4merroad4man 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.
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.
Actually that started with the RS1 and RS2..It didn't take long for the railroads to realize these was a versatile locomotive that could be used in yard,passenger terminal,branch or main line service.
EMD entered the road switcher market late in the game and their first attempt failed.The BL2 was no match for Alco's RS1 and RS2.
Larry
Conductor.
Summerset Ry.
"Stay Alert, Don't get hurt Safety First!"
upjake 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.
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.
FT's had a toilet at the rear of the B-unit; they were originally designed to be used in A-B sets. I assume other F units had toilets too.
http://www.rr-fallenflags.org/manual/ft-3766.gif
upjake 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.
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.
I guess you can blame the Japanese. When the US became involved in World War 2, the government directed all new RS-1's to go to the military to use in the US and later to be sent around the world. (That's why early Russian diesels looked like Alco's, they copied RS-1's they got during the war.) IIRC the military even bought some (all?) of the RS-1's from the railroads that bought them before the war.
MILW-RODRI know I will regret this but, where in the world is a toilet on an MP15 WSOR?
First door on the hood, outside the front door. Look directly below the horn.
After painting things look a little better in there.
On a GP or SD the toilet is in the short nose.
Mike WSOR engineer | HO scale since 1988 | Visit our club www.WCGandyDancers.com
wjstixupjake 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. FT's had a toilet at the rear of the B-unit; they were originally designed to be used in A-B sets. I assume other F units had toilets too. http://www.rr-fallenflags.org/manual/ft-3766.gif upjake 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. I guess you can blame the Japanese. When the US became involved in World War 2, the government directed all new RS-1's to go to the military to use in the US and later to be sent around the world. (That's why early Russian diesels looked like Alco's, they copied RS-1's they got during the war.) IIRC the military even bought some (all?) of the RS-1's from the railroads that bought them before the war.
I recall seeing a "commode" in the nose of a Fairbanks Morse C-liner on the NH.
Blame the Japanese? I'd rather blame the Germans. The RS-1's mostly (all?) went to defeat the Germans, by way of hauling freight up through Iran and into the Soviet Union.
Even so, I think the marketing of EMD may have beat Alco, rather than any particular merits of the competing engines. That is a complicated story that I don't know enough of to discuss. My impression is that EMD had a sales program that was rooted in selling automobiles.
Well we can blame the Germans too, but they didn't attack Pearl Harbor.
AFAIK a good number of RS-1's were used in the US by the US military, some lasted many decades in govt service. After the war some might have gone to non-military agencies like TVA??
Alco Vs EMD, sorry nothing to do with toilets.
http://utahrails.net/articles/alco-v-emd.php
Steve_F Alco Vs EMD, sorry nothing to do with toilets. http://utahrails.net/articles/alco-v-emd.php
Actually the topic is about yard switchers versus road switchers in main line service not toilets..
And EMD had nothing to counter the RS1 and RS2 until the GP7 in 1949 since the BL2 was a failure...That 8 years after the RS1 and 3 years after the RS2...
So,we can see where the railroads started to favor road switchers for general service starting with the RS1 and RS2..
the railroads that could afford a bunch of special purpose locomotives tended to buy them for a particular purpose.
if you ever tried to switch cars in a flat classification yard with anything other than a regular switch engine, like say, an SW-7 you would know. Geeps were ok but the visability wasn't as good and covered wagons were downright dangerous. like air brakes on a turtle.
i have worked yard jobs where we were stuck with GP-7 or 9 and if it was turned long hood first, when the head man was down in between the tracks the engineer got tired of leaning out the window to see what the man on the ground was doing. my solution was to run him into a cut of cars pretty hard a few times and then he would start looking for my signals after he got up off the floor.
general purpose is kind of like a radial arm saw. it's main function is to saw wood. it will do a lot of other things if you use the differenct attachments but only in a half a**ed fashion.
grizlump
MJ4562So was there any reason to buy dedicated switch engines in the diesel era? Why did railroads continue to buy them even after roadswitchers proved their superior flexibility?
Excellent question that needs to be explored.
First we must look at the big picture..Back in the day there was rail served urban industrial complexes that had sharp curves and those areas was routinely handled by 0-6-0s and 0-8-0s.So,we can see the need for a diesel could handle these tight curves as well as yard and transfer work-the same work as the 0-6-0s and 0-8-0s was doing...So we see the likes of the early boxcabs and the early switchers from Alco,EMD,BLW FM,GE and Lima.
Still there was a need for a locomotive that would be a jack of all trades like the 2-8-0 and 2-8-2...Early attempts will include EMD's NW3 and NW5 which of course didn't fill the need.
Then Alco design the true Jack of all trade diesel and first true road switcher the RS1.
Today switchers handles a yeoman's job from urban industrial branches to branch lines..You see 'em in yard and transfer work...The same work their ancestors was design to do.
Steve_FAlco Vs EMD, sorry nothing to do with toilets. http://utahrails.net/articles/alco-v-emd.php
Thanks, that was a good read. The article stresses inappropriate "corporate culture", "myopia", and "denial" as causes of Alco's failure. Look at GM now. Same problems.
KIM most railroads bought diesel switchers in the steam era...for many (most?) railroads their first diesel purchase in the thirties or forties were diesel switchers. Unlike steam switchers that could only work so many hours, then had to go to the roundhouse, the diesel switchers could work continously with relatively little maintenance needs. Many of these switchers ran for decades; by the time they needed to be replaced, railroads weren't buying diesel switchers anymore.
This partly explains why modern railroading is less interesting compared to other eras: little variety and specialization in locomotives. There are so few locomotive builders, locomotive types, and customizations. Where are the Alcos, the Baldwins, the Fairbank-Morses, the cabless units, and so on and so on.
Mark
markpierce MJ4562So was there any reason to buy dedicated switch engines in the diesel era? Why did railroads continue to buy them even after roadswitchers proved their superior flexibility? This partly explains why modern railroading is less interesting compared to other eras: little variety and specialization in locomotives. There are so few locomotive builders, locomotive types, and customizations. Where are the Alcos, the Baldwins, the Fairbank-Morses, the cabless units, and so on and so on. Mark
Mark,Actually the so called "transition era" was also boring..You seen basically the same locomotives on every railfan outing..The exciting times was the early 60s with the coming of the second generation.Here was a all new design unlike the common cab units and road switchers seen every day..Even the new yard switchers(SW1000 and SW1500) was a new design plus you had the new Alco Century line plus GE units.
BRAKIE Mark,Actually the so called "transition era" was also boring..You seen basically the same locomotives on every railfan outing..The exciting times was the early 60s with the coming of the second generation.Here was a all new design unlike the common cab units and road switchers seen every day..Even the new yard switchers(SW1000 and SW1500) was a new design plus you had the new Alco Century line plus GE units.
Brakie, I'm not going to "bite" on this one because both you and I know the transition era was the most varied.... Thank goodness you didn't bring up the topic of toilets.
Mark said:Thank goodness you didn't bring up the topic of toilets.
--------------------
My 9 1/2 years as a brakeman taught me those stink holes shouldn't be discuss in polite company..
I agree the transition era was the most varied but,still boring except the various NYC unit consist..That could liven the day up..
You can add the Montour Railroad near Pittsburgh PA to your list as well. The Montour is a neat little railroad that upon upgrading to diesel from steam, ran sw7 / sw9 type switchers. You can read more about it here:
http://www.montourrr.com/roster.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montour_Railroad
The forties-fifties were interesting as far as having both steam and diesel, but I can see the point about the time being boring in that you had a limited number of both. By the early fifties most railroads had scrapped a lot of their steam, and were only running a couple of classes of engines. At the same time, the only diesels available were "first generation" diesels, which railfans at the time considered quite boring compared to steam. So you might see a train with a 2-8-2 one day, a couple of GP's the next day, a 2-8-2 the day after, more GP's the next day, etc.
Hard now to imagine going trackside to photograph trains and turning your back on an A-B-B-A set of F-units or a set of Baldwin road-switchers on a train because they aren't steam, but a lot of railfan photographers did that back then. Even our common terminology of different models and "phases" didn't come along til the sixties, back the it was just a "1500 HP EMD diesel", not a "GP-7"...bottom line was they were all "look alike" diesels and not worth wasting film on.
wjstix The forties-fifties were interesting as far as having both steam and diesel, but I can see the point about the time being boring in that you had a limited number of both. By the early fifties most railroads had scrapped a lot of their steam, and were only running a couple of classes of engines.
The forties-fifties were interesting as far as having both steam and diesel, but I can see the point about the time being boring in that you had a limited number of both. By the early fifties most railroads had scrapped a lot of their steam, and were only running a couple of classes of engines.
I don't believe you. Here is a list of locomotive types the Pacific Lines portion of the Southern Pacific had in operation in 1953, of which I'm sure to have missed a few, and not counting for various subclasses. Keep in mind this is only one part of one railroad of hundreds in the U.S. at the time.
EMD SW1
Alco HH-660
Alco S-1
Baldwin VO-660
Alco S-3
Alco S-2
EMD NW2
Baldwin VO-1000
Baldwin DS-4-4-1000
Baldwin S-12
Alco S-4
F-M H12-44
GE 44-ton
EMD TR6
EMD 7R6 cabless
EMD SW8
F-M H24-66
Baldwin DRS-6-6-1500
Baldwin DRSB-6-6-1500 cabless
Baldwin AS-616
Baldwin ASB-616 cabless
GE 70-ton
Baldwin DRS-6-4-15
EMD SD7
Alco RSD-5
EMD E7
Alco PB-1
Alco PB-2
EMD E7A
Alco PA-1
EMD E2A
EMD E8A
Alco PA-2
EMD F3A
EMD F7A
EMD FP7A
EMD F3B
EMD F7B
Various Whitcomb, Plymouth, Davenport, and GE mill and shop locomotives
0-6-0 Baldwin
0-6-0 Lima
0-6-0 SP
0-8-0 SP
2-6-0 Baldwin
2-6-0 Alco
4-6-0 Baldwin
4-6-0 Alco
4-6-0 SP
4-6-2 Baldwin
4-6-2 Alco
4-6-2 Lima
2-8-0 Baldwin
2-8-0 Alco
2-8-0 SP
4-8-0 Schenectady
2-8-2 Baldwin
2-8-2 Alco
2-10-2 Baldwin
2-8-8-4 Lima
2-6-6-2 Alco
4-8-8-2 Baldwin
4-8-2 Alco
4-8-2 SP
4-8-4 Baldwin
4-8-2 Lima
4-10-2 Alco
Are you tired yet?
Mark,I agree. In the Columbus,Ohio area in the mid 50s there was still steam locomotives to be seen in main line service but,as the weeks and months pass more and more was going to the dead line.
However,If you seen one F7 you seen 'em all.Same for NYC's Baldwin switchers,or C&O's GP9s.Most railfans of that day held nothing but contempt for diesel locomotives since they was "boring" to look at.
Thankfully some railfans decided the early diesels wasn't that bad..I also believe a lot of those was modelers that modeled contemporary times--just like today..
Modeling a prototype railroad set in the transistion era is hard to do if its modeled correctly..
BRAKIEModeling a prototype railroad set in the transistion era is hard to do if its modeled correctly..
What makes you say that? Why is modeling a prototype set in the transition era hard to do correctly??
markpierce wjstix The forties-fifties were interesting as far as having both steam and diesel, but I can see the point about the time being boring in that you had a limited number of both. By the early fifties most railroads had scrapped a lot of their steam, and were only running a couple of classes of engines. I don't believe you. Here is a list of locomotive types the Pacific Lines portion of the Southern Pacific had in operation in 1953, of which I'm sure to have missed a few, and not counting for various subclasses. Keep in mind this is only one part of one railroad of hundreds in the U.S. at the time. EMD SW1 Alco HH-660 Alco S-1 Baldwin VO-660 Alco S-3 Alco S-2 EMD NW2 Baldwin VO-1000 Baldwin DS-4-4-1000 Baldwin S-12 Alco S-4 F-M H12-44 GE 44-ton EMD TR6 EMD 7R6 cabless EMD SW8 F-M H24-66 Baldwin DRS-6-6-1500 Baldwin DRSB-6-6-1500 cabless Baldwin AS-616 Baldwin ASB-616 cabless GE 70-ton Baldwin DRS-6-4-15 EMD SD7 Alco RSD-5 EMD E7 Alco PB-1 Alco PB-2 EMD E7A Alco PA-1 EMD E2A EMD E8A Alco PA-2 EMD F3A EMD F7A EMD FP7A EMD F3B EMD F7B Various Whitcomb, Plymouth, Davenport, and GE mill and shop locomotives 0-6-0 Baldwin 0-6-0 Lima 0-6-0 SP 0-8-0 SP 2-6-0 Baldwin 2-6-0 Alco 4-6-0 Baldwin 4-6-0 Alco 4-6-0 SP 4-6-2 Baldwin 4-6-2 Alco 4-6-2 Lima 2-8-0 Baldwin 2-8-0 Alco 2-8-0 SP 4-8-0 Schenectady 4-6-2 Alco 2-8-2 Baldwin 2-8-2 Alco 2-10-2 Baldwin 2-8-8-4 Lima 2-6-6-2 Alco 4-8-8-2 Baldwin 4-8-2 Alco 4-8-2 SP 4-8-4 Baldwin 4-8-2 Lima 4-10-2 Alco Are you tired yet? Mark
OK, well first I'm not sure how good a representation that list is, as not every railroad owned all of those all at once. (In fact some of the engines you list were only ever owned by the SP.) Plus you're kinda cherry picking one year, move 3 years either direction and many of those engines aren't there...in 1950 many of the diesels wouldn't be there, in 1956 many of the steam engines would be retired or on the verge of retirement. Also, not all those engines were at the same place at the same time. I don't think a lighly used branch line using an elderly 4-8-0 would also be seeing 4200 class "cab-forwards".
Second, railroads had builders build engines to their specifications. It wasn't like diesels where the builders offered different pre-designed models to choose from. So your listing of say an Alco 2-8-2 and a Baldwin 2-8-2 , or an 0-6-0 from three different builders as if they were different engines isn't really making a valid point. If the same railroad bought the engines from those builders, they may all be virtually identical. The railroad decided what the engine would look like, not the manufacturer.
Third, by say 1955, a lot of the steam engines most railroads owned had been cut back as older ones were retired. Many railroads had started buying switchers in the thirties and had eliminated - or were on the verge of eliminating - their steam switchers by then for example.
Lastly, if you read the entire post, you'll note that I didn't say I thought transition era railroading was boring - I said that I could see how someone could feel that way, and that many people at the time felt that way. It's important to understand that many railfans of the time at that time hated diesels. Many went trackside or on pilgrimages to photograph the remaining steam and passed up photographing diesels. Most railfans in the fifties would have only a vague notion of what different types of diesels were out there (keep in mind many of the model designations and names we use didn't come into common usage - or didn't exist - until later). Many folks saw diesels as "all being alike". As steam was cut back to only a few types on a railroad, and then disappeared all together, many railfans (even some prominent photographers) lost interest.
jwhitten BRAKIE Modeling a prototype railroad set in the transistion era is hard to do if its modeled correctly.. What makes you say that? Why is modeling a prototype set in the transition era hard to do correctly??
BRAKIE Modeling a prototype railroad set in the transistion era is hard to do if its modeled correctly..
Well,anybody can run steam and diesel locomotives together under the transition flag and be happy with no worries or care.Nothing wrong with that..
However,for the more serious inclined modeler there are disciplines to be learned and followed.
A layout set in let's say 1953 can not have certain type of diesels like the GP9 and RS11.
We need to know what type of steam locomotives was still being used by railroad we are modeling..They may still have 2-8-2s in main line service but,all the 2-8-0s been replaced by GP7s and RS3s by 1953.E7s may be pulling first class trains while what remaining 4-6-2s are pulling second class trains. All yard work is being done by early Alco(S1,S2,S3) ,EMD(NW2,SW7) Baldwin or FM switchers by 1953..
Move the era forward to say '56 and all of the steam locomotives could be gone..
I won't touch the dominant type of locomotive used by the railroad we model...
Stix said:
Most railfans in the fifties would have only a vague notion of what different types of diesels were out there (keep in mind many of the model designations.
---------------------------------------
Thankfully the contemporary modelers/railfans of that era keep up with the types of diesels while the older modelers/railfans "wouldn't waste film" on a diesel since its more like a truck then locomotive.
A GP7 didn't have dynamic brakes where a GP9 did was the common thought by some on spotting a GP7 from a GP9. Of course those that kept informed and modeled contemporary times knew better.
When I join the Columbus Model Railroad Club in '64 as a Jr member 90% of the locomotives used on operation nights was steam..Those of us that owned diesels was called "diesel fans".I never was sure if that meant we should be pitied or looked upon with scorn.
Well, if people choose to be bored, I won't stand in their way to boredom.
Perhaps, but you could have seen that 4-8-0 at the same engine facility servicing 4-8-8-2's since SP was still using cab-forwards in helper service over Tehachapi.
The only engine in Mark's list that was unique to the SP were the 4-8-8-2's. Other engine types (including 4-8-0's) were used by other railroads (most notably the N&W).
Your original post mentioned the early 50's. 1953 certainly qualifies, while 1956 does not. Even as late as 1953, most divisions of the SP still had steam power in service to one degree or another.
Quite a few of the diesel classes Mark mentioned would have existed on the SP in 1950. The most obvious ones that would be excluded would be the FP7's, H24-66's and the H12-44's. There's probably a couple of others, but those three come readily to mind.
SP held onto a lot of old engines late in the game because it made sense to use fully amortized motive power for light duty service rather than replace them with expensive new diesels. The Friant Branch was using M-6 and M-9 2-6-0's into 1956, 4-8-0 #2914 wasn't deadlined until 1955 and the "San Joaquin Daylight" was 4-8-4 powered north of Bakersfield as late as September, 1956, IIRC.
Andre
BRAKIEjwhitten BRAKIE Modeling a prototype railroad set in the transistion era is hard to do if its modeled correctly.. What makes you say that? Why is modeling a prototype set in the transition era hard to do correctly?? Well,anybody can run steam and diesel locomotives together under the transition flag and be happy with no worries or care. Nothing wrong with that.. However,for the more serious inclined modeler there are disciplines to be learned and followed. A layout set in let's say 1953 can not have certain type of diesels like the GP9 and RS11. We need to know what type of steam locomotives was still being used by railroad we are modeling..They may still have 2-8-2s in main line service but,all the 2-8-0s been replaced by GP7s and RS3s by 1953.E7s may be pulling first class trains while what remaining 4-6-2s are pulling second class trains. All yard work is being done by early Alco(S1,S2,S3) ,EMD(NW2,SW7) Baldwin or FM switchers by 1953.. Move the era forward to say '56 and all of the steam locomotives could be gone.. I won't touch the dominant type of locomotive used by the railroad we model...
Well,anybody can run steam and diesel locomotives together under the transition flag and be happy with no worries or care. Nothing wrong with that..
Do you know of any good resources (online hopefully! :) with information about Pennsy steam retirement dates?
jwhitten Do you know of any good resources (online hopefully! :) with information about Pennsy steam retirement dates?
Pennsy's use of steam locomotives ended in 1957. Since you model 1959, you needn't/shouldn't have any Pennsy steam in operation if concerned about retirement dates.
wjstix OK, well first I'm not sure how good a representation that list is, as not every railroad owned all of those all at once. (In fact some of the engines you list were only ever owned by the SP.) Plus you're kinda cherry picking one year, move 3 years either direction and many of those engines aren't there...in 1950 many of the diesels wouldn't be there, in 1956 many of the steam engines would be retired or on the verge of retirement.
OK, well first I'm not sure how good a representation that list is, as not every railroad owned all of those all at once. (In fact some of the engines you list were only ever owned by the SP.) Plus you're kinda cherry picking one year, move 3 years either direction and many of those engines aren't there...in 1950 many of the diesels wouldn't be there, in 1956 many of the steam engines would be retired or on the verge of retirement.
The earlier discussion wasn't limited to a specific railroad. My earlier comments were responding to the questionable conclusion that locomotive variety was limited (boring) during the steam/diesel transition period..
I picked the SP in 1953 for an example because that's the period I'm attempting to emulate and because I had substantial information. If the chosen inspirational railroad/period lacks variety, that's the chooser's error if variety is desired. Of course, modelers can always "revise" history and do their own thing.
I recall when it was still SOO line in the Quads here,the Nahant to Muscatine turn/transfer/patrol whatever the crew wanted to call it lol had a Milwaukee MP 15 and a SOO GP 7.the MP ran down to Muscatine and the GP would be the leader back.A family friend was a regular engineer on it and said the GP was one for extra power but also for the facilities.They were "emergency use" only in his words.Now with the ICE ( sorry I know DME) we dont have any switchers in Nahant.Just the tired old Geeps still working away.
Another all switcher line we should remember was the DRI&NW.It was a sad day when it was split up between the BN and CP and those switchers left the Quads for good.I often wondered what would have happened at the end of the service life of their units. Would they have gone the hand me down GP route?Dont know if I would have liked Black and white geeps roaming around.
Yes we are on time but this is yesterdays train