First off… why? What practical purpose does a smaller size locomotive serve, versus using a standard chassis and body designed with less horsepower? In other words… why not have high and low horsepower versions of the same locomotive, rather than have completely different designs?
Secondly… where do you find most modern diesel switchers? Yard duty? Dedicated to a particular industry (coal mine, quarry, industrial park, etc)? or just whereever they’re needed?
And third… what horsepower are most switchers rated at? I know the earlier models probably had lower ratings, but what were SW1000’s up to SW1500’s and MP15’s rated at? How many loaded cars could you reasonably expect them to pull?
Oh, and for any CSX buffs out there, anybody know where I could see switchers in Georgia?
I’m afraid that I can’t really answer your first two questions. I can partly answer question three.
Most of the time, the early diesels were given names that corresponded to the amount of HP that they had. Baldwin VO-660s and 1000s were rated at 660 and 1000 HP, respectively. Alco HH300s, 600s, 660s, and 1000s would therefore put out 300, 600, 660, and 1000 of HP. The SW1000s and 1500s should be rated at 1000 and 1500 HP. Not sure about the MP15 but probably 1500 HP, as well.
Having the cab on the end (with no “nose”) gives the engineer better visibility on the end of the loco. Switchers usually don’t need to carry as much fuel, so tanks can be smaller/shorter. Some industries and shops need loco’s with smaller clearances to get in and out. Switchers often, especially before the '50’s, served industrial trackage with tight turns, and longer engines couldn’t take the sharp turns.
Generally, yes to all of the above.
1000, 1500, and 1500, respectively. About tonnage ratings, I’d guess 20-30 cars each would be about right.
Not a fan of CSX myself, even though I will be seeing them a lot after my upcoming move to Winder. Maybe someone else has suggestions?
Where do you live, maybe we can get together sometime, send me an email.
Why pay for a SD80mac with low horsepower when you can have a small switcher with the same low horsepower for lower cost. you wont waste steel and resources to uild big things when you can build small things with the same HP, just my thought
Why pay for a SD80mac with low horsepower when you can have a small switcher with the same low horsepower for lower cost. you wont waste steel and resources to uild big things when you can build small things with the same HP, just my thought
Switchers are well-adapted for their environment… Low-height hoods permits better visibility in all directions, crucial for manpower-intensive operations such as shunting cars. Their 4-axle configuration also works best on branch lines where there are sharp curves and poor track conditions that might derail heavy 6-axle road locomotives. That’s why it doesn’t make sense to build a switcher out of a 6-axle heavy road-diesel locomotive chassis such as an SD90MAC.
It is also an issue with fuel economy… You don’t need a locomotive with a fuel-guzzling turbocharged 16-cylinder 3000HP engine to shunt one or two cars at a time.
Switchers can be found in yards and in short-haul local service that involves shunting cars onto destination sidings.
To make a 70’ engine w/ the power of a 35’ switcher means you’re paying for tons of material and many many man-hours of production time that isn’t necessary, to say nothing of the cost of dragging that unneeded wieght around for the 30-40 year life expectancy of the engine. That said, nowadays most yard jobs are handled by demoted road power, sometimes regeared for lower speeds. Back when specialized switchers were the norm they were geared for a top speed of around 35 MPH which was why they ccould move an entire train on the flat of a yard that might have required 4 units to get over the road. I been on jobs (frequently) where the switcher was at full throttle and a switchman could bail off and run ahead to line a switch and wait there for the engine to catch up with him.
Actually, one of the reasons the early three-axle-truck road switchers like the SD-7 and SD-9 were purchased was because they could operate on lighter rail as might be found on a branch. The six axles of the two trucks spread the weight of the locomotive over a wider area.
There are two large CSX yards in Atlanta, one on the northwest side of town and the other next to the East MARTA line between Decatur and Downtown Atlanta. Check out a good area map. Unfortunately, neither has easy and safe access for photography, especially in this day and age of tight security. Goggle CSX Photos or Railroad Photos. There are a ton of sites out there.
Actually LongIandTom, Norfolk Southern regularly uses 3000 horsepower SD40-2’s in switcher service, less the turbocharger. There are a bunch (is that a prototype railroad term) of them, along with GP38-2,s, assigned to the Gainesville, Georgia yard which services several Feed Mills, Cargill Food and a variety of other industries up and down the line.
Was it Railfan and Railroad that had a small article recently about switchers?? Anyway, the article pointed out that there haven’t been any new switchers made since the early seventies, and that it will be interesting to see if railroads will start to order new switchers when the current ones are retired, or if they’ll ‘make do’ with something else.
I suppose with diesels it was partly a carryover from steam. At slow speeds you didn’t need a pilot axle to navigate points (in fact it could be one more thing that could derail) so many early switchers were 2-6-0 or 2-8-0 engines with the pony truck removed. Later, builders started making switch engines like 0-6-0’s and 0-8-0’s. At slow speeds, you could also use sharper curves, so it also favored the smaller engines.
SD40-2’s less the turbocharger, what does that mean? An SD40-2 that has been de-rated by removing the turbocharger?
If that’s the case, it ain’t an SD40-2 any longer! [:p]
IIRC, the normally-aspirated (non-turbo) version of the SD40-2 16-cylinder prime mover generates only a bit over 2000hp (which is what I think the SD38-2 is).
Where did you “find” this info? I wasn’t aware that NS de-turbo’d anything, since these units could be called up for road duty if needed. I’ve seen that happen in Gainesvile late one night, when a train had a malfunctioning “motor” (loco), and needed to swap some power. 15 minutes later and they were back on the road.
BTW, where do you live, we can get together sometime. Email me if interested.
More horsepower is necessary to move a given tonnage at road speeds. Since nothing is moving very fast in a yard, less hp is needed to move that tonnage around within yard limits. This is a reason why slugs are more likely to be found in yards, they provide additional low-speed tractive effort.
Some railroads used switchers in mainline service. The Montour RR (no longer in operation) used their SW7s and '9s on coal trains here in SW PA. The SWs were well suited to the light rail and curves of the lines.
To explain why a railroad needs different-size locos with different characteristics, let’s compare the operation of a small-scale motor-vehicle-oriented distributor:
Say you have a warehouse in a seaport city that deals in buckets of sand from some middle-eastern country. The sand arrives by ship, in buckets. All you have to do is get them to the customers.
For in-town deliveries, you would want to use a pickup, or a small panel van. Only a few buckets at a time, and the vehicle is well suited to the frequent stops and generally low speed of in-town driving.
Some of the buckets have to go to a couple of towns a few miles down a country road. For this service, a 24 foot bobtail, 2-3 ton capacity, is the best compromise between over the road speed and frequent stops to make deliveries.
A thousand buckets have to go to another distributor several states away. They leave in a box trailer behind a freeway-capable tractor, ready to add to the stream of 18-wheelers that really should be piggybacked.
Now substitute car for bucket, yard switcher for pickup truck, road switcher for bobtail and your favorite 6-axle superpower for freeway-capable tractor and you should have the picture. 18-wheelers don’t make good delivery trucks, and pickups aren’t practical for handling maximum-tonnage loads to interstate distances on a freeway. The same reasoning applies to SD70MAC’s and SW1500’s.
Plenty of short lines used switching engines for road engines–many used diminuitive things like General Electric 44-tonners or EMD SW1s for mainline freight service where runs and trains were short.
Another advantage to small diesels is that they can be linked together for more power: MU four 1500-HP locomotives together and you have what is effectively a 6000-HP locomotive with a single crew, but if all you need is one 1500 HP locomotive for a smaller job, you can save yourself three-quarters of the fuel and maintenance costs.
There are new (well, technically refurbed old chassis, but effectively new) switchers being made: the “Green Goat” line of hybrid diesel-electrics.
Industries sometimes need something with just enough muscle to shuffle a couple of cars around. A small industrial switcher is ideal for this, and doesn’t break the bank: depending on the size of the industry, a B-B switcher of various sorts, on down to tiny four-wheel switchers like the GE 25-tonners or, more recently, small Trackmobiles that can pull a car or two and have ground wheels that allow them to run on or off the rails. If you’re an industry that only has to shuffle a car or two, why buy something the size of a road engine with an underpowered motor when a tiny industrial switcher will do the job in a fraction of the space and cost?
“Was it Railfan and Railroad that had a small article recently about switchers?? Anyway, the article pointed out that there haven’t been any new switchers made since the early seventies, and that it will be interesting to see if railroads will start to order new switchers when the current ones are retired, or if they’ll ‘make do’ with something else.”
I doubt it since it’s not true.
EMD built SW-1001, MP-15AC, MP-15DC and MP-15Ts into the late eighties.
