RE: [CBQ] Elephant Style Es

["'Tom Kline' TKline@airmail.net [CBQ]" <CBQ@yahoogroups.com>]

Elephant-style consists were a Mechanical Department decision to provide a ‘Plan B’ when you have a lead unit failure out on the road. Delay out on the mainline on any railroad is a major concern.  The trailing unit would already be facing the proper way in this instance so the lead unit would just have to be set out minimizing delay.  Of course this was not always followed depending on turning facilities and such at the end of a trip but was a policy followed by a number of railroads.

 

An additional forward facing unit mars the sleekness of a ABBA consist but early on the Santa Fe learned some hard lessons with lead unit failures out on the road so they made it a point to put consists together with at least two lead locomotives pointing forward which I learned from a roundhouse foreman.  In the Santa Fe’s case you will see in many photos two forward facing cab units leading a consist, but again sometimes this was not possible.  It was a good idea which the Q incorporated as well, but not in every case.

 

As for wind resistance, as others have stated, I’m sure it wasn’t even considered back then plus even though there is the flat end of the car you have to account for flow dynamics coming off the lead units and the pressure vortices present.  Streamline flow is not linear as may people assume.  With that in mind only a small area of the car end is causing wind resistance, not the entire exposed portion of the end.  I’d be surprised if it caused more than a 5% drag component.

 

Tom Kline

Houston, TX    

 

From: CBQ@yahoogroups.com [mailto:CBQ@yahoogroups.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2018 7:09 PM
To: CBQ@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [CBQ] Elephant Style Es

 

 

I agree there is less wind resistance at the connection between when two E's are coupled back to back.  But note that the car behind them has a goodly bit of flat frontal area.  And it is hugely exposed by that facing nose.  It's not just the engines that have wind resistance.

 

I certainly can see that the engine house forces want to pick what was most convenient for them.  And, with all of the units facing "properly", that number would be increased by elephant-style.  There would be no juggling the wrong facing unit out from in front of the next one.  ANY one would be facing correctly..

 

I have no idea if Burlington elephant-style was some form of official policy.  I was merely stating two possibilities explaining why it might have been a good idea.  And, sometimes, management actually acts on a good idea.  I am told.

 

 

Ed

 

Edward Sutorik

__._,_.___

---

Posted by: "Tom Kline" <tkline@airmail.net>

---

Visit Your Group

• New Members 1

• Privacy • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use

__,_._,___