Why did DRG&W buy so much High HP B-B's like the GP40, GP40-2 and the GP60 for a mountain RR??

[Anonymous]

Why did DRG&W buy so much High HP B-B's like the GP40, GP40-2 and the GP60 for a mountain RR?? Though the Rio Grande had their share of SD40's, SD45's, SD40-2' s and even the SD40T-2. They seemed to be in love with the high horsepower B-B power. Even their last purchase as an independent RR was the GP60!

How did this motive power philosphy fit into Rio Grande's operating plan?

And that for that matter why did the Western Pacific did not buy on its own any C-C power considering the while the Feather Canyon Route while not nearly as stiff as the Donner Pass was no cupcake to pull a freight train over??

[ericsp]

The GP60s were bought after Rio Grande Industries bought Southern Pacific (1990 and 1988 resepectively). Do you think SP okayed GP60s figuring they could be used on the Sunset Route?

[daveklepper]

Bering close to the D&RGW operations as a frequent traveler on the RGZ and one who asked the right questions of the crews, I agree with the analysis. I was told: "We have lots of curves." "We have to run like h__l to compete with UP." "We want our locos to be good for any train we run." The moral of that railroad was outstanding at the time, with the crews and management both talking like family. This even continued somewhat into the SP takeover period.

[kevarc]

Another that ran a lot of 4 axle engines on heavy grades was the Chessie on Sandpatch. It was not unusual to see GP40's on coal and other trains. You have to remember that once out of the mountains on either side, the B&O was a relatively flat RR. The L&N was another. The used GP38-2's as helpers.

[zardoz]

Mark,

In your excellently detailed explanation above, one thing I did not see mentioned was the much greater ability of a six-axle locomotive to start a train from a dead stop. The efficiencies (of 4-axle) at high speed for a railroad such as the DRGW I would not think to be as big a consideration as the tonnage-lugging up and down their 2% grades.

Being as the locomotive rarely gets above the 3rd or 4th notch when starting a very heavy train (otherwise snap goes the knuckle), the additional drivers are of immense help in starting a train moving. A GP will go into wheel-slip so much more readily than an SD. And if you're pulling 1500 amps starting a monster train, and the wheels slip and then grab suddenly, once again the train crew is carrying replacements for the scrap metal. And as the DRGW has such extreme grades and frequently damp conditions, I would think six-axle locomotives would be the prefered choice, even considering the extreme curvature of the line.

Back when I was running, I dreaded the trip if I was assigned 4-axle locomotives. As the CNW ran their trains to the edge of the maximum tonnage for the steepest part of the grade (West Allis hill), we frequently stalled, annoying to no end the residents, because due to the length of the trains, we essentially cut the town in half. And there are so many grade crossings (where the wheels are most likely to pickup due to the oil from autos), that if we had 4-axle units, we always advised the dispatcher to have the Mitchell yard engine be standing by to shove us up the hill; and if the rail was wet, there was no hope.

[Anonymous]

An engaging and enlightening discussion, guys. Thanks.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by M.W. Hemphill



Today, six-axle is virtually the only choice, for four reasons:
1. System standardization; it works for everything and avoids power or trains sitting around waiting on the "right" power.
2. Higher horsepower now available, in the plus 4000-range, is easier to get to the rail with six axles than four -- better adhesion.
3. Sale or abandonment of most secondary, light-rail, light-bridge lines and branch lines that once were the nearly pure domain of the four-axle unit (or the light-weight six-axle unit, a real oddball), which leaves fewer jobs for the four-axle that only it can do.
4. Greater emphasis on bulk traffic, whether it is coal, grain, or double stacks.

May I add a fifth reason:

5. With the advent of radial steering to three axle trucks, rail and flange wear from SD's are no longer a problem for railroads with heavy curvature such as the Alaska RR.