Info on some old vets?

[markhh]

Saw these vets recently http://mark.hollomon.us/trains/.

Anybody have any further information to share?

Thanks

[Modelcar]

...Boy the visibility on those engines sure was poor for the enginemen.

[CShaveRR]

Those are General Electric 44-ton locomotives. I suspect that they might be a little newer than World War II, but would have to do some real digging to find that out. Maybe someone else knows about them.

[Anonymous]

Those are interesting. Thanks for sharing the picture. I wonder what's going to happen to them. Hopefully they won't scrap them.

[markhh]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Modelcar

...Boy the visibility on those engines sure was poor for the enginemen.

But the center cab at least made sure that it was equally bad in both directions.

[Anonymous]

That is strange, I've never seen a GE 44 tonner with a cab that short, I don't think that is a full height cab. Maybe it was intended for some operation overseas, hence the shorter height cab? What do you all think?[%-)][;)][zzz]

[markhh]

QUOTE: Originally posted by railpac

That is strange, I've never seen a GE 44 tonner with a cab that short, I don't think that is a full height cab. Maybe it was intended for some operation overseas, hence the shorter height cab? What do you all think?[%-)][;)][zzz]

Hmmm... your right about the height. All the pictures in Kalmbach's MR Cyclopedia show two square windows in the cab looking directly over the hoods. There is clearly not space for such windows in these.

[Anonymous]

I did a search on goodle and found some other pictures of these switchers. www.rr-fallenflags.org/usa/usaf8583ags.jpg www.rr-fallenflags.org/usa/usaf8574ags.jpg Actually they're GE 80 tonners. Not really any information on why the cabs are that way, though. There were several pictures of other GE 80 tonners with regular cabs on them. I also found a picture of a USMC switcher with a cab like this as well. www.rr-fallenflags.org/usa/usmc279669abn.jpg I'm guessing this is some sort of military thing.

[markhh]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Sask_Tinplater

I did a search on goodle and found some other pictures of these switchers. www.rr-fallenflags.org/usa/usaf8583ags.jpg www.rr-fallenflags.org/usa/usaf8574ags.jpg Actually they're GE 80 tonners.

I don't consider myself an expert, but I have trouble accepting these as 80 ton units. The ratio of total length to cab length doesn't seem right. From what I can tell, the 80 ton units were about 40 feet long. Where as the 44 ton units were only about 30 feet long. These seem closer to 30 than 40.

cf http://www.math.iastate.edu/jdhsmith/term/bsvrost.htm#2254 to see what I mean.

Here are some undoubted SP 44 tonners http://espee.railfan.net/spge44t.html. And here is a for sure USMC 80 tonner http://www.sdrm.org/roster/diesel/d-7285/.

That short cab on these USAF critters sure changes the visual proportions, but I think they are 44 ton.

[Anonymous]

I don't claim to be an expert, either. You're probably right. I thought they were 44 tonners originally. I'm only going by the website I found the pictures at ( www.rr-fallenflags.org/usa/usa.html ) which said they were 80 tonners. They also have a picture of a 44 tonner and I really can't see the difference.

[Anonymous]

I bewlieve these are 80 ton locos. If memory serves me well a 44 ton has side rods and only 2 traction motors

[tree68]

My vote goes for 44 tonners, note the difference between the exhaust configurations on the 44 and 80 tonners.

Santa Maria Valley had a loco that was the same model as the rest of their fleet (70 tonners, I think, end cabs), but had been intended for use in Viet Nam. It had/has a shorter cab than the rest. These USAF locos may have some sort of overseas history.

And now for a trivia question: Why were they built as 44 tonners, not 45?[?]

I know the answer - let's see how the forum does...[}:)]

[dharmon]

I'll take RR trivia for 200, Alex....

What is ....
something to do with avoiding rules compliance...such as minimum crew

or What is .....
because of axle weights or a certain lb of track...

How'd I do?

[Anonymous]

Larry--

Here's my RR Trivia answer on 44 rather than 45 tonners: Beginning in 1937, common carrier railroads were permitted to operate internal combustion locomotives with 1 engineman (i.e., without a fireman) if the locomotive weight was under 90,000 lbs.

--John

[tree68]

QUOTE: Originally posted by fiverings

Larry--

Here's my RR Trivia answer on 44 rather than 45 tonners: Beginning in 1937, common carrier railroads were permitted to operate internal combustion locomotives with 1 engineman (i.e., without a fireman) if the locomotive weight was under 90,000 lbs.

--John

[bow] Give the man a kewpie doll![bow]

Actually, I didn't know the year...[;)]

dharmon - you were pretty close with the rules compliance. You get a little kewpie! [:o)]

[dharmon]

QUOTE: Originally posted by tree68

QUOTE: Originally posted by fiverings

Larry--

Here's my RR Trivia answer on 44 rather than 45 tonners: Beginning in 1937, common carrier railroads were permitted to operate internal combustion locomotives with 1 engineman (i.e., without a fireman) if the locomotive weight was under 90,000 lbs.

--John

[bow] Give the man a kewpie doll![bow]

Actually, I didn't know the year...[;)]

dharmon - you were pretty close with the rules compliance. You get a little kewpie! [:o)]

Well like my wife says..a little kewpie is better than nothing...[;)]

[kenneo]

As you may have noticed, 44's left the catalogue and 70's and 80's replaced it. Wonder if we have a story here?[:O]

I would go with the 44 ton model except for the USMC unit. It might be an 80. They were designed for foreign clearances (North Africa (Sarah) has the tightest and I know of no 44 that had roller bearings, and the USMC unit has rb's. The others have friction bearings.