Why would a railroad choose to use a diesel road-switcher instead of a regular switcher on a local run? In other words, besides road-switchers having more horsepower, can a diesel switcher do the same job? Let’s say using a Baldwin VO-1000 on a 40 mile run for a local train as opposed to using a GP7.
There would be a number of reasons. Switchers usually had low speed trucks with solid bearings in the early days. They were generally geared for 20-25 mph. Pulling power and ruling grades would also dictate power. Economies of fuel usage would also dictate a road switcher. A low geared engine would use more fuel for a long run at speed. Comfort of the crew would be another consideration.
Then there are whole short line rail roads that only used switchers for the whole road.
I am sure there are more.
Pete
I grew up watching the Minneapolis Northfield and Southern run 1 or 2 freights a day past my house using VO-660/1000’s and FM H-10-44/H-12-44 switchers, occassionally throwing in a road switcher - Baldwin DRS 6-6-1500 No. 15. Later when they were all retired or sold off, they went to back to back EMD SW-1200 / SW-1500 switchers. I’ve seen pics of “mainline” trains with four of the EMD switchers all together.
I imagine the trip from Northfield thru Richfield to south Minneapolis would be about 40 miles.
As I recall the FM’s were pretty heavy and could haul a pretty hefty train, going backwards or forwards (as the “high line” branch only had a run-around track, no turntable or wye at the end).
You know I never even thought about the obvious speed issue. I would guess a freight railroad and its local customers wouldn’t exactly want to operate a leisurely, sightseeing transportation system. Anyway thanks for the info.
Really the customer wouldn’t really care how fast the train goes.
On the other hand the dispatcher would be HIGHLY interested if you had a speed restricted engine tooling along 80 miles of main track (40 out, 40 back). Haveing a local out there messing around is bad enough, having a SLOW local is worse.
Switchers also do not have toilet. Switchers may not have cab signals. Switchers may not have MU so they may have to operate singly. Switchers weigh less and have less hp so less tractive effort. Also a switcher going one way or the other offers the crew no grade crossing protection (running cab end first) and may not have a speed recorder.
On the MP only the major switching yards used switchers, all the secondary yards and locals used GP’s of some ilk (GP7, 9, 18, 15, 28, 38).
Dave beat me too it on the toilet facilities, Not to mention as an engineer in the day I would rather have the RS. Not for all that was mentioned but for the old weight on drivers. More pay for more weight!
The DS also would prefer you make track speed.Not to mention the guy running behind you lol.
A lot of railroads used switchers on branch lines…Even today there are short lines that use switch engines as there only road power…The NYC would use a GP7/SW7 unit consist on some locals.
The SW1000,SW1500,MP15DC,MP15AC are capable of being used on the road just like a road unit.
Then how about the Pittsburg & Shawmut?
How about the Union RR?
You see unlike model railroaders railroads has a tenancy to use locomotives as they see fit with apologies to no one.
For the same reason I prefer a bunch of trees 100 yards away from a campground served by an outhouse at a National Forest campground, I’d prefer a wide-mouthed jar over a toilet in a locomotive.
Mark
On smaller railroads or branchlines, speed wouldn’t be that big a factor. On the MNS line I mentioned, I doubt trains were normally going more than 10-15 MPH. There were a lot of grade crossing to whistle for, plus the track wasn’t all that great, lots of ups and downs and side to side rolling.
Remember steam engines didn’t have toilets either; for many roads in the forties I think the savings of maintenance costs for diesel vs. steam was the key factor, not crew comfort. If the crews never had an onboard facility, they weren’t going to miss it. Plus at the time they started buying diesels like their VO series engines in 1940-41, the only road switcher was the RS-1. By the time GP7’s came along in 1949, the MNS had enough diesels that they dropped their last steam engine soon after.
Besides for the MNS these were relatively short trips, plus if need be the track went by several spots they could stop (gas stations, bowling alleys etc.). The crew regularly stopped at the end of the line at a couple of businesses (Model Stone Co., lumber yards, LeJeune Steel) and walked over to Diamond Lake Lanes to eat lunch. I can remember c.1962 the crew coming in to eat just as I was leaving with my Mom from her Thursday morning ladies bowling league. Even though they ran diesels, they still dressed like steam crews with hickory stripe bib overalls and gauntlet gloves etc.
Never said they couldn’t use switchers, the OP wanted reasons why a railroad would choose a road switcher over a switch engine. I gave him reasons. He can choose whatever power he likes, just as the real railroads chose the power they used.
Hello “upjake,”
Sometimes it wasn’t a case of choosing road swichers over end-cab switchers for local freights, but of using the diesels that were available. For one example, in the late 1940s the Union Pacific dieselized some of its local freights in Southern California with EMD NW2 1000-hp switch engines. This preceeded the UP’s first GP7s, which didn’t arrive until 1953, and the railroad had very few road switchers at the time.
So long,
Andy
Hi Dave;
The New Haven ordered EMD SW 1200’s with flexicoil trucks that could be used in mainline freights, branchline or yard work. My understanding is there weight was actually about the same as a GEEP. I’ve seen them MUed on the mainline, but I’ve never seen them in the lead (maybe the ole toilet issue)?
Den.
Add Apalachicola Northern to your list. They used to run 100+ car coal trains out of Port St. Joe, Florida with a combination of GP15-T’s and SW1500’s. John Timm
Remember steam engines didn’t have toilets either;
no but they had a scoop shovel and a firebox. you figure it out.
grizlump
Actually I ask my grandfather that question.
First he just looked at me and finally said and I never will for get it"Boy,we use to coal pile for #1 and the nearest brushes for #2"…“Now get along outside and stop asking foolish questions.”
LOL Brakie! Hilarious. I have heard the number one for the coal pile and number 2 for the scoop.But wow I wouldnt want to use it afterwards!
Reason I used the toilet analogy is certain roads had union rules for it. I prefer being able to stop somewhere that has a gas station or fast food nearby lol.Hey I need a snack .Plus I worked the service track I see how the laborers clean.
Actually, the MP15’s are road versions of the SW1500. Longer frame to use the Blumberg road truck, and I think a larger fuel tank. And I think the AC had a toilet too.
Deciding factors between an S/SW and RS/GP for the railroad would have to be speed and unit availability. For the union / railroader it would be toilet and ride quality (and pay based on unit weight). The additional horsepower, if any, in a RS/GP would go to speed not tonnage.
There are several shortlines / company roads that ordered nothing but SW’s and some even had dynamic brakes on their SW’s.
Phil
Carefull with that statement there guy. You named one, but Baldwin VO-1000’s, EMD NW2’s, and Faribanks-Morse H10-44’s were all 1000 hp switchers that were running in the same time period as Alco RS1’s, a 1000hp road switcher. Those are just ones I know for sure, I don’t how much power the Lima switchers had, I think Baldwin actually had a couple 1000hp models, and I’m not sure what Alco had in there switchers. Modern day you’d be right though, although they are starting to come out with 2000hp switchers using gen sets (multi smaller diesels hooked up to individual generators instead of one big diesel hooked up to one big generator).
As for switchers having power…CN used a WC SW1500 (I think #1538), an EMD unit with 1500 horses, and it was hauling away 26 cars. Being the direction it was coming from (away from the industrial district) and the way it was going (back to the yard) and knowing the industry it was switching at (Sannimax) every car was mostly likely full. It was mostly made up of PS2-CD 4750 hoppers and 20 000 galon series tank cars, but it also had a few box cars which were most likely empties from the home supply or Sanny, and about a dozen gondolas from the scrap yard, also presumed loaded. The crew guy checking his list looked at me kind of funny when I started talking about how amazing it was seeing a switcher handle all that.
I remember reading somewhere that one reason they didn’t use switchers back in time on longer runs was because they didn’t have full facilities aboard. And I just don’t think a crew member would want to stand at the edge of the foot sill with his zipper down and suddenly come upon a grade crossing at 25mph. It would funny for everyone else, but not to him. I couldn’t understand it, none of the cabeese I’ve been in have had toilets. I might have been in one that had a hole cut in the floor and a barrel missing both ends to sit on, but nothing mor
Keep in mind too that back c.1941 the term and concept of a “road switcher” was not generally known…in fact I’m not sure the term even existed. To a steam railroad buying their first diesels in those early days, the difference between a switcher and road-switcher wouldn’t really be apparent to their people. Heck, GN bought some EMD switchers back then to use on local passenger trains !!
Alco “RS” (Road Switcher) designations were done sort of retroactively, their official model designations back in the day started with “DL” for Diesel Locomotive, like the DL-701 which is more commonly known as the RS-11.
The Ma&Pa bought 4 switchers in late 40’s early 50’s - SW1, 2 NW2s, SW9 for their 77 mile short line. The shorter length was an asset on a road noted for having many curves. On occasion they pulled the passenger train until it was discontinued. Speed was not an issue - it already was scheduled for 4 hours before the diesels came.
With the coming of these diesels they started to retire their steam locomotives, the last ones going in 1956.
Enjoy
Paul