GP40-2 wrote: Hey Moron Michael, The B&O was an independent company until 1986.
Hey Moron Michael, The B&O was an independent company until 1986.
Nothing "independent" about it. It was owned by the C&O. It was part of the Chessie System.
See: Cheseapeake & Ohio Railroad Company -- Control -- Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co. 317 ICC 261 (1962).
You said you were there before "Chessie System" days and pre-CSX as well.
If you were there both pre-CSX (1980) and pre-Chessie (1962, 1972, take your pick) but were there only 27 years -- which isn't that long of a career in the rail industry, kiddo, my stepdad retired with 47 years -- that means you started in 1980. Possible to be "pre-CSX", not possible to be "pre-Chessie."
Financially, the "Chessie System" was born in 1962. I recall -- and it is only a recollection -- the three component companies adopted "Chessie System" in 1972. CSX was created in 1980 -- to control the "Chessie System" and the SCL.
Thereafter, the component corporate structures of the Chessie were rolled up -- WM in 1983 into B&O, B&O rolled into the C&O structure April 30, 1987, (not 1986 as you claim -- just careless I suppose), and C&O into CSX on August 31, 1987.
Do we know what GP-40's job is with the CSX yet
And I can agree with some degree to MichalSol's responce on all the "independent company" talk.
The CSX has what is called " The C&O Business Unit " here in my area.It has something to do with the management of the coal business.It was created around 6 or 7 years ago.
My payroll checks for the NS up till around 1999 or 2000 (can't be exact) still had "An Agent for the N&W railroad " printed on them.I read something somewhere it had to do with the legal changes in the merging of the N&W and Southern r.r's.In other words the two railroads do not exist in public domain any longer.
BigJim.Can you remember the GE 8000's.Man you wanna talk about a engine I was never so glad to see gone.And the GE 3900's.Hope to never see another one of those again.Those 3900's must not of had much of a wheel slip detector.I've had them rascals throw a shower of sparks in curves before .
I've heard the NS is starting to get rid of the 8500 and some of the early 8600's.My guess is because their not electronic fuel injection.I can remember when they was the "super unit" ,so they thought.
Collin ,operator of the " Eastern Kentucky & Ohio R.R."
I always hated those B30-7's!
Narrow doors, slow to load, always dropping their load, and that toilet!!!
But the GP50's were the ones, especially on our rock trains, were a real bear to operate when the rail got slick. I don't know who in management thought it was a good idea to put them in rock service but they wasn't designed to do that type of work. We used them on the SP in intermodal service and those little buggers would really run!
I always liked the his and her toliets on those NS 3900's.
Man am I glad we don't " duty " in a bag now .
They had one heck of a heater in them though .
The high horse 4 axle EMD's (NS 4600 and 7100 series )were designed and purchased on the NS for intermodal type work.They had a higher gear ratio.Which made them good for the light tonnage,real bad for the big tonnage.And they rattled like crazy !
Speaking of the NS 7100's.I've not seen one around here (Poca.Div.) in a while.Seen a few 4600's on locals,that broke down.Now their using the ole reliable GP-40's.
zapp wrote:I always hated those B30-7's!Narrow doors, slow to load, always dropping their load, and that toilet!!!But the GP50's were the ones, especially on our rock trains, were a real bear to operate when the rail got slick. I don't know who in management thought it was a good idea to put them in rock service but they wasn't designed to do that type of work. We used them on the SP in intermodal service and those little buggers would really run!
csx engineer
Those C30-7's were harder to get into. Like you said the latter was straight up, but they were taller then the B30-7's!
I hated them too!
I'm glad Uncle Pete has gotten rid of most of them.
Jock Ellis Cumming, GA US of A Georgia Association of Railroad Passengers
The carrier specs the seats, not the builder.
We have an agreement on UP on the specs of the seats. They must be high backs, with arm rests, etc...
NS uses mid back cloth seats, and they are uncomfortable.
jockellis wrote:G'day, Y'all,Working for a HUGE company which builds locomotives, I've learned that graduate engineers cannot spell any better than locomotive engineers. Personally, I edit my posts several times because coming from a newspaper background, I hate typos! And I still get a few when I read my posts after submitting them.While working at The Great Train Store near Atlanta, I met a recently-retired NS engineer who told me he was trying to get up a class action suit against GE because the seats he had to sit on had given him back problems. Can anyone enlighten me on the merits of one manufacturer's seats versus those of another? Also, the complaint about the toilet. I've never read a post by an old steam locomotive engineer complaining about his toilet.
oh yea..and the location of most of them.. damn you need to be double jointed to even get down to them let alone use them...
zapp wrote:The carrier specs the seats, not the builder.We have an agreement on UP on the specs of the seats. They must be high backs, with arm rests, etc...NS uses mid back cloth seats, and they are uncomfortable.
Yeh " duty " in a bag.It got real interesting when the NS handed out bag with serial numbers,that's the truth.I still got a whole unopened bag of them puppies somewhere.Good conversation piece one day.
And the NS has mostly cloth material seats now.Better than those bar stool seats we used before.They was the norm on all brands of locomotives.
And what was the manufacters thinking about those little " dungeon" toliets,especially in those EMD's ?It seems the loco. designers were short people.
BigJim.Can you remember the GE 8000's.Man you wanna talk about a engine I was never so glad to see gone.And the GE 3900's.Hope to never see another one of those again.Those 3900's must not of had much of a wheel slip detector.I've had them rascals throw a shower of sparks in curves before " border="0" width="15" height="15" /> . I've heard the NS is starting to get rid of the 8500 and some of the early 8600's.My guess is because their not electronic fuel injection.I can remember when they was the "super unit" ,so they thought.
Create a Reef~~~^~~~~^~~~~^~~~~~~~
_________________Sink a U-Boat___________
Please don't remind me of any GE before the Dash9s. Those were the first GE locomotives that had steps you didn't have to be a mountain climber to get on and walkways you didn't have to scoot sideways on. Yeah, NS is getting rid of the older stuff.
I didn't think EMD could make a bad unit until they came out with the 4600's. Those things literally rattled your brain! There are still some 7100's around.
But my all time favorite was the SD40-2's.
.
MichaelSol wrote:Nothing "independent" about it. It was owned by the C&O. It was part of the Chessie System.See: Cheseapeake & Ohio Railroad Company -- Control -- Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co. 317 ICC 261 (1962).You said you were there before "Chessie System" days and pre-CSX as well. If you were there both pre-CSX (1980) and pre-Chessie (1962, 1972, take your pick) but were there only 27 years -- which isn't that long of a career in the rail industry, kiddo, my stepdad retired with 47 years -- that means you started in 1980. Possible to be "pre-CSX", not possible to be "pre-Chessie."Financially, the "Chessie System" was born in 1962. I recall -- and it is only a recollection -- the three component companies adopted "Chessie System" in 1972. CSX was created in 1980 -- to control the "Chessie System" and the SCL.Thereafter, the component corporate structures of the Chessie were rolled up -- WM in 1983 into B&O, B&O rolled into the C&O structure April 30, 1987, (not 1986 as you claim -- just careless I suppose), and C&O into CSX on August 31, 1987.
The C&O had controlling interest in the B&O, and the B&O had controlling interest in the WM, but they were all independent railroads. The "Chessie System" was never an operating railroad. It was a paper holding company.
If you look at any equipment that was painted in the Chessie System colors, it always had reporting remarks of the operating railroad (B&O, C&O, or WM) that actually owned (or leased) and operated it.
When I was hired in 1979, it was by the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad. My tax forms reported my employer as the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad until 1986.
To many of us B&O and WM guys, "Chessie" refered to the C&O proper. Yes, my orginal statement may have unclear for anyone who didn't work for "Chessie System" in that era. I will modify it to say I started prior to the CSX era, and prior to the B&O being rolled into the C&O ("Chessie" to us).
Quick question is anyone in here a Division Engineer, Yardmaster, Regional Sub divison Engineer, President of Operations, or Dispatcher? The reason I am asking is because I have to report to each and every one of these people on a daily basis on any given railroad sub that I am testing on( usually the southern california BNSF division) I have met and had dinner with Dale Wagoner President of Operations and Matt Rose who is Chairman, President, Chief Executive Officer for the BNSF railway, on a couple occaisions to talk about conditions and defects along the Cajon and Barstow subs so they can effectively get more trains and more maintenence done without tying down each other on the third and forth main line projects that are going on. And so far I haven't been treated poorly or seen anyone being misstreated or made fun of by anyone fitting the posistions I have listed. I have seen a good number of heated debates with Yardmasters, Dispatchers, Crew members, M.O.W. and the like over things but they never resorted to name calling or making fun of each other. For one simple fact; most of these guys worked their ways up the company ladder and have been around each other for years they have developed a bond much like a family. Either you get along with everyone or you get moved around the system so much you end up wanting to quit or are asked to leave. I know there are people who just plain don't get along with anyone and they don't get higher up posistions like the ones I have listed due to the fact that one of the steps to getting hired on in one of these jobs is the ability to work well with others wether you like them or not.
I really don't think that someone who has time to go visit an online chat forum for model railroaders and make fun of someone else and their ability to spell has time to work at a job that has to be taken as seriously as a railroaders job.
I have only worked for Sperry Rail Service for a couple of years but from who I deal with on a daily basis and the type of people I work around stuff like that doesn't last long at all.
Railroading life is a family life outside ones own family and if you don't get along with the railroad family you work with things just get worse and worse until you end up leaving the people you work around.
On a couple of occasions I have seen higher ups (usually Dispatch or Yardmasters) removed from their positions by swearing or harrasing someone on the job that very same day.
GP40-2 wrote: Wow, I make a few sarcastic posts on a dead in the water thread and it explodes into 4 pages. Hey CSXEngineer, you do realize I was just zinging you.To the rest of you holy-than-thou foamers: Get a life, and leave the real railroading to professionals like myself and CSXEngineer.Actually, don't get a life and just keep replying to my posts. I have at least 30 people looking at this site from CSX each day just for laughs at all your responses.Keep up the good work, you all make for great entertainment at CSX.
Wow, I make a few sarcastic posts on a dead in the water thread and it explodes into 4 pages.
Hey CSXEngineer, you do realize I was just zinging you.
To the rest of you holy-than-thou foamers: Get a life, and leave the real railroading to professionals like myself and CSXEngineer.
Actually, don't get a life and just keep replying to my posts. I have at least 30 people looking at this site from CSX each day just for laughs at all your responses.
Keep up the good work, you all make for great entertainment at CSX.
GP40-2, glad to see that the post you made on this page is much friendlier. If you don't mind, just a friendly observation regarding the post in the quote immedietly above.......
Instead of making a provocative post like the one in the quote .....think about it, things would have been so much more easier for you if you would have simply posted something like: CSXEngineer, I'm sorry about disrespecting you. I got carried away and hope to get along with you and everyone here.........etc.,."
I think most of the guys here would have forgiven, forgotten and moved on. But look at this: "30 guys are laughing at your posts" and "To the restof you holy-than-thou foamers....."
Instead of fostering friendly, respectable responses, you decided to disrespect the rest of us as well. Why the sucker punch? So unnecessary. But it looks like you're moving ahead in a more positive note.
As mentioned, there's a good number of professional railroaders on this forum that participate and offer very valuable information that we can't even find in Trains magazine.
If you are a professional railroader than there are indeed things we can learn from you. We can strongly disagree with each other, yet maintain the level of respect.
Peace and High Greens
"I like my Pullman Standards & Budds in Stainless Steel flavors, thank you!"
mackb4 wrote: My Dad mentioned this once.According to the C&O/CSX power management recommendations your suppose to place the lowest horsepower locomotive in the lead.Because most generally they will try to "outrun" the bigger,slower loading higher horsepower units.
My Dad mentioned this once.According to the C&O/CSX power management recommendations your suppose to place the lowest horsepower locomotive in the lead.Because most generally they will try to "outrun" the bigger,slower loading higher horsepower units.
Before the fancy wheel-slip controls on the new locomotives, we frequently had to use the independent brake to help control wheel-slip. I generally found that a 10-15 psi application was sufficient (with a light touch on the throttle) to keep the wheels from spinning too much. The light independent application also serves to clean and dry the wheels, which also increases traction. However, this method does not work, and should NOT be used on anything newer than the '50' series locomotives (if memory serves).
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.