Engli***houghts on F40s

[brilondon]

Who says size matters?!

[TH&B]

The F40 is still taller than the F-3 types, that accentuates the shortness too.

[AltonFan]

I remember that when I've traveled on Amtrak, it always seemed that the F40s were coupled "elephant style" (nose to tail) rather than having the first and last unit facing in opposite directions as is frequently down with freight lash-ups. It does seem to me that F40s would be more aesthetically pleasing if they were mu'ed back to back. And the F40's lack of length doesn't help their looks either.

(This last observation is strange. F40s are about as long as the old F-3, F-7, and F-9 units they replaced. But maybe the F40's blunt nose accentuates the shortness of the units. But the blunt noses didn't hurt the "Crandall cabs", E-9 B-units rebuilt with cabs used in commuter service on the former C&NW lines.)

And yeah, Metra's bi-levels do dwarf the F40s that pull them.

[TH&B]

In places like England where rail journeys are relatively short and space was more often at a premium so wyes to turn equipement is not as commun as here, it easily pays off to put cabs on each end per unit, it would realy restrict a unit that faced only one way. Over here it wasn't only the power that faced only one way, passenger coaches like the trailing obs coaches and even entire train consists would all face one way. Electric engines on the NH and PRR were more difficult to turn because because of the dense confines at Penn Station and other downtown stations, also there may not always be overhead wire around every wye for turning. A cab costs more and if land is cheap just lay a wye, it can be even cheaper than a turntable and can turn bigger consists. Over here wyes are everywhere.

[techguy57]

As a rail fan: I've been living in the Chicago area now for a couple of years and had visited very regularly (5 or 6 weekends a year) before. I see the Metra F40's all the time (I live and work right next to one of the lines) and have to admit that they look too short, especially for the bi-level commuter coaches they are running with. However, as a rail fan, I have to admit that I'm impressed with their service. They may not be beasts in the sense of size, but they do seem to be beasts of burden, strong workhorses for the fleet.

Then again, I don't have to do the maintenance on them nor do I operate them.

As a modeler, the F40 PHs intrigue me greatly because they ARE different. It's fun to have one as a switcher for an industry or as an engine for a commuter line. I like a lot of variety, and I think that modeling is getting more and more detail oriented, which is good and bad for my tastes. I'm modeling a fictitious short line rr and part of the fun for me is deciding what types of modern engines are on my line and creating stories as to how they could've realistically gotten there. To me that is half the fun.

There is my two cents. Take it for what you will.

Have a good day!

Mike

[adrianspeeder]

I grew up watching the F40. I never saw E units in passenger service, so the F40 is THE passenger locomotive. It may seem a little stubby, but it is a million times better than what GE came out with to replace it.

Adrianspeeder

[Anonymous]

* Note that all NEC electrics, from the GG1 onwards have had cabs at both ends !

That is certainly NOT true. The E2Bs, E3Bs, and E3Cs only had cabs at one end.

The E44s only had one cab offset from one end. The E33s were likewise, even though they were transplants

I am not sure about the B1s. They look as if they should have cabs at each end but IIRC they only had one cab. Does anyone know for sure??

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

The dual-cab approach associated with European and export designs turned up on a diesel locomotive in the United States at least once. Central of New Jersey had a fleet of six Baldwin double-cabs (DRX6-4-2000) for suburban service out of Jersey City. The cost of a second cab and controls apparently outweighed the convenience of not having to turn the locomotive. The dominance of road-switcher designs in North America lessened the need for dual cabs or turning locomotives.
A variation on the dual-cab approach that would appeal to the North American esthetic is the Alco World Locomotive (DL500C). It is a carbody design with one cab in a conventional North American layout with the other cab in the flat end similar to an AB6. They were found in Australia, India, Pakistan, Greece, Spain, Argentina, Peru and possibly other places.

[M636C]

Some thoughts from another foreigner: The cab itself on the F40PH is shorter and less attractive than that on the F40C. The F40C cab dates back to the FP45, and was a serious design effort, while the F40PH cab was probably just the work of engineers (like myself) who had other constraints. In Florida, Tri-Rail have some F40s assembled by MK from GP40s and parts of F45s, and while they are a little longer, they look a lot better. The longer F40 PH with the separate HEP generators, many of which were built or converted by MK/MPI still don't look really attractive, so I suggest examining the detail of the cab shape. The original Canadian F59 (not the streamlined F59PHI) is an aesthetic disaster also.

[Anonymous]

eolafan

You are spot on about the MK locos. I was working in an office overlooking Union terminal and got to watch them all day long. They do soud great as do all the Amtrak GE's (500 series)

Are the Amtrak F40's just control cabs?

[kenneo]

QUOTE: Originally posted by bristolian

I came over from Bristol England 20 years ago and I wondered the same thing about the single cab. My thoughts are that it is because most trains have more than one locomotive so that they can be coupled back to back saving the cost of the extra cabs.
Dave

You be correct. That is also why there were "B" units. Only the electrics, one of the 4500 HP UP Turbins (#50, the test bed) and the Baldwin Baby Face's used by CNJ had dual cabs. The turbin lost the second cab when it gained a tender.

I can only remember those examples. The other diesels that had dual controls used center cabs except for a few exceptions like the GN and CBQ SD-9' s. Maybe some of the early box cab diesels had dual cabs.

Now days, we use Push-Pull. Dual Cabs eliminated the need to "spin" the engine and P-P eliminated the need to run around the train. In Europe, the railroads could not go through a city, so had stub terminals. They started using trains with the power at both ends in the early 60"s like the Acela does. With steam, Europeans changed power at these terminals, with electrics, they ran around the train, now they just drive in and then drive out.

[Anonymous]

I came over from Bristol England 20 years ago and I wondered the same thing about the single cab. My thoughts are that it is because most trains have more than one locomotive so that they can be coupled back to back saving the cost of the extra cabs.
Dave

[michaelstevens]

I have never been able to fathom why American diesel* passenger locos, only have a cab at one end.
That's probably why F40s look too short, from the English point of view. After all, I believe that all British (if not all European) diesels have a cab at both ends.
* Note that all NEC electrics, from the GG1 onwards have had cabs at both ends !

[eolafan]

Being from Chicago I must agree that the "standard" F40 we see so much around here is really a short pug of a design and the F40C is more pleasing to the eye from a standpoint of esthetics. We have some new units from MP here that are really nice to look at and are also "beasts" in my opinion...they sound and look great! Jim, Aurora, IL

[Anonymous]

Guys/Ladies

I've seen F40s in Miami,Vancouver,and all over with Amtrak and there was something not quite right to y eyes but I could never work it out. (Aesthetically I mean)

2 weeks in Chicago and now I know - they're too short. The F40C is a beast - the extra length balances everything up just fine.

Anyone agree?