BRHSLIST
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [BRHSlist] Es- was rough ride from the Burlington side

To: <BRHSlist@egroups.com>
Subject: Re: [BRHSlist] Es- was rough ride from the Burlington side
From: "William Franckey" <budapest@g...>
Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2000 12:57:44 -0500
References: <20000807.102048.-1032407.9.okt@j...>
About those E's........One interesting thing did develop when Amtrak took
over and we began to lose our Q E's. Amtrak, as I remember, started
shopping some of our E's and cleaning out the accumulated dust and debris
from the Cab Air / Fresh Air vents in the cabs. Up to this time, the only
way to stay cool in the cabs during summer was to roll up the windows and
open the cab doors. This overpowered the hot air blowing out of the voltage
cabinate doors. Too bad this phase was so short lived. Bill----- Original
Message -----
From: <okt@j...>
To: <BRHSlist@egroups.com>; <railspot@r...>;
<santafe@c...>; <ritslist@s...>;
<c44-9w@S...>; <dstevensok@j...>; <RJCDavis@a...>;
<Gordon_MacNiven@m...>; <hawkeye@a...>; <kckev@e...>;
<midka@j...>; <57chevy1@h...>; <nati@t...>;
<rhodess@i...>; <rnewton_railphoto@c...>; <SFRR@a...>;
<THEOKONE@c...>; <thunder.bolt@m...>;
<unclepete@4...>; <yardclerk@y...>
Sent: Monday, August 07, 2000 9:13 AM
Subject: [BRHSlist] Es- was rough ride from the Burlington side


> For those that don't know, Joe ran Es on the RI from Waurika OK to Ft
> Worth.
> This is in response to a message about the SDP40Fs being overly heavy at
> the front and causing derailment problems.
> Terry
>
>
> --------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: TRAINJTR@a...
> To: okt@j...
> Return-Path: <TRAINJTR@a...>
>
> Terry:
> This all sounds logical; however, remember the passenger "E" units were
> set
> up this way with the steam generators at the rear. The difference was
> that
> the E's had two power plants (engines) and generators, which added a
> little
> more engineroom weight to the over all frame. The move to use a single
> prime
> mover motor and generator was an economy move on the SDP's to get away
> from
> fuel use and moving parts. Another factor was that in the E's, the two,
> 12-cylindered engines were mounted face to face (governor end to governor
>
> end) which meant that with respect to the overall E carbody, the two
> engines
> rotated in opposite directions ... one clockwise, one counter clockwise.
>
> This provided a "gyroscopic" stability to the E unit frame. All in all,
> they
> were dandy passenger units and did their high speed job well with sure
> footedness.
>
> It's just amazing what we go through at the expense of trying to
> economize,
> isn't it?
>
> Joe
>
> 
>
>


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>