F3 ABA

Yes, but typically later in the lives of these units. When new, the RRs tended to think of an AA or ABA or ABBA set as a single locomotive. Thus the earlier FT's came as AB pairs connected by semi-permanent drawbars and not couplers. Also indicative of this mindset was the practice on many roads to number a locomotive set with a single number followed by A, B, C, and D for the individual units. As the RRs became more familiar with Diesels, they tended to think of individual units as power modules that could be assembled into a locomotive with the HP needed for the tonnage of the particular train, and that could be shopped individually as maintenance required. With this, there was also a tendency for B units to loose favor, as they were less flexible (they couldn't be the lead unit), and the initial cost savings of no cab was offset by operating costs of having to specially place them in a lash-up. So later in the lives of F-3s, one could see A-B-A-A, A-GP-B-A, F3A-F7B-AlcoFB-GP7, etc. etc. lash-ups. Some RRs also modified cab units later in their lives to make the MU connections on the nose more accessible, and to replace early MU connectors with more universal ones, to facilitate these lash-ups. By the way, the practice of running the second, etc. A-units cab forward in a lash-up was nick-named "elephant style" after the typical parade of elephants tail-to-trunk at the circus.

As above, either way, but almost always reverse when the units were newer. GQ

The L&N would sometimes run their F's nose-to-tail, or "elephant style," called that because they vaguely resemble a parade of elephants, the one behind holding the tail of the one in front in its trunk.

Carter Braxton wrote: : I know that when F3s, F4s, etc. ran ABA or ABBA, the second A unit usually : ran in reverse. Were there occassions when the second A unit ran facing : forward. : : Also, when there were just two A units which way did the second unit usually : face, forward or reverse? : : Carter : :

I've heard that this was so they would be considered a single locomotive. The railroads were afraid that the unions would require a crew in each unit if they were considered separate locomotives.

Steve

The FT was sort of a strange animal. Many were drawbar'ed together in 'AB' sets. But there were a lot of drawbar'ed 'ABA' and 'ABBA' sets as well! The key to figuring this out is to look at the vertical grab irons at the rear of the unit carboy. They usually will be missing if the unit is drawbar'ed to another unit. Many of these fixed sets were broken up rather fast. The FT received many upgrades(external and internal) in their rather short service lives. Due to the rapid technology advances with locomotives, the FT became a dinosaur quite fast. EMD forced the issue with very nice trade-in and re-build your old FT into something newer programs. The M&Stl FT's became 1500 hp GP9m engines and some GN FT's became parts for 1350 hp GP9m's(the GN called them GP5's). Most of the Milw fleet of FT's were part of a big trade-in program for GP9's in 1957.

Jim Bernier

Probably a combination of that fear, plus the fact that EMD marketed them as single locomotives.

The idea of keeping an ABBA set of F-units together eventually (actually rather quickly) died for the same reasons articulated trainsets did. If one unit failed, there was no valid reason to hold back three good ones.

Thanks Geezer for the detailed answer. That was just the information I was looking for. In fact it was much more than I expected and I appreciate your extra effort

Carter

You're welcome. Your kind note makes the effort worth while. To go on a bit, it also varied by RR - some tended to run second A Units forward more frequently, while others (UP for example) seemed to avoid it. If you model a specific RR and period, seek out pictures to see what their practice was. I like the color photo books by Morning Sun publishers, the RR historical groups, and web sites like