D.Hearne I see everyone here missed the obvious. The E's never had dynamic brakes. The F's did, That is why the F's were preferred by the western roads for passenger service in the mountains.
I see everyone here missed the obvious. The E's never had dynamic brakes. The F's did, That is why the F's were preferred by the western roads for passenger service in the mountains.
E8 and E9 could be ordered with DB. E7 and earlier did not have it.
PA's had pretty good DB too, which was a big deal for roads like Santa Fe and Southern Pacific.
Greetings from Alberta
-an Articulate Malcontent
D.HearneI see everyone here missed the obvious. The E's never had dynamic brakes. The F's did, That is why the F's were preferred by the western roads for passenger service in the mountains.
To me, and most casual railfans, the number of wheels is the obvious identifier. I've watched trains for over 60 years, and still can't identify dynamic brakes. Dynamic brakes, number of radiator fans (that one can only view from an overpass), all that stuff, I reserve for the aficianados.
More SPD40Fs were delivered in early 1974. The SDP45s were shifted to the Commute Pool in pairs after some modification for quick acceleration. They replaced the FM Trainmasters that had handled most of the rush hour trains. SP went back to EMD for three GP40Ps to make the numbers match.
Amtrak often leased an SP SD45 or SD45T-2 to lead "over the hill" to Sparks after the SDP40Fs became common (SSW9389 was the lead unit one time in March 1974). I never saw that on the Daylight or Starlight, but it may have happened. The FP7s that had been on the Zephyr were re-used on the San Joaquin, introduced in early 1974 with a mix of Santa Fe and repainted SP "Tomato Can" coaches including at least one articulated pair.
There are some other photos of an SDP45 on the City in SP Motive Power Annuals from 1968-1972. By late 1974 they were all in the San Francisco Commute pool (along with 3200 and 3205) where they remained until replaced by Caltrain power in the 1980s
I made my first journey.on a train in the USA in late January 1974, on the Coast Starlight from Los Angeles to Oakland. It was hauled by two SDP45s which I photographed on the Cuesta horseshoe curve.
What locomotives replaced these SDP45s on the Coast Starlight in 1974? I had seen SDP40Fs on the Super Chief before leaving Los Angeles.
Peter
CSSHEGEWISCH zardoz Once we get the F and E debate settled, we can start on whatever happened to the E1, E2, E3, E4, F1, F2, F4, F5, GP25, GP1, GP2, etc? And will we ever see a SD100? E1's were owned and operated by ATSF, E2's (all six of them) were jointly owned for the "City of Los Angeles" and "City of San Francisco", E3's were owned by several roads (all small orders) and E4's were owned by SAL.
zardoz Once we get the F and E debate settled, we can start on whatever happened to the E1, E2, E3, E4, F1, F2, F4, F5, GP25, GP1, GP2, etc? And will we ever see a SD100?
Once we get the F and E debate settled, we can start on whatever happened to the E1, E2, E3, E4, F1, F2, F4, F5, GP25, GP1, GP2, etc? And will we ever see a SD100?
E5's were the CB&Q's stainless clad Zephyr engines. E6's were the first of the truly 'production' standard passenger engines by EMD.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
IIRC, a few F2's were made between the end of FT production and the start of F3 production. The GP and SD numbers started at 7 since the GP7 and SD7 used the same engine and electrical gear as the F7 (though the SD7 had transition set up for 6 motors instead of 4). The GP18, GP20 and SD24 were the only models of the GP and SD where numbers were based on horsepower, unlike the SW series where the power went above the Six hundred Welded frame era.
Dunno about the SD100.....
OvermodDoes this need to be settled with photographic proof?
There are some other photos of an SDP45 on the City in SP Motive Power Annuals from 1968-1972. By late 1974 they were all in the San Francisco Commute pool (along with 3200 and 3205) where they remained until replaced by Caltrain power in the 1980s.
Amtrak bought all 14 of SP's FP7A units, and five of the boiler-equipped F7B units.
By the late 1960s all of SP's EMD passenger units ended up with 60:17 gearing, except for some of the Es which were delivered with 59:18 gears, all allowing a top speed of around 80 MPH. Most SP divisions had a maximum allowed speed of 75. SP did have some boiler equipped F7 units with 62:15 (65 MPH) gearing, used mainly as passenger helpers on Tehachapi and on the mail trains on the Coast, Shasta and Overland routes.
Overmod rcdrye timz SDP45's worked the overland route for SP prior to Amtrak, often with an SDP45/F7B on the City. Does this need to be settled with photographic proof?
rcdrye timz SDP45's worked the overland route for SP prior to Amtrak, often with an SDP45/F7B on the City.
timz
SDP45's worked the overland route for SP prior to Amtrak, often with an SDP45/F7B on the City.
Does this need to be settled with photographic proof?
"Our GM Scrapbook" (Kalmbach) page 115.
SDP45 3207 on "City of San Francisco" at Elko Nevada (no clue as to date or train direction, probably pre-Amtrak)
timzSDP45s pulled Amtrak between LA and Portland -- never on the Overland Route. That was Fs in 1971-72, then Es and Fs in summer 1973.
SDP45's worked the overland route for SP prior to Amtrak, often with an SDP45/F7B on the City. After Amtrak day the FP7s returned until the UP Es started to run through. Amtrak leased eight of the SDP45s (3201-3204, 3206-3209) until the SDP40Fs started arriving in 1973 or 1974 Typically two sets worked the "short train" that ran daily from Oakland to LA, the other sets worked the tri-weekly "long train" to Seattle, sometimes working through, often replaced by ex-BN F7s at Portland. ex-SP FP7s were among the last F-Units in Amtrak service (not counting FL9s).
rcdryeE-Units returned to the Sunset under Amtrak, but the SPD45s stayed on the other SP-run trains until the SDP40Fs arrived.
Southern Pacific used E-Units on the Sunset, Golden State and Coast routes - but required helpers for E-Unit consists on Cuesta Grade above San Luis Obispo. SP did run E-Units in the Sierras (UP joint City of SF, with helpers) and made at least one trip with the Shasta Daylight with new E9s. Pretty soon all of the heavy-grade trains were handled by FP7s and PAs, including the San Joaquin Valley trains. SP bought 10 SDP45 units without cowls in 1967 which allowed retirement of the remaining PAs. The last E-Unit was retired in 1970. E-Units returned to the Sunset under Amtrak, but the SPD45s stayed on the other SP-run trains until the SDP40Fs arrived.
AT&SF's GE passenger engines were disliked by crews. The U28CGs (non-cowl) were assigned to the Texas Chief initially. The U30CGs (cowl) were disliked even more for some reason. Initially assigned to the Grand Canyon and the Tulsan, a derailment at Chillicothe IL in 1969 led to their (and the U28CGs) removal from passenger service (where they were replaced by F7s). They ended up in the freight pool, mostly as trailing units. They were traded in as soon as their equipment trusts expired.
Amtrak trains running on the Santa Fe did not experience the same derailment issues with SDP40Fs that Amtrak trains running on the SP did. While a lot of attention was paid to the units' hollow-bolster trucks (also used on Conrail SD40-2s) the real problem was more likely the above-frame water tanks for the boilers, which did not have any baffles. A good slosh in a half-full tank made less than perfect track even worse.
The "T" in Rock Island's TA's stood for Twelve Hundred HP. They were built with V-16 201A engines, almost a predecessor for the FT.
SSW9389 F stands for Fourteen, FT stands for Fourteen Twin and FS means Fourteen Single. From Wally Abbey: http://utahrails.net/loconotes/emc-ft.php Ed in Kentucky
F stands for Fourteen, FT stands for Fourteen Twin and FS means Fourteen Single.
From Wally Abbey: http://utahrails.net/loconotes/emc-ft.php
Ed in Kentucky
I'm a strong supporter of this view...
Why would one of many EMC pre war descriptions NOT be based on the horsepower when all the others were? (well nearly all...)
But why was there a new designation? The freight units could have continued the "T" series started by the Rock Island passenger units ("TA"). Certainly the designation "E" was kept when the 567 arrived and the power went up to 2000.
It may have been the "two section" aspect that stopped the FTs from becoming T-1s or T-2s....
But apart from having a steam generator, the TA wasn't very different from a 201A engined "F unit".
MR CARL R BYRONATSF 51ABA did start it with some of the highest TF an A1A A1A locomotive ever produced.
Small nit-pick: That's ATSF 51LAB. (In the days when a 'locomotive' was a semi-fixed consist of units, assigned a particular road number, the Santa Fe used "L" to designate the lead A-unit, then for still more fun designated the B-unit "A" and the trailing A-unit "B".)
Yes, no few of the F-unit consists were LABC, with C being the other A unit. Ready for the Excedrin yet?
This numbering scheme led to some fun, if I recall correctly, when some of these engines were being traded in at EMD. There was an extra credit (for speed recorder equipment) on the cab A units ... some of which had Bs in their numbers, so EMD accountants took them to be boosters. ATSF complained they were being shorted on their trade-in allowance, and it took some time to track down the problem...
"Alco Curve" was where Santa Fe's first set of PA's died and had to start up with test train strung out behind it. ATSF 51ABA did start it with some of the highest TF an A1A A1A locomotive ever produced. See entire story in Vernon Smith's My Life with Locomotives. Smith was on the test train in Oct, 1946.
Debate remains if "FT" stood for Freight--Twenty seven hundred HP {total for cab-booster set] or simply "FreighT".
I thought I should add details of the Indian locomotives that used US Truck designs.
The locomotives are AC 25kV with DC traction motors.
They were developed from the WAM4 which used Alco Trimount trucks.
The WAP1 appeared in 1979 using EMD GLC trucks, an export version of the domestic Flexicoil. These have an asymmetric wheelbase and are rougher riding at speed than the more symmetric domestic Flexicoil, but would be a big improvement over a Trimount.
The GLC Flexicoils didn't give complete satisfaction and the Alco Hi Ad was tried, described as the "Flexicoil type II". these units were classed WAP1 FMII but were later called WAP3. Only around 60 of these two classes were built.
Miningman Wow.. who knew? More to your Forum name than meets the eye.
Wow.. who knew? More to your Forum name than meets the eye.
Are you SURE that you're not channelling those late Australian locomotives (we've just succeeded in preserving one example; look up 'The Last Streamliner' on GoFundMe) that essentially used an FP45-style 'cowl' carbody with a bulldog EMD nose?
To recall Mark Twain's famous statement, "the reports of my death were greatly exaggerated", around half of the AT26Cs are still in service with Genessee and Wyoming Australia. It was Aurizon that sold off their share, which contained the last unit built new with the EMD nose. But CLP10 ex CL17 has indeed been saved and has finally moved to a site where it can be restored.
While they look like cowl units, they are structually just stretched F units with very early HTC trucks. The angled roof was simply to allow the radiator and dynamic brake installation like that of an SDP40F. This carbody structure was required to keep the weight down to 126 long tons, giving a 21 ton axleload.
The C636 truck was described as a "high speed" truck in early Alco publicity, and compared to the trimount it certainly was better at speed.
Somehow, this design appears to have found its way to India, possibly through Licences for construction of Alco locomotives, and has appeared on some straight electric passenger locomotives in India as have some EMD Flexicoils, possibly removed from the GT16C units (sort of export SD24s) that have presumably been withdrawn by now.
So the C636 trucks have found their way into high speed passenger service, just not in the USA....
oltmanndI would expect an E unit to ride better at speed due to its longer length, but probably not a huge difference.
The F's trucks would beat the rail from side-to-side, as well as readily transmit the joint impacts. The E's ride was vastly superior, similar to the difference between a GP9 and an SD9; there was a reason the SD9's were refered to as "Cadillacs".
Both the B "Blomberg" truck under the F units and the A-1-A truck under the E units are "swing hanger" trucks. The A-1-A is also equalized where the B is not.
I would expect an E unit to ride better at speed due to its longer length, but probably not a huge difference. On welded rail, the F unit would likely have stability issues at high speed. It became standard practice for EMD higher speed 4 axles to have yaw dampers because of their relatively short length.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Flintlock76 I read somewhere that the ATSF preferred the F units for passenger work because of the four wheel trucks. With the weight of the locomotive concentrated on four wheel and not six wheel trucks the F units were more sure-footed on all those hills the ATSF had to climb.
I read somewhere that the ATSF preferred the F units for passenger work because of the four wheel trucks. With the weight of the locomotive concentrated on four wheel and not six wheel trucks the F units were more sure-footed on all those hills the ATSF had to climb.
SD70DudeOn another thread someone mentioned a "ALCO curve" on one of ATSF's passes, supposedly named after a passenger train with A1A units had stalled there. Could this incident have occurred on the same trip where the DL-109's literally melted some traction motors?
Hell, yes. But, as it turns out, no. It was PAs, and they did start the train.
It does have to be said in GE's defense that the 50/51 motors didn't actually melt, just the solder used to increase conductivity in some areas like commutator segment and brush lead connection. Aside from the increased possibility of ground faults, I suspect some of the problems involved the molten solder compromising the insulating varnish on some of the windings. I'm reasonably sure that the resulting shorts would cause prompt (and persistent!) problems...
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.