I also assume that it's up to the railroad, such as Union Pacific's SD38-2's that I mentioned as likely candidates for being classified officially as yard power.
I suspect this classification largely has to do with maintenance and inspections, since the demands of those two tasks obviously are very different.
And because of the FRA, union agreements, and so on, road and yard power are mandated to be equipped with particular features. Perhaps the most obvious one is toilet facilities for road power (Which is why late model EMD switchers with road capabilities have that feature).
So I assume what the railroad classifies them as has some bearing there.
Leo_AmesSo just because the FRA says that it's road power doesn't necessarily mean that it's a roadswitcher. Nor does it mean that just because it's classified as yard power, that it's not a roadswitcher and can't be useful in such jobs.
I don't think its the FRA saying it's a road or yard engine (no box for 'roadswitcher'), but the railroads classifying them as such. But a ES44 can be used as a switcher and a MP15 can be used as a road engine. Any port in a storm sort of thing. I really don't get the carding of different engines. Must have some purpose (or had at one time).
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.
Norfolk & Western's RS3's had dual controls just like almost all of its power did until they switched to low noses. Rock Island and Jersey Central did too for units used in commuter service.
schlimmYou make it all seem so easy yet definitive. Bravo!!
While I'd be interested in seeing what some types of locomotives like SW1200RS's, MP15's, and Flexicoil truck equipped SW1500's are officially classified as, it doesn't really matter where a bunch of railfans debating whether or not a particular model should be considered a roadswitcher.
Perhaps my point would be best illustrated with cab units. Nobody would argue for a locomotive like a F7 being classified as a roadswitcher, but it's certainly still considered a road locomotive just the same and has no qualifications for being classified as a switcher.
And by the very nature of the term, it's a type of locomotive that is suitable for both duties and thus could be classified as one or the other since the FRA doesn't seem to officially recognize this hybrid terminology. So just because the FRA says that it's road power doesn't necessarily mean that it's a roadswitcher. Nor does it mean that just because it's classified as yard power, that it's not a roadswitcher and can't be useful in such jobs.
I bet MP15's are down as yard power. But that certainly didn't stop many of their owners from using them on the road like the Southern, Milwaukee Road, and Soo did for three notable examples that routinely did just that.
I bet that Union Pacific's SD38-2's are carded as yard power since that's what Union Pacific considers them as, but would anyone argue that they're not roadswitchers?
A fairly common arrangement for GP-series units was dual-control, with a control stand on each side for bidirectional operation. One end was still designated "F" (short hood on SP, long on CN's US subsidiaries) but the engineer operated it from the train's right side regardless of which way it was pointed. I'm fairly sure that at least some RS2s and RS3s were set up with dual controls.
zugmannust have to take a peek at the FRA blue card in the cab. Box 8 will tell you whether it is a road or yard engine. Probably as definite of an answer as possible.
You make it all seem so easy yet definitive. Bravo!!
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Leo_AmesWould make for an interesting debate. I personally consider them as switchers, but it could certainly be successfully argued otherwise. The MP15's for instance had Blombergs and were good for 60mph on the road. But since their road capabilities were secondary as you essentially said and because their classification as switchers is so ingrained, I'll stick with tradition even if it's perhaps rather hypocritical.
Just have to take a peek at the FRA blue card in the cab. Box 8 will tell you whether it is a road or yard engine. Probably as definite of an answer as possible.
Now what the FRA considers a yard or road locmotive would be the next stage of the debate, I guess. Anyone feel like looking through the CFR?
I personally believe that the H20-44 is a roadswitcher.
You do realize that I wasn't putting forth a claim that said that they weren't just because of their end-cab arrangement? The entire reason I mentioned those earlier products from La Grange in the first place is because I do consider all of these as early EMC/EMD roadswitchers, predating the famous Geep that's widely viewed as the start of EMD roadswitcher production and was mentioned as such in this thread.
Like you've said, capabilities and visibility are what matters in my opinion, rather than something inconsequential such as an appearance that looks like a dedicated switcher. There are candidates meeting that criteria in EMD's catalog years before the GP7 was first built. The GP7 just was the first to hit it big and popularize the concept in their model lineup.
But sadly some railfans will always latch onto something unimportant like the absence of a short hood behind the cab and use that for the basis of an argument. So it seemed worth a minor mention that some think like this.
Someone out there will inevitably say that they don't count, just as you sometimes hear of something like the RS2 being cited as the first true roadswitcher by virtue of its extra 500hp over pioneers like the RS1 and the NW3.
WizlishI hear you argue that Flexicoil trucks don't keep the later EMD switchers from remaining switchers since their wheelbase and cab layout make them relatively ill-suited for actual road service
Would make for an interesting debate.
I personally consider them as switchers, but it could certainly be successfully argued otherwise. The MP15's for instance had Blombergs and were good for 60mph on the road.
But since their road capabilities were secondary as you essentially said and because their classification as switchers is so ingrained, I'll stick with tradition even if it's perhaps rather hypocritical.
Just shows the flaws and pointlessness sometimes of the railfan's zeal for things like classifying groups of locomotives, since so often it's not clear-cut and leaves one rather grasping for reasons to make everything fit when something blurs traditional lines like EMD's late model switchers.
Leo_AmesThe BL1/BL2 is generally considered a road switcher.
And the H20-4-4 isn't?
I thought the definition of 'road-switcher' was a locomotive that could fulfil both roles effectively, and imho the NW-3 clearly qualifies. (I hear you argue that Flexicoil trucks don't keep the later EMD switchers from remaining switchers since their wheelbase and cab layout make them relatively ill-suited for actual road service; I would also add that locomotives with the power of a road locomotive but suspension and transition arrangements limiting them to slow speed would be better considered 'transfer' units...)
I am tempted to claim that a locomotive with Draper taper is just as much a 'road switcher' as a BL2, the running-board arrangements from cab to rear being perhaps actually more convenient in a cowl unit ... but I am not serious.
The BL1/BL2 is generally considered a road switcher.
And even if we consider hood units as being the sole type of locomotive elligible for that monicker, thus disqualifying that example for its unique body style, EMD had some other contendors. The NW5 qualifies just as much as an Alco RS1 did for an example.
They were rated for 1,000 horsepower and thus were at the low end of the road switcher spectrum just like Alco's pioneer, had a hood unit configuration including the short hood forward, and rode on road trucks just like EMD's F units and Geeps did.
And if a unit doesn't need a short hood, there's an argument for the NW4 which predates the other contendors and the RS1. This 900 hp unit rode on AAR Type B road trucks just like most 4 axle road switchers from Alco, Baldwin, FM, and GE's U-Boat lineup later did.
And the slightly later NW3 was 1,000 hp, utilized Blomberg trucks, and also predates Alco's entry. The only argument against it is it too most closely resembled an elongated switcher and lacked the short front hood that its successor, the NW5, had.
The earliest diesels were boxcab switchers with the cabs right out at the end sill. The earliest diesel streamliner locomotives plus the E/F series all had only a short nose in front of the cab. EMD didn't start building roadswitchers until 1949.
longhorn1969 I know NS still operates a few of them, but what was the fascination with them? The view out of them is not as safe as in a safety cab.
I know NS still operates a few of them, but what was the fascination with them? The view out of them is not as safe as in a safety cab.
When diesels first came out, the cab was to the rear of the locomotive. As in steam Era locomotives. The RS3, for example, was utilized, long hood forward for the most part. The safety factor was obvious. I use to dislike high hoods, but after seeing my first RS3 up close, they started growing on me. Now, the GP9 is one of my most favorite locomotives. Though not "thee" favorite. That's reserved for the DD40AX.
I recently purchased a high hood GP9 Seaboard System locomotive in G gauge. I love the look of this locomotive. Especially doing yard work and short hauls, both in reality and in scale.
Visibility was the trade off I believe for safety.
CSSHEGEWISCHI remember and have some photos of EL RS3's running long hood forward.
My father said that when these locomotives ran commuter trains on the old Northern branch, he saw them run long hood forward northbound regularly, but short hood forward the only time he remembers seeing a train run southbound. I think the northbound operation reflects keeping the engine exhaust as far outbound on the platform as possible, and the southbound perhaps reflecting the relative lack of an effective way to turn the engines at Hoboken if they were to arrive long hood forward in relatively large numbers.
Firelock76Someone mentioned FM Trainmasters. Veteran Lehigh Valley railroader and TRP magazine contributor Mike Bednar said Trainmaster crews preferred to run them short hood forward, those OP engines were fumey and the diesel exhaust used to drift into the cabs nauseating the crews when they were run long hood forward.
.
Personally, I think the ALCO RS series (RS-1 through RS-3) look better running long hood forward, just esthetics on my part.
Someone mentioned FM Trainmasters. Veteran Lehigh Valley railroader and TRP magazine contributor Mike Bednar said Trainmaster crews preferred to run them short hood forward, those OP engines were fumey and the diesel exhaust used to drift into the cabs nauseating the crews when they were run long hood forward.
With very few exceptions, almost all RS2/3s were set up for
long hood forward operation.
They make good remote power (since nobody has to run from them).
longhorn1969what was the fascination with them?
GP7/GP9's (and probably RS2/3's) set up to run long hood forward seemed to be an arrangement peculiar to a number of eastern railroads and wasn't that uncommon. I remember and have some photos of EL RS3's running long hood forward.
When I was a kid in the 1950s, I spent hours and hours trackside at the B&O. They ran their Geeps long hood forward. At the time I assumed it was because steam locomotives had their cabs at the back. Then I found many other railroads ran their geeps "backwards". Ah, what did I know...
I saw a NS "high-hood" about a year ago here in Richmond. Not sure what model it was, (GP-38, GP-50, who knows?) but what a blast from the past!
PNWRMNMIf you have to hit a log truck or a gasoline truck the metal hood will protect the crew much better than will a glass window.
The Voice of Experience!!!!!!
As a side note, the high short hood meant that crew members didn't have to crawl down into a low short hood to use the toilet!
Again, The Voice of Experience!!!!!!
The CNJ had GP40P (passenger equipped GP40) with low noses that had dual control stands that were used in commuter service. Some survived with the dual controls until the 1990s on NJ Transit, even though by that time NJT was running push-pull equipment and didn't need the dual controls any more.
nyc#25 When N&W dieselized all with GP9s and RS11s, they all had duel controls. They didn't get GP7s until merger with Wabash and NKP.
When N&W dieselized all with GP9s and RS11s, they all had
duel controls. They didn't get GP7s until merger with Wabash
and NKP.
Engineer and conductor get to fight over who runs the train??
Seriously, dual controls are an expensive option. I believe that VGN also had dual controls for its Train Masters.
May be wrong but N&W just had a few dual control gp-7s. They were needed on a few routes such as the Virginia Creeper due to the extreme curves on that route and some street running.
Domer66Gradually over time, the visibility concerns negated by better collision protection in the short cabs and reduced height cabs started to become accepted.
Also concerns over the diesel exhaust blowing into the cab.
oltmannd A more cynical view is that the high short hood stopped crews from complaining about the view regardless which end was leading. It simplified things building consists, particularly at outlying points. Simple = cheaper. SOU and NW loved cheap.
A more cynical view is that the high short hood stopped crews from complaining about the view regardless which end was leading. It simplified things building consists, particularly at outlying points. Simple = cheaper. SOU and NW loved cheap.
Correct me if I'm mistaken but I believe N&W specified Dual control stands for it's roadswitchers to allow bi-directional operation at the head of a consist. The high short hood was thought to mke the locomotive more "equal" in the crew's eyes (literally as far as the view from the cab) for running long or short hood forward.
The R.R continued to specify dual control stands into the short hood era starting with SD40-2s ordered in the mid 70's..
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
I believe it was a carryover from the steam to diesal transition where a lot of engineers and mechanical department people felt that having the long hood forward with the machinery mass in front was physically safer, despite the visibilty issues. The manufactuers of ealy roadswitchers therefore produced high hoods in response. Gradually over time, the visibility concerns negated by better collision protection in the short cabs and reduced height cabs started to become accepted. But Southern and Norfolk Western resisted the trend being more conservitive in their approach. I've read that they actually stated they kept the high short hood to discourage shorthood forward operation. But with more and more acceptance and enhanced collision protection the Safety Cab prevailed.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.