Interestingly enough -- there is another railroad that kinda fits this question except that the locomotives were NOT obtained from EMD.
CASO, NYC 6039 and 6040, obtained from GMDD (and no other units with steam generators obtained from that builder). Both locomotives wound up in blue and white (as CR 7439 and 7440).
I have no idea how the NYC used these in passenger service, but would it not have involved the section of Detroit-Buffalo trains operating in Canada?
Rob wins!!!
The 679 and 680 were the only GN9's purchased by the GN for passenger service. They were assigned to the Mesabi Division at Superior as protection power for the Badger/Gopher trains. Occasionally, I would see one of them heading the southbound passenger train (with the E7A unit trailing) because the E unit had problems. The clues involved the 1970 BN merger and the GN using the Big Sky Blue paint prior to the merger. According "GN Color Pictoral 2--the Blue Years), both were repainted blue prior to the merger. As a note both units had additional headlights on the leading end (long nose forward) both osciliating (one white and one red).
Next question to you.
Ed Burns
This former demonstrator from a minority builder became the only dynamic-brake equipped unit on the roster of a railroad formed from a three way merger.
NYC's lines in Ontario had a number of branches where a boiler GP would be a natural for a local passenger train.
Duluth, South Shore & Atlantic 211?
Strictly speaking, the answer ought to be Soo Line 395, since that's how DSS&A 211 got renumbered. Originally Baldwin (later B-L-H) AS616 demonstrator 1600, 211 not only had dynamic brakes, it also lacked MU connections, unlike most of the other DSS&A Baldwin AS616 road switchers (and one DRS-6-6-1500), which only had them on the cab end. DSS&A's RS1s (except for 107) had MU connections on both ends - incompatible with the Baldwins, of course. The four DT-6-6-20s didn't have MU. 211 had trimount trucks in addition to dynamic brakes, and was actually built before some of DSS&A's non-demo AS616s. At least a couple of DSS&A's Baldwins had steam generators, as did several of the RS1s.
Ask another one.
This small railroad which operated mostly in city streets replaced Climaxes with what diesels, before leasing power from one of its owners because their own engines were too small?
rcdrye This small railroad which operated mostly in city streets replaced Climaxes with what diesels, before leasing power from one of its owners because their own engines were too small?
The Union Freight Railroad serviced the waterfront area of downtown Boston, Ma.. The line replaced it's Climax locomotives (which were custom built so-called "Dummies" which featured a full body shroud which was supposed to make them less frightening to the horses the locomotives shared the streets with) with General Electric 44 tonners in 1946.
The 44 tonners were replaced with a a pair of Alco S2s leased from corporate parent New York,New Haven & Hartford in 1953.
BTW, by the 50's New Haven owned all of the Union Freight's stock so it wasn't a jointly owned terminal and switching railroad by then..
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
Very interesting locomotives.
http://www.precisionlocomotivecastings.com/graphics/Climax_1646.jpg
Carnej1 is correct. The Union Freight RR continued into the PC era. The 44-tonners proved to be too stiff vertically for UFRR's track, which made them very slippery. The NYNH&H S2s could handle the twisty track better. Both of the regularly assigned S2s had special narrow steps and footboards, though full-width ones could still clear. By the time the diesels were in use, the Atlantic Avenue El was gone.
Given my correct answer I have the privilege of asking the next question:
As most of us are aware after ALCO exited the Domestic U. S locomotive market in the United States in 1968, its Canadian subsidiary, Montreal Locomotive works, continued to build locomotives for the Canadian and International Markets.
Eventually MLW became part of the Bombardier group, who exited the locomotive business in Canada in 1985.
During that period between 1969 and 1985 MLW/Bombardier booked only three orders with customers in the United States (though each customer purchased more than a single unit).
Who were the customers and what locomotive models did they purchase?
carnej1 Given my correct answer I have the privilege of asking the next question: As most of us are aware after ALCO exited the Domestic U. S locomotive market in the United States in 1968, its Canadian subsidiary, Montreal Locomotive works, continued to build locomotives for the Canadian and International Markets. Eventually MLW became part of the Bombardier group, who exited the locomotive business in Canada in 1985. During that period between 1969 and 1985 MLW/Bombardier booked only three orders with customers in the United States (though each customer purchased more than a single unit). Who were the customers and what locomotive models did they purchase?
The US Gypsum RSD35's (DL535E) were second-hand from WP&Y, the other three customers are correct.
CSSHEGEWISCHThe US Gypsum RSD35's (DL535E) were second-hand from WP&Y, the other three customers are correct.
Hold on a moment, now; the four locomotives in question (111-114) were ORDERED by WP&Y but weren't delivered before the road shut down temporarily -- they were stored in Montreal almost a decade before US Gypsum got two (and then wrecked one, and replaced it with yet another of the stored units). Only after all this did WP&Y actually get one, the one left (#114).
So, even though painted for WP&Y, and apparently kept in WP&Y colors for a while after delivery, the U.S.Gypsum locomotives were not 'secondhand' in the usual meaning of the term, were they?
Wizlish CSSHEGEWISCH The US Gypsum RSD35's (DL535E) were second-hand from WP&Y, the other three customers are correct. Hold on a moment, now; the four locomotives in question (111-114) were ORDERED by WP&Y but weren't delivered before the road shut down temporarily -- they were stored in Montreal almost a decade before US Gypsum got two (and then wrecked one, and replaced it with yet another of the stored units). Only after all this did WP&Y actually get one, the one left (#114). So, even though painted for WP&Y, and apparently kept in WP&Y colors for a while after delivery, the U.S.Gypsum locomotives were not 'secondhand' in the usual meaning of the term, were they?
CSSHEGEWISCH The US Gypsum RSD35's (DL535E) were second-hand from WP&Y, the other three customers are correct.
I am aware of the units acquired by U.S Gypsum and your observation is 100% correct;however my question specifically referenced "Customers" who placed direct orders during the 1968-85 period with the manufacturer..U.S Gypsum did not order the units directly from MLW/Bombardier..by the exact wording of the question CSHEGEWISCH is correct..
There are of course,other US rail operators who have acquired locomotives built by MLW since Bombardier shuttered the plant.. granted, none of these other units were purchased as "new old stock" like U.S Gypsum's were..
In retrospect I probably should have kept the question specific to the Providence & Worcester M420Rs as the history of the narrow gauge WP&Y/U.S Gypsum is somewhat convoluted..
Of course, MLW built a number of Canadian and export units during the period specified and numerous locomotives were built under licence in India and Australia.
The last locomotives of MLW US domestic design built in Australia would have been three M636 units built for Robe River in 1977 and 1980. These were completely rebuilt as Dash 8-40C on the original frame and still exist.
Thirty CE-615s, a development of the DL-500G and similar to the MXS-620 were built in 1978-80 and twenty more from 1980 onward.
These last two orders had MLW order numbers 6106 and 6121
The last Robe River unit was MLW order 6116.
For comparison, the VIA LRC units were order numbers 6109 and 6125.
M636C
carnej1 I am aware of the units acquired by U.S Gypsum and your observation is 100% correct; however my question specifically referenced "Customers" who placed direct orders during the 1968-85 period with the manufacturer.
I was responding to CSSHEGEWISCH's comment about 'secondhand' locomotives, not questioning that his answer to you was correct. A question I do not know the answer to, though, is what percentage discount from the 'booked order' price did U.S.Gypsum pay to get those locomotives -- it was surely secondhand-level... (Did the resuscitated WP&Y offer a 'competing bid' at the time that would have raised the price somewhat?)
In any case, the U.S.Gypsum purchase fails to satisfy the terms of the question on an additional ground: the timeframe was restricted to 1969-1985, and the first of the U.S.Gypsum purchases was in 1991.
Not sure who has the current question, but it has been two weeks. Anyone have another question?
What was the main difference between Canadian Locomotive Co's CNR CPA/B-16-5 B-A1A C-Line psgr.units and the rest of the C-Lines built in Canada and the USA??
Passenger Units w S/G no DB. B-A1A. 1600 HP. 6700-05, 6800-05
http://www.imagescn.technomuses.ca/railways/index_view.cfm?photoid=-373936192&id=55
http://www.railpictures.net/images/d1/4/3/1/7431.1298090605.jpg
A-B-B-B new from the Builder. Freight Units w D/B. B-B. 1600 HP.
http://www.imagescn.technomuses.ca/railways/index_view.cfm?photoid=1251480040&id=55
Thank You.
Nose MU?
The A-1-A on rear only? First time I ever seen that...
Ricky W.
HO scale Proto-freelancer.
My Railroad rules:
1: It's my railroad, my rules.
2: It's for having fun and enjoyment.
3: Any objections, consult above rules.
ricktrains4824The A-1-A on rear only? First time I ever seen that...
To my knowledge all the 2400 hp C-liners had the five-axle arrangement. The bigger OP engine was enough reason with the SG also present, while keeping the locomotive as short as possible - a weight-distribution thing, too!
Why this would be the case on a 1600 hp locomotive is less clear -- I'd think almost certainly because it would see use on track with relatively low permissible axle loading. There were other locomotives in Canada, I believe the GMD-1s being examples, that had 'extra' axles to spread the weight properly.
rcdryeNose MU?
Doesn't the question say both A and B units? Show me a B unit that does not have 'nose MU'?
I'm thinking this may have to do with length. Those things look awful short; are they basically the same frame, etc. as a CPA-16-4 with the longer truck put on in back?
I also wonder about those air grills -- are they Farr air grills, replacing the little 'arch' molding behind the cab windows I see in the picture of the demonstrators? I don't think I have seen those in pictures of other C-Liners (but I don't claim particular experience).
The CN CPA-16-5s were the only B-A1A B units built. (Not the answer, but interesting.)
I'm guessing it is the lack of dynamic brakes, and GE electrical equipment instead of Westinghouse?
CP recieved the only steam generator equipped B-B units built, including the F-M demonstrators. All others used the B-A1A arrangement due to steam generator weight.
Other C-Liners were not built. Models:
CFA-24-4
CFB-24-4
CPB-20-5
CPB-24-5
They were all built on a 53'6'' frame.
You are right! These last 12 C-Lines built, 6 As, 6 Bs, were constructed with GE Electric Equipments as Westinghouse was exiting/had exited the heavy traction field.
CNR later put GE Traction Motors under some of their FREIGHT B-B C-lines and equipped SOME of the latter with Nose MU.
CP wrecked CP 4054 and purchased CN 9344 for the carbody to replace it.
http://www.mountainrailway.com/Roster%20Archive/CP%204000/CP%204054-1.jpg
http://www.trainweb.org/oldtimetrains/photos/cnr_diesel/9344.jpg
CN 9344 HAD nose MU added and speculation was Second CP 4054 might retain the feature.
CP cancelled the whole project and CN 9344 and CP 4064 sat facing each other at Ogden Shops before scrapping.
GMD Diesel purchased one of the CNR B-A1A B Units for a projected test bed for 645??? Diesel prime mover road tests, to spread the weight, but, that project, too, was scrapped.
Off Topic, but.
I see there is a model of CP 4016 FA1 in the Script paint.
http://www.modeltrainstuff.com/v/vspfiles/photos/MTH-80-2207-1-2.jpg
The carbody for CP SECOND 4016 SHOWN is really from CP 4014, FIRST CP 4016 wrecked in a head on.
A story that might get fleshed out, some day.
There are four locomotive models to use EMD's D truck. Three were built for western railroads. What is the fourth, and why was it designed?
Three Western, DD35, DD35A (or was it B?) and the UP DDA40X.
I will let someone else get the correct answer for this question though, as I can't remember the model name/number.
It was built, however, to help distribute the weight better for the purchaser. (Kinda like the western ones, more power, and more weight, so, 2 extra axles to help share that extra weight.) (Partial answer, I know. Maybe I can find that info somewhere.....)
You have to think beyond our borders: The four models and railroads are:
DD35: UP, SP
DD35A: UP
DDA40X: UP
DDM45: EF Vitoria a Minas (Brazil)
The DDM45 was designed for meter gauge, and 8 motors were needed in order to utilize the high horsepower.
Ah, yes, that's the one I couldn't quite remember the model of.
Wasn't it a six axle model stateside? I think SD45?
Basically a narrow gauge SD45(?), IIRC. And that's why they needed the additional axles, the meter gauge, as it needed the weight spread further for the narrow track gauge.
I just seem to remember it being a narrow gauge version of a stateside unit, and feel the 45 would mean it's like our version, the SD45, right?
ricktrains4824Basically a narrow gauge SD45(?), IIRC. And that's why they needed the additional axles, the meter gauge, as it needed the weight spread further for the narrow track gauge.
I recall the main reason for the D trucks was the traction motors. The EMD standard narrow gauge traction motor of the time was unable to handle 600 HP continuously.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.