Can any one tell me why the CGW used the term “Motor” in their train orders instead of the word “engine”. I have some CGW orders that state NO 5 motor 150 take siding at (location) and meet Extra – North.
Ed Burns
Sounds British to me…same reason given as to why the did left hand instead of right hand running. Aside from the obvious to distinguish between diesel and steam…did they have duplicate numbers?
Engine meant a steam locomotive and motor a diesel or oil or gas or electric locomotive. Many railroads used this differentiation, and a few have kept it.
That’s what made the “Great Wheaties” such an interesting railroad.
The term ‘motor’ has been used by several railroads. The CB&Q also used the term motor’ to describe their diesel-electric locomotives. I suspect it came from the ‘motor cars’(doodlebugs) that proceeded them in service. It only took a couple of days working for the ‘Q’ to realize they had ‘motors & waycars’, not ‘diesels and cabooses’!
Jim
In december of 1965, I rode SAL #6 from Birmingham to Monroe, N. C. WHile we were stopped in Athens, Ga., I walked up to the engine, and talked briefly with the engineer–who spoke highly of the new motors that the SAL had bought, including the one he was running. He offered to let me ride the engine, but I declined, not knowing if I would have time to go back to the coach at the next stop.
I have a CGW Rule Book from 1954. In the section on definitions, most books have the definition for an Engine. The CGW has a definition for an Engine-Motor. The forms of train orders use Motor in place of engine; “Motor 191 run extra …” So while others may use the term “motor” in a more casual way, the CGW sanctioned their use in an official way.
In all other respects, such as the rules referencing the employees running the motors, the term enginemen is used.
Jeff
If I remember correctly, informally both NYC, PRR, MLW, referred to electric engines as motors but not diesels.
Another note is that some roads use the term “motor car” for track car, so would not use the term “motor” for diesel or electric so as not to cause confusion.
I worked for the NYC and our mechanical department called the diesel
engine, inside the locomotive, the “oil engine” I guess as opposed to
the locos traction “motors”. As previously stated, our electric locos
were called “motors”.
In the latter years all CGW passenger trains were single diesel-electric doodlebugs or a doodlebug followed by a single coach and like many other roads the CGW designated these as “motors”. Train No. 5 was such a doodlebug which ran between Minneapolis and Kansas City. Their other passenger service consisted of similar trains which ran between Chicago and Olwein and between Minneapolis ahnd Omaha. Train orders identified these by train and doodlebug number, e.g. No.5 Motor 150. Freight trains powered by conventional diesel-electric locomotives were designated in train orders by Train No. (or Extra) and lead engine number, e.g. No. 23 Engine 3105.
The public timetables of many railroads designated doodlebug trains as “Motors” to differentiate them from conventional passenger trains.
Mark
Except Motor 150 wasn’t a doodlebug. It was an EMD F-3A unit. My limited material shows the doodlebugs in the 1000 series. Has I posted earlier, they used the term motor in their train orders because their rule book sanctioned the use of that.
I found a train order in my collection from the Fort Dodge, Des Moines & Southern Ry. They had been an electric interurban operation until 1954/55. After that they had dieselized, mostly with 70 ton GE end cab switchers. The order I found was from 1958 and addressed to, “C&M Motor 403.” It was a s
In that case I stand corrected, I was going from memory which, in my case at least, is not always an infallable source of information.
Mark