Nostalgia & History > C&NW "Crandall" Units

I always wondered why the CNW cobbled together the "Crandall" cabs on the E9B's they got from the UP rather than just adding a second cab car to the train. I.e. put the B unit ahead of a cab car on the front of the train. Was CNW short on cab cars, or lacking the money for new ones?

Wouldn't the b-unit have obstrucuted the view of the engineer?

As I recall, the CNW got the B-units for a bargain price. The cabs were added by CNW shop forces so there were probably savings there as well.

Also, I'm not sure if the commuter cars can be turned 180 degrees and then connected to the remaining cars due to the connections between cars.

These are bilevel cars, and the engineer sits on the top level. He is above the roof of the E9B. Visibility no worse than running an Alco RS-3 long hood forward.

I think you may have the answer there. As I recall, in the '70s cab cars were in short supply and adding Crandall Cabs to ex-UP E8Bs (done around '72 when UP was out of the passenger business thanks to Amtrak) was less expensive than buying new cab cars. By '80 it was all RTA's problem. Gerry

MThopper Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
These are bilevel cars, and the engineer sits on the top level.

I reply:
--------------------------------------------------------
Yeah, I know, I ride Metra every day/ I'm quite familiar with the fact that they are bilevels.

MThopper Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
He is above the roof of the E9B. Visibility no worse than running an Alco RS-3 long
hood forward.

I reply:
---------------------------------------------------------
Look at any photo of a Chicago-style bilevel commuter train being pulled by an E unit.
You will see there there is not much difference in the roof heights of an E unit and the bilevels. The cab car windows would be mostly obscured by the roof line of the locomotive. It would certainly be much worse that running an RS-3 long hood forward. The long hood of an RS-3 is narrower and much shorter than the car body of an E unit.

As I stated earlier, the ever thrifty CNW saw a way to get additional motive power at a bargain price.

The E9Bs were purchased for a bargain price and converted at Oelwein Shop (ex-CGW in northeastern Iowa) to homebuilt cabs. "Crandall" was Milt Crandall, the Superintendent of Motive Power in the early 1970s, who did most of the engineering design work for the conversions. Ironically, he was in the engine room of one of the "Crandall" Es at a station during the infamous snow storm of late-December 1978-early January 1979 when he had a fatal heart attack and passed away.

A (cab coach) leading an (E9B unit without a cab) leading (coaches) trailing (another cab coach)???

Sounds nice, except that "leading" cab coach ahead of the E9B would not have been occupiable by passengers, because it would have been cut off from the rest of the coaches by the E9B unit. (Ever walk through an E unit engine room at speed?) This arrangement would have been a terrific waste of cab coaches, using one simply to get a control stand and brake valve in front of the Crandall.

The biggest disadvantage of the Crandalls was ... they were cold as ice boxes in the winter. The "nose" was a fairly simple weldment of flat steel sheets. There was a simple bulkhead wall at the front of the "new" cab floor, without any insulation. And the cabs had traditional hot water heat from the #1 (front) engine radiator piping loop.

There are now, however, commuter trains in Europe which operate with a single electric locomotive in the middle of the trainset. Italy has some, I believe.

Greendot--no--the consist would be E9B leading,with cab car behind and engineer in cab car looking over the roof of the E9B. Kevink--I'll go back and look at some of the CNW commuter train photos. but, I am thinking the roof of an E9 is at the same height as the roof on a single level Budd or P-S car. If you look at consists, such as the Peninsula 400's, there is a noticeable different in roof height when single level cars were mixed with bi-levels.

MThopper Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I always wondered why the CNW cobbled together the
> "Crandall" cabs on the E9B's they got from the UP
> rather than just adding a second cab car to the
> train. I.e. put the B unit ahead of a cab car on
> the front of the train. Was CNW short on cab
> cars, or lacking the money for new ones?


If you are interested in more on the topic, I believe there was a long article in NorthWestern Lines several years ago. A visit to the C&NW Historical Site might be in order.

Pepperidge

Kevink--I looked through "Chicago and Northwestern Memories" and noted that the engineer would have had only about half of the vertical window space to look out. Not the greatest, from a visibility standpoint.

MThopper Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Kevink--I looked through "Chicago and Northwestern
> Memories" and noted that the engineer would have
> had only about half of the vertical window space
> to look out. Not the greatest, from a visibility
> standpoint.


So there! Hmmmph.