.
"But it still sure is prettier than I am."
That sort of stuff always reminds me of an old tongue in cheek ad in Trains, or maybe Railroad, magazine, a guy with a pinstripe cap "I'm Melvin, ride me to Chicago".
Is your museum on double super secret probation? What museum? The dectective in me guesses it's somewhere on former British Columbia Railroad property.
For some reason I keep thinking of a line in the movie Track 29 "you never use that cute snowplow I got you", "It's a Canadian Pacific snowplow, I don't have a Canadian Pacific locomotive."
Patrick Boylan
Free yacht rides, 27' sailboat, zip code 19114 Delaware River, get great Delair bridge photos from the river. Send me a private message
A couple of minor corrections. CP 4069 rolled out of the GMD shop in London, not Montreal, in 1952. Montreal Locomotive Works built Alco design, exemplified by the CPR S-3 and PGE RSC-3. And the 6520 in the old CN livery is clearly an FP9, so not all the F-units are FP7s.
Wonderful photos and info - the kind not often seen, but should be more often. Thanks for sharing !!!
FYI, a minor clarification and for those who can't quite tell: The ALCo RS-type loco that's yellow with green stripes is ex-Paciifc Great Eastern (predecessor to British Columbia Railway) RSC-3 No. 561, and it does appear to be the last of its kind, since there don't appear to be any recent photos of any other example of one - see: http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/locoList.aspx?mid=977
- Paul North.
I was focusing on the RSC-3 vs. the RS-3 designation. As an RSC-3, it's indeed likely the last one around.
If the swapping the trucks is all it takes to make it an RS-3 - or if the subject is any RS-3 - then there's at least 1 other RS-3 running - Delaware-Lackawanna 4118, which I see every couple of weeks. I've seen posts elsewhere that say 4 of them are running on this line within the last 2 years - see this Sept. 2013 YouTube video of them, titled "Delaware Lackawanna's RS-3's":
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9jVo0wvNOm4
Here's a link to a roster (date ?) of those that were and/ or are still on the line apparently 5 +/-, 7 total - note that some are stored, not serviceable, etc.:
http://www.northeast.railfan.net/dl.html
I happened on this thread while looking for something totally different. I am shocked any socalled railfan would submit it and that Trains would publish it. Look at the photos nos 12- 14. Yeah where they wrapped a wire rope sling around the coupler. This is WRONG. The load is :
1. Rigged below the center of gravity. This invites he load to roll over with disastrous results.
2. A wire rope choker is around the coupler/drawhead with out softeners and the D:d ratio is horrible.
3 Why in the hell didn't you use the lifting eye above the bellows plate provided by the manufacturer?
4 Any of these is an OSHA serious" violation by it self. Failure to use the manufacturer provided lifting eye may be a "willfull" viloation.
The potential fines would put most museums/tourist railroads out of business.
If you don't know what you are doing, DON"T DO IT!!
I say this as a certified rigger and signal man.
I must add that being volunteers does not exempt you from OSHA. It matters not if you were paid, only that you worked there. You people better straighten up or one accident will shut you down.
AFAIK
The A1A trucks under PGE 561 came from CNR 1700s going for scrap.
http://www.cnrphotos.com/gallery2/main.php?g2_itemId=51015
This one has 'donated' its A1As to an RS18, the latter's trucks going for scrap.
http://www.cnrphotos.com/gallery2/main.php?g2_itemId=44614
An RS18 now with A1A trucks for branch line service.
http://www.cnrphotos.com/gallery2/main.php?g2_itemId=44680
To improve traction, back in the sixties, CNR removed the idler axles on some 1700s, making them B-B.
http://www.cnrphotos.com/gallery2/main.php?g2_itemId=13113
Off Topic.
CNR repowered 2 A and 2 B FPA/B 2 with 251. The 4 244s were sent back to MLW who sorda kitbashed 4 replacements with the PMs. The electrical cabinet is in the SHORT hood.
http://www.cnrphotos.com/gallery2/main.php?g2_itemId=57738
These too were B-B'd by CN by removing center axles.
More O T.
This is an H-10-64 ( later uprated to 1200 HP ) and three 3 had S/Gs to partially-Dieselize the M&SC Interurban.
This is one of the 3 S/G. Units.
http://www.cnrphotos.com/gallery2/main.php?g2_itemId=49321
http://trainweb.org/elso/msc_604.htm
Thank You.
tdmidget I happened on this thread while looking for something totally different. I am shocked any socalled railfan would submit it and that Trains would publish it. Look at the photos nos 12- 14. Yeah where they wrapped a wire rope sling around the coupler. This is WRONG. The load is : 1. Rigged below the center of gravity. This invites he load to roll over with disastrous results. 2. A wire rope choker is around the coupler/drawhead with out softeners and the D:d ratio is horrible. 3 Why in the hell didn't you use the lifting eye above the bellows plate provided by the manufacturer? 4 Any of these is an OSHA serious" violation by it self. Failure to use the manufacturer provided lifting eye may be a "willfull" viloation. The potential fines would put most museums/tourist railroads out of business. If you don't know what you are doing, DON"T DO IT!! I say this as a certified rigger and signal man. I must add that being volunteers does not exempt you from OSHA. It matters not if you were paid, only that you worked there. You people better straighten up or one accident will shut you down.
EuclidAs they lift from the single point of the coupler below the center of gravity, what is happening at the front of the locomotive? Is the body bolster bearing simply rocking forward on the truck bolster center plate? If so, that would seem to further add to the precarious instability of the lift. It would reduce the contact in the front center bearing to about the size of a pencil point. If these are the circumstances of this lift, the only thing preventing the locomotive from rolling onto its side is the friction of the cable sling on the coupler, and the perfectly balanced weight distribution side to side in the construction of the locomotive.
If these are the circumstances of this lift, the only thing preventing the locomotive from rolling onto its side is the friction of the cable sling on the coupler, and the perfectly balanced weight distribution side to side in the construction of the locomotive.
Comments edited to reflect the general case of lifting an F unit by the rear 'down low' rather than with the rings at the top of the plate:
I don't think the situation is that bad (for the limited lift needed to roll out the rear truck); in the worst case you're likely to keep the bolster pivot in the pocket with the elliptic springs in the hangers taking up some of the 'twist' (that is after all what the truck does to keep the sideframes oriented in normal running). With the rear truck replaced with what is essentially a frictionless pivot, you have one-half the side and spring bearing holding the unit upright ... but that ought to be highly sufficient for a straight lift of no more than 4 feet or so. Even if the carbody were to tip over a few degrees as you lifted, some part of the chassis would contact some part of the side bearing or even sideframe and that would arrest any tilt well shy of danger. In practice you have to tip an E or F unit comparatively hard to get it to flop off its trucks, although once you get to the critical tipover point (I have actually seen that number in degrees for static balance, and for a couple of 'example' speeds) the carbody does roll 'the rest of the way over' with remarkable aplomb (often leaving the trucks primly on the rails when it does so in an overspeed rollover). It does occur to you that the swing hanger hinge points, and the center and side bearings, are both at or below coupler-shank level, right? So there is quite a bit of inherent stability in the truck arrangement, and even reducing this by one-half or a bit more by rolling out one truck from under a raised end, it's still going to be stable.
In any case, how do we know they didn't block the front of the locomotive laterally at the jacking points before lifting the rear? That's what I would do if I were concerned about this matter.
On the other hand, a lift via the 'eyes' would require the hook to be slung much higher than if lifting on the rear of the draft-gear box, and you would need more complicated cabling through both eyes and the padding used to cushion the lift at the hook. It would also require 'rigging' the lift, and taking down afterwards, quite a distance up in the air, and that would entail safe scaffolding or manlift that would accomplish that task safely... or would you advocate they tried rigging it while balancing on the rear roof, or via a ladder against the striker plate? OSHA would rightly have kittens.
Now, if someone were to try to lift the whole carbody up via just the two draft-gear box locations, the situation would be as you indicate: it would be highly metastable and would be prone to roll over about as soon as you got it clear of whatever it was sitting on. But this introduces something else:.it occurs to me that the front lifting rings on many of these bulldog-nose EMDs are not that much higher than the front coupler shank. Perhaps PCook can comment on the recommended EMD procedure for 'hardware' and procedure for lifting using those rings was.
Thanks, fellows.
As it is hard for you to make comments based on my amateur "snapshots" I will say only that great care was taken to not lift on the shank of the coupler. There are two large spaces through a massive carbody plate through which the cable was threaded and bore no contact point on the edges. You cannot see this in the photos. Is it just possible that it has been some time since forum people looking at those photos have also worked on an F unit? I cannot defend or criticize however, as I do not know and certainly am not the rigger. As to the rest...I am merely the gofer and thought the pictures were interesting. I will not say the lift was standard practise because i have never seen it before. I will say the operators had years of experience. Nevertheless, I think it best to remove things I do not know about.
Wizlish Euclid As they lift from the single point of the coupler below the center of gravity, what is happening at the front of the locomotive? Is the body bolster bearing simply rocking forward on the truck bolster center plate? If so, that would seem to further add to the precarious instability of the lift. It would reduce the contact in the front center bearing to about the size of a pencil point. If these are the circumstances of this lift, the only thing preventing the locomotive from rolling onto its side is the friction of the cable sling on the coupler, and the perfectly balanced weight distribution side to side in the construction of the locomotive. Comments edited to reflect the general case of lifting an F unit by the rear 'down low' rather than with the rings at the top of the plate: I don't think the situation is that bad (for the limited lift needed to roll out the rear truck); in the worst case you're likely to keep the bolster pivot in the pocket with the elliptic springs in the hangers taking up some of the 'twist' (that is after all what the truck does to keep the sideframes oriented in normal running). With the rear truck replaced with what is essentially a frictionless pivot, you have one-half the side and spring bearing holding the unit upright ... but that ought to be highly sufficient for a straight lift of no more than 4 feet or so. Even if the carbody were to tip over a few degrees as you lifted, some part of the chassis would contact some part of the side bearing or even sideframe and that would arrest any tilt well shy of danger. In practice you have to tip an E or F unit comparatively hard to get it to flop off its trucks, although once you get to the critical tipover point (I have actually seen that number in degrees for static balance, and for a couple of 'example' speeds) the carbody does roll 'the rest of the way over' with remarkable aplomb (often leaving the trucks primly on the rails when it does so in an overspeed rollover). It does occur to you that the swing hanger hinge points, and the center and side bearings, are both at or below coupler-shank level, right? So there is quite a bit of inherent stability in the truck arrangement, and even reducing this by one-half or a bit more by rolling out one truck from under a raised end, it's still going to be stable. In any case, how do we know they didn't block the front of the locomotive laterally at the jacking points before lifting the rear? That's what I would do if I were concerned about this matter. On the other hand, a lift via the 'eyes' would require the hook to be slung much higher than if lifting on the rear of the draft-gear box, and you would need more complicated cabling through both eyes and the padding used to cushion the lift at the hook. It would also require 'rigging' the lift, and taking down afterwards, quite a distance up in the air, and that would entail safe scaffolding or manlift that would accomplish that task safely... or would you advocate they tried rigging it while balancing on the rear roof, or via a ladder against the striker plate? OSHA would rightly have kittens. Now, if someone were to try to lift the whole carbody up via just the two draft-gear box locations, the situation would be as you indicate: it would be highly metastable and would be prone to roll over about as soon as you got it clear of whatever it was sitting on. But this introduces something else:.it occurs to me that the front lifting rings on many of these bulldog-nose EMDs are not that much higher than the front coupler shank. Perhaps PCook can comment on the recommended EMD procedure for 'hardware' and procedure for lifting using those rings was.
Euclid As they lift from the single point of the coupler below the center of gravity, what is happening at the front of the locomotive? Is the body bolster bearing simply rocking forward on the truck bolster center plate? If so, that would seem to further add to the precarious instability of the lift. It would reduce the contact in the front center bearing to about the size of a pencil point. If these are the circumstances of this lift, the only thing preventing the locomotive from rolling onto its side is the friction of the cable sling on the coupler, and the perfectly balanced weight distribution side to side in the construction of the locomotive.
Just to clarify what model the PGE 561 is, it was indeed built as an RSC-3. PGE's initial diesels were the RSC-3s and GE 70-tonners. Since the railway also had lengthy 2% grades, presumably the choice was forced by light rail and/or bridges. Later purchases were all of B-B configuration from MLW, RS-3s, RS-10s and finally RS-18s as steam was phased out and the railway expanded. The group of RSC-3s soon had their A1A trucks replaced by conventional B trucks, in effect converting them to RS-3s.
In preservation it was desired to return the 561 to its original configuration, and fortunately the A1A trucks from the retired CN RSC-13s were obtained. Any design changes would be trivial. One difference that has no doubt been retained is roller bearings instead of plain bearings as delivered.
It appeared to me that the wire sling was around the draft gear, not the coupler shank. As such, I too wondered about the stability of that lift, but figured that the side bearings of the front truck would limit any tipping to just a moderate amount. Still, I thought there must be better place or one specically designed for that purpose, in case a 'big hook' had to lift it. I wasn't sure that those 2 holes at the top of the diaphragm were intended for that purpose. They're still close to each other, and would require a lot of structural members with no other purpose or benefit to transfer the load from the main frame up to those lifting points. Why not just put them on the anti-climber or outer corners of the frame ?
This museum is in Canada. Technically, OSHA is only in the US. But the Canadians must have a similar agency.
Not to 'pile on' here, but another issue not mentioned yet: If I recall correctly, the Original Post said the shop had 2 overhead cranes, of 10-tons and 30-tons capacity. A FP-9 weighs approx. 259,000 lbs. or 129.5 tons (see: http://www.thedieselshop.us/Data%20EMD%20FP9.HTML ). Figuring about half of that on each end would be about 65 tons on each end. So the 30-ton crane would have been overloaded to a factor of 2.17 times its rated lifting capacity. Even if the 10-ton crane was somehow also in on the lift, that 65-ton load would be about 1.62 times the combined rated capacity of the 2 cranes together. None of that is good, to say the least.
I have a feeling like this is why some railroads welded lift rings on the front of their F units.
Compare the left and right units.
http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=139840&nseq=0
On the left loco in that 1978 photo, only 2 years after ConRail took over from Penn Central (note the all-black paint schemes, too). Yeah, they would have really needed those lift rings often back then ! (frequent derailments) Note that the loco on the right from the D&RGW doesn't have them - apparently they didn't need to rerail their locos that often . . .
Thanks for finding and sharing that excellent photo to illustrate the point !
EuclidI would assume that the two lifting eyes near the roof would not be properly used by running a rope through the eyes. Instead, they would be attached to a spreader with clevises. So the attachment would be made with round pins passing through the lifting eyes and clevises. I would think you would just lower the hook down to the floor, pick up the spreader assembly, and raise it up to the proper height. Then somebody would go up a ladder and install the two pins.
In a proper world, yes, you'd use a spreader or traveller and pins, as you indicated, especially considering the weight. I continue to await pictures showing how 'real' railroad shops handled F-unit lifts "from above".
I was addressing the situation pictured in the original (now-removed) shop pictures, where they chose to use the material on hand (wire rope and, presumably, some form of padding) for the lift using the draft gear location, and assuming they tried using the 'correct' hardpoint eyes with that material instead.
--formatting problem--
EuclidI understand your point about the truck side bearings preventing a rollover, but I don’t see any side bearings on Blomberg trucks (which I assume they were in the photos). The full load goes down through the center bearing to the bolster, and the bolster transfers the load out to the tops of the elliptical springs on each side. Normally, I think of side bearings as transferring load from the car body bolster to the tops of the truck bolster. I don’t see any such features on the Blomberg truck.
Look at columns 3 and 4 in US patent 2685262. These show the method of side bearings and locks Blomberg intended. Note elsewhere in the patent how issues with things like cross-level equalization that would be handled with a 'three-point' pivot system are handled in the primary and secondary suspension at the sideframes -- this is why most discussions of Blomberg trucks concern that part of the design, and not the cab-to-bolster arrangements.
BTW: Something interesting that I had not thought of before looking at this patent now is how the truck is stabilized and aligned relative to the carbody when the truck is actively motored or dynamic-braked. Compare this with the traction-strut approach used on modern trucks.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.