Tom,
What a great series of articles you have written. This really was the "Cherry
on Top". Thank You very much for taking such time to create a great lesson in
"Q" locomotive number and what their future could have looked like.
This helped me out so much that I have already began the process of renumbering
my units.
Thank You Very Much,
Dwight
--- In CBQ@yahoogroups.com, "thommack" <thommack@...> wrote:
>
> Part 2 of 2 - Final Installment
>
> (Since this is a long post, I have split this post into two parts.)
>
> First, let's recap the Q roster just before the merger:
>
> 100-series: First generation frieght units (a handful of F-Units), GE-4 axle
> U-boats, GP40's
>
> 200-series: First generation 4-axle road switchers (GP7, GP9)
>
> 300-series: First generation 6-axle road switchers (SD7, SD9)
>
> 400-series: First generation 6-axle light road switchers (non-DB light SD7,
> SD9, SD9s) + low HP 6-Axle GE (U23C)
>
> 500 Series ? High Horsepower 6-axle road power ? 500-549 EMD, 550-599 GE
> SD24 500-515
> U25C 550-561
> U28C 562-577
>
> 600 Series ? FW&D Switchers and High Horsepower EMD 4-axle Road Switchers
> FW&D 601-602 SW1
> FW&D 603 NW2
> FW&D 604 SW1
> FW&D 605-606 NW2
> FW&D 607-610 SW1200
> CB&Q 620-639 GP40
>
> 800 Series FW&D / CS
> C&S 810-819 SD7
> C&S 820-842 SD9
> FWD 850-860 SD9
> C&S 875-887 SD40
> C&S 890-893 U30C
>
> 900 Series ? High Horsepower 4-axle road switchers
> 900-935 GP20
> 940-969 GP30 Ph. I
> 970-977 GP30 Ph. II
> 978-999 GP35
>
> What the above tells us is that the Q was not a stickler about making sure
> their new orders for locomotives started to fill in new number blocks (e.i
> always starting with the next 10-digit block), although this was sometimes
> done, as with the first order of GP30's skipping from GP20 935 to GP30 940.
> But when the GP35's started coming in, they were numbered right after the
> last GP30, 977, and started with GP35 978. So on our "new roster" we can go
> either way.
>
> Notice however, that the Q seems to have made one numbering "mistake", in
> that they ordered 20 GP40's that were delivered in 12/66 and 01/67 that were
> numbered 170-189. They put these above the GE U28B's (which were upgraded to
> U30B's) numbered 140-149, leaving enough of a gap that when the Q went back
> to GE for five Phase II U30B's delivered in 1968 they could put them in the
> 150-154 number series. But when Q went back to EMD for 20 more GP40's,
> delivered in 2/68 (along with the last U30B's), there was not enough room to
> number them above the 170-189 series GP40's (the numbering would have run
> into the 200 series GP7's). So the Q numbered the last GP40's in the 600
> series. Here is where we have another very interesting insight. The new
> GP40's were numbered in the 600 series, a first use of the 600 series for Q
> diesel locomotives (Although FW&D had switchers numbered 601-610). But these
> GP40's were numbered 620-639. Why was 611-619 skipped? I cannot confirm this
> (although maybe someone else on the list can), but my theory is that we were
> about to see the first diesel locomotive renumbering on the Q. My theory is
> that had the BN merger not taken place, the Q was ready to renumber GP40's
> 170-189 to GP40's 600-619. The FW&D switchers would have needed to be
> renumbered, but this might explain why the GP40's did not start at 611. The
> renumbering would have put the Q GP40's in the number series 600-639, with
> plenty of room for more GP40's, while also freeing up room for more U30B's in
> the 150 series and up.
>
> A look at the last locomotive numbers and purchases on the Q also gives us
> some additional ideas of Q's direction with what they were buying for new
> power:
>
> 150-154 U30B 1-2/68
> 620-639 GP40 02/68
> 516-530 SD45 01/69
> 531-536 SD45 1970 ? Delivered to BN
> 578-581 U33C 1970 ? Delivered to BN
> 460-468 U23C 04/69
>
> C&S
> 875-887 SD40 10/67 to 04/68
> 890-893 U30C 06-07/68
>
> The trend toward high horsepower was definitely underway. The Q had
> definitely bought into the SD45 as they had six additional SD45's on order
> after the original 16 delivered in early 1969. The Q also had four GE U33C's
> on order. Why 3,300 horsepower U33C's instead of 3,600 horsepower U36C's to
> compete/complement the SD45's? Simple answer ? GE did not offer the U36C
> until 1971. Interestingly, NP and GN both had U33C's already, so it was not
> strange that the Q would also sample these "highest" horsepower single engine
> GE's.
>
> The Q also was quite familiar with the 3,000 horsepower offerings from EMD
> and GE since they had SD40's and U30C's on the C&S. But the Q proper did not
> order these, opting instead for SD45's and U33C's. This shows the Q was not
> thinking about the Powder River Basin coal trains we came to know under the
> BN, with the endless stream of SD40/SD40-2's and U30C/C30-7's. Would the Q
> have seen the light and standardized on 3,000hp C-C's? The 3,000hp C-C's
> certainly seemed to be the best mix of both horsepower and tractive effort
> needed for Powder River Basin coal trains. So my answer would be "YES"! We
> would have seen a sizable 3,000hp 6-axle locomotive fleet on the Q for coal
> hauling.
>
> Probably the most interesting power buy for the Q in its final years was the
> nine GE U23C's delivered in 1969. The U23C was a very unique locomotive, and
> only 53 were built by GE (20 for ATSF, 9 for CB&Q, 5 for LS&I, and 19 for
> PC). The U23C was probably looked at because it was a low 2,250 horsepower
> C-C locomotive with a 12-cylinder (i.e. "less maintenance") GE FDL engine.
> Since the Q was used to 1500 horsepower SD7's in the coal fields, these
> locomotives were definitely a step up, with two U23C's producing as much
> horsepower (4,500) as three SD7's (4,500), and probably a similar amount of
> tractive effort at minimum continuous speed (MCS). This may explain why the Q
> did not choose to go with EMD non-turbocharged SD38's. At 2,000 horsepower
> each, a pair of SD38's would only provide 4,000 horsepower and probably had a
> higher MCS than the GE's (MCS for an SD38-2 was 6.8 mph), so perhaps could
> not replace three SD7's. Remember, tractive effort and horsepower are not
> exactly the same, so while two SD38's might have been able to move the coal
> train, when you combine horsepower, tractive effort, and speed required, my
> guess is the U23C's could outperform the SD38's. Also, the U23C's used the GE
> 752 traction motor, which in drag service was definitely superior to the EMD
> D77 on the SD38's and way superior to the EMD D27 traction motors that were
> used on the SD7's.
>
> Would the Q have continued to buy U23C's for the Illinois coal fields? Maybe,
> especially if they could do a two-for-three replacement of the SD7's. But it
> seems GE was not very interested in pushing the U23C. As was mentioned, only
> 52 were built, for four customers. And GE never built a C23-7 for North
> American use. For longer run Powder River Basin coal you would want higher
> horsepower to get some speed behind those heavy coal trains moving longer
> distances. So I do not believe the Q would have bought U23C's for service
> outside the Illinois coal fields. Again, if someone else has insight on this,
> please chime in.
>
> *********************************
>
> So now let us move to the future, and what I would see as the "new Q" roster.
> In my world, the Q would have great expansion plans, and a 3-digit locomotive
> numbering system just wouldn't cut it. So here is my Q renumbering system:
>
> The earliest locomotives, including the original GP7/GP9/SD7/SD9 locomotives
> would remain numbered as is. Newer road switchers would be re-numbered, and
> new power would fall as follows:
>
> 1000 series: GE 4-axle Road Switchers (Older GE's just get a "1" added before
> their original number, so we don't use the 1000-1099 series)
> 1100-1105 U25B
> 1106-1115 U28B (some upgraded to U30B)
> 1140-1149 U28B (some upgraded to U30B)
> 1150-1199 U30B (speculates that the Q bought more U30B's after the original
> five units numbered 150-154)
> 1200-1999 more U30B's if needed, B30-7's, Dash8-40B/BW
>
> 2000 series: EMD low horsepower road units
> 2000-2099 EMD GP7's and GP9's rebuilt to GP8's and GP10's (if done)
> 2100-2200 EMD GP15-1's ? I see these as viable locomotives for the Q as
> evidenced by the purchases of these locomotives by C&NW and Frisco, both very
> similar roads to the CB&Q. The CB&Q GP7/9 fleet did not need dynamic brakes
> and the GP15-1's did not come with dynamic brakes (although it was an
> option), so these are perfect replacements. The Q never seemed big on
> rebuilding power, so I would vote for GP15-1's over GP8/10's. So the GP15-1's
> could potentially start at 2000 instead of 2100.
>
> 3000 series: 3,000hp EMD and GE locomotives ? SD40, SD40-2, U30C, C30-7. This
> numbering follows the Q precedence for the 500 series of splitting it 50/50
> for EMD and GE locomotives.
> 3000-3499 SD40, SD40-2 (lower half of the 3000 series block)
> 3500-3599 U30C, C30-7 (upper half of the 3000 series block)
>
> 5000 series: High horsepower EMD and GE locomotives ? SD45, U33C, U36C. Also
> split 50/50 like the original 500 series and new 3000 series with EMD's in
> the low numbers, GE's in the high numbers
> 5000-5099 SD45
> 5100-5499 High horsepower EMD's like SD70M's, SD70MAC's, SD70M-2's,
> SD70ACe's, SD9043MAC's
> 5500-5599 U33C/U36C ? consecutively numbered or skip to a new number series
> when the U36C's start coming in.
> Examples:
> 5500-5515 U33C
> 5516-5599 U36C
> or
> 5500-5515 U33C
> 5520-5599 U36C
> 5600-5999 High horsepower GE's like Dash8-40C/CW's, Dash-9's, ES44's
>
> 6000 series: EMD 4-axle Road Switchers
> 6000-6099 GP40
> 6100-6299 GP40-2
> 6300-6399 GP50
> 6400-6499 GP60/60M
>
> 9000 series: switchers
> 9310-9321 SW1000 ? already on CB&Q roster
> 9322-9399 SW1000 ? additional units if ordered
> 9400A-9413B ? some NW2's from the 9400 series are still around when SW1500's
> ordered
> 9500-9699 SW1500 ? 1,500 horsepower switchers skip to the 9500 series
> 9700-9899 MP15DC and/or MP15AC
>
> 9900 series: Still passenger units ? E-units, FP45's, SDP40F's, F40's, F59's,
> GE Genesis (take your pick). Since the SDP40 and SDP45 were already available
> from EMD before the BN merger, but the Q never ordered them, I am going to
> speculate they would have stayed with streamliner units painted in silver,
> thus ordering EMD cowl units and perhaps GE's much later on.
>
> And there you have it ? my rationale for a prototypical evolutionary Q roster
> from 1970 to the present. Sorry for the delay, but I hope the wait was worth
> it!
>
> Tom Mack
> Cincinnati, OH
>
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CBQ/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CBQ/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
CBQ-digest@yahoogroups.com
CBQ-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
CBQ-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|