BRHSLIST
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CBQ] Shovelnose question

To: CBQ@groups.io
Subject: Re: [CBQ] Shovelnose question
From: "Charlie Vlk" <cvlk@comcast.net>
Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2020 11:36:34 -0500
Delivered-to: unknown
Delivered-to: archives@nauer.org
Delivered-to: mailing list CBQ@groups.io
Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=groups.io; q=dns/txt; s=20140610; t=1591374998; bh=fUr6Qeki2EHVjgTC8/v8fbLGuTuNwqWI06UQ7ksXrNw=; h=Content-Type:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To; b=HuYoNjhvk9ZRVtwNbarRFKWYaK3rb2792Ha3EMXeZPhjzOEZIkwXGapB2kZyNuIh62p xPlhLktDU6nPEiUHQw7AUUHILrFH/0j2vDpvrsqeOTCLZWszkXbDV5R0GTIFTX9xfwArX gUcKvC2888SmPsVJ+hQBgMm2KbShyRiGqMw=
In-reply-to: <f434af90-45cd-750b-83bc-9993a7b6c0c2@earthlink.net>
List-id: <CBQ.groups.io>
List-unsubscribe: <https://groups.io/g/CBQ/unsub>
Mailing-list: list CBQ@groups.io; contact CBQ+owner@groups.io
References: <f434af90-45cd-750b-83bc-9993a7b6c0c2@earthlink.net>
Reply-to: CBQ@groups.io
Sender: CBQ@groups.io
It appears that there were at least three more shovelnose incidents...the K-Line Bulletin shows a third.  Note that the two I attached show the 9905 and another EA or a 2nd incident for it (similar but different pattern of damage).
The issue wasn’t the strength of the car body and collision posts wouldn’t add much crew protection.   Being located just above the trucks and inches behind the windows was inherently dangerous for any sort of collision.  Also the mesmerizing effect of being so close to the ties was also a legitimate complaint.  
The F and E unit cab was located above and behind collision posts and a what would now be termed a “crumple zone” that provided much better vision and protection.
The inspiration for the cab design isn’t documented but it is interesting that the shovel nose and turret location/windows of the UP and IC units blended to become the classic EMC / EMD E and F unit noses. 
Charlie Vlk

On Jun 5, 2020, at 6:37 AM, Don Bowen <don.bowen@earthlink.net> wrote:


On 6/4/2020 8:32 PM, Ed Pavlovic wrote:

Thanks to those that answered my question about the shovelnoses, from the wreck photos that Charlie posted it doesn’t look like it was very substantial construction at all.

I have been trying to find the reference.  Somewhere along the line I read that the operating unions had contract provisions that limited the shovelnose style front ends as being too dangerous.  Grade crossing accidents were becoming all too common with the increase in heavier highway traffic.  Also realize that the object of the shot welded body was weight reduction, there was only a single unreliable 600 HP diesel pulling.  The mechanical department paper on the Winton engine makes interesting reading and as does the SAE paper on the development of the 567.  The 567 paper starts by saying he will not go into the problems with the 201 other to say they had no problems with the dip stick.

-- 
Don Bowen       --AD0NB--
_._,_._,_

Groups.io Links:

You receive all messages sent to this group.

View/Reply Online (#59696) | Reply To Group | Reply To Sender | Mute This Topic | New Topic

Your Subscription | Contact Group Owner | Unsubscribe [archives@nauer.org]

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