Date   
Southern Railway Forum

James Walton
 

Hi, does anyone think a Southern Railway forum could be a good idea? I think if we could get other Southeast railroad historical societies involved such as the ACL-SAL, L&N, and NC&StL, it could really be helpful to a lot of people.

2019-4 TIES is at the printer

Bill Schafer
 

Many thanks to those on the list who came through with excellent photos and other information concerning Southern Railway’s aggregate hoppers, the first of which was constructed by the Greenville Steel Car Co. in 1970. 

I just thought you’d like to know that the 2019-4 issue of SRHA’s TIES Magazine is now at the printer and (hopefully) will be received by SRHA members before the end of the year. 

The contents of this issue include:

* Background and process of acquiring Southern’s first order of aggies in 1969-70. Includes stencil diagrams and general arrangement drawing
* Notes on the types of commodities hauled by the aggies in the Southern Railway era as well as origins-destinations
* Personal recollection and photos of a visit to the car builder in Greenville, Pa., in 1974
* Before and After - Limestone, Tenn.
* An account of the Grand (Re)Opening of Winston-Salem Union Station

 If I used an image or two in the article that you submitted to me, and you are not an SRHA member, I’ll send you a complimentary copy of TIES when I receive my supply of issues. Otherwise, 2019-4 TIES will be available from The Grab (http://www.srha.net/public/Grab/grab.asp) in January.

—Bill Schafer



moderated Re: Lynchburh

Carl Ardrey
 

Look at bottom right.  Chief Engineer Eastern Lines was HQ in Charlotte.

On December 3, 2019 at 11:13 AM Rodney Shu <rodshu@...> wrote:

 
I wonder why the attached drawing was revised in Charlotte? Danville Division headquarters was in Greensboro. Did the Charlotte Division handle engineering drawings for the Lynchburg area?
Rod Shu - Birmingham

From: main@SouthernRailway.groups.io <main@SouthernRailway.groups.io> on behalf of George Eichelberger <geichelberger@...>
Sent: Monday, December 2, 2019 10:03 AM
To: main@southernrailway.groups.io <main@SouthernRailway.groups.io>
Subject: Re: [SouthernRailway] Lynchburh
 
There are presently 138 items in the Lynchburg, VA digital file, I have attached one example, a drawing revised Oct 28, 1952. It, like most of the Lynchburg scans is only IDd as “Lynchburg, VA3”.

There are presently 11,971 items in the “Photos and Drawings by Location” digital files, maybe 30% of them need to be looked at and have descriptions included in their file names and additional items scanned and added to the file.

This is an archives project we have simple not been able to get to….volunteers?

Ike

PS The “Diesel” file has 14,500 items, “Passenger” has 6,914, etc., etc.


 

moderated Re: Lynchburh

Rodney Shu
 

I wonder why the attached drawing was revised in Charlotte? Danville Division headquarters was in Greensboro. Did the Charlotte Division handle engineering drawings for the Lynchburg area?
Rod Shu - Birmingham


From: main@SouthernRailway.groups.io <main@SouthernRailway.groups.io> on behalf of George Eichelberger <geichelberger@...>
Sent: Monday, December 2, 2019 10:03 AM
To: main@southernrailway.groups.io <main@SouthernRailway.groups.io>
Subject: Re: [SouthernRailway] Lynchburh
 
There are presently 138 items in the Lynchburg, VA digital file, I have attached one example, a drawing revised Oct 28, 1952. It, like most of the Lynchburg scans is only IDd as “Lynchburg, VA3”.

There are presently 11,971 items in the “Photos and Drawings by Location” digital files, maybe 30% of them need to be looked at and have descriptions included in their file names and additional items scanned and added to the file.

This is an archives project we have simple not been able to get to….volunteers?

Ike

PS The “Diesel” file has 14,500 items, “Passenger” has 6,914, etc., etc.

moderated Re: Lynchburh

George Eichelberger
 

There are presently 138 items in the Lynchburg, VA digital file, I have attached one example, a drawing revised Oct 28, 1952. It, like most of the Lynchburg scans is only IDd as “Lynchburg, VA3”.

There are presently 11,971 items in the “Photos and Drawings by Location” digital files, maybe 30% of them need to be looked at and have descriptions included in their file names and additional items scanned and added to the file.

This is an archives project we have simple not been able to get to….volunteers?

Ike

PS The “Diesel” file has 14,500 items, “Passenger” has 6,914, etc., etc.

moderated Re: Lynchburh

Doug Alexander
 

Are you looking for just at Kemper Street, or beyond that?


Doug Alexander

Model Trains Department
HobbyTownUSA
840 Barrett Parkway NW 
Kennesaw, GA 30144

Main   770-426-8800
Cell     404-272-2986



On Sunday, December 1, 2019, 10:37:15 PM EST, RamblingReck <ramblingreck@...> wrote:


Is anyone aware of published model track plans based on Lynchburg, VA?
--
John Ryan

moderated Re: F-Unit Roof Hatches

D. Scott Chatfield
 

The Oracle has come through again!  Warren's close-up photo of 4260 shows some kind of fine screening on the side of the hatch.  This wouldn't be necessary if the hatch was exhausting air.  So it looks like they were drawing air into the carbody.  

Keep in mind the main intake filters on a late F-unit are behind the side grille at the rear of the carbody.  So this box was above and between them.  And note the heavy lifting lugs. If this was just an empty plenum the original four lift rings topside would be more than sufficient.

The plenum theory also doesn't make sense to me because the exhaust stacks also draw hot air out of the top of the carbody.  There is a 1/2" gap separating the manifold stack from the visible stack mounted on the carbody.  The exhaust gas flow draws hot air inside the carbody out with it.  You see this in all EMD non-turbo stacks.

So now the question is whether that NP B-unit has the same thing.  If it is an aftermarket engine air intake filter it would seem the NP mounted it on the wrong end, since the dynamic brake is in the way.  Or maybe B-units had the whole intake system reversed from an A-unit?  Almost all B-units were gone by the time I went railroading.  I'm not sure I've examined any that closely.

Also I don't think I see the heavy lifting lugs on the NP unit's box.  Hmmmm....


Scott Chatfield

moderated Lynchburh

RamblingReck
 

Is anyone aware of published model track plans based on Lynchburg, VA?
--
John Ryan

moderated Re: F-Unit Roof Hatches

Warren Calloway
 

moderated Re: F-Unit Roof Hatches

Warren Calloway
 

On Dec 1, 2019, at 10:02 PM, Warren Calloway <wcalloway@...> wrote:

<SOU4260BOX.jpg>

On Dec 1, 2019, at 7:04 PM, Jason Greene <jason.p.greene@...> wrote:

Funny that Warren poised the same question in 1970, and the answer we get comes from a book he wrote.

There is some good stuff on that page from x2200.

Jason Greene

On Dec 1, 2019, at 1:03 PM, C J Wyatt <cjwyatt@...> wrote:


An attempt to improve engine room ventilation. Answer is on P.338 of Diesels of the Southern Railway 1939-1982 (Withers with Calloway and Wilson).

Jack Wyatt

On Sunday, December 1, 2019, 12:35:15 PM EST, Bill Schafer <bill4501@...> wrote:


I'm not a locomotive expert by any means, and one of our colleagues from White River Productions, Dale Sanders, has posed a question I hope someone in the group can answer. Dale says:

I'm in the process of completing a two-volume pair of books covering Northern Pacific's diesel fleet. While gathering photographs for the project, I've come across a photo for which I have no explanation. The NP modified one of their freight service F7Bs with a unique roof hatch extension. See attached photo (the roof hatch extension in question is at the far right). None of my living NP experts have an explanation for this modification.


Then, I came across the attached page from the April/May 1970 issue of X2200 South.


There is the same [or similar] roof hatch extension on a Southern F-unit, again with no explanation. I'm hoping you may be able to answer the question that has been haunting me for some time now. Why did the Southern (and the NP) make this modification?

Any insights will be welcome - I'll pass them on to Dale.

Thanks.

--Bill Schafer

moderated Re: F-Unit Roof Hatches

Warren Calloway
 

On Dec 1, 2019, at 7:04 PM, Jason Greene <jason.p.greene@...> wrote:

Funny that Warren poised the same question in 1970, and the answer we get comes from a book he wrote.

There is some good stuff on that page from x2200.

Jason Greene

On Dec 1, 2019, at 1:03 PM, C J Wyatt <cjwyatt@...> wrote:


An attempt to improve engine room ventilation. Answer is on P.338 of Diesels of the Southern Railway 1939-1982 (Withers with Calloway and Wilson).

Jack Wyatt

On Sunday, December 1, 2019, 12:35:15 PM EST, Bill Schafer <bill4501@...> wrote:


I'm not a locomotive expert by any means, and one of our colleagues from White River Productions, Dale Sanders, has posed a question I hope someone in the group can answer. Dale says:

I'm in the process of completing a two-volume pair of books covering Northern Pacific's diesel fleet. While gathering photographs for the project, I've come across a photo for which I have no explanation. The NP modified one of their freight service F7Bs with a unique roof hatch extension. See attached photo (the roof hatch extension in question is at the far right). None of my living NP experts have an explanation for this modification.


Then, I came across the attached page from the April/May 1970 issue of X2200 South.


There is the same [or similar] roof hatch extension on a Southern F-unit, again with no explanation. I'm hoping you may be able to answer the question that has been haunting me for some time now. Why did the Southern (and the NP) make this modification?

Any insights will be welcome - I'll pass them on to Dale.

Thanks.

--Bill Schafer

moderated Re: F-Unit Roof Hatches

Warren Calloway
 

On Dec 1, 2019, at 9:43 PM, Warren Calloway <wcalloway@...> wrote:

<SOU4260BOX.JPG><SOU4260GRNSBRO12DEC71-1024.jpg>


PHOTOS OF BOX IN QUESTION!

WARREN


On Dec 1, 2019, at 9:01 PM, George Eichelberger <geichelberger@...> wrote:

There is quite a few inter-railroad letters in the SRHA archives but I don’t recall anything between the Southern and the Northern Pacific. The Southern was constantly experimenting and proposing design changes to EMD. EMD may have passed an idea along to, or from, the NP.

I am certainly not saying any published material is wrong, esp if written by Warren Calloway, Tom Sink or Paul Withers. Unfortunately, we see a lot of "conventional wisdom" that may not be absolutely correct, I’d like to see more documentation or specifics on some topics.

My main reason for questioning the use of our mysterious hatch for ventilation is because of documentation by EMD. “Product Development” sheets for F-7s and E-8s (attached) discuss “pressurized ventilation” and “into the engine room under pressure”. (Both pages were issued January, 1949.) If those designs were faulty, I would expect us to see modifications of some sort on multiple locomotives?

The answer here may simply be “as far as is known…..” I suggest we can accept that where an absolute answer cannot be found when we realize how much material (answers) has been preserved in archives donations from NS and the Marvin Black collection.

Ike

<EMD E-8 Product Development bulletin.jpeg>

<EMD F-7 Product Development bulletin.jpeg>

moderated Re: F-Unit Roof Hatches

Warren Calloway
 

PHOTOS OF BOX IN QUESTION!

WARREN

On Dec 1, 2019, at 9:01 PM, George Eichelberger <geichelberger@...> wrote:

There is quite a few inter-railroad letters in the SRHA archives but I don’t recall anything between the Southern and the Northern Pacific. The Southern was constantly experimenting and proposing design changes to EMD. EMD may have passed an idea along to, or from, the NP.

I am certainly not saying any published material is wrong, esp if written by Warren Calloway, Tom Sink or Paul Withers. Unfortunately, we see a lot of "conventional wisdom" that may not be absolutely correct, I’d like to see more documentation or specifics on some topics.

My main reason for questioning the use of our mysterious hatch for ventilation is because of documentation by EMD. “Product Development” sheets for F-7s and E-8s (attached) discuss “pressurized ventilation” and “into the engine room under pressure”. (Both pages were issued January, 1949.) If those designs were faulty, I would expect us to see modifications of some sort on multiple locomotives?

The answer here may simply be “as far as is known…..” I suggest we can accept that where an absolute answer cannot be found when we realize how much material (answers) has been preserved in archives donations from NS and the Marvin Black collection.

Ike

<EMD E-8 Product Development bulletin.jpeg>

<EMD F-7 Product Development bulletin.jpeg>

moderated Re: F-Unit Roof Hatches

George Eichelberger
 

There is quite a few inter-railroad letters in the SRHA archives but I don’t recall anything between the Southern and the Northern Pacific. The Southern was constantly experimenting and proposing design changes to EMD. EMD may have passed an idea along to, or from, the NP.

I am certainly not saying any published material is wrong, esp if written by Warren Calloway, Tom Sink or Paul Withers. Unfortunately, we see a lot of "conventional wisdom" that may not be absolutely correct, I’d like to see more documentation or specifics on some topics.

My main reason for questioning the use of our mysterious hatch for ventilation is because of documentation by EMD. “Product Development” sheets for F-7s and E-8s (attached) discuss “pressurized ventilation” and “into the engine room under pressure”. (Both pages were issued January, 1949.) If those designs were faulty, I would expect us to see modifications of some sort on multiple locomotives?

The answer here may simply be “as far as is known…..” I suggest we can accept that where an absolute answer cannot be found when we realize how much material (answers) has been preserved in archives donations from NS and the Marvin Black collection.

Ike


moderated Re: F-Unit Roof Hatches

Jason Greene
 

Funny that Warren poised the same question in 1970, and the answer we get comes from a book he wrote. 

There is some good stuff on that page from x2200. 

Jason Greene 

On Dec 1, 2019, at 1:03 PM, C J Wyatt <cjwyatt@...> wrote:


An attempt to improve engine room ventilation. Answer is on P.338 of Diesels of the Southern Railway 1939-1982 (Withers with Calloway and Wilson).

Jack Wyatt

On Sunday, December 1, 2019, 12:35:15 PM EST, Bill Schafer <bill4501@...> wrote:


I'm not a locomotive expert by any means, and one of our colleagues from White River Productions, Dale Sanders, has posed a question I hope someone in the group can answer. Dale says:

I'm in the process of completing a two-volume pair of books covering Northern Pacific's diesel fleet. While gathering photographs for the project, I've come across a photo for which I have no explanation. The NP modified one of their freight service F7Bs with a unique roof hatch extension. See attached photo (the roof hatch extension in question is at the far right). None of my living NP experts have an explanation for this modification.


Then, I came across the attached page from the April/May 1970 issue of X2200 South.


 There is the same [or similar] roof hatch extension on a Southern F-unit, again with no explanation. I'm hoping you may be able to answer the question that has been haunting me for some time now. Why did the Southern (and the NP) make this modification? 

Any insights will be welcome - I'll pass them on to Dale. 

Thanks.

--Bill Schafer

moderated Re: F-Unit Roof Hatches

Robert Graham
 

My oldest Sou Ry form 1014 is from 1966 (I think, undated, but newest power listed are the 1965 SD35's and the 2800 & 2900 series E6A's are still listed) and a May 6 1970 SOU form 1014 both list SOU F7A 4260 as weighing 243,520 lbs, nowhere near the heaviest among the 1951-built F7A listed; several were shown as over 244,000 lbs, so Mr. Chatfield's theory of excess weight added is disproved. SOU 4260 was listed as one of the 65/12 lower gear ratio "mountain engines" in the 1966 form 1014, but re-geared to 62/15 in the 1973 form 1014. This is the only difference shown in this source for SOU 4260. 

Marvin Black related to me in the early 1970's when this box was observed on SOU 4260 that it was an attempt to reduce ambient heat that built up in the engine room during extended maximum prime mover operation. The box served as a plenum and was vented under the top lip; engine heat would rise into the chamber and motion of the locomotive would draw the heat out as it moved. It was a trial installed, photo evidence indicates, in the early 1960's. There is a May 1963 photo of 4260 leading a train with the roof modification already installed. An interesting additional observation is that all 4 36" radiator fans on this then only 12 year old 1951 built F7 were also replaced with high shroud fans, as found on early F3's. The 1971 photo of the 4260 show 2 of them still installed. I found that fan installation to be curious. Yes, I am aware that EMD 36" rooftop radiator fans are interchangeable, but to have all 4 fail and be replaced with an older version is an interesting additional anomaly. I wonder if the thinking was in some way related to the fix that was made to SOU GP7's that crews complained of inadequate cab heaters that was fixed with the large shroud applied to the radiator fan closest to the cab. Two different problems, but the approach makes me wonder whether it was coincidence or part of the trial. I have no written documentation from Marvin to confirm or deny this statement. Perhaps it is contained within Marvin's writings that the SRHA obtained from his estate.

I also was contacted by Mr. Sanders, and passed this information on to him, for what it was worth, telling him I did not have any specific reason or purpose for that modification on SOU 4260.

As far as DotSR by Withers, et.al., is concerned, the tome certainly has its errors, but I think readers and users are better served by specific and documented corrections, rather than broad brush disparagement of its accuracy. All publications are "frozen in time" after publication and flawed by the limits to updating information with better facts as they are uncovered after publication. Esteemed SOU diesel authority Marvin Black was a significant historical background and detail contributor to that volume, and his research credentials are as good as it gets. Mr. Eichelberger and those working with the SRHA archives would echo that.

One final thought: was there any collaboration with the NP on this project, either before or after? Was it suggested by an employee of SOU or NP, or a vendor, or the product of one of those RR Supplier conferences?  It will be interesting to see what the SRHA archives might hold on this subject.


Bob Graham  

-----------------------------------------

From: "D. Scott Chatfield"
To: main@SouthernRailway.groups.io
Cc:
Sent: Sunday December 1 2019 2:12:32PM
Subject: Re: [SouthernRailway] F-Unit Roof Hatches

I gave it a little more thought and I wonder if these were former roof-hung water tanks filled with concrete to add weight.  I don't have an old Locomotive Summary book (my oldest is from 1975, and she was retired in 1973) so I can't look up 4260's weight.  But if that box is full of concrete it should add about 10 to 11,000 pounds to the engine, assuming it extends down into the carbody about a foot.  Any deeper and it would interfere with the doorway.

A normal F-unit weighed between 230,000 and 240,000 pounds.  Was 4260 heavier?


Scott Chatfield

moderated Re: F-Unit Roof Hatches

George Eichelberger
 

I have to agree with Scott’s “doesn’t make it correct” comment. “Improving engine room ventilation" does not make sense to me. If the “thing” housed a fan for ventilation, why not use a standard hatch mounted fan? I doubt it would be pulling air out of the carbody as that would be competing with air for the engine and cooling the DB grid that came in through the grilles. I guess putting more air into the unit could be useful but maintaining filters up on the roof would be a maintenance headache.

According to the order specifications, the unit was built with a steam pipe but no steam generator. Most F units were ordered that way so steam could pass through them (not all had connections) when operating in consists and so that stand-by steam could be used to prevent winter freeze ups. (If there is any interest, I’ll put one of the F unit Specifications on the file server.)

My first thought was that it was a roof mounted water tank. They were needed because of the distance between stops for water.

Since receiving Dale’s request a few days ago, I have been going through the diesel memos and letters we have scanned….none make reference to Sou 4260 or anything unusual.

Here’s a reduced size version of Southern drawing DL-2097 for a 500 gal roof mounted water tank dated July 25, 1952. 

(There are presently 962 scanned diesel drawings in the SRHA digital files, and many more not yet scanned. If this kind of “nuts and bolts” subject is of interest to anyone make plans to A: Join SRHA and B: Come help in the archives.)

Ike



On Dec 1, 2019, at 1:39 PM, D. Scott Chatfield <blindog@...> wrote:

An attempt to improve engine room ventilation. Answer is on P.338 of Diesels of the Southern Railway 1939-1982 (Withers with Calloway and Wilson).

Just because it's in a Withers book doesn't make it correct.

I don't see how it would help "engine room ventilation."  F-units did not have pressurized carbodies, and I don't see any vents on the box.  Also note the box is on the front of the NP B-unit and the rear of the Southern A-unit.

To me the box looks like a roof-hung water tank from a passenger-equipped unit, but neither of these units were passenger-equipped.  No pass-through steam lines either.  Perhaps it was a water tank and they couldn't mount it flush because of something inside.

Doesn't appear to hold radio gear either.

So that leaves us with the only logical explanation:  increased headroom so basketball players could use the toilet.

Scott Chatfield

moderated Re: F-Unit Roof Hatches

D. Scott Chatfield
 

I gave it a little more thought and I wonder if these were former roof-hung water tanks filled with concrete to add weight.  I don't have an old Locomotive Summary book (my oldest is from 1975, and she was retired in 1973) so I can't look up 4260's weight.  But if that box is full of concrete it should add about 10 to 11,000 pounds to the engine, assuming it extends down into the carbody about a foot.  Any deeper and it would interfere with the doorway.

A normal F-unit weighed between 230,000 and 240,000 pounds.  Was 4260 heavier?


Scott Chatfield

moderated Re: F-Unit Roof Hatches

D. Scott Chatfield
 

An attempt to improve engine room ventilation. Answer is on P.338 of Diesels of the Southern Railway 1939-1982 (Withers with Calloway and Wilson).

Just because it's in a Withers book doesn't make it correct.

I don't see how it would help "engine room ventilation."  F-units did not have pressurized carbodies, and I don't see any vents on the box.  Also note the box is on the front of the NP B-unit and the rear of the Southern A-unit.

To me the box looks like a roof-hung water tank from a passenger-equipped unit, but neither of these units were passenger-equipped.  No pass-through steam lines either.  Perhaps it was a water tank and they couldn't mount it flush because of something inside.

Doesn't appear to hold radio gear either.

So that leaves us with the only logical explanation:  increased headroom so basketball players could use the toilet.

Scott Chatfield

moderated Re: F-Unit Roof Hatches

Bill Schafer
 

Thanks, Jack and Ike. I have the Diesels of the Southern Railway book here at home, but I don’t have it memorized yet. :-)

On Dec 1, 2019, at 1:03 PM, C J Wyatt <cjwyatt@...> wrote:

An attempt to improve engine room ventilation. Answer is on P.338 of Diesels of the Southern Railway 1939-1982 (Withers with Calloway and Wilson).

Jack Wyatt

On Sunday, December 1, 2019, 12:35:15 PM EST, Bill Schafer <bill4501@...> wrote:


I'm not a locomotive expert by any means, and one of our colleagues from White River Productions, Dale Sanders, has posed a question I hope someone in the group can answer. Dale says:

I'm in the process of completing a two-volume pair of books covering Northern Pacific's diesel fleet. While gathering photographs for the project, I've come across a photo for which I have no explanation. The NP modified one of their freight service F7Bs with a unique roof hatch extension. See attached photo (the roof hatch extension in question is at the far right). None of my living NP experts have an explanation for this modification.


Then, I came across the attached page from the April/May 1970 issue of X2200 South.


 There is the same [or similar] roof hatch extension on a Southern F-unit, again with no explanation. I'm hoping you may be able to answer the question that has been haunting me for some time now. Why did the Southern (and the NP) make this modification? 

Any insights will be welcome - I'll pass them on to Dale. 

Thanks.

--Bill Schafer