The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.
How does the CN Draper Taper work out in terms of rearward view?
From what I have read about automotive streamlining, a hood unit can also be streamlined to reduce aero drag, mainly by rounding the square corners.
The other idea I have had for passenger trains relates to the original Vista Dome concept, which was meant to give the visual experience of a cab ride to the passengers. How about a forward-looking observation car?
If you had front windows on a passenger coach on each side of the aisle corridor, and if the locomotive was a streamlined hood unit (with a wide cab for crew safety of course -- much like the GE "Pepsi Cans" Amtrak acquired between the F40 and the Genesis), the passengers could look out the front, much like the Draper Taper gives engine crews a view out the back. It might be kind of neat not only to see out the front, even if only for a partial angle view, but you could also see the locomotive out front from where you are seated.
The Vista Dome concept puts people up high so they can look out the front. This has the advantage of a panoramic front view, but for the reasons I just outlines, a "side dome" in the form of a Draper Taper cutout of a passenger coach may also provide an interesting view for making passenger travel more fun, especially in the scenic mountain West.
Of course I am a "front-seat" foamer -- loved the Vista Dome, the Power Dome Car on the Turbo Train with the plexi partition to also see the crew, always go for front seating on SEPTA Silverliners, CTA El trains, and push-mode gallery cars.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
How about the CPR SD40-2F's? To solve the rearward visibility problem, there were parts of the hood cut away:
Other side:
Thing is, these locomotives were delivered in 1988, a few years earlier than the CN SD50F/SD60F locomotives.
As Willie stated the draper tapers or a cowel body just cost more.I know a few CN guys that were never too keen on the carbody loco's anyway , even with the cutaways backing up in yards espeacially at night the vision rearward was poor. Alot of CN crews prefer to have the 50f's and 60F's and their GE cousins as trailing locomotives ,not as the lead unit.
Rob
Repairs are another big matter. If something larger than can easily be lifted needs replaced or repaired on a hood unit all you need to do is remove some doors which is easy, and maybe remove a section of handrails which is a few bolts, then use one of those pickup truck mounted cranes that diesel mechanics have. With a cowl you need to remove side panels of the locomotive and you are left with significant vertical and horizontal movement limits.
Opening the doors on a hood unit is usually enough room to work on most things. If not, the whole long hood can come off. On Es and Fs, a crane was required for many repairs.
CN stopped getting cowl units with the Draper Taper shortly after Mr. Draper retired...
Mike WSOR engineer | HO scale since 1988 | Visit our club www.WCGandyDancers.com
Lyon_Wonder wrote:When ordering GP60Ms in 1990, Santa Fe originaly wanted them to be full-body cowls, but instead opted for standard frame bodies with the then-new safety cab.
Also the Santa Fe mentioned concerns about additional weight of cowl-unit GP60Ms, altho it doesn't seem there'd be that much extra.
As it concerns aerodynamics of freight trains, a streamlined locomotive offers virtually no advantage. The unfavorable drag coefficient of the entire train makes streamlined motive power irrelevant.
In order to even get the Widecab on the GP 60 and get the weight within the weight limit Santa Fe had to put a smaller tank of 3500 gallons instead of 4000 gallons and also can only fuel it to 2900 gallons. They found out in order to get the full cowls they would of had to go with a TITATUIM BODY SHELL. Great in a crash but VERY EXPENSIVE just ask the military.
CPRail modeler wrote:How about the CPR SD40-2F's? To solve the rearward visibility problem, there were parts of the hood cut away:Other side:Thing is, these locomotives were delivered in 1988, a few years earlier than the CN SD50F/SD60F locomotives.
Your friendly neighborhood CNW fan.
trolleyboy wrote:As Willie stated the draper tapers or a cowel body just cost more.I know a few CN guys that were never too keen on the carbody loco's anyway , even with the cutaways backing up in yards espeacially at night the vision rearward was poor. Alot of CN crews prefer to have the 50f's and 60F's and their GE cousins as trailing locomotives ,not as the lead unit.Rob
You don't see much out those cutaways. When you're backing up all you see is the ballast next to the track, right beside the engine. You might get a better view on a curve, but you have to have the conductor riding the point if making a reverse move.
Lord Atmo wrote:i'm glad the draper taper idea didnt catch on
For once Atmo I totally agree with you. I hate the cowl units.
What about aesthetics? Why do you think that most Class I's have purchased and rebuilt F units for their business trains? Because they are icons of American railroading! Yes, most modern cowled units are ugly, but the MP commuter units and GE's passenger locos aren't that bad. I think that they definitely have their place on passenger trains, where the first impression on travellers is important.
I would agree that freight locos are more functional units and don't really need a fancy, aesthetically pleasing outward appearance, although the German locomotive builder MaK/Vossloh recently introduced its new 3000 and 4000 h.p. dieselelectric freight locomotive at the Innotrans 2007, the Euro 3000/4000. It is a full cowled, dual cab loco, and it looks really good. The dual cab solves the visibility problem and saves having to turn the loco on a table when running solo. Check out the details at:
http://www.vossloh-espana.com/fs_cms/en/products/diesel-electric_locomotives/euro_4000/EURO_4000.html
edbenton wrote:In order to even get the Widecab on the GP 60 and get the weight within the weight limit Santa Fe had to put a smaller tank of 3500 gallons instead of 4000 gallons and also can only fuel it to 2900 gallons. They found out in order to get the full cowls they would of had to go with a TITATUIM BODY SHELL. Great in a crash but VERY EXPENSIVE just ask the military.
My understanding is a standard GP60 has a 3800 gallon tank and the 60M has a 3200 gallon tank offset to the rear to counteract the cab weight.
I'd never heard they weren't filled all the way up.
Lee Koch wrote: What about aesthetics? Why do you think that most Class I's have purchased and rebuilt F units for their business trains? Because they are icons of American railroading! Yes, most modern cowled units are ugly, but the MP commuter units and GE's passenger locos aren't that bad. I think that they definitely have their place on passenger trains, where the first impression on travellers is important. I would agree that freight locos are more functional units and don't really need a fancy, aesthetically pleasing outward appearance, although the German locomotive builder MaK/Vossloh recently introduced its new 3000 and 4000 h.p. dieselelectric freight locomotive at the Innotrans 2007, the Euro 3000/4000. It is a full cowled, dual cab loco, and it looks really good. The dual cab solves the visibility problem and saves having to turn the loco on a table when running solo. Check out the details at:http://www.vossloh-espana.com/fs_cms/en/products/diesel-electric_locomotives/euro_4000/EURO_4000.html
It's easy to underestimate the influence of culture and tradition. This applies both inside and outside the railroading tribe. For passenger services, since the funding, approval for funding, approval of service characteristics, and marketing for these approvals, all occurs outside the tribe there is an interesting cultural dynamic that appears. I am often surprised how dead wrong I am about what I think the public wants passenger railroads to do and how it should go about doing them, e.g., a recent discussion I had with a city where I was flabbergasted that they would prefer DMUs over EMUs because they thought the catenary was ugly, whereas another city preferred EMUs over DMUs because they thought the catenary would make the line appear "more trolley-like and less bus-like, thus easier to market to the public." Both decisions were grounded entirely in interpretations of culture rather than any quantifiable economic or technical basis.
Railroads like to use F- and E-units for their business trains mostly for internal cultural reasons, mostly paying homage to their roots and because they "look cool." Almost anyone that wants to succeed at the railroad has to have an obvious passion for the business. After a fashion they are railfans.
RWM
Hello, Railway Man,
Yes, the influence of culture and tradition are immense. Most railway management here in Europe prefer fully cowled locomotives, at least for their road motors, maybe because they fit in better with the more prevalent electrics. There are a few hooded body (diesel-) locos on the market (for example ADTranz Blue Tiger or Vossloh's GG2000), but they are still few and far between. Most yard power is center cab with 2 low hoods.
Out of tradition and in deference to domestic locomotive manufacturers, the German Federal Railways (Deutsche Bundesbahn, später Deutsche Bahn AG) resisted diesel-electric traction, buying diesel hydraulic up to the new millenium!
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.