Diesel: Pasenger: F40 (saved Amtrak)
Freight: SD40-2 (4,000 sold!!!!)
Steam: 2-8-4(big but not to big)
Electric: AEM7(saved Amtrak's metroliner when the GG1's couldn't)
alexweiihman wrote:The EP-5 wasn't so bad...Now I think the GG1 is #1 for electric but the EP-5 is #2
I love dthe EP-5... great looking engine... but weren't the Rockets known for catching fire?
I'd have to vote
Diesel - GP38-2 for most useful, SD40-2 for best road engine ever
Steam - 4-6-2 for most useful, Lima Super Power (any wheel arangement) for best road engine
Electric - S-Motor for most useful, GG1 for best road engine ever.
its gotta be the MP15ac with road trucks...dynamicbrakes...extended range fuel tanks.....MU'ed in 3's they could pull anything
steam..........anything burning coal,wood,oil
electric.................anything with a keystone on the front
Erie Lackawanna wrote: alexweiihman wrote:The EP-5 wasn't so bad...Now I think the GG1 is #1 for electric but the EP-5 is #2I love dthe EP-5... great looking engine... but weren't the Rockets known for catching fire?I'd have to vote Diesel - GP38-2 for most useful, SD40-2 for best road engine everSteam - 4-6-2 for most useful, Lima Super Power (any wheel arangement) for best road engineElectric - S-Motor for most useful, GG1 for best road engine ever.
I don't think they caught fire, and I thought they were nicknamed Jets?
The rules you state look like they are slated for engineer opinions, rather than what the railroads thought were the most useful.
Engineers I have spoken with fairly extensively (all two of them) prefer power and comfort over what they may end up with. One of them loves the SD40's his short line runs over the humble GP7 they also have, just because it has more power and is a bit more modern. The other likes the GP7 his railroad has because "it's versatile and reliable".
There were more GP7's built in the USA and Canada than any other diesel, but the SD40 comes in at a close second in terms of numbers built. The railroads obviously felt that these particular models were the most useful for what the railroads needed to do. Historically, it would appear that items like crew comfort or engineer opinion were given short shrift. It was kind of a "like it or lump it" attitude.
I too think the GG-1 was a magnificent locomotive, but everything I have heard or read about crew comments appears to indicate that the cab was cramped, too small, and uncomfortable.
My favorite diesel is an F or E unit, but having ridden on one, I can say that getting up there is a bear, and you can't see behind you as well as you can with a road switcher.
Erik
alexweiihman wrote: Erie Lackawanna wrote: alexweiihman wrote:The EP-5 wasn't so bad...Now I think the GG1 is #1 for electric but the EP-5 is #2I love dthe EP-5... great looking engine... but weren't the Rockets known for catching fire?I'd have to vote Diesel - GP38-2 for most useful, SD40-2 for best road engine everSteam - 4-6-2 for most useful, Lima Super Power (any wheel arangement) for best road engineElectric - S-Motor for most useful, GG1 for best road engine ever. I don't think they caught fire, and I thought they were nicknamed Jets?
You are 100% right. Even when I wrote Rocktets it looked wrong to me... but old age has set in and taken away my mind.
Most Useful Locomotive (anywhere, anywhen):
Note that this can accurately describe everything from the John Bull to Acela. One size did not, and does not, fit all!
Chuck
tomikawaTT wrote:One size did not, and does not, fit all!Chuck
One size did not, and does not, fit all!
Unless it was a GP9 with a steam generator and passenger gearing.
Go here for my rail shots! http://www.railpictures.net/showphotos.php?userid=9296
Building the CPR Kootenay division in N scale, blog here: http://kootenaymodelrailway.wordpress.com/
trainboyH16-44 wrote: tomikawaTT wrote: One size did not, and does not, fit all!ChuckUnless it was a GP9 with a steam generator and passenger gearing.
tomikawaTT wrote: One size did not, and does not, fit all!Chuck
On a route with 8% grades and 100 foot radius curves?
Or a 762mm gauge route laid on temporary trestlework put together from the slash the loggers weren't planning to take out of the woods?
Or a 1067mm gauge route with bridges that would collapse like cardboard under the weight of a GP9?
I think not!
Chuck (modeling Central Japan in September, 1964 - including all of the above)
If the 4-8-4 had modern appliences and enviromentaly friendly fuel, it would be the most usefull out of all I say.
Diesel: EMD's 7 and 9 series. (F, SD, and GP). Plenty of the last two are around, and the first one was the steam killer.
Steam: 4-8-2 Mountain.
Electric: GG-1.
Vincent
Wants: 1. high-quality, sound equipped, SD40-2s, C636s, C30-7s, and F-units in BN. As for ones that don't cost an arm and a leg, that's out of the question....
2. An end to the limited-production and other crap that makes models harder to get and more expensive.
Diesel: GP-9 A true jack of all trades.
Steam: 4-8-2 or 4-8-4
Electric: The GG-1 was a stylish, reliable, powerful and fast elecric locomotive that just could not be killed. I believe Amtrak wasted millions and millions of dollars in their attempt to replace it with a more modern electric locomotive.
John R.
Can't forget the good ol GMD of London, Ontario Canada, SW1200RS (BLU's) or Pups as some of us CPR guys call em'. Those units like the GP9's are still kickin in the 21st century, i used to see em on lots of spurlines around Winnipeg, but mostly they use GP9u's, but you will see the odd one patrolling Winnipeg Yard or a light spur.
Here's a pic of the still glory days of Canadian railroading with the DAR "Truro Mixed" whose coach which is now called the "Micmac" is in the NMST in Ottawa
My picks:
Diesel:
Winner: GP9, go almost anywhere, do almost anything
Runner Up: RS3, close to the GP9's ablity, but close isn't first.
Steam:
Winner: USRA 2-8-2, built the early 20th Century.
Runner Up: NYC 4-8-4, too bad the best came too late.
Electric:
Winner: GG1, freight, passenger, MOW, and anything else the NEC needed for years
Runner Up: Little Joe, operated in Chicago and the Northwest, that's pretty diverse, and useful.
Cheers!
~METRO
tomikawaTT wrote: trainboyH16-44 wrote: tomikawaTT wrote: One size did not, and does not, fit all!ChuckUnless it was a GP9 with a steam generator and passenger gearing. On a route with 8% grades and 100 foot radius curves?Or a 762mm gauge route laid on temporary trestlework put together from the slash the loggers weren't planning to take out of the woods?Or a 1067mm gauge route with bridges that would collapse like cardboard under the weight of a GP9?I think not!Chuck (modeling Central Japan in September, 1964 - including all of the above)
Yeah, that might be a minor issue.....