Here's another 2 or 3 cents worth of reflection from one who endured the
gyrations of the subject locomotives in times past.
Bill is quite correct in his use of the term "springless" as applied to U
boats. When GE ordered the set of books about designing locomotives those
containing the instructions relating to the need for, and details of,
suspension were not delivered. The B and C trucks that were applied to the
units had great difficulty in finding the center of the track and, as a result,
"nosing" was quite noticeable throughout a wide range of speeds. Also, these
units pointed out low spots in the track like nothing else could have done. On
more than one of the 4 axle units I've had "foam" on top of the water in the
water cooler jug as a result of the ride qualities.
One unit in particular stands out in my memory as being the blue ribbon buckin'
bronco of all time, C&S 891. While, as mentioned, all U boats of that era were
known for their ride characteristics this particular unit went far above and
beyond the "normal" kidney destroying pounding of its sister locomotives. On
one particular trip, as a Fireman, we were treated to a ride over the Rock
River, at Oregon, IL. that remains, to this day, the most brutal ride over that
bridge EVER. In a conversation immediately preceeding the incident it was
mentioned that the locomotive seemed "too wide" to fit through the bridge. "Too
wide" was the perception given us by the incredible yawing of the unit on the
approach to the bridge. As we passed over the bridge the noise of metal
striking metal was overwhelming. The perception was that a part of the
locomotive frame (platform) was making direct contact with the truck sideframes
in a violent manner. Well, we made it across the bridge, to everyone's total
surprise.
As time passed, and this engine didn't, it was finally relegated to trailing
unit status in order to expect the Engineer to run at, or close to, track speed.
A round trip from CUS to Savanna Passenger Depot, and return, on Amtrak 500's
was also a truly memorable experience. Herb Long and I got Milw. detour trains
7, 8, 9 and 10. I caught 7 and 10 and Herbie got the other turn. The pass.
speed limit had been dropped from the timecard so nobody knew how fast to run
the trains. My suggestion did not meet with favor so 65 MPH was selected to be
the guideline for these detours. Upon completion of the round trip I'm rather
glad my suggestion was NOT accepted. In Bill's message he correctly mentions
the erractic nature of the ride on these engines. I was unaware that EMD could
build a locomotive with such abominable ride characteristics. My Road Foreman
of Engines was running the 511 coming Westbound into Rochelle. At the "coal
chute switch" he was rudely thrown from his seat as was the Milw. Engineer and
myself. He yelled "why the hell didn't you TELL me it would be this rough"? I
replied that he had failed to ASK. The coal chute sw. notwithstanding, the
Milw. Engineer said to me "man, if we had track THIS good where I run 'em we
could REALLY go". I asked how fast DID they run 'em, he replied, 79 MPH to
which I replied, HOW???
While my experience with Amtrak 500's is very limited I will say that they made
a lasting impression on me. The U boats, likewise, made an impression on me
and, I'm sure, the track as well. The only thing we currently operate that
approaches the U boat experience is the B39-7 locomotives. Also, it might be
worthy to note that the SDP40-F's were similar to F45's in several areas. The
absence of the weight of the boiler was one exception as was the application of
the Dash 2 trucks. F45's, generally, had very good riding qualities, SDP40 F's
did not. Even though the locomotives are long gone it would be interesting to
learn the underlying cause(s) of the ride problems.
Karl
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
|