The M-1 Mountan type was a good, modern, versatile, locomotive, and the equal of some railroad's 4-8-4's. Steam progress was held back because the combination of the depression and widespread eastern electrification made purchase of new steam power unnecessary. But once they decided to dieselize, when Saunders became President, they did so possibly too rapidliy with too many oddball types, even though we railfans enjoyed the Baldwins. It was only fifteen years when the first mass purchases of diesel road power began to the last steam operated. Pretty fast for such a vast system.
ndbprrMy undetstanding is they stayed with steam due to loyalty to on line coal mines. Obviously once diesels started the landslide they had to accept the realities.
I would think that PRR stuck with steam as late as they did more because of the conservatism of management than loyalty to the mine owners. Consider that with the possible exception of the M-1, PRR did not have any modern steam designs until the J-1 and the various and sundry duplex-drives.
I saw, as a youngster, DD-1's on Long Island freight trains on several occasions, mostly on the Long Beach branch. B-1's were LIRR's at Bay Ridge, for local switchin, the LIRR freights were steam and then diesel. The New Haven used electrics to Bay Ridge, EF-1's and EF-3's, and much much later, after GP-7's, EF-4's. The PRR had one B-1at Wilmington, one at Baltimore, several at Harrisburg, and lots at Sunnyside, 30th St., Penn Station, NY. Other switching was steam and then diesel. Washington Terminal had standard PRR B-6 0-6-0 switchers lettered for Washington Terminal.
ndbprrThe Op asked about NS and CSX locals on the corridor.
To my knowledge, PRR used only steam and diesel switching power in "Corridor" territory. The Rats were too slow and too small to be useful for much other than (as noted) carfloat switching ... and a great deal of the siding track was quite naturally unelectrified, so there would be little point in expensive dual-mode power that engaged in frequent transition, to say nothing of AC-only designs. You would need very long poles and chains indeed to work with the latter ... or perhaps a Milwaukee-style roll-out cable?
There were comparable multimode locomotive designs available to PRR -- the tri-modes adding the option of battery-electric operation inside warehouses or building enclosures. There are also 'advanced' designs of oil-electric switching power from the early '30s, and the Steins steam switching-locomotive patent (one of the reasons for the development of Franklin type D) is from the very early '50s. I think it is notable that none of these were 'proceeded with'...
Clessie Cummins mentioned that there was one PRR senior executive who was very interested in internal-combustion power, who died in 1927, and his loss effectively shut down further substantial research or interest by PRR. Someone here is likely to know exactly who that was, and possibly confirm what Cummins said.
The B1's were primarily passenger switchers that worked Sunnyside, their use on LIRR was primarily to work the carfloats since the New York Connecting had the same electrification as PRR and NH, quite unlike the rest of LIRR.
You didn't quantify that you were just exclusively about freight switching.
And a look at Wikipedia, hardly definitive I know, claims a 25mph top speed and that the BB3's did see some freight service on Long Island's Bay Ridge Branch.
And here are some PRR examples handling freight switching chores.
Edit: Didn't notice the baggage car in the last shot. Is the one above it of a express boxcar?
Either way, on the PRR controlled LIRR, some of these 42 locomotives saw freight duties at the very least.
ndbprrThe PRR never used electric engines for switching. They used 0-4-0, 0-6-0 and 2-8-0 steam followed by every known model of first generation diesel switcher.
Sorry, but that's not true. Take their 42 B1 0-6-0 switchers for instance. Not sure if there were any others, but those several dozen examples were successful and used for years for switching in electrified territory.
And even when you remove all the one off experiments, prototypes, and custom orders, there are definitely 1st generation production diesel switchers that PRR didn't buy like EMC's SC model, the various high hood Alco switchers, any of Lima's switcher designs, Baldwin's DS-4-4-1000, etc.
If they were running high-utilization, high productivity service under the wire, then it might pay to have a dual mode loco. But, the amount of time and hp-hrs produced under the wire makes the purchase of a $7M locomotive (vs $2M for straight diesel) a poor investment.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Amtrak does not want freight traffic on the NEC. PERIOD! They put up with the traffic they must. There is no through freight traffic on the NEC, all the freight traffic that does show up is local in nature. CSX & NS handle their through freight traffic on their own lines.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
The Southern Pacific used their H24-66 Trainmasters for commuter service from San Jose to San Francisco during the day in freight service at night.
Heavy freight trains put very different stresses on tracks, particularly on curves and through switches and diamonds. High speed requires excellent track conditions, and a lot of freight traffic on the NEC woud probably double the maintenance expense, and Amtrak would have to charge accordingly. If all high-speed portions were four-tracks, with Acela and Regionals using mostly the inner tracks maintained for high speed, and the outer tracks used by commuter and freight trains, then electric frieght might make some economic sense. At the present moment it would provide more problems than any cost-reduction.
No reason, however, why a high-speed passenger locomotive would not make a good unit for the Tropicana Juice Train or a hot shot intermodal train, especially two in mutliiple.
Remember that the New Haven used the Alco PA's and DL109's on Shore Line freights at night and on passenger by day.
To add to what has been said, the PRR had extensive electric freight lines east of Harrisburg/Enola, but in the Conrail era when most of the freight was moved to the Reading lines, the remaining electric operations were segmented. The decision was made 30 years ago to de-energize remaining segments, and go diesel.
Because-
-It would require an expensive redesign.
-Dual modes are inherently inefficient (as discussed in the past).
-Catenary on the NEC has trouble rather often as it is.
-It is more flexible and cost effective to use diesels, as there is very little freight traffic on the NEC.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.