Besides all of their other “attributes”, the ALCo RS (road switcher) locomotives had a low long hood in relation to the cab, so they were true road switchers inasmuch as it least seems that the operator can see out in both directions, in steeple-cab fashion.
Did ALCo/MLW put the low long-hood feature to good use in coming up with the original LRC locomotives. These diesel electrics weren’t as light weight as originally expected, but they had a low profile matching the low profile LRC coaches. VIA has replaced their aging MLW LRC locomotives with Genesis units, which are fairly low profile as far as a GE offering goes.
At the speeds they operate, the goofy look of a Genesis pulling a string of LRC cars is probably not big deal in aerodynamics, but still it is dramatic how much the height of a Genesis diesel sticks out above the LRC cars – it looks like a teacher leading a kindergarden class on a field trip?
Was there something special about the ALCo diesel engine that they could get such a low long-hood height of the RS locomotives and a low carbody for the LRC? All other diesel locomotives appear to be getting taller and taller – do they even meet Plate C anymore?
EMD had a low long hood on all their end-cab switchers too.
I don’t think GE has ever made FDL powered units with a low long hood, though the Cooper-Bessemer powered 70-tonners fit this description.
The Genesis was designed to fit the restricted clearances on Amtrak’s northeast corridor, and does so quite well. No need for it to be any smaller.
On all the freight cowl units there is some space left between the top of the engine and the roof, but the frame could always be redesigned to sink the engine into it, kind of like a intermodal well car. I have no idea what strategy was used on the LRC to achieve the lower profile.
We should have bought HSTs instead. It’s pretty embarrassing that we somehow managed to beat British Rail in the unreliability contest.
Visibility forward ‘over’ the long hood at least on the RS2/3 was not that great; there were two little windows that in my brief experience on one were used to observe the stack from the running positions – they were perfectly oriented for that. It does not seem to me that subsequent long hoods were any lower.
Perhaps the more interesting low-profile high-speed locomotive was the one from FM – getting that engine into a low-profile carbody, with the large radiators for high heat rejection at high horsepower, was an achievement! Interestingly I have never heard horror stories about them: they seem to have failed because their trains did, not because they did not run as expected.
Dave Goding will be the definitive reference on how to lower an engine in either a freight or passenger frame – I suspect that the EMD proposals to line up with Amcoach profile were a good example. I would at least try to do this with an integral sled (or sled mounts) with the traction alternator tightly integrated and room left to make the whole shebang isolated. The question then is, with the prime mover dropped, where you accommodate the fuel system…
I’d be interested to read a discussion of how the LRC locomotives should have been designed, including how to fit a suitable 251 into them. Of course I’d be even more interested in why a top-and-tail power-car arrangement comparable to the HST’s was never used on this equipment… it’s not as if there were some barrier between Britain and Canada in those years; look at the wonders Hawker-Siddeley produced on demand. Was it that nobody really wanted to pay for the inherent speed?
The LRC was originally intended to operate at 125 mph, just like the HST. But the weight of the locomotives grew significantly throughout the design process, so this could not be achieved on the existing track. So we ended up with a expensive new train whose top speed was barely higher than the existing equipment.
The LRC was also intended to be run as sets with a locomotive on each end, and they sometimes were. This is pure speculation, but I suspect that the lower top speed and shorter trains meant that only one locomotive ended up being needed to make the schedule, only 100 LRC cars were built and VIA continued to use conventional equipment on most longer trains.
If you want to make a reliable LRC I would start by removing the 251 and replacing it with a Valenta.
No need for speculation: a given consist that requires 2 locomotives to ‘just’ make 125mph will get to 100 with one, and of course if even that speed isn’t needed, more cars might be added in proportion to the lower speed…
Acceleration is also a factor, and with longer distances between stations timekeeping might be possible even with relatively low speed recovery from stops and checks.
EMD is very experienced at creating low profile locos for export use where clearance requirements are restrictive. Typically, this involves a fish-belly underframe design where the bottom plate is not continuous as on newer NA freight locos but dropped between the trucks like a GP7/9/30 in order to recess the engine and alternator. Starting with the GP35, EMD adopted a constant section height underframe that really simplified its construction with the engine feet sitting 1" above top of underframe. IIRC, for maintenance of the engine, the engine crankshaft could be no lower than 7.62" above the top of underframe in order to access the fork rod basket to pull a power assembly. The engine feet are 18.5" below the crank centerline, so on NA locos from GP35 thru the 70 series, the crank is 19.5" above top of underframe. The NA exhaust stack or silencer is about 30" above the
Southern Railway locomotives set up to run long hood forward - the long hood was the designated FRONT of the unit - did not have dual control stands. When running backwards (short hood forward) the
When GP-7 and GP-9 locomotives started production, on some roads they were the locomotives that replaced steam - as such long hood forward was viewed as proper since steam engineers had their forward vision compromized by the length of the boiler on steam locomotives.
I may be mistaken but I think GP-30’s were the first locomotives that were produced with the low short hood being forward as the ‘standard’ production version.
Visibility while operating long hood forward wasn’t that different than from the cab of a steam locomotive, consider the visibility from the cab of UP 4014.
Some of it depended on how sharp your curves were.
I can still remember watching from the cab of a 3-unit set of Alco RSDs on CNJ out of Wilkes-Barre – run long-hood-forward. You could see pretty well what was coming up on many of the curves across the track; I don’t recall them calling any signals but with both sides watching it would be hard to miss one.
With a single man on the engine this would be more of a problem.
Not saying it isn’t miserable for the Engineer - just saying railroad equipment moving at track speed cannot get stopped within line of sight when operating at Main Track track speeds.
Well, it’s one thing to hit the car on the grade crossing at 20 mph because you couldn’t fully stop. It’s something else to hit the car at 55 because you never saw it until the last few second.
In many locations - despite optimum vision from the locomotive - road crossings and other collision situations may not be visible until the ‘last second’.
While I don’t have statistics, being struck by a train at 20 MPH is only slightly less deadly than being strck at 55 MPH. There have been many deadly incidents where train speeds have been 20 MPH and less at time of impact.
Pictures of the GP7 demostrator show it was set up for short hood forward. There were railroads that did order some, if not all there early geeps long hood forward.
I think it was the GP18 and GP20 (and probably their SD counterparts) that had the low nose option.
The low short hood doesn’t really give better visibility for some things. You will lose sight of anything at ground level at the same distance whether it’s a low or high short hood. The hood just isn’t short enough. It does however, give visibility of wayside signals up until you are almost past them.
The first low nose GP was a GP-9 for a copper mine railroad. The low nose was for the purpose of being able to see back over the train during the loading process. The first railroad production GP-9 with a low nose were a group of the last GP-9s ordered by the SP.