locked Re: Early Diesel switcher assignments
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
Can't wait to see the book.
From: George Eichelberger <geichelberger@...>
To: firstname.lastname@example.org <main@SouthernRailway.groups.io>
Sent: Wed, Sep 22, 2021 9:10 am
Subject: Re: [SouthernRailway] Early Diesel switcher assignments
Great stuff, Don….thanks!
SRHA has most, maybe all (?) of the Specifications for Southern’s diesels. Three, four or five “Specification Supplements” were common as negotiations proceeded with EMD, ALCo or GE. Although they are available for research, not all have been scanned. In addition to the Specs, the internal and external correspondence files provide rationals for some of the features or changes Southern wanted.
I’ve exported and attached four pages from the (rough!) draft of the SRHA diesel book. Adobe changed their application and fonts since this version was done and I have not updated it so it looks pretty bad. The text will provide some idea of the level of detail that can be included…although sorting through it to determine what is “worth” having in the book is time consuming. (Research and help with the writing and book production is welcomed.) The format will be a standard hardbound “book” style as large horizontal drawings, like the box car books, is not needed.
On Sep 22, 2021, at 1:48 AM, Don Usak <donusak@...> wrote:
My recollections of SW1500s is somewhat different. I recall their speed was restricted in that their ability to make transition was not nearly as advanced as mainline locomotives and speed approaching 40 mph could quickly cook the main generator.
My recollection of non-dynamic brake locomotives was when operating on mainline trains, the non-db locomotive would always be put in the lead. This for several reasons, not the least of which was lack of alignment-control draft system on many of these locomotives, including the SW1500s. Locomotives like this had two coupler blocks that could be bolted on each side of the coupler pockets to limit the lateral movement of the coupler shank. Failing to do this, and operating the locomotive behind mainline locomotives with dynamic brake, could cause the non-db locomotive to get buff forced right out of the train during heavy braking. The coupler blocks were left off for normal yard operations.
When I went to Spencer in 1975 we had 28 locomotives assigned to the Spencer Shop. All were butt-head switchers with many SW1500s. These locomotives were spread all across many yards on the Eastern Division. They came to Spencer for regular maintenance; and we could change power assemblies and traction motors. The only time they went to Pegram was for wheel true, some kind of heavy repair, or 36-month air change. This could account for lots of sightings of SW1500s on the rear of mainline trains when they were shuttled to and from Spencer for maintenance ---- not being used for mainline power.
At Spencer we never ran SW1500s on mainline trains for power. When the yard would get loaded we would run extra trains with whatever mainline power we could scrounge up. We would on occasion run a pair of SW1500s on the Yadkin Local, but never on the Morganton Local. The Albemarle Branch was limited in speed by track so it would not hurt the main generators on the SW1500s. But the Asheville Line was not so limited and the SW1500s never went on the Morganton Local.
As far as MU, I recall that main reservoir, actuating, and application & release were fully operational on SW1500s. And they had to be for the brakes to operate properly when trailing. I do not recall if sand was simply a run through pipe.
I think we go down the wrong path when we assume that a specification for Flexicoil trucks alone implies that these locomotives were meant to be used in mainline service at mainline track speeds. Many items in the new locomotive specification are never found on the delivered locomotive. The builders would supply a "Response to the Specification". This document would outline those items which the builder could not or would not comply with. GE was very good at providing this detailed document, EMD not so diligent. The SRHA archives may or may not have these builders' response documents.