Why not more B units?

[tree68]

QUOTE: Originally posted by goat

.... in a B-unit you don't have to think about crew comfort or safety.

There are probably those who feel that's the case with locos with cabs.[;)]

[Anonymous]

so with all these explanations given why would Santa Fe have bought the GP60Bs so late?
my previous understanding was that cabs aren't such a tiny fraction of the cost, it is high maintanance, bullet proof glass, clean windows, working heaters/air con, empty garbge cans etc.... in a B-unit you don't have to think about crew comfort or safety.

[Anonymous]

I wish someone would make and N scale GP60B.......

[daveklepper]

The answer is that the cabs and control facilities and personal amenities are a tiny fraction of the total locomotive cost, so why have a unit that can only be used in specific scheduled applications rather than one that is all purpose and abailable for any job? Dave Klepper

[adrianspeeder]

The CNW rebuilt a bunch of E b units with cabs many years ago. Looked real strange.

Adrianspeeder

[trainfan1221]

I think a lot of them end up with yard duties. I know many slugs are hump engines

[Anonymous]

Not all units head straight to the scrap line!

Some are rebuilt with new electricals and motors. These rebuilt engines usually end up on shortlines, as the aremore cost effective than buying a new unit.

Another B unit, but not in the same sense as a true powered cabless, is the slug. Some locomotives end up completely gutted except for a few essential parts and become slugs. I would have to say that the slug is the contemporary b unit.

[BaltACD]

QUOTE: Originally posted by vsmith

So what happened to all those B units, were they scrapped? rebuilt?

As the engines exceed their economic life they are scrapped.

[vsmith]

So what happened to all those B units, were they scrapped? rebuilt?

[tree68]

Remember, too, that in the early days of diesels (F's, etc), multiple units (most were around 1500 HP or less) were required to create a locomotive of sufficient horsepower, hence the A-B-A, A-B, and A-B-B-A lashups. Some of them were actually joined with drawbars instead of couplers for that reason.

These days, with the equivalent of two or three F's under one hood, such lashups are not nearly as necessary. Also, putting a "B" with an "A" in a two unit lashup means the "team" needs to be turned at a terminal to go the other way. With two "A" units, coupled tail-to-tail, you just have to change cabs and away you go.

[kenneo]

B units actually cost more since they are actually custum units. The original reason for B units was when diesels first came out, they were A - B - A or A-B-B-A and carried one number. If there was more than the cab on each end, you had to pay another engineer and fireman. No cab, no crew required.

On one road, (the GN), if any unit carried a different number, whether or not an A or a B, it required another crew because of the way the agreement was worded. If it had a different number, it was a separate locomotive. Didn't take long for that to get changed!

[M636C]

In Australia, most units have two cabs, one on each end. When some of these spend their whole lives running coal trains coupled in threes, you wonder if you mightn't get by with just one cab per unit, since you can only use one of the six at a time.

In Ireland many units not only have a cab on each end, but a control stand in each corner. I think this was to allow operation with a single driver, so he could always stand (or sit) on the side where the passenger platform was, to check that it was safe to move. Still, it must have added a lot to the cost of an 875 HP B-B unit to have four control stands!

In Australia we had three B units, (GE CM40-8s) on BHP Iron Ore, but they only lasted about a year, and were fitted with cabs.

Peter

[mudchicken]

To most of you easterners, the ATSF "headless horses" SD40-2B and SD45Bs were wreck rebuilds with noses grafted onto the units. The 40's eventually got cabs again...SD45's 5500,5501,5502 did not... Is 5502 still out there somewhere? (or did it go east where CSX got the idea for the "new" paint scheme?....switch engines with warbonnets/ SSB-1200's looked odd, these would have too))

(All you had to have fail on the lead unit was a head-lightbulb or a radio and the scramble to replace the lead unit was on as you crawled along at restricted speed)

[edblysard]

B units are basicly fully functional locomotives, sans cabs.
Unless the control stand in your A unit explodes...
If a engine problem developes, you can run on a dead A unit, and the B unit does the work.
Most, but not all B units are not permanently coupled to any A unit, they can mix and match as needed.
Santa Fe had quite a few SD 45 B and SD40 B units, and a bunch of GP and SD 7 and 9 Bs

The reason most railroads no longer own B units is cost, why pay basicly the same price for a cabless unit that has to be mated to a lead unit, when you can get a complete locomotive, able to go anywhere on it's own, for just a litte more?

Macguy had the answer, flexibility.

Ed

[TH&B]

There are possibly more B-units out there than what it looks like. I've noticed many older units like some SD-40s have thier cabs inoperateable, seats removed, control stand partialy disassembled. This would make these units operationaly B-units but tha cab is still there and it can't be seen from the outside.
But I've wondered about the building of new B-units and I've noticed that by far most B-units ever built were 4 axle units, 6 axle B-units built are very rare and now they mostly only build 6 axle units new.
-Maybe in the future when they will run crewless frieghts they will only have B-units (with magnetic couplers and plastic rail)

[mudchicken]

Flexibility...something happens to that lead unit with a cab and you're toast....

Saw ATSF order out a train with GP-60Bs and an SD45B (#5502) more than once out of LA.....Roundhouse foreman would have a snicker and then chew out the 5-Watter in the ivory tower in Shaumburg/Chicago who ordered the train and then could not see what the problem was...[:D][:D]

[Anonymous]

I always wondered about this myself, especially with trains that run with 3 or 4 loco's on a regular basis. Have 2 loco's and 2 B units, or 3 loco's and a B unit.

The points above make a lot of sense though, it's probably just easier to have the flexiblility of a loco that can be in any position on any train at any time.

[Anonymous]

I think it is a matter of cost. A B-unit is limited in its duties/role. It can only follow an A Unit. Also what happens if an A Unit breaks down on the road - no where to go. If you have another A just contine to go!!!

[Anonymous]

I don't know why they save money on fuel I would buy some B- Units if they had them I remember the BN B30-7B- Units those were cool

DOGGY
GO JOHN KERRY SWEEP SUPER TUESDAY

[Anonymous]

I was wondering why railroad are not purchasing B units. I have never seen a train on a mainline with less than two engines (unless it is a ballast train or something). Most trains have 3 or more engines. Why don't railroads purchase B units? They must be cheaper since they don't have the cab and controls.

Buellman2003