Why did Pennsylvania roads like the Montour, the Cambria & Indiana and the Pittsburg and Shamut run multiple unit switchers on their road trains? My first thought would be lower axle loading on lighter rail or bridges but I stand to be corrected. Did they run units in the middle or the end of the trains also? Was this a carryover from steam days with smaller locos too?
Has anyone modeled such an operation in the diesel era? The thought of four or five EMD switchers running a long coal train on a layout with sound sounds intriging.
Most EMD switchers like the SW7/9/1200 weigh in at about 120-124 tons - about the same as road units in the 50’s when they were built. I suspect that a lot of local switch jobs made switchers popular, and with MU capability - they could be used on short road runs as well(as long as stopping for bathroom breaks did not affect the schedule).
Now I’m no expert, and I myself stand for corrections and education, but one of my friends volunteered at the local railway museum, and I learned that switchers have a switch so that the engineer can either run the traction motors in series or parallel. One mode gives much higher torque, at the expense of top speed, and the other vice-versa. Now I could see the benefits of being able to switch modes as needed, but I am unsure of two things:
Was this possible to do remotely in all units, or did the crew have to do this manually in each unit?
And do road switchers have the same ability?
Also, I may be mistaken, but I would expect switchers were less expensive than road units back then.
Jim,You have much to learn about every day railroading…[(-D]
We relived ourselves behind bushes,between the cars etc…We seldom used the engine or caboose toilet .The engine toilet because 90% of the time it was dirty and smelly [xx(] and the caboose because of the lingering smell.
Railroading back then wasn’t for the 9-5 typer or the 7-3 factory worker that expected all the human comforts those jobs offers…In fact it was a very harsh and hard job.
I worked on the railroad back in the late 60’s. At 50-60 mph, the toilet in the engine was the only option(especially in MN/WI winters). Being in a road pool, I did not have the ‘whiskers’ to hold a local job where you could stop for lunch or to use the outdoor facilities. I remember Milw crews with 3-4 SW1’s in MU stopping for lunch or whatever. The conductor even followed along in his car so they could have transportation at the remote terminal. Us CB&Q guys just picked up the next road freight and got it up to track speed as fast as possible. Once, we had to wait at Prescott, WI for EB traffic - the dispatcher let us go to breakfast at 7 AM as there was no WB traffic behind us. We had a U30B with rather poor cab heaters - it was nice to get inside an warm up!
One thing about working the extra board is you never know what your next call would be…Like you I never had the whiskers to hold a permanent spot but,was fortunate enough to work urban locals on the PRR and mine runs on the Chessie-until I was bump(Fred was starting to steal jobs) and had to qualify for the Cincinnati Division road pool.I knew then the end was near because there wasn’t that many trains using that division IIRC around 14 a day…
"When the Montour RR was ready to make the move to diesel electric locomotives, I was told they studied both EMD GP models and EMD SW models. The decision to stick with SW models was the Montour needed tractive effort for the constant problem of having to start most tonnage trains on a steep gradient. Even though this really doesn’t make much sense spending more for less, but the decision was to purchase more locomotives instead of more horsepower.
Leaving Montour #10…Montour #4 and Westland required starting trains from a dead stop. Having extra locomotives on hand also gave the railroad a extra locomotive to cycle through the shop for maintenance or breakdown without hampering the ability to keep necessary service provided. After steam operations ended on the Montour, helper service that was often used with steam, came to a end. Originally, from what I have seen in photos, most early SW-9 consists were 2 or 3 unit consists that was eventually expanded to 4 unit SW-9 consists. Listening to a 3 or 4 unit consist of SW-9’s dragging a full tonnage train upgrade was wonderful. I made many tape recordings of Montour RR SW-9s doing such. A 4 unit consist of SW-9’s was nearing the point of tonnage/tractive effort vs. capabilities of car couplers on gradients with tonnage trains. Montour SW-9s were geared 65:12 for 55 M.P.H. and inside the cab, the control switch was kept on switching vs road. When you throttled up on a Montour SW-9, the locomotive was pulling immediately without load buildup. Extreme caution was necessary with 4 SW-9’s that each weighed in at or around 245,000 pounds, when starting trains so you didn’t tear the train apart. The SW-9’s were rough riding, noisy, dirty, and terribly loud.
Simply put, Montour RR SW-9s were tough little motors that could do the job.
G.P.S.
I know that when the Missabe first bought diesels in 1953, their first order was for EMD switchers. Apparently they weren’t that happy with them on road trains. According to Frank King, someone said “you know, if we were buying steam engines, we’d get the biggest they had” and they then began to order SD-9s for ore train service.
The Montour RR of western PA was famous for running road trains behind strings of EMD SW-9 switchers purchased in the 1950s, but the reason may not be solely a mechanical one (if at all).
Reportedly management recognized that due to EMD pricing structures it was cheaper to buy horsepower in switcher form than in road engine form, so they just bought more switchers. Because the suspensions were typically less forgiving than those on road engines (among other reasons), this was not a popular approach on most other railroads.