Napoleon, Defiance and Western: The Definitive Thread

[MagnumForce]

Seems to have dropped off at the interchange on Thursday last week, nothing was moved Friday. May be gone today, I have no idea.

[JoJames]

Heard Republic Mills of Okalona is looking at the former Claude Zintz facility at Deshler to use as a wharehouse and also as a shipping point due to rail access.

[railohio]

Alright. Let's rebuilt the Florida bridge and make it a state route.

[bumthum]

I'll have to get back out there this year to see the SD-9. An early SD really is a good choice given the rail conditions as it should have a lighter axle loading than their 4-axle power. It would be nice if it wasn't painted in those ugly colors though, although I know locomotive paint is low on the priority list for a short-line operator.

EDIT: I just saw the date, it won't be there when I get back from vacation. Disregard everything but the statement that ND&W would do well to score an early SD.

[Bulby]

I'll have to get back out there this year to see the SD-9. An early SD really is a good choice given the rail conditions as it should have a lighter axle loading than their 4-axle power. It would be nice if it wasn't painted in those ugly colors though, although I know locomotive paint is low on the priority list for a short-line operator.

EDIT: I just saw the date, it won't be there when I get back from vacation. Disregard everything but the statement that ND&W would do well to score an early SD.

3 axle trucks are not a good idea on poor roadbed. The roadmaster would probably go throw rotten food at whoever chose to buy a 6-axle.

[AARR]

3 axle trucks are not a good idea on poor roadbed. The roadmaster would probably go throw rotten food at whoever chose to buy a 6-axle.

Several railroads had 6-axle units specifically built for their light branch lines. CN's GMD-1's and MILW's SD39L's come to mind.

[bumthum]

3 axle trucks are not a good idea on poor roadbed. The roadmaster would probably go throw rotten food at whoever chose to buy a 6-axle.

Most early 6-axle units were built with a mind towards light rail and "other than mainline" uses. They used the same power plant, generators, and other equipment of the GP units (in addition to added traction motors) but spread their weight over 2 additional axles with the added benefit of increased tractive effort. Running some quick numbers shows that the SD-7 puts about 51,500lbs on the rail per axle, the GP-7 puts about 61,500lbs on the rail per axle. Those numbers are a little rounded but you can see that there are some serious benefits to the old SD's on lower quality rail.

[Bulby]

3 axle trucks are not a good idea on poor roadbed. The roadmaster would probably go throw rotten food at whoever chose to buy a 6-axle.

Several railroads had 6-axle units specifically built for their light branch lines. CN's GMD-1's and MILW's SD39L's come to mind.

Most early 6-axle units were built with a mind towards light rail and "other than mainline" uses. They used the same power plant, generators, and other equipment of the GP units (in addition to added traction motors) but spread their weight over 2 additional axles with the added benefit of increased tractive effort. Running some quick numbers shows that the SD-7 puts about 51,500lbs on the rail per axle, the GP-7 puts about 61,500lbs on the rail per axle. Those numbers are a little rounded but you can see that there are some serious benefits to the old SD's on lower quality rail.

I'm well aware of the mechanicals of early EMD products (7, 9, up to 20 series). I have a fair amount of experience cursing them when they don't work.

However, 6-axles spread track. They cost more to keep rail in gauge. They wear curves and switches faster. If the ND&W's track were in better shape; I don't disagree that an early 6-axle or a built for light rail locomotive would be a good fit. However, the track is not in good enough shape to handle a 6-axle. If cross-level is bad, the engine will start hunting for equilibrium. That isn't terrible on the track with a 4-axle, but it doesn't do the track any favors. A 6-axle is worse because of the 3 axle truck.

Axle loading is not as much of a factor on rail (though still a factor) as it is on bridges, which is partly why the cited SD39Ls and GMD1s were built. I'm not opposed to the use of 6-axles in the right service, but the current ND&W is not the right service.

[TC Man]

You guys did ready way above that this was NOT for the ND&W, right? Set off there to be picked up later.

[bumthum]

Bulby- I'll defer to your experience on this one then. It does make me wonder why more short-lines don't show much interest in early SD's though. Would it be possible to install an unpowered axle on an early SD, like an A-1-A configuration to lighten the load without the additional maintenance?

TC Man- Yes, we get that... Just a discussion.

[Bulby]

Would it be possible to install an unpowered axle on an early SD, like an A-1-A configuration to lighten the load without the additional maintenance?

It is theoretically possible to do just about anything to a locomotive, given the money. In reality, it shouldn't be difficult to drop the center traction motor from a 3 axle truck, making it an A-1-A, but that doesn't help. The problem is the rigidly aligned wheelsets. The center wheelset wants to remain in line (parallel to the other axles and perpendicular to the truck sideframes) with the outer wheelsets, but the rail doesn't like that. The only way that I've seen to alleviate this is to use what is called a radial truck, which, while I am not an expert on them, basically allows the truck to "flex" in a curve, while also improving your TE values (edit: Tractive Effort) in said curve. I'm not entirely sure that it would help to use radials on track that is off-level like the NDW's because the computer control is designed to regulate for curves, not cross-level. Someone more familiar with the control software would have to make the determination if its a good idea.

I seen to recall someone recently took a look at the old Blomberg A-1-A truck, largely considered one of the (if not the best) best riding trucks ever built. They were looking to find out why the truck rode so well, and in the process documented just how much damage it did to track. Of course, when it was in production, no one knew it was bad for the track because the truck was easier on track than the big steam engines they replaced. For those who have no clue what a Blomberg A-1-A is, it is truck that EMD used under E-units, and its derivative, the Blomberg B, is found under most F and GP type units.

Taking this back to the ND&W, IMHO the best choice for power on the ND&W would be a matching fleet of re-engined, multiple unit capable GE 45 tonners. Light on their feet, small, good visibility, and can be modified to use drop-in engine-generator sleds.

I will also reiterate my earlier comment, I don't dislike early SDs. I happen to like the things, in the right application, because they can pull, and pull hard.

TC Man, we both are aware that it wasn't for the ND&W, nothing wrong with a discussion of the finer points of locomotives.

[bumthum]

Thinking about it, Indiana Hi Rail operated RSD-15s on that same track before MAW let it get even worse than it was. Too bad the track wasn't kept up. Both GE and EMD are building 6-axle locomotives with an idler axle in each truck but they have a part to play in traction control. I get the issues with 6-axles and track damage now though, I can see where ND&W would be better off finding something lighter with good TE. With their typically short trains even 1800-2000hp might not be needed. Alco S4's are popular in the northeast, maybe a couple more SW units would be good for the ND&W long term.

[Bulby]

ALCOs and Pioneer will not work out well. They stick with 4-axle EMDs of varying models (all 1st generation or rebuilds), though thought has recently been given to getting some of the little GE 44 or 45 tonners (preferably with CAT prime movers).

Several (been awhile since I counted the deadline) SW or NW types are stored dead at Pioneer's Laharpe Shop facility. Perhaps they will eventually get repaired and sent out if ND&W traffic rises to the point of needing more power.

[bumthum]

Yeah, I wasn't seriously thinking Alcos, I was just mentioning that heavy six axle units used to be able to operate on that track... I saw them in the late 1990's, they looked good. Sounds like Pioneer has the ability to put lighter motive power on the tracks, a lot of the derailments I see are the cars themselves though. At least Pioneer is committed to a steady improvement of the physical plant. Someday we might see 10mph running! Won't that be the day?

EDIT: I thought I would leave this here. I took this in Defiance in the very late 1990's in the waning days of Indiana Hi-Rail.

[jrgerber]

Really not sure why Alcos and Pioneer didn't work out. They had a number of RS-3s and inherited some (S-2, RS-2) from the MSO. To me a T-6 would be nice fit, my general understanding is that Alcos do work well with poor track conditions. I think Pioneer has released their SW13 out of the shops. Is there any listing of the current locomotives currently in the Pioneer deadline? I do know Pioneer doesn't like six axles, they had a SD24 and SD35 when they acquired Minnesota Central many years ago and it wasn't long before they disappeared from the roster.

[Bulby]

Really not sure why Alcos and Pioneer didn't work out. They had a number of RS-3s and inherited some (S-2, RS-2) from the MSO. To me a T-6 would be nice fit, my general understanding is that Alcos do work well with poor track conditions.

ALCOs didn't work out because they are a "special" type of engine and not what the mechanics from outside the MSO were used too. The only ALCO still rostered by Pioneer is a former Conrail RS3m with an EMD prime mover (12-567 I believe). It is currently dead at Laharpe Shop with traction motor leads cut by vandals. $60,000 to repair, if it hasn't been cut up. ALCO S type switchers with the older Blunt trucks have a good reputation for be forgiving on rough track.

SW13? Do you mean SW1300? The 1301 is in service out of Keokuk, IA with a coat of paint just as fresh as 3054, assigned to the ND&W.

As for a current listing, I don't have locomotive numbers but its mostly GP20s with a few end cabs, GP16s, and at least one FP9A and maybe one or two other types. The only locomotive numbers off the top of my head are 102, ALCO RS3m, and 1600, EMD GP16 (both vandalized with traction motor leads cut). Mayube next time I'm at Laharpe and have a chance I'll take numbers on the deadline. (Though it should be noted that Pioneer does have deadlines elsewhere, but the primary deadline is at Laharpe Shop)

[Y@]

Saying that the IHRC "operated" those RSD-15's isn't exactly true. For one, the 442 was the only one ever on the former Wabash that I know. Second, it sat in the same spot for a long time. It actually ran very little.

[bumthum]

It moved at least once, I saw it on at least one occasion moving around Defiance, that was sometime prior to the time I took the photo... perhaps a year or two.

[MagnumForce]

NW did not allow 6 axle power on the Maumee Bridge, not sure any of the gators under IHRC ever crossed it, those would have been the final 6 axles on the line at all, maybe the only ones ever.

[bumthum]

I'm not overly familiar with Wabash operations on that line but did their Buffalo-Chicago passenger service take that route? If so then an E unit or PA would likely have been used on that trackage, yes I know that was a long time ago, it does show some 6-axle usage beside IHRC's RSD's if they did run on that track. At the point it is all kina of moot as Pioneer seems to be getting the track slowly up to snuff, at least for 5mph operation.