Trains.com

Early road switcher designs

2495 views
8 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    September 2011
  • 6,449 posts
Posted by MidlandMike on Monday, June 3, 2013 8:23 PM

Judging from pictures of RS2/3's where a sitting crewman is seen at a side window, he would have to be standing to see out of the windows above the hoods.

  • Member since
    March 2003
  • From: Central Iowa
  • 6,901 posts
Posted by jeffhergert on Monday, June 3, 2013 12:11 PM

For the engineer sitting at the controls, you really haven't lost much visibility by raising the height of the hoods, or gained much by chopping the nose.  It does allow something that is taller, such as a block signal, to be viewed longer as the engine approaches it.  It doesn't for things that are at ground level, such as a trainman giving signals or a switch stand.  Except for the end cab view of a traditional type switch engine, you'll lose site of something on the ground from the control position no matter how tall or short the hood is.

Jeff    

  • Member since
    November 2003
  • From: Rhode Island
  • 2,289 posts
Posted by carnej1 on Monday, June 3, 2013 11:24 AM

Ulrich

The RS-1 RS-2 and RS-3 offered superior visibility to later models such as the RS-11. Crews had 360 degree visibility from the cab... better than any other model before or since.  Why was the overall design modified to make the hoods higher?  What was gained by reducing crew visibility?

The RS-11 was available with a low short hood option from it's introduction but most railroads went with the high hood. I know D&H and SP rostered some low nose examples.

Of course the rearward vision was still inferior to the earlier designs you mention..

"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock

  • Member since
    March 2016
  • From: Burbank IL (near Clearing)
  • 13,540 posts
Posted by CSSHEGEWISCH on Monday, June 3, 2013 10:04 AM

daveklepper

Yet the requisitioned and built-for-Army Alco road-switches with the 244 enngine apparently did a fine job for the military in WWII.   Anybody remember the autobiographical story "Caboose Chaplain" from Railroad Magazine?   Maybe Classic Trains should reprint it!   It also provides some interesting commentary on the present situation in Iran.

Except that they were built with 539 engines, same as any other RS1's.

The daily commute is part of everyday life but I get two rides a day out of it. Paul
  • Member since
    June 2002
  • 20,096 posts
Posted by daveklepper on Monday, June 3, 2013 9:25 AM

Yet the requisitioned and built-for-Army Alco road-switches with the 244 enngine apparently did a fine job for the military in WWII.   Anybody remember the autobiographical story "Caboose Chaplain" from Railroad Magazine?   Maybe Classic Trains should reprint it!   It also provides some interesting commentary on the present situation in Iran.

  • Member since
    May 2012
  • 5,017 posts
Posted by rcdrye on Monday, June 3, 2013 6:17 AM

cx500

Another point is that the raised hood in the RS-11 provided space for the optional dynamic brakes over the engine.  The short hood was thus available for a steam generator if desired. The RS-3 could come equipped with either option, but not both. 

John 

The few "hammerhead" RS3s/RSD5s with the raised short hood for both dynamics and steam ( LV, C&NW) looked like they hadn't been planned well.  Alco also had a hard time with deliveries of a few orders in the mid 1950s.  SP in particular had to wait about a year for an order of RSD5s, while EMD could deliver SD9s in volume pretty quickly.  Once the SD9s had settled into their roles, there was little interest in the RSD5s, which had a relatively short life in low-value service.

  • Member since
    October 2008
  • From: Calgary
  • 2,047 posts
Posted by cx500 on Monday, June 3, 2013 1:08 AM

Another point is that the raised hood in the RS-11 provided space for the optional dynamic brakes over the engine.  The short hood was thus available for a steam generator if desired. The RS-3 could come equipped with either option, but not both. 

John 

  • Member since
    January 2001
  • From: SE Minnesota
  • 6,847 posts
Posted by jrbernier on Sunday, June 2, 2013 12:16 PM

  That 'overall' visibility is important for a yard switcher, but a road unit really needs forward visibility, and some rear visibility if doing short work.  Looking down the long hood of a GP9 or an RS11 really has very good sight lines.

  The RS1 was a glorified S-2 switcher on a lengthened frame and road trucks. It has good all-round sight lines.  The 539 power plant had a poor power/weight ratio and was doomed as far as growth beyond 1000 hp.

  The RS2/3 had a very expensive to manufacture cab(note all the curves).  The 244 power plant had so many problems that it doomed the Alco.

  EMD offered it's GP7 years later than Alco offered it's RS series, but the GP7 could do everything that the F7 could do and it cost less - Rail management took note.  The appearance of being as tall as the covered wagons made it seem to be a real 'road' locomotive.  The RS3 basically could do all the same things, but  did not have the 'look' of a true road locomotive to some eyes.  Alco replaced the RS3 with the RS11 in 1956 - All new 251 series power plant and a 'full height' hood like the EMD product.  It just 'looked' like a road locomotive, not  something less.  The unfortunate thing for Alco was that many US railroads were just completing dieselization(the big order were ending), and by 1958 there was a recession.  Even EMD was having a hard time selling locomotives.

Jim

Modeling BNSF  and Milwaukee Road in SW Wisconsin

  • Member since
    February 2003
  • From: Guelph, Ontario
  • 4,819 posts
Early road switcher designs
Posted by Ulrich on Sunday, June 2, 2013 10:58 AM

The RS-1 RS-2 and RS-3 offered superior visibility to later models such as the RS-11. Crews had 360 degree visibility from the cab... better than any other model before or since.  Why was the overall design modified to make the hoods higher?  What was gained by reducing crew visibility?

Join our Community!

Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.

Search the Community

Newsletter Sign-Up

By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy