Nostalgia & History > The "World's Fastest Freight Train" - the "Super C"

A train that would make today's power desk managers hit the floor, would be Santa Fe's "Super C". Always drawing a minimum of four SD-45-2's (that's 14,400 H.P.), with total train tonnages at or above 5 H.P.T., the train challenged the best DS's (and Operators when they were still around), that the railroad had. The 891 Train (eastbound) left Hobart Ramp in Los Angeles at EXACTLY 0930 HRS. Woe be unto anyone that didn't make that happen.

Once CTC was completed on the First District (today's San Bernardino Sub), the DS would frequently run this train up the South Track, starting at either San Bernardino, or Verdemont. That allowed it to get to Summit unimpeded, because any train on the North Track would be held there to let the 891 cross back over in front of them.

Freshly serviced power was always swapped at Barstow for the 198 (westbound), and at Argentine, for the 891. With the delivery of the 90 M.P.H. geared 5687-5714 class of SD-45-2's, it was rare to see anything but a quartet of them, but they kept a few other units geared tall, just in case.

The train (at one time) was governed by Special Rule Number 10, which stated (paraphrasing): "Trains 198 and 891 may observe Passenger Train Speeds, but not to exceed 79 M.P.H.". Well, in ABS territory, with "nobody looking" (officially), Special Rule Number 10 was either never read in its' entirety, or implemented whatsoever, in the aforementioned areas of ABS. I paced an 891 through Hodge, CA., in ABS days, with the typical quartet of 45-2's, at 86 M.P.H! Looking in my drivers' side rear view mirror, nary a car was rocking - just gliding along, smooth as silk.

Ah, those were the days!

Thanks for looking!

Bob

ATSF100WEST......Out

---

What went wrong with this train that we no longer see it today?

Todd Clark
Canyon Country, CA
Trainorders.com

Shippers objected over the price for the service and other hotshots to LA from Chicago gave almost as fast a ride (think two hours slower).
Post Office was the biggest customer.

Todd-

The USPS went out to bid in '76, and UP was awarded the contract. UPS wasn't the player it is now, as far as time sensitivity, so there wasn't enough other business to warrant keeping it. And diesel was a heck of a lot cheaper then. The USPS either didn't want to pay the premium $1400/$1500 per trailer, nor did they feel the "40 hours or less to Chicago" guarantee was worth it.

Bob

ATSF100WEST......Out

webmaster Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What went wrong with this train that we no longer
> see it today?

It is always tough to make a multi-priced RR corridor work, the shippers can usually figure out how to beat the system. Santa Fe published a premium rate tariff, this train was designed to carry the premium-priced traffic. But non-premium service was sufficiently good, and non-premium traffic sometimes ended up on this train as fill, such that not enough shippers wanted to pay the premium, they opted for non-premium service. (CNW-UP schedules before MoP-UP in the CHI - LA corridor gave the Super C some good competition, as did ATSF's own non-premium service.)

A similar problem happened in the 90s when ATSF tried a three-tier rate structure (gauranteed, premimum and standard/stack). The shippers figured out that if they all booked standard/stack service, ATSF typically would fill the gauranteed and premium trains with their traffic, so they could get the better service without paying for it.

Things have settled down now to where we have marine stack trains, domestic stack trains and "Z" trains. In all except high-volume corridors, the latter two of these categories are combined into one train. In some really low-volume corridors (especially back East), all three categories may be on one train.

Best regards,

Rob L.

Back in the Super C days wasn't it the First District whats now the Cajon Sub, the Second District (Pasadena Sub), The Third District (San Bernardino Sub) and Fourth District (San Diego Sub). Thats the way the mile posts go from Barstow thru San Berdoo, Pasadena, Fullerton and San Diego (0-273.1).

webmaster Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> What went wrong with this train that we no longer
> see it today?

It was... um... Super-Ceded.

Those SD45-2s still had their high speed gearing, reason bein' is anyone who caught a hotshot across the Mojave Sub heading to/from BArstow out in the open always got caught off guard when one raced past you at 75 MPH!

Freight forwarders such as Western Carloading, National Carloading and P and A terminals also fussed about Super C. They shipped a lot of boxcar and TOFC mixed freight shipments, and they were fearful the ATSF would crowd them out of thier delicate center in the market ( sort of like a wholesaler in the transportation business).
About March, 1970, I was part of a strike (supervisory) crew on the Super C between Belen and Barstow. We never stopped moving except for a 500 mile inspection at Winslow. We were handed a skimpy sandwich at Seligman but that was it for chow on a 750 mile wild run. If you have never spent 15 plus hours at high speed in a caboose, good for you.

TIOGA PASS

Oops, my bad. I meant to say Cajon Sub, but I messed up 'cause the pic is on the San Berdoo Sub.

Thanks for the correction......

Bob

ATSF100WEST......Ouch

BNSFCajon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Back in the Super C days wasn't it the First
> District whats now the Cajon Sub, the Second
> District (Pasadena Sub), The Third District (San
> Bernardino Sub) and Fourth District (San Diego
> Sub). Thats the way the mile posts go from Barstow
> thru San Berdoo, Pasadena, Fullerton and San Diego
> (0-273.1).

I can confirm Bob's account of very high speeds on this train. Back in the 70's I lived in Yorba Linda and used to pace trains along Orangethorpe from Atwood to Esperanza. There wasn't much out there at the time and the traffic signals at Tustin Ave. Lakeview and Imperial would give a driver on Orangethorpe a flashing yellow when a train was going through those intersections.

One January, a few days after the Rose Parade the Super C had a couple of the Chicago business cars on the rear along with the Coast Lines General Managers car. I went down to Orangethorpe in my 350 V8 Camaro and waited for the train. I had to haul butt when the Super C came and I showed 85 Mph in the car as I passed Imperial and the Super C was pulling away a little bit.

I'm sure there was at least a Road Foreman on the train, even if the cars were not occupied (which I suspect they were) and obviously the speed had to be condoned. Even if the camaro speedo was off a little they were doing 80 Mph bare minumum.

Another quick story. I was an operator for Santa Fe before the dispatchers had radios. The trains called for signals the same as now but then they had to call the operator and ask them to tell the dispatcher they needed a signal at such and such a place. The dispatchers had strict instructions out to the operators not to bother them with signal requests. So, as an operator you would tell the train calling OK and then do nothing. One morning at Fullerton the Super C called from Basta and told me to ask the dispatcher for a line up at Fullerton. Of course I said OK and did nothing. A few minutes later the Super C rolled to a stop in front of the depot. I then called the DS and asked if he knew the worlds fastest freight train was stopped at Fullerton. After that I was told I could make an exception to the rule for the Super C.

Could a 3776/2900 or a 5001/5011 have handled the Super C schedule??

NYCSTL8 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Could a 3776/2900 or a 5001/5011 have handled the
> Super C schedule??

No.

I often wonder if this isn't why the UPRR ordered the "Fast Forty" SD40-2s, GP40Xs, and Centennials geared for 90 MPH??? For starters, they were assigned to the hottest trains. Second, high speed gearing or NO high speed gearing (in those days, pre-event recorder, the overspeed was a relatively simple device that was generally rendered nonfunctional), and even manifest freights ran 80 MPH on certain RRs with regularity.

So...while the UPRR didn't have official 79 MPH speed limits for freight, as did the ATSF, I'm thinking that perhaps the motive power department figured that if the trains were running over 80 MPH anyway, it might be wise to order the units with high speed gearing (otherwise, they would have a heck of a lot of traction motors that would be in need of "premature overhaul").

I've often wondered why some RRs ordered high speed gearing, but had 70 MPH speed limits, and this is all that I can come up with: to cut down on TM maintenance costs.

I wish I knew where it was...some place out in Wyoming...where the UPRR crossed the highway, at grade (I was a kid...I suppose this had to be a U.S. Highway, certainly not an Interstate!!!), and this UP train with a Centennial--SD40-2--SD40-2--Centennial lashup slammed across the highway at what HAD to be 85 or 90. I vividly recall my Dad, not in the least a rail buff, say "Wow!!!" And he was most definitely referring to the speed of that train...and not the size of the Centennials, which were but a yellow blur!!! ;-)

Bob,

Thanks so much for keeping the memories of "Uncle John's Railroad" alive and well in both photos and the marvelous stories and accounts that go along with them.

You have no idea how much it's appreciated and enjoyed.

BTW, you're not bored with retirement yet, are ya? ;-)

Soo Line Hoghead

SLH-

SLH writes:

> BTW, you're not bored with retirement yet, are ya?
> ;-)
>
> Soo Line Hoghead

<heheheheheheheheheheheheheheheheheheheheheheh!>

I hope we get to meet some day. If you ever get out this way, give me an e-ring! BTW, where are you based?

Thank you as always for the kind words.

Take Care,

Bob

ATSF100WEST......Out

Red,

Red Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I often wonder if this isn't why the UPRR ordered
> the "Fast Forty" SD40-2s, GP40Xs, and Centennials
> geared for 90 MPH??? For starters, they were
> assigned to the hottest trains. Second, high speed
> gearing or NO high speed gearing (in those days,
> pre-event recorder, the overspeed was a relatively
> simple device that was generally rendered
> nonfunctional), and even manifest freights ran 80
> MPH on certain RRs with regularity.
>
> So...while the UPRR didn't have official 79 MPH
> speed limits for freight, as did the ATSF, I'm
> thinking that perhaps the motive power department
> figured that if the trains were running over 80
> MPH anyway, it might be wise to order the units
> with high speed gearing (otherwise, they would
> have a heck of a lot of traction motors that would
> be in need of "premature overhaul").
>
> I've often wondered why some RRs ordered high
> speed gearing, but had 70 MPH speed limits, and
> this is all that I can come up with: to cut down
> on TM maintenance costs.
>
> I wish I knew where it was...some place out in
> Wyoming...where the UPRR crossed the highway, at
> grade (I was a kid...I suppose this had to be a
> U.S. Highway, certainly not an Interstate!!!), and
> this UP train with a
> Centennial--SD40-2--SD40-2--Centennial lashup
> slammed across the highway at what HAD to be 85 or
> 90. I vividly recall my Dad, not in the least a
> rail buff, say "Wow!!!" And he was most
> definitely referring to the speed of that
> train...and not the size of the Centennials, which
> were but a yellow blur!!! ;-)

In checking my "Overland Models, Inc. Union Pacific 1977-1980" S/C book, all the above units mentioned (with a few exceptions), were geared 59/18, for a maximum speed of 80 M.P.H. I would guess that the overspeeds were set to something like 82. But I'll let the UP'ers comment further on what it all means, because, IIRC, the 5687-5714 were geared at 59/18 as well, but were allowed 90 MFS in the ETT's.

Thanks for your contribution here,

Bob

ATSF100WEST......Out

Hired out at Shoreham Yard in Mpls, and am still in the Twin Cities Terminal. Currently working an afternoon industry job out of Humboldt Yd.

We may be out to visit family in AZ this fall. I would very much enjoy getting together. Will keep ya posted.

SLH



ATSF100WEST Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> SLH-
>
> SLH writes:
>
> > BTW, you're not bored with retirement yet, are
> ya?
> > ;-)
> >
> > Soo Line Hoghead
>
>
>
> I hope we get to meet some day. If you ever get
> out this way, give me an e-ring! BTW, where are
> you based?
>
> Thank you as always for the kind words.
>
> Take Care,
>
> Bob
>
> ATSF100WEST......Out

Could bnsfbob elaborate a bit on his "no" answer the the question re: a big AT&SF steamer handling the Super C? Thank you.

NYCSTL8 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Could a 3776/2900 or a 5001/5011 have handled the Super C schedule??

and

> Could bnsfbob elaborate a bit on his "no" answer
> the the question re: a big AT&SF steamer handling
> the Super C? Thank you.

NickelPlate8-

He said "no" because of water stops, I'm sure. Even if they had used an auxiliary tender.

They did rolling crew changes back then, too. This train GUARANTEED a 40 hour schedule to Chicago and vice-versa; on its' inaugural run in January of '68, it did it 36'34", bettering the best record time of the (diesel powered) "SUPER CHIEF" by almost TWO hours.

Also, note the power cycling that I mentioned. The 198 would get fresh power at Barstow, and was checked upon arrival at LA (Redondo). This same power was assigned to the 891 for the next morning, fuel and sand topped off, and was only topped off once more at Belen, NM, running then straight through to Argentine Yard in Kansas City, Kansas. The 891 did the same thing, getting fresh power at Argentine, and the cycling was completed at Barstow again, on the next 198.

So it is easy to see why they could pull this off with the diesels. Now if you'd asked me about them achieving the same top running speeds BETWEEN stops, they might be competitive. But on everything else, the odds are against steam being able to do this.

Thanks,

Bob

ATSF100WEST......Out