Gerald,
Comments inserted.
Russ
----- Original Message -----
From: "Virginia Edgar" <vje68@h...>
To: <BRHSlist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, 09 October, 2002 21:06
Subject: [BRHSlist] reL freezing locos/E unit usage
> I'll respectfully disagree Russ on two points - use of steam generators
&
> E unit utilization. For the former, the Q made good use of steam gen's
for
> the many mixed trains that ran into the 60's - more than most RR's. (Also
> back-up power for branch line passenger service) I suspect the generators
> were victim of poor maintenance more than poor design in later yrs.
> Ironically when I was with C&NW in the early 80's as Gen. Diesel Shop
> Foreman Trainee @ Proviso, there was still at least one GP with operating
> steam generator - not used in years BUT was in the maint. pool out of
> Proviso which still had a man on staff who knew boilers & kept it tagged
as
> operational. Some gen-equipped locos were also used by the Q, I
understand,
> on work trains.
The stand by heaters were the ineffective design. I would suppose that the
steam generators worked as well as any other roads. From the reading I've
done no one was too excited about EMD's steam generator options.
My point was that the CB&Q/C&S/FW&D spent an awful lot of money on
features that they really didn't need. The number of units equipped was
greatly in excess of the actual or even potential need. Even when brand
new these units were not used in service that required all those options.
How many mixed train operations required steam generators? I think most
of those combines were coal or oil stoves. They were usually on the rear.
How many of the smaller steam locomotives that were used on these
trains even had steam lines? By the mid-60's most of the GP's & SD's
steam lines had been removed even if the generator was still in the unit.
I can not see where a steam generator equipped unit would have any
particular use in work train service.
The C&NW? They did actually buy certain groups of locomotives fully
intending to use them in either suburban or some other type of passenger
service. As to the maintenance, in theory at least, everything that is on
a locomotive is supposed to work. (The FRA has sure looked the other
way on that one. Right now a unit with inoperative dynamic brakes is
only a non-complying locomotive 30 days after the RR knew of the defect.
I'm surprised the "dirty laundry" folks haven't gotten that fact into a TV
documentry.)
> As for E unit utilization, I fully agree that Morgan had a well-
> documented love affair with the Q (who can blame him!) and Murphy used the
> P.R. "Diesels West" provided for all it was worth. However if you look @
> Railway Age magazines in the 50's, a lot of coverage was given to the Q's
> unique interchange of locos for both conventional & commuter service.
Other
> RR's used pools, etc to get optimuum usage but none quite as creatively as
> the Q did (which often thought out of the box to use a current mgt.
phrase).
They may have in the early 50's but by the 60's there were a number of
distinct passenger pools going and I never saw any regular pattern of moving
units in and out of suburban service except when they were due inspection
or ready to be retired.
> To be objective I must admit the great loco mystery of the Q/C&S was why
> neither their Motive Power people NOR EMD's could figure out for years
that
> a diesel could indeed operate at the high altitudes at Climax, Colorado -
> classic example of an assumption based on bad science (I suspect it was
EMD
> that dragged their feet for fear that if it failed, it would a black mark
on
> their 567 power and they were only losing 1 potential loco sale by not
> encouraging use of same by C&S). Gerald Edgar
I would agree with you there. What is even stranger is the MP tale that
they had locomotive altitude problems running into Pueblo from the East.
That is one of the lowest places in the state and no one else had any
problems at twice the altitude.
Oh well...
|