Illinois Central's cancelled E9's

36 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    November 2008
  • 1,591 posts
Posted by Leo_Ames on Friday, August 16, 2013 11:07 PM

As the other poster indicated, there may have been some incremental increase in the riding quality of A1A trucks, but apparently it was not enough to offset the added complexity and cost over a B truck, as I don't know of any further A1A trucked passenger locos actually built after the E9.

Of course :) The fact that there hasn't been any since then attest that their strengths didn't justify their inclusion when their ability to spread weight across 6 axles became unnecessary.

What I asked though in response to you was wasn't there other benefits with the A1A truck design as seen as E units beyond just spreading weight across an additional idler axle. I wasn't asking why such designs haven't reappeared since it's obvious that whatever strengths such designs offered haven't justified their inclusion on modern designs. 

  • Member since
    January 2010
  • 699 posts
Posted by UP 4-12-2 on Friday, August 30, 2013 11:27 AM

For specific detailed questions such as this, I like to refer to Diesel Era Magazine.  About a year and a half ago Diesel Era had a fantastic article on the Illinois Central E units. 

By the 1960's IC was trading in a few of the older, presumably most well used, E units on newer models, but it seems to have been a one or two units at a time process.  At the same time they were upgrading other older E units, presumably the ones in the best mechanical condition, with the latest E-8 parts including new E-8 pilots and the round porthole side panels, so the remaining E-6A units took on an E-6/E-8 appearance.

The last order of IC E-9's would have been the very last units of that model ever constructed, almost a year after any others were built, but the order was cancelled as discussed above.

A.  It is possible that IC determined the E unit roster they already had on hand would be "adequate" for the forseeable future.


B.  They may have believed that rebuilding them to the E10 status was more cost effective.


C.  They might have had some insight that FP45's were coming--but that is rather doubtful because the E-9 order cancellation was during 1964, which predates the SD45--so I doubt that the eventual "FP45" was even under discussion at the time the E-9's were actually cancelled.

My personal opinion, for whatever that is worth, is that the real reason is some combination of A and B, yet I was not there.

It is very interesting that E6A's number 4002 and 4004 were gone by the early 1960's, traded in on newer models (even though 4002 had been upgraded with an E-8 pilot), yet they kept 4001 and 4003 until the very end in 1971.  That tells me they just didn't need more E-9's at the price point they cost or else the two survivors were just great runners.


  • Member since
    January 2017
  • 4 posts
Posted by ICRR 51 on Friday, August 16, 2019 10:47 AM

One other thought...the IC announced purchased of 2 e-units for 1964 in the fall of 1963.   President Kennedy was shot on November 22nd.  Wayne Johnston was very, very tied to the depression and the troubles it wrought on the IC, as my dad rode the office car many times with him and that's wy the IC had 80 million dollars in the bank during that period while the MoPac purchased the C&EI right out from under the IC.  I've always thought the Kennedy assisination caused WAJ to look at everything (cost wise) again for 1964 and to decide to drop the purchass of 2 e-units.  


  • Member since
    March 2016
  • From: Burbank IL (near Clearing)
  • 12,384 posts
Posted by CSSHEGEWISCH on Tuesday, August 20, 2019 6:53 AM

Cost may have been more of an issue.  In 1968 or 1969, IC purchased 5 secondhand E9A's from FEC, which had recently discontinued a court-ordered Jacksonville-Miami day train.  IC was probably able to pick up this power for a song.

The daily commute is part of everyday life but I get two rides a day out of it. Paul
  • Member since
    November 2008
  • 1,591 posts
Posted by Leo_Ames on Tuesday, August 20, 2019 11:26 AM

I'm sure you're right.

I imagine it was probably whatever FEC could've gotten out of EMD as a discount on new GP40's for trading in the E9's, plus a little bit extra to topple EMD's trade in allowance. 

Another possibility that I've never heard of in regard to this deal but which did happen from time to time, is one road trading still useful surplus power that another line wanted in exchange for some of their junk locomotives to trade in to EMD.

It doesn't hurt the former since they'd get the same EMD discount, and the latter adds useful 2nd hand power to their fleet without spending a dollar. I believe this is how the Rock Island ended up with a big chunk of UP's young F9 fleet for an example of this practice in action.

Edit: Apparently judging by post 1, I did know that there was a horse trade here. Not sure how I managed to forget that in the months since starting this thread. :)

Of course, this didn't conclude their additions to their E unit fleet. In 1969 they traded 5 retired E7's to Precision National for the five former FEC E9's. And then there are their four executive E's from the late 1990's. 

  • Member since
    July 2001
  • From: Shelbyville, Kentucky
  • 1,863 posts
Posted by SSW9389 on Tuesday, August 20, 2019 12:55 PM


Cost may have been more of an issue.  In 1968 or 1969, IC purchased 5 secondhand E9A's from FEC, which had recently discontinued a court-ordered Jacksonville-Miami day train.  IC was probably able to pick up this power for a song.


Actually IC traded five E7As to Precision National for the five ex-FEC E9As. There were five trades done between May and November 1969. Traded were IC 4004:2, 4006-4007, 4009, and 4012. See the IC roster in issue #35 of Extra 2200 South, specifically note 28. 
COTTON BELT: Runs like a Blue Streak!
  • Member since
    September 2010
  • 2,155 posts
Posted by Electroliner 1935 on Wednesday, August 28, 2019 11:33 PM

This may be a previously discussed discussed but I am wondering in the E- line of locomotives, did each 567 power one truck or were they bussed together? If one dc motor failed, could it be isolated? I remember the PRR's E-8's had two steam generators so they had redundancy. Did all E's come with two S.G.'s or were there various options? Thanks in advance.

Join our Community!

Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.

Search the Community

Newsletter Sign-Up

By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy