Electric locomotives in the U.S.

[wallyworld]

CSHegewisch-I agree that street running did occur but it was an exception rather than a rule. You haven't convinced me. The South Shore has earned the title America's Last Interurban for a reason although it was built to a higher standard but then so was the Skokie Valley bypass of the CNS&M.( a similar section of the South Shore was known as the ideal section)As artpeterson pointed out the heavier motive power arrived on the scene late in the South Shore's existance as a private enterprise.The six wheel trucks of afew cars that had a short life that did not fit the standardised scheme of equipment does not make the case to this writer that the South Shore was not an interurban in character. The standard cars as originally delivered prior to modernization came with pantographs and trolley poles. With the exception of the curvature restrictions of the Bloomington line ITC had freight as its bread and butter hence its post electric existance-long freight drags were common without any restrictive problems, except perhaps the height of the underpasses on the city bypasses which IT used to avoid street running. Whether we consider it and interurban or not, we have to admire its tenacity as a road that survived. I wonder if the North Shore would have experienced a similar growth of passenger traffic as the South Shore had it survived.

[Anonymous]

My favourite electric is the W-1 giant of the Great Northern. Sadly, they were only in service between 1947 and 1956. That´s just not enough for a loco that could develope 180.000 Ibs of tractive effort!!

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

Street running, even with main lines, was long a part of steam railroading. Consider Monon in Lafayette, NKP in Erie, NYC in Syracuse, etc. South Shore's original voltage was 6600 volts AC, converted to 1500 volts DC to coincide with the IC's suburban lines to allow through service to Randolph Street. None of the heavy parlors (351-352) and diners (301-302) were converted to 4-wheel trucks, they were removed from service due to the Depression. South Shore did have two parlor cars built on 4-wheel trucks (353-354) that were converted to coach trailers. I will concede the short length of the passenger equipment as interurban in character, but about half of them were stretched to 77' without having to beef up the traction gear.

Unlike most interurbans, even ITC, freight cars were not restricted from any mainline trackage due to curves.

[artpeterson]

I think there are two distinct phases to the South Shore's evolution - first, the Insull reconstruction and re-equipping to first class passenger hauling standards and then the later (post WWII) transformation of the line into a serious freight hauler.

The 1941 acquisition of the 100-ton ex-IC steeplecabs allowed SSL to retire the two 50-ton locomotives, which were then sold to Niagara Jct. Freight revenues rose in 1941 and would continue on an upward trend until 1948. But its the arrival of the "Little Joes" and the ex-NYC locomotives in the mid-50s that really transformed things!

Regarding the earlier question about CTA freight service, none since the spring of 1973 when the service to Lill Coal along the north side "L" stopped.

[wallyworld]

I would have to disagree with the statement the CSSB was built steam railroad standards from the beginning. Until the East Chicago bypass was constructed well after the Insull era, there was significant street running as well as the still existing main line down the streets of Michigan City. If the CSSB ran at a higher voltage, I might be inclined to agree that it would be more of a Class I electric rather than an interurban. I think the CSSB was as close to the line of not being classifiable as interurban as any. The six wheel parlors were closer to Class I equipment however they were the odd men out in the scheme of standardization and had a comparitively short life span before being converted to a more standard profile.The IT and CSSB did have two things in common; a good freight traffic base and conversion to diesel power to move it. The Piedmont and Northern in the Carolinas is an overlooked heavy hauler that created homebuilt motive power that was the template for Oregon Electric aka North Shore four truck haulers as well as IT. They hauled long strings of coal to Duke Power plants and looked pretty awesome in their later rebuildings complete with pantographs.. And, once again, this operation was dieselized. Freight operations powered by juicejacks on these lines all went south when interurban passenger service went away. The web site Dons Depot has some good photos of the equipment that give a taste of what this operation looked like.

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

South Shore was built to steam railroad standards right from the beginning, quite an unusual practice for an interurban. Most of Illinois Traction was built to the less demanding interurban standards, causing problems later, especially on the line through Bloomington.

I will go way out on a limb and say that South Shore became more of an electric railroad and less of an interurban with the Insull purchase and rehabilitation beginning in 1926. Except for their length (60-61'), the MU cars were indistinguishable from steam road equipment, including dining and parlor cars with Commonwealth 6-wheel trucks, and the steeple cabs were exceptionally large. South Shore also operated a lot more freight service than most interurbans.

[daveklepper]

I heard the same thing, but never had it confirmed. Mitch, a South Shore engineer who is a regular on the TRAINS forum should know. I also have some other contacts.

The South Shore's trackage and right of way were sufficiently heavy so diesel freights are not any more of a problem than they were under electric power, from what I understand.

The only "interurban" electric freight today is the Iowa Terminal and the museum-freight railroad operation at East Troy, Wisconsin. Anyone know of others? I guess South Brooklyn division of New York's subway system occasionally uses on of its remaining steeple cabs instead of a diesel in freight service -on third rail, but that must be very rare. The CTA, possibly? Yakima freight is diesel, as far as I know.

Heavy hauling freight today seems to electric only on "captive" mine-to-power plant lines.

Europe is a different story. But in the UK freight is deisel even on electrified lines.

[wallyworld]

Another disadvantage of continued electrical operation was the necessary upping the voltage to 1200. I dont know if they would have necessarily bought their motive power as they may have fabricated their own as they had in the past with the Classes B,C and D. Regardless It would have been interesting to see what a Class E would have looked like.They even looked at mu operation of diesels with electrics ala Milwaukee Road or mu operation of the D's.I don't agree, however, that trackage rights were a good thing and apparently neither did they as they rehabilitated an old Pennsy secondary line and their desire to return to their own trackage was a strong desire expressed by Dennis Wison, IT's most successful president. The Geeps did not distribute their weight as lightly as a four truck C or D and damaged lighter interurban rail.Many times crews were called only to be outlawed because no clearance was given.
As a fan, I wi***hey had pursued the electric way. As a realist, they could neither afford it nor would it have made much difference in the end. However, all this talk of interurban freight makes me wonder-what was the heaviest interurban freight hauler? I am away from home and dont have my reference books to fall back on. A CSSB Little Joe? I understand they never pulled their potential due to a lack of juice. True?

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

ITC was caught between a rock and a hard place on the diesel v. electric issue. The electrical system would have had to have been rebuilt to support the greater power demands of moving heavier freight trains and its own track and bridges would need to be upgraded because of heavier freight cars and better clearances. Street running was an additional hazard.

Assuming that the above-mentioned upgrades took places, new electric locomotives would have been more expensive than off-the-shelf diesels because of their small production numbers. Diesels and trackage rights were probably the best option at the time.

Also remember that much of Illinois Terminal in the Metro East area was not electrified and already ran with steam and diesel power.

[wallyworld]

An interesting part of the Ilinois Terminal story was the fact that they made a very diligent effort in studying the advantages of electric versus diesel power prior to dismantling the overhead but the conversion to diesel power had an adverse effect. Alot of their trackage in municipalities ran down city streets for many decades which regularly hosted freight drags whose electric motive power was fairly quiet.Once the decision had been made to convert to diesel power they parked a diesel in town and idled it to demonstrate how quiet they were.Despite this,the diesel powered freights had a noise level that was found to be objectionable prompting successful calls to have them removed, which led to reliance on trackage rights. Derailments on the lighter rail became common.Long delays on trackage rights movements were also common. In hindsight perhaps the conversion was a mistake from a motive power point of view.

[PBenham]

Electrification requires a rather heavy concentration of traffic in a limited area/space.There is another consideration. If a stretch of track is idle more than 80% of a full 24-hour day, electrification is not economically viable. There's the rub for freight service. Along with that is the utilization problem caused by straight electrics being tied to areas under wires, or next to a third rail. Then, these days, no one and I mean NO ONE can construct a power generating facility of any kind without winding up in court for years and years and years! We have a shortage of electrical generating capacity right now, and the situation won't improve in my lifetime (i'm 54) or in the life times of anyone over thirty right now. Those of you in your twenties will be elderly before new power generating facilities will be built. By then, the choices will be limited and VERY expensive. This will have far reaching consequences for the US economy, limiting its ability to grow.

[Philcal]

The question can arguably answered with one word. Oil. In the 1920's the U.S. was self sufficient in oil, and it was actually cheap. Substantial electrification had been done on roads such as the Pennsylvania, New Haven, Milwaukee Rd, Great Northern, Virginian, and others. The advent of the diesel-electric locomotive, pretty well arrested any further electrification in the United States.In Europe, on the other hand,even while coal was plentiful, electric traction proved a much cleaner, thus attractive alternative. The physical plant requirements for a purely diesel railroad are also considerably less costly than those of an electric road. The current spiking price of fossil fuels may bring electrification to the fore once again, but a complete phase over, will probably never occur.

[daveklepper]

You are correct ab out the PRR's E3b and E2c, but they were experimental. I thought only one of each was buit. The EP-5 may be said to be the first "production" rectifier after the New Haven got the first "railroad" (as opposed to subway car) rectifier mu cars, the "Washboards" or 4400's.

Most people who know still thought the GG-1 and certainly the EF-3 could outrun and outpull an EP-5, and the EP-5's were almost never used in freight service. The EP-5 was not only innovative in being a rectifier locomotive, but also innovative in using standard diesel electric technology to the extent possible, including trucks and traction motors (dc). The E-33's and E-44's also used parts common to diesel electrics but were specifically designed and geared for freight service.

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

QUOTE: Originally posted by David_Telesha

And the NH EP-5 was the *first* rectifier...[:D]

Does it predate the PRR E3b's and E2c's built by Baldwin-Westinghouse?

[David_Telesha]

And the NH EP-5 was the *first* rectifier...[:D]

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

The EL-C/EF4/E33 and E44 were logical follow-ups to the PRR experimentals of the early 1950's and the NH washboard MU's. They were rectifier locomotives with Ignitron tube rectifiers with the later E44's rebuilt or equipped with silicon diode rectifiers and were a major advance over motor-generator locomotives like GN's W-1's and the various straight AC locomotives.

[daveklepper]

GG-1 was built for both speed and power, where the Bi-Polar was an older design, dc, with tractive effort possibly more important than speed. The GG-1 was built to operate on 11,000V AC, and the Bi-polar on 3,000V DC. For Milwaukee service, the Little Joe was more comparable to the GG-1. The two extra set of dirvers (4-8-8-4 instead of 4-6-6-4, or rather 2-D+D-2 instead of 2-C+C-2) was mainly for the lighter weight track structure of the Russian railroads they were originally designed for. But most engineers would probably say the GG-1 was a better locomotive and the New Haven's EF-3 even better yet. The development of rectifiers and solid-state switching now has given us a new generation, with the little Swedesh Meatball, AEM-7 matching the GG-1 in all but tractive effort and having really become a classic in iits own right. The PRR's E-44's were logical developments from the E-33's, all good freight locomotives and much easier to maintain if not quite up to a GG-1 or EF-3. The early PRR's O-1's and P-5's were really attempts to continue to apply steam locomotive thinking to electrics and continued to be used, along with the pioneering DD-1in LIRR service, long after they were really obsolete.

[JanOlov]

How would the different motors compare to each other? PRR's GG-1 to the Milwaukee Roads Bi-Polars etc. etc?

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

daveklepper's example points out one advantage of straight electrics: a virtually limitless source of energy from the wire. Combine this with short-term motor ratings and an electric will look better if you compare diesels with electrics based on the continuous rating of the electric and the hp rating into the generator of the diesel.

At any rate, the amount of energy required to move the train is going to be the same, whether the source of that energy is four 567C diesel engines or the Cos Cob power plant.

[daveklepper]

I pointed out that it took THREE GP-9's to do the work of ONE EF-3 on Bay Ridge - Ceder Hill freight trains over the Hell Gate Bridge. But now on rereading the book on the New Haven in the McGinnis Days (New Haven RR Historical and Technical Society), I see the author says FOUR GP-9's., so I guess it did depend somewhat on the length of the freight train. And again, one EF-3 was sufficient for any train the New Haven operated on this route. And the little "Ponies" and "Geeps" (2-B+B-2) that inaugurated the electrification, some built as early as 1910, ran right up to about 1955, some of them. Two were sold to the B&M during WWII to help with capacity at Hoosack Tunnel. One GP-9 was thus about equal to one "Geep" in pulling freight.

[David_Telesha]

QUOTE: Originally posted by CSSHEGEWISCH

With apologies to David Telesha, the NH electrics may not have been oddballs, but they have operating limits. They obviously never ran east of New Haven while diesels could and did run systemwide.

Sure they did, the wire ran east into Cedar Hill.[:p]

They served their purpose where the wires were.

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

With apologies to David Telesha, the NH electrics may not have been oddballs, but they have operating limits. They obviously never ran east of New Haven while diesels could and did run systemwide.

[Anonymous]

In my opinion the electrification on the Virginian was the most successful. It permitted the Virginian to greatly increase the capacity of their single track main while at the same time reducing operating costs significantly. Unfortunately when N&W bought them out the Virginian main line was converted to single direction, which doomed the juice jacks.

[daveklepper]

Those unfamiliar with this power, the EP-3 was a box-cab 2-C+C-2 (4-6-6-4) with dc third-rail capapbility and steam boiler, the EP-4 was double-end streamlined, again with dc third-rail capability and steam boilder, and the EF-3 was the last of these and the most powerful, more powerful than a GG-1, with a body quite similar to the EP-4, but intended initially as a freight hauler with top speed of 60mph, and without dc third-rail capability. Some EF-3's were equipped with steam boilers for passenger service into Penn Station over the Hell Gate Bridge, and in that service they regularly ran at 70mph and often unofficially much higher. Again, in my opinion the best electric locomotive ever built. The biggest advantage over the GG-1 were the far better crew amenities. They never needed assistance handling a freight of any length on the Hell Bridge approach grades.

The EP-5's were the "Jets", C-C, rectifier double-end cab locomotives, bodies similar to double-end PA's. Thge EF-4's were the E-33's rectifier electrics from the N&W and Virginian.

[David_Telesha]

QUOTE: Originally posted by daveklepper

Almost. A really good catenary installation can last about fifty years, but then isn't that what people hope for with concrete ties and heavy ballast and heavy rail?

If the USA wants to be really serious about energy independence, then railway electrification is one good step in that direction. Just the heavierst main lines, including NS Harrisburg - Pittsburgh, UP Council Bluffs - Ogden, the Transcon possibly. Required legislation: Power companies can get back into the transportation business. No increase in real estate taxes on account of electrification and uses or railroad rights of way for electric transmission lines.

Coments about the PRR leaning on the New Haven are correct. And the New Haven's EF-3 (not EP-3), was a further improvement on the GG-1. Best "motor" ever built! (And the I-5 4-6-4 is tied with the N&W J and Daylight for the most beautiful streamlined steam locomotive.)

EP-3 came before the GG1 and was used for testing and design of the GG1. I believe the PRR borrowed 2 EP-3's.

The EF-3 and EP-4 came later - late 1930s and early 1940's, and you are correct they were improved 2-C+C-2 base motors.

[daveklepper]

Of course the New Jersey Transit "River Line" from the Camden, NJ, Harbor, over city streets to the old PRR Camden and Amboy right of way, then that right of way, which itself includes bits of street running, to the Trenton RR Station, on the street below the NEC ROW, is clearly an interurban line. But it is diesel powered using articulated diesel Sadler Swiss diesel light rail cars, often in two-car trains. And CSX does provide freight service when the light rail system takes a recess for the night.

[Anonymous]

The comment about an interurban line going without the overhead sounded to me like the CRANDIC, Cedar Rapids and Iowa City.

Art

[Anonymous]

I'd like to know if there was any preference on the part of engineers between operating electric locomotives, diesels, or steam.

Erik

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

QUOTE: Originally posted by AltonFan

I recall reading about an interurban line that managed to survive the depression, and into the 1950s. The line developed its freight business as the passenger business declined. In the mid-1950s, the electrical system needed an overhaul. So the catenart was deenergized and removed, and diesels were acquired.

It makes me wonder: are railroad electrical systems as important for deferred maintenance regulations as track work?

Sounds like either the Illinois Terminal or Fort Dodge, Des Moines & Southern. While ITC and North Shore Line did have some catenary, most interurban overhead was single-wire direct suspension.

As far as the electrical system needing an overhaul: in the case of Illinois Terminal, freight business was good enough that the electrical system couldn't handle the additional power needed to move the larger trains and diesels were probably a more reasonable alternative than new substations, feeder wires, overhead and larger electric locomotives.

[daveklepper]

Almost. A really good catenary installation can last about fifty years, but then isn't that what people hope for with concrete ties and heavy ballast and heavy rail?

If the USA wants to be really serious about energy independence, then railway electrification is one good step in that direction. Just the heavierst main lines, including NS Harrisburg - Pittsburgh, UP Council Bluffs - Ogden, the Transcon possibly. Required legislation: Power companies can get back into the transportation business. No increase in real estate taxes on account of electrification and uses or railroad rights of way for electric transmission lines.

Coments about the PRR leaning on the New Haven are correct. And the New Haven's EF-3 (not EP-3), was a further improvement on the GG-1. Best "motor" ever built! (And the I-5 4-6-4 is tied with the N&W J and Daylight for the most beautiful streamlined steam locomotive.)