 737-422).
Overmodthe current CN system -- is weird in part because it puts proprietary code on the cab at some length, but the subletters don't relate to specific construction details (if I recall correctly, they are date ranges of some kind). Meanwhile there is no way (for example) to distinguish a D9-44 from an ES44 from an ET44, which American systems can do easily with fewer characters.
The sub-letters on the end are different orders/groups.
The PRR system is exactly the same without the order subletters.
cv_acrThe sub-letters on the end are different orders/groups.
You seem to think I'm criticizing it because it's Canadian. That has nothing to do with it except circumstantially.
How do you propose to get the CN system to distinguish D944 from ES44 from ET44?
Overmod Except PRR only needs four characters instead of five for the same information, if it is 'exactly the same'.
Except PRR only needs four characters instead of five for the same information, if it is 'exactly the same'.
It's exactly the same, the extra "A" character is providing additional information that the PRR system doesn't have, distinguishing between A and B units. And that was only used on cab units. Other units didn't have it.
So an E8B would be a GPB-22a vs and E8 GPA-22a
A GP9 is an GR-18a (b, c, etc)
Overmod How do you propose to get the CN system to distinguish D944 from ES44 from ET44?
What system do you know of that would, other than just using the manfacturer model?
None of the PRR, RDG, CN, CP systems mentioned would.
cv_acrWhat system do you know of that would, other than just using the manufacturer model? None of the PRR, RDG, CN, CP systems mentioned would.
I do admit to having grown up with the common manufacturer names -- and, occasionally, mistaking 'railfan names' or even outright mistakes like PA-3 for actual names -- so those instinctively make more "sense" than proprietary taxonomies. That wouldn't be true for railroads using their own codes for steam-locomotive wheel arrangements 'transitioning' into a diesel era, especially one that would come to be highly standardized on the general EMD model.
What a rebuild loco is called depends upon the railroad or rebuilder. They can have different categories of enhancements and ways to bucket those locos together into a common name, not unlike the road numbering process itself.
rrpicturesarchives.net lists locos by model, including their "Rebuilt ALCO" and "Rebuilt EMD" sections on the following link. (Alphabetically listed down in the "R" area)
http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/modelList.aspx
I would look through the various rebuilt sections, then start with wikipedia for a full description of what was done to the locos to earn the new designation.
Just a guess, but since you have stopped short of upgrading a lot of the innards and are mechanically mainly focused on the radiators and more cosmetics, I would say that most railroads would probably stop short of calling it a rebuild. More like an "m" for modified or an "e" for enhanced, or "u" for updated; like what was suggested above.
- Douglas
At the risk of enraging a subset of forum readers, we haven't gone very far into a different aspect of this, perhaps more germane to what the OP was concerned with. There are 'locomotive rebuilders' who take parts of existing locomotives -- say, the frame and trucks of an SD-40, or a single Flexicoil C truck -- and make something different with them. They then have some name or coding system for the resulting 'frankenlocomotives'. By the time the OP razor-saws his RSD18 or whatever to put batwing or split-cooling radiators on it, he would be well into this territory, and could put his own name on the result with only as much nod to the 'original donor' as, say, Republic Locomotive might. So he is not really limited to what the original thing was if substantial "enough" changes are made...
Overmod cv_acr What system do you know of that would, other than just using the manufacturer model? None of the PRR, RDG, CN, CP systems mentioned would. No, they wouldn't. Which is why I was pointing out it was better in many cases to use manufacturer designations... I do admit to having grown up with the common manufacturer names -- and, occasionally, mistaking 'railfan names' or even outright mistakes like PA-3 for actual names -- so those instinctively make more "sense" than proprietary taxonomies. That wouldn't be true for railroads using their own codes for steam-locomotive wheel arrangements 'transitioning' into a diesel era, especially one that would come to be highly standardized on the general EMD model.
cv_acr What system do you know of that would, other than just using the manufacturer model? None of the PRR, RDG, CN, CP systems mentioned would.
No, they wouldn't. Which is why I was pointing out it was better in many cases to use manufacturer designations...
Girls, girls, you're BOTH pretty.
Bayfield Transfer Railway Girls, girls, you're BOTH pretty.