BEAUSABRE Overmod If I remember correctly, the issue was taxes: weren't they bought as pool power for cross-border services, but were taxed as imports (and so wound up not staying in Canada over 24 hours at a time)? They were built by GMD in Montreal, so there would be import duties to pay to the US if they stayed for over 24 hours, not vice versa. And who were the partners in this cross-border pool?
Overmod If I remember correctly, the issue was taxes: weren't they bought as pool power for cross-border services, but were taxed as imports (and so wound up not staying in Canada over 24 hours at a time)?
They were built by GMD in Montreal, so there would be import duties to pay to the US if they stayed for over 24 hours, not vice versa.
And who were the partners in this cross-border pool?
Boston & Maine. The Alouette which operated between Boston-Montreal is the serivce the E8's were used on.
Also GMD was in London, ON. Not Montreal.
Ulrich I guess GMD would have taken a bit of a hit on the two GP30s they built for CP. That locomotive with all of its curves would have been harder to build than the more angular geeps that followed. Not sure why CP bought only two..perhaps they were part of a larger order that was cancelled. ......
I guess GMD would have taken a bit of a hit on the two GP30s they built for CP. That locomotive with all of its curves would have been harder to build than the more angular geeps that followed. Not sure why CP bought only two..perhaps they were part of a larger order that was cancelled. ......
I suspect the reason for just two units was that was how many wrecked GM units that were available to trade in. By the time of the next order the current model was the GP35. CNR was a little later in the game, and first dabbled with an order for just 2 GP35s, and GP40s had become the current model by the time of the second order.
These early 2nd generation units were not as common in Canada because the generally later dieselisation meant there weren't big fleets of early units (like FT and F3s) that were now worn out and obsolete to trade in.
John
SD60MAC9500 BEAUSABR Overmod If I remember correctly, the issue was taxes: weren't they bought as pool power for cross-border services, but were taxed as imports (and so wound up not staying in Canada over 24 hours at a time)? And who were the partners in this cross-border pool? Boston & Maine.. The Alouette which operated between Boston-Montreal is the serivce the E8's were used on. Also GMD was in London, ON. Not Montreal.
BEAUSABR Overmod If I remember correctly, the issue was taxes: weren't they bought as pool power for cross-border services, but were taxed as imports (and so wound up not staying in Canada over 24 hours at a time)? And who were the partners in this cross-border pool?
Boston & Maine.. The Alouette which operated between Boston-Montreal is the serivce the E8's were used on.
While GMD was indeed in London, CPR's E8s were American units built by EMD in the USA. The London plant was still in the future.
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
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.
Greetings from Alberta
-an Articulate Malcontent
GP30 production ended several months after those two GP30's were built and the GP35 demonstrators were outshopped just a few weeks later. So not too surprising I suppose that CPR didn't get more GP30's.
Along with the demonstrator theory, another common cause for 1 or 2 unit orders from Class 1's during this era were as wreck replacements. Given their late build date, I suspect that's the cause in this case.
I bet cx500 called it. A couple of Geeps or F units were wrecked and were returned to GMD for "rebuilding" and returned as GP30's.
As far as I know the E units were used by Iron Mines up in Minnisota.
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.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Which leads to the question of what mines or railroads?
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
BaltACDHave 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.
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.
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 over current operation for a excessive amount of time.
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.
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.
BNSF order a bunch of A-I-A Es4400CWs... likely some of those have been used on mineral trains.
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.
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'.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
bogie_engineerEMD axles are biased via the primary spring arrangement to be 75Klbs on the driven axles and 60Klbs on the idlers
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'.
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.
anglecock 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.
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.
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
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.
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.
That's correct. My reply was to Balts point about EMD's history with 1B truck arrangements.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.