[ POLL ] Which front-end design of EMD E series do you prefer?

Classic Trains General Discussion
1

Which front-end design of EMD E series do you prefer?
I created a straw poll for this topic:

https://www.strawpoll.me/16534066

I am not a huge friend of diesel engines but when people are reading America’s railroad history or collecting models, it is impossible to ignore the development of diesel engine in the States. Some Class I railroad like B&O made their decision to dieselize their prime trains as early as 1937, many smaller scale railroads also followed. I don’t know if EMD conducted any survey on this topic before they “improved” the design for their E8 or not, so I think why not create a poll to see what our forum member think! please feel free to participate the poll and share your thought here! You could also link this post or the poll page to other appropriate platform like yahoo group or Facebook so that more railfan could express their view via polling. Thank you!

I personally prefer EMC E1 and E6’s slant nose design to the bulldog nose design, but my favortie diesel were those early one like E1, E2, M-10000 series.

(Slant Nose, E3, EMD Demonstrator 822)

2

The E6’s were the first of the ‘Production’ E units. EA’s through E5’s were specialized products for their owners with similarities, but a great number of differences.

The E6’s rakish nose was similar to it’s predecessors however it was found to be more expensive to produce than the ‘bulldog’ nose that was introduced on the E7’s. The E8’s & E9’s were visually so similar it is difficult to separate them - only their horsepower knows.

3

There was a little known third option. Drawings were prepared of the Burlington E-5s with the classic Zephyr shovelnose. I don’t know how seriously it was considered. The drawing was reproduced on a website perporting to show the “Siiver Charger” from the General Pershing Zephyr, but the two 12-567s tended to give away the mistake.

While the slanting nose was elegant, the actual geometry of the nose was the same in each version. One reason the nose looks so good is that it is a solid of revolution of a shape made up of two radii, large in the centre and small at the sides.

So a section through the vertical portion of the nose and the horizontal portion, normal to the surface, is the same. The guys in GM styling did a really good job in 1937…

So for the FT, the section was just rotated a few more degrees to give the steeper nose. Of course, the theeoretical shape was converted into steel dies in a press and the dies didn’t have to change between the two nose angles.

The adoption of the steeper nose by the E7 gave more space for equipment in the engine room.

A much more significant change is represented by the E8. About the only thing in common with the earlier locomotives was that they had two 12 cylinder engines.Even the engines were arranged differently in the body.

The only people who ever rebuilt a 201A powered E unit to 567 power were Southern Pacific, who rebuilt their E2A from the 1937 City of San Francisco into a slightly odd E7. EMD kept the trucks, motors and generators from their trade-ins and built new E8s around them.

Incidentally, the reason that E9s were more powerful than E8s was because they had bigger generators, the D15 in the E8 being limited to 1125 HP.

The old EMDs looked nice but were maintenance intensive with mechanical fan drives and more complex radiator arrangements. UP even rebuilt every last E7 as an E9, and not because they wanted a consistent looking fleet.

If I had to run a service, giv

4

I have heard that another reason for the nose’s redesign was the potential for collision debris to ride up the slant nose and then through the windshields in a reversed anti-climber effect.

If I’m running one I’ll take the safer option: the vertical nosed F-unit style cab. And if I’m maintaining one you can’t beat the 567C engine for reliability.

The E9 wins on both counts in my view.

5

None. Or pass. They all stink, literally.

6

I would still like for someone to explain why the “bulldog” moniker was hung on these engines? They look nothing like a “bulldog” just as a Baldwin “Shark” looks nothing like a shark!

7

Just as a bulldog has a shorter nose than, say, retriever, the FT and later locomotives have a shorter nose than the EA to to E6 series locomotives. The E6 doesn’t really look like a retriever and the E9 doesn’t look like a bulldog, it is just a relative thing.

I believe the strange snub nose cab fitted to the ATSF boxcabs 1 and 1A was referred to as a bulldog nose. The name may have been transferred to the more common FT later.

Peter

8

Thank you for the informative respond, Peter. Burlington’s E-5s were some really good looking diesel with a lot of extra details compared to other RRs diesel. I love how they wanted to put a Zephyr front end on the nose of their E-5s, including the windows on the Zephyr:

9

I would go with the bulldog nose if the choice is limited to EMD designs. I will concede that the styling was good, but actually producing one was tedious and expensive.

10

The reason I picked EMD’s E series is that they were no doubt an icon of America’s Railroad History, it’s like when a railfan from the States thinking about Asia, things come to his mind, beside Sushi, Mount Fuji and temples, would include a Shinkansen 0 series.

I personally prefer FM Erie-built and Alco PAs to EMD’s diesels and I really like the “nose” design of UP/GM’s steam turbine engine of 1938. Unfortunately these engines were not successful.

Btw If our forum member don’t want to place your vote on “straw poll” [tup] https://www.strawpoll.me/16534066 which is a widely used and safe polling platform, please feel free to express your thought here. [#welcome]

From facebook.

11

I vote for the Bulldog nose of the F units. But as cool as they look, I can see why the greater visilbity of the Roadswitcher units caught on. Outside of EMD, I’d vote for Fairbanks Morse. I don’t believe I have ever seen either in road service. If I’ve ever seen an F unit in road service, it probably wasn’t the lead unit.

12

[tup] Thank you for your participation! By the way, I want to thank you Trains.com’s management for providing some awesome classic train’s photo album like this: http://ctr.trains.com/railroad-reference/great-passenger-trains/2016/11/union-pacific-gallery

M-10003, M-10004, M-10005, and M-10006 ‘s “automobile-design” elevated cab was so amazing. I should have added this on the poll…… I really like this shot: http://ctr.trains.com/~/media/images/railroad-reference/great-limiteds-online/2016/11/161108/gp1611084.jpg?mw=750

Fairbanks Morse of MILW had some very attractive decorative elements on her front end:

13

My favorite nose design is of the 8,500HP UP “Big Blows”.

Yeah, I know I have weird tastes…

14

Then I have weird tastes too. [(-D] I think the nose design of UP “Big Blows” was an improved version of Alco PA, with a much higher profile than PA. The Union Pacific winged logos made the front end of her looked even better, good-looking enough to power passenger train, though the speed limit and noise problem didn’t allow her hauling UP’s prime trains! She is not my favorite but on my top-3 list since the first time I saw her pic!

(wiki)

15

I certainly love the C,B&Q E-5 Stainless Beauties. However, In MY era, I liked the rebuilt E-6’s on the B&O. Still had the classic nose, but with updated side panels. I loved those “V” shaped spark arrestors on all eight stacks! When those were inside a tain shed, idling, a bit of steam leaking out, BEAUTIFUL!!! Some had the “Capitol Dome” logo, and some had the “Sunrise” logo. To see those in Grand Central Station in Chicago, it was a once or twice a day thing. Usually that station was empty, I remember the bums sleeping on the benches in the waiting room. Nobody seemed to kick them out, they did no harm, the place was basically a shelter for those guys. So, G.C. was torn down 1970, The property sat vacant for about 25 years. I think there are “High-End” Condominiums going up there now.

I miss old Dearborn Too… Something about those old wooden platforms, and kerosene lamps… Just had that “Railroad Atmosphere”. Last train left there April 30, 1971.

That being said, In more recent era, ( 1970’s), I kind of liked the Amtrak SDP-40-F’s. In the original paint scheme. I HATE the F-40-PH’s though!!! I think they have found their true calling as a silent baggage car…

Todd

16

I did reply on this, it will be on an earlier post. I think Kalmbach needs to organize these threads a bit better…

Todd

17

The GE and Alco flatnoses tended to similar appearances because they were designed by the same person. For a slightly different appearance, consider the World Locomotive: http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/showPicture.aspx?id=1737698

18

I showed the pictures to Lady Firestorm, an expert on and afficionado of all things Art Deco, Moderne, and streamline, and she prefers the pre-war slant nose. I concur.

That is, if it HAS to be a diesel. She feels as I do, “Steam rules, diesels suck!”

And she’s in full agreement with Miningman!

19

There was a Trans article during the DPM era written by Louis A Marre (a professor of English) which had a fairly sad title:

“Where are the Noses of Yesteryear, or Can You Tell Me How Long the Train’s been Wrong”. I’m sure may readers can recall the actual book titles misquoted here.

It was an excellent article, listing every E unit with the early nose design and its subsequent history. At the time of publication, I think Santa Fe still had the E-6s in service.

Peter

20

Thank you very much, Peter! This is a very important info for me since I am really interested in this topic! I don’t know what the thought of Louis A Marre was in detail since I haven’t read the article yet, and I hope I can find it. About the “Slant Nose” design of EMC/EMD E series got “Chopped” for cost saving and standardization of parts and production processes, I assume he prefer earlier designs to E7’s nose design like me, jugding by the title of his article.

I think the bulldog nose design on E7.8.9 looked decent but I am sure it wasn’t the most interesting and attractive one.