Steam & Excursion > This Steam Crew Is Easily Able To Out-Run Their Own Smoke!

While originally designed to overcome both the steep grades and the snow sheds of the Donner Pass line, the fabled Southern Pacific Cab Forward articulated engines were quite welcome by crews on any part of the SP to which they were assigned. We can see why in this photo.

Unless a crew was assigned to an engine cut in behind the lead engine on a train, the Cab-Forward crews did not have to worry about eating their own smoke when they got up to speed. This factor along with the wonderful visibility the Cab-Forward design afforded made these engines a delight in the eyes of most crews assigned to them.

In this view we see one of the SP's Cab-Forwards stretching her legs on the Modoc Line in the 1940's. Her crew has a wonderful view of the track ahead and no worries about the smoke they are trailing behind them.

Martin



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 05/26/17 04:13 by LoggerHogger.

---

A lot of the old heads I talked with never liked being right up front, but in general they regarded the "Backup Mallets" as good engines.

wharfrat Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> A lot of the old heads I talked with never liked
> being right up front, but in general they regarded
> the "Backup Mallets" as good engines.

No question, there were dangers with the crew being up front as we see with this incident with SP #4231.

Martin

---

---

The Davis incident was talked about well into the eighties, the lost brakeman's son was given employment as a trainman and retired not that long ago.

Love all the outside braced box cars and gons in the first pic. Those cars had a lot of character.

TG

Posted from Android

The cab forwards had to be much cooler for crews than regular steam engines.

In 1941 my uncle, the fireman on the engine, was killed when the cab forward cornered cars in Klamath Falls yard.

If cab-forwards were more dangerous for the engineer and fireman. . . does that mean diesels would be safer running long-hood forward??

Narniaman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If cab-forwards were more dangerous for the
> engineer and fireman. . . does that mean diesels
> would be safer running long-hood forward??

Pretty much, yes. Thus, lots of railroads specified their GP7, SD7, GP9, and SD9 models "Long Hood Forward" from EMD, and some roads even went so far as to order dual controls.

I read somewhere that in the 1930's the WP was in the market for a large articulated locomotive for service in the Feather River Canyon. WP management had pretty much decided to purchase cab forwards similar to SPs. The union / train crews notified management that under no circumstances would any of them run a cab forward in the slide and avalanche prone Feather River Canyon. WP management relented and purchased "normal" 2-8-8-2s.

I never liked the feeling of being in a C30-7, because you had nothing in front of you.

I wonder though, although the cab forwards posed a new danger in being right up front, it sure seems like, in incidents with conventional steam locomotives, a whole lot of crews got "pinched" by the tender coming in on them. Seems like the cab forward might be safer, all things considered.

crackerjackhoghead Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I never liked the feeling of being in a C30-7,
> because you had nothing in front of you.
>
> I wonder though, although the cab forwards posed a
> new danger in being right up front, it sure seems
> like, in incidents with conventional steam
> locomotives, a whole lot of crews got "pinched" by
> the tender coming in on them. Seems like the cab
> forward might be safer, all things considered.

Well, if you didn't like being in a C30-7 then you would have really hated a U50 or a U50C!

I think cab placement has always been an issue for engine crews, and is likely THE reason no other RR ordered cab forward steam power.
Even into the diesel era, cab placement was at issue. Think of the early EMD CB&Q shovel nose diesels. It was a gory road crossing incident, if memory serves, that caused the Burlington to change over from the shovel nose to conventional E units. Our own Hot Water, being from EMD, may have more detailed information on this one.
AA

Stanford White
Carmel Valley, CA

Moving at high speed with a 1934 built, shovel-nose Zephyr must have been a little nerving. I've seen the engine compartment up close and there wasn't much room either. I've also seen photos and a report on a wreck with that early type of diesel and the engineer didn't have a chance.

Victor A. Baird
http://www.erstwhilepublications.com




agentatascadero Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think cab placement has always been an issue for
> engine crews, and is likely THE reason no other RR
> ordered cab forward steam power.
> Even into the diesel era, cab placement was
> at issue. Think of the early EMD CB&Q shovel nose
> diesels. It was a gory road crossing incident, if
> memory serves, that caused the Burlington to
> change over from the shovel nose to conventional E
> units. Our own Hot Water, being from EMD, may
> have more detailed information on this one.
> AA

Narniaman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If cab-forwards were more dangerous for the
> engineer and fireman. . . does that mean diesels
> would be safer running long-hood forward??


Absolutely. Here's a good example why that is true. The story was posted 5½ years ago near the bottom of the thread at https://www.trainorders.com/discussion/read.php?11,2605326,2607199#msg-2607199.

I was always grateful that my first railroad employer chose to order all of its 46 first-generation road switchers (6 RS-1s, 5 RS-2s, 29 RS-3s and 6 GP9s) set up to run long hood forward. We never had any short-hood-forward first-generation road switchers until after the BN merger when they moved their ex-NP ALCOs to the ex-SP&S territory and the second picture is an example of what we ended up with: Three SP&S long-hood-forwards with an NP short-hood-forward bringing up the rear.

I would have preferred to see all 33 of our C-424s, C-425s and C-636s arrive set up for long-hood-forward operation but I doubt that that was even considered in the middle '60s.

---

---