Just a comment about F units and switching. What difference would using a remote control make?
The locomotive engineer would get wet in the rain, freeze in the snow, and not be able to enjoy the air conditioning in the heat.
Let's see what else.
Rgds IGN
What about CAT/EMD's new F125 that they are selling 10 of to Metrolink. It has a semi monocoque frame like the original "F" units and a enclosed carbody. Other than that its all new as a high speed passenger locomotive.
To Jumper: Yeah, the question "if it doesn't survive to fly does it really survive at all?" is really a rhetorical one. Most aviation fans are realist enough to know if there's only one left of any historic aircraft type, or very few of same, the wise thing to due is ground 'em and put them in the care of an aviation museum. Why take chances? Once it's gone it's gone for good.
Maybe not "F" units as such, but what about cowl type car body's to protect all that emission control equipment from the elements. It looks from the pictures of new teir 3 and 4 compliant designs, there is a lot of "stuff" cramed in those narrow hoods. Would heat build up be a problem in such close confines?
Tim
Interesting perspective on the aviation front. Yes we do wonder if a plane that doesn't fly is really a "plane". I note in the UK they don't always have the money for planes to fly but they like to start them up and taxi them around. Would that be like having a small fire in the firebox and some smoke and steam exiting at all all the usual places on a steam locomotive? Still, anything "old" has historic value for those who didn't live through that particular era and lots of fond memories for those of us who did. I'm all for saving things (just ask my wife) and at least cosmetically restoring them, but prefer to see them in operation and I try and donate time or $ where possible to help out with particular projects I like. Remember, its always easy to sit back and dream or complain about why this or that doesn't get done, but if you make an effort and get and out and do it, it will get done!
Most modern big power isn't meant to be run backwards anymore? Tell that to NS, look carefully and you'll see ditch lights on BOTH ends of shiny new SD70ACEs and ES44ACs, I saw one on a local west of St. Louis, MO not so long ago, long hood lead with half a dozen cars in tow. Some habits die hard, I guess.
lone geep From another thread here, there are many shortlines that still use F-units for freight.
From another thread here, there are many shortlines that still use F-units for freight.
I would say there are more F7's on shortlines in the rebuilt form of CF7's... This, of course, provides more visibility for switching, etc. with all the F7 "guts," but it's not the traditional F-unit design we like.
Something I haven't seen discussed is the footboard arrangement necessary on modern power. Take a look at the evolution of nose access on the ATSF FP-45s (I believe there was a thread on this somewhere in our past...)
I personally don't think a bulldog nose would look particularly good with a platform, steps, and outside railings out front. Or, for that matter, with an outside-opening door either centered or to one side.
As noted, fabrication method plays a significant part in freight-locomotive cab design, both in practice and in theoretical 'safe cab' design. That doesn't necessarily mean you can't have curves or attractive industrial design -- most current new passenger designs have all kinds of fancy fabrication, [opinion]they just aren't particularly attractive in a classical sense -- often needlessly so [/opinion].
I do happen to like the GE Genesis 'look' but I'd have to agree that better transition between nose and bodyside in 3/4 view could have been achieved with a little care.
For passenger use the E-6 slantnose beats the 'bulldog' any day of the week, though... even if it is marginally longer.
RME
I think if they do come back, they would look like E-units or PAs instead of F-units since Class 1s use 6 axle instead of 4 axle units. Also wouldn't the PA noses be easier to make and offer more collision protection?
Lone Geep
\
Firelock76 thomas81z i was hoping that in the 90s when the p-42 & variatons there of could have been styled like the f's I know that for safety crash regulations certain things had to be done to them but they are sooo close there is no reason they couldnt have skinned them like an F Yes, there's been discussions in the Forum in the past about how the P-42's could have been styled like E and F units, or ALCO PAs for that matter, and without much difficulty. The concensus was it could have been done, and with modern crash-worthiness standards too. Well, it wasn't, it's not likely to be, so I guess that's that. Too bad. The P-42's get the job done, but they look weird.
thomas81z i was hoping that in the 90s when the p-42 & variatons there of could have been styled like the f's I know that for safety crash regulations certain things had to be done to them but they are sooo close there is no reason they couldnt have skinned them like an F
i was hoping that in the 90s when the p-42 & variatons there of could have been styled like the f's I know that for safety crash regulations certain things had to be done to them but they are sooo close there is
no reason they couldnt have skinned them like an F
Yes, there's been discussions in the Forum in the past about how the P-42's could have been styled like E and F units, or ALCO PAs for that matter, and without much difficulty. The concensus was it could have been done, and with modern crash-worthiness standards too. Well, it wasn't, it's not likely to be, so I guess that's that. Too bad. The P-42's get the job done, but they look weird.
Oh, I don't know. They remind me of the old CB&Q "shovelnose" diesels from the early Zephyrs.
lone geep carnej1 Correct me if I'm wrong but aren't modern passenger diesels which use monocoque style carbodies somewhat similiar to F units? I know the body shell is stressed in such designs but IINM the shell can be lifted off to service the machinery... Yes there are, but I'm more thinking of the classic bulldog style front.
carnej1 Correct me if I'm wrong but aren't modern passenger diesels which use monocoque style carbodies somewhat similiar to F units? I know the body shell is stressed in such designs but IINM the shell can be lifted off to service the machinery...
Correct me if I'm wrong but aren't modern passenger diesels which use monocoque style carbodies somewhat similiar to F units? I know the body shell is stressed in such designs but IINM the shell can be lifted off to service the machinery...
Yes there are, but I'm more thinking of the classic bulldog style front.
That cab style would not meet current FRA crash standards so it's not allowable on new build locomotives.
Modern freight locomotives are designed to be practical machines and the current cabs are designed with that in mind. Having attractive styling is not a consideration, 99.9% of the public wouldn't notice anyway and the railroad would be spending money which would produce little more than glowing reviews on railfan sites..
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
Thomas 9011 One great thing about F units is they are wonderful in the winter. Anyone who has tried to get into a locomotive with 2-3 feet of snow on the walkways, along with the frozen doors knows what I am talking about.
One great thing about F units is they are wonderful in the winter. Anyone who has tried to get into a locomotive with 2-3 feet of snow on the walkways, along with the frozen doors knows what I am talking about.
I've climbed enough steps of E's and F's over the years and through Chicago's winters....
i figure it will never come back to freight , the only chance is amtrak
As mentioned elsewhere, fabricating a bulldog nose is an expensive proposition since it requires a lot of manual labor and body putty to get it right. Alco/GE did better with the flatnose since it has a lot less compound curves in its design.
It is highly unlikely that carbody-type locomotives will return to freight service for most to all of the reasons mentioned in prior postings.
i was hoping that in the 90s when the p-42 & variatons came out they could have been styled like the f's I know that for safety crash regulations certain things had to be done to them but they are sooo close there is
Johnny, we should give silent thanks to Graham Claytor for saving that PS-4. It was his lobbying as VP of Law at the Southern Railway that kept it from going to the scrap heap.
When Mr. Secretary (I call him that because he signed my commission as a Marine Lieutenant in 1975) Claytor was running the Southern he tried like blazes to get a Pacific and have it made over into an "erzatz" PS-4. The closest he got was an Atlanta and West Point locomotive but the owners of same said "No dice!" to an SR paint scheme. It ran in the AW&P scheme while the Southern had it. It was either that or they couldn't run it at all.
I wonder if the "John Bull" is ever coming out of the museum again? It's happened before.
Firelock76 Oh, the last PS-4. That one's safely ensconced (or entombed, if you will) in the Smithsonian Institution in Washington. It's NEVER coming out again, it'd be way too much trouble and horrendously expensive to get it out of the building, through the city and on rails again. It is in oustanding condition, however. Still, I suppose life stuffed and mounted in a museum is better than no life at all. It would be a lot easier for NS fo find/borrow a USRA Pacific type and return it to operation as a substitute PS-4. I wouldn't hold my breath on that one. Interesting, aviation fans like myself puzzle over this question, similar to railfans and their favorite locomotives : If an airplane doesn't survive to fly, is it really surviving at all? No easy answer to that one.
Oh, the last PS-4. That one's safely ensconced (or entombed, if you will) in the Smithsonian Institution in Washington. It's NEVER coming out again, it'd be way too much trouble and horrendously expensive to get it out of the building, through the city and on rails again.
It is in oustanding condition, however. Still, I suppose life stuffed and mounted in a museum is better than no life at all. It would be a lot easier for NS fo find/borrow a USRA Pacific type and return it to operation as a substitute PS-4. I wouldn't hold my breath on that one.
Interesting, aviation fans like myself puzzle over this question, similar to railfans and their favorite locomotives : If an airplane doesn't survive to fly, is it really surviving at all? No easy answer to that one.
Johnny
This linked photo is off the NS Fan (Facebook) site:
It is the CN 9177 now Sou 9177 @ NRE at Dixmoor,Il. (not my photo)
http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/13691_10151214751794315_1140622265_n.jpg
I lived by two gentlemen who started back in the days of steam with the NYC. When the F units arrived they told me they hated them. Visibility was bad, switch work was hard due to a lack of both forward and backward visibility. Getting in and out of them was hard and had to watch your head when going through the door. Sun glare off the windshield would occur at times. Took three locomotives to do the work of one steamer. Got to a point I was sorry I asked.
But they did agree, they looked good. The one gentleman, Jim, said that was why Lionel liked them so much.
As for me sitting trackside, never met and E or F I didn't like.
BTW I don't know that that is really true. There may be a couple of shortlines using F-units on freights, and there are several that have F-units for like dinner trains where the F-unit might occassionally be used to move freight. But the number of F-units in everyday use in freight is miniscule I suspect.
It may be a little bit like steam in the sixties. In 1964 maybe 1% (or less) of the US' locomotives were still steam. But railfans loved steam, so magazines like Trains often had stories on tiny shortlines or industrial railroads still using steam. If you look at the old mags, it would make you think steam was still quite common, since there were so many stories on them. But in reality it wasn't the case at all.
Wonderful subject for old hogheads, like me, who at 20 yrs old hired out when the cab units were middle aged, at best, and old and doddering, typically.
Some of the rebuilds, the seudo-F9's in the 600 series on SP, had a foot long, approx', extensions welded to the throttle so that when backing we could easily find it. Even with the peg-leg an engr I fired for had to kneel on the cab floor and I watched as he looked back for the brakeman's signals, then flailed to find the controls which were behind his back while kneeling.
At 6'2" I didn't have that problem with those engines but backing with the standard throttle of most of the Black Widows challenged....
And these desk equipped control stand engines....until during one of the turn-of-the-century's trips, I'd decided when I wanted to pass an Absolute Stop signal without authorization from some controller....but, looking forward in responce to a brakeman I followed his hand signal..and went by one.... my and the engine's design's fault.
If your signal giver is riding on the right-side front engine step to see the signal giver you look into the big combo wind-deflector (for forward moves) at the cab side window but....in it you look for the image of the signal giver in a small image reflected from the little mirror reflecting their location and gestures from the low front steps......got it?
I'm watching these hand signals and see this red absolute signal go by while the person I'm taking hand signals from limply rides the front step;.I got away with it and unfortunitaly could not demand that i could simultaneousely see ahead and a couple of reflected and re- reflected images.
Did I emphasize that rule required use of visual signalling instead of radio .unless, unless..
The road-switcher cab's visibility for back-up moves should rule.
To carnej1: No disagreement with you there, my friend!
If the plane in question is something like the Hughes Hercules flying boat or the XB-70 Valkyre preserved at the Air force Museum than Yes, they do survive..
There is no practical path to make either of those examples airworthy but to scrap them would be historical sacrilege.
This is also the case with some notable locomotives...
F-units were great if the railroad only wanted to use them on mainline trains where switching wasn't an issue. Erie Mining's F9s lasted so long because they hooked up to a taconite train and pulled it to the shore of Lake Superior, then pulled the train over the ore dock (which was built parallel to the shore and was double ended) and thru a reverse loop, then pulled the same empty cars back. No switching required, plus the enclosed carbody might have had some advantages in Minnesota's harsh weather.
But, if a railroad bought F's, they had to also buy GPs or SDs to do road switcher work. At some point, someone figured, why buy single-purpose F units when we can use a GP as a passenger engine, mainline freight engine, road freight engine, or yard switcher??
lone geep One reason why they disappeared from Class 1s is that the engineer couldn't see backwards that well. But know, most big power isn't mean't to be run long hood forward anymore.
One reason why they disappeared from Class 1s is that the engineer couldn't see backwards that well. But know, most big power isn't mean't to be run long hood forward anymore.
It doesn't really have to do with 'long hood forward', many railroads bought early road switchers set up to run short hood forward.
In a GP or SD or similar road switcher, the engineer has a window in front of him, and a window in back of him. In an F unit, the engineer has a window in front of him, and the cab's back wall in back of him. Unless he leans out the window (or had a rear-view mirror) he has no rear vision. Looking back along the long hood of an SD-90 might not give you great rear visibility, but it's better than none.
One thing I've read about engineers and the F units, and E units too for that matter, is that veteran steam engineers were a bit nervous about being up front without 50-plus feet of steel between them and a possible collision. They were a lot more comfortable in the Geeps with the long nose, or even short nose forward. Modern day engineers aren't bothered by that (I think) not having known anything else.
I would love to see the F units make a comeback similar to how the Norfolk southern did theres. One great thing about F units is they are wonderful in the winter. Anyone who has tried to get into a locomotive with 2-3 feet of snow on the walkways, along with the frozen doors knows what I am talking about. I think thats why the cowl units in Canada are still going strong. They also make for great snow plowing duty especially the F units. I also think the F units make for a very comfortable ride with a huge cab
The modern passenger locomotives have certainly brought the F units back into a more positive view with the engineers. I know one of the biggest problems with the F units was the engineers complaining about how they had to climb up all those steps with their bags. But the Amtrak locomotives are no different now.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.