Help re E and F Units
Garry Paul Greenland
I was wondering if E and F units could be or were ever run with
each other. Say for instance, did CN or CP or some other roads,
run F units that were A's (such as F7A or F3A) with E units that were
B's (such as E8B or E9B). Wrere there ever any head end power
configurations like that (F7A and an E8B)????
In a related question could Alco units ever be mu"d with EMD units???
Thanks
Garry Greenland
carlson brian lee
: In a related question could Alco units ever be mu"d with EMD units???
Absolutely--but only in the good old days!
--Brian--
--
____________________________________________
| | | |
| | [|] | ILLINOIS MIDLAND RAILWAY |
|_|__| 869 |___________________________________|_|
|_|__|_____|___________________________________|_|
|_| /\/\ /\ | | /\ /\/\ |_|
\/\/ \/ '--------------------' \/ \/\/
------------------------------------------------
Fairbanks-Morse H24-66 "Trainmaster"
Brian Carlson
blca...@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu
blca...@coewl.cen.uiuc.edu
By Week:Electrical Engineering Student
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
By Weekend:Student Locomotive Engineer (among other things)
Monticello Railway Museum
The opinions expressed herein are not those of UIUC, MRM, or
the Illinois Midland Railway!!
.
Cliff Downey
In a previous posting, Garry Paul Greenland (au...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
> I was wondering if E and F units could be or were ever run with
> each other. Say for instance, did CN or CP or some other roads,
> run F units that were A's (such as F7A or F3A) with E units that were
> B's (such as E8B or E9B). Wrere there ever any head end power
> configurations like that (F7A and an E8B)????
>
lash-up would definitely have been rare. There are a number of reasons
why railroads would not want to run E's and F's together, including the
differences in traction motor gear ratios between the two models. As built,
all E's were
geared for quick acceleration and high speeds. Most F-unit's, however,
were geared for top speeds of around 60mph, and tended to accelerate
slower than E-units (however, many F-units were built with traction motors
that permitted fast acceleration and high speeds). By running E's and F's
together, you would have a situation similar to the tortoise and the hare.
When accelerating, the E-unit would take off like the proverbial rocket,
while the F-unit (unless it had the faster traction motors) would be
taking its sweet time. In some cases, the F-unit would provide no
traction at all, and would instead be dragged along.
During the late 1960's as the Enumber of passenger trains decreased in
the US, many E-units were placed in freight service. Although I can't
immediately recall any photos, I would imagine that the E's were mated
with all sorts of freight power (after the traction motors on the E-units
were regeared for lower speeds).
> In a related question could Alco units ever be mu"d with EMD units???
>
Yes! Both ALCo and EMD used a similar MU system. Problems would
arise occassionally, however, since no "international standard" was set up
until recent years. The standard today is for a 27-pin system (ie, a MU
cable has 27 different wires to carry signals between two locomotives).
In years past however, locomotives were built with 12 or 21 pin MU
systems. Unless you had some creative electricians, these locomottives
couldn't mate with locomotives have a different number of pins.
When run-throughs became
popular in the 1960's and 1970's, more than one locomotive was returned
home because it had an MU system that was incompatible with another
railroad's locomotives. In recent years, such compatability problems have
been (more or less) corrected.
Baldwin locomotives, howeever, used a unique electro-pneumatic MU system
that was totally incompatible with non-Baldwins. Thus, you rarely saw
Baldwins mixed with EMD's, GE's, etc. A few Baldwins (but not many) were
rebuilt with electrical MU systems so they could MU with locomotives from
other builders.
Cliff Downey
cdo...@racer1.mursuky.edu
Evan Werkema
>I was wondering if E and F units could be or were ever run with
>each other. Say for instance, did CN or CP or some other roads,
>run F units that were A's (such as F7A or F3A) with E units that were
>B's (such as E8B or E9B). Wrere there ever any head end power
>configurations like that (F7A and an E8B)????
Not on Santa Fe, at least not in front of a camera. I've never seen a
picture showing mixed E's and F's, though admittedly Santa Fe wasn't big on
E's. I would imagine that an E, with A-1-A trucks, would need a different
"touch" at the throttle than an F with B trucks, though this is just
speculation on my part.
>In a related question could Alco units ever be mu"d with EMD units???
In passenger service, seldom, at least on Santa Fe. When I was a younger
kid and had a small model railroad, I wanted to pull my passenger trains
with a pair of F's splicing a PB1. My dad took one look and said they'd
never run it like that. Sure enough, I have yet to see a picture of a PB +
F combination like that. Interestingly, a few shots exist showing PA's
mated to Santa Fe's 90-class FM Erie-builts, or EMD booster 1B behind Alco
DL109 #50. These were one-of-a-kinds on the Santa Fe, so they could
probably get away with it.
--
,_,,___......____...____..------ ______________ _--____________--_
_I ```` I[|]I I SANTA FE~~~~~~~~~, I @ I I I
~/---~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\~~~~~\---'_I 2903 I IATSF I\/I I
/~o==o-( )-( )-( )-( )~~o==o~~~~~~o=o=o=o~~=====~~o=o=o=o~~~o==o~~~~~~~~o==o~
--Evan Werkem...@po.cwru.edu--"Ship and Travel Santa Fe...All the Way!"--
Tom Box
>In article <D421A...@freenet.carleton.ca> au...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA
>(Garry Paul Greenland) writes:
>>I was wondering if E and F units could be or were ever run with
>>each other. Say for instance, did CN or CP or some other roads,
>>run F units that were A's (such as F7A or F3A) with E units that were
>>B's (such as E8B or E9B). Wrere there ever any head end power
>>configurations like that (F7A and an E8B)????
Certainly not on CN, since they never owned any E units.
CP only had three, all E8As. I don't know if they were
ever run together with F units. Since CP had ony three
E's and lots of F's, it seems likely that it would have
happened at least occasionally, but I can't say for sure.
Others have pointed out that E's and F's wouldn't go
together well because the gearing would be different.
But many CP cab units were FP7A's (also some FP9A's)
built with steam generators for passenger service, so
their gearing would, I assume, not be too different
from that of the E units.
>>In a related question could Alco units ever be mu"d with EMD units???
>In passenger service, seldom, at least on Santa Fe.
I saw this several times on VIA (Canadian-built MLWs and GMDs,
of course). By the time I started paying careful attention
to these things, the MLW cab units were on their last legs
(last wheels? :-) at VIA. In 1989, the Montreal-Halifax
trains ("Ocean" and "Atlantic") usually had an F40PH-2 on
the point, and a cab unit trailing, providing both motive
power and steam to heat the passenger cars. I saw GM
FP9A's and F9B's and MLW FPA-4's and FPB-4's as the second
unit on these trains. I even saw at least one which had an
F40PH-2, an FP9A, _and_ an FPB-4.
After the VIA cutbacks of Jan 1990, all MLW units (FPA-4 and
FPB-4) and the F9B's were retired, and one only saw FP9A's
as second units on the "Ocean" and "Atlantic." When the steam-
heated cars were replaced by HEP cars in 1992-93, the FP9A
was replaced by a second F40PH-2.
I once saw a westbound "Chaleur" arrive in Montreal,
about 3 1/2 hours late, pulled by an MLW M-420
(CN 3559) and a GM F40 (VIA 6425). I presume the
F40 had broken down en route, so the M-420 was
pressed into service.
Another example of EMD+Alco on VIA which I've seen is an
F40 and an LRC unit together on the same train. The LRC
trains were originally intended to be run in push-pull with a
unit at each end. When the LRC locos proved unreliable, VIA
substituted F40's on many trains, but it used to be common
to see a consist of
LRC loco + LRC coaches + LRC loco
or
F40 loco + LRC coaches + F40 loco.
Much less common, but not unheard of, was
F40 loco + LRC coaches + LRC loco.
VIA is now running shorter consists on average, so it's less
common to see a corridor train with two units, but you
might occasionally see a consist like the one immediately
above.
I've also been on a train with a consist of
LRC loco + F40 loco + LRC coaches.
In this case, the F40 had had its windshield broken in a
rock-throwing incident, so the LRC unit was added on
the point to enable the crew to operate the train safely.
F40's are of course EMDs (or GMD's in the case of VIA units).
LRC locomotives are Alcos -- built by Bombardier after
they acquired MLW, but with an Alco 251F Diesel as their
prime mover.
Tom Box
tb...@mta.ca
Michael Clements
: During the late 1960's as the Enumber of passenger trains decreased in
: the US, many E-units were placed in freight service. Although I can't
: immediately recall any photos, I would imagine that the E's were mated
: with all sorts of freight power (after the traction motors on the E-units
: were regeared for lower speeds).
Erie Lackawanna and Rock Island both ran E's in freight service. Almost all
the pictures I have seen of these freight service E's have been with no other
units. However I do recall an EL photo with E's F's and SD45's.
Mike Clements
Alan Edward Petrillo
>I was wondering if E and F units could be or were ever run with
>each other. Say for instance, did CN or CP or some other roads,
>run F units that were A's (such as F7A or F3A) with E units that were
>B's (such as E8B or E9B). Wrere there ever any head end power
>configurations like that (F7A and an E8B)????
Actually, some roads did combine B-Bs with A1As. It depended on the
condition of their passenger sevice and the terrain the road covered, I
think. The Milwaukee Road sometimes mixed FP7s with E units, as did the
Boston and Maine. I don't think they planned to do it when they bought
the engines, but by the end of passenger service, anything went.
However, I bet it was more likely to happen on flatter districts then in
the mountains. For instance, I bet E's and F's were often mixed on the
Chicago commuter lines in the 1970's, because of the hand-me-down
character of the motive power and the flat, straight track.
Evan Werkema writes that Santa Fe didn't mu Alcos with EMDs...but if
they had to, they could have. I think Baldwins were the only engines
whose mu gear couldn't mate with units from other builders.
Didn't the Rio Grande mate F9s with a PB, or was the Alco just a power
car at that point?
Other roads that I think might have combined A1A with B-B:
Missouri Pacific
Gulf, Mobile and Ohio
Louisville and Nashville
Kansas City Southern
(any others?)
And of course, the New Haven combined axle arrangements in one
locomotive, the B-A1A FL9.
Paul Voelker
> I was wondering if E and F units could be or were ever run with
> each other. Say for instance, did CN or CP or some other roads,
> run F units that were A's (such as F7A or F3A) with E units that were
> B's (such as E8B or E9B). Were there ever any head end power
> configurations like that (F7A and an E8B)????
Occasionally, as needed, UP would combine such sets. UP had E2,3,6,7,8,&
9A/Bs, and passenger equipped F3's (bought as ABB sets), FP7/F7B's sets
along with GP7A's, GP9A/B's, GP30B's, and SDP35's so any combination
could be possible. Depended on motive power requirements and available
units especially towards the end of passenger service.
PVV
Railfan2
California they could probably answer your question.
Arnold Morscher
Recently, someone asked if EMD E units and F units could be
mixed in lashups. From what I have seen, the EL frequently
mixed F's and E's and seemed to have no problems.
On 1950's vintage EMD units, the MU capability was reliable to only
about nine or so prime movers. Apparently, the MU signal strength
got weaker with each added prime mover. After about 8 or so units
were on line, the chances of MU signal miscues rose.
As each E unit had 2 prime movers, the maximum number of units
that could reliably work together was about 4 or 5. F units, with
only a single prime mover in each, could MU about 10 units (Assuming
nose MU capability)
Apparently today, the MU system is more dependent upon electrical
propagation and less on pneumatic devices, so this limitation does not
apply anymore.
Can anyone confirm this?
In a related question could Alco units ever be mu"d with EMD units???
EL (again) often mated E's and PA's withoug ill effect. I have
a swell purchased video of a E8 and a PA leaving a station. The trailing
PA winds up with a thick column of black smoke and seems to shove a
reluctant E8 out of the station.
On the Lackawanna; the EMD and Alco and FM (at least the H-16-44's)
road units could MU. I am not so sure about the Trainmasters. Alas, nose
MU was not installed until EL days.
On the ERIE; EMD, Alco, and even Baldwin road units could MU. So could
the four GE's on the ERIE, the GE UM20B's. But, oddly, the ERIE RS3's were
fitted with a different brake system so they were not compatable with the
rest of the road units. So, in EL days, if you saw a SD45-2 mated with a
RS3, you could be sure it was an ex-Lackawanna RS3.
So, speaking of wierd lashups, I can recall seeing photos of:
SD45 + FA
E8 + PA + RS3
E8 + F3B + E8
GP7 + H-16-44
Four trainsmasters together
E8 + H-16-44
FA's freely mixed with F units
AS16's mixed with RS3's
C425 + U25 + GP35
SD45 + SD45 + F7B
Five E8's
Five F units
Five E's or F's mixed
And plenty more. This is fun stuff to think about.
> When I was a younger kid and had a small model railroad, I
> wanted to pull my passenger trains with a pair of F's splicing a
> PB1. My dad took one look and said they'd never run it like that.
> Sure enough, I have yet to see a picture of a PB + F combination like
> that.....
You could have been the Road Foreman of Engines on the EL !
Arnie
John Voitel
I have a few pictures from some Pennsy books that show this situation, albeit
very very rare. I have seen Baldwin Sharks MU'd with F3's and such, but usually
in freight situations and not HEP.
From my limited understanding, it was not always easy to MU varying manufacturers
models at times. Can't speak to the Alco scenario.
Hope this helps!
--------------------------------------------------
John Voitel, Philadelphia, PA
jvo...@ibm.net
--------------------------------------------------
BluDru
passenger operations and obviously you're very well informed. So, I have a
couple of questions. Question One: What kind of rolling stock (engines and
coaches) does VIA currently operate out of Windsor? Question Two: From
1965 to '69 I lived in London,Ontario, and traveled as a kid to Chicago by
train several times. However, I don't remember which railroad. Did CN, CP,
and GTW all have service to Chicago? And did they all terminate at
Dearborn Station? I have vague memories of train travel and a station in
Chicago, and any info you have will help me pinpoint my recollections.
Thank you - Drew e-mail to: Blu...@aol.com
Andrew Toppan
: 1989 and it still had those same trucks. Unfortunately, I believe this
: car was scrapped just a year or two. What a shame. Now there is only one
: PB body left in the world.
I've been told that the last power car (#253) was scrapped.
Andrew
--
Andrew Toppan --- el...@wpi.edu --- http://www.wpi.edu/~elmer/
Railroads, Ships and Aircraft Homepage, Tom Clancy FAQ Archive
b...@strato.meteo.mcgill.ca
Pacific E8's" thread, the discussion had evolved to one about
Montreal-Ottawa service. I've found out that CP's trains from
Montreal to Ottawa via Vankleek Hill (M&O sub) made their
last run on July 31, 1970. In the period just before their
cancellation, there were two daily trains, named the "Rideau"
and the "Alouette." And yes, the E units were sometimes used
on these trains.
On the same day, CP's Montreal-Ottawa service via Lachute was
cut from 2 to 1 round trip per day. Somebody in that thread
said trains on this route took 2 1/2 to 3 hours. That's an
underestimate. CP RDC's took 3:05 to 3:10 in the early '70s,
and this was up to 3:15 in the trains last days with VIA in
1981. This compares with about 2 hours for either the CP
route via Vankleek Hill or the CN route via Alexandria.
Under Canadian Transport Commission (CTC) regulations
of the time, it was easy to cut service to one train/day,
but harder to eliminate it altogether. Since the Montreal-
Vancouver "The Canadian" ran from Montreal to Ottawa via
Vankleek Hill, all other service on this route could be
eliminated, but since there were no other passenger
trains on the route via Lachute, one train/day had to be kept.
These cuts reduced frequency on all CP passenger routes to
1/day, except for Montreal-Quebec City (3/day) and Montreal
area commuter services.
The E units were also sometimes used on CP's Montreal-Quebec City
trains. At about the time of the above-mentioned cuts, CP
wanted to replace locomotive-hauled trains with RDCs. They
had some trouble getting CTC approval for this change, but it
did happen in the early 1970s.
This left only "The Atlantic Limited" (Saint John-Montreal) and
"The Canadian" (Montreal-Vancouver, with a Toronto-Sudbury section)
as CP locomotive-hauled passenger trains. It seems that the E's were
used fairly regularly on "The Atlantic Limited."
I don't know how often they were used on "The Canadian", but to come
back to one of the questions that started this thread.... VIA
inherited two of CP's three E8A's. They were scrapped after a
few years, but I've come across a picture of the "Canadian" with an
E8A in VIA paint leading an F7B or F9B still in CP paint. So there's
an example of an E and F together on a Canadian train.
Now to the questions at hand...
In article <3i6atg$q...@newsbf02.news.aol.com> blu...@aol.com (BluDru) writes:
>Dear Tom - I've read some of your posts in the past regarding Canadian
>passenger operations and obviously you're very well informed. So, I have a
>couple of questions. Question One: What kind of rolling stock (engines and
>coaches) does VIA currently operate out of Windsor?
Nothing is based in Windsor. All the equipment and crews are based
in Toronto, and trains run from Toronto to Windsor, where they
turn around and come back.
All the locomotives on these trains are F40PH-2's. Most of the trains
are made up of LRC cars, usually 1 club car (numbered in the 3400s)
and N coaches (3300s), where N varies from 2 upward, depending on demand.
One train/day has a baggage car. This is a Budd stainless steel car,
originally built for either Candian Pacific or Union Pacific (I think
it's usually an ex-UP car on this route). This looks a little strange
with the baggage car coupled to the LRC cars, which have a distinctly
lower profile.
The consist with the baggage car actually runs from Montreal to Windsor
and back, with a change of crew and train number in Toronto. It's
Train 57 (Montreal-Toronto) and 75 (Toronto-Windsor) westbound, and
70 (Windsor-Toronto) and 60 (Toronto-Montreal) eastbound. Only the
engine is turned in Windsor, not the whole train. So the baggage car is
usually on the head end westbound, and the tail end eastbound. I have
seen exceptions to this, though.
On busier days of the week or times of the year, when consists are
longer, there aren't enough LRC cars to operate all the trains
in the Quebec-Windsor corridor. So some Toronto-Windsor trains
still use ex-CN steam-heated cars. These are pulled by an F40,
just like the LRC cars. There's also a steam generator unit,
one "Club Galley" car, and N coaches (with N varying, depending
on demand). The coaches were built for CN by Canadian Car and
Foundry in 1954, and now have the VIA paint scheme of blue with
two horizontal yellow stripes. They are numbered in the 5400s to
5600s. Some have had a snack bar added and are renumbered in the
3200s. The club cars were built as diners or parlor cars by
Pullman Standard in 1954, and rebuilt by CN around 1971 (numbered
in the 650s).
There's some semi-regular pattern to which Toronto-Windsor trains
use steam-heated cars on which days, but I don't know what it is.
These steam-heated cars are scheduled to be retired by next year.
VIA is rebuilding 33 Budd stainless coaches, originally built for
several U.S. railways in the 1940s-50s, for use on this route.
They're now being rebuilt with head-end power and interiors
similar to the LRCs, at AMF in Montreal. The first set is supposed
to be ready this year, and all of them by 1996.
>Question Two: From
>1965 to '69 I lived in London,Ontario, and traveled as a kid to Chicago by
>train several times. However, I don't remember which railroad. Did CN, CP,
>and GTW all have service to Chicago?
CP never had tracks running eastward out of Chicago. They now run
freight between Chicago and Detroit on CSX. There was a time when
CP and New York Central jointly ran Toronto-London-Windsor-Detroit-
Chicago passenger trains. I suspect this had ended before 1965,
though I'm not sure. CP ran Toronto-Detroit trains until 1967,
when they were cut back to Toronto-Windsor. These ended altogether
in the early 1970s.
CN and GTW are really the same thing. Canadian National was formed
between 1918 and 1923 by the amalgamation of several insolvent lines,
one of which was the Grand Trunk Railway of Canada. Its main line
had run from Portland ME to Chicago via Montreal and Toronto. After
nationalization, the U.S. parts of the line retained the Grand Trunk
name.
CN was certainly running Toronto-Chicago trains in 1965-69, so that
was probably how you got from London to Chicago. Before nationalization,
the Grand Trunk's premier train was the "International Limited" from
Montreal to Chicago. This was a late afternoon departure from
Montreal, and an overnight train from Toronto to Chicago. This
continued after nationalization. Because of wartime travel demands
and equipment shortages, through Montreal-Chicago service ended in 1939,
and the "International Limited" became separate Montreal-Toronto and
Toronto-Chicago trains, though the same name and number was used on
both parts of the route. The Montreal-Toronto portion of the "International"
lasted until 1965, when service on this route was reorganized and that
name dropped.
The Toronto-Chicago portion of the "International" lasted until 1970,
and a Port Huron-Chicago remnant, shorn of its name, lasted even
longer (probably until Amtrak Day in 1971).
My timetable collection from the late '60s is very sparse (and
anyway, I'm away from home right now), but I believe CN was also
operating a daytime Toronto-Chicago train called the "Maple Leaf"
in that period. I think this probably lasted until the beginning
of Amtrak. In the early days of Amtrak, there was no through
Toronto-Chicago service, and one had to cross the border at
Windsor/Detroit or Sarnia/Port Huron by other means.
All CN's Toronto-Chicago trains stopped in London, where you
could have got on. They operated not via Windsor/Detroit, but via
Sarnia/Port Huron, as the VIA/Amtrak "International" does today.
>And did they all terminate at
>Dearborn Station? I have vague memories of train travel and a station in
>Chicago, and any info you have will help me pinpoint my recollections.
I think GTW used Dearborn Station, but I'm away from most of my
references, so I can't check. Anybody know?
Tom Box
temporarily at b...@strato.meteo.mcgill.ca (until Feb. 25)
permanent address tb...@mta.ca
Bob Niland
>> 1989 and it still had those same trucks. Unfortunately, I believe this
>> car was scrapped just a year or two. What a shame. Now there is only one
>> PB body left in the world.
> I've been told that the last power car (#253) was scrapped.
The "Rio Grande Ski Train" rolling stock still includes a power car.
I'm not a professional train spotter, but in the pictures I took on a
recent ride, I can make out the name "Joseph G. Harris" on the car. It
is in the traditional Rio orange/black, and has 4-wheel trucks.
The power care is distinctly different from the passenger cars on the
ski train. I'm told those cars are Canadian (ex-VIA). The have a
strange appearance, having inside-frame 4-wheel trucks with outside
disc brakes. Who made those? Bombardier?
Regards, 1001-A East Harmony Road
Bob Niland Suite 503
Internet: r...@csn.net Fort Collins
Colorado 80525 USA
b...@strato.meteo.mcgill.ca
>
>The "Rio Grande Ski Train" rolling stock still includes a power car.
>I'm not a professional train spotter, but in the pictures I took on a
>recent ride, I can make out the name "Joseph G. Harris" on the car. It
>is in the traditional Rio orange/black, and has 4-wheel trucks.
>
>The power care is distinctly different from the passenger cars on the
>ski train. I'm told those cars are Canadian (ex-VIA).
Right (so I'm told by usually reliable sources -- I've never been to
Colorado myself). The cars were originally built for Canadian
National. They were known as "Tempo" cars and were used in
southwestern Ontario (Toronto-Windsor and Toronto-Sarnia).
They were built around 1968 (I'm away from home right now and don't
have my references handy, so the date may be off slightly). They
were the first Canadian intercity passenger cars to use head-end
power instead of steam heating, and just about the only new cars
bought by Canadian railways for intercity service between CN and
CP's big orders of 1954-55, and VIA's purchase of the LRCs at the
beginning of the '80s. (Oops, almost forgot about CN's use of the
UAC Turbo.) The Tempo cars were notorious for their rough
ride.
I believe a few Tempo cars are used by a mining company in Havre
St-Pierre in eastern Quebec to transport miners between the town and
the mine site. I also believe VIA still owns a few of these cars,
though they haven't been used in several years.
>The have a
>strange appearance, having inside-frame 4-wheel trucks with outside
>disc brakes. Who made those? Bombardier?
No, I don't think Bombardier was in the railway car business back then.
J.-Armand Bombardier started his company to build snowmobiles. It was
only later that they branched out into other modes of transport. I
believe the Tempo cars were built by Hawker Siddeley. I think that
by then they had acquired Can-Car (Canadian Car and Foundry), so
that's probably where the cars were constructed.
The trucks may have been by Dofasco, but that's just a guess.
Russell Downing
was E-7A's. The E-7's were chosen based upon the good experiance
CB&Q had with this type. It wasn't long however before GN discovered
that they were not a "granger" road, e.g. flat terrain, as was the
CB&Q. Like the SP found out, the E's did not work very well in
the mountians, they tended to cook their traction motors. The GN
next tried using F B units (F-3B I think) with the E-7s in an
E-7A/F-3B/E-7B lashup. However as had been noted, the acceleration
and running characteristics did not match, so GN went to all F units
for the Builder, and many of their other passenger trains. The E-7s,
at least some of them, ended up working the train(s) between Seattle and
Vancouver BC. The SP went to Alco PA/PB units for their passenger
trains that had to climb over mountains, California-Nevada and
California-Portland, The Es were used on their southern routes
(Golden State?)
This information from my memories of reading the Woods book on the GN,
from "Lines East" and "Lines West" and from "Southern Pacific Deiselization"
--russ downing
gbur...@cid.aes.doe.ca
Would venture that to be ofetn or frequently rather than sometimes
in the early seventies at least for #1800. Used on day train
equivalents to "Canadian": stainless baggage-coach-Skydome-
dining car-dome obs(seats sold as parlour car). To meet your MPP
you had to go first class :).
>trains. At about the time of the above-mentioned cuts, CP
>wanted to replace locomotive-hauled trains with RDCs. They
>had some trouble getting CTC approval for this change, but it
>did happen in the early 1970s.
>
>This left only "The Atlantic Limited" (Saint John-Montreal) and
>"The Canadian" (Montreal-Vancouver, with a Toronto-Sudbury section)
>as CP locomotive-hauled passenger trains. It seems that the E's were
>used fairly regularly on "The Atlantic Limited."
>
>I don't know how often they were used on "The Canadian", but to come
>back to one of the questions that started this thread.... VIA
>inherited two of CP's three E8A's. They were scrapped after a
>few years, but I've come across a picture of the "Canadian" with an
>E8A in VIA paint leading an F7B or F9B still in CP paint. So there's
>an example of an E and F together on a Canadian train.
Also have photo, but E8+FP7 on extra long train arriving Quebec for
Winter Carnival weekend. Gearing was mentioned somewhere and must
be a consideration; but when power short... E8+FP7 wud be no pblm for sure
as CP 1400 series FP7s were originally geared for nominal 93mph max
I believe (changed to 66mph when used in freight service as 4000 series).
Only place that could be used(and was!) on the Montreal-Quebec route
was on the speedway near Trois-Rivieres. CPR had F7Bs geared for passenger
service, but by VIA they had been regeared to freight 4400s, 5 of
which did go to VIA. Now then... VIA renumbered them into a 1900
series, the same number series they had as CP passenger Bs.
So, besides thenumbers, was the gearing changed?
[rest deleted, except...]
Yes, GTW did use Dearborn.
--
Gerry Burridge gbur...@cid.aes.doe.ca
Canadian Meteorological Centre Tel.: 514-421-4727
2121 North Service Road - #404 Fax.: 514-421-4679
Dorval, Que. - H9P 1J3