Why would a railroad choose to use a diesel road-switcher instead of a regular switcher on a local run? In other words, besides road-switchers having more horsepower, can a diesel switcher do the same job? Let's say using a Baldwin VO-1000 on a 40 mile run for a local train as opposed to using a GP7.
There would be a number of reasons. Switchers usually had low speed trucks with solid bearings in the early days. They were generally geared for 20-25 mph. Pulling power and ruling grades would also dictate power. Economies of fuel usage would also dictate a road switcher. A low geared engine would use more fuel for a long run at speed. Comfort of the crew would be another consideration.
Then there are whole short line rail roads that only used switchers for the whole road.
I am sure there are more.
Pete
I pray every day I break even, Cause I can really use the money!
I started with nothing and still have most of it left!
I grew up watching the Minneapolis Northfield and Southern run 1 or 2 freights a day past my house using VO-660/1000's and FM H-10-44/H-12-44 switchers, occassionally throwing in a road switcher - Baldwin DRS 6-6-1500 No. 15. Later when they were all retired or sold off, they went to back to back EMD SW-1200 / SW-1500 switchers. I've seen pics of "mainline" trains with four of the EMD switchers all together.
I imagine the trip from Northfield thru Richfield to south Minneapolis would be about 40 miles.
As I recall the FM's were pretty heavy and could haul a pretty hefty train, going backwards or forwards (as the "high line" branch only had a run-around track, no turntable or wye at the end).
http://www.northeast.railfan.net/diesel53.html
You know I never even thought about the obvious speed issue. I would guess a freight railroad and its local customers wouldn't exactly want to operate a leisurely, sightseeing transportation system. Anyway thanks for the info.
upjakeYou know I never even thought about the obvious speed issue. I would guess a freight railroad and its local customers wouldn't exactly want to operate a leisurely, sightseeing transportation system. Anyway thanks for the info.
Really the customer wouldn't really care how fast the train goes.
On the other hand the dispatcher would be HIGHLY interested if you had a speed restricted engine tooling along 80 miles of main track (40 out, 40 back). Haveing a local out there messing around is bad enough, having a SLOW local is worse.
Switchers also do not have toilet. Switchers may not have cab signals. Switchers may not have MU so they may have to operate singly. Switchers weigh less and have less hp so less tractive effort. Also a switcher going one way or the other offers the crew no grade crossing protection (running cab end first) and may not have a speed recorder.
On the MP only the major switching yards used switchers, all the secondary yards and locals used GP's of some ilk (GP7, 9, 18, 15, 28, 38).
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
Dave beat me too it on the toilet facilities, Not to mention as an engineer in the day I would rather have the RS. Not for all that was mentioned but for the old weight on drivers. More pay for more weight!
The DS also would prefer you make track speed.Not to mention the guy running behind you lol.
Yes we are on time but this is yesterdays train
A lot of railroads used switchers on branch lines..Even today there are short lines that use switch engines as there only road power...The NYC would use a GP7/SW7 unit consist on some locals.
The SW1000,SW1500,MP15DC,MP15AC are capable of being used on the road just like a road unit.
Then how about the Pittsburg & Shawmut?
How about the Union RR?
You see unlike model railroaders railroads has a tenancy to use locomotives as they see fit with apologies to no one.
Larry
Conductor.
Summerset Ry.
"Stay Alert, Don't get hurt Safety First!"
route_rock Dave beat me too it on the toilet facilities, ...!
Dave beat me too it on the toilet facilities, ...!
For the same reason I prefer a bunch of trees 100 yards away from a campground served by an outhouse at a National Forest campground, I'd prefer a wide-mouthed jar over a toilet in a locomotive.
Mark
On smaller railroads or branchlines, speed wouldn't be that big a factor. On the MNS line I mentioned, I doubt trains were normally going more than 10-15 MPH. There were a lot of grade crossing to whistle for, plus the track wasn't all that great, lots of ups and downs and side to side rolling.
Remember steam engines didn't have toilets either; for many roads in the forties I think the savings of maintenance costs for diesel vs. steam was the key factor, not crew comfort. If the crews never had an onboard facility, they weren't going to miss it. Plus at the time they started buying diesels like their VO series engines in 1940-41, the only road switcher was the RS-1. By the time GP7's came along in 1949, the MNS had enough diesels that they dropped their last steam engine soon after.
Besides for the MNS these were relatively short trips, plus if need be the track went by several spots they could stop (gas stations, bowling alleys etc.). The crew regularly stopped at the end of the line at a couple of businesses (Model Stone Co., lumber yards, LeJeune Steel) and walked over to Diamond Lake Lanes to eat lunch. I can remember c.1962 the crew coming in to eat just as I was leaving with my Mom from her Thursday morning ladies bowling league. Even though they ran diesels, they still dressed like steam crews with hickory stripe bib overalls and gauntlet gloves etc.
BRAKIEYou see unlike model railroaders railroads has a tenancy to use locomotives as they see fit with apologies to no one
Never said they couldn't use switchers, the OP wanted reasons why a railroad would choose a road switcher over a switch engine. I gave him reasons. He can choose whatever power he likes, just as the real railroads chose the power they used.
Hello "upjake,"
Sometimes it wasn't a case of choosing road swichers over end-cab switchers for local freights, but of using the diesels that were available. For one example, in the late 1940s the Union Pacific dieselized some of its local freights in Southern California with EMD NW2 1000-hp switch engines. This preceeded the UP's first GP7s, which didn't arrive until 1953, and the railroad had very few road switchers at the time.
So long,
Andy
Andy Sperandeo MODEL RAILROADER Magazine
Hi Dave;
The New Haven ordered EMD SW 1200's with flexicoil trucks that could be used in mainline freights, branchline or yard work. My understanding is there weight was actually about the same as a GEEP. I've seen them MUed on the mainline, but I've never seen them in the lead (maybe the ole toilet issue)?
Den.
Remember steam engines didn't have toilets either;
no but they had a scoop shovel and a firebox. you figure it out.
grizlump
grizlump9 Remember steam engines didn't have toilets either; no but they had a scoop shovel and a firebox. you figure it out. grizlump
Actually I ask my grandfather that question.
First he just looked at me and finally said and I never will for get it"Boy,we use to coal pile for #1 and the nearest brushes for #2".."Now get along outside and stop asking foolish questions."
LOL Brakie! Hilarious. I have heard the number one for the coal pile and number 2 for the scoop.But wow I wouldnt want to use it afterwards!
Reason I used the toilet analogy is certain roads had union rules for it. I prefer being able to stop somewhere that has a gas station or fast food nearby lol.Hey I need a snack .Plus I worked the service track I see how the laborers clean.
BRAKIE The SW1000,SW1500,MP15DC,MP15AC are capable of being used on the road just like a road unit.
Actually, the MP15's are road versions of the SW1500. Longer frame to use the Blumberg road truck, and I think a larger fuel tank. And I think the AC had a toilet too.
Deciding factors between an S/SW and RS/GP for the railroad would have to be speed and unit availability. For the union / railroader it would be toilet and ride quality (and pay based on unit weight). The additional horsepower, if any, in a RS/GP would go to speed not tonnage.
There are several shortlines / company roads that ordered nothing but SW's and some even had dynamic brakes on their SW's.
Phil
Timber Head Eastern Railroad "THE Railroad Through the Sierras"
upjake ...besides road-switchers having more horsepower...
...besides road-switchers having more horsepower...
As for switchers having power....CN used a WC SW1500 (I think #1538), an EMD unit with 1500 horses, and it was hauling away 26 cars. Being the direction it was coming from (away from the industrial district) and the way it was going (back to the yard) and knowing the industry it was switching at (Sannimax) every car was mostly likely full. It was mostly made up of PS2-CD 4750 hoppers and 20 000 galon series tank cars, but it also had a few box cars which were most likely empties from the home supply or Sanny, and about a dozen gondolas from the scrap yard, also presumed loaded. The crew guy checking his list looked at me kind of funny when I started talking about how amazing it was seeing a switcher handle all that.
I remember reading somewhere that one reason they didn't use switchers back in time on longer runs was because they didn't have full facilities aboard. And I just don't think a crew member would want to stand at the edge of the foot sill with his zipper down and suddenly come upon a grade crossing at 25mph. It would funny for everyone else, but not to him. I couldn't understand it, none of the cabeese I've been in have had toilets. I might have been in one that had a hole cut in the floor and a barrel missing both ends to sit on, but nothing more than that. I hope that's not what they called a toilet back in the good ole days (the good ole days refers to a time when the wonderous invention of diesel/electric powered locomtives were common and on the uprise, but beautiful steam driven locomotives could also be seen running a consist down the tracks. Man I wish I could go back in time and see that)
Keep in mind too that back c.1941 the term and concept of a "road switcher" was not generally known...in fact I'm not sure the term even existed. To a steam railroad buying their first diesels in those early days, the difference between a switcher and road-switcher wouldn't really be apparent to their people. Heck, GN bought some EMD switchers back then to use on local passenger trains !!
Alco "RS" (Road Switcher) designations were done sort of retroactively, their official model designations back in the day started with "DL" for Diesel Locomotive, like the DL-701 which is more commonly known as the RS-11.
The Ma&Pa bought 4 switchers in late 40's early 50's - SW1, 2 NW2s, SW9 for their 77 mile short line. The shorter length was an asset on a road noted for having many curves. On occasion they pulled the passenger train until it was discontinued. Speed was not an issue - it already was scheduled for 4 hours before the diesels came.
With the coming of these diesels they started to retire their steam locomotives, the last ones going in 1956.
Enjoy
Paul
Some bad information being given here, along with much good. Virtually all cabooses had restroom facilities until very recent times. The idea that switchers weren't used over the road mainly because they lack restrooms is not correct -- after all, steamers had no restroom facilities.
Pure horsepower is not usually the issue, but gearing can be -- switchers were typically geared low and couldn't run at the speeds desired for main lines. Their trucks were also not designed for high speeds and some types gave a pretty rough ride at main track speeds.
Still, there are plenty of examples of switchers used in "main line" service -- but gearing and truck type, as well as whether they could be placed in multiple unit (M.U.) operation played a role.
Layout Design GalleryLayout Design Special Interest Group
Funny, I can't find the head in a drawing of a 1936 B&O steel bay window caboose of (TS Cyc 11, Cabooses 1879-1943), but the others have them, clearly labeled "toilet" or "dry hopper". No rest rooms, no powder rooms either. The B&O caboose has detailed drawings with ice chest, lockers, wash stand, stove, fusee rack, lamp bracket, and other details drawn and called out, but nary a dry hopper to be found!
OK, so don't use the word "restroom", Good grief. Facilities for handling human waste, whatever they were euphemistically named, were found on nearly all cabooses until very recent times. I'll wager they were extant on that 1936 B&O caboose as well, even if not on the drawing.
MP15ACs have a toilet. A bit cramped, but it is there for emergencies.
I have gone 30 mph glass end first in switchers.
The MILW used the MP15ACs in all sorts of service. They don't ride as well as a GP, and are a bit light, so they don't pull as much either. But for the traffic levels at the time, the MILW found them to work just fine, and cheaper on fuel to boot.
Mike WSOR engineer | HO scale since 1988 | Visit our club www.WCGandyDancers.com
One problem with finding the toilet / hopper in a caboose diagram is that since space was at a premium in a caboose, they sometimes had the a storage area up at eye level with the hopper underneath, so in a view from above it might not be visible.
Long-time NP conductor Warren McGee said that back when a conductor had his own assigned caboose, and lived there while on the road, that they rarely if ever used the caboose toilet due to sanitary / aroma issues. He said he used the "hopper" bowl to store fusees in. He was in a remote area (Montana) so the crew would do what they had to do off the back of the caboose...apparently leading to a few interesting (but probably not publishable) railfan photos!!
wjstix Keep in mind too that back c.1941 the term and concept of a "road switcher" was not generally known...in fact I'm not sure the term even existed. To a steam railroad buying their first diesels in those early days, the difference between a switcher and road-switcher wouldn't really be apparent to their people. Heck, GN bought some EMD switchers back then to use on local passenger trains !! Alco "RS" (Road Switcher) designations were done sort of retroactively, their official model designations back in the day started with "DL" for Diesel Locomotive, like the DL-701 which is more commonly known as the RS-11.
Absolutely.
Also the GP7 was originally design for branch lines after the poor sales of the problematic BL2.
Operationally, some road switchers came in six axle versions with the center axle of each truck being an idler axle, so weight distribution was less, giving the six axle road switcher the ability to navigate lighter rail branches, i.e., the GMD-1's of Canada. Further, and without the weight considsiderations, the road switchers had a short hood which provided some crew protection in the even of collisions. While early on, trucks and speed were considerations, roads such as Southern Pacific simply applied road trucks, MU appliances and and such, and used many of their switch engines, notably the SW1500's for yard and local service.
Sometimes using road switchers backfired as in SP's Baldwin AS616's, as the trucks under them were far to rigid and abusive on the main track at higher speeds.
Further, road switchers tended to carry more fuel, have higher horsepower, more weight so not only better pay for the enginemen, but also a better factor of adhesion, and the engines were versatile, i.e., they could work locals by day and act as switch engines at other times. Switch engines, espcially the earlier ones, had an advantage over their ibgger cousins in that their wheelbase was much shorter and allowed them to sneak around tight curves on back alley leads and spurs with great ease.
One could argue that road switchers ended the era of specialization, where each type of locomotive had a specific job. RS and GP units could easily work locals, passenger jobs and do stints in the yard if need be, eliminating the need for specialized service locomotives to a certain extent.
I know I will regret this but, where in the world is a toilet on an MP15 WSOR??? I've been close enough to a few of them to know there isn't much room in the cab. And honestly, if it was me, I'd rather go find a bush and a pinecone than use that toilet. Maybe I'm just picky about my toilets
So one more thing to throw out there. I read the info somewhere that said one reason switchers weren't used on longer hauls is because of the lack of facilities, and going by another post that just isn't true. I just wanted to clearify that, it's not like I pulled that info outta my number 2. Where the facilities on....well road switcher no longer seems an approriate term...where the facilites on freight locomotives located in the short hood? Or am I missed informed on that too. I know EMD put steam generators in there on passenger GP7/9's and as I recall reading Alco followed suit. Could you imagine being on you know what and feeling the bump as the train ran over a Volkswagen?
Well I don't want to focus on the toilet issue too much, but I assume F-units, the first true mainline diesels, had one behind the cab or something? Would get kind of tiresome going up and down those step ladders.
I guess I should keep in mind that diesel development was quite an evolutionary and experimental process. For example, in hindsight you look at the early RS-1 which looks like the perfect branchline diesel, and wonder why they didn't make record sales although most of the major roads bought a couple. But then it should be considered that steam was still widespread (mid-late 40s period) and the supposedly more reliable gp7 came some years later.
MILW-RODR I know I will regret this but, where in the world is a toilet on an MP15 WSOR??? I've been close enough to a few of them to know there isn't much room in the cab. And honestly, if it was me, I'd rather go find a bush and a pinecone than use that toilet. Maybe I'm just picky about my toilets So one more thing to throw out there. I read the info somewhere that said one reason switchers weren't used on longer hauls is because of the lack of facilities, and going by another post that just isn't true. I just wanted to clearify that, it's not like I pulled that info outta my number 2. Where the facilities on....well road switcher no longer seems an approriate term...where the facilites on freight locomotives located in the short hood? Or am I missed informed on that too. I know EMD put steam generators in there on passenger GP7/9's and as I recall reading Alco followed suit. Could you imagine being on you know what and feeling the bump as the train ran over a Volkswagen?
This has been asked(and answered before) As I recall, the answer is behind one of the hood doors (3rd one forward IIRC) on the firemans side, ahead of the cab. Hey, I didn't claim that it would be an enjoyable experience.
Doug
May your flanges always stay BETWEEN the rails