Nostalgia & History > Oddity on Illinois Central E-Units

I ask this question every couple of years in the hopes that somebody will surface with a REAL ANSWER--LOL: Why did Illinois Central E-Units sport COIL Springs on their EMD Blomberg A-1-A trucks, unlike the Elliptical Springs used by every other railroad???

I'm also unclear as to whether this was a modification by Paducah, during the rebuild process, or, if they were special ordered this way from EMD. I'm thinking it's the former, as I seem to recall builders photos, or, "brand new" photos of the units with the standard arrangement.

Very strange indeed condsidering that the Blomberg A-1-A truck was considered the best-riding truck of all time (and having operated UP 951-UPB963-UP 949, I can see why).

I can only speculate that it had something to do with the very high scheduled operating speeds of Illinois Central passenger trains right up until the end, even faster than the Santa Fe (this does not count the "cheating" that went on in pre-event recorder days, well up into the Amtrak Era...100--120 MPH operation was not uncommon for late trains on "certain railroads"...and some would be surprised at what RRs I speak of...right up into the early 1980s in the F40-Era on Amtrak when "making up time"...those who have never experienced anything but the current 79 MPH Amtrak trains of today, generally, absolutely do not know what they missed out on in those "wild times"...it was an UTTERLY different feeling, and series of sensations).

But, while the ATSF had a posted speed limit of 90 MPH, IC's "City of New Orleans" and "Panama Limited" had posted speed limits of 100 MPH (I think 100 is the upper end, there may have been stretches of 110 MPH territory on the Chicago to New Orleans main), making this the fastest railroad in the U.S. Official Guide (excluding the Pennsy's Northeast Corridor).

I'm wondering if those coil springs weren't somehow "tougher" for the higher operating speeds, or, perhaps it was an effort to make the Es less "slippery" due to different weight distribution?

OK--I'll ask this question again in 2009--if I'm still alive. ;-)

Any photos of this from anybody's "Little Yellow Box"???

> Very strange indeed condsidering that the Blomberg
> A-1-A truck was considered the best-riding truck
> of all time

Really? I was told by an engineer who had run Conrail's E8s (which were babied by the staff at JBS in Altoona) that running the E8s was, in his words, "like riding a jackhammer."

Red Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I ask this question every couple of years in the
> hopes that somebody will surface with a REAL
> ANSWER--LOL: Why did Illinois Central E-Units
> sport COIL Springs on their EMD Blomberg A-1-A
> trucks, unlike the Elliptical Springs used by
> every other railroad???
>
> I'm also unclear as to whether this was a
> modification by Paducah, during the rebuild
> process, or, if they were special ordered this way
> from EMD. I'm thinking it's the former, as I seem
> to recall builders photos, or, "brand new" photos
> of the units with the standard arrangement.
>
> Very strange indeed condsidering that the Blomberg
> A-1-A truck was considered the best-riding truck
> of all time (and having operated UP 951-UPB963-UP
> 949, I can see why).
>
> I can only speculate that it had something to do
> with the very high scheduled operating speeds of
> Illinois Central passenger trains right up until
> the end, even faster than the Santa Fe (this does
> not count the "cheating" that went on in pre-event
> recorder days, well up into the Amtrak
> Era...100--120 MPH operation was not uncommon for
> late trains on "certain railroads"...and some
> would be surprised at what RRs I speak of...right
> up into the early 1980s in the F40-Era on Amtrak
> when "making up time"...those who have never
> experienced anything but the current 79 MPH Amtrak
> trains of today, generally, absolutely do not know
> what they missed out on in those "wild times"...it
> was an UTTERLY different feeling, and series of
> sensations).
>
> But, while the ATSF had a posted speed limit of 90
> MPH, IC's "City of New Orleans" and "Panama
> Limited" had posted speed limits of 100 MPH (I
> think 100 is the upper end, there may have been
> stretches of 110 MPH territory on the Chicago to
> New Orleans main), making this the fastest
> railroad in the U.S. Official Guide (excluding the
> Pennsy's Northeast Corridor).
>
> I'm wondering if those coil springs weren't
> somehow "tougher" for the higher operating speeds,
> or, perhaps it was an effort to make the Es less
> "slippery" due to different weight distribution?
>
> OK--I'll ask this question again in 2009--if I'm
> still alive. ;-)
>
> Any photos of this from anybody's "Little Yellow
> Box"???

Well, you are not going to get a definitive answer from me because I DON'T KNOW:) Further, my E-unit photo book shows photos of IC units with both types of springs.

I don't think speed had anything to do with it. Other roads with E-units had high speed (90 mph+) passenger operations and I'm not aware of any problems with elliptical springs. The March, 1966 issue of Trains had an article on a high-speed IC E-9 cab ride with emphasis on the signalling and motive power requirements needed to do so. No mention is made of the coil spring modification.

The IC only officially ran >79 mph on the 120 mile Champaign-Centralia, IL IC Champaign District using a "continuous" ATS system incorporating two-aspect cab signals (this unique signalling installation would make a good subject for another thread). The segment was carded at 100 mph at a later date (late-1960s?) than any other U.S. railroad (Santa Fe, for example, ended official timetable 100 mph running in 1958). After the IC timetable speed was reduced to 90 mph, late trains were given tacit authority to exceed 90 (as was the practice on AT&SF). In fact, the infamous Tonti, IL derailment of the City of N.O. in June 1972 reportedly happened at 100 mph.

IC E-units were geared at the 117 mph max gearing which was the highest offered in the EMD catalog. This makes sense because the IC system had no appreciable grades that would require "compromise" gearing. I have read accounts and heard stories first-hand of IC passenger trains making up time at 115 mph on the Champaign Dist.

I liked your comments on the now gone days of 100 mph running to make up time on "certain railroads". This occurred most notably on the Santa Fe and continued into the mid-1980s on Amtrak. Those days were "pre-event recorder" but were governed by mechanical chart recorders and speed recorder tapes. As power aged, Amtrak didn't care much about maintaining the chart recorders. On one trip circa 1987 with F40s on No 3, we reached 97 mph indicated on an accurate Pulse speedometer. However, the chart in the lead unit was showing 65 mph max and the chart in the second unit was B.O. altogether.

Bob

On the subject of speed, I remember clocking Amtrak's Broadway Limited at over 90 mph westbound over PC's Fort Wayne Division in 1970.

wlankenau Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> On the subject of speed, I remember clocking
> Amtrak's Broadway Limited at over 90 mph westbound
> over PC's Fort Wayne Division in 1970.

Technically, it was a PC train in 1970. I don't doubt your report because PRR used to fly on the Ft Wayne, but wasn't your trip a little bumpy at 90 mph?

Bob

The E unit cab ride shown in Illinois Central Past & Present was pretty bouncy............... However, the speedometer was showing a buck and some change! It was on the fast track between Champaign and Effingham in 1968...............it's a shame that it didn't last longer, on to Carbondale or Fulton, but it is neat nonetheless. I'll have to review it and see what sort of springs the lead E unit has.

AmRailExc

I can remember a ride on the IC "Louisianne", New Orleans to Chicago..I think track speed was 90 even down in Mississippi, and we were running on time. That was the upside, the downside? Segregation, the crew came through the train soon after departure, and "invited" the "colored folk" to their "own car", and NOT graciously so either. I'll never forget the filthy, dilapidated "colored" facilities. I was 6 or 7 on my first trip to the south, and was horrified by the shame of it all. AA

Stanford White
Carmel Valley, CA

Yup you young'ns will never experience it: a brace of E units on a passenger train slamming by like a bat out of hell. And the Doppler effect of the air horns let you know that the train was really moving fast even before your eyes and ears witnessed its passing. Man was that incredible.

I can remember my first trip on the Sunset Limited in January 1986. I stood at the rear door of the train timing mileposts through west Texas. We were doing nearly 90 mph while making up time - and behind P30CHs at that. Never have experienced that on ten trips on the Sunset since then.

My only pre-Amtrak ride on the IC sure indicated they'd exceed 100mph if needed. I was riding the northbound Panama in mid August 1969, and while we were on time when I went to bed, we were down about 90 minutes when I awoke at 6am. I was told that during the night, they ran into a tree across the tracks, perhaps blown down by a thunderstorm and broke out the locomotive headlight. The train had to stop and do a locomotive switch, perhaps wyeing the locomotives.

Anyway, I went into the diner for breakfast which I noted that the table linen was a slight orange for breakfast as opposed to the white for dinner - impressive. Anyway, as I ate, I noticed that we had no problem passing traffic on the adjacent freeway. And we weren't just passing, we were blowing by them. I decided that I wanted to time mileposts, and went into the vestibule so I could readily access both sides of the car. Well, the sound in the vestibule was deafening - just a solid roar. First time I timed the miles, 34 seconds. That's 105 mph. But the roar got louder. Next time 32 seconds. 112.5 mph. The ride was extremely smooth, and I couldn't believe we were going so fast and so smoothly.

We made up about 45 minutes into Chicago. I never did look at one of the locomotives to verify the 'hit the tree' story, but it was clear that IC was doing everything it could to get the passengers to Chicago as quickly as possible. All behind 3 E8s and E9s.

From there, I caught the transfer bus over to Union Station, to board the westbound California Zephyr. But that's another story.

Lee Hower
Sacramento

In 1970, I rode a PC train from Lima to Chicago (the "Manhattan Limited"??) that went like gangbusters behind E's, despite the obviously deteriorated track. Fascinating, but scary.......

Don't ASK me how it happened...I didn't know that it was possible...but I rode Amtrak No. 22 eastbound behind two brand new F40PHs and 9 new Superliners, shortly after the train went from Amfleet to Superliner. Two and a half hours late out of Dallas, TX. The hogger got her running so fast the ballast was being sucked off the track, swirling around under the cars (has anybody else ever observed/heard such a phenomenon???). We were only 40 minutes late by the time that I got to where I was going. I think that might have been the fellow that trained me as a hoghead many years later, quite possibly (now happily retired). He described climbing a steep one percent grade wide open with 2 F40s, then shooting down the other side, also one percent, track straight as an arrow, and keeping the throttle against the peg. He said it was quite "exhilirating," and that right before the next steep Texas grade started sucking his speed back down, the speedometer was pegged at 118 MPH.

So...it's not just the Santa Fes and the original UP, and the IC that ran like that!!!

There is no such thing as "making up time"...anymore. The only allowance for that is schedule padding, and perhaps a chance to run at TRACK SPEED for at least a little while...

On the Milwaukee Road, with both steam and diesels on the "Hi", I have read that the ballast phenomenon Red refers to was quite common, with gravel flying up against the car floors as a 4-6-4 or E6's pulled out all the stops. Back in the era when "On Time" was a religion.

NYCSTL8 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> On the Milwaukee Road, with both steam and diesels
> on the "Hi", I have read that the ballast
> phenomenon Red refers to was quite common, with
> gravel flying up against the car floors as a 4-6-4
> or E6's pulled out all the stops. Back in the era
> when "On Time" was a religion.


I bet when they got those new FP45s in the 1960s bunched up good and tight behind an E9, 567 V-12s chanting and thrumming in the E(s), one big 3600 HP turbocharged V-20 screaming and howling, they were able to scorch some ballast on the "HI", BIG TIME...

Red, sounds as tho you are picturing yourself at the throttle on the "Hi." How many mph do you guess you could have coaxed from an F7 Class 4-6-4? There were claims floating around back in that era that the 84" drivered girls were hitting 120 mph or thereabouts. Would love to have seen you on the n.b. Hi, hitting 1-0-0 and still accelerating, over the EJ&E diamond at Rondout.

Red Wrote:
Why did Illinois Central E-Units
> sport COIL Springs on their EMD Blomberg A-1-A
> trucks, unlike the Elliptical Springs used by
> every other railroad???

I can remember some one telling me that the leaf spring's took a lot of time on the 90 day Inspections just maybe Paducah way of cutting cost? And sounds like something they would do. EMD Stared putting in rubber springs instead of Leaf springs on the -2 Blomberg's to reduce cost's?

NYCSTL8 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Red, sounds as tho you are picturing yourself at
> the throttle on the "Hi." How many mph do you
> guess you could have coaxed from an F7 Class
> 4-6-4? There were claims floating around back in
> that era that the 84" drivered girls were hitting
> 120 mph or thereabouts. Would love to have seen
> you on the n.b. Hi, hitting 1-0-0 and still
> accelerating, over the EJ&E diamond at Rondout.


Why heck yes! I fantasize about such things... I suppose that I could have coaxed the best the design parameters and abilities of the fireman would allow for on an F7 4-6-4...an amazing machine.

But, living in the real, present world...I have to "be good." LOL. I could only listen in awe as the fellow that I fired for talked about running freights 80 MPH and the Amtrak Eagle 118 in the pre-litigious days, and, I might add, on the T&P even up until relatively modern times (to me, 25 years ago constitutes "relatively modern times"...HA! HA!), the Amtrak "cheating" was done WITH management consent, believe it or not. Some RRs had a zero-tolerance policy toward speeding, and I'm sure that it varied from division to division even on the MP/T&P system, but one fellow who fired in the Amtrak days on the F40s was at the stick, and the RFE was aboard. While they would operate "one way" with management, and "another way" without, he ventured to ask the distinguished RFE if it would be OK to run "5 over" because of their lateness. The RFE barked: "Son, you're going to have to do a GOOD BIT better than 5 over...do you realize how LATE we are?!?" He didn't run 118, but, ran in the mid-nineties and the RFE didn't say a word. Now...I'm not talking the 1950s, 1960s, or even the 1970s here...

I think around 1987 or so would be the dividing line...Ricky Gates, the FRA, and what have you.

> Red Wrote:
> Why did Illinois Central E-Units
> > sport COIL Springs on their EMD Blomberg A-1-A
> > trucks, unlike the Elliptical Springs used by
> > every other railroad???
>

I'll speculate it was clearance that could have been the reason for the change to coil springs. I know the leaf springs on an EMD clasp brake GP truck infringe the Plate B and C clearance diagrams. Did these units ever operate in territory with 3rd rail or other clearance limits?


QU25C Wrote:
> I can remember some one telling me that the leaf
> spring's took a lot of time on the 90 day
> Inspections just maybe Paducah way of cutting
> cost? And sounds like something they would do. EMD
> Stared putting in rubber springs instead of Leaf
> springs on the -2 Blomberg's to reduce cost's?


The rubber secondary springs were introduced on the GP single shoe truck in 1972. In order to fit the slack adjuster under the spring plank, a shorter swinghanger and spring was needed. The technology of making the leaf springs at the time did not allow making a leaf spring with a lower installed height necessary so a rubber compression spring was introduced. It was quickly recognized that the vertical ride was degraded and an attempt was made to introduce longer travel rubber springs. These were prototyped on some AMTRAK F40PH's and Southern GP50's, the so-called "inclined rubber" suspension, but it suffered some spring failures and too much set in the rubber. In the early 80's, the spring manufacturer for EMD was able to make a leaf spring that fit in the rubber spring envelope and it offered an improved ride because it had more static deflection, so EMD changed to it about 1986 on the single shoe GP trucks for GP's and F's. EMD has never sanctioned the modification that many rebuilders and aftermarket suppliers use where the original leaf springs and the two brake cylinders on each side are retained for single shoe applications by modifying the safety strap under the spring plank to react slack adjusters for each brake cylinder/lever set.

Dave

bnsfbob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Technically, it was a PC train in 1970. I don't doubt your report because PRR used to fly on the
> Ft Wayne, but wasn't your trip a little bumpy at 90 mph?

Chicago to Ft. Wayne was actually in very good shape in 1970.  Jointed rail, but recently tied and ballasted.  The fast PRR timing of 2 hrs 15 mins eastbound for the 148 miles was still in effect for the Broadway (by this time actually the General #s 48/49, renamed as the Broadway).  OTP was quite good too:  westbound #49 often arrived Chicago early.

As to the IC's 100 mph speed limit on the Champaign District - the limit was not lowered until the derailment of Amtrak 59 at Hayes, IL in the winter of 1972-73, after which the speed was reduced to 70 mph for a time.  The accident was officially blamed on a "loose pedestal strap" on one of the cars, though examination of the track would suggest the alternative explanation of a poorly maintained spring frog as being equally likely.  When the dirty ballast and deteriorated ties can no longer firmly support the spring frog, the sprung closure rail can move up and down under the passage of the wheels, to the point where it could be struck by the low-hanging pedestal strap, tearing the frog apart and putting the train on the ground.  The reduced-speed order would also suggest that the increasingly-poor track conditions on the District were known to be a factor in the derailment.  A "second train" accident was narrowly averted that night by the red Gyralite on #59s engine, which alerted the approaching Amtrak #392 of the derailment when #59 went into emergency.