I just bought a recent book on the Illinois Terminal. As an aside, Ed if you are reading, I can’t wait to lend it to you. It might be the best book I have ever seen. It has as many photos as any “picture book” but has more than enough literary content to be considered a first-class regular book with heavy intellectual content.
Anyway, there is an interesting comment about MUed power on the IT. The IT initially bought some ALCO power to replace some of the electric and steam power on the line. Later, the IT bought five or six Geeps and 12 SW-1200s (very interesting locomotives, by the way).
At first, the IT attempted to MU the Geeps to the ALCOs, but found that the Geeps ended up “pulling” the ALCO, which caused the ALCO to overheart.
(1) Why would “pulling” the ALCO cause the ALCO to overheat.
(2) I was unaware that ALCOs could not be MUed to Geeps. I have seem countless videos of RS-2/3s MUed to 2 and 3 Axle GE/EMD power. Does anyone know why this might be the case on the IT?
(3) Anyone with familiarity with the IT knows it had some extremely amusing engine lashups. It was very common to see two Geeps, B-unit covered wagons, and SW-1200/1500 in the same consist. How is it that the Geep would be pulling the ALCO, but not the SW-1200?
Outside of the fact that the Illinois Terminal is my favorite road, I have bought many a book on other roads and the IT book I think you are referring to is “The Illinois Terminal: The Road Of Personalized Services” by Dale Jenkins and this has to be one of the best organized and illustrated books on a railroad topic I have read in some time. It has some of the most amusing stories as well. One of my favorites is the chalked inscription on the RF&P F7A control stand-“passing gear.” George Kemtz pulled four points on the throttle out of curiosity and found out the meaning of it when he set a speed record on the IC main.
That makes no sense to me either; being “pulled” should make no difference on cooling (the only possibility is if the ‘pulled’ unit had it’s radiator grille on the front and was facing forward, then the unit in front of it might affect the airflow to the radiator).
As far as I know, all diesel-electric locomotives in the US are electrically mu-able. However, I used to run into some air brake incompatabilities when mixing Alco, GE, EMD, and Fairbanks together.
The CNW & MILW used to have similar consists back in the 70’s. Having 8 units looked impressive, but when 2 of them are shut down, 2 won’t make transition, and 2 overheat, the power is less-than-impressive for the train crew.
Did it specifically state that it was the engine itself that overheated, or could it have been the drive system? (sort of the way dynamic brakes cause heat)
So now you know there is a lot more to terminal roads than first glance exposes…
Pretty neat places, huh?
Have no real clue why “pulling” an Alco would over heat the diesel…might cause enough back EMF to heat up traction motors, but most of those have cooling blowers, so…
Bet Randy S has the answer.
Will stop by Walden books and see if they can get the books for me, sounds like a good read.
Oh, and I think I know why steam locomotive don’t have the wipers…even today, they use an old school system, vacuum piston wipers, just like on your old 49 Buick…and they get the vacuum from the intake manifold on the diesel…for the life of me, I can’t think of a vacuum source on a steam locomotive…sure there is one, just can think of it!
If the Alco was shut down or in idle, then it was being ‘pulled’; if the Alco was generating traction power, then it was contributing to the pulling effort of the entire consist, and as such, should have not overheating issues whatsoever, unless it has similar issues at other times as well, in which case means it has nothing to do with it’s position or operational status.
I’ve never worked on a locomotive in my life, but have commissioned some pretty unusual stuff out of Antigates’ workshop. And the thing that occurs to me is the fields in the generator.
if the alco is “slower” at the same throttle position, then the traction motors are being pulled, and are generating current
So the current feedback from the traction motor to the field of the generator cooks the field windings.
And, once the enamel has been burnt through in even a tiny spot, that’s all it takes to raise an ark.
Zardoz, not all of them can be M.U.ed. Baldwin used a different system (IIRC it was air) to control the throttle and other equipment. On the ADBF we have a pair of ex GTW GP-9s that have a air operated reveser and 4 ex PRR GP-9s that have electric reversers, the air acts NOW while the electric takes about 3-5 seconds.
Cant wait to read it. When you coming north? Got a couple of books for you too. Unfortunately, I have only one (1) IT photo in my collection. But, got the Moody’s now, just full of great IT stuff such as bond descriptions, financials, corporate histories, etc.
Ed: Terminal railroads are very interesting. Locally we have the IHB and the EJE which one would consider terminal roads. The J has the USX steel mill as a backdrop…what I would give to get into Kirk Yard with a camera. Also, the BRC in Chicago.
I would think the Antigatesworkshop would be quite the place.
MU problem could have been due to MU recepticles not being wired exactly the same. Todays recepticles contain 27 pins and per AAR standards each pin is the same function on each road. AAR set the standard in the late '60’s IIRC because there was so many problems trying to run power thru. UP for example used two recepticles, a 12 pin and 21 pin.
At Silvis there used to be a collection of jumper cables that were cross wired for use with EL (one end would be painted grey) and cables with one head for the RI end and leading to two heads for the UP end.
I remember the old heads saying that ALCO and EMD could not be MU’d when the RI dieselized and that the RI quickly rewired the ALCO’s MU recepticles.
One note, while todays MU is 27 pins, most roads do not use all 27.
Sounds like a mistake in the text . the only things that will cause a locomotive to over heat is too little cooling air , too little water circulation, or hot oil due to overwork/over loading.
RR Boomer is right , MU recepticles were not all the same in the early days of diesels. There may have been a problem MUing the ALCo 's with the EMDs as the ALCo used a 16 pin recepticle.
I think the ALCo’s had 16 throttle positions like the GE’s with 1/2 notches.
One point, the IT’s Alcos were models S-2 and RS-1. there could be gear ratio problems, also do the S-2s have traction motor blowers? What about transition?
What you describe sounds like a common-sense approach; in fact I used to think the same way. However, in this instance, it is the wrong approach. The ‘slower’ unit is pulled to some extent, but the slower unit is still generating tractive effort (ammeter will show amperage being directed towards the traction motors). The smaller amount of tractive effort generated by the ‘slower’ unit is still added to the cumulative effort of all units in the consist.
If the tractive effort was not cumulative, then no railroad would ever MU any locomotives for power that did not have nearly identical power ratings.
What is interesting to consider as an alternate chapter to the story are the many other proposals that did not take place as a result of the dieselization survey. One was to mu the electrics to the diesels but this was considered to be impractical but of course the the same was then accomplished on the Milwaukee Road on the West Coast Extension. Another was to alter the EMD design to allow operation of the motive power on overhead while passing through towns. Would have made for some interesting photographs…The decision to dieselize the electric division on the heels of the steam division, I think was the major nail that sealed the IT coffin. Despite efforts to quiet their operation, the advent of the diesels led to costly and slow operations via trackage rights due to the noise objections raised by townsfolk.
Town folk are silly. I always find the objection of noise to be silly. What is the addition of four or five freight trains a day as compared to over-the-road trucks, etc.
Now, if they were objecting on the basis that the trains were carrying tank cars that had a history of exploding on the IT just several feet from the front door of various homes, I could understand that . . .
I think it’s more of a good example of psychology than anything else. No one ever voiced any objections to long freights rumbling down the streets when they received in return, a very good public utility in passenger service on those same tracks. I don’t think its coincidental that pulling of passenger service and the advent of diesel power resulted in …public indignity…most of the noise one would think is in the 100+ freight cars rather than the comparitively quick passage of the motive power…freight cars sound the same regardless of whether they are pulled by electric or diesel…IT certainly tried to mollify the objections through modifying lights and horns, but I think the noise issue was a red herring.
Milwaukee’s “MUing” the Little Joes and diesels isn’t quite what you think. The shops installed a second throttle in the cab of the Joe. The engineer would control the train primarily with the electric, but if conditions required additional power the second throttle was advanced and that one controlled the diesels. The electric always had to lead.
Clinchfield did much the same with the 4-6-0 they used on fan trips. They installed a diesel throttle in the steamer’s cab and “MUed” two F7Bs behind the tender.
PRR had the E44 and E44a locomotives set up to MU with diesels. There were some issues with the mismatch in the number of throttle positions, and the electric always had to be in the lead. There are a few photographs of an occasion when the ability was used. At least once a major derailment required freights from Pot Yard to be rerouted via Hagerstown. At least one of these had an E44 leading borrowed diesels. The E44 was needed for the cab signals and the diesels for the power since the Cumberland Valley line was not electrified