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
>