Nostalgia & History > mFile: another pair of MILW Joe's whereizit

Little Joe's E74 and E79 are the numbers, don't know where though ......

---

Gonna say a WB just West of Pipestone Pass, MT headed down to Butte.

I would say east of Pipestone, with an eastbound though these were not my normal stomping grounds.

Posted from Windows Phone OS 7

That's a tough one. Best guess is an eb, probably train 264, on the east side of Pipestone Pass around Grace. You could access the area without too much difficulty but not many railfans photographed trains in that area. Most went from Vendome to Donald (or the other way around) skipping Cedric and Grace. In fact, over the years, I recall only seeing one photo taken at Grace.

I'd be interested in knowing where "Rob_l" thinks this is...



Allen



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 09/27/12 08:57 by bradleymckay.

Didn't I read somewhere that the trailing pantograph's should be used in case something wrecks it so that the pieces don't foul the remaining pantograph? Or is the picture showing pusher duty?

BobP Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Didn't I read somewhere that the trailing
> pantograph's should be used in case something
> wrecks it so that the pieces don't foul the
> remaining pantograph? Or is the picture showing
> pusher duty?

Using the rear pantographs first probably is a good practice but MILW engineers did not apply it and company officers did not force the issue.

Joes were not used in helper service and if they might end up doing that in an unusual situation they would be cut into the train, not shoving on the rear.

Posted from Windows Phone OS 7

Wrong angle for Grace. Looks like EB dropping down the upper level approaching the Vendome Horseshoe. I agree it's probably train 264. I think it was taken in summer or fall 1973.

Best regards,

Rob L.

BobP Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Didn't I read somewhere that the trailing
> pantograph's should be used in case something
> wrecks it so that the pieces don't foul the
> remaining pantograph? Or is the picture showing
> pusher duty?


Milwaukee pans were designed with brittle aluminum hinges at the joints, intended to break apart it snaged in a wire. Rocky Mountain engineers preferred to run with the leading pan up, figuring that a snagged pan would fall away to the side soon enough to prevent damage to following units. Come to think about it, the spacing is the same, whether both front pans of a two unit set are up, or both rear pans.

I've head Coast Division engineer thought differently.

-LD

Good catch with the late sun. Great subject too of course. Two Joes and a SD45 with 'em. Time machine please...

Al Seever
Phoenix, AZ

LarryDoyle Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> BobP Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Didn't I read somewhere that the trailing
> > pantograph's should be used in case something
> > wrecks it so that the pieces don't foul the
> > remaining pantograph? Or is the picture showing
> > pusher duty?
>
>
> Milwaukee pans were designed with brittle aluminum
> hinges at the joints, intended to break apart it
> snaged in a wire. Rocky Mountain engineers
> preferred to run with the leading pan up, figuring
> that a snagged pan would fall away to the side
> soon enough to prevent damage to following units.
> Come to think about it, the spacing is the same,
> whether both front pans of a two unit set are up,
> or both rear pans.
>
> I've head Coast Division engineer thought
> differently.
>
> -LD

In my limited experience the pans did not fall off the side of the locomotive, they tended to end up in a pile of tubing on the top of the unit. The MILW provided a ball peen hammer and a cold chisel to remove the scrap metal after that.

The idea of running with the front pan down was it would not be pulled back and foul the rear pan if it was pulled off. At least you would have one pan available to keep the compressor running to keep the train charged up and maybe limp back to the terminal once the breakers in the substations were reset. I never saw the front pan coming off to foul the rear pan.

Would make for a nice light show

WAF Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Would make for a nice light show


Especially, it took down some wire with it. Wonder how long it took for the substation breakers to do their job.

-LD

Was there a knife switch or breaker to isolate one pan from the other? I'm just thinking about what happens if you snag a pan and it turns into a mess on the roof but it's still connected, if there was no way to electrically isolate you could not raise the other pan if the some of the wrecked pan is in contact with the roof. That means further delay and dangerous rooftop work to fully clear it whereas with isolation you only need to clear away loose pieces, raise the other pan and get going.

There was no way to isolate the pans. If one was hot then the other was hot even if it was not raised. That was why all employees were prohibited from being on the roof of any electric if any pan or stinger pole was contacting the trolley wire. This meant that on a set of boxcabs if either pan was up ALL unit cabs were off limits.

The substation circuit breakers were pretty quick. If it was not the pantograph on the lead unit which went down the engineers could watch the line voltage meter in the cab to see when the line went dead and the roof was safe. Before going on the roof a grounding switch was closed so if the line came up it would blow the breaker again.

Remember there was NO radio contact with anyone but the caboose in those days. There was no way to dial up the dispatcher, there was no way to call the substations on the radio. If you could get to a block phone there might be some hope.

Posted from Windows Phone OS 7



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/28/12 22:18 by fbe.