BaltACD ATLANTIC CENTRAL SD70Dude What was the highest speed gearing anyone ordered F's with? I know some E's had a maximum speed in the 115-120 mph range, and perhaps ran somewhat faster if the overspeed was disabled (not that crews would ever monkey with something like that). VIA and Amtrak both have pretty long track records running Blomberg B's in the 90-110 mph range under F40's and F59's, though from watching VIA's units bounce over switches at 70-80 mph I'm not sure how smoothly they ride. The fastest gearing on F2's, F3's, F7's, FP7's and F9's was 56/21 for a top speed between 102 and 105 mph. The next gear ratio down was 57/20 rated for 95 mph. The fastest E unit gearing was 52/25 for a rated speed of 117 mph. It is my understanding that many/most E units were geared 55/22 for max speed of 98 mph. Sheldon Still recall the cab ride I got on B&O #9 from Garrett to Chicago in 1959 or 1960 - Train left Garrett about 1 hour late - the headlight of #5 The Capitol Limited was seen coming in behind #9 running On Time as we departed. Leaving Garrett, the engineer opened up the two E units on #9 and away we went across the flat lands of Northern Indiana - at several points in time I would stand behind the engineer and observe the speed recorder registering between 115 & 119 MPH. #9 passed Pine Jct about 2 minutes ahead of schedule. B&O had the high speed gearing on their E's, at least in that period of time.
ATLANTIC CENTRAL SD70Dude What was the highest speed gearing anyone ordered F's with? I know some E's had a maximum speed in the 115-120 mph range, and perhaps ran somewhat faster if the overspeed was disabled (not that crews would ever monkey with something like that). VIA and Amtrak both have pretty long track records running Blomberg B's in the 90-110 mph range under F40's and F59's, though from watching VIA's units bounce over switches at 70-80 mph I'm not sure how smoothly they ride. The fastest gearing on F2's, F3's, F7's, FP7's and F9's was 56/21 for a top speed between 102 and 105 mph. The next gear ratio down was 57/20 rated for 95 mph. The fastest E unit gearing was 52/25 for a rated speed of 117 mph. It is my understanding that many/most E units were geared 55/22 for max speed of 98 mph. Sheldon
SD70Dude What was the highest speed gearing anyone ordered F's with? I know some E's had a maximum speed in the 115-120 mph range, and perhaps ran somewhat faster if the overspeed was disabled (not that crews would ever monkey with something like that). VIA and Amtrak both have pretty long track records running Blomberg B's in the 90-110 mph range under F40's and F59's, though from watching VIA's units bounce over switches at 70-80 mph I'm not sure how smoothly they ride.
What was the highest speed gearing anyone ordered F's with? I know some E's had a maximum speed in the 115-120 mph range, and perhaps ran somewhat faster if the overspeed was disabled (not that crews would ever monkey with something like that).
VIA and Amtrak both have pretty long track records running Blomberg B's in the 90-110 mph range under F40's and F59's, though from watching VIA's units bounce over switches at 70-80 mph I'm not sure how smoothly they ride.
The fastest gearing on F2's, F3's, F7's, FP7's and F9's was 56/21 for a top speed between 102 and 105 mph. The next gear ratio down was 57/20 rated for 95 mph.
The fastest E unit gearing was 52/25 for a rated speed of 117 mph. It is my understanding that many/most E units were geared 55/22 for max speed of 98 mph.
Sheldon
Still recall the cab ride I got on B&O #9 from Garrett to Chicago in 1959 or 1960 - Train left Garrett about 1 hour late - the headlight of #5 The Capitol Limited was seen coming in behind #9 running On Time as we departed. Leaving Garrett, the engineer opened up the two E units on #9 and away we went across the flat lands of Northern Indiana - at several points in time I would stand behind the engineer and observe the speed recorder registering between 115 & 119 MPH. #9 passed Pine Jct about 2 minutes ahead of schedule. B&O had the high speed gearing on their E's, at least in that period of time.
Yes, I believe they all had the high speed gearing on the B&O, and that is why trains crossing the mountains on the old mainline often had 3 or 4 E units, geared for speed, not for power, on a railroad were most passenger equipment was rebuit heavyweights.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
These speeds for the F and E units are confirmed by Blomberg in a textbook on diesel locomotive trucks he co-authored in 1945 stating 95 and 117 mph for those trucks, respectively, of which I have a copy.
EMD's recent use of the B1 arrangement on the GT46PAC for India was driven by the need to save weight to meet the axle load requirement. Starting with the HTSC export frame developed for the GT46MAC, the truck engineer for that project was planning to use an A-1-A motor arrangement when I suggested a B1 arrangement should be considered, especially since it offered the possibility of elimination of the end transom to save additional weight. When studied for weight shift, it proved to be the best option for that given the traction motor orientation so that was path chosen. However, the truck engineer was afraid to remove the end transom for structural reasons (I would have done it if given the choice).
A few years later, the 4 motor arrangement for an SD70ACe-P4 was requested by sales to compete with the GE C4 and again, the B1 was considered the best performer.
However, none of us involved with these recent models were influenced or even knew of the 1B arrangement on the Santa Fe units. The GA12 was well known; EMD still has a flat car with loading grids on it that is equipped with the prototype for that truck. We didn't think of that as a 1B truck, rather just a "pony truck", as it was known, added on since it doesn't share a frame with the driven truck.
So thanks SD60MAC9500 for that historical information.
Dave
Greetings from Alberta
-an Articulate Malcontent
Overmod But (as I recall) the ATSF 1-Bs were done for improved guiding stability and lower oscillation at high speed
But (as I recall) the ATSF 1-Bs were done for improved guiding stability and lower oscillation at high speed
That's presumably related to why EMD continued to sell E's long after they started selling passenger F's - the A1A was probably better at high speed than the Blomberg two axle trucks.
Overmod But (as I recall) the ATSF 1-Bs were done for improved guiding stability and lower oscillation at high speed, not weight distribution, and would have done little if anything to remediate weight-transfer starting tractive effort issues.
But (as I recall) the ATSF 1-Bs were done for improved guiding stability and lower oscillation at high speed, not weight distribution, and would have done little if anything to remediate weight-transfer starting tractive effort issues.
That's correct. My reply was to Balts point about EMD's history with 1B truck arrangements.
BaltACD SD60MAC9500 bogie_engineer BaltACD Ulrich BNSF order a bunch of A-I-A Es4400CWs... likely some of those have been used on mineral trains. Remember on that group of engines, the '1' axle can be lifted so that the powered axles apply the full weight of the locomotive to the rail. These units are also geared for freight service, not passenger. On E units the non-powered axle carried its own share of weight on the rail, thus reducing the amount of weight the powered axles applied to the rail thus reducing their 'tractive effort'. The axle lifting device on the center axle of the GE C4 locos does not fully lift the axle off the rail - it ups the weight on the driven axles to around 79,000 lbs. each but the idler axle still carries significant weight. Question. Why did GE not follow EMD and go with a B1-1B axle arrangement? That produces better traction than an A1A in freight service. I've heard from a few BNSF hoggers they don't really like the A1A truck. The traction just isn't there compared to a D9 or ES44DC. Primarily because GE came out with the A-1-A solution years befoe EMD came up with the 1B arrangement.
SD60MAC9500 bogie_engineer BaltACD Ulrich BNSF order a bunch of A-I-A Es4400CWs... likely some of those have been used on mineral trains. Remember on that group of engines, the '1' axle can be lifted so that the powered axles apply the full weight of the locomotive to the rail. These units are also geared for freight service, not passenger. On E units the non-powered axle carried its own share of weight on the rail, thus reducing the amount of weight the powered axles applied to the rail thus reducing their 'tractive effort'. The axle lifting device on the center axle of the GE C4 locos does not fully lift the axle off the rail - it ups the weight on the driven axles to around 79,000 lbs. each but the idler axle still carries significant weight. Question. Why did GE not follow EMD and go with a B1-1B axle arrangement? That produces better traction than an A1A in freight service. I've heard from a few BNSF hoggers they don't really like the A1A truck. The traction just isn't there compared to a D9 or ES44DC.
bogie_engineer BaltACD Ulrich BNSF order a bunch of A-I-A Es4400CWs... likely some of those have been used on mineral trains. Remember on that group of engines, the '1' axle can be lifted so that the powered axles apply the full weight of the locomotive to the rail. These units are also geared for freight service, not passenger. On E units the non-powered axle carried its own share of weight on the rail, thus reducing the amount of weight the powered axles applied to the rail thus reducing their 'tractive effort'. The axle lifting device on the center axle of the GE C4 locos does not fully lift the axle off the rail - it ups the weight on the driven axles to around 79,000 lbs. each but the idler axle still carries significant weight.
BaltACD Ulrich BNSF order a bunch of A-I-A Es4400CWs... likely some of those have been used on mineral trains. Remember on that group of engines, the '1' axle can be lifted so that the powered axles apply the full weight of the locomotive to the rail. These units are also geared for freight service, not passenger. On E units the non-powered axle carried its own share of weight on the rail, thus reducing the amount of weight the powered axles applied to the rail thus reducing their 'tractive effort'.
Ulrich BNSF order a bunch of A-I-A Es4400CWs... likely some of those have been used on mineral trains.
Remember on that group of engines, the '1' axle can be lifted so that the powered axles apply the full weight of the locomotive to the rail. These units are also geared for freight service, not passenger. On E units the non-powered axle carried its own share of weight on the rail, thus reducing the amount of weight the powered axles applied to the rail thus reducing their 'tractive effort'.
The axle lifting device on the center axle of the GE C4 locos does not fully lift the axle off the rail - it ups the weight on the driven axles to around 79,000 lbs. each but the idler axle still carries significant weight.
Question. Why did GE not follow EMD and go with a B1-1B axle arrangement? That produces better traction than an A1A in freight service. I've heard from a few BNSF hoggers they don't really like the A1A truck. The traction just isn't there compared to a D9 or ES44DC.
Primarily because GE came out with the A-1-A solution years befoe EMD came up with the 1B arrangement.
Actually quite the contrary.. Going back to 1938. EMC had experimented with a 1B-1B truck on a twin unit 1800HP BB owned by ATSF. EMC would go on to modify Santa Fe #1 by seperating its A, and B units. The A-unit became #1. The B-unit #10.
No. 1 was rebuilt with the 1B-1B truck concept on its lead truck first. The rear truck was swapped out for another 1B truck later. It would seem that Progress/EMD revisited this old setup and revised it. Creating the B1-1B setup on the SD70ACe-P4.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EMC_1800_hp_B-B#Santa_Fe_1
The lead truck has been swapped in this photo. http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/showPicture.aspx?id=3339884
Photo with both 1B trucks http://www.northeast.railfan.net/images/tr_sf1.jpg
I'll also add. EMD produced for Indian Railways the GA12 export unit. Which utilized a 1B-B1 setup.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/29903115@N06/49979811153
anglecock As far as I know the E units were used by Iron Mines up in Minnisota.
As far as I know the E units were used by Iron Mines up in Minnisota.
Not true, Great Northern operated E-7s that regularly ran the "Gopher" and "Badger" between the Twin Cities and Twin Ports, but they never used their E-units on freight. C&NW and Milw Rd had passenger train usages for their later E-units.
timz bogie_engineer EMD axles are biased via the primary spring arrangement to be 75Klbs on the driven axles and 60Klbs on the idlers That's the normal weight distribution, before any shifting?
bogie_engineer EMD axles are biased via the primary spring arrangement to be 75Klbs on the driven axles and 60Klbs on the idlers
That's the normal weight distribution, before any shifting?
Yes, those are static axle loads.
timzThat's the normal weight distribution, before any shifting?
Note that the weight transfer is proportional to the acceleration, and modern locomotives with the 'elephant feet' secondary springing can't cock the sideframes in the way a certer-pivoted truck would. It may be interesting to see what happens with monster heavy consists which see heavy power changes while moving at conservative PSR road speed... but I doubt differential adhesion is as much of a concern as it was in the era of unmodulated wheelslip 'control'.
bogie_engineerEMD axles are biased via the primary spring arrangement to be 75Klbs on the driven axles and 60Klbs on the idlers
As BaltACD said, GE came out with their A-1-A with their patented weight shift claptrap before EMD offered the B1-1B option in response. The EMD arrangement offers the best weight shift performance under traction when the motors are arranged all on the same side of the axle - A-1-A is superior if the motors are on the inboard sides of the axles, which they are not in the GE truck. The EMD axles are biased via the primary spring arrangement to be 75Klbs on the driven axles and 60Klbs on the idlers so performance between the two is about the same.
From what I understand.. This is why once F-Units became available in a pax version. Sants Fe never looked at E units for passenger service again.
The A-1-A truck made for poor traction in graded territory out West.
UlrichBNSF order a bunch of A-I-A Es4400CWs... likely some of those have been used on mineral trains.
It might have been interesting to see use of a 'traction increasing' mmechanism for E units -- GM used a similar approach on some export units during the production years of the modern Es.
BNSF order a bunch of A-I-A Es4400CWs... likely some of those have been used on mineral trains.
BaltACD The closest I suspect you'll come to an A-1-A in mineral service would be the Baldwin passenger shark B-units, which were regularly run out of Columbus sandwiched between the likes of RF-16s. If they were ever placed in such service it would be for the purpose of burning up their traction motors from overcurrent operation for a excessive amount of time.
The closest I suspect you'll come to an A-1-A in mineral service would be the Baldwin passenger shark B-units, which were regularly run out of Columbus sandwiched between the likes of RF-16s.
If they were ever placed in such service it would be for the purpose of burning up their traction motors from overcurrent operation for a excessive amount of time.
Overmod BaltACD Have never, ever heard of E units being used in ore service by any carrier. The closest I suspect you'll come to an A-1-A in mineral service would be the Baldwin passenger shark B-units, which were regularly run out of Columbus sandwiched between the likes of RF-16s. It might be interesting to see if the Erie-builts were ever used in heavy service -- I doubt it, though.
BaltACD Have never, ever heard of E units being used in ore service by any carrier.
It might be interesting to see if the Erie-builts were ever used in heavy service -- I doubt it, though.
If they were ever placed in such service it would be for the purpose of burning up their traction motors from over current operation for a excessive amount of time.
BaltACDHave never, ever heard of E units being used in ore service by any carrier.
jeffhergert BEAUSABRE Ulrich Not sure why CP bought only two..perhaps they were part of a larger order that was cancelled. Diddo for the only RSD17 ever built by MLW.. after testing on both CN and CP, neither road wanted more, I've got a hunch you answered your own question - they were built either as demonstrators no one wanted to try or GMD persuaded CP to give them a try, CP decided not to bite, but when GMD offered them at a discount to get them off their hands, CP took them. One of the CP's GP30 is one of the switchers at a Fremont, NE elevator. It's now blue, but you can see spots where red is showing through. I've read the other one also still exists. Jeff
BEAUSABRE Ulrich Not sure why CP bought only two..perhaps they were part of a larger order that was cancelled. Diddo for the only RSD17 ever built by MLW.. after testing on both CN and CP, neither road wanted more, I've got a hunch you answered your own question - they were built either as demonstrators no one wanted to try or GMD persuaded CP to give them a try, CP decided not to bite, but when GMD offered them at a discount to get them off their hands, CP took them.
Ulrich Not sure why CP bought only two..perhaps they were part of a larger order that was cancelled. Diddo for the only RSD17 ever built by MLW.. after testing on both CN and CP, neither road wanted more,
I've got a hunch you answered your own question - they were built either as demonstrators no one wanted to try or GMD persuaded CP to give them a try, CP decided not to bite, but when GMD offered them at a discount to get them off their hands, CP took them.
One of the CP's GP30 is one of the switchers at a Fremont, NE elevator. It's now blue, but you can see spots where red is showing through.
I've read the other one also still exists.
Jeff
Met this GP30 as well.. CP seemed to favour them for trains east of Montreal in the 70s. In the 90s they went to Vancouver Island for a few years until retirement.
SD70Dude jeffhergert One of the CP's GP30 is one of the switchers at a Fremont, NE elevator. It's now blue, but you can see spots where red is showing through. I've read the other one also still exists. Jeff It's here in Edmonton, at the Alberta Railway Museum, albeit in pretty rough shape. It's had a tough life and passed through several owners during its post-CP existence, and we only got it to save it from the torch after the previous ownership went belly up (it's a long story). It's not a restoration priority and the museum has been looking to deaccession it to a better home for some years now. https://www.railpictures.net/photo/372120/ I helped board up the smashed windows last summer.
jeffhergert One of the CP's GP30 is one of the switchers at a Fremont, NE elevator. It's now blue, but you can see spots where red is showing through. I've read the other one also still exists. Jeff
It's here in Edmonton, at the Alberta Railway Museum, albeit in pretty rough shape. It's had a tough life and passed through several owners during its post-CP existence, and we only got it to save it from the torch after the previous ownership went belly up (it's a long story). It's not a restoration priority and the museum has been looking to deaccession it to a better home for some years now.
https://www.railpictures.net/photo/372120/
I helped board up the smashed windows last summer.
In the summer of 79 my brother and I got a cab tour of this engine in Sherbrooke, QC. We asked the engineer if we could have a look inside, and he told us jokingly that we could take the train to Megantic. Great times when kids could do that. It was one of the few times we took lots of pictures..colour slides...and I wish I could find them.
None of the iron ore railroads owned E8s (GN, NP, DM&IR, SOO) and only the GN owned a few E7s. The C&NW owned some but they had better uses of them in suburban service.
Which leads to the question of what mines or railroads?
anglecockAs far as I know the E units were used by Iron Mines up in Minnisota.
Have never, ever heard of E units being used in ore service by any carrier. E unit tonnage ratings, in DRAG service on tonnage trains is totally anemic in comparison to F units that are geared and weighted to haul freight. Remember, on E units the middle axle of each truck is unpowered, but still applies weight to the rail.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.