Gordon,
To the best of my knowledge all NP F9A's and most NP FT through F7 A's
had nose MU. The GN fleet was also pretty well complete. The CB&Q
avoided nose MU on F's and the only reason I can think of was the 6-BLQ
brake schedule that was designed for their dual control roadswitchers.
What made the merger even more difficult was the GN's use of 6-BLC-1.
That schedule was not compatible either. As of 01-Jan-72 the only
CB&Q early roadswitchers, (and converted TR2AB's) that had been
converted were the BN 1956-1965 (CB&Q 271-280). They were 6-BLC-2
and would work with 6-BLC-1. This was probably part of the Sioux City
problem where the CB&Q/GN interface seemed to be the most difficult.
The BN had the same 26-L and 6-BLQ interface as you describe on the
EL with the MU-2-A valve restriction but it only applied to 6-BLQ units.
The various GN & SP&S schedules did not have that hose setup.
Whatever, those days are long gone. I think Railfans probably worry
about short time ratings more than the Railroads do. There is a long
grade and bad track South out of Wishram on the Oregon Trunk. The
timetable speed restriction is the same as the short time rating of the
SD40-2 and the Pumpkins have no problem with that. Problem is that
the timetable speed is below the short time ratings of the now departed
LMX's and the still present 4-axle red noses. There are no instructions
that I know of that have ever been issued to keep these units off that line
but it just doesn't seem to be an issue. (That was pointed out to me by
a power planner before they got rid of half those jobs.)
That's life in the big city; and, even down here on the Rural Route,
Russ
----- Original Message -----
From: "GORDON SMITH" <kc2bw@a...>
To: <BRHSlist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, 13 April, 2002 18:55
Subject: Re: [BRHSlist] Last years of the F's
> Russ...What I meant about the nose MU capability was having an A unit in
> the middle of the consist which would naturally be impossible for all
> except the few that received the equiptment. In my air brake book I see
> an example of 26L-24RL-26L-6bl/6sl set. Only the A&R to BC equalizing
> hookup is shown along with the main res. and trainline. All our 26L
> equipped locos on the EL had the 3 position mu2a valves. We ran the old
> stuff behind second generation units all the time. I, as the engineer
> would be the one to wory about short time ratings of trailing units.
>
> Gordon
>
> Russell Strodtz wrote:
> >
> > Gordon,
> >
> > CB&Q GP7, GP9, SD7, & SD9 units, (but not C&S), were built with brake
> > schedule 6BLQ. One of the thing that they did not have was an actuating
> > hose MU capability. Many were straight piped thru so that the 24RL
> > units would be OK on both ends. They could also not be used as trailers
> > behind 26L units unless the 26L units were equipped with a three position
> > MU-2-A valve. This caused a lot of compatibility problems after the 1970
> > merger.
> >
> > Nose MU was not an issue. Combinations like F3AB-GP7-GP7 were
> > common but I can't say I ever saw a GP7-GP7-F3BA.
> >
> > There were some efforts made after the merger to get this straightened
> > out but I don't think that they were all completed. When the GP7's left
> > is was necessary to pick out certain units from the NP GP9 group to
> > handle the Sioux City line because the bridge was not done yet. Before
> > that there was pretty much an all or nothing Geep policy at Sioux City.
> > Usually it was all CB&Q.
> >
> > Keep in mind that I am not an Engineer, just a collector of information.
> >
> > Russ
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "GORDON SMITH" <kc2bw@a...>
> > To: <BRHSlist@yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Saturday, 13 April, 2002 07:50
> > Subject: Re: [BRHSlist] Last years of the F's
> >
> > > Didn't the lack of nose mu on the A units have somthing to do with this?
> > > (except for the couple that finally received it). I have seen pics of
> > > one or two A units trailing. And we used to put #6 and 24 brakes
> > > together on the EL. In fact our old ConRail air brake book shows how
> > > to hook up many combinations of #6, 24, and 26 systems.
> > >
> > > Gordon
> > >
> > > amtrak347@a... wrote:
> > > >
> > > > In a message dated 4/12/02 9:17:54 PM Central Daylight Time, vlbg@i...
> > > > writes:
> > > >
> > > > > In the case of the GP7/9 & SD7/9 the F's had to be in the lead
> > > > > because of the 6BLQ brake schedule not being compatible with
> > > > > 24RL.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Russ -
> > > > One small correction here; F's as the leading unit account they had the
> > > > lowest "short time rating". Used to bellyache about having an SD-9 lead
> > > > an
> > > > SD-45 consist but the "Cadillac" had the lower STR. My complaint was
> > > > that
> > > > the "45's" would run in to "7/9's" when trying to dig the train out of
> > > > the
> > > > holes in the C&I. Later on, would see the "Cadillac" on the rear of the
> > > > consist, "OFF-LINE".
> > > > Bob
> > > >
> > > --
> > > To reply take the 33 from the address
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
> --
> To reply take the 33 from the address
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
|