Could 4 restored Southern Crescent E8s pull a fan trip in the future?

5643 views
36 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    January 2019
  • 677 posts
Posted by Erik_Mag on Saturday, April 4, 2020 1:35 PM

The Genesis units' nose reminds me of the 1960's version of Iron Man, specifically the animated series ca 1967.

  • Member since
    March 2016
  • From: Burbank IL (near Clearing)
  • 12,093 posts
Posted by CSSHEGEWISCH on Saturday, April 4, 2020 10:03 AM

To me, the Genesis units resemble a boxy version of M-497's shovelnose.

The daily commute is part of everyday life but I get two rides a day out of it. Paul
  • Member since
    July 2004
  • 2,418 posts
Posted by Paul Milenkovic on Friday, April 3, 2020 11:14 PM

Is it just me or are the high slit windows of the Genesis reminiscent of that New York Central RDC that they stuck jet engine on top for a speed run?

If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
  • Member since
    March 2012
  • 116 posts
Posted by guetem1 on Friday, April 3, 2020 3:58 PM
Looks like I am in the minority here, but I thought the F-59PHI's were a handsome locomotive. Far more pleasing to the eye that the Genesis units
  • Member since
    September 2017
  • 3,712 posts
Posted by charlie hebdo on Tuesday, January 14, 2020 9:21 AM

How about a Motive Power  unit,  as built and used on various commuter lines? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metra

  • Member since
    January 2001
  • From: Atlanta
  • 11,710 posts
Posted by oltmannd on Tuesday, January 14, 2020 6:39 AM

Lithonia Operator

I actually do like the looks of the Genesis units. More than I do the F40. The Genesis engine has a purposeful I-mean-business look about it. To me the F40 looks like a very poor, boxy attempt to harken back to the classic covered wagons, and failing badly.

 

According to the GE folk at Erie I used to deal with, one of Amtrak's criteria for the Genesis carbody was it needed to be fairly easy to fix wreck damage.  Given the number and frequency of road crossings these locomotives would encounter - compared to Acela, for example - they couldn't have any tough to fabricate or patch streamlining.

I think they look pretty good but look much better with paint schemes that disguise the high slot-like windshield windows.  

-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/

  • Member since
    May 2019
  • 1,232 posts
Posted by Lithonia Operator on Monday, January 13, 2020 10:56 PM

I actually do like the looks of the Genesis units. More than I do the F40. The Genesis engine has a purposeful I-mean-business look about it. To me the F40 looks like a very poor, boxy attempt to harken back to the classic covered wagons, and failing badly.

  • Member since
    September 2003
  • 13,418 posts
Posted by Overmod on Saturday, October 5, 2019 4:20 PM

Keep in mind that there's a long tradition in using polymers like Cycolac (ABS) or Endura (urethane, and not the same thing as EnDura) for flexible nose components.  Fiberglass is almost unavoidably brittle and, historically, tends to age in a way that both loses strength and exposes itchy glass reinforcement.

A common point with composite parts is that they can be strong and reliable when stressed according to the way they're fabricated.  That's great for struts, and aerodynamic panels with comparatively smooth loading and unloading.  Problem is that tremendous force is developed in the plane of a panel transverse to an impact, much like high force is developed in a rope pushed sideways, and if there is no functional elasticity the panel matrix will fracture rather than distort, likely spot-overloading the reinforcement in the areas adjacent to the fracture lines.  Easy to patch with a bit of resin and Fiberglas tape, yes; easy to adopt one of the Bondo-like systems, yes -- but anyone with more than passing familiarity with, say, earlier Corvettes may remark on what happens when something contacts the nose or hood with any particular force... when the top is down...

That behavior is almost the antithesis of what is needed for good impact resistance in locomotives, even if pieces of composite spall off on the inside or are exposed on the 'inside' of dents.  Plastics with adequate UV shielding are a far better answer ... and are often easily patched or kludged, too.

  • Member since
    May 2013
  • 3,231 posts
Posted by NorthWest on Saturday, October 5, 2019 2:11 PM

I'm aware of that. Carbon fiber and other composites tend to be brittle, though, so they aren't a particularly good choice for locomotive noses.

Fiberglass is cheap to replace when they inevitably get banged up.

The first of the P40DCs had a much smaller replacable nose, but after they got damaged enough times they modified them to the larger nose piece used on later units. Much easier than trying to restore sheet metal.

  • Member since
    March 2016
  • From: Burbank IL (near Clearing)
  • 12,093 posts
Posted by CSSHEGEWISCH on Saturday, October 5, 2019 10:11 AM

Fiberglass and composites are not the same.  Composites can be load-bearing and require a fair amount of work to be fabricated properly.  Much of the Boeing 787 is made of composites.

The daily commute is part of everyday life but I get two rides a day out of it. Paul
  • Member since
    May 2013
  • 3,231 posts
Posted by NorthWest on Saturday, October 5, 2019 9:37 AM

CMStPnP
Or even better yet aren't their composites these days which could be fit over angular metal........you would still have the bulldog nose with the composite material but with the steel underneath for crash protection.

THe EMD F59PHIs were built this way. They have a fiberglass nose mounted over a box-like framework.

  • Member since
    September 2003
  • 13,418 posts
Posted by Overmod on Saturday, October 5, 2019 8:27 AM

CMStPnP
I am just curious why it has to be bent metal and why it cannot be cast with molten metal?

Cost, weight, and strength.  Keep in mind most of the sections are actually formed rather than just bent, but with modern welding setup and not much more equipment than is already obsolescent at shipyards, it would be very simple to convert even complex deeply-drawn plate sections into full noses and then stress-relieve them properly.  See some of the papers in the 'deep-drawing research group' for ideas on how to fabricate complex shapes from heavy sheet or plate.

Meanwhile, a casting would involve relatively large and heavy mold sections and cores, which would almost certainly require relatively high preheat to get good filling and a protracted, but carefully timed, pour.  (Here the fabrication methods for modern diesel-engine thin-wall cast engine block/crankcases would suggest themselves).  I think it more likely that you'd use lost-foam castings and weld-assemble them together with hydroformed pieces, as proposed for the T1 5550 frame.

The catch here is that very heavy structure in the framing is involved in S-580 compatibility.  You might approximate some of this in a tank-hull-like casting, but I think the structural weight would still be higher than fabricated weldments.

Part of the 'solution' is to design a nose with simply-fabricated complex contours, like a modified Patten design (or slantnose) which includes the collision posts, CEM structure, and whatever else is desirable for crew protection.  The real issue here is failure of vision -- too much Vergara and far too little actual aesthetic design, in my opinion at least -- and this is one of the easier things to address at least as DFM is concerned.

Or even better yet aren't their composites these days which could be fit over angular metal...

Yes, and I believe no few of the Vergara-style noses are actually made this way, as are some of the modern CEM-dependent 'controlled crush' structures.  They probably increase weight, and overall cost, which may make them less attractive for purchasing when there are so many additional costs competing for the lowest prospective bid.

...you would still have the bulldog nose with the composite material but with the steel underneath for crash protection.

I have a suspicion that this might dramatically reduce the useful volume in both the nose and the cab interior space, and it will be interesting to see whether there are 'tighter' internal cab layouts that some of the railroaders here would approve of.  My own opinion would be to have radically smaller internal cab volume, with vastly increased crash padding and reactive surface, and heavier deflective armoring both around and above the cab volume, perhaps using cameras on directional mounts for the kind of visibility now provided by side windows.  Note that the 'next generation' of hypersonic and perhaps supersonic aircraft will have a forward virtual-reality display rather than physical forward windows; it's much easier to design a reasonably disaster-proof crew space and 'refuge' as a capsule than as a weldment box with lots of penetrations.

  • Member since
    January 2019
  • From: Henrico, VA
  • 5,277 posts
Posted by Flintlock76 on Friday, October 4, 2019 6:25 PM

I couldn't agree more CMS'!

This subject came up quite a while ago, 2012 or 2013.  There was a poster at the time who was a welder and I remember him saying fabricating the "bulldog" nose of an E or F unit, or the nose of a PA or an FA would be no problem for todays welders.  Just give them them plans an tell 'em to get on with it he said.

Don't remember who it was, I hope he's still out there looking in.

  • Member since
    June 2009
  • From: Dallas, TX
  • 4,753 posts
Posted by CMStPnP on Friday, October 4, 2019 5:47 PM

Flintlock76
Most  passengers don't care what pulls the train as long as it get them there, and the 'roads that own 'em could care less as well.

A great many are impressed with the front end power if it evokes a sense of speed and streamlining.   So I would not necessarily agree that most passengers do not care.   Some probably could care less though.

Streamlining is an industrial form of art in my opinion.    Look at the Burlington Zephyr the locomotives and tail car evoked speed.    The car skirts gave the illusion via shadow the train was floating above the rails and the sans serif lettering on the name boards and art deco decorating inside evoked modern travel.    All were served up as a package to the paying passenger as part of the ride and my bets are it was noticed by most of the travelers that rode the train as indicating it was a premier train of it's time vs just average.

  • Member since
    June 2009
  • From: Dallas, TX
  • 4,753 posts
Posted by CMStPnP on Friday, October 4, 2019 5:45 PM

CSSHEGEWISCH
Compound curves, as in EMD's bulldog nose, are still expensive to fabricate despite new techniques.  The metal still has to be bent into shape and it would take a pretty large press to accomplish that when the sheet metal being used is a bit thicker than automotive body parts. Ray Patten at GE came up with a pretty good design with the flatnose design as used by Alco in three different versions.

I am just curious why it has to be bent metal and why it cannot be cast with molten metal?    Or even better yet aren't their composites these days which could be fit over angular metal........you would still have the bulldog nose with the composite material but with the steel underneath for crash protection.

  • Member since
    August 2009
  • 22 posts
Posted by Crescentlover on Friday, October 4, 2019 11:13 AM

I rode many F40s on our Ensco Inc/FRA track survey in 1984 ("Riding the Rails  with Riley" TRAINS, Sept 2009).  If you had good lighting from the side and squinted a little bit, the shadow was close to an F unit. I remember rolling along the Denver and Rio Grande outside Grand Junction, looking at our shadow in the October sun, and wishing I was in the lead F3/F7/F9 of the  the CA Zephyr. Now I would be happy to see three F40s pulling hard! How time flies. Remember, these are the good old days!

  • Member since
    January 2019
  • From: Henrico, VA
  • 5,277 posts
Posted by Flintlock76 on Friday, October 4, 2019 9:26 AM

" Why are todays passenger locomotives so blasted ugly and why can't they they make 'em look like an E unit or an ALCO PA?" is a question that's be asked for years by a lot of railfans, including me.  Anyone besides me think Amtraks "Genesis" units are creepy-looking?

The plain fact of the matter is only we railfans care about  this.  Most  passengers don't care what pulls the train as long as it get them there, and the 'roads that own 'em could care less as well.

What are you gonna do?

I've always said that one way to really  get people riding trains again is to put steam engines on 'em and don't call it transportation, call it a ride,  but that's not going to happen either.

  • Member since
    March 2016
  • From: Burbank IL (near Clearing)
  • 12,093 posts
Posted by CSSHEGEWISCH on Friday, October 4, 2019 7:07 AM

Compound curves, as in EMD's bulldog nose, are still expensive to fabricate despite new techniques.  The metal still has to be bent into shape and it would take a pretty large press to accomplish that when the sheet metal being used is a bit thicker than automotive body parts.

Ray Patten at GE came up with a pretty good design with the flatnose design as used by Alco in three different versions.

The daily commute is part of everyday life but I get two rides a day out of it. Paul
  • Member since
    June 2009
  • From: Dallas, TX
  • 4,753 posts
Posted by CMStPnP on Thursday, October 3, 2019 10:35 PM

As for me, I always wonder why the locomotive industry can't find a single industrial designer to make a decent looking Passenger Locomotive exterior that inspires people and takes them back to the era of streamlining like the E's and F's did.    Is it really that hard to design something that looks good from the exterior that is also crash worthy?    The cab forward limits of the Amtrak P22s are not much different than the old E units..........yet they look like boxy crap.    The F40's at least had a little angular streamlining in the front but even so still a far cry from an old F unit in sleek lines.    I have heard rumors before from others how much time it took to make an old F unit nose and that a good portion of it is bondo.    However, I would think that manufacturing and welding processes have significantly advanced since then?

  • Member since
    August 2009
  • 22 posts
Posted by Crescentlover on Thursday, October 3, 2019 9:17 PM

A photo shoot would be great! Line 'em up like they used to; two facing forward, two backwards, add the Southern cars from SARM. It could happen. I will be contributing towards its restoration, like I did for  611s'. Every $$ helps. Look ahead-look south!

  • Member since
    January 2019
  • From: Henrico, VA
  • 5,277 posts
Posted by Flintlock76 on Thursday, October 3, 2019 9:09 PM

Thanks!

  • Member since
    September 2010
  • From: East Coast
  • 966 posts
Posted by D.Carleton on Thursday, October 3, 2019 8:55 PM

Flintlock76

Yuck!  6913's a disgrace!  Anyone know who owns it?

Owned by the Southern Appalachia Railway Museum; donations accepted toward restoration: http://www.secretcityrailroad.com/equipment

Editor Emeritus, This Week at Amtrak

  • Member since
    January 2019
  • From: Henrico, VA
  • 5,277 posts
Posted by Flintlock76 on Thursday, October 3, 2019 7:17 PM

Yuck!  6913's a disgrace!  Anyone know who owns it?

  • Member since
    September 2010
  • From: East Coast
  • 966 posts
Posted by D.Carleton on Thursday, October 3, 2019 5:34 PM

Leo_Ames

How many others survive? Saw a picture of a 5th a while back, looking pretty sorry in old New Jersey Transit paint. 

The one in "white elephant" NJT paint is the 6913 at Oak Ridge, TN: http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/showPicture.aspx?id=4453473

That said, I'd be satisfied with the four gathered together around the turntable at Spencer for a photoshoot.

Editor Emeritus, This Week at Amtrak

  • Member since
    January 2019
  • From: Henrico, VA
  • 5,277 posts
Posted by Flintlock76 on Thursday, October 3, 2019 9:35 AM

This might  be it...

https://www.urhs.org/locomotives#/njdot-4253   

Here's the whole website...

https://www.urhs.org    

  • Member since
    November 2008
  • 1,512 posts
Posted by Leo_Ames on Thursday, October 3, 2019 4:24 AM

How many others survive? Saw a picture of a 5th a while back, looking pretty sorry in old New Jersey Transit paint. 

  • Member since
    August 2009
  • 22 posts
Posted by Crescentlover on Wednesday, October 2, 2019 8:15 PM

I hope we haven't missed a window. While I doubt NS will pick up the ball and run with it, a la UP for resurecting 4014, maybe the four museums that own them could somehow get them together. Think of all the work that went into "Streamliners at Spencer." this would be much less. We only need 4 of them for this dream to come true.

I wish I was walking along with Graham Clytor at a 4501 fan trip at Alexandria VA in 1977 like my new avatar. "Mr. Claytor, can we borrow four E8s for a weekend? Please?" "Sure, Scott, just bring 'em back washed and fueled up!" lol. I can dream. 

  • Member since
    January 2001
  • From: Atlanta
  • 11,710 posts
Posted by oltmannd on Wednesday, October 2, 2019 6:36 PM

Rumor has it that Wick Moorman got the Southeast RR museum E-8 up to Juniata for paint, but once there, it got a lot more work, but never got painted.  He is reported to say that three operational SOU E-8s would have looked nice on the NS business train. So, reading between the lines...  But, then he retired and PSR occurred.

-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/

  • Member since
    January 2019
  • From: Henrico, VA
  • 5,277 posts
Posted by Flintlock76 on Wednesday, October 2, 2019 4:54 PM

Small world indeed!  I met Robert West and his wife at a train show here about 20 years ago, I bought one of his paintings (a print, acually) called "The Water Level Route" and let me tell you, he did his homework!  Got the upper Hudson River valley perfectly, to say nothing of the Hudson locomotive pulling the train.

As I was ready to hand him the money he said "Oh no, give it to the wife, she's the banker!"  "Wow!" I said, "Just like our house!"  And we got a good laugh out of that.  Nice couple!

I never met Graham Claytor, but his signature (as Secretary of the Navy) is on my commission as a Marine First Lieutenant.  

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