I have been contemplating which loco would be usefull for this branch. The loco has to run from the branch to a yard. So it has to be big enough to run on a main. And so equipped for modern operating rules. Time frame for the layout is modern. But it doesnt need to be a unit as big in terms of specs) as a gp38. it can be much smaller. Still has to be able to handle modern loaded hoppers. There is a grade between the yard and the branch. The branch has a team track and coop. SO loaded hoppers of crop seed comes in, boxcar of containers for smaller seed portions. The team track would see something for the co op or someone else.
So figure two loaded hoppers during peak spring and fall crops. random boxcar and random team track load.
So with that, thinking from the point of an actual shortline owner who needs such a unit, what suggestions meeting modern laws and operation criteria what be on the table for consideration.
I added a pic so the end of the branch is visible. The ML8 is on the siding where the boxcar goes, the shed over the track is the hopper unloading and not very clear is the team track above the boxcar.
Shane
A pessimist sees a dark tunnel
An optimist sees the light at the end of the tunnel
A realist sees a frieght train
An engineer sees three idiots standing on the tracks stairing blankly in space
I used to hang out with the gang at the Indiana Northeastern short line. Their mainstay power was a couple of GP7 and 9s. They have a stretch where they have trackage rights on the NS main and they can get-up and go when necessary:
Indiana Northeastern Railroad GP-9 and GP-30 , by Mark LLanuza, on Flickr
Then they moved "up" to a pair of leased GP30s.
LTE_GP30_2185 by Edmund, on Flickr
Indiana Northeastern 2185 by Todd Dillon, on Flickr
You can find both these engines in the Proto 2000 line pretty reasonable (I just saw a bunch at a train show for $35. each).
Good Luck, Ed
How about a GE 44 tonner?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GE_44-ton_switcher
The RR here in town, used a 44 tonner for a few hoppers of fertilizer, and some box cars.
Maybe a GP9 or 18 or 20 ? They are still out there, and in service.
Mike.
My You Tube
How about one of the modern Genset switchers? Dual stands for no turn around.
If I read it correctly, you plan about a three car train, max?
Lots of good running choices:
I'd go with the Atlas ALCO S2 or S4 at only 1000 horse power.
You could use the Atlas MP15, or the Athearn SW1500, GP15, or the GP7/9. 1500 HP. Might be a bit much (the railroad would use it for something else maybe)
This shortline (Dubis County Railroad) runs on a former 16 mile SOUTHERN RR branch line using an old ALCO S2, RS-1, or a GE 44 tonner. Pics taken about 2012/2015 (from a generic Google search, uploaded by the DCRR Flickr):
They also use a 44 tonner, but the Bachmann model is a poor runner compared to the Atlas S2.
How about an ALCO RS-1 (Atlas again) pulling just one car?
But the GP units would be the most popular choice for most railroads, IMO.
- Douglas
While your modelled era might be modern, that doesn't necessarily mean that the loco has to be modern, too.
Canadian National is using GMD-1s, built in the late '50s, to switch the Stuart St. Yard, in my hometown of Hamilton Ontario, and I've found quite a few other locations still using them, too.
The Kiski Junction, recently closed, used an Alco S-1, built in 1943. It hauled both tourist trains and empty and loaded gondolas for a steel plant.A longtime friend ran it for several years, and considered it superior to a GP-7 (also owned by that road) as far as hauling steel was concerned.
One of my favourite locos were the SW-1200-RS locos used by both the CNR and CPR. They were used both as switchers (SW) and road switchers (RS). Many of them were re-built using some of their parts combined with others parts from early Geeps (GP7s and 9s), and were dubbed by local railfans as "Sweeps".There's one of each in the photo below, with the "Sweep" leading...
If you have a favourite older loco, it might a good candidate for your branchline.
Wayne
I would opt for an EMD, end cab switcher, although I am a four stroke fan. EMD's switchers from the NW-2, to the SW-1500 were reliable, workhorses for generations. Parts ranging from cab door handles to complete rebuilt engines and generators as well as complete locomotives will be readily available for generations to come.
For what you envision, an EMD switcher, would have many times, more than enough power, to get the job done. They can be set up to MU with other, larger power or another switcher if necessary, or scoot along a main line if required. ALCos have nostalgic charm and are good solid locomotives, but have been a vanishing breed since since their builder left the market in 1969. Parts are commanding premium prices, making their upkeep more tenious. A major component failure on an ALCo today, is usually fatal, for most operators.
The Walthers Mainline NW2 is a good choice. A little low on detail but a good runner. Comes with sound too if you're into that. They have two paint schemes that are unlettered and ready for decaling for your freelanced railroad.
NVSRR wrote: "But it doesnt need to be a unit as big in terms of specs) as a gp38."
These days, a GP38 IS a "branchline unit" -- often a yard engine, too.
Smaller? GP9, perhaps. Or as mentioned above, a GP30.
Perhaps an RS3 or RS11...?
Looking at the situation as a railroad operator would, I would eliminate the GP-30 because it is using a turbocharged 567 series V-16 to produce 2250 HP in a locomotive that was known to be notoriously slippery. The later, Roots blown, 645 series V-16 of the GP-38 family is a well proven engine that also in its turbocharged version, powered the iconic, "everyman's locomotive", the SD-40-2. The class one's realised the versatility of the GP-38/SD-40 family early on. Retired units are available but the class ones are holding on to theirs and, treating them with the respect that they have earned since 1972--50 years.
The GP-30 only produces 250 more HP than a GP-38-2, in an operation where speed is not an issue. The added expense of a turbocharger and the increased fuel consumption of the older, more outmoded 567 powered GP-30 (1962-1964) vs. the simpler, 645 powered GP-38-2 (1972-1980 or later) make the 38 a more practical option, from a railroad operating point of view.
Based on the OP's information, this is a low speed/low tonnage operation where the smaller V-12 powered switcher would be more practical in acquisition, maintenance, fuel consumption and, wear and tear on what could be marginal track. It is a choice between doing what a railfan would do and, what a railroad operator would opt for.
NHTXThe GP-30 only produces 250 more HP than a GP-38-2, in an operation where speed is not an issue. The added expense of a turbocharger and the increased fuel consumption of the older, more outmoded 567 powered GP-30 (1962-1964) vs. the simpler, 645 powered GP-38-2 (1972-1980 or later) make the 38 a more practical option, from a railroad operating point of view.
fuel consumption could be an issue, but if we work off the assumption that this is a shortline looking for cheap secondhand locomotives, the GP30 might be got at a bargain since the Class Is prefer the GP38-2s and unload the older units.
Chris van der Heide
My Algoma Central Railway Modeling Blog
Hello All,
My first thought is practical vs. prototypical.
Looking at the photo you posted it seems- -practically- -there isn't much space in the trackage depicted.
mbinsewiHow about a GE 44 tonner?
On my HO pike I have A GE 44-Ton unit and a GE 70-Ton unit.
The 44-tonner is a yard switcher. No more than one (1) car at a time.
Practically- -it can pull two or three cars.
Prototypically- -it has been used on branch line service.
Given your space limitation, I would recommend the 70-Ton unit over the 44-Tonner.
Have you considered a "cow & calf" set or a MU'ed slug?
For "heavier" switching duties I have a TR & TR2 (NW2) cow & calf unit.
This consist can "hold its own" on limited branch line service, along a mainline route.
Slugs were also often used in branch line, larger yard switching duties and could be seen in limited mainline transfer service.
wrench567How about one of the modern Genset switchers? Dual stands for no turn around (SIC).
Another great modern era suggestion!
Hope this helps.
"Uhh...I didn’t know it was 'impossible' I just made it work...sorry"
lets see if this works. I keep getting 403 forbidden when i hit reply
yet it posted that but not my response
Space is tight yes. but there is a little more than appears. plenty for real world operations
With the idea being making the decision from the prototype stand point for useage verse what little money the line would have realistically. a genset isnt viabale finacially for a line like that to afford purchasing. UNless they got it dirt cheap. seeing the pressure the regionals and class 1's are under to meet tier 4, a cheap genset not likely.
The modern hoppers of seed and fertilizer(I forgot about that) are rather heavy for a 44T small tractive effort. Especially to make the trip from the branch to the yard for interchange on trackage rights. It would nee to meet mainline regs as well.
A 70T might. be doable and should be looked at. figure two hoppers of seed and one of fertilizer as a measure of load pulling requirement.
cow and calf is a bit over kill een from a prototype stand point but mostly space here. A single NW2 might not be. depemds on fuel useage verse needed tractive effort on the grade.
NHTX is in the ball park with a V12 or V8 sized block. That would make more sense. Maybe a CF7 or GMD-1 (with its 6 axle design for light loading branches) NW2 or sw1001 or 1200. More horsepower more money to buy and run.
So lets say a typical summer/winter month sees one teamtrack move for the co-op and one for other. summer would have say two loads. say one of crop seed and 0.25 for boxcar. that is 5.25 per month off peak
peak would be lets say two team track loads for the co-op in spring and fall per month. plus what ever comes in for other. 2 box cars a month and let say 8 seed and 4 fertilizer per month. So at least 16 loads a month
6 months on peak and 6 off. makes off peak 31.5 loads off peak not counting team track other users. so maybe up to 36.
on peak 96 loads not counting team track other users. so up to 100
so at best 136 loads a year. They want to be carefull how they spend that money on a "road" unit.
shane
I still remember a few short lines that used older GP7s and GP9s to run operations. These venerable workhorses have ample power for a few freight cars, and can be run in forward or reverse. Older locomotives fit the budget of short lines, and can usually handle tighter curves easier than modern road engines.
It takes an iron man to play with a toy iron horse.
I am a sucker for the atlas mp-15's and atlas alco s type locos. But like everyone has said the gp-7 gp-9 is the go to for that kind of stuff. maybe even a gp40?
alco's forever!!!!! Majoring in HO scale Minorig in O scale:)
I use a GP38-2 for my switcher, as I'm shoving as many as 10 cars at a time.
The GP38 and GP40 are pretty common for prototype operations.
NVSRR So at best 136 loads a year. They want to be carefull how they spend that money on a "road" unit. shane
So at best 136 loads a year. They want to be carefull how they spend that money on a "road" unit.
Yep, they'll need to be thrifty with only 136 loads a year. Here's a link to the 2022 tariff for the Pennsylvania Southern short line. $600/car. So $81,600 yearly income plus other miscellaneous charges.
https://www.narps.org/FTs_L-R/FT_PSCC_8000-G.pdf
Ray
If a V-8 will fill the bill, the EMD SW-8 is one to be considered. Still a full size switcher, it has the tractive effort to spare when lugging, but can step right along with the light loads you envision. With 800 HP, and the 400-500 ton loads you envision, it desrves consideration, although a bit more rare today. Still, that 567 is a proven engine and shares the same pedigree, right up to the GP-35. Theoretically, half the fuel consumption of a V-16 as found in the full sized road units such as a geep, or CF-7. Also much easier on the track.
Gensets were mentioned, which causes me to ask, what happened? They were heralded as the answer as far as power-on-demand switchers were concerned. BNSF, UP, CSX and NS, all ordered them and now, it is all quiet on the genset front. I've seen pictures of them in Ohio with the names painted out and looking kind of ratty. The old geeps and SD's are still holding down the jobs the gensets were built for. Why? Could it be something akin to the problem the class ones ran into with using SW/MP-15 type switchers as lead units in road service? No toilets?
I have been wondering that myself about the gensets. Did the eco710 rebuilds start proving the cheaper better option? Did the TP56 and 76 start proving to be comparatively better and most holding back for the reliability over time thing?
I thought cf7. Since it is what Santa Fe rebuilt them to do. Branch service. So I went to YouTube to see them working and found a lot of vids stating it was the end or near end for a lot of them. A lot are being scrapped and most because of a failure that can't be fixed? Nobody mentioned that failure though.
I am leaning in the direction of an sw7 or 8 or 9. That 700-1000 hp range. Light on track and fuel. But can make th etransfer run over the regional lines main to home rail up grade (loads are against the grade). Or maybe a repower with and v8 like a Baldwin if they were converted to v8 567.
at 80-90 thousand a year income, and after taxes and paychecks. Yeah not much to work with. For motive power. The sales guy will definitely be pushing the use of that teamtrack
I live near a branch of the Ohio Central that runs from Newark, OH to Mt. Vernon. It is a branchline rather than shortline so they don't have a single loco assigned to the branch. It generally runs one train a day north from Newark and returning the same day. Over the years I have seen all kinds of locos on the branch including what looked like a SW7. Last year I saw it running with two different kind of locos, one on each end of the train. I think just about any kind or road diesel including some first generation would be appropriate for your purpose. I'd do what the owner of your shortline would do. Bargain hunt for a suitable loco.
You're definitely right. That salesman has got to expand your traffic base. A total of 136 loads per year is the sure road to abandonment, or making a small fortune out of a large one.
Since one of your selling points for this service is the availability of a team track, and your timeframe is modern, have you thought about some additional "industries" that won't require additional structures to crowd a rather bucolic scene? How about transloading plastic pellets for a company that molds automobile parts, baby's wash tubs, squeeze bottles--anything you can imagine. The plant is over the hill, off the layout and trucks make the transfer from rail to molding machines. Maybe a 100 ton covered hopper, every ten days-two weeks. That would add 26 to 35 cars per year to the traffic total. Another idea is a recycler that ships out bales of scrap cardboard, waste plastic, crushed aluminum cans, and old tires? All you need is access on one side of the track, for a small concrete dock, for a forklift to make the transfer from truck to boxcar.
You give the impression this is an agricultural region, and mention fertilizer. Down here in Texas, most of it is in liquid form, such as anhydrous ammonia, which means tank cars, which can also be unloaded into trucks for transport "off the layout". Perhaps the co-op expands its sales, therefore increasing this traffic as well. Fertilizer travels in 20,000 gallon as well as the jumbo 33,000 gallon cars which are becoming extinct now. One industry I did not mention is the lumber shipment on centerbeam flatcars. The one drawback with these cars is, just like the little diagrams on their bulkheads illustrate, they must be unloaded evenly from both sides. This requires room on both sides of the track whereas the track in your photo is close to the covered hopper unloading track. With one sided access, handling packaged lumber is out. The other "industries" are fine with one-side access.
Changing back to your original subject, you mentioned Santa Fe's CF-7s. Santa Fe's first CF-7 conversion, number 2649, was released from the Cleburne shops way back in 1970-over a half-century ago. By the mid 1980s, their days were done on the ATSF. Yes, they're still out there but as you stated, the failure of a major component usually spells "the end". Besides there is still that eight vs. twelve, vs. sixteen cylinder argument.
You also mention re-engined minority builder's products such as a Baldwin. If you bought one, you are probably getting a home-brew rebuild done forty or fifty years ago. Many of them were re-wired with whatever the electrician wanted to try that day, with no two the same. Even he didn't remember exactly what he had done. Older Baldwins with cast vs. fabricated frames, suffered from cracking of those frames so, I would avoid them as well. This is why EMD's model designations changed from SC and NC, to SW and NW.
One thing the old Baldwins and FMs had going for them was their pneumatic, instead of notched, electric throttles. You could adjust your power setting any where you wanted it, just like an automobile accelerator, instead of eight rigidly defined notches as on most other diesels. Of course, they could only MU with another air throttle unit which killed that concept early on. In switching, the air throttle gave better control, especially occupied passenger equipment.
Thinking like you are trying to run a railroad for a profit, instead of just watching the trains go 'round, can be fun for those so inclined. Have fun-and make a buck, doing it.
NVSRR I have been wondering that myself about the gensets. Did the eco710 rebuilds start proving the cheaper better option? Did the TP56 and 76 start proving to be comparatively better and most holding back for the reliability over time thing? I thought cf7. Since it is what Santa Fe rebuilt them to do. Branch service. So I went to YouTube to see them working and found a lot of vids stating it was the end or near end for a lot of them. A lot are being scrapped and most because of a failure that can't be fixed? Nobody mentioned that failure though. I am leaning in the direction of an sw7 or 8 or 9. That 700-1000 hp range. Light on track and fuel. But can make th etransfer run over the regional lines main to home rail up grade (loads are against the grade). Or maybe a repower with and v8 like a Baldwin if they were converted to v8 567. at 80-90 thousand a year income, and after taxes and paychecks. Yeah not much to work with. For motive power. The sales guy will definitely be pushing the use of that teamtrack shane
Another way to look at this is that the larger railroad...this is a small branchline of a larger system and NOT and independent short line, right? The larger railroad with that little of traffic would probably not think about buying something specifically and perfectly designed for that branch.
It would probably push down a loco was getting removed from larger service.
So having something a bit larger than ideal would not be unprotypical, IMO.
Also, is this 2000 or 2015. In the year 2000, I think larger railroads would have still pushed down older and rebuilt GP7s 9s, and CF7s. In 2015 I think they have mainly gone the way of the ALCO S switchers.
The more modern your era, I think the more likely the branch line would get MP15s, and GP15s that were degraded out of yard service when they were replaced by GP38s and SD40s.
A ratty Genset that no yard crew wants to fuss with anymore is not out of the question.
Douglas it is an independent shortline. I keep using branchline following the method of a once mainline cut back to a branch then spun off. which is been happening en mass in recent years. This was a mainline at one point.
You are right though, if it was a part of a larger system, they would send the oldest not fit for mainline stuff down to a place like that.
SHane
NVSRR Douglas it is an independent shortline. I keep using branchline following the method of a once mainline cut back to a branch then spun off. which is been happening en mass in recent years. This was a mainline at one point. You are right though, if it was a part of a larger system, they would send the oldest not fit for mainline stuff down to a place like that. SHane
That's what I model. Great.
I'd say the independent short line that had not a lot of traffic would probably want to find an NW or SW unit. They would take a GP7/9/18 if it was reliable and cheap.
If you are particular about details, there are some 1st generation SW versions that come with roller bearing trucks for more road service duties and full side sill handrails....the SW1200 especially.
Or a more modern shortline could get their hands on an SW1500.
NHTX
i see what you mean about the franken diesel problem
The railroad that does exsit in the region has a lot of team tracks no idea why I didnt look at that before to see what products go through them. And tto the left of the hopper in the picture, that gravel area does have a team track burried in it. almot impossible to see with that pic angle.
I was looking at traction power site an industrial loco builder, they just started production on a 4 and 6 axle version. They are a simple design inside(as in no complicated electronics like the gensets), 25 mpg 300-800hp depending on what one wants for a powerplant with 90,000TE and 130,000TE respectivel,under 8k a year to maintain and tier 4. A possability if the government is still giving low interest loans and grants to purchase equipment like that. I forget how to take TE and turn it into a number for how many tons that can pull.
It has been an interesting project. Has taught me alot about building a motive power fleet.
You put a lot more thought into that than I ever could, LOL.
But in the end, the shortline is going to get a used locomotive, probably on its 3rd or 4th owner. Purchase price and reliability are going to be prioritized over little differences in horsepower and fuel savings, IMO.
They are going to have to buy from what's generally available when they need to buy and are at the mercy of the market. So you have a lot of leeway with your backstory and what you could put on that line, IMO.
I found an old sw9 from p2k in storage. That proved to be good enough for this shortline. Being from the before time of dcc, those pieces are on the way. because it was a Great Northern, i thought of saving the paint job but that is just too old to survive without major paint work or at least one repaint. A search of pics for paint ideas, I found a nice dark grey with a red stripe. perfect, not complicated, but smart. The sw9 is all ready to apply that red stripe.
Having started railfanning in the mid-to-late 1980s, GP7s and '9s were the most common type of locomotive for this sort of thing -- they were cheap to buy and pretty much unkillable. The slightly-more-modern equivalent would be the MP15 or MP15AC. An SW unit would do the job, but I don't think they had toilets and there are some regulations about that somewhere. Also, how much do you like your imaginary crew? The ride from those Type A switcher trucks is brutal, and the Blombergs are night and day (I've had the chnace to ride over the same tracks with both, back-to-back).
GP15 would do it but I think these were aimed at the big railraods as an alternative to rebuilding Geeps (using lots of the parts). Branch lines on a budget weren't necessarily looking to invest that kind of dough -- cheaper just to buy another crappy old Geep.
A used GP38 (non-dash-2) could also be on this duty -- or even a GP30, 35, or 40. I think purchase price took precedence over fuel economy. A GP38-2 might appeal as well -- light on its feet and I believe the modular electrical system cut maintenance costs.
An SD38 might also be a neat locomotive -- might have an lighter axle loading than a GP38, not sure. I don't think an RS3 would be as likely a choice for a moder modern (last 40 years) railroad as they didn't last like the EMDs -- though an EMD-repowered RS3 (like Conrail's RS3m) could be a fun modeling project.
BTW so far as I know there is not much of a major technological leap between the 567 and the 645 -- AFAIK it's basically a bored-out version of the same engine, and I believe there is quite a bit of parts compatibility. Aside from the change from supercharging to turbocharging, I don't think the engine technology changed very radically until the 710 series started using electronic injectors. I think the bigger changes were in the electric side of the powertrain.
Turbocharging would use more fuel -- diesels always take in a full charge of air, and that puts a top end on how much fuel can be injected. If you can get in more air -- through greater displacement or forced induction (or, in the case of the EMD engines, *more* force than the superchargers provide), you can spray in more fuel and get a bigger bang.
Aaron