I have to get this out of my system: I find it irritating when a claim like this, about NYC ordering and perhaps testing TrainMasters before 'rejecting' them, is flagged with a link labeled 'source' ... which goes to a boilerplate page discussing general source reliability, and a list of references, but can't be bothered to cite the actual place the issue is referenced! It's not as if citation is rocket surgery!
I'd have to think that if NYC bought 5-axle FMs to get to 2400hp (and thought enough of them to re-engine with EMDs) they would be interested in the Train Master, but might well find that high-speed operation did the track no favors. Certainly they stayed 4-motor high-horsepower adherents 'to the end'...
Any truth to the claims on this site that several of Southern Pacific's H-24-66's had originally been earmarked for the Central?
http://www.ssloan.net/trains/sp/3020.html
As a fan of both the New York Central and Fairbanks Morse, this takes me by surprise. Especially for a road that never dabbled in C-C power. That site even has assigned road numbers, yet I've never seen this referenced anywhere else.
I'd love to hear more details if anyone has some. That demonstrators spent time on the NYC in the summer of 1953 is relatively known, but my understanding is that the story ended there.
It wouldn't be without some logic if it's accurate. Right around when these were being built towards the end of 1953 and into 1954 is when the Central started to sour on their C-Liner purchases (By 1955, they were already starting to repower their 5 year old 2,000 and 2,400 hp C-Liners with 16-567's). So getting out of an order makes some sense.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.