EL SD40 #3000

1138 views
6 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    May, 2011
  • 55 posts
EL SD40 #3000
Posted by IA and eastern on Monday, August 12, 2019 12:33 PM

Has anyone ever modeled the EL SD40 #3000. This is the locomotive that EL brought after it was wrecked on EL trackage and the locomotive was to be rebuilt by the EL and numbered 3000.  Gary

  • Member since
    October, 2014
  • From: La Grange Illinois USA
  • 124 posts
Posted by 16-567D3A on Monday, August 12, 2019 1:34 PM

IA and eastern

Has anyone ever modeled the EL SD40 #3000. This is the locomotive that EL brought after it was wrecked on EL trackage and the locomotive was to be rebuilt by the EL and numbered 3000.  Gary

 

EL 3000 was never Repaired. As CNJ 3069 it suffered heavy damage in a washout rollover on 9/12/75. the hulk was purchased by Erie Lackawanna sent to Hornell and given the number 3000 for a rebuilding that was canceled.Sold to Milwaukee Road then passed on to KCS where it was stripped of usable components and the remainder scrapped.the other damaged unit in the accident EL SDP45 3637 which rolled and burned was returned to lessor NW and rebuilt to a road slug. only a serious hard core EL modeler would build this modelers license unit. Did you ask over at Model Railroder or at a EL or Conrail web site ?.

  • Member since
    September, 2010
  • From: East Coast
  • 932 posts
Posted by D.Carleton on Saturday, August 17, 2019 3:19 AM

As an aside, EL class locomotives acquired new never ended with a "0": first C424-2401, first U25B-2501, first SD45-3601, etc. Was it to be 3000 because it wasn't new?

Editor Emeritus, This Week at Amtrak

  • Member since
    October, 2014
  • From: La Grange Illinois USA
  • 124 posts
Posted by 16-567D3A on Saturday, August 17, 2019 6:56 AM

D.Carleton

As an aside, EL class locomotives acquired new never ended with a "0": first C424-2401, first U25B-2501, first SD45-3601, etc. Was it to be 3000 because it wasn't new?

 

Thats a good guess.i would add EL likley passed on a rebuild because of a decision of damage being so extensive that it was not cost effective and/or it was so close to the eve of Conrail.

  • Member since
    September, 2010
  • From: East Coast
  • 932 posts
Posted by D.Carleton on Wednesday, August 28, 2019 5:21 AM

16-567D3A
D.Carleton

As an aside, EL class locomotives acquired new never ended with a "0": first C424-2401, first U25B-2501, first SD45-3601, etc. Was it to be 3000 because it wasn't new?

Thats a good guess.i would add EL likley passed on a rebuild because of a decision of damage being so extensive that it was not cost effective and/or it was so close to the eve of Conrail.

The thought also occurs that perhaps the EL was leaving room on the roster for potential new SD40's that would have started with 3001. EL rebuilt many things that other railroads would have passed on. Think about that RS-3 they completely redid using parts of an ex-B&M locomotive.

Editor Emeritus, This Week at Amtrak

  • Member since
    March, 2016
  • From: Burbank IL (near Clearing)
  • 11,443 posts
Posted by CSSHEGEWISCH on Wednesday, August 28, 2019 6:44 AM

I believe that the ex-B&M RS3 in question wound up on D&H, and it may have been acquired primarily because it had a steam generator (for the "Adirondack").

The daily commute is part of everyday life but I get two rides a day out of it. Paul
  • Member since
    September, 2010
  • From: East Coast
  • 932 posts
Posted by D.Carleton on Monday, September 02, 2019 1:31 PM

CSSHEGEWISCH

I believe that the ex-B&M RS3 in question wound up on D&H, and it may have been acquired primarily because it had a steam generator (for the "Adirondack").

Thanks to a hurricane I’m back at the home office and the family library including Preston Cook’s Erie Lackawanna Memories. The RS-3 in question, 1057, was completed in May 1973 using the bits of three donors: EL, B&M and D&H. It is a fascinating study of a railroad on it’s heels still churning out quality work. His photographic work in the area ends just before the SD40 arrived and there is no mention of it in the text. That they kept it until the end indicates they saw value in it but the new realities after ConRail fool’s day 1976 dictated otherwise.

Editor Emeritus, This Week at Amtrak

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