I have seen pictures and even a video of E7s and E8s in the late 1960s hauling freight trains at high speed (60 to 70 mph). Looked impressive! SCL and Penn Central were well known for this. Apparently the passenger gear ratios allowed the higher speeds.
Recently one of you posted that there were problems with E units hauling freight. What were they?
It would seem that for hotshot, high speed freight the E units would fit the bill nicely. Of course during the late 1960s the SD40s and SD45s were being introduced and offered serious muscle.
During the power-short days of the CNW ('70’s), on the weekends the CNW would take the locomotives off of the suburban trains that parked at Des Plaines (usually F7’s but the occasional E8), and use them on a Chicago-to-Milwaukee freight. I never had a chance to operate these units on a freight train, but considering how much the E8’s slip in suburban service trying to get out of town, I can just imagine how much fun they would be on a train with any real tonnage.
Heck i remember a late pennsy pic of a RSD pullin a dead b unit (but with a boiler) on a passenger train. I dont remember the caption, but it was something like “last resort”.
I like the pics of the SF F45s and intermodals, and I bet an e unit would look pretty sweet pullin containers at speed too.
Suggest you to to www.railpictures.net and use their search feature to look for “Super C” and I would bet you will find your pictures of F45 units and/or FP45’s pulling containers on that train.
Some western roads used E units in freight, too. With the decline in passenger services, they had surplus fleets of E units, might as well use them for a while and defer buying new power if there are level districts suitable for their application. There were lots of photos made in 1970-1971 of 5 or 6 unit lash-ups of E units on freight:
UP used them KC - Denver, CoB - North Platte, Hinkle - Portland in the early 70s. (Before Amtrak, mixed trains Pocatello - Twin Falls, Hinkle - Spokane and KC - Denver used them too.)
Seaboard Coast Line ran E units on high speed freights but not very long as they either traded them in or sold them to Amtrak by 1971. Based on what you’ve stated it made sense that E units could haul freight in Florida since the majority of the grades on the mainlines down here are gentle.
BTW: It was on a Santa Fe Subjects website where the author made the comment that the 20 cylinder diesel engines in the SD45 ( and the cowls) consumed a lot of fuel and that the 16 cylinder SD40 and later SD40-2 proved to be much more efficient maintenance wise.
Rob, thanks and good to know. I model in HO scale and since I have E units and am modeling the late 60s, I’d like to be able to justify them hauling freight occasionally. [;)]
Do you have web addresses of the pictures of E units at the head of freight trains?
Some slight modifications – zardoz, I invite your confirmation:
a diesel does NOT achieve its best fuel efficiency ‘at or near its maximum speed’ – it does so at or near its torque peak, which is usually nowhere near the maximum governed speed of the engine. Remember that hp increases above the torque peak, but you’ll burn more fuel per hp/hr to get that hp, and the amount will probably be proportional to the way the torque curve drops off peak to governed maximum speed (think of that as a kind of ‘redline’ in gas-engine terms)
if you fitted E-units with the sophisticated wheelslip and microslipping systems common today, they’d be much more suited for some freight uses. Put AC drives in them and they’d be even more suited. But these things cost money, and that money would be arguably much better spent on alternative types of locomotive with more income-generating potential than… well, a long, restricted-view locomotive with two ancient prime movers that uses only 2/3 its mass for adhesion.
Yes, you get better speed out of the high gearing but dramatically limit ease of operation when MUed with lower-geared units. The Fast Forties were a more ‘practical’ foray into specialized high-geared power – note how quickly they disappeared when sheer speed was no longer important… and how they did not reappear when times improved.
Meanwhile, there’s another, and I think more significant, fly in the ointment. By the time you’re talking practical intermodal freight at high speeds, you have (say) 60 to 80 cars’ worth of containers or TOFC – with all the associated drag. 2400hp units on four motored axles are just not competent to take something like this over one of the logical high-speed routes where this kind of operation would pay. Speaking of rocket boosters, a similar analogy here: By the time you get enough E units, the added mass of the E units themselves starts increasing the train resistance enough to require more…
The E unit was a terrible frieght engine ! As Zardoz stated before the wheel slip problem was enough to rule out these engines for the most part. The E units had less than 100 % of their weight on drivers, only 4 traction motors. Each prime mover is identical to an SW 1200, 1 E-8 = 2 sw 1200s especially in fuel consumption.
Randy
Hey Randy – you would know Zardoz, you too. What were the weight-transfer characteristics of the swing-hanger Blombergs on E units – did aspects of the design or the implementation allow equalization, frame tilt, etc. to unload the leading powered axles of the trucks on acceleration? Were any attempts (meaningful or not) made to alleviate this problem, for example on commuter units?
There were no attempts to correct torsion effects on the 6 axle blomberg trucks. The pinion end of the traction motor would always either lift or depress. A dual pinion motor would have neatly solved that however there would bee little room left for a traction motor of any size.
Randy
Junctionfan: LOTS of freight trains were pulled by GG1s. In fact, quite a few of the Gs had freight gearing.
Now, what was rare was a freight with THREE of them – right on the limit of what a substation could deliver, I think. Never saw one with four, but it would have been interesting…
Randy: Thanks! And that wasn’t even the effect I was thinking of, which was the longitudinal unloading of the truck on acceleration (cf. the various ZWT truck designs)!
I was just about to ask what is an E-Unit? I drove down to Jacksonsille, FL over the weekend for the GA/FL game and I stopped to look at a parked train on the way back. In Fort Valley, GA on one of the sidings is a train that is parked for the weekend. It has about twenty cars and three engines. One is a UP, the next NREX, and the last one NS.
The NREX unit is number 8251. It was solid grey. It also had the words “E-UNIT DO NOT OCCUPY” on the windows of each door to the cab. I don’t have a clue what this engine used to be, and I was hoping to find out online, but nobody lists it on their NREX rosters.
I have pictures and I will try to get them online tommorow.
I think what you saw was a “B” unit , unfit for occupation whether it be lack of cab equipment , FRA glazing or what not. It can ONLY be used as a trailing unit. E units don’t regularly wonder around on freight trains these days unless it’s mine LOL !!
Randy
Overmod, - I appreciate your confidence in me, but you are getting into more technical aspects than i was educated in.
However, having said that, there was a definite difference in the wheel slip tendencies bewtween the front and rear trucks. The front truck slipped far more than the rear, at least when going forward. I do not know if this was due to weight transfer upon acceleration, or due to the front wheels being exposed to slightly more debris and oil on the rail.
Regarding the modifications suggested, even with fancy wheel-slip systems, and even if you put AC motors on them, you’d still have a locomotive that has fifty year old structural components, power contactors, wiring, etc. The CNW once had to retire a Suburban E unit because the frame cracked about mid-point.
One positive thing about the E units: they had the best ride of any locomotive I was ever on, smooth and relatively quiet (for it’s time) except for the exhaust of the 24RL brake valve. They even had real good cab heaters and window defrosters.
In your statement about fuel efficiency, specifically referring to SD45s, as we were, have you taken into account the EMD turbo which is gear driven up to about notch 7. When the turbo “runs away”, the power used up to that point to drive it becomes available for the alternator, and on EMD specific fuel economy curves this shows up as an intersection of two different curves.
So, in the case of the SD45, which Mark was discussing, the maximum fuel economy does occur at 900 rpm in notch 8. This is due to the specific design of the 645E3, and doesn’t affect your assertion in general about maximum torque.
I was disappointed not to have got a response from you on my provisional identification of the photo in the Cummins book as the interior of the Auxiliary Baggage Mail car of the Denver Zephyr, back in the “most powerful US loco” thread!