An ABBA question for Geezer

The BL2 was a hack job. It was basically a truss-framed 'F' unit with the upper corners of the frame truss cut away to improve visibility from the cab. The result was improved visibility as desired, but a weakened structure that had problems. The much shallower truss was not up to the heavy forces imposed by multiple unit operation. Note, however, that 'BL' stands for Branch Line ... the units were never intended for heavy duty MU operation.

It was a significant design, however, for it, together with the GN's NW-5s and the Alco RS-1s were the ancestors of the modern road switcher.

Dan Mitchell ==========

Raildavid wrote:

Jim:

Check on Fritz Milhaupt's comments on the C&O BL-2s. They had substantial frame problems, even when quite new. It didn't get better with age.

I quote from his post:

"The C&O had repeated problems with cracked frames on the BL2s it MU'ed with other locomotives, and like other roads that MU'ed them, got into the habit of patching and welding the cracks as they were discovered. One of its BL2s, #84, spent its last three years in the backshop in Wyoming, Michigan, donating parts for other units after its frame cracked beyond the ability of the welding shop to repair it."

This was NOT a genral problem with "F" units. The BL-2 was really not designed for such service. Some railroads, as you suggest, seem to have gotten away with it, but others not. One can always push one's luck ... but how far?

Dan Mitchell ==========

Jim Bernier wrote:

construction?

Untrue.

When the Santa Fe built their CF-7's, they had to build a new frame. Trade in F's were not rebuilt. certain components, most notably trucks and tracctiuon motors did find their way under new units (resulting in anamolies like the Soo Line GP-30's on Alco AAR trucks.)

GP's are built on a frame. F units are lighter, and use a truss arrangement. Imagine a truss bridge hanging between the two trucks and you'll have an idea of how the covered wagons worked.

Don

-- snipped-for-privacy@prodigy.net

snipped-for-privacy@yahoogroups.com moderator: snipped-for-privacy@yahoogroups.com co-moderator: snipped-for-privacy@Yahoogroups.com

Most BL-2's COULD be Mu'd. the only major problem in MUing locomotives occured when different control systems were used, for example Baldwin used a different system (I believe it was pneumatic rather than electric) thus couldn't run with other manufacturer's locomotives. It had nothing to do with the frames.

The only reason some BL-2's could not MU is because the owners ordered them that way.

Don

-- snipped-for-privacy@prodigy.net

snipped-for-privacy@yahoogroups.com moderator: snipped-for-privacy@yahoogroups.com co-moderator: snipped-for-privacy@Yahoogroups.com

Yeh, they have a sort of ugly charm to them. I have a soft spot for them, since this was the first loco I ever got a cab ride in. My dad was a railfan, and he got me a ride one time when we were visiting the C&O facility at Plymouth, MI., ca. 1949-50. Just a short hop from a roundhouse stall, out onto the turntable, spin around, then go to the fuel/sand track. I was only about seven or eight at the time, but it made a lasting impression!

I saw them a lot more in later years, until they all went to the happy hunting ground.

Dan Mitchell ==========

Jim Bernier wrote:

connections, but not the

hardware installed

why it has been

of 'fuss' over a

was basically a

connections.

there is no

often repeated

switcher, for

the future.

Oh yes they were! Santa Fe was an early proponent of the cowl, purely for aesthetics. The FP45 was designed on their behalf, since they wanted something that "looked" more streamlined and eye-pleasing on a passenger train like the El Cap than say, for instance, an SDP35. Their E/F fleet was tired by the mid-60s, and needed replacing. But hood units with steam generators crammed in (like the SDP40 and SDP45) didn't really give Santa Fe what they wanted in the looks department, especially on their premier streamlined passenger trains. Enter the FP45 in 1967. GE also offered the U30CG to ATSF, again for the same reason that it looked more eye pleasing and matched up better next to passenger cars than the U28CG hood unit that preceded it. Alco even had a cowl proposal, the C636F, but it never saw the light of day. The other benefits you mentioned, like providing better access to the engine compartment without slogging through snowdrifts, were mainly just side benefits, and not the driving reason the cowls were developed.

Nope...the F45 came as a follow-on for the FP45. Santa Fe didn't need additional steam generator equipped (and more expensive) FP45s, so EMD offered the generator-less F45 to fill out consists behind FP45s. Half of ATSF's

40-unit fleet had steam and signal pass-thru lines for that reason; the rest were assigned to freight. GN apparently liked the F45 concept too, but mainly for the weather protection benefits, and took delivery of their first one almost a full year after Santa Fe got their first F45 in June 1968.

Paul

Enjoying Rancid's "Indestructible"

Paul,

The facts are a little off. The FP45 was the 'first' cowl unit. 9 units were ordered by the AT&SF for passenger service. The AT&SF already had U28CG's in passenger service(a non-cowl U-Boat with a steam generator). These units were painted in a simplified 'War Bonnet' scheme and were used on a lot of publicity photos. The FP45's did run on the trans-con passenger trains like the Super Chief/El Cap. The Santa Fe later ordered about 40 F45's(shorter frame & no S/G). Part of that order had steam lines so they could run as trailing units in passenger service if needed. The were delivered in the standard blue/yellow 'Book Ends' paint scheme that was in use at that time. None ever made it into the passenger War Bonnet scheme, but they did get the blue/yellow freight War Bonnet scheme later in life. At the same time, GE produced a U30CG(AT&SF only) that was in a cowl car body, and Alco offered AT&SF a cowl version of the C636, but there were no buyers for the model. The Milwaukee took delivery of 5 FP45's, delivered in the 'Cities' paint scheme, and they were used in passenger service; either paired up back to back, or with a FP7 leading. The Chicago-Twin City line had an ACS system, and they were not delivered with this feature - so they usually did not 'lead' on that run, but there were exceptions. The GN took delivery of F45's in the 'Big Sky Blue' paint scheme. The idea was to use them as the 'lead' units on the main freight trains. The BN merger took place and eventually 46 F45's graced the BN roster, in their own number series(6600-6645, IIRC). The METRA commuter operation in Chicago purchased F40C's for use on the Milwaukee commuter operations about this time as well. This was basically a SD40 'guts' with an alternator attached. The Amtrak SDP40F was basic SD40-2 guts on an extended frame with a cowl car body over it. The rear of the car body contained 2 S/G's, replacing the S/G's with a skid mounted HEP system as they converted trains from steam heat to electric.

Jim Bernier

Paul wrote:

If you wrecked equipment on that one, did you "screw the POOCH?"

Jay CNS&M North Shore Line - "First and fastest"

They don't seem to have been very popular locomotives, so maybe it was more the other way around!

Dan Mitchell ==========

JCun>

It sure would be nice if METRA ran to Milwaukee. Maybe Amtrak would come down from $40+ per R/T ticket to Chicago. I've heard (don't know for sure) that Kenosha-Chicago is $5 weekdays. Last time I used it was a summer $5 weekend pass (kids ride free w/adult).

METRA has never run to Milwaukee AFAIK. Kenosha yes, Milwaukee no, although one line is known as the "Milwaukee North" line, named for the Milwaukee Road. I think it's the one that goes to Libertyville and Mundelein, or possibly the Fox Lake-Antioch route.

The current designation for the Chicago-Kenosha trackage is the "UP North line", formerly the C&NW North line.

Jay CNS&M North Shore Line - "First and fastest"

I stand corrected.

While the GN did choose the cowl for snow reasons, the AT&SF was indeed the first purchaser of both the FP45 and later F45.

Sorry for the confusion.

Dan Mitchell ==========

Paul wrote: