Many sources I have read cite Alco’s RS1 as the first road switcher. The first were turned out in 3/41.
Essentially an extension of the S2, it rode on road trucks.
The NW3 was first built on 11/39. An extension of the NW2, it also rode on road trucks.
So, since the NW3 was designed for road service, is it the first road switcher? Or does lack of a short hood give the honor to the RS1? I’m curious about your opinion.
A recent isse of CLASSIC TRAINS indicated that the NW-3 was indeed the first road-switcher, with the RS1 the first long production run road-switcher, since less than 10 NW-3’s were built. The article was primarily concerned with the GP-7 and GP-9 whch transitioned North American railroading to the road-switcher car-bidy design, outselling all other road-switchers combined.
Dave, that CT article was what prompted this thread. I have seen multiple sources citing the RS-1, and only two (that and the DSG) citing the NW-3.
Then you have all the information possible . NW-3 ws definitely the first, but the RS-1 the firt really successful.
What constitutes a road switcher?
It should have road trucks, provision for a steam generator and enough power for a small branch line train.
We seem to have overlooked the NW-4 built August 1938 (more than a year before the NW-3) using equipment salvaged from the two E unit prototypes 511 and 512, becoming Missouri Pacific 4102 and 4103.
They used the trucks from 511 and 512, and each unit had a single 12 cylinder 201A (possibly new or a replacement engine used later in the prototypes’ life) and one generator as used in 511 and 512.
The carbody was new, a stretched NW on a longer frame. The hood wasn’t widened around the cab to accommodate the steam generator as on the later NW-3.
M636C
I stand corrected, NW-4, MP, by all means.
This isn’t that much different than asking what was the first diesel locomotive since it can be contingent on whether it was experimental or a production model, was it commercially successful, etc. The NW4 may have been the first road-switcher but a sidebar in Classic Trains implies that it was a one-off production to use up parts salvaged from EMD 511 and 512.
Stilll, it was successful. The first really successful, serial production, was the RS-1.
CN Rail called them “visibility locomotives” as they offered the crew a clear view in both directions, but they we’re essentially road switchers built in the late 1920s and early thirties. These were the first to depart from the then standard box cab construction.
Regardless of it being a two-off, I think that the NW-4 gets it, as it was the first to have the important characteristics of road trucks and sufficient power for branch service.
Ulrich, the CN Westinghouse Visibility Cab rode on switcher trucks, and was 400HP, disqualifying it here.
There’s some debate that none of these truly qualify due to having 1,000 HP or less. There’s a line of thought that it really was the 1,500-1,750 HP range postwar that were the first true road switchers.
This is interesting, as these all are extensions of switchers, not purposefully designed for road service. In that case, Alco’s RS-2 would be the first, although it is following the precedent of the RS-1. There is still considerable murkiness, although using the explicit switcher-designed-for-road-service definition, these still qualify…
Doesn’t a road locomotive need a toilet, either on account of FRA or Union rules? Not that you want to use the toilet, on some roads, owing to its state of maintenance, but I thought that a locomotive taken outside of yard limits had to have a toilet?
I don’t recall any steam locomotives I have seen with toilets, so this may have been less of a concern in the 1940s.
I was expecting someone to say this…
But what if there was a prewar locomotive with these characteristics? Say an NW-3 fitted with a 16-567?
In fact there was, the model TR-1, dating from April 1941, so pre-WWII.
The TR-1 was a set of FT equipment installed in a stretched NW-3 body, with a bar coupled cabless booster, just like the FT booster. Two sets were built and they spent twenty years in major Illinois Central yards.
But if anyone wanted one, the TR-1 cab unit kept the NW-3 space for a steam generator and used Blomberg road trucks. The TR-1 might not have had the best gear ratio for road service. But the design was there, it was the market for road switchers of that power that didn’t exist in 1941.
But the TR-1 cab unit had all the features that made the RS-2 a success later. Nobody wanted one, not even as a very heavy switcher (except IC, of course, and they made do with twelve cylinder cow and calf sets after trying the TR-1).
M636C
Certainly all valid points and I don’t disagree.
I think 1500HP IS too high as a threshhold for a road-switcher. Recall that the TA for RI was a road passenger locomotive with only 1200HP I think 1000HP should be the threshhold, so that all the RS-1’s that went to Iran during WWII can be included.
When all is said and done I think we’ve got to give the RS-1 credit for being the first “Here they are railroad men! Come and get 'em!” off- the- shelf- sell- over- the- counter road switcher.
Certainly EMD had the NW4, but according to Classic Trains’ big Geep issue EMD never really pursued the market agressively at that time. Why would they? They were making and selling FT’s as fast as they could. Why compete with yourself, especially with a model that would sell for less than the FT?
Of course by 1949 things had changed, and EMD saw the market for road switchers was a strong one. Hence, the Geeps.
You know, the Geep gets the credit (or the blame) for being the diesel that really killed steam. In a real sense, it killed the diesel cab units as well.
You know, they HAD to put toilets in the road switchers and other road diesels. What was the head end crew supposed to do with no more coal pile to, uh, you get the picture?
The TA powered very short and light streamliners. I don’t think anyone in this debate over the years would ever claim that 1000 or 1200 HP can’t be useful in certain road applications.
But 1500 HP is getting to the point where a locomotive can truly be useful in most any heavy road applications rather than relegated to the lightweight tasks that things like RS1’s were typically assigned. 1000 HP is just too small of a building block for road assignments and very few would ever think of assigning something like 8 RS1’s at the front of a train.
There’s certainly exceptions, but usually when you saw a RS1 on most lines beyond a handful like the M&StL, it usually was more switcher than road where assignments were concerned. Just not enough horsepower there. It was more useful to keep RS1’s on lighter duties like branch lines and heavy switching assignments (In an era where less than 1000 HP wasn’t uncommon for switchers) and let more powerful power handle road assignments.
Thus why some think 1500 HP was the magic threshold and an important characteristic to consider when determining what the first true road switcher was. That’s the point where power truly became universal and could be assigned to most any assignment out there (short of the tightest terminal trackage) which of course is what the very term road switcher means.
One thing to note is that the RS-1 and NW-3 were marketed primarily as passenger switchers, not road switchers. I’ll post more tomorrow, got to run!