[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vr / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Search] [Home]
Board
Settings Home
/n/ - Transportation

Name
Options
Comment
Verification
4chan Pass users can bypass this verification. [Learn More] [Login]
File
  • Please read the Rules and FAQ before posting.
  • There are 12 posters in this thread.

05/04/17New trial board added: /bant/ - International/Random
10/04/16New board for 4chan Pass users: /vip/ - Very Important Posts
06/20/16New 4chan Banner Contest with a chance to win a 4chan Pass! See the contest page for details.
[Hide] [Show All]


Janitor acceptance emails will be sent out over the coming weeks Make sure to check your spam box!



File: 19890710_02.jpg (609 KB, 1500x998)
609 KB
609 KB JPG
America is much more known for widespread use of diesel locomotives than Europe, but they had a handful of interesting designs of juicers. For a Eurofag like me these look very, very weird. Let's take the Little Joe for example - has 6 traction motors mounted on powered axles which are located in a rigid frame, with pilot trucks on both ends. For comparison - a typical European freight locomotive of that time had two 3-axle bogies with traction motors on them, placed underneath the locomotive's body.

On top of that, US passenger electrics had steam generators for heating well up to mid-seventies while HEP facilities were industry standard in European locomotives (even some freight ones) right after WW2.

Would some US train nerd explain this to me, please?
>>
>>1310904
Little Joes were originally built for use in the Soviet Union fyi.
>US passenger electrics had steam generators for heating well up to mid-seventies while HEP facilities were industry standard in European locomotives (even some freight ones) right after WW2.
Most US passenger electric and most passenger equipment used up until the mid-seventies were built prior to WWII (yes, there are parts of the world where the infrastructure and railroads remained intact through a world war - imagine that!). Afterwards most intercity passenger lines were too busy hemorrhaging money to convert their steam-heated equipment to HEP.
>>
>>1310904
Post-war US railroads were in a financial crunch. Several major railroads went bankrupt in the 60s, including the Pennsylvania, which was at the time the largest bankruptcy in US history. The New York Central, opportunistic at the collapse of their main rival, merged with the bankrupt Pennsy (as well as the New Haven Railroad, for some reason) to form Penn Central, which also went belly up a few years later. This sparked the creation of Consolidated Rail Corporation and The National Passenger Rail Corporation, commonly known as Conrail and Amtrak. Conrail's assets was eventually divided between the other two East Coast Class I freight carriers, Norfolk Southern (NS) and Chesapeake Seaboard (CSX), while the surviing passenger routes were given to Amtrak from New York Penn to Washington Union & New Haven Union to the Massachusetts state line, while commuter lines were given to government-managed corporations. These post-war financial woes are what resulted in the implementation of HEP on passenger routes being delayed well into Amtrak's first decade of existence, only becoming standard on passenger rail lines with the introduction of the EMD F40PH.

The traction motor thing comes from the development of the electrics from steam locomotives. Going back to the Pennsy, their electrics were classified much like their steam locomotives, with the letter representing the Whyte wheel arrangement. For example, a Pennsylvania G class has a wheel arrangement of 4-6-0. Since the GG1s, the most famous Pennsy electrics, had 4 leading trucks, 2 sets of 6 driving wheels, and 4 trailing trucks, functioned pretty much identically to 2 G classes fused ass to ass, the GG classification was created to describe the wheel function. Little Joes follow this exact same design principle. After the 1970s, the design of electrics began to resemble the diesels of the time more than steam locomotives, with 2 traction motor trucks and no pilots.
>>
>>1310914
>Little Joes were originally built for use in the Soviet Union fyi.
I know, but the design principles are strictly American. Much like the Soviet class VL19 locomotives which are derivatives of American-built class S10 (pic related).

I've picked Joes randomly as an example out of several post-war designs. Great Northern's W-1 also had two rigid frames with traction motors mounted onto 8 axles in total. There's more.
>>
>>1310920
>The traction motor thing comes from the development of the electrics from steam locomotives.

Interesting, I thought that some German pre-war designs were more steam locomotive-like (driving rods connecting wheels to a giant motor inside the body). It's also interesting that rigid-frame electric locomotives were successful in the US (GG-1 in particular), as opposed to diesels with the same wheel arrangement. Pennsy's infamous Centipede comes to mind as a catastrophic failure.
>>
>>1310925
>Pennsy's infamous Centipede comes to mind as a catastrophic failure.
To be fair, Baldwin wasn't a very good diesel-electric manufacturer, something that cost them their existence. The Centipede's failures stemmed more from manufacturing, maintenance, and the fact that Baldwin's prime movers weren't up to par with EMD and Alco/GE than its wheel arrangement. Even early Sharknoses couldn't MU with Alco and EMD units.
>>
>>1310920
>Chesapeake Seaboard (CSX)
Now this is autism
>>
>>1310952
thats what it stands for desu
>>
File: 1977_08_17_02.jpg (483 KB, 1000x702)
483 KB
483 KB JPG
>>
>>1310952
You sound like the kind of person who gets mad when someone refers to DC as the District of Columbia
>>
File: AMTK608N.jpg (428 KB, 1024x683)
428 KB
428 KB JPG
>>1310904
posting other U.S. electrics
>>
File: MILW_Bi-Polar.jpg (675 KB, 3873x1916)
675 KB
675 KB JPG
>>1315186
this monstrosity
>the Milwaukee Road class EP-2
>>
>>1315186
>>
>>1315186
the peak of toaster on wheels design
>>
>>1315189
This is probably what we would have had if all the freight transcons were electrified, or at least a dual-mode variant
>>
>>1315714
Conrail only dumped electric freight because of Amtrak and an abundance of alternate, parallel routes making it pointless to electrify any of it's own lines. Had the PRR electrified the Harrisburg-Pittsburgh line and Conrail had it's own power generating capabilities, we'd probably still have electrified freight to this day, though more likely shitboxes like this >>1315186. Though if the former happened there's no telling what kind of situation we would have today.
>>
>>1315776
Were there ever concrete plans to electrify the Broadway out to Pittsburgh?
>>
>>1310904
Don't stroke American exceptionalism, by this point it's only servicing. Leave them in their bubble :1
>>
>>1315783
There were definitely some consideration in the 1910's as the PRR was suffering from lack of power thanks to heavier rolling stock and longer trains. They even built a retard strength electric motor though just for the purpose of conquering an electrified Alleghenies in 1917. It was simply too powerful among other things. At the same time, the K4, the Decopods and later the M1 were coming on the scene and the PRR found the power it needed. I think the nationalization during WW1 killed any further considerations.

I've seen people claim online that the PRR was considering electrification to Pittsburgh as a continuation of it's NE corridor and Keystone corridor projects, but WWII and dieselization stopped it. However I doubt the PRR was even considering it at that point.
>>
File: prr3931.jpg (26 KB, 600x315)
26 KB
26 KB JPG
>>1315783
>>1315812
The PRR FF-1
>Maximum speed 20.6 mph (33.2 km/h)
>Power output 4,600 hp
>Tractive effort Continuous: 87,200 lbf
>intended use as an Allegheny climber never realized and its power too much for the rolling stock in service at the time
>>
>>1315812
>>1315851
Shame the FF1s never saw their true purpose.
>>
>>1311168
>>1315179

It doesn't 'stand' for anything. The name of the corporation is CSX Transportation.
>>
>>1315776
>>1317780
Shame of what could have been. And its a shame that Conrail removed all of the electric routes besides the NEC.
>>
>>1318077
Conrail never owned the NEC and it only had the Trenton Cuttoff (Morrisville-Norristown), the Thorndale Low Grade, and the Atglen and Susquehanna Branch/Lancaster Low Grade (Parksburg - Enola) - all built and electrified by the PRR so freights could bypass Philadelphia and the congested main line. The Reading's non-electrified Harrisburg Line removed the need for Conrail to use the latter two. That left only the Trenton Cuttoff - which used a power system now owned by Amtrak - and the NEC itself who's owner was doing it's damnedest to kick freight off of. Basically Conrail had to abandon electrification.
>>
>>1317948
Next you're gonna tell us GE DOESN'T stand for General Electric
>>
>>1310904

Fuck off, eurotrash.

We also don't use narrow gauge tracks, want to bitch about that as well?
>>
>>1318144
GE is General Electric Company, CSX is CSX Transportation, subsidiary of CSX Corporation.

Even the thought of anyone assuming that CSX would leave Chessie or Seaboard in it's name is causing some poor CSX official an aneurysm right now.
>>
>>1318165
>>1315806
If this isn't proof retards and shitposters lurk the first page looking for threads to shitpost, I don't what what is.
>>
>>1318169
Enough bitching, dude. Wanna catch a Bruins game at the Toronto-Division Garden?
>>
File: 1422653730268.jpg (54 KB, 800x446)
54 KB
54 KB JPG
Mighty Burger
>>
File: 1425266482397.jpg (30 KB, 400x384)
30 KB
30 KB JPG
>>1318616
but why is there a third truck



Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.