BRHSLIST
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CBQ] Elephant Style Es

To: CBQ@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [CBQ] Elephant Style Es
From: "Don Brown dbrown02@rochester.rr.com [CBQ]" <CBQ@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2018 18:53:09 -0500
Authentication-results: mta1005.groups.mail.bf1.yahoo.com from=rochester.rr.com; domainkeys=neutral (no sig); from=rochester.rr.com; dkim=neutral (no sig)
Delivered-to: unknown
Delivered-to: archives@nauer.org
Delivered-to: mailing list CBQ@yahoogroups.com
Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yahoogroups.com; s=echoe; t=1515714761; bh=88M5uyjAd1qPTN+pcdgjiyHOjXW/2uTHsBowp1wxqew=; h=To:References:In-Reply-To:From:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe:Date:Subject:Reply-To:From:Subject; b=tPagrDyXKhYeUW8ASpdbJC0LWZ5PG+1B/ilLSCF8G0ra7mwLiTr3I/Bc9sPnPMLeoDXyNgtnFBN7ZyK8PBIYr97LmnzTB/bt9TMXTIaZ9p/rM8ystyhkBuWaCD7TtgaJaCR/b3vs3Sj+fM8iR94OG7QIgiLcqXbbuMUyHcFvNo4=
In-reply-to: <p38s6u+1fbbor0@YahooGroups.com>
List-id: <CBQ.yahoogroups.com>
List-unsubscribe: <mailto:CBQ-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com>
Mailing-list: list CBQ@yahoogroups.com; contact CBQ-owner@yahoogroups.com
References: <o2mdk9+jm9ull@YahooGroups.com> <9F02FF44-9685-4D70-97EC-12B8A00465B9@optonline.net> <o2op1b+j78ef9@YahooGroups.com> <033601d25577$eb86e0c0$c294a240$@comcast.net> <58505D8A.1070701@optonline.net> <456C314C-9716-422A-977B-66FC233512A3@aol.com> <p38s6u+1fbbor0@YahooGroups.com>
Reply-to: CBQ@yahoogroups.com
Sender: CBQ@yahoogroups.com
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.5.1


I can't speak for what CBQ did and why, but I'm guessing you're overthinking it.  Most often on roads I'm familiar with, it was a case of what was available and ready to go.  Especially back in those days, nobody worried too much about saving an extra gallon or two of fuel.  If train number __ needed 2 units, the engine house forces probably just picked the two which involved the least amount of work to get them out the door.

Also, I am not an engineer (in the scientific sense) but when coupled back to back, there is minimal exposure of the blunt end of the second unit.  Since the airflow tends to spread out and back (think NASCAR at Daytona) I would guess there is actually less wind resistance that way than elephant style. 

Again, I may be wrong and maybe someone has a bulletin mandating such things.  But based on how things were done on other roads I was involved with, I speculate it was just the luck of the draw.

DRB



On 1/11/2018 6:32 PM, Edwardsutorik@aol.com [CBQ] wrote:
 

I'm "collecting" Burlington E's to pull various trains.  And, of course, one MUST look at photos to get things right.  It becomes obvious that elephant-style setups were very common during my time of interest.


And so I found this topic.

I have thought about the matter and have two possibly useful contributions:

[Theory]:  a flat end of a car or locomotive facing the direction of travel will have high wind resistance at speed.


An A at the front of the train has no flat end exposed (as described above).
An AA in the standard configuration has one flat end exposed--the first trailing car.
An AA elephant style has no flat ends exposed.
For further arrangements of A's at the front of a train, the only way you can have no flat end exposed is running elephant style.

I hope I have described this properly.  Anyway, I think it not inconceivable that elephant style has the least wind resistance of any unit arrangement of A's.  Thus saving fuel.  Which is money.



The other contribution is pulling units out of the storage area for service.  If all are facing the same direction, any unit is ready to be set up for elephant style running.  You can pull any unit or any set of units out, and they are all lined up, waiting for MU connection.  No turning.

That's kind of efficient, too.



Ed

Edward Sutorik



__._,_.___

Posted by: Don Brown <dbrown02@rochester.rr.com>



__,_._,___
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>