Before the fancy wheel-slip controls on the new locomotives, we frequently had to use the independent brake to help control wheel-slip. I generally found that a 10-15 psi application was sufficient (with a light touch on the throttle) to keep the wheels from spinning too much. The light independent application also serves to clean and dry the wheels, which also increases traction. However, this method does not work, and should NOT be used on anything newer than the '50' series locomotives (if memory serves).
mackb4 wrote: My Dad mentioned this once.According to the C&O/CSX power management recommendations your suppose to place the lowest horsepower locomotive in the lead.Because most generally they will try to "outrun" the bigger,slower loading higher horsepower units.
My Dad mentioned this once.According to the C&O/CSX power management recommendations your suppose to place the lowest horsepower locomotive in the lead.Because most generally they will try to "outrun" the bigger,slower loading higher horsepower units.
GP40-2 wrote: Wow, I make a few sarcastic posts on a dead in the water thread and it explodes into 4 pages. Hey CSXEngineer, you do realize I was just zinging you.To the rest of you holy-than-thou foamers: Get a life, and leave the real railroading to professionals like myself and CSXEngineer.Actually, don't get a life and just keep replying to my posts. I have at least 30 people looking at this site from CSX each day just for laughs at all your responses.Keep up the good work, you all make for great entertainment at CSX.
Wow, I make a few sarcastic posts on a dead in the water thread and it explodes into 4 pages.
Hey CSXEngineer, you do realize I was just zinging you.
To the rest of you holy-than-thou foamers: Get a life, and leave the real railroading to professionals like myself and CSXEngineer.
Actually, don't get a life and just keep replying to my posts. I have at least 30 people looking at this site from CSX each day just for laughs at all your responses.
Keep up the good work, you all make for great entertainment at CSX.
GP40-2, glad to see that the post you made on this page is much friendlier. If you don't mind, just a friendly observation regarding the post in the quote immedietly above.......
Instead of making a provocative post like the one in the quote .....think about it, things would have been so much more easier for you if you would have simply posted something like: CSXEngineer, I'm sorry about disrespecting you. I got carried away and hope to get along with you and everyone here.........etc.,."
I think most of the guys here would have forgiven, forgotten and moved on. But look at this: "30 guys are laughing at your posts" and "To the restof you holy-than-thou foamers....."
Instead of fostering friendly, respectable responses, you decided to disrespect the rest of us as well. Why the sucker punch? So unnecessary. But it looks like you're moving ahead in a more positive note.
As mentioned, there's a good number of professional railroaders on this forum that participate and offer very valuable information that we can't even find in Trains magazine.
If you are a professional railroader than there are indeed things we can learn from you. We can strongly disagree with each other, yet maintain the level of respect.
Peace and High Greens
"I like my Pullman Standards & Budds in Stainless Steel flavors, thank you!"
Quick question is anyone in here a Division Engineer, Yardmaster, Regional Sub divison Engineer, President of Operations, or Dispatcher? The reason I am asking is because I have to report to each and every one of these people on a daily basis on any given railroad sub that I am testing on( usually the southern california BNSF division) I have met and had dinner with Dale Wagoner President of Operations and Matt Rose who is Chairman, President, Chief Executive Officer for the BNSF railway, on a couple occaisions to talk about conditions and defects along the Cajon and Barstow subs so they can effectively get more trains and more maintenence done without tying down each other on the third and forth main line projects that are going on. And so far I haven't been treated poorly or seen anyone being misstreated or made fun of by anyone fitting the posistions I have listed. I have seen a good number of heated debates with Yardmasters, Dispatchers, Crew members, M.O.W. and the like over things but they never resorted to name calling or making fun of each other. For one simple fact; most of these guys worked their ways up the company ladder and have been around each other for years they have developed a bond much like a family. Either you get along with everyone or you get moved around the system so much you end up wanting to quit or are asked to leave. I know there are people who just plain don't get along with anyone and they don't get higher up posistions like the ones I have listed due to the fact that one of the steps to getting hired on in one of these jobs is the ability to work well with others wether you like them or not.
I really don't think that someone who has time to go visit an online chat forum for model railroaders and make fun of someone else and their ability to spell has time to work at a job that has to be taken as seriously as a railroaders job.
I have only worked for Sperry Rail Service for a couple of years but from who I deal with on a daily basis and the type of people I work around stuff like that doesn't last long at all.
Railroading life is a family life outside ones own family and if you don't get along with the railroad family you work with things just get worse and worse until you end up leaving the people you work around.
On a couple of occasions I have seen higher ups (usually Dispatch or Yardmasters) removed from their positions by swearing or harrasing someone on the job that very same day.
MichaelSol wrote:Nothing "independent" about it. It was owned by the C&O. It was part of the Chessie System.See: Cheseapeake & Ohio Railroad Company -- Control -- Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co. 317 ICC 261 (1962).You said you were there before "Chessie System" days and pre-CSX as well. If you were there both pre-CSX (1980) and pre-Chessie (1962, 1972, take your pick) but were there only 27 years -- which isn't that long of a career in the rail industry, kiddo, my stepdad retired with 47 years -- that means you started in 1980. Possible to be "pre-CSX", not possible to be "pre-Chessie."Financially, the "Chessie System" was born in 1962. I recall -- and it is only a recollection -- the three component companies adopted "Chessie System" in 1972. CSX was created in 1980 -- to control the "Chessie System" and the SCL.Thereafter, the component corporate structures of the Chessie were rolled up -- WM in 1983 into B&O, B&O rolled into the C&O structure April 30, 1987, (not 1986 as you claim -- just careless I suppose), and C&O into CSX on August 31, 1987.
Nothing "independent" about it. It was owned by the C&O. It was part of the Chessie System.
See: Cheseapeake & Ohio Railroad Company -- Control -- Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co. 317 ICC 261 (1962).
You said you were there before "Chessie System" days and pre-CSX as well.
If you were there both pre-CSX (1980) and pre-Chessie (1962, 1972, take your pick) but were there only 27 years -- which isn't that long of a career in the rail industry, kiddo, my stepdad retired with 47 years -- that means you started in 1980. Possible to be "pre-CSX", not possible to be "pre-Chessie."
Financially, the "Chessie System" was born in 1962. I recall -- and it is only a recollection -- the three component companies adopted "Chessie System" in 1972. CSX was created in 1980 -- to control the "Chessie System" and the SCL.
Thereafter, the component corporate structures of the Chessie were rolled up -- WM in 1983 into B&O, B&O rolled into the C&O structure April 30, 1987, (not 1986 as you claim -- just careless I suppose), and C&O into CSX on August 31, 1987.
The C&O had controlling interest in the B&O, and the B&O had controlling interest in the WM, but they were all independent railroads. The "Chessie System" was never an operating railroad. It was a paper holding company.
If you look at any equipment that was painted in the Chessie System colors, it always had reporting remarks of the operating railroad (B&O, C&O, or WM) that actually owned (or leased) and operated it.
When I was hired in 1979, it was by the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad. My tax forms reported my employer as the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad until 1986.
To many of us B&O and WM guys, "Chessie" refered to the C&O proper. Yes, my orginal statement may have unclear for anyone who didn't work for "Chessie System" in that era. I will modify it to say I started prior to the CSX era, and prior to the B&O being rolled into the C&O ("Chessie" to us).
BigJim.Can you remember the GE 8000's.Man you wanna talk about a engine I was never so glad to see gone.And the GE 3900's.Hope to never see another one of those again.Those 3900's must not of had much of a wheel slip detector.I've had them rascals throw a shower of sparks in curves before " border="0" width="15" height="15" /> . I've heard the NS is starting to get rid of the 8500 and some of the early 8600's.My guess is because their not electronic fuel injection.I can remember when they was the "super unit" ,so they thought.
I've heard the NS is starting to get rid of the 8500 and some of the early 8600's.My guess is because their not electronic fuel injection.I can remember when they was the "super unit" ,so they thought.
Create a Reef~~~^~~~~^~~~~^~~~~~~~
_________________Sink a U-Boat___________
Please don't remind me of any GE before the Dash9s. Those were the first GE locomotives that had steps you didn't have to be a mountain climber to get on and walkways you didn't have to scoot sideways on. Yeah, NS is getting rid of the older stuff.
I didn't think EMD could make a bad unit until they came out with the 4600's. Those things literally rattled your brain! There are still some 7100's around.
But my all time favorite was the SD40-2's.
.
Yeh " duty " in a bag.It got real interesting when the NS handed out bag with serial numbers,that's the truth.I still got a whole unopened bag of them puppies somewhere.Good conversation piece one day.
And the NS has mostly cloth material seats now.Better than those bar stool seats we used before.They was the norm on all brands of locomotives.
And what was the manufacters thinking about those little " dungeon" toliets,especially in those EMD's ?It seems the loco. designers were short people.
Collin ,operator of the " Eastern Kentucky & Ohio R.R."
zapp wrote:The carrier specs the seats, not the builder.We have an agreement on UP on the specs of the seats. They must be high backs, with arm rests, etc...NS uses mid back cloth seats, and they are uncomfortable.
The carrier specs the seats, not the builder.
We have an agreement on UP on the specs of the seats. They must be high backs, with arm rests, etc...
NS uses mid back cloth seats, and they are uncomfortable.
jockellis wrote:G'day, Y'all,Working for a HUGE company which builds locomotives, I've learned that graduate engineers cannot spell any better than locomotive engineers. Personally, I edit my posts several times because coming from a newspaper background, I hate typos! And I still get a few when I read my posts after submitting them.While working at The Great Train Store near Atlanta, I met a recently-retired NS engineer who told me he was trying to get up a class action suit against GE because the seats he had to sit on had given him back problems. Can anyone enlighten me on the merits of one manufacturer's seats versus those of another? Also, the complaint about the toilet. I've never read a post by an old steam locomotive engineer complaining about his toilet.
oh yea..and the location of most of them.. damn you need to be double jointed to even get down to them let alone use them...
csx engineer
Jock Ellis Cumming, GA US of A Georgia Association of Railroad Passengers
Those C30-7's were harder to get into. Like you said the latter was straight up, but they were taller then the B30-7's!
I hated them too!
I'm glad Uncle Pete has gotten rid of most of them.
zapp wrote:I always hated those B30-7's!Narrow doors, slow to load, always dropping their load, and that toilet!!!But the GP50's were the ones, especially on our rock trains, were a real bear to operate when the rail got slick. I don't know who in management thought it was a good idea to put them in rock service but they wasn't designed to do that type of work. We used them on the SP in intermodal service and those little buggers would really run!
I always hated those B30-7's!
Narrow doors, slow to load, always dropping their load, and that toilet!!!
But the GP50's were the ones, especially on our rock trains, were a real bear to operate when the rail got slick. I don't know who in management thought it was a good idea to put them in rock service but they wasn't designed to do that type of work. We used them on the SP in intermodal service and those little buggers would really run!
I always liked the his and her toliets on those NS 3900's.
Man am I glad we don't " duty " in a bag now .
They had one heck of a heater in them though .
The high horse 4 axle EMD's (NS 4600 and 7100 series )were designed and purchased on the NS for intermodal type work.They had a higher gear ratio.Which made them good for the light tonnage,real bad for the big tonnage.And they rattled like crazy !
Speaking of the NS 7100's.I've not seen one around here (Poca.Div.) in a while.Seen a few 4600's on locals,that broke down.Now their using the ole reliable GP-40's.
Do we know what GP-40's job is with the CSX yet
And I can agree with some degree to MichalSol's responce on all the "independent company" talk.
The CSX has what is called " The C&O Business Unit " here in my area.It has something to do with the management of the coal business.It was created around 6 or 7 years ago.
My payroll checks for the NS up till around 1999 or 2000 (can't be exact) still had "An Agent for the N&W railroad " printed on them.I read something somewhere it had to do with the legal changes in the merging of the N&W and Southern r.r's.In other words the two railroads do not exist in public domain any longer.
BigJim.Can you remember the GE 8000's.Man you wanna talk about a engine I was never so glad to see gone.And the GE 3900's.Hope to never see another one of those again.Those 3900's must not of had much of a wheel slip detector.I've had them rascals throw a shower of sparks in curves before .
GP40-2 wrote: Hey Moron Michael, The B&O was an independent company until 1986.
Hey Moron Michael, The B&O was an independent company until 1986.
GP40-2 wrote: MichaelSol wrote: Wow, speelling must be his week spote:Second, if you had any backround in Mechinacal Engineering, which it is painfully obvious you don't, you could duduce the improvements in the J3a combustion chamber ...10-23-2005, 10:37 PM RE: Who Built The Highest Quality 4-8-4''''s?But, everyone is stupid so what the hey:I'd love to, but my M.S.M.E. from MIT didn't include a certificate to teach Special Needs students. Contact your local grade school for enrollment in their Learning Disabilities Program. 10-26-2005, 9:06 PM, RE: Who Built The Highest Quality 4-8-4''''s?His claims are a bit odd:On the one hand:Really? Considering my employment started on the B&O when it was still an independent company--pre Chessie System and and pre CSX--I daresay I have worked in railroading longer than many of "these fellow railroaders" have been alive on this planet. Pre-Chessie system would be pre-1972. That's 35 years ago. But ...I've only worked in this industry and with locomotives for the past 27 years. General Discussion (Classic Trains) by GP40-2 on 09-20-2006.Neat trick. Hey Moron Michael, The B&O was an independent company until 1986.
MichaelSol wrote: Wow, speelling must be his week spote:Second, if you had any backround in Mechinacal Engineering, which it is painfully obvious you don't, you could duduce the improvements in the J3a combustion chamber ...10-23-2005, 10:37 PM RE: Who Built The Highest Quality 4-8-4''''s?But, everyone is stupid so what the hey:I'd love to, but my M.S.M.E. from MIT didn't include a certificate to teach Special Needs students. Contact your local grade school for enrollment in their Learning Disabilities Program. 10-26-2005, 9:06 PM, RE: Who Built The Highest Quality 4-8-4''''s?His claims are a bit odd:On the one hand:Really? Considering my employment started on the B&O when it was still an independent company--pre Chessie System and and pre CSX--I daresay I have worked in railroading longer than many of "these fellow railroaders" have been alive on this planet. Pre-Chessie system would be pre-1972. That's 35 years ago. But ...I've only worked in this industry and with locomotives for the past 27 years. General Discussion (Classic Trains) by GP40-2 on 09-20-2006.Neat trick.
Wow, speelling must be his week spote:
Second, if you had any backround in Mechinacal Engineering, which it is painfully obvious you don't, you could duduce the improvements in the J3a combustion chamber ...10-23-2005, 10:37 PM RE: Who Built The Highest Quality 4-8-4''''s?
10-23-2005, 10:37 PM RE: Who Built The Highest Quality 4-8-4''''s?
But, everyone is stupid so what the hey:
I'd love to, but my M.S.M.E. from MIT didn't include a certificate to teach Special Needs students. Contact your local grade school for enrollment in their Learning Disabilities Program. 10-26-2005, 9:06 PM, RE: Who Built The Highest Quality 4-8-4''''s?
His claims are a bit odd:
On the one hand:
Really? Considering my employment started on the B&O when it was still an independent company--pre Chessie System and and pre CSX--I daresay I have worked in railroading longer than many of "these fellow railroaders" have been alive on this planet.
Pre-Chessie system would be pre-1972. That's 35 years ago. But ...
I've only worked in this industry and with locomotives for the past 27 years. General Discussion (Classic Trains) by GP40-2 on 09-20-2006.
Neat trick.
Hey look everybody! Margo speaks! I'm so...so...so....very unimpressed.
I have a problem with that last sentence "...as far as comfort CN engines are the best..."
That is till they are your lead unit on a grain train rolling through central Oklahoma and north Texas on a hotter thean hell August day!
Then they really suck!!!
I have stated before i worked for the C&O and Chessie in the 80s, and a terminal road before that. And this bickering reminds me of the old days. LOL Anyway it was always the unions hated management and visa versa. Conrail guys thought C&O was a bunch of hillbillys and C&O guys thought CR had an unfair advantage because Uncle Sugar bailed them out. As far as spelling and grammer go we all have our own strengths and not everyone is a good SPEELER. Since i am off topic anyway as a non engineer for pure engine roar 2 or 3 old C&O gp 9s kicking cars is the best sound in the world. And i have been told for comfort the CN units are the best.
Green Bay Paddlers wrote: GP40-2 wrote:Appparantly we's hired you without you obtaing yours high scholl deploma first. Well - I hope you guys don't mind me digging this one back up again. I thought I would go back in the archives and see if "Mr. Perfect" (GP40-2, who has been harassing CSXEngineer for no reason) has made any spelling mistakes of his own... "However, on general frieght and intermodal, where they could keep the speeds higher..." "...locomotives (GP40/GP40-2) in heavy hual service -quite successfully..." "rated at 180,000 lbs continious now" "if not all railroads adopt the AC as the "univeral" locomotive." FYI - these were all taken from one thread: "The importance of horespower in locomotives?" So - Mr. GP40-2... Weren't you the one talking about being sloppy on the job? Those who live in glass houses... CSXEngineer - consider yourself exonerated! :)
GP40-2 wrote:Appparantly we's hired you without you obtaing yours high scholl deploma first.
Appparantly we's hired you without you obtaing yours high scholl deploma first.
Well - I hope you guys don't mind me digging this one back up again. I thought I would go back in the archives and see if "Mr. Perfect" (GP40-2, who has been harassing CSXEngineer for no reason) has made any spelling mistakes of his own...
"However, on general frieght and intermodal, where they could keep the speeds higher..."
"...locomotives (GP40/GP40-2) in heavy hual service -quite successfully..."
"rated at 180,000 lbs continious now"
"if not all railroads adopt the AC as the "univeral" locomotive."
FYI - these were all taken from one thread: "The importance of horespower in locomotives?"
So - Mr. GP40-2... Weren't you the one talking about being sloppy on the job? Those who live in glass houses...
CSXEngineer - consider yourself exonerated! :)
GP40-2 - You still haven't answered the question. Are you this sloppy on the job? LOL
Go away - you've lost your voice here.
MichaelSol wrote:Wow, speelling must be his week spote:Second, if you had any backround in Mechinacal Engineering, which it is painfully obvious you don't, you could duduce the improvements in the J3a combustion chamber ...10-23-2005, 10:37 PM RE: Who Built The Highest Quality 4-8-4''''s?But, everyone is stupid so what the hey:I'd love to, but my M.S.M.E. from MIT didn't include a certificate to teach Special Needs students. Contact your local grade school for enrollment in their Learning Disabilities Program. 10-26-2005, 9:06 PM, RE: Who Built The Highest Quality 4-8-4''''s?His claims are a bit odd:On the one hand:Really? Considering my employment started on the B&O when it was still an independent company--pre Chessie System and and pre CSX--I daresay I have worked in railroading longer than many of "these fellow railroaders" have been alive on this planet. Pre-Chessie system would be pre-1972. That's 35 years ago. But ...I've only worked in this industry and with locomotives for the past 27 years. General Discussion (Classic Trains) by GP40-2 on 09-20-2006.Neat trick.
seems to me that someones story has more holes then swiss cheese..and stinks like limburger
GP40-2 wrote: leave the real railroading to professionals like myself and CSXEngineer.
leave the real railroading to professionals like myself and CSXEngineer.
That was meant a joke, wasn't it?
You don't have nearly enough class to compare yourself to (much less associate yourself with) csxengineer98.
BigJim wrote: AntonioFP45 wrote: A friend of mine recently shared with me of an interesting problem that one CSX's predecessors, Seaboard Coast Line, often encountered back in the 1970s. Their 4 axle GE U36Bs were rated at 3,600 horsepower. Engineers had to be "extra gentle" after stretching out and then taking off with heavy trains in MU lashups. Apparently these GEs developed so much torque when taking off with loads that their wheels would literally spin like a car burning rubber.In the case of the U36Bs you have 3600 HP going to four axles. Even with all of todays so called high technology, it is very easy to overpower track conditions. In the dry, I never had any real trouble starting a train. Wet or oily conditions are much worse. That slick rail will only hold so much HP before wheels begin to slip. Sometimes the eighth notch is not the way to go up a mountain!One thing to keep in mind is that when one wheel starts to slip, the momentary speed of that one axle can go sky high very quickly. The unit starts unloading power until that wheel stops slipping. I have had units slip like that and because the load regulator and governor can't keep up with each other quick enough, all the load comes off of the Gen./Alt. and the diesel engine revs up so quick that it kicks the "overspeed" protector.You have just as much trouble at higher speeds and wet rail. And the rail doesn't have to be that wet. A light dew will cause all kinds problems with traction. Actually, a heavy rain is the best wet rail condition. Frost can be the worst!Concerning putting a GE in front of an EMD, here is the problem;The GE units take FOREVER to load up! Read that about three more times so that it soaks in real good! When you get an EMD trailing a GE you might get bumped a little bit, depending on whether you are going uphill or down at the moment, but it is nothing severe because there is only a few inches of slack between the units.SDs can pull, GPs have speed. If you read the right page on Al's web site he explains this. The ABSOLUTE BEST set of units that I have ever been on (and keep in mind we don't get to pick what we run, it's a crap shoot) was two SD45s and two GP40s. That train not only hauled the tonnage, it flew like the wind! That's what a couple of GPs (read: Four Axles) in the consist will do for you!
AntonioFP45 wrote: A friend of mine recently shared with me of an interesting problem that one CSX's predecessors, Seaboard Coast Line, often encountered back in the 1970s. Their 4 axle GE U36Bs were rated at 3,600 horsepower. Engineers had to be "extra gentle" after stretching out and then taking off with heavy trains in MU lashups. Apparently these GEs developed so much torque when taking off with loads that their wheels would literally spin like a car burning rubber.
In the case of the U36Bs you have 3600 HP going to four axles. Even with all of todays so called high technology, it is very easy to overpower track conditions. In the dry, I never had any real trouble starting a train. Wet or oily conditions are much worse. That slick rail will only hold so much HP before wheels begin to slip. Sometimes the eighth notch is not the way to go up a mountain!
One thing to keep in mind is that when one wheel starts to slip, the momentary speed of that one axle can go sky high very quickly. The unit starts unloading power until that wheel stops slipping. I have had units slip like that and because the load regulator and governor can't keep up with each other quick enough, all the load comes off of the Gen./Alt. and the diesel engine revs up so quick that it kicks the "overspeed" protector.
You have just as much trouble at higher speeds and wet rail. And the rail doesn't have to be that wet. A light dew will cause all kinds problems with traction. Actually, a heavy rain is the best wet rail condition. Frost can be the worst!
Concerning putting a GE in front of an EMD, here is the problem;
The GE units take FOREVER to load up! Read that about three more times so that it soaks in real good! When you get an EMD trailing a GE you might get bumped a little bit, depending on whether you are going uphill or down at the moment, but it is nothing severe because there is only a few inches of slack between the units.
SDs can pull, GPs have speed. If you read the right page on Al's web site he explains this. The ABSOLUTE BEST set of units that I have ever been on (and keep in mind we don't get to pick what we run, it's a crap shoot) was two SD45s and two GP40s. That train not only hauled the tonnage, it flew like the wind! That's what a couple of GPs (read: Four Axles) in the consist will do for you!
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.