Was anyone else not surprised that the SD40-2 was chosen as one of the 10 locomotives that changed railroading? It is rather versatile.
Having begun my railroad career right after the SD40-2 was introduced, and actually worked on them and run them, I’m mystified how the SD40-2 changed railroading. It was a good locomotive, sure, but it didn’t change the way we ran the railroad, or make a fundamental change in the economics of railroading, or enable us to run heavier trains, or longer trains, or faster trains.
If the criteria is a locomotive that changed railroading, then my quick-and-dirty list would be:
-
Richard Trevethick’s first steam locomotive – it replaced horses, mules, oxen, manpower, and gravity.
-
The 4-4-0 – I agree with Trains on this one.
-
The 2-8-0 hog of 1880. It doubled the size of freight trains in one fell swoop
-
The compound Mallet. It doubled the size of freight trains again.
-
The EMD and Alco diesel switch engines of the late 1930s. Dramatically reduced yard engine and labor costs. Solved the urban smoke ordinance problem. Worked 24-7-365.
-
The FT - Dramatically reduced labor costs and eliminated all the expense for water service, non-revenue coal transportation, ash handling, etc. Enabled much heavier trains. Eliminated a lot of helper districts and their considerable costs.
-
The RS2-3/GP7: Enabled consists to be matched to the need of the train, not the need of the locomotive. Enabled railroads to construct standardized road locomotive fleets instead of all the specialized inflexible stuff like F-units.
-
The SD70MAC/AC4400W: Enabled trains to grown 50% heavier again. Eliminated more helper districts.
I’m one of those unreconstructed, cynical railroaders who considers locomotives a means to an end, and the end is moving freight for a profit, so my list might vary from yours.
Note I left Superpower steam off. I don’t see how it changed railroading. Looked nice, and saved some money for the mechanical department, but it didn’t
no surprise here here, last summer saw them storm thru rochelle,il on both bnsf , up rrs. In tolono,il. saw the 40s on both ns ,cn rrs. 3 weeks ago saw csx 40s at folkston,ga. thundering thru. Last monday watched 3 flordia east coast, 40s lashed up hauling a intermodal of 170 pigs n containers thru st. augustine,fla.They just keep running and running and running…[8D]
The success of the SD-40 has virtually eliminated the production of 4 axle engines for road use. Prior to the SD-40 many roads considered 6 axle engines too hard on track to use anywhere but in designated heavy duty service. Now, the 6 axle engine is that standard road power and 4 axles are becoming harder and harder to find.
I see GP35s and/or GP40s through my city all the time on UP. At least I’m pretty sure they had four axles. Either way, you’re right, they are pretty rare on road traffic. There are still a trio of GP38s that switch my local NS yard, including a high-hood. Nothing says American to me quite like a high-hood Geep in black and white.
Can anybody explain why, according to the article, the Alco RS1 was in production from March, 1941 through 1960? Wouldn’t other models have eclipsed them in value and cost effectiveness?
According to “The Second Diesel Spotters Guide”, the RS-1 was produced from March, 1941 through March, 1960. The final domestic RS-1s were two units built for the GTW in October, 1957. Remaining production over the last two and a half years went to Mexico.
I would guess the RS-1’s longevity can be attributed to its 1000 hp 6-cylinder 539 engine.
I was suprised to see the RS1 on the list, let alone its production span. They did say it was the first road-switcher, however. Maybe some smaller lines bought it for many years because it worked well overseas. But in terms of value, I thought the GP7 and GP9 would severly overshadow most of the Alco products. By the way, was the RS1 turbocharged?
Wouldn’t EMD have had a similar, and probably all-around better, 1,000 h.p. switcher?
Yes, EMD had several switcher models in that horsepower range. However, remember the RS-1 was a roadswitcher. 1000 hp roadswitchers were kind of a “nich” market on the low end of power scale that EMD didn’t really exploit after the late 40s. Alco kept the RS-1 around for a long time to satisfy that market.
Most Railroads were satisfied with the 1000hp Alco Switchers, the last two for GTW were bought as passenger switchers, the short hood end contained a small steam generator. The only RS-1s built after 1953 were the two GTW locomotives, 1 for Genesee & Wyoming, 4 for Soo Line, and 42 for the Mexican railroad NdeM. The Soo Line locomotives were built in 1954, and the G&W locomotive in 1955.
The RS 1 was the first road switcher, according to the criteria set forth in the article it was a loco that changed railroading. Using their reasoning the GP-7 should not be on the list as it is only EMDs version of the same thing, it came later and changed nothing.
Chris
The RS1 had a turbo. It was also given C trucks and sent overseas during WWII. The ones that were built were taken by the Army to go over to Iran.
The GP7 pretty much killed off the F-unit. Same guts, but in a far more useful body arrangment. Set the pattern for most power since then. Many are still at work. Alco had many engine-related problems with the 244 block. The 539 seemed to top out at 1000 hp.
The builder’s plate on GTW 1951 (the latter of their two) read November 1957. That locomotive, by the way, is at the Illinois Railway Museum (don’t know if it still has the builder’s plate, though). The carbody style was slightly different from other RS-1s. Offhand, I couldn’t tell you when the last domestic RS-1s before the two GTW units were produced–C&O got a couple in late 1953, also for use as passenger switchers.
I was surprised to see the SD40-2 selected. What did it change? Sure, they made over 4000 of 'em, and from all accounts they are a good engine…but what changed in railroading because of it’s introduction?
4-4-0: A no brainer. Probably the most popular wheel arrangement ever in the US. Most every road had them, and had them in abundance. It made it possible to run a railroad that wasn’t built to extremely high standards (compared to it’s original contemporaries).
RS-1: Another no brainer. As the first roadswitcher ever, it is the basis for thousands of following loco designs like the RS-2, RS-3, GP7, GP9, etc.
FT: Yet another obvious choice. The “steam assassin” as they said in the article.
The above are ones that Trains mag and I totally agree on. The next few are questionable…
4-6-2: Okay, I can get the idea…but the 4-4-2 Atlantic was first. The addition of a trailing truck to support a wide & deep firebox was a huge improvement in steam loco design. It allowed for more steaming capacity which translated into heavier, longer, and faster trains. The Pacific was just a refinement of the Atlantic.
U25B: Well, I can sort of see this. It introduced GE into the mainline loco market, killed off a dying Alco, and eventually ousted EMD as the No. 1 loco maker. But what did it change in railroading? IMHO, the “-7” series introducing solid state electronics was more important, or even the"-8" series that introduced CPU’s into locomotives. About the only difference between a U25B and an Alco was the prime mover.
The others on the list I disagree with:
2-8-4: I’m like “Railway Man” on this one. Sure, it was a great improvement in loco efficiency, but what did it change? Trains didn’t get any longer or faster.
While I certainly can’t disagree with what Paul or RWM have said about bad choices or better choices and why, I just thought I’d rationalize a little on some of the choices made, now that I’ve gotten my issue in the mail.
The GP7 “changed the face of railroading” (quoting from the intro to the piece) by bringing a design that over the next ten years would become pretty commonplace on virtually every major railroad (in the form of GP9s, 18s, and 20s as well). It wasn’t the first road switcher, but it was as distinctive to the late 1950s as the FT’s nose was to railroading in the 1940s.
4-6-2: Didn’t change much, except that it offered a locomotive design that was distinctively for passenger operation (as opposed to a 4-4-0, which was used for everythging). But then, why didn’t we go for the 2-8-0 as a distinctively freight locomotive from about the same time? And Paul’s right–a 4-4-2 would have been a better choice, even with this line of thinking.
SD40-2: The electronics in the Dash 2 line were revolutionary when they were introduced, and perhaps worthy of mention in that they made diesels significantly easier to maintain (after years of becoming progressively more complicated, and before AC power made them more complicated again). So it was a better choice than the Dash 7s, which came about five years later, or the GP40-2, which did the same thing but wasn’t nearly as widespread.
My January issue just arrived today. A subscriber could, in the past, count on Trains to be very accurate. Not any more.
Check page 36 which is part of their “10 Locomotives That Changed Railroading” effort.
They say that EMD delivered its FT’s as articulated A-B sets. Nope, Didn’t happen. The A-B sets had drawbars between 'em, but they weren’t articulated. Come on guys.
Then they have a photo caption on the same page saying “A quartet of Santa Fe FT’s blast through Chillicothe, Ill., in 1959.” In 1959 Chillicothe was a crew change point so the train would have been stopping to change crews not “blasting” though town. I think they just made up the caption. Please, guys, don’t make things up and try to sell them to us.
In past years we never would have seen errors like this.
I don’t know where to start with the misinformation provided by Lorie L. West on page 22. But I’ll try to figure out a beginning point after dinner. Let’s just say the easiest way for a journalist to slant a story is to leave things out. I know they’ve got space constraints, but if they can’t tell a story accurately, they should refrain from telling it inaccurately.
EDIT: After further reading I find that Lorie L. West is a new intern. I’ll send her an email, but I’ll calm down.
I haven’t read Phillips yet - one can only take so much at one sitting.
Admitting that TRAINS list was subjective, how else could it be, my initial thought was that the Challenger did not change railroading. I concur with RWM 2-8-0 was much more significant and should have been included, probably in place of Challenger and Berksire both.
The Pacific is to me just a 4-6-0 with a trailing truck, not a streched atlantic. They should have stressed the trailing truck which was a big deal, Pacifics, and Mikes were mainline standard power on many roads for many years and precursor to two alxe trailing types as well. I agree with the Pacific on that basis, not what Trains cited.
Mac
I’m with you on the ES44. It’s way too early in its career to find out if it really has changed railroading. If this is the case, though, why not include the ACe as well? Aren’t they basically the same thing?
And the best SD40-2’s had bells on their noses.