Many sources I have read cite Alco's RS1 as the first road switcher. The first were turned out in 3/41.
Essentially an extension of the S2, it rode on road trucks.
The NW3 was first built on 11/39. An extension of the NW2, it also rode on road trucks.
So, since the NW3 was designed for road service, is it the first road switcher? Or does lack of a short hood give the honor to the RS1? I'm curious about your opinion.
A recent isse of CLASSIC TRAINS indicated that the NW-3 was indeed the first road-switcher, with the RS1 the first long production run road-switcher, since less than 10 NW-3's were built. The article was primarily concerned with the GP-7 and GP-9 whch transitioned North American railroading to the road-switcher car-bidy design, outselling all other road-switchers combined.
Dave, that CT article was what prompted this thread. I have seen multiple sources citing the RS-1, and only two (that and the DSG) citing the NW-3.
Then you have all the information possible . NW-3 ws definitely the first, but the RS-1 the firt really successful.
What constitutes a road switcher?
It should have road trucks, provision for a steam generator and enough power for a small branch line train.
We seem to have overlooked the NW-4 built August 1938 (more than a year before the NW-3) using equipment salvaged from the two E unit prototypes 511 and 512, becoming Missouri Pacific 4102 and 4103.
They used the trucks from 511 and 512, and each unit had a single 12 cylinder 201A (possibly new or a replacement engine used later in the prototypes' life) and one generator as used in 511 and 512.
The carbody was new, a stretched NW on a longer frame. The hood wasn't widened around the cab to accommodate the steam generator as on the later NW-3.
M636C
I stand corrected, NW-4, MP, by all means.
This isn't that much different than asking what was the first diesel locomotive since it can be contingent on whether it was experimental or a production model, was it commercially successful, etc. The NW4 may have been the first road-switcher but a sidebar in Classic Trains implies that it was a one-off production to use up parts salvaged from EMD 511 and 512.
Stilll, it was successful. The first really successful, serial production, was the RS-1.
CN Rail called them "visibility locomotives" as they offered the crew a clear view in both directions, but they we're essentially road switchers built in the late 1920s and early thirties. These were the first to depart from the then standard box cab construction.
Regardless of it being a two-off, I think that the NW-4 gets it, as it was the first to have the important characteristics of road trucks and sufficient power for branch service.
Ulrich, the CN Westinghouse Visibility Cab rode on switcher trucks, and was 400HP, disqualifying it here.
There's some debate that none of these truly qualify due to having 1,000 HP or less. There's a line of thought that it really was the 1,500-1,750 HP range postwar that were the first true road switchers.
Leo_Ames There's some debate that none of these truly qualify due to having 1,000 HP or less. There's a line of thought that it really was the 1,500-1,750 HP range postwar that were the first true road switchers.
M636C What constitutes a road switcher? It should have road trucks, provision for a steam generator and enough power for a small branch line train.
Doesn't a road locomotive need a toilet, either on account of FRA or Union rules? Not that you want to use the toilet, on some roads, owing to its state of maintenance, but I thought that a locomotive taken outside of yard limits had to have a toilet?
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
Paul MilenkovicDoesn't a road locomotive need a toilet, either on account of FRA or Union rules?
I don't recall any steam locomotives I have seen with toilets, so this may have been less of a concern in the 1940s.
I was expecting someone to say this....
But what if there was a prewar locomotive with these characteristics? Say an NW-3 fitted with a 16-567?
In fact there was, the model TR-1, dating from April 1941, so pre-WWII.
The TR-1 was a set of FT equipment installed in a stretched NW-3 body, with a bar coupled cabless booster, just like the FT booster. Two sets were built and they spent twenty years in major Illinois Central yards.
But if anyone wanted one, the TR-1 cab unit kept the NW-3 space for a steam generator and used Blomberg road trucks. The TR-1 might not have had the best gear ratio for road service. But the design was there, it was the market for road switchers of that power that didn't exist in 1941.
But the TR-1 cab unit had all the features that made the RS-2 a success later. Nobody wanted one, not even as a very heavy switcher (except IC, of course, and they made do with twelve cylinder cow and calf sets after trying the TR-1).
Certainly all valid points and I don't disagree.
I think 1500HP IS too high as a threshhold for a road-switcher. Recall that the TA for RI was a road passenger locomotive with only 1200HP I think 1000HP should be the threshhold, so that all the RS-1's that went to Iran during WWII can be included.
When all is said and done I think we've got to give the RS-1 credit for being the first "Here they are railroad men! Come and get 'em!" off- the- shelf- sell- over- the- counter road switcher.
Certainly EMD had the NW4, but according to Classic Trains' big Geep issue EMD never really pursued the market agressively at that time. Why would they? They were making and selling FT's as fast as they could. Why compete with yourself, especially with a model that would sell for less than the FT?
Of course by 1949 things had changed, and EMD saw the market for road switchers was a strong one. Hence, the Geeps.
You know, the Geep gets the credit (or the blame) for being the diesel that really killed steam. In a real sense, it killed the diesel cab units as well.
You know, they HAD to put toilets in the road switchers and other road diesels. What was the head end crew supposed to do with no more coal pile to, uh, you get the picture?
daveklepper I think 1500HP IS too high as a threshhold for a road-switcher. Recall that the TA for RI was a road passenger locomotive with only 1200HP I think 1000HP should be the threshhold, so that all the RS-1's that went to Iran during WWII can be included.
The TA powered very short and light streamliners. I don't think anyone in this debate over the years would ever claim that 1000 or 1200 HP can't be useful in certain road applications.
But 1500 HP is getting to the point where a locomotive can truly be useful in most any heavy road applications rather than relegated to the lightweight tasks that things like RS1's were typically assigned. 1000 HP is just too small of a building block for road assignments and very few would ever think of assigning something like 8 RS1's at the front of a train.
There's certainly exceptions, but usually when you saw a RS1 on most lines beyond a handful like the M&StL, it usually was more switcher than road where assignments were concerned. Just not enough horsepower there. It was more useful to keep RS1's on lighter duties like branch lines and heavy switching assignments (In an era where less than 1000 HP wasn't uncommon for switchers) and let more powerful power handle road assignments.
Thus why some think 1500 HP was the magic threshold and an important characteristic to consider when determining what the first true road switcher was. That's the point where power truly became universal and could be assigned to most any assignment out there (short of the tightest terminal trackage) which of course is what the very term road switcher means.
One thing to note is that the RS-1 and NW-3 were marketed primarily as passenger switchers, not road switchers. I'll post more tomorrow, got to run!
For me, the RS-1's work in Iran secures its title as road-switcher. In addition, is not branchline work also road work?
I don't think anyone is disputing the capabilities of the RS-1. But the RSD-1's in Iran were typically two units to a train with short consists of around 1,500 tons running on a lightly built railway system with tight clearances, light rail, and weak bridges that required a low axle loading. So while a demanding assignment, it's not quite what I had in mind when talking about heavy road work.
They weren't a maid of all work. Just not enough horsepower there so it wasn't the best use of resources to put them on the head of a heavy mainline train. They were best suited to lighter duties. Heck, you'd need 9 of them MU'ed together just to match in horsepower two modern GE's or EMD's. You won't find pictures like that, you won't find pictures of them lugging heavy coal trains, you won't find pictures of them wheeling mainline freights at 50mph, and you won't find pictures of them pitch hitting for E units at the head of streamliners.
Their place was on the branches, in the yards, and doing local work. It's the 1,500 HP threshold and locomotives like the GP7 and the RS2 where the road switcher truly became universal and suited for any mainline road assignment a railroad could toss at it. So that's why some historians consider it an important characteristic in determining what the first true road switcher was.
If 1500hp is the threshold, I guess that means the FT at only 1350hp was not a road unit either. When the RS-1 was introduced 1000hp was considered a pretty powerful diesel. EMD had just taken the lead in the horsepower race with the afore-mentioned 1350hp, but in general a "high horsepower" locomotive required two or more prime movers.
Today in comparison with 4400hp and 6000hp diesels the RS-1 seems rather pathetic. But back in the day it was state of the art. Working on the branches or wayfreights is precisely what defines a road switcher. Maybe at times they were used in multiple for heavier trains. So too were the GP9s; the practice continues today with the GEVOs and SD70ACe fleets.
After WW2, when the more powerful 244 engine came available the RS-2 took over the heavier duty roles and the RS-1 became more switcher than road unit. Nevertheless the RS-1 was the pioneer. EMD did not embrace the concept until some years later with the GP7, after first offering the BL2. And that was not exactly a sales success.
John
cx500 If 1500hp is the threshold, I guess that means the FT at only 1350hp was not a road unit either.
If 1500hp is the threshold, I guess that means the FT at only 1350hp was not a road unit either.
Just to reiterate, I'm not claiming otherwise. When I think of the first road switcher, it will always be the RS1.
I'm trying to explain the line of thought that some hold that 1,000 HP doesn't get it quite into that multi purpose category that was popularized by EMD's Geep's and Alco's RS2's and 3's. But while I do understand it, I don't necessarily subscribe to it.
I suspect had war restrictions not limited production that many RS1's would've seen heavy mainline use. But by the time that restrictions were lifted by the WPB, higher horsepower options were available that left most postwar RS1 production targeted towards lighter duties that it was ideally suited for (Such as coach switching at major passenger terminals).
Interesting indeed that this thread creates more disagreement than agreement. Some points:
About the TR-1, it seems to be designed more for a transfer unit than road service, but EMD left the option open for a steam generator. Was it catalogued, or a special order?
Does anyone know if the RS-1 or NW-3 have toilets? 1000 HP is low for a road switcher, but it must be considered that the highest road power was less than 2000 HP at the time, with two engines (E units).
Leo_AmesI suspect had war restrictions not limited production that many RS1's would've seen heavy mainline use. But by the time that restrictions were lifted by the WPB, higher horsepower options were available that left most postwar RS1 production targeted towards lighter duties that it was ideally suited for.
I agree with this point, they seem most at home on branches or commuter runs. But due to the average HP at the time, I think both the NW-3 and RS-1 can be considered road switchers.
The "best gear ratio for road service"...the key just turned in the lock.
Submission: 3 or 4 could deliver 50 or so cars of coal to a nearby LILCO power plant, 1 could switch a lead...kick 'em that'll do..., 1 could power a local freight.....but what did the LIRR's 10 RS-1's do mostly? They powered short, but fast, passenger trains to which they did supply steam heat.
Is that the necessary validation?
The RS-1, a 30', 40's years concept. worked.
Did these EMD NW's qualify, the 3 and 4 variants, which weren't capable, somehow, verify them as the first road-switchers?
Not enough universality. Not when passenger service is excluded, or not brought into the discussion.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.