zardoz wrote: tree68 wrote: Z - a minor correction: 3000 HP divided by 4 traction motors=750 HP each. 3000/6=500 HP per axle. The rest of the explanation is right on, though.My typing and grammar might be good, but my math sure sucks!!!
tree68 wrote: Z - a minor correction: 3000 HP divided by 4 traction motors=750 HP each. 3000/6=500 HP per axle. The rest of the explanation is right on, though.
Z - a minor correction: 3000 HP divided by 4 traction motors=750 HP each. 3000/6=500 HP per axle. The rest of the explanation is right on, though.
My typing and grammar might be good, but my math sure sucks!!!
csx engineer
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. Now I have found this to be true on the line of road,because were always getting a mesh mash of locos. when getting run thru trains. Also it's better to have an EMD in front of a GE account of the way the two different locomotive brands load. You'll really notice this when you've been on a slow order,say 10-25 mph,then you start pulling back on the throttle to get back to track speed.If the EMD is in the rear ,and the GE in the front,the EMD will try to run all over the GE in the lead. <>
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.
Now I have found this to be true on the line of road,because were always getting a mesh mash of locos. when getting run thru trains.
Also it's better to have an EMD in front of a GE account of the way the two different locomotive brands load.
You'll really notice this when you've been on a slow order,say 10-25 mph,then you start pulling back on the throttle to get back to track speed.If the EMD is in the rear ,and the GE in the front,the EMD will try to run all over the GE in the lead.
<>
<>ill add my input on what my fav locos are...the GE-9ACs.....lots of power... will pull for ever... and a VERY STRONG dynmaic brake...the only problems i have with them is if they even SMELL RAIN..they slip like a mother... and once they get some miles on them they rattle like hell...the EMD offerings in the same HP classes..such as the 70macs... they are a better ride.. but the thing that i dont like about them is there weaker dynmaic brake.. and they way they have the electrical system set up for the AC power... if you lose a traction motor on a 70..you lose the whole truck... you cant cut out each motor like you use to be able to do on older units and the GEs... and the one thing that i cant stand with any of them is they are TOO COMPUTERIZED anymore.. one bug in the system and you have a 200 ton paper weigth.... they dont call them tech-no-toasters for nothing... \
mackb4 wrote: Also it's better to have an EMD in front of a GE account of the way the two different locomotive brands load.
I would have to agree , also consider the EMD has tapered dynamics and the GE has the AAR standard flat dynamics.
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. Now I have found this to be true on the line of road,because were always getting a mesh mash of locos. when getting run thru trains. Also it's better to have an EMD in front of a GE account of the way the two different locomotive brands load. You'll really notice this when you've been on a slow order,say 10-25 mph,then you start pulling back on the throttle to get back to track speed.If the EMD is in the rear ,and the GE in the front,the EMD will try to run all over the GE in the lead.
That's interesting. In my neck of the woods CSX never does this. On the coal drags out of Bostic yard they usually have two AC4400s or SD70macs followed by an SD40-2 or an SD50.
RE: lowest H.P. unit in lead
This mainly goes back to when there were mixed consists of F2's,F3's,GP-9's, etc. The lowest horsepower unit was the one with the "weaker" electrical system, in other words it would enter it's short time ratings at a higher speed than the higher horse units. The railroads wanted the engineer watching the ammeter on the weakest unit. I'll give an example below using 62/15 (65mph max) gearing, which was used by most roads. These figures are straight from EMD operating manuals dated: 11/46 1/49 1/54.
F3 F7 GP9
min cont speed: 14.5 12.0 none given by EMD
max amperage 700 825 " " " "
I'll change the gear ratio and throw an E7 into the mix. For the F3/7 gearing is 57/20 (95mph max) and 52/25 (117 mph max) for the E7.
F3 F7 E7
min cont speed: 20.5 17.0 40.0
max amperage: same same 625
Minimum continuous speed is the lowest speed at which the unit can operate without overloading the electrical equipment. Max amperage is what should be shown on the ammeter at min cont speed. I know the F3 and F7 are both 1500hp, their electrical ratings are different.
In todays railroading it really doesn't matter in theory, in practice it is still nice to have a lower horse unit in the lead as it usually doesn't slip as much and cleans off the rail a little so the big units behind can obtain better adhesion.
GP40-2 wrote: csxengineer98 wrote: let me take a stab at this one too...yes you can be oncall 24/7/365... the pay... ahahahahaha...it sucks for all the crap we have to put up with..but considering that you dont have to spend years and thounsands of dollors on a college degree to do the job.. the pay is about one of the best your going to find for just needing a highschool deplomayou learned learned learned .... thats the point of training..to learn eveything you can about train handleing..opporating rules..and how to use the terrain of the terriroty to your advantage. (work smart..not hard)the carrier will train you and put you through there engineers program at no cost to you...but you have to be working for that railroad to go to that railroads engineers programand no..i work for conrails southern xtention...more commonly known as CSX...csx engineer Appparantly we's hired you without you obtaing yours high scholl deploma first.
csxengineer98 wrote: let me take a stab at this one too...yes you can be oncall 24/7/365... the pay... ahahahahaha...it sucks for all the crap we have to put up with..but considering that you dont have to spend years and thounsands of dollors on a college degree to do the job.. the pay is about one of the best your going to find for just needing a highschool deplomayou learned learned learned .... thats the point of training..to learn eveything you can about train handleing..opporating rules..and how to use the terrain of the terriroty to your advantage. (work smart..not hard)the carrier will train you and put you through there engineers program at no cost to you...but you have to be working for that railroad to go to that railroads engineers programand no..i work for conrails southern xtention...more commonly known as CSX...csx engineer
let me take a stab at this one too...
yes you can be oncall 24/7/365...
the pay... ahahahahaha...it sucks for all the crap we have to put up with..but considering that you dont have to spend years and thounsands of dollors on a college degree to do the job.. the pay is about one of the best your going to find for just needing a highschool deploma
you learned learned learned .... thats the point of training..to learn eveything you can about train handleing..opporating rules..and how to use the terrain of the terriroty to your advantage. (work smart..not hard)
the carrier will train you and put you through there engineers program at no cost to you...but you have to be working for that railroad to go to that railroads engineers program
and no..i work for conrails southern xtention...more commonly known as CSX...
Appparantly we's hired you without you obtaing yours high scholl deploma first.
HEY KETTLE! YOUR BLACK!
(most people should understand this)
Mechanical Department "No no that's fine shove that 20 pound set all around the yard... those shoes aren't hell and a half to change..."
The Missabe Road: Safety First
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.
Carl
Railroader Emeritus (practiced railroading for 46 years--and in 2010 I finally got it right!)
CAACSCOCOM--I don't want to behave improperly, so I just won't behave at all. (SM)
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.
I get quite a chuckle out of this too. Guess it shows what classy people CSX management are. Guess CSX doesnt have anything better to do than read railroad enthusiasts forums.
GP40-2 wrote: Hey CSXEngineer, you do realize I was just zinging you.
I don't believe that to be true. But then, the folks you work with know you better than we do. We can only gauge you by your conduct on this forum.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
Move on GP-40 - this forum is way above you...
GP40-2 wrote: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.
You might be surprised at just how many real railroaders there are on this forum.... From around the world...
I may be a volunteer with a tourist operation, but the equipment we run is just as real (and can hurt us just as badly) as anything you use, and we have to abide by the same rules (or close - we use NORAC).
Really? Considering my employment started on the B&O when it was still an independent company--pre Chessie System and and pre CSX--I daresay I have worked in railroading longer than many of "these fellow railroaders" have been alive on this planet. If somebody wants to get into a pissing contest about job knowledge, bring it on. I won't be the one "slinking" away.
Holier than who?
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
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.
making threats is a hell of a way to "zing" someone as you so put it.. and now comes a "applogy".. after eveyone else on this foram came to my aid....
stay in your office.. if in fact you are in a managment posstion at all... and leave the real railroading the the CREWS..
i bid you good day for the final time.....from this point on..i will not respond to you no matter how much you might try to get a comment out of me... as far as im conserned..you are not here...
Dang Margo, It took you this long to post a comeback????
Thirty people at CSX?...Nah...theres not that many people there that can stand you.
So really, what do you do for a living? You work at 7-11 don't you? Its OK to be honest...no one will laugh at you...much.
And we laugh at you management types who attempt to railroad, and have not a clue. If you spent more time listening to those who do the work out here, perhaps things would move better.
I'm glad to hear that GP-40,may have blood running in those vains.But.I guess he doesn't care to share with us on his position at the CSX makes me wonder why
And if were such a hoot to laugh at by the "guys" you're referring to.Did you ever think they might be laughing at you too ?
The NS loco. power management crew came out with a do's and dont's list on how we should mix or not mix or loco's about two or three years ago.I'll have to try and dig it out.Pretty much the same thing as the CSX.
And my Dad said that the CSX was still putting the lower power units in the lead out of Russell Ky. when he retired in 2002 .
Collin ,operator of the " Eastern Kentucky & Ohio R.R."
I've read a lot of things here that I disagree with as far as GPs & SDs & slipping are concerned. Too late in the morning to address them all now but take a look at Al Krug's web site. If this link doesn't help explain some of it, look at some of the other things he has and you will find most of your answers.
http://www.alkrug.vcn.com/rrfacts/hp_te.htm
.
Do you realize this - everyone now knows you're full of BS. What a lame attempt at trying to make yourself look like a good guy.
You seem to have a bad case of little man syndrome. Maybe you only get the coffee for CSX management?
AntonioFP45 wrote: A friend of mine recently shared with me of an interesting problem that one CSX's predecessors, Seaboard Coast Line, often encountered back in the 1970s. Their 4 axle GE U36Bs were rated at 3,600 horsepower. Engineers had to be "extra gentle" after stretching out and then taking off with heavy trains in MU lashups. Apparently these GEs developed so much torque when taking off with loads that their wheels would literally spin like a car burning rubber.
In the case of the U36Bs you have 3600 HP going to four axles. Even with all of todays so called high technology, it is very easy to overpower track conditions. In the dry, I never had any real trouble starting a train. Wet or oily conditions are much worse. That slick rail will only hold so much HP before wheels begin to slip. Sometimes the eighth notch is not the way to go up a mountain!
One thing to keep in mind is that when one wheel starts to slip, the momentary speed of that one axle can go sky high very quickly. The unit starts unloading power until that wheel stops slipping. I have had units slip like that and because the load regulator and governor can't keep up with each other quick enough, all the load comes off of the Gen./Alt. and the diesel engine revs up so quick that it kicks the "overspeed" protector.
You have just as much trouble at higher speeds and wet rail. And the rail doesn't have to be that wet. A light dew will cause all kinds problems with traction. Actually, a heavy rain is the best wet rail condition. Frost can be the worst!
Concerning putting a GE in front of an EMD, here is the problem;
The GE units take FOREVER to load up! Read that about three more times so that it soaks in real good! When you get an EMD trailing a GE you might get bumped a little bit, depending on whether you are going uphill or down at the moment, but it is nothing severe because there is only a few inches of slack between the units.
SDs can pull, GPs have speed. If you read the right page on Al's web site he explains this. The ABSOLUTE BEST set of units that I have ever been on (and keep in mind we don't get to pick what we run, it's a crap shoot) was two SD45s and two GP40s. That train not only hauled the tonnage, it flew like the wind! That's what a couple of GPs (read: Four Axles) in the consist will do for you!
BigJim wrote: AntonioFP45 wrote: A friend of mine recently shared with me of an interesting problem that one CSX's predecessors, Seaboard Coast Line, often encountered back in the 1970s. Their 4 axle GE U36Bs were rated at 3,600 horsepower. Engineers had to be "extra gentle" after stretching out and then taking off with heavy trains in MU lashups. Apparently these GEs developed so much torque when taking off with loads that their wheels would literally spin like a car burning rubber.In the case of the U36Bs you have 3600 HP going to four axles. Even with all of todays so called high technology, it is very easy to overpower track conditions. In the dry, I never had any real trouble starting a train. Wet or oily conditions are much worse. That slick rail will only hold so much HP before wheels begin to slip. Sometimes the eighth notch is not the way to go up a mountain!One thing to keep in mind is that when one wheel starts to slip, the momentary speed of that one axle can go sky high very quickly. The unit starts unloading power until that wheel stops slipping. I have had units slip like that and because the load regulator and governor can't keep up with each other quick enough, all the load comes off of the Gen./Alt. and the diesel engine revs up so quick that it kicks the "overspeed" protector.You have just as much trouble at higher speeds and wet rail. And the rail doesn't have to be that wet. A light dew will cause all kinds problems with traction. Actually, a heavy rain is the best wet rail condition. Frost can be the worst!Concerning putting a GE in front of an EMD, here is the problem;The GE units take FOREVER to load up! Read that about three more times so that it soaks in real good! When you get an EMD trailing a GE you might get bumped a little bit, depending on whether you are going uphill or down at the moment, but it is nothing severe because there is only a few inches of slack between the units.SDs can pull, GPs have speed. If you read the right page on Al's web site he explains this. The ABSOLUTE BEST set of units that I have ever been on (and keep in mind we don't get to pick what we run, it's a crap shoot) was two SD45s and two GP40s. That train not only hauled the tonnage, it flew like the wind! That's what a couple of GPs (read: Four Axles) in the consist will do for you!
GP40-2 wrote: leave the real railroading to professionals like myself and CSXEngineer.
leave the real railroading to professionals like myself and CSXEngineer.
That was meant a joke, wasn't it?
You don't have nearly enough class to compare yourself to (much less associate yourself with) csxengineer98.
GP40-2 wrote:Appparantly we's hired you without you obtaing yours high scholl deploma first.
Well - I hope you guys don't mind me digging this one back up again. I thought I would go back in the archives and see if "Mr. Perfect" (GP40-2, who has been harassing CSXEngineer for no reason) has made any spelling mistakes of his own...
"However, on general frieght and intermodal, where they could keep the speeds higher..."
"...locomotives (GP40/GP40-2) in heavy hual service -quite successfully..."
"rated at 180,000 lbs continious now"
"if not all railroads adopt the AC as the "univeral" locomotive."
FYI - these were all taken from one thread: "The importance of horespower in locomotives?"
So - Mr. GP40-2... Weren't you the one talking about being sloppy on the job? Those who live in glass houses...
CSXEngineer - consider yourself exonerated! :)
Wow, speelling must be his week spote:
Second, if you had any backround in Mechinacal Engineering, which it is painfully obvious you don't, you could duduce the improvements in the J3a combustion chamber ...10-23-2005, 10:37 PM RE: Who Built The Highest Quality 4-8-4''''s?
10-23-2005, 10:37 PM RE: Who Built The Highest Quality 4-8-4''''s?
But, everyone is stupid so what the hey:
I'd love to, but my M.S.M.E. from MIT didn't include a certificate to teach Special Needs students. Contact your local grade school for enrollment in their Learning Disabilities Program. 10-26-2005, 9:06 PM, RE: Who Built The Highest Quality 4-8-4''''s?
His claims are a bit odd:
On the one hand:
Really? Considering my employment started on the B&O when it was still an independent company--pre Chessie System and and pre CSX--I daresay I have worked in railroading longer than many of "these fellow railroaders" have been alive on this planet.
Pre-Chessie system would be pre-1972. That's 35 years ago. But ...
I've only worked in this industry and with locomotives for the past 27 years. General Discussion (Classic Trains) by GP40-2 on 09-20-2006.
Neat trick.
MichaelSol wrote:Wow, speelling must be his week spote:Second, if you had any backround in Mechinacal Engineering, which it is painfully obvious you don't, you could duduce the improvements in the J3a combustion chamber ...10-23-2005, 10:37 PM RE: Who Built The Highest Quality 4-8-4''''s?But, everyone is stupid so what the hey:I'd love to, but my M.S.M.E. from MIT didn't include a certificate to teach Special Needs students. Contact your local grade school for enrollment in their Learning Disabilities Program. 10-26-2005, 9:06 PM, RE: Who Built The Highest Quality 4-8-4''''s?His claims are a bit odd:On the one hand:Really? Considering my employment started on the B&O when it was still an independent company--pre Chessie System and and pre CSX--I daresay I have worked in railroading longer than many of "these fellow railroaders" have been alive on this planet. Pre-Chessie system would be pre-1972. That's 35 years ago. But ...I've only worked in this industry and with locomotives for the past 27 years. General Discussion (Classic Trains) by GP40-2 on 09-20-2006.Neat trick.
seems to me that someones story has more holes then swiss cheese..and stinks like limburger
Hey Moron Michael, The B&O was an independent company until 1986.
Green Bay Paddlers wrote: GP40-2 wrote:Appparantly we's hired you without you obtaing yours high scholl deploma first. Well - I hope you guys don't mind me digging this one back up again. I thought I would go back in the archives and see if "Mr. Perfect" (GP40-2, who has been harassing CSXEngineer for no reason) has made any spelling mistakes of his own... "However, on general frieght and intermodal, where they could keep the speeds higher..." "...locomotives (GP40/GP40-2) in heavy hual service -quite successfully..." "rated at 180,000 lbs continious now" "if not all railroads adopt the AC as the "univeral" locomotive." FYI - these were all taken from one thread: "The importance of horespower in locomotives?" So - Mr. GP40-2... Weren't you the one talking about being sloppy on the job? Those who live in glass houses... CSXEngineer - consider yourself exonerated! :)
GP40-2 - You still haven't answered the question. Are you this sloppy on the job? LOL
Go away - you've lost your voice here.
I have stated before i worked for the C&O and Chessie in the 80s, and a terminal road before that. And this bickering reminds me of the old days. LOL Anyway it was always the unions hated management and visa versa. Conrail guys thought C&O was a bunch of hillbillys and C&O guys thought CR had an unfair advantage because Uncle Sugar bailed them out. As far as spelling and grammer go we all have our own strengths and not everyone is a good SPEELER. Since i am off topic anyway as a non engineer for pure engine roar 2 or 3 old C&O gp 9s kicking cars is the best sound in the world. And i have been told for comfort the CN units are the best.
I have a problem with that last sentence "...as far as comfort CN engines are the best..."
That is till they are your lead unit on a grain train rolling through central Oklahoma and north Texas on a hotter thean hell August day!
Then they really suck!!!
GP40-2 wrote: MichaelSol wrote: Wow, speelling must be his week spote:Second, if you had any backround in Mechinacal Engineering, which it is painfully obvious you don't, you could duduce the improvements in the J3a combustion chamber ...10-23-2005, 10:37 PM RE: Who Built The Highest Quality 4-8-4''''s?But, everyone is stupid so what the hey:I'd love to, but my M.S.M.E. from MIT didn't include a certificate to teach Special Needs students. Contact your local grade school for enrollment in their Learning Disabilities Program. 10-26-2005, 9:06 PM, RE: Who Built The Highest Quality 4-8-4''''s?His claims are a bit odd:On the one hand:Really? Considering my employment started on the B&O when it was still an independent company--pre Chessie System and and pre CSX--I daresay I have worked in railroading longer than many of "these fellow railroaders" have been alive on this planet. Pre-Chessie system would be pre-1972. That's 35 years ago. But ...I've only worked in this industry and with locomotives for the past 27 years. General Discussion (Classic Trains) by GP40-2 on 09-20-2006.Neat trick. Hey Moron Michael, The B&O was an independent company until 1986.
MichaelSol wrote: Wow, speelling must be his week spote:Second, if you had any backround in Mechinacal Engineering, which it is painfully obvious you don't, you could duduce the improvements in the J3a combustion chamber ...10-23-2005, 10:37 PM RE: Who Built The Highest Quality 4-8-4''''s?But, everyone is stupid so what the hey:I'd love to, but my M.S.M.E. from MIT didn't include a certificate to teach Special Needs students. Contact your local grade school for enrollment in their Learning Disabilities Program. 10-26-2005, 9:06 PM, RE: Who Built The Highest Quality 4-8-4''''s?His claims are a bit odd:On the one hand:Really? Considering my employment started on the B&O when it was still an independent company--pre Chessie System and and pre CSX--I daresay I have worked in railroading longer than many of "these fellow railroaders" have been alive on this planet. Pre-Chessie system would be pre-1972. That's 35 years ago. But ...I've only worked in this industry and with locomotives for the past 27 years. General Discussion (Classic Trains) by GP40-2 on 09-20-2006.Neat trick.
Hey look everybody! Margo speaks! I'm so...so...so....very unimpressed.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.