Bad train pictures

[Anonymous]

Can anyone actually tell us the details of what happened to the 3985? I don't mean "a pipe froze and broke", I mean details. [}:)]

I would bet this was not a normal occurance for steam engines. I have heard they usually left valves opened a little to prevent such happenings. So what happened here? It is kind of ironic that a steam engine based in Cheyenne, Wyoming, would have this happen in St. Louis, Missouri.

[Anonymous]

Can anyone actually tell us the details of what happened to the 3985? I don't mean "a pipe froze and broke", I mean details. [}:)]

I would bet this was not a normal occurance for steam engines. I have heard they usually left valves opened a little to prevent such happenings. So what happened here? It is kind of ironic that a steam engine based in Cheyenne, Wyoming, would have this happen in St. Louis, Missouri.

[Anonymous]

M C [:)] You dirty bird you [}:)] [:p] [;)] [8D] [:D]

Question for you [?]

You mentioned "Railbanked" in another thread. I think I have heard of it before but memory doesn't quite recall all the pertinent details. Would you give it a little jolt, please sir, and thank you. [?] [^] [:)]

[Anonymous]

M C [:)] You dirty bird you [}:)] [:p] [;)] [8D] [:D]

Question for you [?]

You mentioned "Railbanked" in another thread. I think I have heard of it before but memory doesn't quite recall all the pertinent details. Would you give it a little jolt, please sir, and thank you. [?] [^] [:)]

[tree68]

QUOTE: Originally posted by jhhtrainsplanes

M C [:)] You dirty bird you [}:)] [:p] [;)] [8D] [:D]

Question for you [?]

You mentioned "Railbanked" in another thread. I think I have heard of it before but memory doesn't quite recall all the pertinent details. Would you give it a little jolt, please sir, and thank you. [?] [^] [:)]

I'll beat MC to the punch - from a search:

What is Railbanking? Railbanking (as defined by the National Trails System Act, 16 USC 1247 (d)) is a voluntary agreement between a railroad company and a trail agency to use an out-of-service rail corridor as a trail until some railroad might need the corridor again for rail service. Because a railbanked corridor is not considered abandoned, it can be sold, leased or donated to a trail manager without reverting to adjacent landowners. The railbanking provisions of the National Trails System Act as adopted by Congress in 1983 have preserved 4,431 miles of rail corridors in 33 states that would otherwise have been abandoned.

[tree68]

QUOTE: Originally posted by jhhtrainsplanes

M C [:)] You dirty bird you [}:)] [:p] [;)] [8D] [:D]

Question for you [?]

You mentioned "Railbanked" in another thread. I think I have heard of it before but memory doesn't quite recall all the pertinent details. Would you give it a little jolt, please sir, and thank you. [?] [^] [:)]

I'll beat MC to the punch - from a search:

What is Railbanking? Railbanking (as defined by the National Trails System Act, 16 USC 1247 (d)) is a voluntary agreement between a railroad company and a trail agency to use an out-of-service rail corridor as a trail until some railroad might need the corridor again for rail service. Because a railbanked corridor is not considered abandoned, it can be sold, leased or donated to a trail manager without reverting to adjacent landowners. The railbanking provisions of the National Trails System Act as adopted by Congress in 1983 have preserved 4,431 miles of rail corridors in 33 states that would otherwise have been abandoned.

[Modelcar]

...No need for me to say more.

[Modelcar]

...No need for me to say more.

[tree68]

This thread will probably never die...

I've had this one rolling around in the ol' noggin for a while, and it just came to the head of the list again.

We're all pretty aware that train handling is a complex task. My limited exposure at the "controls" (via MSTS and Trainz) more than confirms that. I often am close enough to defect detectors to hear the reports, which now include train speed around here. One DED/HBD I hear is on a relatively straight and level stretch of rail, and I almost always hear the trains passing it being within an MPH of the local track speed (40).

So - a question for the mainline engineers among us - The throttle is famously known to have 8 notches (seems like some of the "console" locos might have an infinitely variable throttle, based on MSTS. I could be wrong and haven't run my MSTS in a while). Given a train with an adequate horsepower/tonnage ratio and a track profile that is relatively consistent, if not level, how often does the engineer manage to find equilibrium - not having to adjust the throttle all the time to maintain a consistent speed? In other words, are there times when notch 6 1/4 would be nice to have?

[tree68]

This thread will probably never die...

I've had this one rolling around in the ol' noggin for a while, and it just came to the head of the list again.

We're all pretty aware that train handling is a complex task. My limited exposure at the "controls" (via MSTS and Trainz) more than confirms that. I often am close enough to defect detectors to hear the reports, which now include train speed around here. One DED/HBD I hear is on a relatively straight and level stretch of rail, and I almost always hear the trains passing it being within an MPH of the local track speed (40).

So - a question for the mainline engineers among us - The throttle is famously known to have 8 notches (seems like some of the "console" locos might have an infinitely variable throttle, based on MSTS. I could be wrong and haven't run my MSTS in a while). Given a train with an adequate horsepower/tonnage ratio and a track profile that is relatively consistent, if not level, how often does the engineer manage to find equilibrium - not having to adjust the throttle all the time to maintain a consistent speed? In other words, are there times when notch 6 1/4 would be nice to have?

[wabash1]

there are so many variables to this that it difficult to say. there is times that notch 5 is not enough and notch 6 is to much. but the next train 5 does the trick never touch it again. wind is a big factor depending on type of train, auto racks are big wind catchers followed by stack trains. then again some trains roll good no matter what and others you haft to pull every where. lets just say that the current set up is fine for me as i rather be doing something keeps the alerter from going off as much.

[wabash1]

there are so many variables to this that it difficult to say. there is times that notch 5 is not enough and notch 6 is to much. but the next train 5 does the trick never touch it again. wind is a big factor depending on type of train, auto racks are big wind catchers followed by stack trains. then again some trains roll good no matter what and others you haft to pull every where. lets just say that the current set up is fine for me as i rather be doing something keeps the alerter from going off as much.

[Anonymous]

The U25B started production in 1959 and is credited as starting the high horsepower war. I am not entirely satisfied with that credit, but I will let it stand for now. The U25B had 2500 horsepower in a BB wheel arrangement and used the FDL-16 engine. There were 476 units made from 1959 to 1966.

The U23B started production in 1968 with 465 units being made. The U23B was also a BB wheel arrangement and used the FDL-12 engine. Production of this unit continued until 1977. However, the U23B had only 2250 horsepower.

Now here is the question. WHY did GE drop down the horsepower in a new model after susposedly starting the high horsepower war? This doesn't make a lot of sense to me. I understand that their were limits to DC technology and anything over about 2800 horsepower would have to be AC. Dropping down the horsepower and loosing 250 horsepower just doesn't seem like a logical thing to do.

Can anyone shed a little light on this subject?

[Anonymous]

The U25B started production in 1959 and is credited as starting the high horsepower war. I am not entirely satisfied with that credit, but I will let it stand for now. The U25B had 2500 horsepower in a BB wheel arrangement and used the FDL-16 engine. There were 476 units made from 1959 to 1966.

The U23B started production in 1968 with 465 units being made. The U23B was also a BB wheel arrangement and used the FDL-12 engine. Production of this unit continued until 1977. However, the U23B had only 2250 horsepower.

Now here is the question. WHY did GE drop down the horsepower in a new model after susposedly starting the high horsepower war? This doesn't make a lot of sense to me. I understand that their were limits to DC technology and anything over about 2800 horsepower would have to be AC. Dropping down the horsepower and loosing 250 horsepower just doesn't seem like a logical thing to do.

Can anyone shed a little light on this subject?

[Anonymous]

heres an idiot Question, did the E and F series locomotives have a different Wheel configuration?

I've never seen an E in my life!

[Anonymous]

heres an idiot Question, did the E and F series locomotives have a different Wheel configuration?

I've never seen an E in my life!

[espeefoamer]

QUOTE: Originally posted by kevinstheRRman

heres an idiot Question, did the E and F series locomotives have a different Wheel configuration?

I've never seen an E in my life!

An F unit has a B-B wheel arrangement,while an E unit has a A-1-A,A-1-A wheel arrangement. Now for my own stupid question,I have seen signs along the tracks that read "DED*".What does this mean?

[espeefoamer]

QUOTE: Originally posted by kevinstheRRman

heres an idiot Question, did the E and F series locomotives have a different Wheel configuration?

I've never seen an E in my life!

An F unit has a B-B wheel arrangement,while an E unit has a A-1-A,A-1-A wheel arrangement. Now for my own stupid question,I have seen signs along the tracks that read "DED*".What does this mean?

[Anonymous]

I've got one how do they use ABS?

[Anonymous]

I've got one how do they use ABS?

[dehusman]

The U23b was intended for low horsepower applications (locals). GE was making the U33, U36 and other high horsepower models. Same reason EMD was making GP38's the same time it was making SD45's, and SD50's.

Dave H.

[dehusman]

The U23b was intended for low horsepower applications (locals). GE was making the U33, U36 and other high horsepower models. Same reason EMD was making GP38's the same time it was making SD45's, and SD50's.

Dave H.

[dehusman]

DED probably means "dragging equipment detector". If alerts the crew something is dragging off the train.

Dave H.

[dehusman]

DED probably means "dragging equipment detector". If alerts the crew something is dragging off the train.

Dave H.

[dharmon]

QUOTE: Originally posted by dehusman

DED probably means "dragging equipment detector". If alerts the crew something is dragging off the train.

Dave H.

whew...I thought more victims of Texas public schools were out making signs again..I thought it was "dead"

[dharmon]

QUOTE: Originally posted by dehusman

DED probably means "dragging equipment detector". If alerts the crew something is dragging off the train.

Dave H.

whew...I thought more victims of Texas public schools were out making signs again..I thought it was "dead"

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by dehusman

The U23b was intended for low horsepower applications (locals). GE was making the U33, U36 and other high horsepower models. Same reason EMD was making GP38's the same time it was making SD45's, and SD50's.

Dave H.

But why not stick with the U25B. The U23B had 2250 horsepower so that would be 250 less than the U25B. It still doesn't make sense to me to have a new model with less horsepower even if it was just 250 horsepower less. So 250 horsepower is the defining line between low horsepower and high horsepower. I am not seeing something here. It still just doesn't make sense.

Was there a size difference between the two? If the U23B was smaller in length then I could see "something" there. But if the two were the same size with just a difference in the powerplant then once again, it wouldn't make sense to me. Not for just 250 horsepower.

Call me hard-headed if you must, but I still don't see it. Not for 250 horsepower.

Wabash, L. C., and you other engineers beat me with a piece of rail and help me see the light. lol. Tell me, can you equate 250 horsepower into pulling 1 car, or 5 cars? Why is 2500 considered high horsepower when it is only 250 horsepower more than 2250 horsepower? Why not say high horsepower begins at 3000 horsepower, at least that would be 750 more horsepower? Who decided all this anyway? I want to have a talk with them. I will straighten them out. lol ok, up outta the floor and stop laughing.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by dehusman

The U23b was intended for low horsepower applications (locals). GE was making the U33, U36 and other high horsepower models. Same reason EMD was making GP38's the same time it was making SD45's, and SD50's.

Dave H.

But why not stick with the U25B. The U23B had 2250 horsepower so that would be 250 less than the U25B. It still doesn't make sense to me to have a new model with less horsepower even if it was just 250 horsepower less. So 250 horsepower is the defining line between low horsepower and high horsepower. I am not seeing something here. It still just doesn't make sense.

Was there a size difference between the two? If the U23B was smaller in length then I could see "something" there. But if the two were the same size with just a difference in the powerplant then once again, it wouldn't make sense to me. Not for just 250 horsepower.

Call me hard-headed if you must, but I still don't see it. Not for 250 horsepower.

Wabash, L. C., and you other engineers beat me with a piece of rail and help me see the light. lol. Tell me, can you equate 250 horsepower into pulling 1 car, or 5 cars? Why is 2500 considered high horsepower when it is only 250 horsepower more than 2250 horsepower? Why not say high horsepower begins at 3000 horsepower, at least that would be 750 more horsepower? Who decided all this anyway? I want to have a talk with them. I will straighten them out. lol ok, up outta the floor and stop laughing.

[CShaveRR]

The U23B got its 2250 horsepower from twelve cylinders instead of the 16 used on the U25B, U28B, U30C, etc. It was definitely for the folks who thought 3000 was too much horsepower.

They also made an eight-cylinder engine, a U18B. Not too many takers on that, though.

[CShaveRR]

The U23B got its 2250 horsepower from twelve cylinders instead of the 16 used on the U25B, U28B, U30C, etc. It was definitely for the folks who thought 3000 was too much horsepower.

They also made an eight-cylinder engine, a U18B. Not too many takers on that, though.