About the Amtrak 500's.......As we began losing our E's to Amtrak when BN
gave up passenger service, we got SP and UP E's. Compared to our clean,
maintained engines, these were disasters. Trip after trip right out of
Galesburg or the CUS the alarm bells would start ringing. Many, many trips
I would not see the engineer again until we stopped at the end of the run.
A firemans job (even in the days of diesel) was to make sure the engineer
always had power. Back in the engine room, one never pulled power away from
the engineer. We were expected to do what was neccessary. If that meant
blocking open relays with fusee parts, so be it. EVERYTIME a electrician or
machinist climbed aboard, the fireman would be right with him watching and
learning. I'm sure most enginemen feel this, never would one want to have
the mechanical force show up to solve a problem only to find it was
something very simple to begin with. We carried fuse pullers, and a copy of
the gray book. More importantly we really used them. Many times we carried
copies of other machanical books. Some of us fired mainline passenger for
years. I never did try igniting a boiler with a fusee although I have been
working on them when they blew up. Boilers, covered in rust, dripping water
and steam, would shut down and refuse to operate. Many of the odd, even
handles on the valves of the boilers were missing on this newly aquired junk
and one HAD to start looking for the heat exchanger of a boiler and start
tracing pipes. Summer into winter was more of a nightmare. At least those
other railroad's E's didn't have "hatch tanks" to worry about. Even our E's
were starting to lose ground so we saw frt. GE's tacked on the head end in
different power lashups. FINALLY the new Amtrak 500's started showing up.
One at a time so that we would run with a 500 in the lead and 3 or 4 E's
trailing. More bells, and more climbing between locomotives. As any one
who has done it knows, going from door to door wasn't bad, door to nose
wasn't bad, but nose to nose at track speed or above in the winter time
would force snow into ones eyes and nose as you are stepping across two
bouncing locomotives. Finally the 500's were the main stay but there was NO
relaxing on those at 79 mph and above. We had heard that somewhere out in
the north-west these locomotives ran quite well on a certain piece of
railroad but we never found these anything but ultra violent. When Harding
rolled Homer here at Galesburg, the 500's were field tested at some new,
very uncomfortable speeds until Bob was forced to retire. The Amtrak 600's
did ride better at track speed but there was nothing, nothing like riding
those silver E's up around High Street on a cold morning pulling full
skirted Budd equipment..............
and I'm sure Karl you will concur, any crew member who rode those early
6 wheel trucked G E's would gladly lend a hand at the scrap yard. Bill
----- Original Message -----
From: "Karl L Rethwisch" <karlre@r...>
To: <BRHSlist@egroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2000 6:50 AM
Subject: [BRHSlist] Ride Qualities(?).
> 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 e!
> veryone'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 c!
> hute 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]
>
>
>
>
>
|